Lack of belief...

[EPH2:8]

Does the term lack of belief make any claims regarding the subject of the sentence? For example I lack belief in Santa clause. Am I making any claims regarding Santa clause? Does changing the subject of the sentence determine whether a claim is made or not?

[Divine Insight]

You went above and beyond as far as I am concerned. We'll see if the responses you get do the same.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "You went above and beyond".

Meriam Webster describes it this way:

above and beyond idiom

Definition of above and beyond:

far beyond what is required by (something, such as a duty)
//He went above and beyond the call of duty.

I meant it in exactly the same way.

So then we need to ask, "What's your duty?"

I see my duty on a discussion or debate forum to communicate as effectively as possible. So my "duty" is to facilitate efficient and effective communication.

Perhaps you see your "duty" solely as defending your position on something. If that's the case, then you obviously have no "duty" to address anything that you feel isn't required to defend your position.

So it appears to me that we simply have different underlying agendas and therefore different "duties" that need to be addressed.

My duty is to clear and meaningful communication. So by the definition you have provided I am not going above and beyond my duty to address meaningful communication.

[Tcg]

You went above and beyond as far as I am concerned. We'll see if the responses you get do the same.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "You went above and beyond".

Meriam Webster describes it this way:

above and beyond idiom

Definition of above and beyond:

far beyond what is required by (something, such as a duty)
//He went above and beyond the call of duty.

I meant it in exactly the same way.

So then we need to ask, "What's your duty?"

I see my duty on a discussion or debate forum to communicate as effectively as possible. So my "duty" is to facilitate efficient and effective communication.

Perhaps you see your "duty" solely as defending your position on something. If that's the case, then you obviously have no "duty" to address anything that you feel isn't required to defend your position.

So it appears to me that we simply have different underlying agendas and therefore different "duties" that need to be addressed.

My duty is to clear and meaningful communication. So by the definition you have provided I am not going above and beyond my duty to address meaningful communication.

I thought I had communicated quite clearly when I said, "You went above and beyond as far as I am concerned." That was me expressing my opinion of your response.

So yes, we obviously have differing opinions. I expressed mine quite clearly from the start and now you have expressed yours.

[Divine Insight]

So yes, we obviously have differing opinions. I expressed mine quite clearly from the start and now you have expressed yours.

It's still unclear to me what you consider your "duty" to be.

Was my guess correct?

[Tcg]

So yes, we obviously have differing opinions. I expressed mine quite clearly from the start and now you have expressed yours.

It's still unclear to me what you consider your "duty" to be.

What duty?

Was my guess correct?

What guess?

[Divine Insight]

What duty?

You posted the definition of "above and beyond" with the descriptive phrase, "far beyond what is required by (something, such as a duty)"


I then said that this leads us to the question of "What is your duty?"

I then offered the following guess:

"Perhaps you see your "duty" solely as defending your position on something. If that's the case, then you obviously have no "duty" to address anything that you feel isn't required to defend your position."

Was my guess correct?

What guess?

I was guessing that you might see your "duty" in these forum discussions to only need to address things you feel are required to defend your position in a debate.

I then offered that I see my "duty" to simply strive for clarity of communication and understanding.

Since you never clarified what you see as your "duty" in a discussion or debate, I'm still unclear on what you feel would constitute "above and beyond" when replying to the questions and/or concerns of another poster.

I'm not trying to bring you trouble. I'm simply stating that I don't understand what you meant when you said that my post went "above and beyond".

I'd still be interested to know exactly what it is that you believe I went above and beyond?

Just a friendly question seeking clarity. Not intended to be confrontational in any way.

[Tcg]

Since you never clarified what you see as your "duty" in a discussion or debate...

That's quite simply because I don't feel I have any duty related to any discussion or debate.

Correct me if I am wrong, but that'd be you who expressed what you feel your duty is.

I'm just some dude expressing my opinion. You apparently have a higher calling.

Godspeed.

[Divine Insight]

I'm just some dude expressing my opinion. You apparently have a higher calling.

I'm not sure I would call a desire for clear two-way communication a "higher calling". But it probably is on a higher level of communication than just expressing one-way opinions without concern or interest to understand the thoughts of others.

[Tcg]

I'm just some dude expressing my opinion. You apparently have a higher calling.

I'm not sure I would call a desire for clear two-way communication a "higher calling". But it probably is on a higher level of communication than just expressing one-way opinions without concern or interest to understand the thoughts of others.

Higher calling...

Higher level of communication...

Either is a claim of greater importance and you certainly deserve it considering your noble duty to discussion and debate.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 34 by Divine Insight]

Ok, I think I see what you are trying to get at now.

Sorry, but I don't think so. I'll just accept that you are closed minded on the issue (as asked in post 16). Thanks

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 34 by Divine Insight]

Ok, I think I see what you are trying to get at now.

Sorry, but I don't think so. I'll just accept that you are closed minded on the issue (as asked in post 16). Thanks

You asked what evidence I would accept. I explained in detail what it would take. Apparently you cannot deal with that level of evidence. So this has nothing to do with me being closed minded. It's entirely on you to be unable to address the issues.

It doesn't work to call someone "closed minded" just because they don't believe your religious claims without evidence. You'll need to do better than that.