Um, no we haven’t. That’s just some stuff you made up to make Christianity sound stupid.
You are doing a bang up job with making it sound stupid all by yourself, why would you need anyones help? 
Ucci & Bob, two of our greatest luminaries- my question, then, must be: Why not this always? I’ve also been away at school, so I understand, and forgive for not keeping up, but what have you been up to, Ucci?
Maybe all the chickens have come home to roost.
I couldn’t possibly! Studying philosophy takes all the fun out of talking about philosophy. I Can’t imagine I’ll still be interested in this place in a few weeks. Did that answer your question? 
Uccisore,
Well, I will be very interested to see if you do, indeed, respond to my post here. And I will not apologize for my own lack of self-awareness in the moment, my ego rising up, that is, as I feel that anyone who uses a username that means assassin wouldn’t be looking for an apology anyway and a king cobra’s skin must obviously be very thick; more thick, truth be told, than the dragon’s apparently.
To answer your question, I don’t think lacking awareness is necessarily, in and of itself, a bad thing – but of course, our actions stemming from lack of self-awareness may/can lead to negative things and causing harm. On the other hand, one might say that I lacked a bit of awareness in the moment when I lunged at you but that very lack of awareness did, in fact, acted as the catalyst that showed me my ego moment.
About my posts coming off as extremely passive-aggressive, I am not sure what you mean by this. I know what the term means but I am not seeing it so you will have to point it out to me. If, what you mean, is that I appear to be passive and perhaps not assertive enough – by your standards, then that is not the same as being passively-aggressive. That being said, you have absolutely no idea how assertive I am capable of being – I just choose when to be and when not to be.
I think all of us sometimes, some more than others, act passively aggressive. Incidentally, since this is a thread about knowledge and discovery of god, from my point of view anyway, lol, many ways in which we respond and react to a god might be said to be passively aggressive. We grow up with a lot of issues because of our parents – I daresay you may just have your very own issues because of them – but maybe not. I know that I do but I am more and more aware in the moment of this and usually when I over-react, there is a mirror of awareness that sets itself up for me. Perhaps this is the reason I reacted to you as I did – but perhaps not. Your demeanor appeared to be quite condescending but maybe I just took things too personally and to a different level. And if this here is what you take to be passive-aggressive behavior, then you would be wrong. This here is honestly and self-awareness.
So what happens, we give far too much credit sometimes to this god by praying and then when our prayers are not answered, like little children we get mad at this god. Now that is passive-aggressive behavior. Within our everyday dealings and the way in which we relate to people, we sometimes react to them subconsciously instead of just responding to them and, most often, little do we realize that it is actually to a mother or a father that we are reacting – we simply do not have the courage and ability to stand on our own two feet and face them, stand up to them – even as adults so ergo – it comes out as passive-aggressive behavior toward others.
Okay, well I am capable of seeing more than one POV. But I have ALSO heard Catholics/Christians/whoever, who ONLY blame humanity’s so-called downfall on Adam and Eve, too. We are all flawed, you know. At the same time, yes, I am quite aware of the guilt and shame that we impose on ourselves because of our so-called sinfulness and our choices/decisions.
I beg to differ with you here. I wouldn’t so much call it appealing and making up my own interpretation of things…it is just that I have sort of grown out of certain paradigms that I was raised with (conditioned into me) – and that is not a good nor a bad thing – it is just as it is. Do you find it a negative thing to not want to box a god in – to not want to label a god, to come to realize, to intuit/sensate that perhaps there is a very strong possibility and even perhaps a very strong probability – that the divine is not what we think, not what we believe? I mean, after all, this comes about for me because of my own experiences and my own thoughts – which incidentally I am entitled to, just as you are yours. We’re having a conversation here and we do not have to agree or have the same interpretations on things.
Insofar as the creative part goes – if there is a creator and we have eventually through evolution come to be created, why not be creative? Wouldn’t that make us more in the image and the likeness of a god? Projection perhaps, but still. When we grow out of old paradigms, we sometimes create new ones, better ones which work for us albeit we don’t have to create new ones – we can simply leave the old ones behind and blow in the wind like the leaves but they too have a destiny – downward.
