fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Evidently you haven't seen 'Boondock Saints.'
Thought For The New Year
- Thread starter cammerfe
- Start date
I've gotten lost along the way here. Are we assuming that people can be rehabilitated, and the alternative view is that people cannot be rehabilitated, but we are not entertaining the idea that some can and some cannot?
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Shag-
I hope you know that you and I are largely in agreement. But may I suggest that you are, at times, unnecessarily confrontational. Stridency is only the best way when dealing with someone like wormworm. Although I often find myself at least partly disagreeing with Foxy, she does keep the tone of her postings in the upper register.
KS
I hope you know that you and I are largely in agreement. But may I suggest that you are, at times, unnecessarily confrontational. Stridency is only the best way when dealing with someone like wormworm. Although I often find myself at least partly disagreeing with Foxy, she does keep the tone of her postings in the upper register.
KS
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Cam, you've missed a lot of her comments. Furthermore, although she does gain points for a 'higher' tone, she loses them through dishonesty.Shag-
I hope you know that you and I are largely in agreement. But may I suggest that you are, at times, unnecessarily confrontational. Stridency is only the best way when dealing with someone like wormworm. Although I often find myself at least partly disagreeing with Foxy, she does keep the tone of her postings in the upper register.
KS
I was drawing a dichotomy. The rehabilitation thing is incidental to the broader point I was raising. Unfortunately, confusing things is what Fox excels at, as this thread demonstrates...
Shag-
I hope you know that you and I are largely in agreement. But may I suggest that you are, at times, unnecessarily confrontational. Stridency is only the best way when dealing with someone like wormworm. Although I often find myself at least partly disagreeing with Foxy, she does keep the tone of her postings in the upper register.
KS
How would you suggest dealing with someone who habitually and shamelessly deceives and distorts? When I point that out, it isn't simply meant as a personal attack in lieu of a substantive argument, it is to shine a light on her pattern of distortion and dishonesty.
Do you not find it equally as rude for someone to constantly ignore counterpoints you have raised to their points, to misrepresent your arguments and to try and deceive you?
I have tried being nice to her and she continues to distort. When I try and debate her, she simple continues to spin one way or another and the thread simply becomes her distorting and me constantly untangling those distortions to simply have her distort things again. She has demonstrated to me both her and in private messages that she does not discuss things in good faith. How do you deal with someone like that besides calling them on it?
One example (I think it is in the "bitch and bicker" thread); she claimed to engage other on the politics section of this forum to understand opposing points of view. I can tell you, from the post she made that the point I raised in this thread she doesn't understand (though she would likely never admit it). Does her post here strike you as the action of someone who wants to understand a point that is unfamiliar to her? Or does it seem more like the action of someone looking to either distort the point to fit their preconceived notions, or to prevent the point from being accurately articulated by confusing the issue (or, possibly, both)?
I understand and appriciate your point. But I have tried numerous times to be polite and "play nice" with her and she constantly misrepresents and distorts; demonstrating a lack of good faith. Should I not treat her as hostile to the points I raise when the substance of her arguments already shows her to be as such?
Is it more rude to attempt to decieve or to call someone on their attempt to decieve?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
In short, cammerfe, don't be fooled by her 'clever words.' She's got a forked tongue. Style over substance and all that.
Hey wormworm, is that a self portrait or did someone else do it for you?
KS
actually, i grabbed it from another forum i frequent. everyone needs a little levity from time to time.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Your reading comprehension isn't very good.
my comprehension is just fine. your ideals are screwed. you try telling me that god makes me breath, but he didn't create evil.
he either does all or nothing. any thing else is contradictory.
just a bunch of excuses and exceptions.
he either does all or nothing. any thing else is contradictory.
just a bunch of excuses and exceptions.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
That's overly simplistic thinking. Your logic is screwed. You're presenting a false choice. You don't even have a 7-year-old's understanding of God.
Your arrogance knows no bounds. You have the temerity to place God inside a box of your own making, and demand that he meets your standards.
Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Read the book of Job sometime, if you have the guts. It will place you in the proper perspective in comparison to God.
you're so deep into it you can't even argue without biblical passages.
i'm not the one apologizing for the contradictions.
ya i know. god works in mysterious ways. so mysterious nobody knows what he actually ever does, yet they credit him.
if you would get out of your biblical conspiracy you would have some credibility.
know what it's like to live without a god?
no. so how can you make the comparison?
it's not my logic is screwed, it's just something you can't comprehend.
why couldn't you just actually say something along those lines instead of yet quoting the bible?
i understand you fossten. it's good to have convictions, i just don't understand your need to always share them.
i'm not the one apologizing for the contradictions.
ya i know. god works in mysterious ways. so mysterious nobody knows what he actually ever does, yet they credit him.
if you would get out of your biblical conspiracy you would have some credibility.
know what it's like to live without a god?
no. so how can you make the comparison?
it's not my logic is screwed, it's just something you can't comprehend.
why couldn't you just actually say something along those lines instead of yet quoting the bible?
i understand you fossten. it's good to have convictions, i just don't understand your need to always share them.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Ah, so you think I've had God my entire life? How naive. Many people don't meet God until they're well into adulthood. You probably won't meet God until after you're dead. Unfortunately, it will be too late then.
