Here's the thing Less:
"you falsely alleged that I didn't have any philosophically defensible basis for my beliefs."
Here’s what I said in context:
((If you can't identify the whys of what you believe beyond "everyone knows" and "That's just the way it is", then that's fine. I can only assume that you don't really have a philosophically defensible basis for your beliefs. All you have offered are volumes of circular assertions, using words like virtue and good and transgressions without any objective grounding for them. If you want to be as Polkinghorne puts it: "intolerably intellectually lazy..." So be it. I suspect there's more to it than that.))
You have refused to answer direct questions about the philosophical basis of your beliefs so my assumption is a reasonable inference.
..........................................
"Since then you've not poked one hole in that philosophical treatment."
How can one poke a hole in nothing?
....................................................
"You've submitted several posts which were full of unfounded personal attacks and nothing more."
This from the one who judges that Jesus never knew me and implies that I will be cast into Hell?
.......................................
"No one can tell because you refuse to be forthright 1(unjust and false) about the basis2(false) for your positions, rendering them closed to examination 3(false).
and untestable.
1-3 My statement goes beyond the one post and refers to your obsession with refusing to identify your own worldview which provides the basis for your particular beliefs and answer direct questions about for example, abortion . I previously acknowledged that refusing to answer questions was not strictly speaking dishonest and I said I would change that to not being forthright about your the philosophical or religious nature of your views. That has not changed, and you continue to obfuscate.
.......................................
You are beyond corruption. Must be nice.4(unjust)
Perhaps that is unfair, but I think it’s a reasonable inference derived from your broad-brush attack on all mainstream worldviews as NECESSARILY leading to corruption. One can justifiably assume that you have found a better unconventional non-mainstream way that is beyond the possibility of corruption but you still won't tell anyone what it is.
.........................................
"You have contributed nothing at this point including any substantial criticism."
First you have not shown that all systems and worldviews necessarily lead to corruption. At best all you have given us are platitudes and veiled insults. Of course any system can be abused but you are claiming more than that and further, have failed to offer any alternatives beyond “everybody knows”.
............................
"They are illusory divisions of people into ideological groupings which inevitably betray their own ideological foundations in corruption of core principle to cleanse ‘evil’ from their midst, paradoxically committing the most heinously brutal crimes in recorded history, over and over again. This predictable outcome never fails."
How do you know that all distinctions are illusory unless you have the ability to rise above the illusion? This is where you are claiming to see reality and know THE TRUTH. The old saw about the five blind men describing an elephant comes to mind. Only one who can see the TRUTH, and KNOWS Reality can inform the blind men of their error. There is also a difference between crimes that are committed following the consistent implications of a system and those that are directly contradictory to the precepts of any particular system. You indicate no recognition of that.
...............................
<<<You made an accusation that you backed up with assertions nothing more5(false). You seem to think 6 (unjust) that you are exempt from any corruption by refusing to answer honest questions7 (false and unjust) about your own views. In fact you imply 8(false)that having any worldview at all inevitably leads to the corruption that you find so distasteful. Of course you must first KNOW what is pure before you can identify the CORRUPT.9(unjust, well sort of empty also) You claim to SEE this and yet you claim to have no EYES (no worldview).10 (false, empty)>>>
"5. I used the records of history to support my statement."
Actually you cited no specific historical event.
.........................................
6. Another unjust snipe. I am a human being and have never impied otherwise.
Already answered
....................................................
7. Does repeating a false allegation numerous times make it feel more right to you. My views are spread out all over the place and I have not refused to answer a single question about them.
What is you position on abortion? Do you believe that God exists separate from the universe? How do Human beings know right from wrong? I could go on...
...........................................
8. I've implied no such thing. In fact, in the last post I specifically notified you that I do not hold that view.
What is this worldview that is exempt from necessarily leading to corruption? Why are you keeping it secret?
...................................
9. We all know what corruption is greg. Don't we???
Oh? How do we know that?
......................................
10. I claim to be able to see corruption for what it is but not to have no eyes, as in world view.
I know you have a worldview and I know that you think it is true, but you won't tell us what it is. Why is that? Why do you believe that your worldview is better than all the others? How is it exempt from corruption?
...............................................................
>>>"Your insistance that my perspectives must fit neatly into one or the other of your classifications is unfounded."
Your obsession with hiding behind the clouds of smoke that you produce by rubbing words together is rather humorous. 11 (false and unjust)
11. Well that one is just obvious.
If you say so.... I think it's spot on.
...................................................
<<In fact those who think they have no preconceptions and dogmas are in my experience the most blindly intolerant, tolerant people one could ever hope to meet>>
Whatever an allogation is I'm not sure, but it was a simple observation.12(false) Do you have any preconceptions or dogmas?
12. An 'allegation' is an accusation that someone has either done something or is doing something in this case something untoward. Was the spelling error too much of a reach for you?
I told you what I have observed, are you saying that I'm not telling the truth or that you disagree with my observation?
"I have considered doctrine from various sources and consider them guidance. However, our circumstance in the world is dynamic and unique from moment to moment, not static. We are living, where as dogma is not. Each moment is alive with fresh experience. Certainly we can hold to principle but doctrine is not applicable in the same manner to every situation. So, I would not describe my self as a dogmatic person and whatever preconceptions I may bring to an experience is subject to change as new information and circumstances inform me further on the concept."
Now we are starting to get close to some answers. The question is whether the type of system you describe is cohesive and consistent. One thing is clear, you have a view of the world and you think it is true in opposition to other worldviews that you consider to be false.
…………………………………………………
>>>"You know nothing of me, my life, or my circumstance. Yet you judge me."
Yet another thing that you apply to me but that does not seem to apply to you. Too funny! 13 (unjust, false)
13. What evidence do you have that I've judged you greg? I have pointed out your errors and inconsistancies in this discussion which are simply facts. I don't know you at all. I do know that you compared me with Jesus and then judged my way of thinking to be unworthy of serious consideration.
Most of your insults and judgments are carefully veiled and couched but they are there none the less. If you want to deny it then so be it, but I have never openly discussed your psychological motivations on this thread with other posters.
……………………………………………………….
<<You can't or won't see it, because your eyes are closed so you won't get smoke in your eyes.>>14 (empty, unjustified)
“14. Another empty personal attack based on nothing more than your uncalled for animus toward me. Even when I ask you for clarification you just repeat an empty attack on a level not above name calling.”
I have no idea why you won’t answer straight questions I do admit there is a level of frustration when we keep going over the same ground again and again when a simple statement of core beliefs on your part would have immediately advanced the discussion. I’m sorry that this seems to have become personal on both sides. Please forgive me. Why don’t we just lay our cards on the table and start over.
I hope you and your family enjoy a very Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year.
Greg |
