Tell 5 reasons why your way is good

[agua]

Sounds to me like your own understanding is involved in all these processes.


Ah yes, "born again" - I forgot.

You misundetstood Yes Born again, it's the only way to see the Kingdom of God.

 

[quatona]

You misundetstood Yes Born again, it's the only way to see the Kingdom of God.

You must have it all right...after all, you say you have it all right.

 

[agua]

You must have it all right...after all, you say you have it all right.

Give the lad a ad hominem badge

 

[grasping the after wind]

I do not think "my way" is good. My way is selfish and self centered. That is why I do not trust my way and would attempt to take up the way of Christ. His way is love. I not only do not have all the answers but I lack many of the questions as well. What I see is that the way of my flesh and what I see of the desires of the physical world bring unhappiness, destruction , depression, greed, envy etc. while the way of Christ has led me to find a peace that surpasses all human understanding. That is why I reject my way in favor of his way. I will not take time here to disparage the way of others I am what I am and not someone else so I cannot honestly say what is or is not right for anyone but myself. I know what brings joy, peace and happiness to me and what does not.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You said you had your own understanding, as a Christian. This implies you trusted your own understanding, which appears to be incorrect.

Yes, I had my own theological understanding, in the same way that you have your own theological understanding.

Yes you have said this before.

Had to clarify. The message did not appear to be clear enough in the first instance.

Do you have a particular doctrine of mine you'd like to refute;

Is it possible that you are wrong about your understanding of Yahweh, in any respect?

or are you ad hominem attacking me again, because it's simpler ?

Again, please review the definition of an ad hominem.

 

[quatona]

Give the lad a ad hominem badge

When your own argument boils down to an appeal to your own authority there isn´t much left than to dispute your authority.
Look up "ad hominem", btw. If you don´t even get such simple things right, I don´t see much reason to believe in your infallible interpretation of scripture.
You dispute the accuracy of other person´s ability to understand things correctly, and when your own understanding is question, you start crying "ad hominem". Give me a break.

 

[agua]

Yes, I had my own theological understanding, in the same way that you have your own theological understanding.

Had to clarify. The message did not appear to be clear enough in the first instance.
Is it possible that you are wrong about your understanding of Yahweh, in any respect?
Again, please review the definition of an ad hominem.

We have been over all these points several times before, you'll need to refer to the previous conversations. If you like you may ask them again and refer back to this post, I will make a link of it, for your future reference.

Your logical fallacy is ad hominem

 

[agua]

quatona

When your own argument boils down to an appeal to your own authority there isn´t much left than to dispute your authority.
Look up "ad hominem", btw. If you don´t even get such simple things right, I don´t see much reason to believe in your infallible interpretation of scripture.
You dispute the accuracy of other person´s ability to understand things correctly, and when your own understanding is question, you start crying "ad hominem". Give me a break.

Your logical fallacy is ad hominem

A kit kat for you ?

 

[quatona]

Your logical fallacy is ad hominem

A kit kat for you ?

"You attacked your opponent´s character or personal traits..."
Could you point me to the post in which I attacked your character or your personality?

..."in an attempt to undermine their argument."
Which argument? You had no argument - all you had were appeals to your own expertise and authority.

 

[Paradoxum]

I have before attempted to gain your understanding of Yahweh's character etc, as well, and have noticed an incorrect understanding of scripture is common in "ex Christians."

Was your church group immotal soul/ eternal punishment of the wicked etc ?

I will warn you again Archaeopteryx if our conversation falls into the usual poor communication it will be brief.

Do you think all ex-Christians have an incorrect understanding of scripture?

It's not as if all Christians agree anyway.

 

[Paradoxum]

It seems to me that surprisingly many people who have lost their faith, didn't want it to happen. I've known somehow at least two persons who both said the same that they would have (and to certain extent, still would) been glad having their Christian faith, but it turned out to not be possible for them anymore. I take their word for it.

Many people lose faith not because they dislike their faith, but because their faith becomes unjustifiable.

I wanted to believe, and even once prayed for God to take my free will and make me believe. But I didn't see enough evidence or reason to believe in God. Also the world seems very godless.

I am aware of normal secular explanations of mystical phenomenons. Personally I find it important to not completly reject secular explanations for things, and to keep them in mind. Even if I believe in real mystical phenomenon, being aware of psychological factors makes for healthier mysticism, I believe. I see no reason to be dualistic on these things, I think to some degree, it's always a mix of real and imagined things.

I think it's good that you keep that in mind. Why do you think your beliefs and experiences are not explainable by psychology?

Not really, since I don't see what good would come out of that in this context. It's not like you're going to believe my explanations or I'm going to believe yours.

Well maybe you have some interesting experience.

And even if I some day wanted my head probed for the possiblity that I might be nuts, I would anyways prefer to do it with nice, professional psychologist while sitting on a comfortable couch rather than with online lynch mob with ideological agenda.

I don't think you're nuts. I think it's more likely that normal psychology can lead to many religious and spiritual experiences.