.
I am not quite sure what you are talking about here but if you are talking about my ideas of a god - I haven’t made them up – I’ve thought about them, chewed on the, examined them – they are NOT fantasies nor are they assumptions – they are my intuitions and sensations about the divine. Perhaps you can say they are a work in progress that make more sense to me than those I was conditioned by others to believe in.
If you are talking about what I said about Adam and Eve and how we humans view our part in human evolution, I haven’t made that up either. I did say that I see both PsOV.
You’ll have to elaborate a bit on this. I’m not so sure what you’re talking about. And why are you so belligerent? Three seconds or three hours, I thought that your last man theory was very creative.
I
Well, yes, I was disagreeing with you of course because I personally have no idea if Christ is truly the son of god, one way or the other. That would have been quite obvious, I think - if you had read between the lines. You would have understood that this is all I had meant – and it was in response to your remark : Jesus seems to have laid down that ideal relationship pretty explicitly, and I know I sure as hell don’t live up to it. And I was admitting that I too fail to live up to my own principles.
And incidentally, just for the record, I have no compunctions whatsoever about disagreeing with you nor anyone else for that matter – about anything IF I honestly disagree. I actually thrive on it. Where I grew up, there was no freedom to do that, to think, to feel what that little girl wanted to for herself. So I’ve more than made up for lost time, you can take that to the bank. At the same time, when it comes to religion, it may be a fine line to walk between putting out my own thoughts and allowing others theirs. I try not to infringe on that though I don’t always succeed.
When I said this: Because the way I look at it, it does appear to be an assumption on our part – that the world is meant to exist in some particular way. I WAS NOT implying that the rest of the world was meant to see as I do. And incidentally, many people in the world do assume that what is in the bible is real. I’m not saying that it isn’t – I am just saying that I don’t feel that way, I have given up much there. Does it really matter anyway – what is important I think is that however someone believes ought to bring them to the best life that they can live. We all have our own beliefs or our disbeliefs and are wholly entitled to them though I do feel that they need to be examined and turned upside down. But I won’t be redundant here.
I don’t take this as belittling - but perhaps you are making a projection here - do you take assumptions as being something highly negative? An assumption to me is just something believed in without the benefit of experiment and examination, questioning, doubt, etc. Assumptions just need to be taken much further, that is all. An assumption to me is as negative as lack of awareness is.
And learning from their Scriptures…what is that when our thought has not been taken further and examined but simply assumed to be as is from the scriptures or borrowed from parents, etc. which incidentally I have also done in the past, having been raised a catholic. I guess we can say that assumptions are waters that haven’t been disturbed much.
No I wasn’t – only the people who actually do NOT do that.
In the first place, I don’t call people retards – at the same time, there ARE many religious believers who can’t/won’t think for themselves. I also know, on the other side of this coin, that there are wonderful believers who have examined their faith and still come to the same beliefs/conclusions and they do live their lives according to a god or according to their morals and principles and the world is better for that. Incidentally, how could I possibly mean it in the nicest way if that was, in fact, what I meant as you said above. Who is it NOW who isn’t being assertive.? 
I see a lot more perspective than you think but that’s okay because I know I see it.
I’m not actually worried about offending you here – and I don’t think I can - I am just trying to get my thoughts across. And pray tell, what is the clear picture that you want me to see? I am actually trying to see what you are getting at but it doesn’t necessarily mean that I have to adopt your viewpoint – but that we can see more clearly, one another’s, is a good thing. If you want to try to point out to me what you think are the errors in my thinking – please do – I am willing to listen and to jump into that river. At the same time, it doesn’t mean that the waters will change but I am quite willing to disturb them anyway. I have no anticipation/expectation about it one way or the other.
That isn’t even logical, uccisore. The answer I would give is that I’ve never beaten my dog. Cut and dry.
