|
Literally The Worst posted:Why are you still arguing with him Its either argue with him and Kyrie or not post in the thread.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
Much as with compost, sometimes from poo poo[posting] comes something better.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its either argue with him and Kyrie or not post in the thread. I feel like this thread deserves to die, much like those who turn their backs on God and then also on another man so that he can gently caress them in the butt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Grace implies a connection to a god. I don't have that. So I don't have grace. I have humanity. You see humanity and you see god, where humanity can be present in the absence of god just as easily. This is more than disturbing because it implies a 'lack of god' is a 'lack of humanity and morality', and its even more disturbing that you don't grasp that concept. No, I just think talk about God is talk is also always about humanity. And I told you where I take that from (The Humanity of God, Barth). And I've repeatedly told you, I don't believe there are conditions or restrictions on grace, no one lacks humanity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:No, I just think talk about God is talk is also always about humanity. And I told you where I take that from (The Humanity of God, Barth). And I've repeatedly told you, I don't believe there are conditions or restrictions on grace, no one lacks humanity. Confirmation Bias, HELLO! You are Christian, and you read a book that reaffirms your Christian views of morality and I'm supposed to accept this......why? You cannot separate God and Humanity, which is disturbing considering the Old Testament and how it treats 'humanity'. I don't care how many theologians you quote or depend on for analysis, its just confirming your tightly held beliefs and makes you unwilling to accept criticism. You re-define Humanity as 'Grace' because its preferable for you as a Christian to view humanistic ideals in a religious light, because you cannot grasp these ideals without some influence of your religion. That is why no one accepts your premise. Because you just throw more and more Christian Scholars and Theologists at us that are already saying what you WANT to hear to confirm your beliefs, and you accept no criticism of it. Like people debating Creationists often say: The Bible and its words are the claim, not the answer. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I am and that's the fantastic thing isn't it. If you're going to use words in a way that is unusual for your intended audience of people on this forum, who are not in general scholars of Christian theology or anything similar, then please try to be up-front about your terminology. Otherwise people are going to suspect you of playing some sort of shell-game with your definitions. While most of what you say can be understood, with some effort, you could be writing so as to be understood easily. Please do that. steinrokkan posted:It hasn't shut them up, but the notion that anything postmodern, or indeed just based on idealism, is worthless and not worth paying attention to, is in my opinion prevalent not just in general society, but even in academia or amongst experts dominating practice within their field. I have encountered lots of educated people from the humanities and social sciences who plain and simple refused to acknowledge that there could be anything worthwhile besides the "realist" branch of whatever they were studying. Often anything that can't be repurposed within a positivist framework is either completely ignored or taken as a humorous idiosyncrasy of few fringe loonies, or of abominable ivory tower intellectual (who are paradoxically in the ivory tower because nobody bothers to listen to them). Though maybe I'm tainted by moving amongst international relations people who tend to be relatively conservative.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:49
|
|
Dzhay posted:There are options other than positivism (which indeed does not work) and postmodernism, unless you mean something much weaker than what I think you do. These being?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:You denied in a categorical way that it exists in, or has ever existed in, Christianity. You are now dialing back that assertion to not unique to and not effectively ("even do it well"). For someone who claims to be such a voracious reader your comprehension sucks more balls that Kyrie wishes he could. Or more likely you know exactly what I said and, once again, you're only taking a few lines from what I wrote to misrepresent what I said. Something I specifically called you out on, you lying gently caress. Here's what I actually said. Who What Now posted:And yeah, everyone else beat me to it but you aren't talking about grace, you're talking about community. If it really bothers you that we don't understand what you meant then the problem probably lies with you. Besides that Christianity is divisive toward community because it creates distinct in and out-groups. And yes, you can pull up verses about loving your neighbor and all that jazz, but the reality is is that no Christian church follows that commandment and never has and never will. Well, it sure looks like I said that what you call grace is better called community and that the Church doesn't provide it because it makes distinct in- and out-groups. Which is what I said I said! Wow, it's almost like when you take the whole post in context it says something wildly different than what you presented. Hey, help me out here, what's the term for someone who knowingly and repeatedly misrepresents what people say? It's on the tip of my tongue. Four letters, starts with 'L'... Who What Now fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Well, it sure looks like I said that what you call grace is better called community and that the Church doesn't provide it because it makes distinct in- and out-groups. Which is what I said I said! Wow, it's almost like when you take the whole post in context it says something wildly different than what you presented. Hey, help me out here, what's the term for someone who knowingly and repeatedly misrepresents what people say? It's on the tip of my tongue. Four letters, starts with 'L'... Don't forget: Grace is to humanity as humanity is to grace. Its okay, because we're ALL God's children, even those that have other gods or no gods  Also, humanity can only be viewed through the eyes of a God centered world view.But its obviously so inclusive of everyone except the gays
