Children that God neglected

Post Reply New Topic

Are you saying that it's okay to be a snob if you think you're right?

Johnathon79,

I’m not surprised, or angry, but I am disappointed. Are we reading the same posts? I just went back and reread my last thread and I don’t find any “attacks” – and nothing I said was stated to “draw you back into the debate.” You and I – I thought – had closed our discussion on this thread.

What I read you stating in this final thread of yours is the same, “I win! I win! I win!” that you’ve been demanding since your first reply to my thoughts. And because I don't agree I'm somehow a person of low character now? Do you hear how you come across? Why do you seem to have this overpowering drive to prove you’re right to others? If you’re right, you’re right. If you’re not, so what? I don’t care about power or about winning, so your mentality and pursuance in this area is lost on me. I’ve grown tired of it, and I politely let you know that.

If you think the only way to debate is hostile, then you’ve got a lot to learn about the art. The best philosophers dialogue and ask for clarification – the insecure and the vain attack. I haven’t attacked you, but I have pointed out the areas where you’ve made statements that are either illogical or just plain false. You consider that a personal attack? So I should’ve just said – “Oh, gee! You’re right and I’m such an idiot! Thank you Johnathon for showing me truth!” when in fact, all you did was disagree with anything I said without presenting a valid alternative to my observations?

Even another person on this forum who seems to dislike things I’ve said has made the same request of a fourth member – if you’re going to attack, don’t just fire in the dark – provide a rational alternative. Until you do, neither I nor any other reader is going to be swayed by your argumentation.

You’ve never presented one major philosopher who has written off what I propose, although you say that philosophy universally has done so – in fact you repeatedly refused to provide any validation of your perceptions. That makes your comments unfounded rantings – that’s a fact, not an opinion. Until you can solidly prove that this universal rejection has taken place – you are making unfounded claims. I never gave you my subjective opinion about these comments (which, trust me, I could have) – that would be an attack on personal grounds. I didn’t do that and I won’t here.

My closing remarks were intended to help you in your quest, not attack you. I listed sources to check out and validation of my ideas by minds far greater than ours for you to read and consider. That you took them as the latter perception just validates my frustration with this entire dialogue as stated above. I expected a rational dialogue and instead, I ended up with a person posting demands in each of his messages that he’d “won” something I wasn’t even trying to argue. Frankly, I don’t have time for that.

Best wishes.

Hello Scrapheap,

Arrogant Christian? How so? Christian is a label you seem to have thrown at me twice now, yet I have argued only for the existence of God in these posts. I do not beleive that a person can be argued out of athiesm or into Christianity - only an individual can persuade themselves either way, so if you hear me arguing you have to beleive in God or Jesus, then you've misread me as well. I have merely shared my line of thought and systems that have helped me clarify them through the years. Remember, my argument for a four-fold model of acceptance of any precept includes experience as a pre-requisite. Another's experience might qualify as Authority, but only personal experience can meet this condition.

I would propose that anyone who is dissuaded in either direction merely by another's argument hasn't really "got it" either way. That's why so many converts fall away from any philosophy - they like the argument, but that doesn't make it their reality. Your paradigm can only be shifted through this four-fold model including personal experience (thus ownership).

Am I being arrogant because I am not dissuaded by the other person's argument and posted my opinion in reply? Please explain. I would enjoy dialoguing with you.

Scrapheap,

Would you be kind enough to define your terms? If I know exactly what you're getting at with this, I would enjoy sharing my thoughts about it with you. Specifically, please define:

"god"
"omnipotent"
"omnibenevolent"
"evil"
"exists"


Also, list the sources of your definitions and how your definitions might vary from popular misconceptions. Thanks and let me know.

Thanks! Although it would take a real long time to type anything of real significance using that method wouldn't it? Perhaps I'm still missing something. Again, thank you - and if there are shortcuts, please let me know. You can PM me if this is too off topic for the group (or if I'm the only one who doesn't know how to do this - or the only one who cares).

Hello Scrapheap,

Again, I'm not sure I'm clear on the definitions of some of the words the way you're using them. Please clarify what you define as "free will" which you assert humanity does not have. In one of your threads - but not in your threefold argument, correct? - you assert "omniscience" as a prerequisite for god's existence as well. Define what you mean by this term.

Also, what is the emperical evidence you purport in your reply? These answers would allow me to comment on your line of thinking in a more educated manner. Thank you in advance.

Bland,

Let me know if I’m intruding – that’s not my intent. However, I’m not sure I agree with the reply you received to your question. You may not care – if so, just let me know and I won’t bother you again.

