Again you accuse me of dishonesty. Shame on you! REALLY!
<<< "I know some people who..." is completely insufficient to substantiate such a serious charge.>>>
"Of course it is, which is why I added that I am also familiar with the philosophies, theologies which represent the people he is targeting. I noticed you parced over that fact ... tsk (intellectual dishonesty, oh well)"
Again: Shame on you. Saying you have some general knowledge of the philosophy in question is just as insufficient as the fact that you know some people. Link or lie Madam. We shall see which one it will be, but be assured I will hold your feet to the fire on this because you have made it an issue by repeatedly questioning my integrity.
<<<What you need to do is provide an in context quotation and an authoritative source that factually disputes his actual assertion.>>>
"No I don't greg. (wild goose chase)"
Your personal integrity demands that you do and your response will be indicative.
"A characterisation (sic) is not direct quotes greg. It is an impression that is given and understood by the nature of the presentation being given."
Yes and to mis-characterize someone is to characterize their statements inaccurately whether intentionally or not. After refusing specific correction several times, I am beginning to think that you are doing the former and not the latter.
"He bases most of his presentation on this: "Atman, which is the essence of the individual human soul, is Brahman," which is specifically Hindu (Is he completely clueless as to the vast diversity of culture in the world). However, he continually references everything Eastern, which is really his way of saying everyway of thinking that does not come under the authority of his priesthood, including every way of thinking around the world, and including in the USA that is not under the authority of his priesthood."
That's simply a malicious caricature coupled with an outright false charge ("Is he completely clueless as to the vast diversity of culture in the world"). He carefully qualified his statements in the preface to his remarks. Your emotional rant does not even make sense, (especially the last sentence). WOW! You seem to have a great deal of emotional investment here. He's not a priest BTW. How can you be unaware of this even after having been specifically told???? He may be referred to RESPECTFULLY as The Reverend J. Ligon Duncan III. or Reverend Duncan or Mr Duncan. Are you trying to be intentionally disrespectful? Same thing with me. My name is Greg not greg. Small point but I do now wonder.
It seems you like to use the term priest (little p) to whip up feelings in an already overly emotional response. Here is his opening statement:
Now, we’re going to look at just one type of Eastern thought. Eastern thought is just as broad and diverse as Western thought. Ravi Zacharias, by the way, is wonderful on this. Oftentimes people identify Eastern thought with just one strand of Eastern thought, but the fact of the matter is, Eastern thought, especially in its earlier period, has many, many points of contact with Western philosophy. But the kind of Eastern thought that we’re going to focus on is “Eastern Pantheistic Monism.”
As far as qualifying his remarks I don't know what more you could ask for?
............................
"And so the Eastern scriptures are filled with parables and fables and stories, and myths and song, and haikus and hymns and epics—but no history, because reality takes place in an unrepeatable space/time context, not in history."
Jesus: “The knowledge of the secrets of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. This is why I speak to them in parables, ‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand’” (Mat. 13:11,13).
"Ok. I think, I've made my point which could turn into volumes if you want to go nutso with it."
.........................................
Actually you didn't make much of a point at all. You are the one going "nutso" (another very charitable term on your part I might add) talk about bully tactics, SHAME ON YOU.
"Eastern and Western forms of thought and religion rely on some form of Heavenly Paradise vs Hellacious punishment to describe the ultimate consequence of life's endeavors."
False and overly broad. Atheism and Monism are glaring counterexamples.
I thought you weren't going to debate Christianity with me? Did you change your mind, or was that a lie? Are the "religionists" of the West somehow inferior to the "religionists" of the East? And if you are arguing for the superiority of the "religionists" of the East what does that make you?
Ooooommmmm |
