On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 5:17 PM, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 6:37 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:25 PM, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Psssst! Hey Brock you seem to have lost the plot - you keep
>> > repeating yourself.
>> It's a consistent position: I am a Christian,
> BO Because you are a Christian, you are by default a Theist,
> whether you want to call yourself one or not.
Rather, the term theist is simply an incorrect epistemological
analogue to a sprachbund[1]: An inconsistent meta-pile of theoretical
epistemological sand that doesn't mean the same thing twice, and is so
overly generalized as to be unprofitable.
Not only are you a Theist but you are now officially an idiot too.
Well done for making an arsehole of yourself on a NG which can be
accessed by anyone on the planet.
On Nov 4, 9:22 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 5:17 PM, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 6:37 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:25 PM, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > Psssst! Hey Brock you seem to have lost the plot - you keep
> >> > repeating yourself.
> >> It's a consistent position: I am a Christian,
> > BO Because you are a Christian, you are by default a Theist,
> > whether you want to call yourself one or not.
> Rather, the term theist is simply an incorrect epistemological
> analogue to a sprachbund[1]: An inconsistent meta-pile of theoretical
> epistemological sand that doesn't mean the same thing twice, and is so
> overly generalized as to be unprofitable.
> >> > > when you reply any post, do you reply the questions raised
> >> > > or you *just* want to write a reply, which may be not related
> >> > > to the question raised?
> >> > Hi Student,
> >> > For the sake of clarity and specificity, I'm happy to address one
> >> > point at a time. :)
> >> > > So I am not a "theist" (nor is there any such specific position).
> >> So, using your own logic, you are not an American, you are a North
> >> Carolinian.
> No, just a Christian. :)
And you are a gutless wimp, as well as being a pompous dishonest
biased prick.
You, again, chose to reply directly to my comment through a third
person, this way you can still pretend you are ignoring me.
Also, again, the logic involved totally escapes you.
The simple believeth every word.
Pr. 14:15
_________________________________________________
Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
-- Peter Ustinov
So BO, my friend,
when you are not able to reply
you rightly forget the "clarity and specificity", dont you?
Else, would you not be clear in your reply?
I am never ashamed to admit my ignorance
but then you are not me.
enjoy
cheers
st13
On Nov 4, 8:37 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:21 PM, student13 <pairam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Now that we have something which as per you is "nicely put",
> > can you kindly look at the following pl?
> > The Pope (Catholic)
> > Ray Comfort (Evangelical)
> > Jimmy Carter (Southern Baptist)
> > I understand there are many like the above.
> > can you be kind enough to tell if they are Christians like you
> > or they are any different?
> Consider the term to be one with multiple meanings, depending upon
> context. For example:
> --adjective
> 1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings:
> a Christian faith.
> 2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion
> based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
> 3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
> 4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ;
> Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
> 5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
> 6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.
> --noun
> 7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
> 8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of
> Christ: He died like a true Christian.
> 9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples
> of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
> 10. the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.
> 11. a male given name.
> Of course, I consider that the list above is not complete for a
> specific and important use of the term "Christian", and like how the
> Confession puts it:
> "Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the
> foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and
> immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his
> will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free
> grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or
> perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as
> conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of
> his glorious grace."
> So for each of the persons you mentioned above, the term "christian"
> in one or more of the 11 different senses may be applicable, but for
> the specific Confession definition I've cited, God has chosen, and
> only He can (and will) answer authoritatively.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 6:56 PM, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Not only are you a Theist but you are now officially an idiot too.
> Well done for making an arsehole of yourself on a NG which can be
> accessed by anyone on the planet.
Nope, I'm not a theist:
>> An inconsistent meta-pile of theoretical
>> epistemological sand that doesn't mean the same thing twice, and is so
>> overly generalized as to be unprofitable.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:19 AM, student13 <pairam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So BO, my friend,
> when you are not able to reply
> you rightly forget the "clarity and specificity", dont you?
When others include acceptance of fallacious or invalid
presuppositions as a condition for dialogue, I'm frequently patient to
remind them that it is not the case that I did not answer their
question, rather, it is the case that they just didn't like the
answer, which are two different things. :)
There is no difference in any one of the below "believers"....they all
believe in sky fairies and jesus hype....and all believe in religious
magic....and think they have a "right" to force conversions on children by
threatening them with hell if they don't convert. Boring....and no one
believes this crap any more if they have a brain and can think.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:21 PM, student13 <pairam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Now that we have something which as per you is "nicely put",
> > can you kindly look at the following pl?
> > The Pope (Catholic)
> > Ray Comfort (Evangelical)
> > Jimmy Carter (Southern Baptist)
> > I understand there are many like the above.
> > can you be kind enough to tell if they are Christians like you
> > or they are any different?
