(June 27, 2014 at 6:35 am)fr0d0 Wrote: If you agree with ramp, then I'm afraid I do tar you with the same brush.

Dude, you actually think I don't see through the bullshit you're spouting? It was already clear from the very beginning that I was in agreement with him that you are a dodger. So yes, you did intend to insult me, and you know that very well.

Again, if you don't want to apologise, your call. All this does for me is reinforce the view that you don't have a God that holds you accountable for what you say. Are you faking it by any chance?

Someone who truly believes in that God of love and humility would've done exactly what pocaras did for you. Even when he did not intend offence, he apologized to you despite you being the one overreacting and being all sensitive about how he gave kudos to someone else. I would say that pocaras is more of a "man of God" than you could ever imagine to be (regardless of his beliefs).

Also, since you have shown trust in the Bible (from reading your past posts), here's a Bible passage to make you think about all this we've discussed:

Luke 18:
9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

"For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

I hope you can live with the shame of knowing you could never be that humble believer in God.

I'm new here and I have to say this place is an echo chamber for the same old theist crap.
Who fucking cares. Until theists can give me an honest coherent answer to why they believe that there is someone listening to their prayers that isn't riddled with bullshit about astrophysics and cave men and what have you then I can't help but hear their ramblings as pure bull crap. I just know that your beliefs preceded your armchair interest in half ass internet forum science.

It is abundantly clear to everyone that theist beliefs begin without the need for a reason and all the rest is just an attempt to prop up those beliefs.
At the core is the error of starting with belief.
My dog believes that there is someone outside the house every time snow falls from the eves and makes a sound. So what!
That is as useful as pointing out that man is naturally full of superstition and wrong assumptions.

(June 27, 2014 at 2:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Hey Rhythm

Obviously I read it differently to you. You take the cave man/ fundy literalist position, and can't reconcile that. Neither could I.

So I guess from over here your pov looks as conflicted as mine does to you.

Of course you do, though I don't exactly go with a caveman reading, or a fundy literalist position myself except when there is no choice. There's alot of trouble in deciding that stories are just symbolic, allegorical, or metaphoric. Opens up the possibility that "god" is just symbolic, allegorical, metaphoric. This sort of reading can also give the stories more depth than a literalist reading might. To me it's really a wash. In any case, we're going to stick with the book and experiences, and drop the whole "there can be no empirical evidence of the supernatural" bit then?

(you never saw me laying out the theology of the loaves and fishes? - fucking caveman readings...lulz)

LOL R

Yep I'm sticking with the no empirical evidence plus bible and experience as that's consistent. I'm not confused about what's allegorical/ symbolic/ metaphorical as you say you are, so I guess that's how I can know where you can't.

---

(June 27, 2014 at 7:10 am)Irrational Wrote: I hope you can live with the shame of knowing you could never be that humble believer in God.

I'm truly humbled to be schooled by someone with no understanding of the subject.

That is too funny though

(June 27, 2014 at 8:19 am)fr0d0 Wrote: LOL R

Yep I'm sticking with the no empirical evidence plus bible and experience as that's consistent. I'm not confused about what's allegorical/ symbolic/ metaphorical as you say you are, so I guess that's how I can know where you can't.

B-mine, as I explained (could link the post again) that bit is precisely the problem. Those two things cannot be simultaneously true. I willing to accept either and go from there as part of a healthy discussion - but there can be no progress beyond mutually exclusive statements. If I tried, I'd just be straw manning you at a fundamental level. Your senses, your experiences (and those of others as recounted in narratives) - are the very definition of the word "empirical"..............
(no, really, look it up - it's not just the definition or a definition but the entirety of the definition..lol)

(June 27, 2014 at 2:34 am)Knowledge of God Wrote: They say: your future all depends on your roots.

Roots? Now we're talkin'...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MiVtlhOW4U

(June 27, 2014 at 8:19 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I'm not confused about what's allegorical/ symbolic/ metaphorical as you say you are, so I guess that's how I can know where you can't.

You're not confused? Or are you certain of your classification of those parts of the text?

It doesn't really matter how he knows, if he knows, if it can be known, or if there's anything to know. In the context of a proposition any permutation of the above could simply be examined for what it is, an empirical claim. If he wants a to be metaphoric/allegoric/wafflist/what have you and b to be literal, then fine, we'll address b, or vv. If somebody wants the whole thing to be mild allegory then fine - we'd still be making an empirical claim about the effectiveness and applicability of the allegory to our empirical dataset (our senses and experience).

Obviously, I'm of the opinion that people who think they've managed to imagine a concept immune to empiricism just haven;t thought their position out that well. Can't really call it malicious or even intentional. Why would we, creatures so adapted to and well equipped for empiricism have any talent for imagining the unimpeachable? We wouldn't. I don't think Frodo has managed to crack that nut any more than the rest of us.

(June 27, 2014 at 8:45 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(June 27, 2014 at 8:19 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I'm not confused about what's allegorical/ symbolic/ metaphorical as you say you are, so I guess that's how I can know where you can't.

You're not confused? Or are you certain of your classification of those parts of the text?

Yes I'm certain about the classification. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

---

Rhythm

empirical
ɛmˈpɪrɪk(ə)l,ɪm-/Submit
adjective
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
"they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"

I use the term from Dawkins use regarding this subject. I guess you're saying that he got it wrong.

Verifiable : sure. Every Christian verifies the experience of the rest. Independently verifiable to non believers : no.

Unless you're taking about something else?

(June 27, 2014 at 8:53 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 27, 2014 at 8:45 am)pocaracas Wrote: You're not confused? Or are you certain of your classification of those parts of the text?

Yes I'm certain about the classification. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

So you know which parts of the text are allegories, and which are metaphors and which are symbolic and which are any of all the other stylistic figures, huh?

Is there any room for true accounts of real events? Is that available as a classification?