Okay, I actually went back and searched for that phrase narrowminded - I couldn’t find it though it doesn’t mean I didn’t use it. But I did use and find tunnel vision which is basically what I do mean by narrowminded. We do not always use our periphery vision – we see only what we sometimes want to see, what is straight ahead of us, in front of us, and what makes us more comfortable instead of seeing a complete view from as many perspective as we can. And yes, I too do this. We all do this. And on that note, a little more self-awareness is entering in, especially insofar as choosing and picking the better words to express myself.
Hmmm – the reason I did THAT is because I am very aware of how I can sometimes just focus on myself in the moment. I use the pronoun I very often when writing. At my moment of realizing I was doing this, ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
I chose to include others as part of the equation. But I actually do see your point here. At this point, I can only speak for myself, not others. I will concede that.
And this statement, my friend, is probably where you touched the core of where I live/or where I used to live and made me want to attack. Yes, I have been quite broken in the past and am still broken in parts and will probably continue to be – at the same time, I transcend this and will also continue to. I am growing in and out of…becoming….in my brokenness. But isn’t it better to speak to our UNbrokenness, or our wholesomeness, don’t you think?
And perhaps I choose not to know so much about religion or at least the kind of religion that binds us in and ties us down and does not allow us to fly free and does not allow us to question our own place in the universe, to see the truth of who we really are or the truth of what perhaps the divine had in mind, if anything, when we were created. Oh, and if you want, go and change all the WEs to I am. I do not have to dance or march to the same drummer that you do. I can read and read and read and know about religion and what the bible tells us is truth. And I can do my own weeding and gleaning of any knowledge and/or wisdom that comes from it. But ultimately, if there is a god, or not, I have been given my own brain and mind to think with and my own legs to walk in my own direction, and my own voice to speak what I intuit to be the truth and I have wings with which I can fly. And that is all I need.
And that statement above which you made aboutbrokenness – that is just what I am talking about. In what way is that a positive criticism? Thank you.
ah, okay now, and after that, yes I will pay for whatever has to be paid for on our trip. You are worth it. I can already see the shaman smiling.
Mmm…
Well, I mean like the above. You call other people and their beliefs ‘self centered’ or ‘blind’ or ‘narrow minded’ or whatever terms you use, but then when somebody says ‘That isn’t very nice’, you pull a verbal Cirque de Soleil to somehow convince me that the people you maligned should be taking your vicious words as compliments. In other words, you want to belittle without being ‘one who belittles’. It’s a parallel to the shrew who acts absolutely insufferable, but when you ask them what’s wrong, they say “Nothing”. They want to complain without being ‘one who complains’.
Yeah, that would be another example.
I heard of a Catholic/Christian/whomever who threw boiling water on her daughter to punish her for being ugly. I’m not really sure how far these anecdotes get us. My point was that irrespective of what you heard of someone doing, that Adam and Eve are responsible for our personal actions isn’t Christian doctrine, it’s not what ministers teach, and critcizing Christianity on those grounds makes as much sense as criticizing it for my boiling water anecdote.
So, we’re all flawed, but not in ways we should feel guilty about? I’m confused how you acknowledge a key Christian doctrine in sentence 1, then mock it in sentence 2.
That’s another one of those ‘do you still beat your dog’ questions like I explained to you before. You just characterized what you do as marvelous, what you see Christendom doing as stupid, then asked me if I find it bad to not be stupid. And yes, I noticed your ‘not that that’s a bad thing’ clause in the middle there. But you still referred to yourself as ‘growing out of’ of your tradition, and others as ‘boxing God in’, and we both know that growing is good, and restriction is bad, which is exactly what you intended when you said it, despite the fact that you’re tempted now to go into another verbal gymnastic floor routine to insist otherwise.
Wouldn’t it depend on what we created and why? You saying “Creative Equals Good!” and me by implication saying “Creative Equals Bad!” seems terribly simplistic.
No, actually I was talking there about the horribly negative characterizations you concocted about how Christians think and how they behave, right before you asked me why they behave like that. I.E., your whole “Why do Christians assume blah blah blah” comment. Answer = we don’t. That we do is the thing you made up. Which is perfectly fine! Get all creative! In your world, Christians put God in a box and make all kinds of assumptions and wear pink leprechaun hats, it’s cool. But if you ask someone else who isn’t in your world ‘what’s up with the leprechaun hats’, you’ll get some strange looks.
