|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 179 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jul-01-10
 | | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: If you still find this difficult for some reason, feel free to state what you think the problem is. At this point I have no idea.> After your vitriol directed at me the past week, I am very hard pressed to accept at face value your claim you would not have a problem with me comparing an unbeliever to Satan. While much of your problem with me is over a myriad of issues, when push comes to shove, you retreat back to one and only one point-judging those outside the church. Now that I've shown apostolic examples of treating those outside the church in anything but a lovey dovey manner, you're stuck with that. It's very easy for me to think that drives your response of "no" to this matter more than the reality at hand. |
|
| Jul-01-10 | | cormier: http://www.usccb.org/nab/070110.shtml |
|
| Jul-01-10 | | whatthefat: <OhioChessFan: <OCF: I was open to truth when it came to my attention.> <whatthefat: And you think that was an inherent trait that you were born with which would persist even if you had been born into a different family in a different country?> Yes. I'll keep answering, but I am not optimistic this What If scenario is going to play out to a conclusion you're satisfied with.> So your ability to seek out God was a God-given quality? Do you not see a problem here? |
|
| Jul-01-10 | | whatthefat: <rogge: Back to square one. Maybe you should agree to disagree, there will never be a "winner" in this debate.> But we're not looking to prove that there is or isn't a God, that's a matter of faith and always will be. This entire debate arose because <OCF> claimed that scientists are "intellectually dishonest" and must be part of a worldwide conspiracy because their evidence-based conclusions aren't in accord with his particular interpretation of the Bible. <OCF: When you start calling people who don't agree with you intellectually inferior for not accepting theories predicated on an unproveable foundation, then I think there's a problem.> Where? |
|
| Jul-01-10 | | whatthefat: <OCF: Could you define at what point of certainty a person becomes arrogant? Apparently it's somewhere between 98 and 100% certainty. Surely you have some objective answer in mind.> If you can't see the difference between the use of the word "certainty" in the context of statistical probabilities vs. the context of a faith-based belief then I can't help you. |
|
Jul-01-10
| | OhioChessFan: <So your ability to seek out God was a God-given quality? Do you not see a problem here?> I think people are born with an inherent inclination to seek God. (I'm not trying to bifurcate the idea of seeking God/seeking truth. I think they're one and the same.) That is, men are homo religiosis. To not seek God takes a conscious decision to subvert that inclination. |
|
| Jul-01-10 | | whatthefat: <OCF: I think people are born with an inherent inclination to seek God.> But you're also claiming that you are far superior to the average Iranian in this respect. |
|
Jul-01-10
| | OhioChessFan: <OCF: Could you define at what point of certainty a person becomes arrogant? Apparently it's somewhere between 98 and 100% certainty. Surely you have some objective answer in mind.> <If you can't see the difference between the use of the word "certainty" in the context of statistical probabilities vs. the context of a faith-based belief then I can't help you.> The question posed was per statistical probabilities. That was the context of my answer. It didn't take long to prove you had no objective standard to do so and are unable to formulate a basis for it. Which is to be expected, for "arrogant" is a term not really amenable to a hard and fast objective point of determination. If you wish to jump out of the immediate and specific context of the charge (Per the % of people who are Christian in the geographical area you hypothetically situated me in) you made against me, and rush back to a general application (apparently my belief in Christianity), that's fine. It's not like it's the first time to happen on this forum. |
|
| Jul-01-10 | | whatthefat: <OCF>
What are you on about? I said an event that is 98% likely is "almost certain". I also said that your belief that Christianity is definitely true (i.e., 100% probable) is arrogant. You have no way of quantifying that probability and are excluding any possibility that you are wrong. Hence, arrogant. There is no inconsistency here. |
|
Jul-01-10
| | OhioChessFan: <OCF: I think people are born with an inherent inclination to seek God.> <whatthefat: But you're also claiming that you are far superior to the average Iranian in this respect.> I recognize that I had an opportunity to find truth that the average Iranian wouldn't have. I do think about such things on occasion. I don't have a real good answer for it. It's in the realm of speculation anyway, so who's to say for sure. But you're the one pursuing this hypothetical to a surprising point. I am comfortable that the God of creation has a handle on the opportunity people have to respond to Him. If I have to give a baseline for what I think about those who don't grow up in Christian dominated geographical areas, it would be this: <For there is no partiality with God. For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law [are] just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves [their] thoughts accusing or else excusing [them]) Romans 2:11-15 > |
|
Jul-01-10
| | OhioChessFan: <What are you on about? I said an event that is 98% likely is "almost certain". I also said that your belief that Christianity is definitely true (i.e., 100% probable) is arrogant. > No, you referenced me being arrogant in regards to whether I'd be a Christian if I lived in another geographical area: <It's pretty arrogant for you to take the position that you are a seeker of truth who through sheer effort and enlightenment found your way to the one single truth, when you were born into a Christian family in an overwhelmingly Christian nation.> |
|
| Jul-01-10 | | whatthefat: <OCF: I recognize that I had an opportunity to find truth that the average Iranian wouldn't have.> Sure, but you went a lot further than that. You claimed that even if you had been born in Iran to an Iranian family (i.e., under the exact same conditions any other Iranian is born into) then you would still "almost certainly" be a Christian today. Yet the average Iranian under the exact same circumstances has only a 2% likelihood of become Christian ("finding the truth" in your words). Since your supposed ability is completely independent of nurture it must be put down to nature. In other words, you are claiming that you were born inherently better at "finding the truth" than the average Iranian, i.e., you have a God-given ability to seek out God that others do not. |