I don’t think the first part of his reply answers your question. I would like to hear more clarification before beginning to be persuaded to consider that free will negates the existence of a god (in another post, I’ve already asked the initial presenter of the formula in this forum to explain his/ her definitions to help clarify this).

Secondly, there’s a definition issue (yes, I know - it's becoming evident I'm insistent upon clear and accurate definitions). The way the term agnosticism is presented here makes me uncomfortable, “(God created the world but does not intervene).” If one were not a philosopher, as you state, then this might lead one to think that agnostics believe in God, just not his interaction with creation. This is in fact, deism, as pointed out by your first responder. Agnosticism comes from the Greek, γνοσις, meaning “knowledge” and ά, the negative prefix, meaning “no” or “none”. So, literally, the word agnostic means, “one with no knowledge” (in this case, of God). I’m not sure how a person claiming agnosticism could have a system of belief that states god exists and doesn’t do anything – this would presuppose a lot of what agnostics by definition claim they don’t have.

He is correct that deism is in opposition to much of Christianity - primarily fundamentalism, but certainly not to many veins of Christian tradition. There are facets of Christianity that would not be contradicted by this theory (one example: the German liberal theology of the 19th and 20th centuries).

One of Christianity’s best replies to this vein of thought seems to be the ancient church’s explanation of the Trinitarian nature of god. You have three aspects of a singular divine: one is a Brahmistic-like creator, the second is a fully human manifestation of the creator who is reality’s redeemer, and the third aspect is an interactive paraclete – a sustainer (note: this is not "just" a biblical model - in fact, the term "trinity" appears nowhere in Christian or Jewish scripture).

I won’t argue the pros and cons of this model at this time, but merely present it to show that there are many views and opinions within Christianity – some much more radical than this – which do not conflict with what I think I am reading in these arguments. Once I have clearer definitions from the presenters, I look forward to discussing this further with them.

Oh, I know I´ve presented a good argument when someone wants to debate my concession post!! It seems you have calmed down quite a bit, thats good. I don´t know how you cannot claim that that last post was anything but insulting, if you don´t see that, well..... But, as I said again, you win, and your philosophy is better than mine. Somehow I don´t think you´re convinced, as you just wrote 5 more posts still trying to disprove the posts written by me and another member!! !! (that last post to Bland obviously has snide comments and references to us, you can stop attacking!! ! you win!! !) You even put a, "for the next time" argument into that last, last post, wtf?? For the next time?!? I don´t get it, whats to disprove if we have not presented any valid arguments? Somehow I don´t think that I´m the one who is insecure in his beliefs.

If you want to continue, thats not a problem, just write out all of your definitions to each term stated above. If you write a list of all the terms (defining each one clearly, and also defining any words used to define those words clearly, and define all of the terms used to define the words that were used to define the first words, etc., etc., as this seems to be a neat trick of yours)you are referring too, then I will respond. You obviously know what we mean by them, your guise of asking for "clarification" is just getting old. JUST CLARIFY THEM AS YOU USE THEM SO WE CAN GET ON WITH IT. IF YOU ARE SOOOOOO INSISTENT UPON HAVING CLEAR AND ACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS, THEN START WITH SOME OF YOURS. But you can´t, you know why? Because then your position would be cemented.

DOULOS-XPISTOU

Why can't God decide to take a "hands-off" approach. Why is that not consistent with Fundamentalism? Does this mean that I am not a Fundamentalist as I have always believed myself to be?! !?? Does this put me in the company of the German liberal theologians of the 19th and 20th century??? Did not they contribute, to some degree, to Hitler's rise to power!!??

This thread amazes me because it proves that even in an AS world, emotional reactions run high just as they do in an NT world. That's amusing to me since so many people on this forum claim to be ultra logical and unemotional.

Disclaimer: this is a generalization, of course, and is not intended to be a personal attatck or intellectual or religious snobbishness.

DOULOS-XPISTOU,

First, before any discussion can occur, YOU MUST QUIT MIS-QUOTING ME!! !

In my first post, you said that I first proved god existed, then said he did'nt exist. Go back and read the post. I never said that.

Second, you claimed I called you arrogant 2 times. I never said that. ONCE I said your comments were arrogant. Go back and read the post.

Third, you claimed I said that humanity does'nt have freewill. I never said that. Go back and read the post.

Fourth, you claimed I said that omnicence is a pre-requisite for god's existence. I never said that. I CAN'T FIND THAT POST!! !!

The second deceptive tactic you are using is by constantly resorting to semantics in an attemt to "muddy the waters" or attack my definitions.

jonathan79 treated you with kids gloves. I won't let you off so easy. If you want an honest discussion you have to quit with the deceptive tactics. I'm not calling you a liar at this point but if you fail to make the necessary corrections to your statements, I'll use your posts to PROVE you're lying!! !

