Another sad case

[WaltL1]

Silly. He decreed it to be bad.

His will is perfect. That is how you know that it is good for God to decree bad things to happen.

You can't show my thinking as flawed and the Bible tells you why.

Your thinking is dependent on the Bible and that is its flaw.
The circle goes round and round.
If your thinking is determined by the Bible and you are using the Bible to determine the accuracy of your thinking.....
Put the Bible down and that whole line of thinking gets real flawed real quick.
Which I assume doesn't really matter to you.

 

[Israel]

Your thinking is dependent on the Bible and that is its flaw.
The circle goes round and round.
If your thinking is determined by the Bible and you are using the Bible to determine the accuracy of your thinking.....
Put the Bible down and that whole line of thinking gets real flawed real quick.
Which I assume doesn't really matter to you.

As I think has been mentioned numerous times, what's called the Bible is a collection of writings (I've never seen anyone even question this to dispute) recorded over centuries by disparate authors. It has never been imputed to a single scribe.

As to any promotion (or even exaltation to particular practice) of religion, one need only read the prophets for profound disagreement. And to such extents found that very weighty judgments are pronounced against those whose sole hope lie in outward practice in ensuring identity, both to so called "jew" of Israel and pagans alike.

So deeply unsettling that fundamental (and facile) understandings are addressed, rebuked, and even contravened to the end of exposing a fundamental disobedience to precepts only seemingly embraced. One writes that the desirable fast is not at all as men might think. Another seemingly breaks the law of allowable food to him, and is held blameless. One (that same eater) goes well beyond the appearance of the law's practice (that is previously seen as bond of common identity) to state...

Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

Everywhere, if one cared to look, is a pointing out, and reference to a something deeper than previously understood requirement. And, even made known (either despite, or because of, depending upon how one sees) what was "once given" for practice. There is a leading through what was once given, and taken on face, to a knowledge beyond mere outer performance.

Of course, Jesus addresses this almost continually, and succinctly in "you have heard it said".

It's far more than an historical telling of a people "warts and all", though it most certainly cannot be denied that. Faults, foibles, desperate weaknesses and treacheries to one another, are all plainly on display. In some ways it speaks, if able to be seen, as a sure indictment of people who have placed their hopes in somehow being superior by a superiority secured (only by and) to themselves, and whose shame in that is exposed over and over again. With, as far as I have ever been able to see, no photo-shopping over blemishes.

So, faith is found in a harlot. Faith is found in a man pursuing one. Faith is found in a man seeking God...faith is found in a man running from Him and his pointed disobedience in "having heard from Him."

Lessons are seen, and learned, and taught. An uncovering through many, many (what would be to man most unfortunate turns) to a something immutable found. And, in that immutability found, though its justice be inescapable and sure, unrelenting and vividly on display...the man who accepts his lot as mere creature powerless against it...may discover something else at work.

In thinking about it I suppose this begs this question.

And if only to you Walt, or any other, such as even myself. It's germane ceratinly in this thread (though I see a far broader application)

What is it that shows the plain wrongness in dissonance between what a man may do outwardly, (or say of himself), yet when the rubber is found hitting the road to a disclosure of his true nature (despite outer show, words and convenient practice) demonstrates all was only previously done in total self service...and that of the (adjudged, at least as I see) most abysmal sort?

Wouldn't it be rather moot for any to seek a condemnation of another for any circular thought or reasoning, unless such a man has not learned in himself...all his own being, no less, starts and ends with himself? Who, in all, is not quite circular here and to be found out no less so?

Such a man (to me) would have to be entirely ignorant of the necessity of being as requirement for him to judge ...being...of any sort.

Is there a safe vantage from which a man might judge hypocrisy?
Perhaps. But maybe that is only found in judgment of his own.

 

[bullethead]

As I think has been mentioned numerous times, what's called the Bible is a collection of writings (I've never seen anyone even question this to dispute) recorded over centuries by disparate authors. It has never been imputed to a single scribe.

As to any promotion (or even exaltation to particular practice) of religion, one need only read the prophets for profound disagreement. And to such extents found that very weighty judgments are pronounced against those whose sole hope lie in outward practice in ensuring identity, both to so called "jew" of Israel and pagans alike.