Oh, and there are no contradictions, only sad misunderstandings on your part.
Always? Ha. You sound like a little girl. I can tell the Bible really gets under your skin. If you don't like it, don't provoke me.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Possibilities
i understand you fossten. it's good to have convictions, i just don't understand your need to always share them.[/QUOTE]
I enjoy the exchanges and poking fun, but this is serious. If Foss and others and I are all wrong, we'll simply have lived our lives with some extra strictures created by our determination to live as HE would have us do.
If you are wrong, you are assigning yourself to Hell. I, (and Foss and others, I'm sure) don't want that to happen to anyone. I believe that's the motivation for the comments you question.
KS
i understand you fossten. it's good to have convictions, i just don't understand your need to always share them.[/QUOTE]
I enjoy the exchanges and poking fun, but this is serious. If Foss and others and I are all wrong, we'll simply have lived our lives with some extra strictures created by our determination to live as HE would have us do.
If you are wrong, you are assigning yourself to Hell. I, (and Foss and others, I'm sure) don't want that to happen to anyone. I believe that's the motivation for the comments you question.
KS
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Cammerfe brings up an important point - Hrmwrm, what is your motivation for poking, tweaking, and mocking Christians at every opportunity? What could you possibly have to gain by belittling? Are you so naive as to think you can apostasize a believer, or do you just suffer from an inferiority complex? Or is there another reason?
This is essentially outlining Pascal's wager. I'd rather believe in something because I believe in it rather than because it will bear more fruitful if it were correct, or I fear it. I personally don't adhere to any religion because of this, but I'm not here to denounce any other faith, because we really don't know until we get there.
I do understand the argument that you must study the Bible to understand God, but to a non-believer it may come off as a circular argument of sorts. Your religion and belief system can be described as (dependent upon if it were correct) a true belief, but not knowledge. You have overwhelming evidence in your eyes to believe something, but until the time comes, you do not have explicit knowledge of it. Don't take this the wrong way, no living being has knowledge of the afterlife, they may just have the correct belief but they do this without justification. Justification in this sense doesn't mean evidence, or even overwhelming evidence, it means the exact knowledge of how something could exist or function.
Motivation for this can be described as attaining a content state of being. Christians (or any other religion) become content/happy/fulfilled by believing in the afterlife and salvation. Atheists, on the other hand, have no divine reward, so arguing their standpoint by logic creates a sense of security and content.
Atheists are generally no less faithful then Christians. The difference is in what they are faithful about and weather their "religion" is as coherent as that of a Christian or a Muslim. As this article points out:
Nicholas Wade's new book, "The Faith Instinct," lucidly compiles the scientific evidence supporting something philosophers have known for ages: Humans are hard-wired to believe in the transcendent. That transcendence can be divine or simply Kantian, a notion of something unknowable from mere experience. Either way, in the words of philosopher Will Herberg, "Man is homo religiosus, by 'nature' religious: as much as he needs food to eat or air to breathe, he needs a faith for living."
Wade argues that the Darwinian evolution of man depended not only on individual natural selection but also on the natural selection of groups. And groups that subscribe to a religious worldview are more apt to survive -- and hence pass on their genes. Religious rules impose moral norms that facilitate collective survival in the name of a "cause larger than yourself," to use a modern locution. It's no wonder that everything from altruism to martyrdom is inextricably bound up in virtually every religion.
The faith instinct may be baked into our genes, but it is also profoundly malleable. Robespierre, the French revolutionary who wanted to replace Christianity with a new "age of reason," emphatically sought to exploit what he called the "religious instinct which imprints upon our souls the idea of a sanction given to moral precepts by a power that is higher than man."
Many environmentalists are quite open about their desire to turn their cause into a religious imperative akin to the plight of the Na'Vi [in the film Avatar], hence Al Gore's uncontroversial insistence that global warming is a "spiritual challenge to all of humanity." The symbolism and rhetoric behind much of Barack Obama's campaign was overtly religious at times, as when he proclaimed that "we are the ones we've been waiting for" -- a line that could have come straight out of the mouths of Cameron's Na'Vi.
What I find fascinating, and infuriating, is how the culture war debate is routinely described by antagonists on both sides as a conflict between the religious and the un-religious. The faith instinct manifests itself across the ideological spectrum, even if it masquerades as something else.
