Vent your frustration here

It's always the same.--show us you're good enough for us, then we'll call you moral, stop calling you bigots and take you in.--Why - I don't require that you think me moral, and accept me; and I am certainly not hurt by being called names such as "bigot". That might work on RiverRat who gets frustrated, but "it's going to take a hell of a lot more than that to get me down". Robert Deniro - Cape Fear. The difference with me Taz - is that I don't suck up to atheists. I see through it. I don't prove myself to atheists morally because I don't see them as the moral elite bunch they think they are. I shall not kiss your shoes, Sir.You have no knowledge of my actions on earth, but I'm certainly not going to mention them, as I have enough social-intelligence to not do that. That would be the deed that would give the atheist the permission to take the position ahead of me, of being morally superior, thereby allowing me to struggle and fight for the atheist's blessing..Why, I'm not going to do that Taz. My only argument is that everybody has sin, and that homosexuals aren't a special-case just because they're homosexual. They suffer from lust just like the heterosaur.My musings are deliberate and I am not even a Christian as the term has no meaning any longer. I have only discussed my beliefs in this thread.You can't just lump me in with everybody else when I have very specific musings. That I might share the same conclusions is irrelevant. It's called Ad Logicam.

You're quite correct, in my opinion. As much as I do know God's will in the sense that I am sure I do, that is more of a conviction, and I thereby concede that particular point.I have a conviction that I know God's will based on my beliefs. I am not sure if the term "know" can be used for a conviction alone. A JTB (justified true belief) is generally accepted as a genuine knowledge barring Gettier.But I have dropped my guard somewhat, in this thread because I am discussing my beliefs. People don't want me to have them though - they don't tolerate that my theology makes me believe very specific things that have no baring on what I WANT to be the case, but have everything to do with what I must believe to be the case, if I deem the scriptures to be true in my own mind.

Everything he has said has a biblical reference. He believes this is the Way, as opposed to you who believe its not. But one thing is certain, that Mike isn't just making up this information.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

My final post, to Shraff and here deatheatersSince I have now been found to be the grandest and most enduring irrefutable monster of our times, I shall wax eloquent and divulge my retort.The mikey-crowd are eager for some custard on their cake and it's my duty to put a cherry on Tony's pie. So I think it best if you down your horcruxes in the knowledge that mikey is the master-of-death, with his harrowing hallows, he's the all-refuting lawyer of the most high, ready and able to pounce upon your inferior postages, and expunge and confute the literature of woeful disputations your melancholy pessimistic malfunctioning excuse for a brain can muster.

Heh... I considered referring to myself as a Messianic Jew to get away from the horribly mangled meaning behind Christianity. But I thought more deeply about it. What I came up with is that no matter what you decide to call yourself, someone will always be there to bastardize what Christ has done. There will always be some aberration rearing its head in the name of Christ which will inexorably give the lot of us a black eye by default."Christian" simply means, Christ like. The measure of being a Christian is Christ alone-- not other self-described Christians. Many, many atheists are in a bad habit of pointing to someone who refers to themselves as a Christian as a way to measure all of Christendom. That is an illogically absurd thought process.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Should someone with equal conviction in their beliefs as yourself, who genuinely concluded that interracial marriage (for example) was morally wrong be tolerated purely because they believe that their conclusion is derived from a higher power?How can we differentiate between equally held faith based convictions that support opposing points of view?How can convictions of the sort you describe actually be applied in practice when even those with broadly the same beliefs can draw drasticaly different conclusions?Subjective intolerance based on irrational conviction seems unworkable apart from anything else.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

mike the wiz Now mike, you are not one to generalize needlessly as you do here. I am people and I ,for one, care not whether you believe them or not as long as you are of the same mind and will allow me the same courtesy.

nemesis_juggernaut How do you determine this to be so?

I agree it's a mis-used term. Logically ofcourse, as you say, it would be absurd to measure all this way. But they immorally do that - whether consciously or subconsciously.It's all irrelevant because of the undistributed middle anyway.Even if all people who claimed to be Christian were immoral murdering bastards, that still wouldn't affect the description of my beliefs. So basically the no true scotsman is usually claimed, in error, by the atheist, for they don't allow the genuine disjunction, that you can't be a Christian and not a Christian.But you can, because Christ said those who don't bear fruit aren't. Simple.Thus their use of it forces me to claim that I am not one, because they will surely want to call me one, to smear my name as much as possible. Especially when they want to make out that Christians are dumb, gullible, immoral people. Oh - they're just desperate to not only smear it, but to put you in a category from which there can be no intellectual acceptance, or respect, period. Socially clever, but not clever enough to get it past me.This stuff is all bread and butter, to wiz of a wiz. Forgive my lack of modesty, but it just doesn't cut the mustard.The interesting thing is that they are first and foremost, proponents of critical thought, which treats all claims equally. Ironically, they don't treat the claim to be Christian critically, do they? Why, anyone can be one, all they have to do is claim it.Thus reductio ad absurdum itself shows their motives.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Fair enough.

Apologies to Nem and any others if I don't respond to posts, I am not available on the web after tonight, so won't be coming back for a time times and a half.(you'll need "time" defined in order to to extrapolate.)

Is it me, or is it genuinely ironic that you should mention "the atheist" (emphasis mine) in a statement complaining of undue generalization? Could you please point out how reductio ad absurdum is involved?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Okay - just one last post;Reductio ad absurdum is the process that can be used to uncover lies.But basically, IF their motives are good and innocent in regards to my "beliefs", THEN they would allow for a term that was not loaded and had no baggage, in order to describe me accurately. (search loaded terms and informal fallacies).Since They insist that the person can I can't define "Christian" and therefore don't allow me to describe myself accurately, then their motives are not good and innocent. By means of Modus tollens that is then inferred. Just my quick typing - hey, I'm not forcing you to qualify unless you insist you're one of them.Oh, and if you're trying to say I didn't use the term "ironic" correctly then you're wrong, because you would expect a critical thinker to examine the claim "I am Christian" critically - but infact the opposite happens.It seems you keep attempting to make me look stupid Para', in your posts to me recently. If you you insist on treating me this way, I will lose respect for you.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Mike, I know what reductio ad absurdum is, and what you just described isn't it. I hate to break it to you, but your use of logic is lacking. You are not irrefutable.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

HereOh that's quite allright - as I think you'll find that's exactly what reductio ad absurdum is. And now I really must go.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.