So deeply unsettling that fundamental (and facile) understandings are addressed, rebuked, and even contravened to the end of exposing a fundamental disobedience to precepts only seemingly embraced. One writes that the desirable fast is not at all as men might think. Another seemingly breaks the law of allowable food to him, and is held blameless. One (that same eater) goes well beyond the appearance of the law's practice (that is previously seen as bond of common identity) to state...

Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

Everywhere, if one cared to look, is a pointing out, and reference to a something deeper than previously understood requirement. And, even made known (either despite, or because of, depending upon how one sees) what was "once given" for practice. There is a leading through what was once given, and taken on face, to a knowledge beyond mere outer performance.

Of course, Jesus addresses this almost continually, and succinctly in "you have heard it said".

It's far more than an historical telling of a people "warts and all", though it most certainly cannot be denied that. Faults, foibles, desperate weaknesses and treacheries to one another, are all plainly on display. In some ways it speaks, if able to be seen, as a sure indictment of people who have placed their hopes in somehow being superior by a superiority secured (only by and) to themselves, and whose shame in that is exposed over and over again. With, as far as I have ever been able to see, no photo-shopping over blemishes.

So, faith is found in a harlot. Faith is found in a man pursuing one. Faith is found in a man seeking God...faith is found in a man running from Him and his pointed disobedience in "having heard from Him."

Lessons are seen, and learned, and taught. An uncovering through many, many (what would be to man most unfortunate turns) to a something immutable found. And, in that immutability found, though its justice be inescapable and sure, unrelenting and vividly on display...the man who accepts his lot as mere creature powerless against it...may discover something else at work.

In thinking about it I suppose this begs this question.

And if only to you Walt, or any other, such as even myself. It's germane ceratinly in this thread (though I see a far broader application)

What is it that shows the plain wrongness in dissonance between what a man may do outwardly, (or say of himself), yet when the rubber is found hitting the road to a disclosure of his true nature (despite outer show, words and convenient practice) demonstrates all was only previously done in total self service...and that of the (adjudged, at least as I see) most abysmal sort?

Wouldn't it be rather moot for any to seek a condemnation of another for any circular thought or reasoning, unless such a man has not learned in himself...all his own being, no less, starts and ends with himself? Who, in all, is not quite circular here and to be found out no less so?

Such a man (to me) would have to be entirely ignorant of the necessity of being as requirement for him to judge ...being...of any sort.

Is there a safe vantage from which a man might judge hypocrisy?
Perhaps. But maybe that is only found in judgment of his own.

Condense that please.

 

[Spotlite]

You(and others in here) constantly can and do "say" whatever you want. Saying it is ALL any of you have. Proving it is where you all come apart at the seams.

This post by you is just a continuation of saying whatever, claiming whatever, asserting whatever with Zero Proof to back up anything as usual.

Where it comes apart is when non believers think we must prove something to them. The reality is while we do care about your soul, we realize that it’s your choice to make and not our responsibility to prove anything to you.

The argument from ignorance is a two way street as well. While non believers consistently claim that they dont know what it is, they sure stand firm claiming they know what it isn’t.......but they’re not even 100% certain of that.

 

[ambush80]

Where it comes apart is when non believers think we must prove something to them. The reality is while we do care about your soul, we realize that it’s your choice to make and not our responsibility to prove anything to you.

The argument from ignorance is a two way street as well.

That word ignorance is important. Let's see how long we can hover on that for a while. I think we should start with a definition that everybody can agree to. How's this one from Webster?

Definition of ignorance

: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

I Imagine our next hurdle will be to define knowledge, education, and awareness. I'll defer to Webster again.


