Charlie Kirk Fans Assault, Dogpile Charlie Kirk Hater at Charlie Kirk Vigil

Yarddog said:

It's disgusting for the man to do this but where are the freedom of speech Kirk fans?

Click to expand...

Freedom of speech doesn't mean if you say something offisive about someone who was just murdered, to someone who's mourning their death, that you won't get punched in the nose.

It sort of falls in with freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

Free speech only matters on the right. As for a Godly person. They would not beat down someone, that need spiritual help.

Click to expand...

We're not fully God. Only Jesus was.

...As for me, I'm a well known sinner!

Servus said:

Freedom of speech doesn't mean if you say something offisive about someone who was just murdered, to someone who's mourning their death, that you won't get punched in the nose.

Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't blame them. It reminds me of Westwood Baptist Church doing this at military funerals.

2PhiloVoid said:

This "conclusion" is neither valid or sound. In fact, it's not even fully coherent in a way that demonstrates to others like myself that your intended referents are clearly identifiable. What actually is "perfection"? Does anyone have a demonstrable, empirical metric by which to measure any entity as such? I think not. We need to leave be a reliance upon the hubris that comes with particular superlatives.

The best you can say, really, is that you presently don't perceive of any proof for a supernatural origination of the Biblical books. The mere fact that it is possible to discuss the meanings of those books ( via Hermeneutics? ) doesn't imply a proof that there is nothing supernatural whatsoever about those books.

This is what happens when a person slides ahead and reads nothing but atheistic and critical literature, but fails to also engage Epistemology, Historiography and the Philosophy of History, and a host of various interdisciplinary topics that make up the greater field of Hermeneutics.

Click to expand...

Right. The greater field of hermenuetics seems to amount these days to nothing but the same, "if the Bible is the word of God it must be thus-and so" fallacy that you are accusing NxNW of.

2PhiloVoid said:

But, I get it: your central concern for the topic of Abortion undercuts any concern you could ever feel for the need that others have for religion, or for the Christian faith.

Click to expand...

BCP1928 said:

Right. The greater field of hermenuetics seems to amount these days to nothing but the same, "if the Bible is the word of God it must be thus-and so" fallacy that you are accusing NxNW of.

Click to expand...

Is that what those like Jens Zimmermann or Christian Smith or Peter Enns or Kenton L. Sparks are saying..........precisely? Uh. No. It's not.

We both know there are obviously varied positions within "Christian" Heremeneutics. However, whatever the case is among evangelicals, when I'm referring to ***Hermeneutics***, I'm speaking of the wider field of Philosophical Hermeneutics and its use of Critical Realism, not merely 'biblical hermeneutics.'

So, please reel back in the attempt to expose what you think is a fallacy on my part, especially if you've never taken the time to vet out my position.

Finding a fallacy that I've committed isn't impossible, but it's going to require laborious and time consuming effort which, as far as I can tell over the last several years, no one here has ever engaged or shown signs of being willing to engage.

2PhiloVoid said:

Is that what those like Jens Zimmermann or Christian Smith or Peter Enns or Kenton L. Sparks are saying..........precisely? Uh. No. It's not.

We both know there are obviously varied positions within "Christian" Heremeneutics. However, whatever the case is among evangelicals, when I'm referring to ***Hermeneutics***, I'm speaking of the wider field of Philosophical Hermeneutics and its use of Critical Realism, not merely 'biblical hermeneutics.'

So, please reel back in the attempt to expose what you think is a fallacy on my part, especially if you've never taken the time to vet out my position.

Finding a fallacy that I've committed isn't impossible, but it's going to require laborious and time consuming effort which, as far as I can tell over the last several years, no one here has ever engaged or shown signs of being willing to engage.

Click to expand...

My comment was not directed at you specifically (and you must admit that you are far from the hermeneutical position of Conservative thinking on hermeneutics). NxNW's remarks about the "perfection" of the Bible was not his own opinion but a comment about how the Bible has been represented to him as an authority for the conservative political agenda.

BCP1928 said:

My comment was not directed at you specifically (and you must admit that you are far from the hermeneutical position of Conservative thinking on hermeneutics). NxNW's remarks about the "perfection" of the Bible was not his own opinion but a comment about how the Bible has been represented to him as an authority for the conservative political agenda.

Click to expand...

Ok. That I can understand, and I agree with what you're saying then. Thank you for the clarification on that point.

2PhiloVoid said:

And what epistemic insinuation would you like for me to draw from your sci-fi-horror analogy?

Click to expand...

That humans can conceive of a better method to convey a supernatural message than the one that is purported to have been used by an actual supernatural being.

Although that has very little to do with epidemic insemination.

2PhiloVoid said:

You're right, your implied analogy is creative and interesting. But so were Metropolis, Logan's Run and Dune.

Click to expand...

Well, not Logan's Run, Farrah's disappointing cameo aside. The texts of those books have been better preserved than the Biblical texts that were supposedly passed down.

2PhiloVoid said:

That's a terribly artificial and subjectively contrived criterion by which to gauge the supernatural origin of some entity or of a historically embedded religion.

Click to expand...

It's reasonable to expect more from an omniscient being.

NxNW said:

That humans can conceive of a better method to convey a supernatural message than the one that is purported to have been used by an actual supernatural being.

Click to expand...

The thing is, you can think you conceive of one, but you'll only be doing it from the vantage point of a finite, limited capacity human being, one subject immediately to the Infinite Regress problem once you've thought up your fictional "godlike" communication theory. Nothing is fool-proof, not even a message from God.

NxNW said:

Although that has very little to do with epidemic insemination.