In someones own life that kind of solutions might be possible. But I was talking about the world in larger sense. I don't want to fight the windmills, so to speak. I rather focus on figuring out some way that works for myself. I don't want to try to change the world.

Well I'm happy to try to change the world (or at least the western world)... though obviously not on my own.

I've addressed this before with you Paradoxum, I'm sure and we didn't get to the bottom of who you perceived Yahweh is.

What do you mean by 'who he is'?

Which Church doctrines did you follow ?

I was a conservative, evangelical, charasmatic for much of the time... if that helps. Though my beliefs did change somewhat.

1. Were you eternal punishment for the wicked ?

I believed in some sort of hell.

2. Were you immortality of the soul ?

Yes, though my understanding of the soul and eternal life changed as I got older.

3. Did you understand how Yahweh presents Himself to humans ?

Really vaguely, almost as if he doesn't exist?

That's a vague question.

It's vital to understand Yahweh's character to know Him.

So you have to know him before you know him?

I think this may stem from an incorrect understanding of Yahweh and His character. Not necessarily though it could simply be rebellion, too.

How would understand what you claim to be his character help? I don't think there's any reason to believe Yahweh exists.

 

[Paradoxum]

Or it could be that she, like many former believers, examined her religious beliefs closely and found that there was insufficient reason to continue believing. Why is that possibility almost always ignored? It's always pinned down to rebellion or not being a good enough Christian. Perhaps the problem isn't with Paradoxum, but with the religion she left behind.

It's annoying when people don't take former faith seriously.

 

[SteveB28]

I also do not require 5 reasons to support my world view - just one is sufficient. And I have unabashedly lifted this from someone more erudite than myself.

I wish to maximise the correlation between my understandings and the realities of my world - in other words, to embrace as many true things and to reject as many false or unsupported things as possible.

 

[KEBO12345]

Hi all,

I am a panpsychist and amateur modern mystic.
Guess that makes me a post modern philosopher.

1. My quest is knowledge. It is the only thing we can add to ourselves.
2. Panpsychism is the most reasonable explanation for causation and the complexity we
see.
3. With out understanding ourselves, how can we understand anything with context,
outside of our shadow?
4 There is no good or bad in our actuality...
All information is neutral. What is....is best and perfect. if it were not perfect it
could not be. While good and bad are metaphoric subjective labels used to
differentiate our conscious minds from others and the world. It helps to measure our
differences.
5 However there is wickedness created from the same minds under the good and bad
spell of duality (separation), which is very real. Hate begets hate.
6. Everything is made out of Love. Everything wants to be really really Loved and
everything wants to really really Love. We are all looking but remain blinded by
our robot minds to this great mystery of being - about what Love really is?,
(and about what and who we are).

 

[JackofSpades]

Why do you think your beliefs and experiences are not explainable by psychology?

Reason number one is that it's not limited to things inside my head, there have been some degree of physical phenomenons too.

Reason number two, which is actually for me the more important one is that it's really about paradigm. After losing faith in secularism, so to speak, it just makes more sense in every way to explain some things spiritually, even if that explanation might be very vague.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We have been over all these points several times before, you'll need to refer to the previous conversations. If you like you may ask them again and refer back to this post, I will make a link of it, for your future reference.

So no answer to my question, not even in the way of clarification? How predictable.

Your logical fallacy is ad hominem

Again, please review the definition of ad hominem. It helps to make sure you're using the right word.

 

[agua]

How would understand what you claim to be his character help? I don't think there's any reason to believe Yahweh exists.

This sorta makes any discussion about Yahweh's character problematic, I think. The point I was attempting to address was what you believed Yahweh's character was while you believed ( if you did ).

No problem; I understand it will be difficult to remember what you once thought Yahweh's characteristics were, since you now believe He doesn't exist.

 

[agua]

quatona

"You attacked your opponent´s character or personal traits..."
Could you point me to the post in which I attacked your character or your personality?

..."in an attempt to undermine their argument."
Which argument? You had no argument - all you had were appeals to your own expertise and authority.
​

"You must have it all right...after all, you say you have it all right."
​

Ad hominem.

Archaeopteryx

you seem to be unable (or unwilling) to even admit the mere possibility that you could be wrong about anything. __________________
​

Ad hominem.

People think that by being subtle ( suggesting a person is flawed because he thinks he's never wrong.) they may ad hominem attack unnoticed.

It's a simple and subtle tactic debaters use when frustrated. Nice attempt at feigned injury though, I give you 3 out of 10

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ad hominem.



Ad hominem.

People think that by being subtle ( suggesting a person is flawed because he thinks he's never wrong.) they may ad hominem attack unnoticed.

It's a simple and subtle tactic debaters use when frustrated. Nice attempt at feigned injury though, I give you 3 out of 10

1. An observation about someone is not an ad hominem if it is based on evidence (e.g., past interactions with said person). 2. I gave you the opportunity to clarify your position, but you declined, so I can only go by my previous observation based on past interactions.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ad hominem.