On the right, many conservatives have been trying to fashion what might be called theological diversity amid moral unity. Culturally conservative Catholics, Protestants and -- increasingly -- Jews find common cause. The left is undergoing a similar process, but the terms of the debate are far more inchoate and fluid. What is not happening is a similar effort between left and right, which is why the culture war, like the faith instinct, isn't going away any time soon.
Wade argues that the Darwinian evolution of man depended not only on individual natural selection but also on the natural selection of groups. And groups that subscribe to a religious worldview are more apt to survive -- and hence pass on their genes. Religious rules impose moral norms that facilitate collective survival in the name of a "cause larger than yourself," to use a modern locution. It's no wonder that everything from altruism to martyrdom is inextricably bound up in virtually every religion.
The faith instinct may be baked into our genes, but it is also profoundly malleable. Robespierre, the French revolutionary who wanted to replace Christianity with a new "age of reason," emphatically sought to exploit what he called the "religious instinct which imprints upon our souls the idea of a sanction given to moral precepts by a power that is higher than man."
Many environmentalists are quite open about their desire to turn their cause into a religious imperative akin to the plight of the Na'Vi [in the film Avatar], hence Al Gore's uncontroversial insistence that global warming is a "spiritual challenge to all of humanity." The symbolism and rhetoric behind much of Barack Obama's campaign was overtly religious at times, as when he proclaimed that "we are the ones we've been waiting for" -- a line that could have come straight out of the mouths of Cameron's Na'Vi.
What I find fascinating, and infuriating, is how the culture war debate is routinely described by antagonists on both sides as a conflict between the religious and the un-religious. The faith instinct manifests itself across the ideological spectrum, even if it masquerades as something else.
On the right, many conservatives have been trying to fashion what might be called theological diversity amid moral unity. Culturally conservative Catholics, Protestants and -- increasingly -- Jews find common cause. The left is undergoing a similar process, but the terms of the debate are far more inchoate and fluid. What is not happening is a similar effort between left and right, which is why the culture war, like the faith instinct, isn't going away any time soon.
It is not a coincidence that both conservatives and liberals have a utopia they want to achieve. The difference is that conservatives, tending to be religious, look for their utopia in the afterlife, while liberals tend to be atheist and subscribe to an ideology aimed at working toward a utopia in this world. Believing to social justice (in whatever guise) involves just as much faith as believing in a God and accepting that Jesus died for your sins.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Christianity
Thank you for your input. However, I don't believe because of the motivation outlined by Blaise P.'s 'Gambit', but because of the change I found in my life when I said, "I believe. Help thou my unbelief." And since God will accept anyone who asks, and accepts, "Even faith... as a grain of mustard seed" is enough. It doesn't really matter what the motivation is, or the 'size' of the faith, so long as it's sincere.
Have you ever noticed the belligerence that seems to run along with the negativity that comes from nay-sayers?
KS
Thank you for your input. However, I don't believe because of the motivation outlined by Blaise P.'s 'Gambit', but because of the change I found in my life when I said, "I believe. Help thou my unbelief." And since God will accept anyone who asks, and accepts, "Even faith... as a grain of mustard seed" is enough. It doesn't really matter what the motivation is, or the 'size' of the faith, so long as it's sincere.
Have you ever noticed the belligerence that seems to run along with the negativity that comes from nay-sayers?
KS
you've never had an idea of god all your life? maybe not to the extreme you have now, but an idea of it?
and how can i meet something that doesn't exist.
go back and re-read this whole thread. i didn't start the poking. i just answer that which is posted to me.
i would ask what is your need to always affirm it to yourself and others your a believer.
do you suffer from an inferiority complex?
ever see the same from the yay-sayers? look at your first reply to my tongue in cheek reply to your thread opener.
so, what was the bolded statement about. i merely replied that i worked for everything i have. yours is a belligerent statement to me, mine is a reply to you. with a humurous side note.
and then fossten entices with the god making me breath line, and i'm provoking and belligerent?
and i haven't kept it going. just replying to what's put forward to me.
but you keep believing that if you must.
you christians keep needing affirmation in the face of doubt.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I said I didn't HAVE GOD IN MY LIFE. Please read.
How can you claim God doesn't exist? It's like claiming there is no gold in China. You need absolute knowledge to make that claim, and you don't have absolute knowledge. The best, accurate claim you can make is that you don't know for sure if God exists.
That is a very good point. The ONLY position you can reach through reason alone is agnosticism. To be an atheist takes as much of a leap of faith as it does to accept God. For atheists to sneer and condescend to the religious as being irrational because of their faith is inherently disingenuous and hypocritical.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
It has been well said, "There are no atheists in foxholes.
KS
KS
how can you claim he does?
there is no evidence for the affirmation of him.
by your own logic, then what makes any ancient gods myths then?
how can THEY be a myth if you can't disprove them either.
absolute knowledge? no, i don't, but then neither do you. how can you claim him real?