bornagainathiest Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 You came to know your Truth without the use of reason, Stranger. You came to know your Truth by unreasonable means. It therefore reasonably follows that we cannot know your Truth by reason either. We can only come to know your Truth by the same unreasonable means you did. So, if we want to know your unreasonable Truth we would have to abandon reason. Which is something we will not do. Similarly, if you did choose to consider our position, then you would have to put your unreasonable Truth aside. Which is something you will not do. Impasse. (Again.) (Or... as usual.) Indeed I did. I cam to know by faith. My faith is not against God. It is His reason I am concerned with. But it is by faith Indeed again. You cannot know God or Truth by your reason. Yes, you would have to come to God by faith. OK. You won't do it. Impasse? Of course. Stranger ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since faith is not something reasonable, would you please confirm that it is something emotional? Thanks, BAA. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted July 5, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted July 5, 2017 If you are indeed prepared to "elaborate" - which, by the way, is a different concept to "assert" - why from the Bible? Why not the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita and the Vedas, the Tripitaka or the various pagan myths? Is it just your faith that tells where to find your texts? Does it not occur to you that your faith, exercised on the basis of other texts inconsistent with the Bible, may - and to a good many people does - provide just as much certainty as you now assert, thereby undermining the exclusive claims and hence the "truth" of the faith you espouse? You may want to refrain from using big words like "espouse" with Stranger... in fact, I'd avoid using words of any kind with him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stranger Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 You came to know your Truth without the use of reason, Stranger. You came to know your Truth by unreasonable means. It therefore reasonably follows that we cannot know your Truth by reason either. We can only come to know your Truth by the same unreasonable means you did. So, if we want to know your unreasonable Truth we would have to abandon reason. Which is something we will not do. Similarly, if you did choose to consider our position, then you would have to put your unreasonable Truth aside. Which is something you will not do. Impasse. (Again.) (Or... as usual.) Indeed I did. I cam to know by faith. My faith is not against God. It is His reason I am concerned with. But it is by faith Indeed again. You cannot know God or Truth by your reason. Yes, you would have to come to God by faith. OK. You won't do it. Impasse? Of course. Stranger ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since faith is not something reasonable, would you please confirm that it is something emotional? Thanks, BAA. Why? Is your 'reason' emotional? Stranger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stranger Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 If you are indeed prepared to "elaborate" - which, by the way, is a different concept to "assert" - why from the Bible? Why not the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita and the Vedas, the Tripitaka or the various pagan myths? Is it just your faith that tells where to find your texts? Does it not occur to you that your faith, exercised on the basis of other texts inconsistent with the Bible, may - and to a good many people does - provide just as much certainty as you now assert, thereby undermining the exclusive claims and hence the "truth" of the faith you espouse? Because the Bible is the Word of God. If any want to follow islam, or buddhism, or hinduism, go ahead. I will follow God and the Bible. Stranger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 Since faith is not something reasonable, would you please confirm that it is something emotional? Thanks, BAA. Why? Is your 'reason' emotional? Stranger --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why? Is that why would I like you to confirm that your faith is emotional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stranger Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 Since faith is not something reasonable, would you please confirm that it is something emotional? Thanks, BAA. Why? Is your 'reason' emotional? Stranger --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why? Is that why would I like you to confirm that your faith is emotional? Sorry your wording makes no sense to me. Stranger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 Since faith is not something reasonable, would you please confirm that it is something emotional? Thanks, BAA. Why? Is your 'reason' emotional? Stranger --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why? Is that why would I like you to confirm that your faith is emotional? Sorry your wording makes no sense to me. Stranger ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry 'bout that, Stranger. Let me clarify. We're agreed that your faith is not something reasonable. Reason was not the cause of your faith, not your pathway to faith and reason is not what keeps you faithful. Now that we know something of what it is not, I'm trying to pin down what it is. I was asking you if your faith was emotional. Is it? Thanks, BAA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stranger Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 Since faith is not something reasonable, would you please confirm that it is something emotional? Thanks, BAA. Why? Is your 'reason' emotional? Stranger --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why? Is