>Johannes, I am starting to wonder if you've been taking debate lessons from some of the lefties on this thread.<
Put your mind at rest.
>You have taken many of the things I said and totally twisted them to another meaning...<
Sure brees.
>What Quranic person have I Quoted or referenced? None.<
You do it each time you reference your redefined "messengers," and you know it.
>I have not thrown up any heathen practice as anything.<
You do it every time you throw up your religion in folks' faces as some kind of objective argument (when it is no such thing).
>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.<
And I said all this hocus pocus is utter nonsense for a whole lotta folk and will serve as nothing that they can respect. When you start throwing around your "messengers" to claim they support self-evident truth (which is truth for me and for everyone else), then you claim a dang corner on truth, essentially claiming that '[maybe other folk have truth, but] MY DANG QURANIC MESSENGERS DEFINITELY HAVE UTTER TRUTH, AND I DO TOO! THEY ARE THE MOST IRREPROACHABLE HEATHENS EVER!!'
Well this is fine if you want to limit it to pure evangelism. But you actually came throwing this kinda crap toward me to consider, a very arrogant thing to do. I nevertheless considered it (grin), and gave it exactly what it deserved. Some folk here apparently are uncomfortable about it. I assume they really do not understand the essentials of your bigotry.
I note each time a discussion gets really going with you, you start throwing up that dang crap, and I also see its effect on folk. Not wanting to hammer it as vigorously as they would, they simply back away without wanting to seriously challenge it. Well the appropriate way to discount you in this instance was precisely as I did, as we were dealing not with the finer points of your dang religion (in which case I would have met you there to reason over the objective facts), but rather on the vast quantity of Ultimate Truth for All. When you claim your dang "messengers" support self-evident truth, you claim they support it for me too. So I showed you how little their dang truth is self-evident to me. A very dang good argument.
If it makes you uncomfortable, then keep that crap to yourself where I am concerned. You can reference religion without preaching to dang folk on the dang sly. (hehe)
>I refer to messengers only as their words represent the least reproachable example we have of moral guide lines.<
And here you go again with this crap, claiming your dang "messengers" are the "least reproachable example we have." You ain't got no dang corner on the definition of good and evil such that you can define for me what is reproachable and what is not.
This arrogance will get you a whack upside the dang head where I am concerned. If you want to discuss "least reproachable" you ought to use my assumptions, help me use yours, or try and let us come to a consensus on what is reproachable and what is not. But you have never once done anything of the sort where your dang "messengers" are concerned. You just throw it up, assuming folk won't hammer it. And most of them won't because they either cannot understand the implications of your multifold purpose (namely, to justify your dang religion by redefining figures revered in Western Civilisation and then appropriating them for your brand of hocus pocus, using this to imply that your brand, [perhaps like the others] represents UtterTruth for everyone), or they simply think it bad manners to nail your dang religion as it deserves. Well other religionists and even Atheists try and do the same thing, and I do not accept it from them in the least. So I dang sho ain't gonna accept it from you.
>I did not limit my reference to Muslim historical figures, that is your twist.<
Well finding the other stuff is awfully dang difficult when you surround it all with that... that... that.. Well you know what I think of it. Hey. I have no problem respecting your religion as a manifestation of your perception of life and truth. I even respect it. But as soon as you take that stuff and throw it around and redefine stuff that I do respect, this, to justify yourself while you evanglise others, all the while claiming it represents the "least reproachable example we have," I am gonna treat it just like crap.
>You can leave religious figures out of it. I don't care.<
Oh, I have a great deal of respect for many religious figures, and I have little problem with folk referencing them as sources of wisdom. But when folk start claiming them "least reproachable," for US, as if they and their dang religion has authority to make such a dang claim, I have a tendency to treat it just like crap.
Neither you nor your dang religion can make this claim for anyone. So it is best to leave it out of the discussion unless you want it whacked. When you use it as a proof of a point, claiming it cannot be "reproached," then by God some folks are gonna reproach it. (grin)
>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.<
Nonsense. Self-evidence references perception, and you have submitted no proof whatever that our perceptions are all the same. If a truth does not present itself precisely the same to everyone, such that everyone perceives it in precisely the same way, then that truth is only "self-evident" at the individual level (and it is really pointless to call it "self-evident truth"). It then cannot be said to have been perceived as "the" truth at all. And if "the" truth cannot be unanimously perceived, then its existence is unknown.
As long as you keep the discussion on this level, then I have nothing to bash but your flaky ideas. But as soon as you bring in the dang Quranic messengers as 'irreproachable folk' who prove your point, particularly amidst your indirect brand of Muslim proselytising, then I am compelled to show you how puny all your proof is from my vantage point.
>I have not said here is a messenger or there are some that we should all follow.<
When you claim them the "least reproachable that we have," and other such rot, you claim exactly that.
