Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 15, 2018 11:26:30 GMT
Personal attacks like this are, still, not adequate substitute for an argument, Arlon and, as you really ought to know by now, thinking such is just the tired old ad hominem fallacy. But at least you have now dropped the offensive 'retard'.
Had the Republicans followed my advice they wouldn't have elected Donald Trump.
Yes, it is a real shame if all your letters and calls went unanswered.
Perhaps you have met one of those "fundamentalist" Christians who felt strongly that you need to "accept Jesus." Perhaps you were confused or disturbed by their compulsion to such an ill defined commitment. Perhaps you asked them what that means. Many novice Christians indeed have no idea what it means. It is just a word, J-e-s-u-s. It could mean anything. Their own understanding of its meaning is rather elementary. Many of them are thus members for the sake of membership alone. Sadly many of them never develop any exact idea what difference it makes to "accept Jesus." Those are the people later who when they do it, it's fine, when anyone who is not a member does it, its evil. Lately the term "tribal" has been used to describe them. "Nationalists" can also have an inappropriate focus on membership.
Fascinating stuff I am sure, but.. another non-sequitur noted.
Their concept of "Jesus" is remarkably anthropomorphic.
This perhaps is not entirely surprising since Jesus - at least as I have been strongly assured by the faithful when it has come up - was an historical personage. So, duh.
The New Testament provides such an anthropomorphic convergence point in Jesus, but merely as an accommodation to children.[my emphasis]
Which is nonsense since the NT provides, among other things a detailed picture of a man, his followers, and his sayings and not as 'an accommodation to children'. On second thoughts though the idea that half of scripture is merely for children (or perhaps the childish of mind) is an interesting one and I will certainly bear it in mind lol
You call me a "Christian" quite without my ever having given you a reason to do that.
My mistake. I did not know you are not a Christian and don't give any reason to think you are, apparently. That would explain a lot.
But are you a Christian then? Remember these words before replying, my friend:
"Matthew 10:33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven."
Your reason is that you need to put me in a convenient category that you can label as illogical and dismiss my arguments by invoking what you believe are rules.
No, the reason was that you have, for instance, frequently advanced the notion of a deliberate supernatural Creator as the only explaination for reality and, famously, plan to appeal the landmark Dover verdict - a trial which was predicated around the teaching of creationism, er ID in public schools where the context was entirely that of fundamentalist Christian belief. (A point noted by the judge). So you can see how one might easily draw conclusions on such a basis...
The remarkable thing is how much like some Christians you are.
Since, you say, you cannot define words, then I am sure 'Christian' is now something you don't recognise. I am certainly not to, at least as far as you are concerned, I am now to understand. In which case, er, how would you know what I am liken to? (Or my question directly above notwithstanding, be able to recognise yourself as such?) See how this works?
Synonyms are not "definitions" of the sort required for meaningful and constructive debate. They do not typically advise how any label should be attached to any particular object or event. ... You still fail to understand the concept of "criteria." In order for a definition to be meaningful for the purposes of debate there must be some standard readily recognized and accepted by all parties to the debate. Exceptionally abstract criteria such as might be involved in definitions of "gnostic" are insufficiently recognized by the wide world, thus no definition develops. Your "definition" of good is likewise without any criteria.
Dictionaries principally contain definitions of words, Arlon although I agree that they can include synonyms. That however is not their principal usage and so perhaps you are confusing them with thesauruses? It might also be noted that definitions of the word 'good' can be found in other reference books away from dictionaries (such as the Britannica). It is, after all, quite a common word. Overall it is good enough [sic]most people.
Dictionaries principally contain definitions of words, Arlon although I agree that they can include synonyms. That however is not their principal usage and so perhaps you are confusing them with thesauruses? It might also be noted that definitions of the word 'good' can be found in other reference books away from dictionaries (such as the Britannica). It is, after all, quite a common word. Overall it is good enough [sic]most people.
And here you confuse, again, the strict definition of a word found easily in reference books and the principle, or standard, by which something may be judged or decided as such over which examples and instances there may be disagreement. Just as I made clear to you before, just because many people cannot agree on something experienced does not mean that they do not have, or cannot have an idea of what it is. For instance, all have a (in your words) meaningful idea of justice. But in the courts, opposing sides will disagree on whether it has been served. I hope that helps. But it won't.
I have offered a "definition" of religion as system concerned with abstract forces in nature and society that develops an ethical system. There is nothing illogical about that.
There certainly is when you have told me, that all definitions are impossible ("I have told you there is no such definition of any[my emphasis] word.")
what a complete imbecile you are.
Remember the ad hominem fallacy, Arlon? I still do.
Nature and geography have defined our policies and ethics. The "Equal Rights Amendment" will never be ratified because nature defies it.
How does 'nature' 'defy' the idea of equal rights, Arlon, when it comes to political and social issues? Is this where you argue that women are the weaker sex? Are you sure this is not just convenient and fallacious arguing from conservatives? And please reference where nature (I exclude the phrase 'natural justice') have 'defined' ethics. Given the fallacious nature of attempting this, for reasons already patiently explained, it will be hard to find modern ethical thinkers who would argue this.
Various states have various laws because their geography is different.
Never the less, a postcode lottery as far as treatment under the law, or by health services for instance, is not usually considered either a necessary or welcome thing.
Our dependence on nature has lately been more thoroughly understood through ecology. "I" have already won the use of nature in informing policy.
Since you cannot define, or agree on words, apparently, then how can one know what on earth you refer to?
It has been won. There is nothing your silly whining can do about that.
I didn't know your policies had had such a success at the highest levels of government. Congratulations.
As wonderful a thing as science is, and I have enjoyed and appreciated science all my life, it cannot address most issues in society. It has no definition of good and cannot obtain one, as you have thoroughly shown. The arts of religion and debate can.
As already pointed out, science has nothing to say on morality either defining or measuring (except perhaps for some of the soft sciences). So there is no need to keep making this entirely redundant point. However since, apparently, religion cannot define what is 'good' (and neither can you it seems) then it is doubtful that, by your own measure it will prove any use. But keep going.