WinePusher wrote:Slopeshoulder wrote:Thank you winepusher. My side truly thanks you. You have shown how you "think" and how you roll.
For sure, educating ignorant libs wasn't my intent as I did not consider this feat to be possible, but the fact that it has actually happened is a plus.
Substantiate that you are more educated than I.
Slopeshoulder wrote:The only analogies that I can think of for this kind of brick-like reading would be the way a know-nothinger or perhaps stalinist or nazi ideologue thinks in politics, a flat earther in science, a tone deaf person to music, and a primitive in art, or an actual brick regarding subtlety and thuggishness.
It's disgusting that you would try to compare my ideology to that of a nazis.
The analogy was limited, and apt. based on exclusionary elitism and thuggery. that's how you roll.
Your argument must have been pummeled to ash,
Substantiate that my argument was even dented. Or even addressed. Or even understood or engaged.
which is why you feel a need to resort to such nasty rhetoric.
Do not presume to know my feelings. Or to impute cause and effect to them.
I have read and written on the subject of holocaust literature, you should do the same so you can gain some basic sensitivity on this subject matter.
I have. Probably before you were born. I made no mention of the holocaust and did not equate you with nazis. I formally hereby state that I do not equate you; don't be ridiculous. But in a limited sense, the analogy remains apt. Sort of like brownshirts in the 30's aspiring to a job in the ideology department. And clearly your idols beck, coulter, and hannity are well known for having fascistic tendencies. Is that lost on you?
And this can of course be added to the evidentiary list in support of Godwin's law.
I am unfamiliar with this person or his law.
When a participant in an online discussion begins to trap himself, he degenerates into seething about nazis, hitler or the holocaust.
Demonstrate that I have been trapped. Demonstrate that I have even been understood or engaged on substance.
But thank you for substantiating my earlier claim your aim is to trap through gotcha rhetoric.
If anyone is flailing and spewing hate, it's you, and it's visible for all to see.
Slopeshoulder wrote:Did you miss where I said a clear "yes" to all your questions?
Nope, I saw that word in your post. I also expectedly saw your nonsensical commentary following all your answers.
What you call nonsense others call professional theology, advanced discernment, and wisdom. I leave it to mature and reasonable readers to decide.
And demonstrate that it is nonsensical. Then demonstrate that the hundreds of western canonical thinkers upon whom it is based are all traders in nonsense.
So far you haven't offered an argument, just emotion, invective and what passes for discussion in your world.
This is a failure on my part though, as I was no directly specific with a lib and that of course screws up everything. When I ask whether you believe in something, I ask whether or not you believe it happened or existed.This is an assumption I assume all people understand, but apparently not you.
I know that and understand it. You equate belief with historicity, yes, i get it. That's the whole POINT, which after repeated explanations you still don't apparently understand. That equation is an error, and represents primitive thinking and ignorance, theologically. Further studies in epistemology and the grammar of faith, as well as faith development and stages will aid you in overcoming this error in the future. And Jesus will be happy.
NOTE: as I said to my buddy educhris, I do NOT deny historicity, I accept that it could have happened and I don't deny anyone their right to think it happened. Read that again. We have no quarrel there. I simply say historicity is not equated with or required for belief. Demanding that it is is your error. Why can't we coexist as "believeing christians," even apologists, while disagreeing on historicity? why is that a big deal? I've been in many groups of clergy where there were varied views on this and no one started a movement to impose one view and exclude others, establishinhg a hierarchy based on historicity, as you do. I can only ascribe that you to your being influenced by and a mouthpiece for the paranoid fascsistic power discourse of the far right.
You comment that things like a bodily resurrection are not literal facts you insist upon and aren't meant to be taken literally.
Well, let me revise or clarify: it is my OPINION and I am part of a theological SCHOOL that believes it is not historical. But I don't insist it didn't happen. I simply say that it is not required to affirm historicity. You are free to believe it happened and be christian, and I am free to believe it didn't, taking a more modern and nuanced approach to doctrine (that part you called nonsensical commentary) and be Christian. OK?
This obviously means you don't believe in it as a historical fact. Again, my apologies, I wasn't specific and assumed that when a question like "do you believe the tooth fairy puts money under your pillow?" is posed to a person that they adequately understand what is being asked. I will try to remember to be more specific with you.
Innacurate, I understood perfectly. So you're either an idiot or being sarcastic. I'll assume the latter. Uncivil sarcasm. Stop please.
Slopeshoulder wrote:Did you miss where I reduced the issue to historicity vs. symbolism?
Weird question. Did you? I don't recall you doing so, I injected that topic in as I thought it was relevant. I don't know and don't care about what you did pertaining to this.
KEY question. This is the whole point. If you miss this you miss everything and get a F on the paper.
Everythign that follows is moot if you don't get this. Sad.
Slopeshoulder wrote:Did you miss where only extremists such as yourself insist on historicity and hang their faith on it, confusing it with doctrine?