I spent 20 years growing up in a fundamentalist christian home. I've seen every lie, manipulation and head-game that christians use. I have no pateince for the sophistry that christians despense. If you want an honest discussion, FINE, KEEP IT HONEST!! !! !!

I put "intellectual snobbery" in quotations for good reason.

Scrapheap,

Clarification of definitions is deceptive and muddies the water? That's a new one.

If I've misunderstood you, please clarify - don't just attack.

My friend, I am not a fundamentalist, not in any sense of the word. Fundamentalism is a mindset, not just religious and certainly not just Christian. It is a mindset that seeks power - and uses the leverage that anyone who does not associate with their "fundamental" assertions is completely wrong. Associating me with any fundamentalist movement is as offensive to me as being called a fundamentalist Christian probably is to you (although now that I think about it, these threads of yours do seem to have the same, "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality of fundamentalism). If that is indeed the case, we probably will have as little to talk about as I do with the more rabid of their camp.

Hello Bland,

I certainly don't take this as a personal attack, but I am concerned that I've offended you in some way. For that I apologize. That was the furthest thing from my intentions.

I am certainly not insulting your vein of theology - although it is perhaps different than my own. One of my firmest beliefs is that people are very different and that is why so many different veins of theology exist. God allows each of us to come to God as we are. I have trouble understanding fundamentalism - with a few exceptions, I only really know what I've read about it - so perhaps you can help me understand aspects of it that I don't. I wasn't aware that this view you presented was fundamentalism - I wouldn't have guessed you were one from what you've written - but that is my ignorance of the subject. Your words fascinate me, because I've only known people who adhered to the 7 tenets of funadmentalism and wrote off everyone who didn't agree with them. My limited experience with a group of fundamentalists in college was a very negative experience. You seem to be coming from a very different viewpoint - and I'm eager to hear about it. As I've said, my mission is to learn and share. Please help me to do so.

While it is true that many religious and philosophical leaders ignored the Nazi evil and some philosophers of the period even supported it (Heidegger comes to mind), I was thinking more along the lines of theologians like Bultmann and Barth - and like Detriech Bonhoeffer who was martyred for his writings and his opposition to the evil that was occuring. Earlier men like Schliermacher argued against the works of Hegel and Neitchze - whose works had a direct impact upon Hitler's thinking. But yes, there were many others who did or said nothing to deter what happened. In that, you are correct.

Again, my apologies for any offense I have created. My intent was purely helpful - and I see that I didn't come across that way.

DOULOS-XPISTOU

No offense taken at all. I was just exaggerating exasperation for fun! Maybe I don't know what I am because I have not taken all of the theology and philosophy that define all of these beliefs. When I say Fundamentalist, I mean what is generally accepted as the fundamentals of the Christian Faith found in the Nicene Creed. So maybe I am not a fundamentalist but I do adhere to the fundamentals of the Christian faith. However, I believe that God is not directly intervening in His creation today, but is waiting for the apponted time when He will destroy the earth and remake it. This does not present any problems for me because I, as a parent, can choose to intervene in my children's lives or leave them to learn their lessons the "hard way". Does this make sense or is it too simplistic? Does believing this idea make me a non-fundamentalist?

What exaclty do you mean by "clarification"? Can you please clarify how you are using the word "clarify"?

And, he did not say clarification, he said exactly, "resorting to semantics" (ex. above). You actually do have a pretty bad problem of reading people´s posts and you have yet to present your own definitions when you constantly require us to do so. So, as my last post stated, I would request that you post your definitions and stop using semantics also.

And you don´t have the same mentality?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! !?! !!?! !!?! !?!?!?!?!? Please....just because you do it with a smile on your face, doesn´t mean you are not doing it. You HAVE to be kidding, right?!?

Its obvious that when you said "discuss" things, you meant, "don´t challenge my views". I´m sorry, but you´re in the wrong place if thats how you think its going to go.

But please, keep posting, its getting easier to see the tricks you use the more you post. Then, after all the tricks have been thrown out, we can get a real debate going, that is, if you have anything to debate with besides tricks.

Also, please stop referring to me in your posts in a secondhand fashion, otherwise I will have to defend myself. ok, bye

Last edited by jonathan79 on 04 Jul 2006, 2:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Who exactly are these "many" people who have claimed to be unemotional? If this is a generalization, then no one said it. Also, please do not make generalizations about me for your amusment, even if you do not intend it as an attack. Thnx.