ethang5

Proving would lead to one dimension of understanding. I'm looking for additional ones.

No, that was simply your opinion which you confuse with truth.

So the "liberal" cuddles all different viewpoints but insists that everyone else is wrong (" to force me to "see it your way"", the liberal "you must agree with me because I'm right game".)? 

I said that you have a different definition of prophecy from mine if you equate prophecy and prediction. I also said that I am interested in learning about you so that I can get a sense of how you will act. 

Nor have I.

I have pointed out what you refuse to do, and you have pointed out what I refuse to do. I never demanded or insisted that you do anything -- I asked you a question.

No, I suggest you might want to. If you don't, and you have said you don't, then that is what it is.

And I know you are wrong.

Sure I am.

You just can't imagine that you are wrong so you claim that I can't prove it.

That is a lack of imagination on your part, leading to a false conclusion.

No, you should only if you feel that it might reveal to you an error.

If you don't think it will, then don't review anything. The post is out there for all to see.

Yes. So you made religion a part of the discussion.

Concede what? I asked for an understanding of your position and you tied it to a religious position, so I asked if you identify with that religion.

I don't recall asking if you were concerned about it.

I haven't begged for anything. I

I asked you to explore a possibility and discuss a potential situation. You don't want to.

If I showed it, it wouldn't be hypothetical. Duh.

I don't care what you believe.

If I can get you to discuss how you will react in the hypothetical case, then I will show that you are wrong so we can compare how you actually react to what you had claimed would be your reaction. Without the former, there is no potential for the latter.

No, nor are you wearing me down,

but if that is your goal....

How would that make someone "anal"?

I don't know, but that isn't my concern.

yes, and you were a distraction from that boredom.

When you become as boring, then you are no longer a distraction worth the attention.

I will ask questions here, for anyone to think about....

If you insist that there is no way that you can be wrong when you make a claim so the hypothetical is impossible therefore the consequence need not be entertained then i will learn something also.

I think people hate gays because statistically they have more orgasms, and that seems like something to resent.

I struggle to read anything  that encourages peace about these verses. 

I argue the dems position because you argue the reps position. .....That's the general gist of it.

Though one doesn't need to have any political allegiance to understand that Mr T was inept,  academically challenged and not fit for purpose. 

I usually couldn't care less who is running the U.S.A.....

But when you've obviously got a buffoon with their finger on the button, one has a tendency to get a little concerned.

And assuming that all Syrians are jihadists is like assuming that all white republicans are KKK.

Where can I find "the definition YHWH gives itself"?

Can you point me to a specific passage perhaps?

My aim is to identify points we can agree on.

What do you know about GNOSIS?

Facts aren't wrong. People who make claims in the absence of facts are wrong.

In a formal debate, I have no interest in learning how my opponent will cope with learning he is wrong. Therefore, I simply prove my side (or directly refute the claims). This is not a formal debate and I'm curious about how you will cope.

Yes, but not about the books of the bible.

There you have only posited your opinion and because there are differences of opinion, your position accurately represents your belief system. To you, that makes everyone else wrong because you equate your beliefs with "truth."

No, your refusing to answer is only evidence that you refuse to answer.

No, until you engage in a discussion of how being wrong will affect you.

Well, that's not what "address" means but I'll skip that part.

If you don't want to discuss the hypothetical then that's fine. I know your opinion about the books of the bible and I know your error in another matter. You don't want to explore the possible implications? OK.

Nor does it make you right. Same dogma.

OK.

It is more fruitful to predict BEFORE something happens, yes.

That is also your choice. Have fun.

you told me to review instead of explaining the answer to my question, so that I would see that I'm incapable of understanding?

I do understand that, as you should understand that I don't have to do what you want.

If you don't want to answer a direct question, or don't want to help me understand how you will react in a given situation, then don't.

So, when given the opportunity to review and rethink a position and claim, you will refuse. I'm learning interesting things about you.

But you did decide by inserting Christianity into your response.

This isn't about being the "boss" but about my asking for clarification of something you wrote.

So then your making a statement about Christianity after I ask about your interlaced worldview is relevant? OK, I will therefore conclude that you are a Christian.

Of course, if I am wrong and you are not a Christian, I will happily concede that my assumption was in error -- it was limited to the statements you made. 

I'm not asking you to concede an error. I know you made an error. I'm asking you to entertain how you will react when I present that error.

You then insist that you need not entertain the hypothetical because I have not yet shown the error, therefore it doesn't exist -- that my thinking it is the only reason I am mentioning it. As that is not the case, you are establishing a false position to argue with.