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:These being? I'm rather sympathetic to Popper-like falsificationism/postpositivism, personally.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:I'm rather sympathetic to Popper-like falsificationism/postpositivism, personally. Popper's rationalism is a reform of positivism - it can hardly be called a radical departure, in my opinion. It maintains the same procedural approach to knowledge creation, enriched with a critical bend, but still fundamentally entrapped in the same issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Svaha posted:I get the intent, but That's not what is depicted. Try to imagine being someone who has never seen it before. Yes, I'm saying sexy art is good, you said it was confusing, and I asked how? Yonic symbolism goes hand in hand with images of The Holy Mother, why wouldn't it? You shouldn't feel guilty about masturbating, unless your harming yourself somehow. Try not to do that. edit: Svaha posted:This is actually a very striking and beautiful image, only marred slightly by the fact that the icon is a depiction of someone being tortured to death. It is striking and beautiful, and I think that is enhanced by the tortured man being synonymous with the creator god forgiving the whole gong show. Filtered through piss! Blood Boils fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Popper's rationalism is a reform of positivism - it can hardly be called a radical departure, in my opinion. It maintains the same procedural approach to knowledge creation, enriched with a critical bend, but still fundamentally entrapped in the same issues. This is a bit of a derail, and I don't feel like typing out an entire David Deutsch book, so I'll just say "it* still treats things you can't directly observe as real, and has a means of differentiating theories that predict the same results, which I thought were the main problems". (*"it" here being more modern reformulations of the same sort of idea that I've read, which are probably better than Popper's own)
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Seriously, Piss Christ is one the best things to come out of modern art, I say this as a Catholic. The only thing that could make it more perfect would be if the crucifix itself was fashioned out of poo poo, somehow. The Immaterial fleshed in the Material 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Why should we make a distinction? Why not do both? and: No, stop. And nothing. The reason is because one way is hard to understand, and the people who need these teachings most need them clear, not obfuscated. If you present the values of Jesus as mystical, people will reinterpret them as something else than their plain meaning. That's bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:If you're going to use words in a way that is unusual for your intended audience of people on this forum, who are not in general scholars of Christian theology or anything similar, then please try to be up-front about your terminology. Otherwise people are going to suspect you of playing some sort of shell-game with your definitions. Let's take a specific example. Take a word like faith, when I use the word faith, I'm usually using Paul Tillich's idea of faith as "Ultimate Concern" for. Now in this thread I used faith in the sense of "absolute dependance on" a couple of times, but I was clear about it when I was doing. But the faith as ultimate concern thing, there are pages and pages of discussion about that in previous threads going years back. Some of the people in this thread participated in those discussions. I told them exactly where I was taking it from. Posted the actual sections of the book (Dynamic of Faith) where it was defined. Discussed what other ideas the term was built on (Tillich's definition of Courage from Courage to Be). In the discussion the similarity of that understanding of the term faith was related and compared to other concepts (like Sartre's "Final Project") at length with other posters. The historical antecedents Tillich looked for understanding the term in that way, explored and discussed (or at-least posted by me and then ignored). The biblical passages he uses to build a scriptural case for it, referenced. One can do all that, then the next person come in and "what the gently caress" again. So you start over again. So you start linking back to the old conversations, to the posts of this is what I mean by this word. It comes from here. It's better than the common understanding for reasons x,y, and z. It's more in line with the tradition for these reasons. One does all that, one still gets accused of playing a shell game. When these conversations first started, I couldn't write for poo poo. All the arguments were new to me. I knew significantly less than I do now and made errors (and I still make errors because I am a amateur rear end in a top hat). But lets take a recent example, this waht do I mean by grace thing. Some of these conversations are cross threads. In another thread I used that word grace. I linked to a sermon "You are Accepted" (Shaking of the Foundations, more Tillich) to explain what I meant by grace. That sermon explains the protestant idea of grace as a concept pretty clearly. When I use this word grace I've already it explained what I mean by grace, to the ones I'm arguing with. But, they want the fundamentalist evangelical understanding of the term used. Grace in the sense of the give your heart to Jesus, say the words, go to heaven script the evangelicals use. They don't like it when the words aren't straw-men. They're counting on that people new to the conversation, don't know that I've already been clear about what I mean by the word. They know that when I use a word like sin, I'm talking about separation, between individuals, of ourselves from ourselves, and ourselves from God, because I've told them that explictly. But I don't use the "common definition"(s). Can you see how this gets frustrating on my end? Dzhay posted:I, for one, have a problem. I think you might actually have interesting points in there somewhere, but I can't be sure. I'm always willing to clarify when asked. Which point?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Are you going to admit to knowingly and purposefully misquoting and misrepresenting what I said or are you going to ignore it again like the loving ignorant coward you really are?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:But I don't use the "common definition"(s). Can you see how this gets frustrating on my end? No, I can't, because if that happened to me I would stop using uncommon definitions because it's clearly bad for communicating my point and only leads to arguments against me. I would try to talk to people using commonly accepted definitions of words because then we could have a civil discussion instead of me trying to defend my point while people get angry at me. So obviously you must enjoy being frustrated, or actually aren't frustrated at all, but are smugly sitting there patting yourself on the back at how smart you are and everyone else is just too far below you to understand your brilliance, because if you were genuinely frustrated, you'd stop loving doing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Let's take a specific example. I'll begrudgingly grant that, since we have been arguing these same points for literally years now, newcomers pose an issue since they don't know that you use definitions at odds with a basic understanding of common English. That doesn't, however, validate your choice to use terms usually understood to mean one thing without specifying that, in Brandorspeak, they mean another, merely because Tillich's work appeals to your feverish sense of universalism and allows you to make proclamations so broad that they are effectively meaningless and yet claim they support a Christian worldview. Neither does it pass the smell test that you employ that very unorthodox sense of definition to deflect criticism by claiming that no, no, unlike those other Christians, what you really meant was...
