Posted on 01/23/2010 4:09:32 PM PST by NYer
Right and it’s blatantly Gnostic and elitist.
############
Wellllllllll, it would appear from all your demonstrated posts that you are an expert on at least one of those tracks/ persona’s.
Though I found your take on the recent exchanges absolutely hilarious, I'm not at all happy to laugh at kosta's expense.
Oh, well, I knew your promise to "be more out of my hair" today (post #1,282) was be too good to be true. Oh well...
that if an exception to a general rule were buried in the deepest trench in the ocean, kosta’s . . . obsessive-exception-finder would seek it out. LOL
I have to hand it to you that your reply has absolutely nothing to do contextually with what I wrote.
Sometimes, it seems like reality leaves you more tied in knots than . . . informed.
Mind reading? RM what do you think?
I believe you more than you can imagine.
That's not the Creed the Undivided Church proclaimed. The procession, better yet departure of the Spirit, as regards his origin, or in Greek ekporeuomai, as used in the Creed, is not the same as paraporeuomai (to pass by), but in Latin they are both the same words procedere. So, it is no wonder that the cocnept was lots in the west and became a heresy.
Despite courageous resistance of a number of Roman Bishops, the western Church finally succumbed to the Frankish pressure and adopted the and the Son (filioque) heresy at the end of the first millennium, and from there on continued its non-Patristic path that eventually produced all the reasons for the Protestant Reformation which, unfortunately, turned out to be an even grosser deformation of concepts than the one the 11th century.
Which is understandable, easily enough: How much can a pot know, or tell you about, the potter who made it? It's what we might call a "categorical problem."
Don't ask me. Ask your Friend Quix. He seems to find it amusing enough to ask me "how did all this unknowable become knowable...?" (this is only a few posts after he thanked me for a "learning lesson"). Is this classic or what?
I think our inability to reach any agreement on such matters proceeds from the fact that you, dear kosta, and I come at these problems from diametrically opposed directions
On that I must agree...
You want to follow the Baconian approach to the ascertainment of truth, which is to proceed from effects to causes — inductive reasoning.
Not at all. I believe in "live and learn." No axioms. I don't ask you to believe me if I tell you the stove is hot and bad for your health. Go ahead an touch it and we will be in perfect agreement!. Forever.
It seems, however, that it is your side that follows inductive reasoning. The religious people see the sun rays through the clouds and think they see "God." They look at the universe and they say "God made this." They see the effect and make up the cause. That's not learning.
That's delusion, because we don't know the answer for sure, so we can either admit ingorance or make up an answer. I choose to call what I don't know an unknown and move on.
On the other hand I start with an axiom, which is "self-evident" to me, and reason from that — deductive reasoning.
When you say an axiom, you are basically saying an arbitrary supposition, an a priori absolute law, a personally decided starting point that is entirely yours and not universal, to your taste and not to everyone's taste. This is pure solipsism, which is by definition narcissistic: me, myself and I.
My approach with the hot stove works for everyone. No axioms are needed, not even reasoning, yet my approach is universally true. Yours is, by your admission, only "self-evident" to you.
But I already know that from your previous replies. Just remember that axioms are not necessarily true even if they are self-evident.
And I do not find any contradiction between Holy Scripture and the natural world, the world of Creation — there is nothing in modern science that contradicts anything God said, as "recorded" in the Holy Bible, that I have ever seen. So far.
Fascinating, betty boop. I suppose you must believe, then, that sciece teaches diseases are caused by demons! perhaps some evidence of for this conclusion wouldn't hurt.
Quix: Ahhhh more of that condeming God because he’s not made in kosta’s image that I’ve alluded to.
Is what I said not true?
Get enough sleep lately? What tracks and perosna's [sic] pray tell?
So pray tell, how, dear kosta, does my method differ from yours? Evidently there is an axiom at the "bottom" of your intellectualizing. In this respect, there is no difference between you and me. At that level. So to speak.
But the difference consists in this: the "messages" we respond to. I aver that the Truth of Reality is in-built, from the moment of Creation, via Logos, Alpha and Omega. I believe the language of mathematics/logics authoritatively expresses this Reality. You, on the other hand, seemingly are highly skeptical about any system of observation/measurement/evaluation that you do not get to "create"/determine for yourself in the first place. That is, it seems you propose yourself as the "measure" of all that is.
To which I might say: Well, this may be the measure of you; but not necessarily of the rest of us. God have mercy....
I don't know how else to put it: All I can say (suggest) is that, to the extent you put the needful criteria of your self first, you occlude God's Truth.
My point about axioms is that they are not arbitrary, nor subjectively determined in any sense. You wrote that an axiom is: "an arbitrary supposition, an a priori absolute law, a personally decided starting point that is entirely yours and not universal, to your taste and not to everyone's taste. This is pure solipsism, which is by definition narcissistic: me, myself and I."
This is pure hortatory bilgewater.... The crucial point about the mathematical axiom is that it is a universal by definition. That is, applying to all times and places whatsoever, for all time.
SOMETIMES
you are incredibly predictable.
Hmmmmm Wellll . . .
From my perspective . . . it was an illustration . . .
a contrast with a presentation, a perspective, a line of intellectual positioning.
I don’t KNOW “kosta50” more than as a screen name and a collection of words.