>I in fact, don't believe any of us should follow another man. We should follow the truth...
(sigh) "the truth," you say. This truth is no thing to which you might point so that all existence agrees with you. So then it ain' the truth. It is whatever it is.
>...and the truth can be known by the thing in side us that is designed to recognize it.<
Nonsense (though I do not gainsay it.) I indeed believe in faith, but I see that even faith is made weak by flesh such that humans cannot literally understand the same things. Fortunately I also see that that was never the intent of faith in the first place. Even so, I would not take my perception of Ultimate Truth that I see by faith, and then assume authority to define it for everyone. I do believe in Ultimate Truth, believe it is disclosed to me. Nevetheless I can see also that I cannot see it perfectly, precisely as it is, this, due to my nature (or perhap I do see it precisely. I can't know that do). I then cannot, try as I might, lift my perception up as a definition of Ultimate Truth, claiming my dang messengers are the most 'irreproachable representatives' of it for US. At best, I can only share what God has shown me, embracing those who appear to me in fellowship with that Truth, and ultimately rejecting those who contradict it.
>Ah but I have evidence that everyone has the capacity to percieve [the truth], 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.<
And some criminals aren't "very frank" at all, and even were they very frank we have no real idea over what they are being frank about. And so this little "evidence" of yours is not evidence at all. They may say I "have killed a person" with a notion of killing that is quite different than yours when the finest aspect of the notion is analysed. Of course in daily life "killing" takes on a broad working definition, narrow enough for us to use such that we can try to promote "civility" (and even this is problematic ***reference: Bill Clinton).
But we speak here of The Truth. On this level we must be ultimately precise. No such precision effectively exists, as we are cut off from it by nature.
>You have nothing to show that people are unable to perceive and confirm the truth. Zero, zip, nada.<
I have one thing: the fact that no proof has been yet presented (at least not here) that "the truth" even exists.
>Ding, dong. We have [several things that clearly transcend physical boundaries. We] have thought, communication, emotion and a social awareness to name a few...<
Each of which are expressed and more importantly interpreted by human biology, therefore rendering them trapped within physical boundaries.
>Yes, these faculties are integrated with our biological processes. So what?<
Because this mere fact eliminates our ever defining them as utter truth. The mere fact that flesh must express and interpret requires that we guess as to whether they exist precisely the same for all creatures. And guessing ain't the truth.
>Nor would I waste one breath ever trying [to prove wrong, those who differ with me]. You got the wrong idea someplace. When people express falsehoods, I am bound to tell the truth. I have no intentions of changing them.<
Surely you know this is entirely beside the point, which is that where The Truth is concerned your dang opinion is just as right as Hitler's.
>I never [claim me dang messengers are self-evident]. 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.<
You claim your messengers represent the self-evident "truth" that is in you. If you claim they irreproachably represent this dang "truth," then they are self-evident, unless you claim they do not represent the truth perfectly. And if you run your butt here, then there ain't no dang way you can claim these folk represent the truth, but only the so-called "truth" in you (which is no Truth at all).
>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.<
And your concept of self-evident does not fit the concept of self-evident. I do believe in Utter Truth, but truth dimly seen this side of heaven. I also believe the time will come when all existence will be normalised to the truth. There you will find real self-evidence. It will not be a joyous day for the vast majority of the world. Indeed everything we have seen and now see will by definition perish. I descry this not by physical proof, but by reason and faith.
But perhaps you see it differently, and perhaps my atheist friends do not see it at all. At this level I see what I see, holding to it, inviting folk to try and see it with me or pass on as they will. I cannot define the thing for anyone, and neither can you.
>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 do not claim no broad consensus is possible amongst humans concerning certain issues. We do on the imprecise daily level seem to share common circumstances in many ways. And so I do not deny even that we may try and use this level to form a basis for nurturing harmony in and between our various cultures. Nevetheless on the ultimate level we might be wonderfully surprised at our differences. As we approach this level we find our consensus fragmenting such that even the very basis of our logic, our existence as a species, becomes tenuous. Consensus is a shifting thing, it cannot be used as proof of an Ultimate Truth. Perhaps today the majority of the world thinks abortion an acceptable thing, whereas in times past it thought it pure murder.
>I am speaking about the concepts themselves not situational differences.<
The devil is in the details. You may throw out a vast meaningless concept until you naturally die, and folk will nod ignorantly right along with you. Then as soon as you begin to approach purer meaning, you will find folk, as a group, becoming more irrational. Why is this? I say because none of them know for sure what truth really is. i think Ultimate Truth is beyond rationality. Folk be forced by nature to run in accordance with their perceptions toward it. And yet no one knows where it really is. This is the stuff of wars.
>I figure you would get pretty close to 100% agreement.<
Of course! (sigh). Folk take very nicely to meaninglessness. It is truth that presents the dang problem. As soon as you start severely defining things toward every single eventuality, there you will find your dang willy nilly (LOL).