> Consider the term to be one with multiple meanings, depending upon
> context. For example:
> --adjective
> 1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings:
> a Christian faith.
> 2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion
> based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
> 3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the
> Crusades.
> 4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ;
> Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
> 5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
> 6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.
> --noun
> 7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
> 8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of
> Christ: He died like a true Christian.
> 9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples
> of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
> 10. the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.
> 11. a male given name.
> Of course, I consider that the list above is not complete for a
> specific and important use of the term "Christian", and like how the
> Confession puts it:
> "Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the
> foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and
> immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his
> will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free
> grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or
> perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as
> conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of
> his glorious grace."
> So for each of the persons you mentioned above, the term "christian"
> in one or more of the 11 different senses may be applicable, but for
> the specific Confession definition I've cited, God has chosen, and
> only He can (and will) answer authoritatively.
> Regards,
> Brock
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Any way, any inquiry is "loaded" if one wants to look it that way.
But how does it matter if it is loaded or not? Any discussion is
to communicate with the participants and the process helps each
of them understand somethings (and misunderstand too ).
For "clarity and specificity" you want to reply one question at a
time,
which is fine. But when you reply, instead of focussing on question
you talk about "others include acceptance of fallacious or invalid
> presuppositions as a condition for dialogue, I'm frequently patient to
> remind them that it is not the case that I did not answer their
> question".
Here is a very specific example
you claim you are *just* Christian.
I ask you to elaborate/explain that.
You do not answer that and when DR writes
something, you say "nicely put".
I go by that statement of DR which you
"accepted" and ask why and how pope/evangelical/baptist
etc claim what they claim to be ( and I understand there
are 1000s of such variations !! )
Wonder on the basis of clarity and specificity
if you have a reply ?
cheers
st13
On Nov 5, 8:17 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:19 AM, student13 <pairam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So BO, my friend,
> > when you are not able to reply
> > you rightly forget the "clarity and specificity", dont you?
> When others include acceptance of fallacious or invalid
> presuppositions as a condition for dialogue, I'm frequently patient to
> remind them that it is not the case that I did not answer their
> question, rather, it is the case that they just didn't like the
> answer, which are two different things. :)
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Diana Wilson <dwilso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is no difference in any one of the below "believers"....they all
> believe in sky fairies and jesus hype....and all believe in religious
> magic....
I consider the grouping simply a fallacy by "all you people look alike"[1]. :)
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 6:17 AM, student13 <pairam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> BO: "perhaps your inquiry is loaded"
> st13: "perhaps" means you are not sure.
Or alternatively, it can also indicate that a gentle and civil
suggestion can be edifying even in an eristic environment.
> Any way, any inquiry is "loaded" if one wants to look it that way.
> But how does it matter if it is loaded or not? Any discussion is
> to communicate with the participants and the process helps each
> of them understand somethings (and misunderstand too ).
When others include acceptance of fallacious or invalid
presuppositions as a condition for dialogue, I'm frequently patient to
remind them that it is not the case that I did not answer their
question, rather, it is the case that they just didn't like the
answer, which are two different things. :)
> Here is a very specific example
> you claim you are *just* Christian.
> I ask you to elaborate/explain that.
> You do not answer that
I was much clearer and more specific than such an characterization
would otherwise indicate. I noted the ambiguities present in your
question and graciously provided a clear and specific response:
So for each of the persons you mentioned above, the term "christian"
in one or more of the 11 different senses may be applicable, but for
the specific Confession definition I've cited, God has chosen, and
only He can (and will) answer authoritatively.
> Wonder on the basis of clarity and specificity
> if you have a reply ?
Are you worried that if you don't taunt you won't get an answer? I'm
frequently more generous than that in my correspondence. :)
On Nov 6, 10:47 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 6:17 AM, student13 <pairam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > BO: "perhaps your inquiry is loaded"
> > st13: "perhaps" means you are not sure.
BO:> Or alternatively, it can also indicate that a gentle and civil
> suggestion can be edifying even in an eristic environment.
st13: one can consider that as a suggestion, if you had proceeded
further, ie: after making that suggestion, you still continue to
reply.
Here, you never ventured to reply. { at that point of time, what is
obvious
is your statement and ignoring to reply the question - which gives
the reader the idea that you are not sure }
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------
st13:> > Any way, any inquiry is "loaded" if one wants to look it that
way.
> > But how does it matter if it is loaded or not? Any discussion is
> > to communicate with the participants and the process helps each
> > of them understand somethings (and misunderstand too ).
BO:> When others include acceptance of fallacious or invalid
> presuppositions as a condition for dialogue, I'm frequently patient to
> remind them that it is not the case that I did not answer their
> question, rather, it is the case that they just didn't like the
> answer, which are two different things. :)
st13: Brock, you talk about "others include acceptance of
fallacious..."