Oh dear, didn't they give basic language and rhetoric courses at whatever school you went to? If they did, I guess you didn't get to attend any or didn't pay much attention. It's ok, we can make up for lost time here: using hyperbole is a legitimate form of language and can certainly help the writer persuade his audience.
Uncivil tone. Personsal attack. Unsubstantiated claim.
But when hyperbole is used counterfactual manners as you've done, the writer is able to persuade no one and loses his credibility. I'll show how what you have written above is an example of this.
What?
You say I'm extremist for insisting on the historicity of Christian claims,
Yes.
Not for believeing it, but for insisting upon it as a basis for an exclusionary hierarcy proposed in the OP.
however not only do I insist upon the historicity of these events but so do any churches that adhere to the apostles or nicene creed
No, they only say that to street level parishoners and kids. But their leaders and adepts and know better. This is well documented.
or the westminster confession.
Oh yes, they were the extremists who couldn't get with the program when every other seminary had isolated them.
This would be a large majority of churches both mainstream and on the extreme.
no, per above, just the extreme.
So you have failed to appropriately use hyperbole in your writings, or perhaps you simply have a narrowmind and consider a large majority of churches and christians to be extremists.
Clarified above.
Slopeshoulder wrote:Did you miss where I decimated your position with substance?
Yup.
We agree!!
Slopeshoulder wrote:Did you miss where I refused to be shoehorned by your abuse of power through language?
I don't know what this means.
I believe you.
I don't possess any sort of power,
Which is why you are trying to get it.
neither was I trying to shoehorn you. I'm doing what everybody else does on here, debating. I do so in my own, preferable style as do you and your buddies. It's possible you're reading to much into something that is absent from existence.
OK, this we can address. My read of your OP is that it is an attempt to create an exclusionary hierarchy based upon a spurious definition of belief rooted in absolute historicty. That is both wrong and a power grab that serves your power needs. That is the ONLY reason I am in this thread.
Slopeshoulder wrote:People who, given the amount of time you describe yourself taking in the "thinking" of people lightwieights and unhinged characters like glenn beck, anne coulter, dinesh d'souza, and sean hannity, you have probably never read. And if your deeply confused responses to me are any indication, haven't understood if you have read them.
I'm sorry but your grammar is falling apart and it's becoming a challenge for me to develop even a foundational understanding of what you mean.
Perhaps it is complexity that challenges you.
I don't read or watch Hannity or Glenn Beck. I like what they say and give them my full support, but they are not prolific writers or orators in the same way people like Christopher Hitchens or Charles Krauthammer are. For that fact alone I don't find it pleasurable to read their works or watch their commentary. I like Ann Coulter as she is a good writer, I read her columns on a regular basis as well as her books. Her books focus on a single thesis which she supports with appeals to history and examples in modern culture and media.
OK, thanks for clarifying.
Dinesh D' Souza is my favorite apologist and thinker, I have watched commentary and debates and have read only one book though dealing with American Politics. He really is the only apologist who is able to step up to Christopher Hitchens (one of humanities greatest treasures) level of intelligence
That's another topic, but he does get credit for stepping up, and to be honest I am appaled that real, serious, great religious thinkers have not followed his example. Shame on them.
and you nor your heroes would be able to refute nothing of what he says, whether it be politically or religiously oriented.
Did you just say, and mean to say, that D'Souza is beyond criticism by anyone in the western canon? Dude, he's a lightweight and a bottom feeder. I think maybe kant or heidegger or merton or many others might be able to fidn fault somewhere.
Slopeshoulder wrote:Where did I cry?
You try to invoke hyperbole in your post, but you are not even able to recognize in it other people's writings. This is just a lose-lose situation for you.
Sorry, that comes across as white noise.
Slopeshoulder wrote:Come over to my house and we'll see who cries and whines after about a minute. That's a legitimate invitation. I'm moving closer to you soon and can expose you for the punk you are quite readily. Bring a camera. In the end, punks always cry for mommy. No, I am not threatening you; I am inviting you to a duel.
Now this is something I would expect to have been written by a frustrated little child posting on a forum such as youtube. You give a bad reputation to the college you attended and your graduating divinity class. You give a bad reputation to the Catholic Church you so desperately attempt to cling on to when they have all but excluded you. Anyways, I don't care if you are threatening me or if you aren't threatening. What this amounts to is some creepy statement made online by some middle aged man who is losing an argument to another individual whom I assume is half his age and is thereby forced to spew worthless, wannabe intimidating, bullying messages. Surprised no moderators have warned against this type of troubling rhetoric. Actually, not really. This forum must permit the use of threats against others.
Actually I thought it was kind of fun!
And well earned given your broad brush use of incivility.
And carefully worded too. I'm good that way.
And watch what you say about middle aged men unless you want to be accused of agism along with all the other prejudices. I might surpise you. Do I detect an ad hominum?
Let's wrap it up.