@philokalia saidI was not drawing "a very spiteful dichotomy". I was describing the beliefs of one of your fellow Christian ~ whom you could perhaps confront if you think there is something "spiteful" afoot. Write what you want, of course. But you ought to want to write something with a bit more integrity.
Some advice someone once gave me:
How about I write what I want, and you write what you want?
So Suzianne, who tends to say quite provocative things about anything and shoot from the cuff, is the measure of Christian theology now..?
When someone posts low quality stuff, just ignore it.
The musings of Suzianne when she is trying to piss people off are so irrelevant to this.
No offense intended towards Suzianne -- she posts in a very acceptable manner for a forum. She is provocative and interesting. I like her. I am merely saying that this isn't the measure of theology and if you just complain about this post in a thread that could be serious, it'll get you nowhere.
You are above the age of 30, right.
You shouldn't be bothered by this stuff, I think.
@philokalia saidDon't use atheists as proxies through which you express your disagreement with fellow Christians. It makes you seem craven and unprincipled.
So Suzianne, who tends to say quite provocative things about anything and shoot from the cuff, is the measure of Christian theology now..?
When someone posts low quality stuff, just ignore it.
The musings of Suzianne when she is trying to piss people off are so irrelevant to this.
No offense intended towards Suzianne -- she posts in a [i]very acceptable manner f ...[text shortened]... where.
You are above the age of 30, right.
You shouldn't be bothered by this stuff, I think.
Care to elaborate?
I think if someone cites C. S. Lewis, Dr. James White, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, the Pope , Patriarch Kiril, or Bishop Kalistos Ware as an example of what Christians believe... It makes sense. They are well known Christians who have opinions reflective of other Christians.
If someone cites a(n angry?) Suzianne post, and presents it into some thread about pets going into heaven as somehow representative of Christendom... I do not think that that is the best tactic to use.
That's my point.
What's your point?
I am sorry if I "waffled" a bit here.
@philokalia saidYou're a Christian. If you don't agree with Suzianne on the subject of dogs and atheists, tackle her on it. Why are you tackling me? I am not Suzianne and I I'm not a Christian. And I don't share her Christian perspective on dogs and atheists. As far as this community is concerned, she's just as much a "representative" of Christians as you are. Unless you are going to call her out. If you think she is an angry and spiteful Christian then confront her about it, don't confront me. I am not the one espousing Christian ideas.
Care to elaborate?
I think if someone cites C. S. Lewis, Dr. James White, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, the Pope , Patriarch Kiril, or Bishop Kalistos Ware as an example of what Christians believe... It makes sense. They are well known Christians who have opinions reflective of other Christians.
If someone cites a(n angry?) Suzianne post, and presents it into some thread about ...[text shortened]... tactic to use.
That's my point.
What's your point?
I am sorry if I "waffled" a bit here.
@philokalia saidYour go-to informal fallacy ~ Appeal to Authority ~ doesn't work on me. Save it for when you are preaching to the choir.
I think if someone cites C. S. Lewis, Dr. James White, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, the Pope , Patriarch Kiril, or Bishop Kalistos Ware as an example of what Christians believe... It makes sense. They are well known Christians who have opinions reflective of other Christians.
(1) You shouldn't have brought up Suzianne's remarks because they are not actually representative of any Christian position but they come off as angry posts.
(2) That was not an appeal to authority because there was literally no premise I was saying is true just because these authorities said that they were true. This was a misuse of "fallacies."
I was explaining to you what sorts of opinions can be pointed to as representative of Christian beliefs and thoughts. I named famous people and writers who are public intellectuals widely recognized as having correct thoughts on the issue.
Suzianne's off hand & provocative comment about dogs is not something that Theology professors in Notre Dame talk or think about.
Suzianne's off hand & provocative comment about dogs is not something that Christian publsihers are trying to put out there and that John Smith is buying books on.
I can see why you are squirming about this, though:
It certainly does seem a bit silly to dwell on it now, right?
Maybe it's time to drop it.
@philokalia saidShe's a Christian here on a discussion forum testifying about her Christian beliefs ~ and you say I shouldn't have brought them up? If you believe that they are not "representative of any Christian position", perhaps you should take it up with her. I am an agnostic atheist.
You shouldn't have brought up Suzianne's remarks because they are not actually representative of any Christian position but they come off as angry posts.
@philokalia saidI am not interested in your Appeal to Authority. What I am interested in though is how you are trying to use an atheist as a proxy through which to express your disagreement with a fellow Christian. It's interesting to me to witness how a blend of partisanship, religiosity, and ersatz-principle makes some Christians behave.
I was explaining to you what sorts of opinions can be pointed to as representative of Christian beliefs and thoughts. I named famous people and writers who are public intellectuals widely recognized as having correct thoughts on the issue.
@philokalia saidYou should take up what you see as the rightness and wrongness of her Christian beliefs with her, not me.
Suzianne's off hand & provocative comment about dogs is not something that Theology professors in Notre Dame talk or think about. Suzianne's off hand & provocative comment about dogs is not something that Christian publsihers are trying to put out there and that John Smith is buying books on.
@philokalia saidInstead of joining a discussion, you so often resort to 'so and so agrees with me about X' or 'I don't know of any famous people who think Y' or 'people have believed Z for yonks'. These are logical fallacies offered instead of arguments. Why is it you say that dogs don't understand the Christian god figure better than atheists? Because, you say, C.S Lewis didn't write about it - or words to that effect. You operate in the realm of lazy informal fallacies.
That was not an appeal to authority because there was literally no premise I was saying is true just because these authorities said that they were true. This was a misuse of "fallacies."
@philokalia saidIt's not me who is squirming. It is you who is still attacking what a fellow Christian member of this community believes - not directly - but by quibbling with a non-believer. You remind me of the peerlessly craven and "principled" josephw who used to attack sonship's torturer God ideology, not by debating it with sonship directly, but by attacking people who DIDN'T believe it but who stated what the ideology was in the course of debating it with sonship.
I can see why you are squirming about this, though:
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Who here, atheist or otherwise, has told a child (or an adult) their recently deceased pet has gone to heaven?
Once you all wrestle with the matter of pets and get that solved please answer me this?
If it is God's will that people "go to heaven" forever why did Jesus teach His disciples to pray "Your kingdom COME, Your will be done ON EARTH... even as it is in heaven." (See Matthew 6:9-13) .
How come there is the sense of God's kingdom COMING rather than we GOING TO God's kingdom in heaven ?
Someone can help me here after you get the pets in heaven problem solved.
@fmf saidI like to provide information on what I am saying because it leads people back to a clear source and context. I think that is polite and due diligence. In some cases, it also provides evidence that this is a common Christian belief and not just something that someone threw out on a web forum (like something about dogs and atheists in some snippy comment).
Instead of joining a discussion, you so often resort to 'so and so agrees with me about X' or 'I don't know of any famous people who think Y' or 'people have believed Z for yonks'. These are logical fallacies offered instead of arguments. Why is it you say that dogs don't understand the Christian god figure better than atheists? Because, you say, C.S Lewis didn't write about it - or words to that effect. You operate in the realm of lazy informal fallacies.
If someone says "They say trying to understand the trinity is impossible, it's too grand of a concept," it might go in one ear and fall out the other. But if someone says the above and says "St. Augustine compared this to trying to fit the ocean into a bucket," it's not only a good parallel but it is easier to remember the concept and easier to know where to look for more relevant information.
You see what I mean?