If that is your position, and I will not be presenting it until I can anticipate a reaction, you have a long wait.

I don't care what you believe or not, nor do I have a "want" in that regard. I am just curious about what will happen if I show you your error.

And your responses will dictate the course of the conversation.

If you want to move forward in one direction, just answer what I asked.

If you want to move in a different direction, feel free to continue whatever it is you think you are doing.

If your goal is to wear me down by evasion, then so be it.

I will choose to walk away because you have shown no interest in learning.

Instead of engaging in a thought experiment with me, you will continue to rehash the same statements and will then become boring to me and I will walk away.

You set the goal and I will respond accordingly.

I disagree.

A THEIST believes in a specific type of god (that is incompatible with a DEISTIC god).

A DEIST believes in a specific type of god (that is incompatible with a THEISTIC god).

THEIST =/= DEIST

A DEIST is "NOT-A-THEIST".

ANYONE WHO IS "NOT-A-THEIST" IS TECHNICALLY AN ATHEIST.

DEISM IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THEISM.

DEISM AND THEISM ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

What are the parameters of your personally preferred definition of "YHWH"?

You had no real counter to my Syrian Kansas observation, as it was an irrefutable point....And so you reverted back to the old style sarcastic Mr E.

I think that Orwell would have found it: Impossible to say which was which.

The basis of that information...

Which ancient writings?

I shouldn't even need to suggest this.

Can you got the proof that the earth isnt 6000 years old.

You can only get rite with god when you no their is the true god and when you saying stuffs like their is no god then you have no true faith. - Utanity

Spoken like an atheist pretending to be Christian. - Tradesecret

Except I didn't claim you were important. You are a way to kill time.

Simply insisting it doesn't make it so.

I never said it was reality simply if I think it. You are misquoting me again. It is reality because it is reality. I know it but my knowing it doesn't make it reality.

That's nice. So what? I never claimed to have all the facts, nor did I claim that the things that I know are "restricted to the truth."

No, my opponent lays out understanding and an assembly selected facts to build an argument and I either present a refutation of the facts claimed, or an alternative affirmative argument.

In this case, though, since you haven't laid out facts about the bible, simply a claim that certain books are in it, there is no proof, so nothing to disprove. The fact that I know is unrelated to that.

A half quote...very nice. What I said "I know you are wrong because I con confirm that you are wrong" and yes, I know this before I prove it to you because I have facts you don't.

That's a fair question,...

...but one which I have refused to answer...

...until I can piece together a guess as to how you will respond, once you see that your "restricted to the truth" worldview has an error in it.

You just have to address that head on, and I can show you your mistake.

I'm not looking for help.

Your failure to address my question doesn't lead to any new understanding on your part.

Neither -- that would explain why I spoke in the past tense, and had no question mark at the end of my statement.

You have replied, but haven't addressed my question in an answer.

A contradiction to your statement that the book of Acts IS in the bible. Do you see that there are two valid opinions, or that there is your statement and anyone else who disagrees is wrong? (note the question mark)

I remember yours, about making a claim with no proof.

Nope. You can either review what you have said and research it, ...

...or help me understand how you will react when you are shown the error.

Or, you can ignore all of this because you don't care.

No,...

I did, specifically asking if you are a Christian, and you suggested that I review the exchanges.

Simple-minded, maybe.

Certainly not an answer to a direct question.

Remember, I haven't proven anything yet.

You still have time to review and realize (but no, not assume).

No, your religious affiliation is on topic.

I asked about your view of books of the bible and then about your view of the world and its being restricted to the truth. You answered my question about YOUR world view by writing, "A wholly consistent and interlaced truth is what Christianity is". That is eaither reflective of you or immaterial. I'm just asking which is the case.

So my restatement was wrong? Please correct it so I can understand your position.

Why do you think I have any need like that?

I have never said that. You keep setting this up as a strawman so you can knock it down, but since it isn't my position, that is wasted effort on your part.

Well, that is correct. If you said 2+2=5 you would be wrong, simply because you would be wrong.

No, you have only insisted that you can't be wrong, and not confronted the hypothetical.

No, not really.

If you want to, feel free to say, "Rosends, I'm not interested in what you think I have said that is untrue."

That would be great. I would move on, knowing what I know, and you would move on, content in what you think you know, none the wiser. 

I await your decision.

See what I did there?

So are you suggesting that Adam and Eve, were basically bulls**t.....I would have to agree with you.

Though I would suggest that your ancestors probably originated from somewhere closer to Syria than to Kansas.

I would suggest that some talk about it and others think about it.