Thanks! But do you see my point now though? If I came up with a theory that you were the Resurrected Napoleon, and out of the blue asked you what's up with having your hand in your coat all the time, and if the Arc de Triumph was to compensate for something, and you reacted with "What the hell are you talking about?" that would be my fault, right?
See, you've created a situation in which nobody can know anything about God, and anybody who thinks they do has 'put him in a box' or whatever. Which is fine- I'm going to skip the whole virtues of creativity thing. But your creative view doesn't extend past your own nose. If you start asking people why the put God in a box, the only answer you'll get is "What the hell are you talking about?", because the rest of us don't live in Arcturus Town, and don't think of ourselves as doing that.
Then ask why people do that, then. 
That’s a completely different question. Has the same answer, though- they don’t. The people who you imagine as assuming the Bible is true aren’t assuming it, they’re believing it because some trusted authority told them so. I know that may seem like a small difference to you, but to a technical guy like me, it’s huge. I mean, just imagine if what you were saying is true- that somebody whonever heard of the Bible before picks it up, looks at the cover, and thinks “You know, I’m just going to take it for granted that whatever this thing says is true” and starts reading. That’s what it is to assume something…and I hope we can agree that that isn’t what Christians do.
No. But your question was phrased as “Why do people assume X when I believe not-X?” which followed all your talk of self-centeredness, restriction, and tunnel-vision which I’m apparently supposed to believe you don’t think are bad. In the context of what you said, it’s pretty clear you meant, “Why do people take this false idea for granted as true without seriously examining it?” which is, of course, highly negative.
OK, well what bearing do they have on anything? Were you seriously asking me why some people I’ve never met act in some peculiar way? If it wasn’t a generalization about religious people, what was it?
Well, it’s a pretty big concession. All your points and questions about ‘why do religious believers do this and that’ kind of revolve around your position that, in fact, they’re all just as in the dark as you are, right? To bring it home- you talk about tunnel vision and putting God in a Box. Well, answering ‘6’ to “What’s 3+3?” isn’t tunnel vision, and it’s not putting 3+3 in a box (at least, not a box that wasn’t there to begin with)…but it might certainly seem that way to somebody who believed nobody could ever really know what 3+3 is. You think the God-questions are immortal and unanswerable, so anybody who thinks they have answers seems to be doing something bizarre or incorrect to you. The answer to ‘why do they do that’ is that they don’t think the God-questions are immortal and unanswerable.
Uccisore,
Care to elaborate on that? Anyway, at the same time, I can see that lacking awareness is not necessarily a good thing – it can and does cause harm and damage. So it is definitely a negative.
Hmmm…I suppose I will have to think on that one. Well, as this is for me also about learning about myself and my own lack of awareness, I will have to think on that one. Is it possible that at times I tend to be a little haughty in thinking that what I feel is more real and examined than what someone else does? Yes, it’s possible and if I really think about it, I can recall some times. I must remember that others have as much right to their own thoughts/beliefs as do I. Otherwise, I am lacking in self-awareness and it is also very egotistical to say the least.
That isn’t what you said – what you did was to call to mind my brokenness – don’t mix fruit and vegetables together. Anyway, sometimes it is our enemies that make us stronger. 
*quote]you pull a verbal Cirque de Soleil to somehow convince me that the people you maligned should be taking your vicious words as compliments. In other words, you want to belittle without being ‘one who belittles’.
[/quote]
I happen to think that the Cirque de Soleil is wonderful and amazing. Lol. And I do think that your using the word maligned and vicious to describe what you feel I do is much too much here. I do not ever try to malign nor am I vicious – but yes, perhaps I do judge sometimes and I think you just may be projecting or as I said before – being passive aggressive yourself. physican heal thyself!!!
But I didn’t say nothing, I did voiced my thoughts.