It’s hard to discern with absolute confidence who or what or what sort the person behind the words is.
And, I don’t need to laugh at anyone’s personhood expense either.
However,
silly presentations of crazy ideas—those presentments are much fair game as far as I’m concerned.
It just suddenly struck me . . . that we’ve had quite a pile of words of a certain sort, tone, ‘logic’ [using the term loosely], attitude, stance, perspective, type of intellectualization, set of values etc.
And, PERSONALLY, I don’t think that stinking pile of rationalized convoluted nonsense gets or should get the least bit of a free pass.
I just felt at that moment of insight, that the best way to highlight the absurdities in that line of presentation was the satirical sequence I typed.
Kosta is supposedly scrolling on by my posts anyway. I did hope, however, that the lurkers would find humor in my humble words AND that the humor would highlight the absurdities in the convoluted pseudo-intellectualizations casting such nonsensical aspersions at Biblical Christianity and God’s existence so ostensibly glibly.
Naw. Just observing the word patterns, word sequences and word tones.
To say yes to that question put that way
would be to essentially say yes to your whole convoluted pile of rationalized UNBiblical intellectualizations about such.
No way I can say yes to all that.
You seem to be implying to asserting that God condemns unfairly.
I’ve never found God unfair.
Some things I haven’t understood at the time. Some things have FELT unfair at the time. I’ve learned quite intensely later, they were exceedingly extremely more than fair.
However, it is a somewhat interesting thing to observe the finite haul the Infinite into the court of one’s own arrogance and judge the Infinite inferior.
AND TO PRETEND THAT
THAT
IS RATIONAL AND . . . LOGICAL . . . AND . . . BETTER THAN PSYCHOTIC . . . IS MORE THAN A LITTLE LAUGHABLE.
####
To say yes to that question put that way
would be to essentially say yes to your whole convoluted pile of rationalized UNBiblical intellectualizations about such.
No way I can say yes to all that.
You seem to be implying to asserting that God condemns unfairly.
I’ve never found God unfair.
Some things I haven’t understood at the time. Some things have FELT unfair at the time. I’ve learned quite intensely later, they were exceedingly extremely more than fair.
However, it is a somewhat interesting thing to observe the finite haul the Infinite into the court of one’s own arrogance and judge the Infinite inferior.
There were only two listed . . .
gnostic and elitist . . .
I suppose you could choose or the peanut gallery could choose.
BTW,
a lot of experience and my best hunch
assures me that . . . .
it’s highly unlikely that folks of such a demonstrated attitude, set of values, perspective etc. are hardly bothered at all about where I’m plainly and obviously wrong.
What is likely to bother folks of that perspective most . . . is where part of such folks’ psyche’s are convinced, however, consciously or unconsciously, that I’m right.
Sad as it is existentially . . . there’s some humor in that.
My point about axioms is that they are not arbitrary, nor subjectively determined in any sense. You wrote that an axiom is: “an arbitrary supposition, an a priori absolute law, a personally decided starting point that is entirely yours and not universal, to your taste and not to everyone’s taste. This is pure solipsism, which is by definition narcissistic: me, myself and I.”
#############
Now, now.
when one sets one’s self up as
GOD OF THE PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALIZATIONS
about the existence of God and the lack of Biblical support for said God . . .
one arbitrarily defines and describes the rules under which one wishes to pontificate under.
And if, at any time, said rules prove inconvenient or uncomfortable, one just changes them—even if in mid-stream.
Then one ?intellectually” brow-beats any protest into silence or disgust or bewilderment or . . .
That of which I speak is not Gnosticism as condemned as a heresy, but simply a discernment of the many terms used in Scripture for our thinking processes through faith in Christ.
I can’t become Catholic because of their praying to saints, and because of their veneration of Mary above other female saints
think for a moment of what you have said, Mary should not be held in higher esteem than any other woman in the world????????She was Jesus’ mom....she carried God almighty in her womb, she raised and nurtured Him throughout His life here on earth, she suffered with Him during His hard times and through the Cricifixion of HER SON.....yeah, I’d give her some bonus points for that.....a lot of them and Catholics do not pray to saints....we pray through them......Saint Peter, please pray for me, Saint Anthony please help me....we ask them to intervene on our behalf to Jesus....and why not, they are there and pretty much on His good side. We also pray FOR our deceased parents, siblings, spouses, children, relatives, that they may be in heaven with Jesus....I’ll guarantee you that it cannot hurt, and if nothing else comes of it, it helps us remember our loved ones and satisfies our human needs to help, if we can.......very comforting, try it....you can lose nothing
EXTREMELY APT.
EXTREMELY ACCURATE.
EXTREMELY WELL SAID.
I still think we need to take up a collection to replace some shattered mirrors.
Christ made quite clear . . .
that his mother
and His BROTHERS . . . as in siblings . . . as in Mary’s other sons . . .
were EQUAL in priority TO HIM TO ALL WHO DID THE WILL OF THE FATHER.
Fascinating how the Vatican et al weasel out of that one.
Sorry, Terycarl, I just don’t think we’ll ever come to a meeting of minds on these things.
I believe in what the Bible says, you believe there is revealed truth outside the Bible, in men’s traditions..
Nevertheless, take care,
Ed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.