The Gospel of Jesus vs The Gospel of Paul

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
I wonder what you would do if there was a debate where each side was supposed to speak for 7 minutes, alternating, and fill their seven minutes with persuasion and arguments.

I would speak for 7 minutes and expand upon what I laid out on page 18.

Originally posted by @fmf
You don't agree with the view I have put forward then ~ and you believe its flaws are rooted in personal flaws I have? i.e. Not much integrity, not very honest, and not very brave [edit: also not honourable, not courageous]. Is that right?

I don't know anything about your personality.

I only know the argument that you present is flawed, and it seems to fit a pattern of flawed characteristics common to secular humanist arguments, and I am also critical of your posting style.

SUrely, you can distinguish all of these nuances. You wouldn't think I was foolish enough to condemn my friend FMF as having a flawed personality when I do not even know my friend FMF very well.

I'm honestly sure you m ust be a more thorough, more kind, and gentle-souled person than I. I'd never try to insult your personality. I am the greatest sinner of all. You're just here trying to shore up our arguments -- but I am sure that, in this regard, your arguments and attitude towards the concept of a spirit as a materialist are deeply flawed.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Not honorable, not courageous, not really even worthy of being called a debate or a discussion.

You are free to back away from or ignore the point of view I have expressed at any point you want.

Originally posted by @fmf
And do you or do you not perceive them as individuals each with "individual spirit" as I have defined it?

The answre was obviously implied when Is aid "If I was a materialist."

Do you honestly think there is some Nicene creed upholding Christian position that asserts normal people are soulless? Of course not.

Do you think that sounds like a persuasive or common position?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
I don't know anything about your personality.

I only know the argument that you present is flawed, and it seems to fit a pattern of flawed characteristics common to secular humanist arguments, and I am also critical of your posting style.

SUrely, you can distinguish all of these nuances. You wouldn't think I was fool ...[text shortened]... your arguments and attitude towards the concept of a spirit as a materialist are deeply flawed.

Is there a particular section or point among these ad hominem remarks that you'd like me to address specifically?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Do you honestly think there is some Nicene creed upholding Christian position that asserts normal people are soulless? Of course not.

Which specific thing that I have said does this question-&-answer pertain to?

Originally posted by @fmf
I have defined it [from my point of view] and illustrated how I then apply it and use it to understand the human condition. How is this affected by you saying that, if you "were a materialist, [you] would not use the word spirit"?

One of the most common associations for the word "spirit" is soul. "Spirits" can literally refer to incorporeal bodies.

Of course, one can use it artistically, but can any serious materialist insist that people ahve 'spirits?' That's simply hijacking a religionist's word and re-tooling it for your own purposes, and you'll be able to get away with using it in the public sphere and appealing to people in a less than honest way.

It's ;not courageous or honorable. there's no integrity here.

Psyche & psychology; individual and invidiaulity; persona and personhood; temper and temperament.

The list of possible words goes on.

Why call it a spirit? Only to be disingenuous, I imagine.

Or are you really some terribly soft materialist who likes to do yoga and talk about magnetic fields and chakras in lieu of souls, and that is your spirit? What are you on about? Do enlighten us!

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Why would you believe that very regular people, of very regular means, who fit very regular patterns of behavior for their culture & time, have some kind of 'individual spirit?'

Having read what I have written, do you now understand why I believe all humans - including "very regular people, of very regular means, who fit very regular patterns of behaviour for their culture and time" each have an "individual spirit"?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Of course, one can use it artistically, but can any serious materialist insist that people ahve 'spirits?' That's simply hijacking a religionist's word and re-tooling it for your own purposes, and you'll be able to get away with using it in the public sphere and appealing to people in a less than honest way.

I think my human spirit definition of spirituality lays a sound foundation for an understanding of the human condition and enables explanations to be found for why some people, through their capacity for abstraction and exercise of their unique personhood, arrive at things like humanism and atheism, while others - with more or less the same human spiritual attributes (replete with faculties, potentials and personhood) arrive at things like self-declarations of immortality, religiosity, female genital mutilation believing in reincarnation and the like.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Why call it a spirit? Only to be disingenuous, I imagine.

I am explaining it in my posts.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Or are you really some terribly soft materialist who likes to do yoga and talk about magnetic fields and chakras in lieu of souls, and that is your spirit? What are you on about? Do enlighten us!

I am using the word "spirit" in exactly the way I have defined it. The way I am using it goes some way to explain how, with more or less the same capacities, you can end up believing there is an afterlife while I can end up not believing in one. It is explained by our capacity for abstraction in harness with our individuality. It is explained by our faculties and our personal and unique perspectives. It is explained by the human spirit and the human condition.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
It's ;not courageous or honorable. there's no integrity here.

You can just withdraw at a moment of your choosing.

Originally posted by @fmf
I am using the word "spirit" in exactly the way I have defined it. The way I am using it goes some way to explain how, with more or less the same capacities, you can end up believing there is an afterlife while I can end up not believing in one. It is explained by our capacity for abstraction in harness with our individuality. It is explained by our faculties a ...[text shortened]... r personal and unique perspectives. It is explained by the human spirit and the human condition.

You re such a hypocrite. Why must others conform to your definition?

Time to crawl back into that bottle.

Originally posted by @fmf
Having read what I have written, do you now understand why I believe all humans - including "very regular people, of very regular means, who fit very regular patterns of behaviour for their culture and time" each have an "individual spirit"?

Of course I understand your writing. It is a very simple and straightforward comment, and I must compliment your writing style. It is always very condensed and compact. This is very useful for comprehension but, in the long run, it seems to rob the audience of understanding your greater outlook as it always feels like you are playing your cards close to the chest.

That's fine. That is, perhaps, your style.

But I would like you to open your flower up to us more.

But, yes, I understand.

Just, let me water your flower.

Originally posted by @eladar
You re such a hypocrite. Why must others conform to your definition?

No one has to "conform" to it. Don't be silly. Perspectives on the human condition are being shared here, that's all.