Confidence

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
YOU seem to be arguing just to argue which seems to be how most of our discussions to end up. It's obvious that you didn't understand the second post, yet you still seem bent on saving your argument however absurdly. What's more, based on your responses, it seems you still don't understand it. Not only that, it seems you didn't understand 667joe's subsequ ...[text shortened]... es that one might stick. Comes a point where the only recourse one has is to walk away.

Lots of waffle.

since Christians think Jews and Muslims don't acknowledge the correctness of the standards for salvation recognized by Jews and Muslims, Christians think they are WRONG and therefore all your other arguments are moot.

But I haven't denied that there is disagreement. Of course there is. There is very fundamental disagreement. My primary point of contention here has been that 667joe's lacks nuance: to simply say that they disagree fails to acknowledge that there are significant points of agreement, perhaps even more agreement than disagreement. I can't see what is controversial about that.

My second point has concerned whether Christians believe that Jews and Muslims are ultimately wrong. Now you are using a notion of 'ultimately' that is completely novel to me. If a Christian were to say that Jews are ultimately wrong, I would infer that he believes that Jews will be condemned to hell or minimally denied salvation (as JW's hold), not that Jews and Muslims hold a contrary view of salvation (as I have said, I deny that Jews or Muslims have such a notion of salvation.) I do not believe either 667joe or rwingett meant the latter and you have failed to justify why that is a plausible interpretation. Perhaps they can clarify themselves. Were they talking about salvation or merely soteriology?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Lots of waffle.

[b] since Christians think Jews and Muslims don't acknowledge the correctness of the standards for salvation recognized by Jews and Muslims, Christians think they are WRONG and therefore all your other arguments are moot.

But I haven't denied that there is disagreement. Of course there is. There is very fundamental disagreement. aps they can clarify themselves. Were they talking about salvation or merely soteriology?[/b]

Like I was saying...

And good luck to you.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Like I was saying...

And good luck to you.

Evasiveness once again. This is what you always do when you are knowingly wrong. I have summarised my arguments above and you can address them if you feel capable of mounting a coherent objection. But clearly you are only interested in arguing for the sake of it -- rather than actually discuss the extent of agreement between Jews, Christians and Muslims, you simply want to debate whether I have accurately interpreted one of 667joe's idiotic posts.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Evasiveness once again. This is what you always do when you are knowingly wrong. I have summarised my arguments above and you can address them if you feel capable of mounting a coherent objection. But clearly you are only interested in arguing for the sake of it -- rather than actually discuss the extent of agreement between Jews, Christians and Muslims, you simply want to debate whether I have accurately interpreted one of 667joe's idiotic posts.

Seeing as the reason that I responded to your post was because you didn't seem to understand 667joe's "idiotic post", naturally I see that as point of the "debate". Seems fitting that you called his post "idiotic" - like a child does about something he doesn't understand.

Like I was saying...

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seeing as the reason that I responded to your post was because you didn't seem to understand 667joe's "idiotic post", naturally I see that as point of the "debate". Seems fitting that you called his post "idiotic" - like a child does about something he doesn't understand.

Like I was saying...

I quite understand 667joe's post. Unfortunately, you don't seem to quite get the point I was making. There's no need to make snide, juvenile comments on my intelligence either.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Evasiveness once again. This is what you always do when you are knowingly wrong. I have summarised my arguments above and you can address them if you feel capable of mounting a coherent objection. But clearly you are only interested in arguing for the sake of it -- rather than actually discuss the extent of agreement between Jews, Christians and Muslims, you simply want to debate whether I have accurately interpreted one of 667joe's idiotic posts.

Coming from someone like you, calling my posts idiotic is a compliment. If Jews, Christians and Muslims agreed on the basics, there would be only one religion. Heck, even the Christians have dozens sects because they can't even agree among them selves. There are also different sects among Jews and Muslims each certain of their own rectitude. If am an idiot, you are pompous and quite full of your self.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I quite understand 667joe's post. Unfortunately, you don't seem to quite get the point I was making. There's no need to make snide, juvenile comments on my intelligence either.

You make snide comments about others all the time!

Originally posted by 667joe
Coming from someone like you, calling my posts idiotic is a compliment. If Jews, Christians and Muslims agreed on the basics, there would be only one religion. Heck, even the Christians have dozens sects because they can't even agree among them selves. There are also different sects among Jews and Muslims each certain of their own rectitude. If am an idiot, you are pompous and quite full of your self.

If Jews, Christians and Muslims agreed on the basics, there would be only one religion.

Not necessarily. There are multiple reasons for division. I outlined these in a previous post. I indicated that there are broader cultural factors, ethnic, racial and even liturgical. I have also conceded that there are serious philosophical and theological causes for division. I have not said that there is absolute agreement nor have I said that agreement is ubiquitously mutual -- while the Catholic Church generously acknowledges shared beliefs, Muslims and Jews may not. The point is that it is misleading to just say that these three religions disagree with one another and it is certainly wrong that all Christians think Jews and Muslims ultimately wrong.

Originally posted by 667joe
You make snide comments about others all the time!

Yes, I do.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Yes, I do.

Finally we are in complete 100% agreement!

Originally posted by 667joe
Finally we are in complete 100% agreement!

Good for you. You should be proud to be right about something for a change.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I quite understand 667joe's post. Unfortunately, you don't seem to quite get the point I was making. There's no need to make snide, juvenile comments on my intelligence either.