that why would I like you to confirm that your faith is emotional? Sorry your wording makes no sense to me. Stranger ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry 'bout that, Stranger. Let me clarify. We're agreed that your faith is not something reasonable. Reason was not the cause of your faith, not your pathway to faith and reason is not what keeps you faithful. Now that we know something of what it is not, I'm trying to pin down what it is. I was asking you if your faith was emotional. Is it? Thanks, BAA. My faith is not based on your reason, correct. Emotion cannot be removed from any part of the human reaction. It is as much involved with reason as with faith. You may say, emotion is not the basis for reason. But, neither is it the basis for faith. But emotions are always involved. So, is my faith emotional, yes. My emotions are involved. But my emotions are not the basis for my faith. Stranger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted July 6, 2017 Author Share Posted July 6, 2017 Emotion cannot be removed from any part of the human reaction. It is as much involved with reason as with faith. If this is true, then the outcome of 2+2 would be different depending upon whether you feel happy, sad or indifferent about said outcome. 2+2=4 regardless of emotion. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted July 6, 2017 Author Share Posted July 6, 2017 But my emotions are not the basis for my faith. If this is true, then you should have no problem explaining your reasons for believing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinobi Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 @bornagainathiest ///// 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 My faith is not based on your reason, correct. Emotion cannot be removed from any part of the human reaction. It is as much involved with reason as with faith. You may say, emotion is not the basis for reason. But, neither is it the basis for faith. But emotions are always involved. So, is my faith emotional, yes. My emotions are involved. But my emotions are not the basis for my faith. Stranger Thanks Stranger. But I have to agree with Fwee. Emotion is alien to reason. If there were an emotional component involved in reason, then the answer to the question, 'What is 2 + 2?' would depend upon the emotional state of the person asking the question and/or the person providing the answer. Are you happy? Then the answer is 3. Depressed? Then it's 19. Filled with shame? -8. In love? 100! Fearful? 278,606. Greedy? 3.6612 Proud? 11. And so on. The answer (4 ...btw, regardless of anyone's emotions) is always the same for everyone everywhere. That's because reason has no emotional components and doesn't require emotion to work. It works just fine, without emotions getting involved. Anyway, now we are making some progress! We now know that your faith is neither based upon reason or emotion, Stranger. So, perhaps you could explain to us what it is based upon, please? Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 @bornagainathiest I've been reading these endless debates between you, the rest of the ex-c crew, and stranger (they're starting to become excruciatingly painful to get through), and I just thought I'd interject with my thoughts on the matter, if that's okay? Anyway, I'm almost 99% sure that Stranger is trolling you and everyone else here at ex-c, and if I were you guys, I'd seriously think about getting out while I was ahead. Just my two cents (no offence intended)! However, don't let me stop you. I'm just beginning to think that he really doesn't care about what you or anyone else here has to say... Maybe he's mad, and he wants to fill up the forums with his raving lunacy? Who the hell knows...? Smh :/ @Stranger, I already told you how I feel about you a few weeks ago. I'm the guy who thinks you're like a Christian version of an Islamic jihadist. My opinion has only been strengthened by your piss poor failed attempts at rhetoric, and I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to talk to you at all. So don't bother responding to me. I won't write back - you can bet on it! Interjecting your thoughts is ok by me, Shinobi. For the record, I'm 99% sure that the Stranger is the genuine article. But if he were a troll, then at least our dialog is giving my brain a bit of a workout. Cheers, BAA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinobi Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 On 7/6/2017 at 5:15 PM, bornagainathiest said: Interjecting your thoughts is ok by me, Shinobi. For the record, I'm 99% sure that the Stranger is the genuine article. But if he were a troll, then at least our dialog is giving my brain a bit of a workout. Cheers, BAA. ./././././. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 Ha ha! I completely understand. And, I'm wishing you the best of luck! If there's anyone here at ex-c who should be able to put this guy in his place, it would be you. I appreciate your wishes Shinobi, but putting the Stranger in his place is not my intention. Gotta run. Bye! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted July 6, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted July 6, 2017 Hmm... If the answer to 2+2 depended on emotion, then I would think that "in love" would produce a sum of infinity, and feelings of love toward jesus would likely yield an imaginary number. Not trying to be a square, here; just being rational. In my more cynical days, I might have said that "in love" would produce the imaginary number; but I was still feeling negative because of my X. Anyway, y'all plot on to whatever plane of truth you're hoping to achieve. