08 Sep 08
Originally posted by black beetleWhere's all this coming from? More than 50% of this is not something I subscribe to and something you are putting on to me that does not belong to me. I must have touched some nerve somewhere.
We had an open conversation regarding the quote of epi: "The life of virtue one is capable of in one's own power cannot hold a candle to what the power of God is able to produce in the heart of a born-again believer."
I firmly believe that this quote is merely a profound theological, illogical stupidity and I showed it to you asap-but you are so ful ...[text shortened]... he other "Chosen Christians", to enjoy your superb righteousness and virtue, dear KM.
This is the problem with Atheists sometimes , they talk the talk of being objective and rational but when the time comes they resort to strawmen and twisted images of past "religionists" they have met. Intellectually with their left hand they see themselves as objective but the right hand has such a big agenda that they just have it in for religion.
If you want to froth at the mouth against "religionists" then go for it , but you will have forfeited your right to be seen as objective and unbiased.
I think you may be in danger of teaching what you most need to learn. It is you that is being discriminatory if you cannot stop putting words into my mouth.
08 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterAre you serious, KM? You do not remember our discussion over here, in this thread, starting from the third page of this thread, regarding a specific quote of epi?
Where's all this coming from? More than 50% of this is not something I subscribe to and something you are putting on to me that does not belong to me. I must have touched some nerve somewhere.
This is the problem with Atheists sometimes , they talk the talk of being objective and rational but when the time comes they resort to strawmen and twisted ...[text shortened]... arn. It is you that is being discriminatory if you cannot stop putting words into my mouth.
08 Sep 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasWell, there should’ve been a wink with that “QED” [ 😉 ]—but you got the point of my superficial substitution, I think. 🙂
I don't subscribe to subjectivism nor to the Coherence theory of truth. Both seem self-contradictory and irrelevant. Rejecting the subject-object, knower-known dualism merely introduces a linguistic confusion. Thus, your finding it insightful to disregard the significance or relevance of being born again according to the bible.
I reject your QED. 🙂
I don't subscribe to subjectivism nor to the Coherence theory of truth.
My bad! I meant correspondence theory!
Rejecting the subject-object, knower-known dualism merely introduces a linguistic confusion.
It may introduce linguistic confusion, but that should not be confused with “ontological” confusion (dualism, per se). I offer an example—
________________________________
WORD
________________________________
Now that word “WORD” consists physically of a group of marks against a white background (screen/page). Sp we have the dualisms black-on-white, letter-group-on-page, etc. Now, take all the white space away. Then show me the letters, how they are grouped to form a word.
—Simply substituting yellow for white would be the equivalent of a semantic sleight-of-hand, and no more.
The point is that figure-ground are inseparably joined in one gestalt. If you want to try something like Buber’s “I-You” and “I-It” formulation, that might be okay as long as you treat them as inseparably hyphened pairs—but, what then is the ground for each pair?
If your word-page dualism makes you think you can remove the page and still see the word—or remove my face and still see my smile, or remove the ocean and still identify the gulfstream—then that is confused.
Now, if the theological dualism of God on the one hand, and World on the other, makes any sense, what is the ground against each can be identified? Against which both can be identified?
Thus, your finding it insightful to disregard the significance or relevance of being born again according to the bible.
Am I missing something? I don’t see how that follows from anything that I said, nor anything that you said. Once again, I could simply mock-back something like: “Thus your finding it insightful to disregard the significance and relevance of satori according to Zen Buddhism.”
Neither claiming such significance, nor claiming that its significance derives from someone else saying so (bible, sutra, Paul or Huang-Po), demonstrates that it is in fact significant.
It is not the significance or the relevance of the experience of “being born again” (which, by the way is a concept found across religions, and is older than the NT version)—at least if that is identified with metanoia. But then, I see metanoia as pretty close analog to satori, qua experience! It is the conclusions that you draw, and how you seem to argue that the experience somehow confirms those conclusions, that I have argued with you. To be fair, I could be wrong about whatever metaphysical conclusions I draw as well. Just as the fact precedes any of our truth-claims about it (and the concepts we form to assert those claims), the experience is prior to our subsequent conceptualizing and speculating about it.