Not only didn't you understand 667joe's post, evidently you also failed to understand that the comment was about your immaturity rather than about your intelligence. The fact is that you didn't understand his post as was previously shown. The fact that you continue to be defensive about it is yet further evidence of your immaturity. You didn't understand his post and have made some foolish comments because of this. Why don't you just admit it?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Not only didn't you understand 667joe's post, evidently you also failed to understand that the comment was about your immaturity rather than about your intelligence. The fact is that you didn't understand his post as was previously shown. The fact that you continue to be defensive about it is yet further evidence of your immaturity. You didn't understand his post and have made some foolish comments because of this. Why don't you just admit it?

I did understand his post. It really isn't that difficult. He said that Jews and Christians and Muslims disagree with one another. I get that. I never said that 667joe thinks that each believes the other is completely wrong. If you had in fact followed the thread, you would see my criticism was about nuance: to simply say that they disagree might misleadingly suggest that there are not significant points of agreement. I don't see what could be controversial about that. Please demonstrate where I have misunderstood him.

And there doesn't need to be comments on maturity either. I have never been able to engage in any sort of debate with you. Any discussion immediately devolves onto a personal attack on my character. You seem fundamentally unable to move beyond stating your first argument.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I did understand his post. It really isn't that difficult. He said that Jews and Christians and Muslims disagree with one another. I get that. I never said that 667joe thinks that each believes the other is completely wrong. If you had in fact followed the thread, you would see my criticism was about nuance: to simply say that they disagree mi ck on my character. You seem fundamentally unable to move beyond stating your first argument.

Like usual you ignore the facts in order to make arguments no matter how absurd.

As I said earlier:

The key statement is "Christians think Jews and Muslims are wrong". They do...you can't seem to wrap your mind around the simple fact that since Christians think Jews and Muslims don't acknowledge the correctness of the standards for salvation recognized by Jews and Muslims, Christians think they are WRONG.[/b]

That's all that was asserted and the assertion is true.

If you understood 667joe's post and your point was always about "nuance" you wouldn't have made these statements:

You are guilty of serious generalisation here... I mean, seriously, when the past two popes have prayed in synagogues joined with rabbis, you couldn't really suggest that all Christians think Jews are categorically wrong...What I wanted to refute here was the argument in 667Joe's original post that the three Abrahamic faiths have 'no confidence' in one another and the implication that each believes the other to be seriously in error

The fact is that you've misrepresented the facts in order to try to "save" your argument. Not only about these issues but with others as well. As you've also done on other threads.

The fact that you continue to do this, is yet further evidence of your immaturity. You didn't understand his post and have made some foolish comments because of this. Why don't you just admit it? When someone repeatedly acts like a child as you have here and on other threads, all one can do is point it out and hope that the "child" reflects on it and decides to grow up.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Like usual you ignore the facts in order to make arguments no matter how absurd.

As I said earlier:
[quote]The key statement is "Christians think Jews and Muslims are wrong". They do...you can't seem to wrap your mind around the simple fact that since Christians think Jews and Muslims don't acknowledge the correctness of the standards for salvation r int it out and hope that the "child" reflects on it and decides to grow up.

As I said earlier:
The key statement is "Christians think Jews and Muslims are wrong". They do...you can't seem to wrap your mind around the simple fact that since Christians think Jews and Muslims don't acknowledge the correctness of the standards for salvation recognized by Jews and Muslims, Christians think they are WRONG.

And, as I have already said, no one mentioned anything about the 'standards for salvation'. This is your own invention. The question was whether a Christian believes a Jew can be saved, not whether they agree that a Jew has the correct standard of salvation. I have no idea where you got that. And as I have said, Jews and Muslims do not have such a conception as salvation. This concept presupposes uniquely Christian notions such as original sin, redemption and the eschaton. It makes no sense to ask a Christian to recognise a Jew's standard of salvation.

You are guilty of [b]serious generalisation here... I mean, seriously, when the past two popes have prayed in synagogues joined with rabbis, you couldn't really suggest that all Christians think Jews are categorically wrong...What I wanted to refute here was the argument in 667Joe's original post that the three Abrahamic faiths have 'no confidence' in one another and the implication that each believes the other to be [b]seriously in error[/b][/b][/b]

You are cherrypicking here. You have simply grabbed quotes out of their original context without the attendant explanations and clarifications. Anyway, I don't see anything controversial here. 667joe is guilty of generalisation. As another poster noted earlier, only fundamentalists insist that there are differences -- this in a sense is true. I know quite a few Christians who tell me that there is essentially no tension between different religions, barring liturgical and spiritual practice. When I was discussing the Popes, it was only to Rwingett -- by categorically wrong, I had only really meant 'ultimately' wrong.

I stand by the other two comments. I think anyone coming to this thread would have sufficient skills of inference to understand 667joe's point. The thread is called 'confidence' and the first post is about how the different churches have no confidence in one another. So when he mentions how the three Abhrahamic religions disagree with one another, I don't think he expects us to view this statement as a pleasant non sequitur. We are dealing with implication here.

The fact that you continue to do this, is yet further evidence of your immaturity. You didn't understand his post and have made some foolish comments because of this. Why don't you just admit it? When someone repeatedly acts like a child as you have here and on other threads, all one can do is point it out and hope that the "child" reflects on it and decides to grow up.

No. It really is a sign of your immaturity. You barged into this thread, some time after the discussion had ceased, simply to reprimand my supposed misinterpretation. You were not interested in the debate at hand or exploring anything further -- you simply wanted to have the opportunity to condemn me, really on quite technical points. That's pretty immature but it's not the first time you have posted simply to criticise me while having no interest in the debate at all.