And I would further suggest that you have a stereotypically conservative image of  a threat to your establishment.

If only, the U.S. and it's Allies hadn't bombed the f**k out of their homelands.

Gleaned from  prejudiced third party conservative sources, with little knowledge of true facts and real people..... I'm just guessing though...(You may well be a volunteer aid worker. If so, then my unreserved apologies)

The homogenization of humanity...

old guard will be left behind scratching their heads and arses...

 ....in fact they are to be expected.

I have asked YOU questions relating to YOUR comments on YOUR thread.

So yes, you don't know.

If anyone is showing obtuseness, princess,  it is you. YOU have started a thread and then failed to engage on the subject matter that YOU have chosen and commented on. 

Your mistaken labeling doesn’t create reality.

No, that doesn’t change your importance. Why would you think it would?

I’m bored, so I respond. You think that makes you more important?

You did suggest that your responses would elicit an emotional response from me (“ would it make you happy”).

I simply said that you aren’t important enough to do that.

If you take from that a more general statement that you are unimportant (a word you introduced in post 71) then that's for you to deal with.

That’s true, but that doesn’t make my advice for how you could have avoided being wrong premature.

Whether or not I prove it  to you doesn’t change that you are wrong and you could have avoided that.

This is where you get tripped up. There is no “SO you’re wrong” 

–your being wrong is irrelevant of anything I type. You don’t suddenly become wrong when someone proves it to your face, or can prove it.

People avoid many things. Some of those things are things I do, and some are things I don’t do.

People should do things to avoid being wrong. For example, had you done any measure of looking on the internet (before you made certain assumptions) you wouldn’t have posted an error.

Exactly – I have no need to prove them.

No...

(ignoring the attempted “liberal” label), my pointing it out means that you are no more right simply because you insist it.

Actually, my comment was that your claim to be “restricted to the truth” is wrong.

It is your insistence that you are always right because you are restricted to the truth which is in error. I didn’t comment on everyone else.

No, what you have not avoided...

...and are therefore wrong about has nothing to do with your initial claim about what constitutes biblical citation, but about something else which certainly does exist.

I'm just curious who much you see your worldview ("restricted to the truth") as a unified whole.

How about this -- for a moment, I'll focus on your initial claim (in post 17, supported by your citations in post 19)

If I say to you “Romans, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts are not part of The Bible” are you saying I am wrong? 

Are you saying that the canon of texts that I happen to buy in my local store, that calls itself The Bible is wrong? If the only “true” definition of “bible” is the one you hold on to, then you are saying that everyone else is wrong.

But liberals are always right. Right?

This isn’t even where you are wrong - this is just where you confuse your opinion with "the truth".

I’m just waiting for you to answer a question about the underlying notion of your “truth” – do you see your statements which are "restricted to the truth" as a representing a wholly consistent and interlaced truth?

I’m asking about what you would do if part is shown to be wrong. Once you let me know how you think you will handle being shown to be wrong, then I will show you. If you have no interest in discussing your hold on “truth” then so be it.

Generally, no. However when you make a claim which I can prove, then I know I’m right.

If you really don’t want to confront how you will reconcile your insistence that you are “restricted to the truth” even though a statement you made was wrong then that’s fine.

I can stop playing whenever you want.

 If pointing out your inaccuracy is what you call petty then, ok.

Yes, answer why you think that repeatedly calling me a "liberal" somehow makes it real.

No. Just a function of my boredom.

By your logic, though, I must be important to you as you keep responding.

How is it premature? 

Had you done the research, you wouldn't have made the error and then you wouldn't have been able to be proven wrong.

And since I am able to prove you wrong, advice about what you could have done to avoid my having this ability is not premature.

That's pretzel logic.

If you have not avoided it then you are wrong. 

I might not NEED to prove it, but I am able to.

I don't need to do much of anything in terms of your mistakes.

One thing I choose to do is to point out when you make them.

You mean by my quoting your words? Got it.

The fact is, you are wrong on many levels. I started this by pointing out that a statement you made was mired in your own subjective position and you insisted that it wasn't.

You made a claim which you said comes from "My answer was restricted to the truth." But it wasn't.

It was restricted to an understanding that you have about the definition of a word/concept that not all agree with. When you assert that you are "restricted to the truth" then you say that anyone else's understanding of the term is not "the truth" and that is also wrong.

That smacks of your statement, "That everyone must agree with your thinking or else they are "bad/mistaken/evil". That the only proof needed for someone to be wrong is for you to think they are wrong."

So far, the only proof you have for what you initially claimed is that claim.

And the only proof you have about other claims you have made is your perception and assumptions which you mistake the "the truth."