>How do you account for that.<
I just did.
>Do you suppose there is something self evident about these statements?<
Nope.
>Or do you think we would get willy nilly answers that show no significant perspectives.<
Looking at the thing from as closely to the perspective of Utter Truth as I am able, I say we would get willy nilly answers. Looking at it from the level on which we now speak, I say we would get broad but ever shifting consensus.
>Yep and [faith] comes from that knowing place within.<
And this is good for you. But I do not respect this stuff for myself. I see that my faith comes from Ultimate Might. I perceive it veritably impossible that I, Johannes, could actually have seen the world as I do now, without a radical change in my reality. The origin of that change by no means came from within me. And once it was made real to me it consumed my thinking and my way of life, destroying much of myself, to no doubt eventually consume me completely. That is how I see it. Surely in is in me, but it certainly did not come from there. Nevertheless I would certainly not expect you or anyone else to understand this.
So I do not throw it up in folks faces as if it is gravity. Yes, it rules my thinking and my way of life, but to run around defining this for US, is real and true stupidity.
>We know the truth because it is self evident and we observe it by choice, or not.<
And I say Utter Truth comes not by an observation, though we may perhaps very dimly descry it in a general sense. Some of us suppress it, others of us relent to it. Whether it is by choice for US, I do not know. I do know I did not choose it. I could not have, as I was locked hopelessly within physical nature. So maybe you have something in you that you call "truth." I doubt it is the same thing that is in me. Either way, I will not define it for you, and you dang sho better not define it for me.
If our separate realities seem significantly the same to us, then we might fellowship on that level. If they do not seem the same, then we cannot. We may fellowship on whichever level is possible, but if you continue to try and define my reality, fellowship is not only impossible, but even cordiality goes out the dang window (grin).
**
You know. Some guy here once called himself an "agnostic," and I sincerely could not understand why he got so bent up that I thought atheism the same as agnosticism. I still cannot understand the difference, but now I see that he saw a difference and that it meant something to him. I unfortunately did not respect it. So if he is reading this, I apologise to you sir (I am sorry that I can't remember who it was). Perhaps my God has had this Muslim assuming a definition of my dang reality to show me that folk really do be seeing things differently, and that we should just try and let them see it (even though we may not ourselves see it), so long as their perspectives do not mandate our giving up turf (as in the case of militant Sodomites). My perception of atheism and agnosticism is mine. I really do see the two religions as one and the same. But fella, you see it differently, and it is who you are. In respect to you, I sincerely recognise you as an agnostic (for what it is worth to you -- and it should not be worth much - grin).
**
>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.<
When you start defining truth, and as part of an argument claim your dang folk represent it, then you dang sho use the word should. If you are gonna make a statement of evangelism then just do it. No dang problem. But when you throw it up as if it is "the truth," some folk are gonna tell you in no uncertain terms that it is just heathen crap. I am one of those persons.
Better to just state your perspective and leave it at that, rather than claim your dang folk represent The Ultimate Perspective of All. You throw up your stuff much too much for my personal taste, but hey, I just skip over it. No great issue. When the Atheists come around to sell their religion, I just skip over them too. But in an argument with me concerning Truth, should you or an Atheist just throw your crap out as if it is real, then I will be compelled, (given the time, of course) to tell you that it is worthless.
>I never did any of this ["I'm jez soo dang innocent"]. 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.<
Sure, brees. That little "whatever" surely got lost in all that Quran stuff. You were selling it on the dang sly and you know it. (grin)
>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.<
You know my dang point exactly. You try and act all innocent and hurt. You know the deal, and I do too. (hehe)
>I am not [evangelising].<
Sure, brees. You can tell that to the fellas here, but you really know "The Truth," at least here (grin). Go on and evangelise. Tell folk how Allah is the best thing since the dang mechanical reaper. I sincerely have no problem here. Just don't go trying to make your junk Ultimate Truth as part of an argument with me, unless you want me to tell you my opinion about it. That's all. If you can handle the opinion, then throw up your stuff left and right.
>I have spent enough energy in this debate dealing with your hateful remarks about Islam.<
Good. Me too. So then if you don't want more, stuff it, should you ever post to me again.
>Regardless your defensive gestures and personal attacks...
Well you can claim I personally attacked you all you please. From my perspective I did no such thing. I merely dismissed goofy "evidence" for self-evidence. I never attacked you.
>...this is base bigotry and blasphemy and I will have no more of it.<
Then go own big boy! I take that to mean we ain't friends no longer. My loss. I'm hurting over heah.
>If you had no real argument for your claim that self evidence doesn't exist you should have said so from the start...<
Just goes to show how vapid a point-of-view this self-evidence of yours is, that it can be vanquished by an argument that is not even real.
(ding...) |