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stranger Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 Please understand, I will not be able to respond until Sunday the 9th. Thanks. Stranger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disillusioned Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Please understand, I will not be able to respond until Sunday the 9th. Thanks. Stranger I suspect we'll muddle through... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator buffettphan Posted July 8, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted July 8, 2017 @Stranger Don't miss this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinas Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 Because the Bible is the Word of God. If any want to follow islam, or buddhism, or hinduism, go ahead. I will follow God and the Bible. Stranger OK, as there's clearly no attempt at rational argument in your post, I'll play the same game. You say the Bible is the Word of God. No it's not. If you want to follow an egomaniac concept of deity on the basis of some collection of ancient writings, go ahead. I have more sense. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stranger Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 Thanks Stranger. But I have to agree with Fwee. Emotion is alien to reason. If there were an emotional component involved in reason, then the answer to the question, 'What is 2 + 2?' would depend upon the emotional state of the person asking the question and/or the person providing the answer. Are you happy? Then the answer is 3. Depressed? Then it's 19. Filled with shame? -8. In love? 100! Fearful? 278,606. Greedy? 3.6612 Proud? 11. And so on. The answer (4 ...btw, regardless of anyone's emotions) is always the same for everyone everywhere. That's because reason has no emotional components and doesn't require emotion to work. It works just fine, without emotions getting involved. Anyway, now we are making some progress! We now know that your faith is neither based upon reason or emotion, Stranger. So, perhaps you could explain to us what it is based upon, please? Thanks, BAA. My faith is based upon the testimony of the Bible , and I believe it. And I can do nothing to change it. It is not reason, or emotion, it is just there. Stranger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 Anyway, I'm almost 99% sure that Stranger is trolling you and everyone else here at ex-c, and if I were you guys, I'd seriously think about getting out while I was ahead. Just my two cents (no offence intended)! However, don't let me stop you. I'm just beginning to think that he really doesn't care about what you or anyone else here has to say... Maybe he's mad, and he wants to fill up the forums with his raving lunacy? Who the hell knows...? Smh :/ I agree that he really doesn't care about what we have to say. He's made that pretty clear. I'm not so sure he's trolling, though, at least not intentionally. I think he just blindly thinks he's doing the Lord's work here. He probably thinks he's actually winning the debates even though he completely refuses to even think about and directly address most of the points that have been raised. He sidesteps almost everything, yet in his ignorance he probably does think he's actually answered us. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 If you had really questioned the "god is dead" philosophy back in the 60s, as you claimed, you would have known that WE killed god. Nietzsche made that point abundantly clear in outlining his philosophy. You, sir, are a liar. You did not question that philosophy in the 60s. You made the entire story up and the truth is not in you at all. There is no further point in any of us interacting with you. Nothing you say, from this point on, can be trusted. Nothing you say can be taken at face value. Everything you have done, said, and thought, in these threads now falls under suspicion because you are a liar. We're done here. It does seem suspicious, but I'm not so sure we can say with certainty that he's lying. His comprehension level is obviously quite low and the 1960s were a very long time ago, so it could be that he didn't understand what they were saying or he's forgotten. Another possibility is that he could've been talking to stoners who only quoted the "God is dead" part without really knowing what the philosophy was saying. Of course, he could be lying, but I don't think we can say for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted July 10, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted July 10, 2017 It does seem suspicious, but I'm not so sure we can say with certainty that he's lying. His comprehension level is obviously quite low and the 1960s were a very long time ago, so it could be that he didn't understand what they were saying or he's forgotten. Another possibility is that he could've been talking to stoners who only quoted the "God is dead" part without really knowing what the philosophy was saying. Of course, he could be lying, but I don't think we can say for sure. In truth, I suspect that the only people he "questioned" about the philosophy were other christians who simply regurgitated the same vomit as his preacher did on the subject. In which case, he did not genuinely question the philosophy; and to claim that he did is a misrepresentation of the truth. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 In truth, I suspect that the only people he "questioned" about the philosophy were other christians who simply regurgitated the same vomit as his preacher did on the subject. In which case, he did not genuinely question the philosophy; and to claim that he did is a misrepresentation of the truth. That thought crossed my mind as well, but I didn't mention it because it would fall into the "lying" category since he did claim that he questioned the ones who were saying, "God is dead." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now