Definition of knowledge


1 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association

(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique

b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something

(2) : the range of one's information or understanding

• 
  
  • answered to the best of my knowledge

c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition

d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned

• 
  
  • a person of unusual knowledge

2 a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind

b archaic : a branch of learning


Definition of education


1 a : the action or process of educating or of being educated; also : a stage of such a process

b : the knowledge and development resulting from process of education

• a person of little education

2 : the field of study that deals mainly with methods of teaching and learning in schools

Definition of awareness

: the quality or state of being aware : knowledge and understanding that something is happening or exists

There. Now that that's out of the way, can we agree to use those definitions going forward?



https://www.merriam-webster.com/

 

[ambush80]

To say that I'm ignorant of what it's like to have God revealed to me is absolutely correct. I have never experienced compelling enough evidence to say that I have experienced revelation. I thought I did. In retrospect I was incorrect. People who think God revealed Himself to them might be mistaken like I was. That deals with knowledge and how we get it. Again:

1 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association

(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique

b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something

(2) : the range of one's information or understanding

Can one understand, that is, have knowledge of something without having firsthand experience of something, like zero gravity? If they did, then they wouldn't be ignorant of it anymore or at least not completely ignorant of it. If someone were to show you video of people in zero gravity or if they told you it was like being neutrally buoyant in water you wouldn't say they were "ignorant" about zero gravity even if they had never experienced it before, would you? And when people like Bullethead say they used to believe, how can you say that they were ignorant of it?

Ever seen a "snake" while hunting and jumped back and it turned out to be a stick?

 

[Spotlite]

That word ignorance is important. Let's see how long we can hover on that for a while. I think we should start with a definition that everybody can agree to. How's this one from Webster?

Definition of ignorance

: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

I Imagine our next hurdle will be to define knowledge, education, and awareness. I'll defer to Webster again.


Definition of knowledge


1 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association

(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique

b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something

(2) : the range of one's information or understanding

• 
  
  • answered to the best of my knowledge

c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition

d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned

• 
  
  • a person of unusual knowledge

2 a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind

b archaic : a branch of learning


Definition of education


1 a : the action or process of educating or of being educated; also : a stage of such a process

b : the knowledge and development resulting from process of education

• a person of little education

2 : the field of study that deals mainly with methods of teaching and learning in schools

Definition of awareness

: the quality or state of being aware : knowledge and understanding that something is happening or exists

There. Now that that's out of the way, can we agree to use those definitions going forward?



https://www.merriam-webster.com/

You’re not even in the same ball park with the context. Dwell on

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

[ambush80]

You’re not even in the same ball park with the context. Dwell on

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

This wasn't part of your post when I replied to you:

"While non believers consistently claim that they don't know what it is, they sure stand firm claiming they know what it isn’t.......but they’re not even 100% certain of that."

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence") is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.

Also:

Appeal to ignorance: the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.[3]​

But let's stay on this one for a minute:

"a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true."

Of course your familiar by now with "Russell's Teapot" argument. How is what you assert any different? I can't really tell what you're accusing me of missing.

 

[bullethead]

You’re not even in the same ball park with the context. Dwell on

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Then, like you based on your Argument, I also believe in at least 10,000 Gods.
We are equally confused as to which is the bestest based off of your criteria.

Are you a Hypocrite or a Liar?

 

[Spotlite]

Then, like you based on your Argument, I also believe in at least 10,000 Gods.
We are equally confused as to which is the bestest based off of your criteria.

Are you a Hypocrite or a Liar?

Hypocrite nor a liar. How would I be either? You’re stretching a for a straw to keep from drowning. I’m not obligated to believe in any of them or subject to the same rules you live by with having to rule everything out. That’s your cup of tea. I can believe in whatever and whichever I chose based on nothing but my own rules.

 

[Spotlite]

This wasn't part of your post when I replied to you:

"While non believers consistently claim that they don't know what it is, they sure stand firm claiming they know what it isn’t.......but they’re not even 100% certain of that."

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence") is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.

Also:

Appeal to ignorance: the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.[3]​

But let's stay on this one for a minute:

"a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true."

Of course your familiar by now with "Russell's Teapot" argument. How is what you assert any different? I can't really tell what you're accusing me of missing.

I think somehow that non believers must convince believers that we have to prove something? We are not concerned over it if you don’t believe, we don’t need your approval for reassurance. We are fine with the outcome. You’re decisions do not make any sense to us, why would you need ours to make sense to you? If it was a matter of discussion and honest debate to understand one another then it would be different, but that is not your goal.