One difference that is between us here is that I view satori as a perfectly natural experience, whereas you view the Christian analog (however you otherwise treat that, and thus how close you see the analog as being) as deriving from some exoteric, supernatural source. Therefore, I have the advantage of being able to suggest to people how they might go about realizing themselves-in/of-the-world as a perfectly natural—“recollection”, if you will, that has simply been buried under years of habitual conceptual overlay. Therefore, I can offer an open-minded test akin to saying, “Stand on one foot”, without anyone having to believe anything (before or after) about the how’s and why’s and source of their being able to stand on one foot.
A metaphor: In the course of my trying and failing to stand on one foot, one day I stumble and fall, and when I get up—it is at that moment that I am for the first time able to stand on one foot? And so I conclude that, to stand on one foot, one must everytime first stumble and fall down . . .
_________________________________
Now, I have never claimed that my life is in any way richer, fuller or “better” than yours because of what I believe. Such a statement would be fatuous—at least unless I know you, and how you live on a day-to-day basis, quite intimately. For all I know, your experience of born-again/metanoia adds the same richness of dimension (or more, or less) to your life as my experiences do to mine.
08 Sep 08
Originally posted by black beetleI think KM thought we were adressing either him or "religionsts" generally. His views may be different from Epi's here. On the other hand, Epi may have just been a bit sloppy there...
Are you serious, KM? You do not remember our discussion over here, in this thread, starting from the third page of this thread, regarding a specific quote of epi?
08 Sep 08
Originally posted by vistesdI understand your point my friend vistesd, but my whole hypothesis regarding this matter was very clearly established and with the proper dialogical form and technique. Our friend KM could at any point carify his opinion and thus keep hiself separated from epi instead of answering to me the way he did, pushing me to show him that such an attitude is pure discrimination and all that jazz.
I think KM thought we were adressing either him or "religionsts" generally. His views may be different from Epi's here. On the other hand, Epi may have just been a bit sloppy there...
So here I am! In case our friend KM missed some of my quotes I am ready to start with him too this conversation again. You know I never have hard feelings and that I am always ready to change my opinion should one proves rationally that I am wrong; my opinions are constantly changed afterall because I rebel against myself every day!
08 Sep 08
Originally posted by vistesdBeetle was definitely addressing me I feel . if you re-read his post there's no other way of reading it.
I think KM thought we were adressing either him or "religionsts" generally. His views may be different from Epi's here. On the other hand, Epi may have just been a bit sloppy there...
08 Sep 08
Originally posted by black beetleRe-read what you post said and you will see it was directed at me. Now , don't misunderstand me here , I'm not boo-hooing into my tea or anything. I'm not even taking offence. I'm just frustrated and disappointed at the poor levels of objectivity you are displaying at the moment.
Are you serious, KM? You do not remember our discussion over here, in this thread, starting from the third page of this thread, regarding a specific quote of epi?
08 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterMy last post was addressing to you allright KM but due to our previous conversation. Kindly please check again our whole discussion from the third page and on. In case you missed some of my quotes or if you misunderstood me, kindly please state it. I don't have hard feelings against you and I always look rather for a consensus or a clear situation regarding one's opinion rather mesisng around. Please go back at page 3 again and check the whole matter out;
Re-read what you post said and you will see it was directed at me. Now , don't misunderstand me here , I'm not boo-hooing into my tea or anything. I'm not even taking offence. I'm just frustrated and disappointed at the poor levels of objectivity you are displaying at the moment.
08 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleI did clearly say that righteousness was not the unique domain of Christians. I do not claim to be more righteous than you and your life might well eclipse mine in some moral aspects.
My last post was addressing to you allright KM but due to our previous conversation. Kindly please check again our whole discussion from the third page and on. In case you missed some of my quotes or if you misunderstood me, kindly please state it. I don't have hard feelings against you and I always look rather for a consensus or a clear situation regar opinion rather mesisng around. Please go back at page 3 again and check the whole matter out;
If you believe in love and truth and honesty then I have little to offer you other than to consider where love actually comes from. I do not have a "christians good - non-christians bad" approach. I think God is doing great things in the lives of people who don't believe in Him and the people who do.
Where I agree with Ephin is that righteousness only comes from God and that nothing can compare to it. I would tend to depart from Ephin somewhat in the idea that this can only occur in Christians.I would say though that a Christian (or indeed a spiritually enlightened person ) is better placed to receive grace and change because they recognise they are but a channel.
( KM- "I also have no difficulty in believing that an Atheist could be more righteous than a Christian. God is working to put His goodness in all of us." )
09 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterFine with your opinion as you state it here. But our conversation had a specific point.
