Johannes, I am starting to wonder if you've been taking debate lessons from some of the lefties on this thread. You have taken many of the things I said and totally twisted them to another meaning. Following that you criticize me as if I represent the twisted version. I don't mind debating straight away with you on my ideas vs your way of thinking but I'm tired pointing out your misapplications of my statements.
Examples:
<<But it is quite another thing to claim the dang 'Quranic heathens have said such-n-such and so we should follow them because what they have said is as self-evident as gravity.>> What Quranic person have I Quoted or referenced? None.
<<But you cannot throw up your heathenism as an objective fact with which I must contend in the course of a moral determination.>> I have not thrown up any heathen practice as anything.
<<This is why you ought not throw up your dang "messengers" as proof of how a group of folk ought to think in the course of moral determinations.>> I have never done this either. I said that when hearing or reading the righteous teachings of a messenger, wise man, or whatever that thing that is able to confirm truth inside us recognizes it. I refer to messengers only as their words represent the least reproachable example we have of moral guide lines. I did not limit my reference to Muslim historical figures, that is your twist. You can leave religious figures out of it. I don't care. If there is a moral teaching and you hear it you are able to confirm its truth because the thing in side you has that awareness already. And so when you hear truth you recognize it because it is self evident.
<<This is why you ought not throw up your dang "messengers" as proof of how a group of folk ought to think in the course of moral determinations.>> No I don't I have not said here is a messenger or there are some that we should all follow. I in fact, don't believe any of us should follow another man. We should follow the truth and the truth can be known by the thing in side us that is designed to recognize it.
<<And if someone literally cannot see it, then the thing is not EVIDENT.>> Ah but I have evidence that everyone has the capacity to percieve it, even the most heinous criminals. Criminals often are very frank about their choice to persue a greedy and sinful path with full knowledge of its inherent evil. You have nothing to show that people are unable to perceive and confirm the truth. Zero, zip, nada.
<<Well I see that we are all limited to a physical explanation of things, and that this is our nature. Indeed I see we are all trapped within physical nature, cut off from one another and everything else by space, time and flesh.>> Ding, dong. We have thought, communication, emotion and a social awareness to name a few vehicles that clearly transend the physical boundaries. Yes, these faculties are integrated with our biological processes. So what?
<<You believe your junk, then believe it. But many folk will see it differently, and there is no dang way you can prove them wrong.>> Nor would I waste one breath ever trying. You got the wrong idea someplace. When people express falsehoods, I am bound to tell the truth. I have no intentions of changing them.
<<It is certainly blasphemous to many others to call your dang "messengers" self-evident.>> I never did this. I said the truth is confirmed within. When you here or read or witness it in some other way you are able to label it truth because it already exists with in you thus the truth is self evident.
<<Nope. Your "kingdom" is able to be placed under a microscope, to be confirmed by looking there for it, proving it is but a component of the earth.>> You are stuck with proving things to some earthly satisfaction. So be it. Your definition of proof doesn't fit the concept of self evident. However if you were to take the core moral issues of all the peoples of all the Earth and could get sincere feedback on a survey, what percent do you suppose would figure charity a good thing, compassion a good thing, kindness a good thing. How many do you figure would say torture is a bad thing. I am speaking about the concepts themselves not situational differences. I figure you would get pretty close to 100% agreement. How do you account for that. Do you suppose there is something self evident about these statements? Or do you think we would get willy nilly answers that show no significant perspectives.
<<Real faith transcends these limitations and connects us to Ultimate Might and Meaning.>> Yep and it comes from that knowing place within. We know the truth because it is self evident and we observe it by choice, or not.
<<Which is by far more potent than claiming your dang heathens are "self-evident.">> I have never done this.
<<..it ain't objective such that you can just throw it up as proof of how folk should think and act.>> I have never used the word should in this conversation. Its one of yours. And I haven't said anything about my expectations of other folks.
<<...But it is quite another thing to claim the dang 'Quranic heathens have said such-n-such and so we should follow them because what they have said is as self-evident as gravity.' That is no respectable argument.>> I never did any of this. You are reading a lot into my comments that simply isn't there. I have been posting on this thread almost daily practically since it started. Show me one time when I said anyone of you should follow my religion. From the earliest reference I made to confirming the truth in your heart as you read it in religion I used the Quran as an example and also said or what ever scriptures you study.
I am no longer even clear on what you are debating here. If you want to discuss religion I will be glad to take it off line but not in debate.
<<evangelise for your religious point-of-view.>> I am not doing this. I have spent enough energy in this debate dealing with your hateful remarks about Islam. Regardless your defensive gestures and personal attacks, this is base bigotry and blasphemy and I will have no more of it. If you had no real argument for your claim that self evidence doesn't exist you should have said so from the start.
done. |