Here is a clear example. You claimed you are *just* Christian. I
asked
you to elaborate / explain it. Where is "others include acceptabce
of
fallacious or invalid presuppositions as condition ..." in this?
Brock, when a dialog takes place, if a person repeats a question after
some
one thinks he has answered, the chances are that either the answer was
not
related to question ( as you did earlier ) or the questioner did not
understand
the answer. Either way, it is the responsibility of the person who
answer to
communicate in a way that the questioner understands it. [ in this
case, you give
a feeling as though you want to take shelter by saying that some one
"did not like
your answer". ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------
>
> > Here is a very specific example
> > you claim you are *just* Christian.
> > I ask you to elaborate/explain that.
> > You do not answer that
BO:> I was much clearer and more specific than such an
characterization
> would otherwise indicate. I noted the ambiguities present in your
> question and graciously provided a clear and specific response:
st13: In your mind, you *may* be clearer and more specific, but your
words did not
indicate any clarity or specificity and that is why again and again,
the question
had to be repeated.
And now you are talking about "ambiguities present in your question".
You made a claim and I only asked you to elaborate / explain your
statement.
Wonder what ambiguity is there in that question. /can you let me
know?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
BO: > So for each of the persons you mentioned above, the term
"christian"
> in one or more of the 11 different senses may be applicable, but for
> the specific Confession definition I've cited, God has chosen, and
> only He can (and will) answer authoritatively.
st13: Since you know *more* about you, does your above thought
indicate
that each of them can claim to be Christian *only in one or more * of
the 11
different senses. Do you mean to say, |but God's authoritative answer"
makes
them only partially Christian?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
st13:> > Wonder on the basis of clarity and specificity
> > if you have a reply ?
BO:> Are you worried that if you don't taunt you won't get an answer?
I'm
> frequently more generous than that in my correspondence. :)
st13: A glance at the communication will help you know - if you do
not have
a 'presupposition' - how many times the same question had to be
repeated to
elicit some near relevant reply !! Is that called taunting? I wonder
if ever I have said
any thing about your being/not being either "patient"/ gracious /
generous etc.
Does not the communication reveal all that?
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 6:56 PM, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Not only are you a Theist but you are now officially an idiot too.
> > Well done for making an arsehole of yourself on a NG which can be
> > accessed by anyone on the planet.
> Nope, I'm not a theist:
> >> An inconsistent meta-pile of theoretical
> >> epistemological sand that doesn't mean the same thing twice, and is so
> >> overly generalized as to be unprofitable.
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 7:36 PM, student13 <pairam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 10:47 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 6:17 AM, student13 <pairam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > BO: "perhaps your inquiry is loaded"
>> > st13: "perhaps" means you are not sure.
> BO:> Or alternatively, it can also indicate that a gentle and civil
>> suggestion can be edifying even in an eristic environment.
> st13: one can consider that as a suggestion, if you had proceeded
> further, ie: after making that suggestion, you still continue to
> reply.
> Here, you never ventured to reply. { at that point of time, what is
> obvious
> is your statement and ignoring to reply the question - which gives
> the reader the idea that you are not sure }
Or alternatively, it can also indicate that a gentle and civil
suggestion can be edifying even in an eristic environment. :)
> BO:> When others include acceptance of fallacious or invalid
>> presuppositions as a condition for dialogue, I'm frequently patient to
>> remind them that it is not the case that I did not answer their
>> question, rather, it is the case that they just didn't like the
>> answer, which are two different things. :)
> st13: Brock, you talk about "others include acceptance of
> fallacious..."
> Here is a clear example. You claimed you are *just* Christian. I
> asked
> you to elaborate / explain it. Where is "others include acceptabce
> of
> fallacious or invalid presuppositions as condition ..." in this?
> Brock, when a dialog takes place, if a person repeats a question after
> some one thinks he has answered, the chances are that either the answer was
> not related to question ( as you did earlier ) or the questioner did not
> understand the answer.
Or the answer was so clear and penetrating that it forced the
questioner to face something they didn't want to handle, and rather
than do so, instead articulated unbelief. I consider many of the
truths of the Bible to be so clear and penetrating.
> BO: > So for each of the persons you mentioned above, the term
> "christian"
>> in one or more of the 11 different senses may be applicable, but for
>> the specific Confession definition I've cited, God has chosen, and
>> only He can (and will) answer authoritatively.
> st13: Since you know *more* about you, does your above thought
> indicate
> that each of them can claim to be Christian *only in one or more * of
> the 11
> different senses.
It just indicates that the term can be overloaded, and much confusion
can arise from the overloading.
> Do you mean to say, |but God's authoritative answer"
> makes
> them only partially Christian?
Just that the authoritative answer is not anyone else's.
|