I did clearly say that righteousness was not the unique domain of Christians. I do not claim to be more righteous than you and your life might well eclipse mine in some moral aspects.
If you believe in love and truth and honesty then I have little to offer you other than to consider where love actually comes from. I do not have a "christians good - ...[text shortened]... uld be more righteous than a Christian. God is working to put His goodness in all of us." )
That specific point was -and still is- Epi's quote:
"The life of virtue one is capable of in one's own power cannot hold a candle to what the power of God is able to produce in the heart of a born-again believer."
Here I go again: this quote was backed up from a string of theological arguments, which were posted by Epi to ToO. Well, I said clearly that Epi's opinion, along with the arguments he posted to ToO, was illogical, discriminative and socially dangerous. I expalined clearly my thesis and then, while I was waiting Epi to reply (if he wanted to, of course), I asked you too about your opinion regarding Epi's thesis and its associated arguments.
So we started talking about that specific theological thesis in order to evaluate it as free citizens. Your specific answers regarding this matter don't change the fact that Epi's quote, along with its theological theory behind it, is totally illogical, false and discriminative, and therefore I assumed that you also seem to accept this theological stupidity in the name of your faith.
Then you said that you maybe touched a nerve and you wondered where from came all this etc. All this came, dear KM, from our conversation as you will find it here at this thread, on page 3 and page 4. You touched not a nerve! Instead, you replied to my specific questions with specific answers that they force every rational person to evaluate you as a religionist because they leave no room for any other rational explanation.
You still don't seem to understand that Epi's quote (and its associate arguments) is discriminative. You say that you "...would tend to depart from Ephin somewhat in the idea that this can only occur in Christians" ! Oh thank you so much -but Epi quoted that "The life of virtue one is capable of in one's own power cannot hold a candle to what the power of God is able to produce in the heart of a born-again believer." And this is pure discrimination for reasons that you may find on page 3 and 4 over here.
This is not a conversation anymore, it 's the Day of the Marmott.
09 Sep 08
Originally posted by black beetleI still think that the essence of Ephin's assertion is basically correct in the sense that all righteousness comes from God. He is the source of all goodness and love. He is to love and goodness what the sun is to light and heat. Without the sun there can be no light.
Fine with your opinion as you state it here. But our conversation had a specific point.
That specific point was -and still is- Epi's quote:
"The life of virtue one is capable of in one's own power cannot hold a candle to what the power of God is able to produce in the heart of a born-again believer."
Here I go again: this quote was backed up from a ...[text shortened]... over here.
This is not a conversation anymore, it 's the Day of the Marmott.
What Ephin is saying is regarding "one's" own virtue as compared to God's virtue. For me the person who thinks they can create their own virtue under their own power only is under an illusion. It's like thinking a light bulb can be as good as the sun itself , far better to just reflect the sun.
09 Sep 08
OK KM, I see your point, however this is your interpretation and not the meaning of this specific quote.
When one claims that "The life of virtue one is capable of in one's own power cannot hold a candle to what the power of God is able to produce in the heart of a born-again believer.", the meaning is crystal clear. This crystal clear meaning is that the virtue which can be produced from a non believer cannot be equal to the virtue of somebody which he produces it with the power of God thanks to the fact that he is born-again believer. And it was so profoundly a nonsense that even our friends vistesd and Snow dude expressed their opinion over this exact quote (Snow took not reply from Epi). So I simply asked you if you too believe this theological nonsense, keeping in mind that you already had read the other brilliances of our friend Epi, who explained to us how one can be considered "truly born Christian".
It seems that this miserable atheist will never get a clear reply over this ...complicated issue; for reasons unknown to me you don't give me a straight answer while our friend Epi keeps hiself deep in his kitchen. Mmmiam.
😀
09 Sep 08
Originally posted by black beetleI did say at the beginning if you remember that I broadly agreed with some additions. I would not subscribe exactly to this theology and have my own interpretation , I always said this did I not?
OK KM, I see your point, however this is your interpretation and not the meaning of this specific quote.
When one claims that "The life of virtue one is capable of in one's own power cannot hold a candle to what the power of God is able to produce in the heart of a born-again believer.", the meaning is crystal clear. This crystal clear meaning is th ...[text shortened]... ve me a straight answer while our friend Epi keeps hiself deep in his kitchen. Mmmiam.
😀