 

[Spotlite]

Then, like you based on your Argument, I also believe in at least 10,000 Gods.
We are equally confused as to which is the bestest based off of your criteria.

Are you a Hypocrite or a Liar?

And while I’m at it, I drive a Chevy but I have not ruled out the rest as a comparison. It’s just the one I like . Hypocrite or liar?

 

[ambush80]

I think somehow that non believers must convince believers that we have to prove something? We are not concerned over it if you don’t believe, we don’t need your approval for reassurance. We are fine with the outcome. You’re decisions do not make any sense to us, why would you need ours to make sense to you? If it was a matter of discussion and honest debate to understand one another then it would be different, but that is not your goal.

If that's the impression that you get then I'll shoulder at least half the blame. I presented the Peterson/Harris discussions and express my admiration of how both men examine their differences with grace, courtesy, and humility as a model of what can be achieved through mutual respect. I try to emulate what I see in them. Can you honestly say that I've represented myself in a way that seems snarky or disrespectful? If so, I'll take it as constructive criticism and try to do better.

I'm interested in how people think. Seeing how someone I disagree with gives me insight into how I came to my own conclusions. Iron sharpens iron (stone actually sharpens iron better, in my opinion but we should be able to discuss that like gentlemen).

 

[ambush80]

I think somehow that non believers must convince believers that we have to prove something? We are not concerned over it if you don’t believe, we don’t need your approval for reassurance. We are fine with the outcome. You’re decisions do not make any sense to us, why would you need ours to make sense to you? If it was a matter of discussion and honest debate to understand one another then it would be different, but that is not your goal.

Well, you've got The Great Commission to contend with. I only want to convince people to base their decisions that affect society on reason and logic. If God makes them be good I'll take that as a net plus, though I'd prefer they be good for good reasons rather than bad ones cause those bad ones can lead to REALLY bad things.

 

[Spotlite]

Well, you've got The Great Commission to contend with.

You’ve been told. My job is complete.,

 

[Spotlite]

Can you honestly say that I've represented myself in a way that seems snarky or disrespectful?

I'm interested in how people think. Seeing how someone I disagree with gives me insight into how I came to my own conclusions. Iron sharpens iron (stone actually sharpens iron better, in my opinion but we should be able to discuss that like gentlemen).

Not saying you personally but a quick search and you can easily find the snarky remarks. But I know on at least one occasion that you made the statement to me that you “not only have a problem with Christianity, but YOU”

If it’s a problem, then there’s some hatred, disgust, despise, etc as well which ultimately leads to the snarky comments.

 

[Spotlite]

I only want to convince people to base their decisions that affect society on reason and logic

The problem is the minority of society is telling the majority of society they’re wrong and the minority does not have any solid ground for their “logic” and “reason”. Fix that first.

 

[ambush80]

The problem is the minority of society is telling the majority of society they’re wrong and the minority does not have any solid ground for their “logic” and “reason”. Fix that first.

By "solid ground" do you mean an a priory cause?

 

[bullethead]

And while I’m at it, I drive a Chevy but I have not ruled out the rest as a comparison. It’s just the one I like . Hypocrite or liar?

Last I checked Ford, Dodge, Toyota, Nissan, GMC, etc are all available for test drives. You can go to thier dealerships and they are on the lots.

How many test drives have you taken in a 2018 Flying Spaghetti Monster Edition 2500 with a Flux Capacitor from Yaweh Motor Corporation?

In your world, you would have us all believe that truck is available for sale merely because nobody can prove it isn't.

And you argue that is a legitimate excuse.

 

[bullethead]

Hypocrite nor a liar. How would I be either? You’re stretching a for a straw to keep from drowning. I’m not obligated to believe in any of them or subject to the same rules you live by with having to rule everything out. That’s your cup of tea. I can believe in whatever and whichever I chose based on nothing but my own rules.

You must acknowledge that they all exist merely because you cannot prove they do not exist.
Those are the rules of the argument you make for your god, so if it is good for one god it is good for all gods.
If you deny that, then you are a Hypocrite.
If you you say it isn't applicable then you are a liar.