Ask a Complicated Ecumenical Existentialist Universalist Christian Stuff

[BL2KTN]

Last I checked, answering "yes" or "no" indicates a response to a question. You said "no", opening up a response by me based on your response. Help me if I'm confused on this much.

I clarified I had not said the positions you were inventing for me, which I have done repeatedly because you have repeatedly invented such positions rather than answering clear, concise questions.

Are you going to answer the original questions or not?

 

[bhsmte]

Are you saying any monotheistic conception is really polytheistic because there are different conceptions?

It would appear he is simply asking; when you mention God, what exactly are you referring to? So many different Gods, so many different traits are connected and implied with Gods, that it is important, to know what the specific definition of this God is. God by itself, is a generic term, that requires some clarification.

If I refer to a professional athlete existing, am I talking about a; baseball player, a football player, a hockey player, etc., etc.. Also, what position does this athlete play? What traits does this athlete have (fast, slow, strong, smart, big, small) where I can identify him, when I see him play?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

"E" represents error , like when we try to divixde "x / 0" on a calculator. Maybe the same is like whan we try to compare somehting to God (...I know that theologians talk of analogy of proportion sand of kind though) or look for the creator within the creation? I am remembering Godels theorem and computers, turings theorem or something. Maybe you can add a thought or two ...

 

[Received]

I clarified I had not said the positions you were inventing for me, which I have done repeatedly because you have repeatedly invented such positions rather than answering clear, concise questions.

Are you going to answer the original questions or not?

Apparently not.

 

[Received]

It would appear he is simply asking; when you mention God, what exactly are you referring to? So many different Gods, so many different traits are connected and implied with Gods, that it is important, to know what the specific definition of this God is. God by itself, is a generic term, that requires some clarification.

If I refer to a professional athlete existing, am I talking about a; baseball player, a football player, a hockey player, etc., etc.. Also, what position does this athlete play? What traits does this athlete have (fast, slow, strong, smart, big, small) where I can identify him, when I see him play?

Hence the necessary two possibilities:

1) Monotheistic conception is really monotheistic with multiple interpretations.

Or

2) Monotheistic conception really isn't monotheistic but is rather polytheistic because of multiple interpretations.

Asking the question like I did isn't an attempt at being clever. It's an attempt at logic. Either/or. BlueLightning can take it as an attempt at being clever, or whatever, but doing so misses the logic of the post and goes off the rails by hitting ad hominems. That said, I can see how it sounds like I'm trying to set my interlocutor up, but I'm really not, because again: either/or.

 

[BL2KTN]

Apparently not.

Why?

Asking the question like I did isn't an attempt at being clever. It's an attempt at logic. Either/or. BlueLightning can take it as an attempt at being clever, or whatever, but doing so misses the logic of the post and goes off the rails by hitting ad hominems. That said, I can see how it sounds like I'm trying to set my interlocutor up, but I'm really not, because again: either/or.

It isn't an attempt at logic when you refuse to answer the original questions, instead ask me if I'm asking a different question, answer that one different question, then pout when I won't play your game until you answer the original questions I asked. Anybody can see what you are doing. Either answer the questions or know that anybody reading this sees you as dishonest, intentionally or not.

 

[Received]

Why?

We'll get there.

It isn't an attempt at logic when you refuse to answer the original questions, instead ask me if I'm asking a different question, answer that one different question, then pout when I won't play your game until you answer the original questions I asked. Anybody can see what you are doing. Either answer the questions or know that anybody reading this sees you as dishonest, intentionally or not.

Anybody not including myself?

Yes, it is an attempt at logic to summarize the problem and put it in question form. If it helps you any more, just take the question away and rephrase it as a statement. If you do this, though, you're being awfully picky about a question mark.

 

[bhsmte]

Hence the necessary two possibilities:

1) Monotheistic conception is really monotheistic with multiple interpretations.

Or

2) Monotheistic conception really isn't monotheistic but is rather polytheistic because of multiple interpretations.

Asking the question like I did isn't an attempt at being clever. It's an attempt at logic. Either/or. BlueLightning can take it as an attempt at being clever, or whatever, but doing so misses the logic of the post and goes off the rails by hitting ad hominems. That said, I can see how it sounds like I'm trying to set my interlocutor up, but I'm really not, because again: either/or.

Monotheistic is also a very generic term, would you not agree?

I completely understand, that peeling back the layers is not comfortable for those who believe in a certain God, for obvious reasons. I can respect that and can walk away still respecting one's desire to have faith in a God. On the other hand, I am quite certain, you are also aware why this process of peeling back the layers, can provide a significant amount of doubt in others.

 

[Received]

Monotheistic is also a very generic term, would you not agree?

Generic in the sense that "just theism" is generic? Sure.

 

[BL2KTN]

We'll get there.

Given that your tactic has involved not getting there while pretending to, I'd say it's doubtful.

Anybody not including myself?

It's almost certain that you also know what you are doing.

Yes, it is an attempt at logic to summarize the problem and put it in question form. If it helps you any more, just take the question away and rephrase it as a statement. If you do this, though, you're being awfully picky about a question mark.

There were no problems, only questions. You continue to fail to answer them, and you continue to have no good reason for doing so. I think you are scared.

 

[Received]

Given that your tactic has involved not getting there while pretending to, I'd say it's doubtful.



It's almost certain that you also know what you are doing.



There were no problems, only questions. You continue to fail to answer them, and you continue to have no good reason for doing so. I think you are scared.

And I think you're swarming with testosterone.

How scared am I?

 

[BL2KTN]

And I think you're swarming with testosterone.

How scared am I?

I may be, but that has little to do with there being pages now in this thread of you trying to divert from answering my original, basic questions. And I don't know how scared of answering those questions you are, except that you're scared enough to keep this going.

 

[Received]

I may be, but that has little to do with there being pages now in this thread of you trying to divert from answering my original, basic questions. And I don't know how scared of answering those questions you are, except that you're scared enough to keep this going.

What would it be like for you not to make these endless ad hominems and presuppositions without evidence (e.g., "divert", knowing full well I simply responded to how you answered the question)? How would you feel?

 

[BL2KTN]

Yawn. Let me know when you answer the questions.

 

[Davian]

...
There were no problems, only questions. You continue to fail to answer them, and you continue to have no good reason for doing so. I think you are scared.

link

 

[BL2KTN]

It appears I inspire Davianophobia in him.

 

[Received]

It appears I inspire Davianophobia in him.

You have to admit it has more of a catch than BlueLightningTNophobia.

And remember the Davianophobia was inspired by Davian not taking showers.

 

[BL2KTN]

So ready to answer those questions?

 

[bhsmte]

It appears I inspire Davianophobia in him.

Here is the bottom line, IMO.

I have been on this site for 2 years and have seen all kinds of justification for God beliefs and have watched professional apologists debate non believers online and have seen just about every argument there is.

At the end of the day, when a believer is pressed on justification for belief in the specific God they believe in, it doesn't get pretty. The more layers you peel back and the more the believer tries to explain some rational justification for their belief, the wheels slowly start coming off.

Belief in any God, is a faith belief and when some try to take it beyond that; "I have a rational/logical reason to believe in my God, it never goes well. In that sense, some questions are hard to answer, because they risk exposing the flaws in the belief and that is not pleasant.

Instead of trying to lean on supposed rational explanations for God, looking to the philosophers that have attempted the same, it is always best to just say; I believe what I do on faith and personal experience and let it go at that.

 

[Davian]

You have to admit it has more of a catch than BlueLightningTNophobia.

And remember the Davianophobia was inspired by Davian not taking showers.

That joke doesn't fly twice.