Click to expand...

You're right. It has nothing to do with "epidemic insemination," but everything to do with epistemic deliberation.

NxNW said:

Well, not Logan's Run, Farrah's disappointing cameo aside. The texts of those books have been better preserved than the Biblical texts that were supposedly passed down.

Click to expand...

Of course they've been better preserved. Have you by chance done much study of informal fallacies?

NxNW said:

It's reasonable to expect more from an omniscient being.

Click to expand...

As an existentialist and an evidentialist, I have no expectations for anything supernatural in a world that gives me basically nothing by which to survive death anyway. So, I'll take any scraps that the Divine might be throwing our way. For some, the glass is 3/4's empty. For others, it appears to be completely empty, and when that's the case, I can only offer my empathy. But for my part, I don't expect miracles.

BCP1928 said:

My comment was not directed at you specifically (and you must admit that you are far from the hermeneutical position of Conservative thinking on hermeneutics). NxNW's remarks about the "perfection" of the Bible was not his own opinion but a comment about how the Bible has been represented to him as an authority for the conservative political agenda.

Click to expand...

Funny how he didnt mention how the Bible is used as an authority for the liberal political agenda.

2PhiloVoid said:

The thing is, you can think you conceive of one, but you'll only be doing it from the vantage point of a finite, limited capacity human being, one subject immediately to the Infinite Regress problem once you've thought up your fictional "godlike" communication theory. Nothing is fool-proof, not even a message from God.

Click to expand...

My puny brain is too small to have a fairly accurate conception of what an omnipotent God would be like?

Okay then, I shan’t even try.
Thanks for the tip.

2PhiloVoid said:

As an existentialist and an evidentialist, I have no expectations for anything supernatural in a world that gives me basically nothing by which to survive death anyway. So, I'll take any scraps that the Divine might be throwing our way. For some, the glass is 3/4's empty. For others, it appears to be completely empty, and when that's the case, I can only offer my empathy. But for my part, I don't expect miracles.

Click to expand...

You must have a great deal of faith to believe in a God that doesn’t do miracles, (anymore).

As a deist I acknowledge that there might be some sort of God or other, but evidence for this Being is scant inside the material universe, but that’s not “all there is” anyways, huh?

Pommer said:

My puny brain is too small to have a fairly accurate conception of what an omnipotent God would be like?

Click to expand...

Analytically speaking, all of our brains our too puny to fairly or accurately form a concept of what is termed as 'the Philosopher's God.'

It's not a matter of my citing someone else's brain power as being enough to do the job; none of us can really conceive of what "perfect" is. It is a superlative term and like so many superlative terms, we have neither a perfect metric by which to measure something that is perfect, nor do we have any referents to point to in this world by which to say, "ah, now THAT, THAT is perfect" and actually know that that is the case.

I'm just barking typical tropes of philosophical scrutiny over terms here. It's nothing new or novel. My citing it merely brings in the problem of religious language that has been around for a very, very long time, especially if it's not Jewish hyperbolic poetry but rather a modern conceptual stew of ancient Grecian superlative notions by which we use the "omni-" prefix and for which so many of us think we know what we're referring to in realist terms when we use it.

I'm on the side that says we don't know. I don't know; and no one else does either.

Pommer said:

Okay then, I shan’t even try.
Thanks for the tip.

Click to expand...

You're welcome. If there are any other studies in Philosophy you'd like to join me in, just let me know.

Pommer said:

You must have a great deal of faith to believe in a God that doesn’t do miracles, (anymore).

Click to expand...

No, I just have a great deal of historical and philosophical studying behind me, and I've always been more critically inclined. It's not like I was raised on the sacred grounds of a nice, well-to-do fundamentalist Christian family with a silver spoon in my mouth.

Pommer said:

As a deist I acknowledge that there might be some sort of God or other, but evidence for this Being is scant inside the material universe, but that’s not “all there is” anyways, huh?

Click to expand...

And we agree. The empirical evidence for this Being is scant inside the material universe, and I don't know that this is "all there is" either way. As a philosopher, however, I'm allowed to question Carl Sagan's most famous musings and ask: Is this really all there is? Are there not at least some traces of a Divine presence?

On the other hand, I will also say that as a philosopher, some of my expectations for what it is I think I could see within the universe are conditioned by various considerations of the Hiddenness of God argument from atheist, J.L. Schellenberg. It's these considerations, and the various rejoinders we might toss at them, that I reflect upon, and a few of those rejoinders come from my adoption of a few ideas from Rolfe King's, Obstacles to Divine Revelation: God and the Reorientation of Human Reason (2008), and Dru Johnson's, Biblical Knowing: A Scriptural Epistemology of Error (2013) ..........................and maybe a few older points adopted from Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.

Whatever the case may be, we'd all know a bona-fide, Cecil B. DeMille type miracle if we saw it. And that's not what's going on in the world right now. There are plenty of signs of the presence of a Devil, however.

Pommer said:

You must have a great deal of faith to believe in a God that doesn’t do miracles, (anymore).

Click to expand...

A bit of extra perspective as someone who believed without any thought of miracle, it certainly didn't seem to be so. My faith was not so intense and still I believed as had my ancestors for centuries without any apparent miracles. It was sustained by my trust in the belief of others and the promise of salvation. There was nothing in my life that suggested otherwise. The people in my "faith community" were pragmatic, rural Catholics who live as if "God helps those who help themselves (or others". I'm sure there was a lot of variety about belief in post-biblical miracles, angels, and demons, but my own belief that none of them were real didn't seem out of place. (After all the ones that were investigated kept turning out to be frauds or delusions.)