Lord of Minhiriath
- Local time
- Today 6:27 AM
- Oct 14, 2020
Yeah, still don't follow.. . .
I don't follow.
Yeah, my case in point.
What is sacred to you? What do you hold most important in life? If you can't answer these things, you haven't thought about life in a serious way, nor have you taken responsibilities that entail where your trust in life belongs.
You're not making any case that this has anything to do with determining wether God has gender and if so what it is.
Unless you're trying to imply that because you think I don't have a proper conception of sacredness it must be true that I don't and because I don't for some reason that stops me from seeing accurately the issue at hand.
In which case your case is presumed and fallacious.
Whether my life contemplation is sufficient has nothing to do with the question.
I might guess that the reason you take issue with my apparent "direction of intent" is because, as I said, I trust my understanding of reality sans God better than my understanding of God, so when my understanding of reality conflicts with someones notion of God I assume the notion is wrong, whereas I would guess you take the approach of assuming your understanding of God is accurate, and when you encounter someone's notion of reality that conflicts with your concept of God, you assume that notion is wrong.I don't think you've quite understood the thread of my intention there. It's not about my "feelings", which I feel apart from you, it's the vibe that you project through your words and the direction of your intent.
Obviously we should avoid assuming anything but with limited information and knowledge we have to start somewhere so assumptions we make.
So the conflict comes with thinking that your or my approach is better or worse.
Naturally we tend to be suspicious of people who use the other approach because we assume other people would fall into the same trouble as we would using the opposite approach. But that's just projection, and in truth neither way is any better than a stop-gap for our lack of information, knowledge, and I suppose wisdom as well.
As have yours
Likewise vise versaand Christian philosophers and theologians have addressed them.
No, but I haven't found them yet, and you sure haven't presented their arguments in full or proper form.Do you think no one in history have thought about what you have already thought about,
and that no one in the Christian realm of things have addressed them?
If I am to take your arguments at face-value, neither have you.To be blunt, you simply have not grasped the notions that underlie Christianity
I don't pretend to know the orthodox Christian metaphysical framework, but your presentation of it has been all too easy to poke holes in., nor do you have an understanding of the metaphysical framework which bases Christian thought.
Either the framework is weak and flawed, or you don't understand, or aren't properly communicating, that framework yourself.
I'm not challenging the logic of the theologians of mainstream orthodox Christianity,
I'm challenging your presentation of it. If you're saying that I shouldn't assume that a flaw in your presentation constitutes a flaw in their form, I know, and I don't.
I'm talking to you, not the combined great minds of christian theology.
We're both comparative idiots in the face of that group, and it would take at the least thousands of hours of study to cure that ignorance.
Failing that, I suggest we hold a discourse of consciously flawed individuals, not of preciously-held, supposedly sacrosanct ideologies.
We're all idiots here but at least we're trying. We don't have to take an attack on our flawed and weak arguments as an attack on our own being. I would guess that a major reason a lot of people are on this forum is that it has an above-average amount of intellectual maturity in that regard.
We can admit to having made and even believed poor arguments because we can separate personal pride from the equation.
If Socrates taught us anything it's that the closest any of us get to being smart is realizing we're stupid.