|
| Jul-01-10 | | whatthefat: <OCF: No, you referenced me being arrogant in regards to whether I'd be a Christian if I lived in another geographical area> I called you arrogant twice, once for that reason (see my above post), and another time for what I just said: <The belief that you are infallibly correct and your tendency to judge others on that basis is what leads people to find you arrogant.> |
|
| Jul-01-10 | | whatthefat: <<OCF: When you start calling people who don't agree with you intellectually inferior for not accepting theories predicated on an unproveable foundation, then I think there's a problem.> Where?>
By the way, you'd better clear this one up quick smart or you may have to be ejected from your own forum. House rules, remember. |
|
Jul-01-10
| | OhioChessFan: <In other words, you are claiming that you were born inherently better at "finding the truth" than the average Iranian, i.e., you have a God-given ability to seek out God that others do not.> No, I don't suppress that God given ability and others do. |
|
| Jul-01-10 | | whatthefat: <OCF: No, I don't suppress that God given ability and others do.> Why? Apparently it has nothing to do with your upbringing, so it must be down to your genetics. |
|
Jul-01-10
| | OhioChessFan: <OCF: When you start calling people who don't agree with you intellectually inferior for not accepting theories predicated on an unproveable foundation, then I think there's a problem.> <Where?>
I guess I will google some comments from scientists about the matter, but I am sure you're aware of such claims. <By the way, you'd better clear this one up quick smart or you may have to be ejected from your own forum. House rules, remember.> I am surprised you think this is hard to find. After the vitriol directed at me by you and <YouRang> lately, I would hope you are aware there is no rush for me to evict anyone. FWIW, I don't really care if you think I'm arrogant. I have some problems with that, though not in the areas you are pursuing. I think you won't be shocked to discover I have some issues with your arrogance. I doubt either of us is going to cry ourself to sleep over it. |
|
Jul-01-10
| | OhioChessFan: <OCF: No, I don't suppress that God given ability and others do.> <whatthefat: Why? Apparently it has nothing to do with your upbringing, so it must be down to your genetics. > I love the truth. |
|
| Jul-01-10 | | whatthefat: <OCF: I guess I will google some comments from scientists about the matter, but I am sure you're aware of such claims.> Sorry, not good enough. You're making a habit of baseless accusations and no debate can remain honest under those circumstances. |
|
| Jul-01-10 | | whatthefat: <OhioChessFan: <OCF: No, I don't suppress that God given ability and others do.> <whatthefat: Why? Apparently it has nothing to do with your upbringing, so it must be down to your genetics. > I love the truth.>
More than the average Iranian apparently. I guess God just doesn't want them getting into heaven. Your response is obtuse. You fail to answer *why* you love the truth. Is it down to nature or nurture? |
|
| Jul-01-10 | | playground player: <YouRang> If something is still floating around in textbooks decades after science has rejected it, I call it pseudoscience--to distinguish it from legitimate science. You and I have agreed to disagree on scientific theories, so our problem isn't there. I'm not trying to provoke you here, but only to answer your question. This is what it looks like to me: you think it's Christians' own fault that the culture hates them, and that if they were to change their behavior in certain ways, then they wouldn't be despised. I'm trying to give you as much credit as possible, and NOT accuse you of suggesting that Christians ought to change (or at least suppress) their beliefs, in order to win the world's approval. I say the fallen world is going to hate us anyway, no matter what we say or do, and that we ought to be concerned with pleasing God, not men. Pleasing God is sometimes not easy: for instance, if I find Bill Maher's wallet on the sidewalk, God requires me to return it to him with its contents intact. Being still in the flesh, I would really hate doing that! But I would do it. And Bill Maher would still despise my beliefs and publicly mock them at every opportunity (more fool him). <OCF> I guess if you were born in Jamaica you'd be a Rastafarian, or if you were born in Scotland 2,500 years ago you'd be a Druid. I guess <whatthefat> is arguing for some kind of geographical determinism. Makes you wonder where he was born and bred. |
|
Jul-01-10
| | OhioChessFan: OCF: I guess I will google some comments from scientists about the matter, but I am sure you're aware of such claims.> <Sorry, not good enough. You're making a habit of baseless accusations and no debate can remain honest under those circumstances.> I'm not following you here, but okay. |
|
Jul-01-10
| | OhioChessFan: <Your response is obtuse. You fail to answer *why* you love the truth. Is it down to nature or nurture?> I don't know. Are you positing those are the only 2 possibilities? |
|
| Jul-01-10 | | whatthefat: <OCF: I don't know. Are you positing those are the only 2 possibilities?> Yes, by definition. If Iranians are less likely to "find the truth" than Americans then you need to explain why. There are two possibilities: (1) The effect is genetic. In other words, if an Iranian and an American were raised in exactly equivalent circumstances in the same country, the American would still be more likely to become a Christian. (2) The effect is due to different cultural exposure. In other words, an Iranian is significantly less likely to become a Christian (2% probability) than an American (78% probability) because of their different experiences *after* birth. But if they were raised in exactly equivalent circumstances in the same country then this effect would go away. If you say the difference is due to (2) then that fails to account for why you would be immune to this effect. |
|
| Jul-01-10 | | whatthefat: <OCF: I'm not following you here, but okay.> You made an insulting and baseless accusation against me. For once I'd like you to justify that. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 179 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
rreusser/...