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Let's take a specific example. Please stand by while Brandor quotes ANOTHER theologian or bible scholar that supports his point of view as to why he is right. BrandorKP posted:But I don't use the "common definition"(s). Can you see how this gets frustrating on my end. No, you use the 'poo poo I made up based on the latest Biblical scholar I read' definitions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Please stand by while Brandor quotes ANOTHER theologian or bible scholar that supports his point of view as to why he is right. Don't worry, that theologian's quote will also be abstruse and packed with magical thinking!
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Don't worry, that theologian's quote will also be abstruse and packed with magical thinking! Of course it will be, how else will it confirm Brandor's hypothesis?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Whoops! poo poo I forgot to mention that it'll be deliberately abstruse, as if the quality of being difficult to understand was in and of itself a virtue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Whoops! poo poo I forgot to mention that it'll be deliberately abstruse, as if the quality of being difficult to understand was in and of itself a virtue. Naturally, you have to make it obtuse enough to claim you need to be a  SCHOLAR in order to comprehend it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Don't worry, that theologian's quote will also be abstruse and packed with magical thinking! No, no, it won't have any magical thinking. You see if you just redefine a, b, and c to mean alpha, 17, and tree frog while simultaneously also meaning cow, Neptune, and quivlethorp (no not that quivlethorp the other one) then it all makes perfect sense! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2xXXSFE-NU&t=262s
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Obscene works should be banned. All society should promote only good influences, especially amongst children and youths. Bad influences should be contained, only accessible to those who have been judged to have sufficient wisdom so that they will not be corrupted by them, but can use them for the purpose of growing their understanding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Who gets to judge what's obscene, what's a good influence?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Who defines obscene though
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Obscene works should be banned. How exactly did you end up with a Something Awful account anyway? e: Please let me know if this is obscene 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 15:04
|
|
CheesyDog posted:How exactly did you end up with a Something Awful account anyway? Looking for gay hookup sites. He succeeded beyond his wildest expectations.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Pornography should absolutely be banned. It is causing massive damage to society. Masturbating is also embarrassing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Who gets to judge what's obscene, what's a good influence?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Masturbating is also embarrassing. That's one reason why it's usually not done in public. I recommend masturbating alone or with someone who won't judge you for having sexual desires.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:
Then why did you make this thread edit: forgot pic 
CheesyDog fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Jan 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Aside for children's programs and family films, anime is pretty much entirely degenerate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Pornography should absolutely be banned. It is causing massive damage to society. I thought you were pro-anime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Oh good we're into the censorship and book banning stage of thr discussion. Real progressive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Why not? Frankly, it seems the only moral thing to do, given the system you've laid out. Prolonging the existence of humanity merely means that a larger number of individual humans suffer eternal torment. With every generation, the number of people eternally damned to Hell increase; therefore, preventing that by all moral means seems almost, I'd say, obligatory. Since you aren't permitted to exterminate humanity, you should encourage them to refrain from reproducing; this will not only hasten the return of Christ, but will reduce the number of Hellbound over time. Personally I'm partial to the moral imperative argument for obliterating Christianity, because people who actively reject Christianity are doomed to hell, while people who have merely never heard the good news will get to heaven eventually. The good news must therefore be stopped, forever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
Now this is just tedious. If you're going to do a 'reveal' kyrie, hurry up and finish, because you've just jumped the shark.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 16:49
|
|