And since it is easy to prove at least one of those other claims as wrong, the underlying and blanket belief in your access to "the truth" fails.

So keep dancing if you must, avoiding if you like, and calling names if it works for you. 

If you need me to explain more, just let me know. Understanding how people mistake their versions of the world for the world is an important step you must make.

This to me  is a  unexplainable phenomenon

And do you think that there is no primitive murderous backwater culture lurking in Old America?

I would suggest that the intent of most potential immigrants, is the betterment of their lives, rather than murderous fanaticism.

I would further suggest that a movement from what is perceived to be a position of established security. Will always evoke a negative response....Especially from older people, who have a tendency to be fearful of change.

The U.S.A....A  new nation, wholly founded on immigrants, despising immigration.

To put it mildly, this does appear to be something of a hypocritical contradiction.

I would suggest that quiet white leafy America can still be quiet and leafy, but perhaps slightly off-white in the future....And we are always wary of new neighbours, especially if they don't match the established norm.

The benefit of living in the U.K..... Is that it is small, and consequently there is nowhere to hide from reality...In my opinion.

I would finally suggest that, evolution dictates that intellect rather than ethnicity is the only way forwards....And so we will need to embrace minds, rather than worry about the colour of the box their contained within.......Though a different issue perhaps.

How? What has it done and how did it do it? 

liberal christians? anyone?

What do you have that is worth conserving?

I think this is a pretty good explanation for liberalism taken from Wikipedia. 

Say that Joe Biden is a devout Catholic.

This shows that limiting what a mind is to mortal agents is arbitrary, why, does the mind just not refer to god in this case?

A mind in philosophy is more often thought of as an agent and that was the perspective I posited this. 

Why does it stop at man? Again this seems arbitrary, the mind applies to god as well, and there are multiple ways to prove that.

But I don't think any sort of morality can be objective, so...

Authoritative isn't required, just that the law be true morally as well as factually.

If you were to confine what is moral to only what a god demands, then I would not be interested in morality. 

In other words, you cannot get to a sound argument without each premise being true.

Again, I agree, and have known this. However, if we were say, arguing about the ramifications of following god's supposed moral code, or if someone were trying to argue that it is the best to follow or something along the lines, the basis for it would have to be questioned. So no, simply stating, "god doesn't exist" or "objective moral values don't exist" isn't a proper rebuttal. Now mentioned either to show that this line of reasoning takes some assumptions to get to? Fair play, as long as your arguments are not based on these statements. 

No, you haven't proven why: A) These rules should be applied to objective morality

Third, the bible claim that god is all-good, so everything they do is good, which would be subjective as it literally, "Everything I have ever done is good,"

As he murders his own son, that son was perfect, no? Then that son had literally no guilt for what the definition would need for it to be killing justly. One could argue that god logically needed to use the loophole of his son in order to demand his own thirst for justice, isn't god also "merciful" which is literally the pausing of justice?

There's also the fact that they are supposedly omnipotent and can do anything.

Oh... well then... that god should be able to satisfy their justice without demanding life no?

One could argue that jesus and god are the same entitiy and therefore that wasn't really killing someone else...

...is suicide not also condemned in the bible?

My point  is god clearly has a bias towards themselves in that book, which I suppose is fair if you're the creator of the universe, however it would also mean that moral system wildly contradictory. 

I'm legitimately confused, what argument?

What qualities specifically?

Why are they attributable to god?

...how does these qualities lead to an objective god?

...if that christian is trying to posit that this moral system is superior to another, then the actual basis comes into question.

See if we were to use that argument than a christian shouldn't care whether I'm assuming a single principle for my moral system, as them assuming a god would be equivalent (not quite as assuming a god is good deal bigger but whatevers),

...but if the christian is saying that other people should prefer it, or use it,

...then yes, you should absolutely question whether that god exists.

Now, again again, should your entire argument or even your main argument be based on that? No, clearly not.

My point here is that yes I agree you shouldn't just say, "God doesn't exist your argument go brrr" And I haven't done that here, now, might I have done that in P... I can seriously not remember his name, the topic where it was atheist morals vs theistic ones, yes I have, has it been my only argument? No.

To conclude...I would suggest, that "objective" and "subjective" are a misleading dichotomy, and therefore unnecessary concerns....

They 100% would. Meh meh meh, this disproportionately(their favorite damn word) awards White people because they don’t play hookie and study for exams, so they pass more often. Reeeeee

I feel that I have to ask.....Bring who where?

I would also, merely suggest, that it is easy to pontificate from a position of relative stability and security.

Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.