You have it wrong here. I wasn’t criticizing Christianity as a whole – I wasn’t even criticizing Christianity, just pointing to the fact of how we as human beings sometimes like to put our own responsibility for our actions onto someone else. Do you feel that the religion that Christ founded and that some people profess to and practice today is the same that Christ for the very most part, had in mind? Do you?
What I meant above is that if Christ truly was loving and compassionate, and taught the same, then we are not meant to feel and to impose on ourselves such shame and guilt – sometimes shame and guilt deprive us of seeing what we have done and our responsibility, but we are to just see what we are doing to ourselves and to others, to take responsibility for that and to do no harm, to try to do no harm, even to do no harm to ourselves!!! It’s about growing and learning awareness. When children are taught to feel shame, they turn inward and learn to hate themselves and become unfree within.
You seem to enjoy putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my mind and taking things a bit or much further than I do. I never said what I felt was marvelous - just that it was as I thought. When I said – that is not a good nor bad thing – it is just as I was saying and the way I look at it. My saying that is actually showing no judgment of what is more reasonable – the way I feel/think and the way of Christianity and those christians who have examined their religious paradigms.
And I never said I thought Christianity was stupid. You are very self-defensive about Christianity and I won’t assume that you are a Christian but you are very self-defensive about it. I am not its enemy. I was raised a catholic with catholic sisters in a catholic orphanage for crying out loud and I am very aware of some of the beauty of Christianity – though no I do not believe in a lot of it anymore.
And although I can plainly see with my own eyes how a god might be labeled and given certain attributes and characteristics because of the workings and the beauty of the universe, at the same time, I personally feel/intuit that these labels do box a god in and restrictions of this sort might not allow for a larger image of a god. Is our image of god to grow or is to remain stumped or cast in stone? And yes, growing is good and restrictions under certain circumstances are not good.
and now you are psychic. And I did not insist otherwise. What I sometimes like to do though is to qualify things, embellish on them.
Man, are you picky. Well, yes you are right though - to qualify. I am speaking about life-giving and beautiful creativity. And maybe you’re not being so picky – like me, perhaps, not to assume, but just perhaps, you just want to paint a larger clearer picture.
There you go again with putting the words and thoughts in my mouth and mind. By the way, we do share the same world, our interpretation of it is just different but maybe not so very much. Okay, I’ll grant you. What I ought to have said is Why do some Christians assume? And for you to say = we don’t, you are either not seeing a larger picture or you are lying to yourself, in denial. But I will grant you, that is not all Christians. And thank you, I like to creative – obviously you do too as I see.
Again, assuming. I would probably laugh and ask you to explain your theory to me. Maybe I am the resurrected Napoleon, how do we know I am not, though I have a feeling you wouldn’t mind being him? And why would any theory of yours be a fault. It just is what it is….AGAIN!!!Until of course, proven faulty…
I don’t think this is exactly what I am saying – though maybe it is. What is wrong with keeping the divine as a mystery? When such a mystery is known, it loses its sacredness, its meaning. At the same time, we can have our own personal experience with the divine but that’s a different kind of knowledge, its both intimate and unknowing at the same time.
Well, I don’t know about that. It extends far past my nose and into the life of me and is responsible for the way in which I live my life and intuit the universe.
No I would probably first explain what I meant to them. Arcturus Town, I like that. Always wanted a town named after me. I am still waiting to have a hurricane named after me – my real name that is. Lol.
believing because some trusted authority told them so….still seems like assuming to me…unless they have done their own investigation into it, reading it, pondering it, pulling it apart, asking questions after questions about it, what do I believe, what do I not believe, why ought I to believe. Then and only then, if they see truth within it, I will say okay these are people who are not assuming or simply adapting or adopting the beliefs of others. They see truth in their convictions. Technical guy huh? Would you assume or believe something without some kind of rigorous scientific way of discovery?
But that is an assumption and it is not true. That is what very many Christians do, this is what I am saying. Not all, but still many, they are afraid to step out of their blind faith, their comfort zone and really examine what the bible is saying. They read it, yes, and draw great comfort from it – is this what religion is for, just great comfort, is it not also to ponder what for example the stories in the bible are telling them about their own life, how the stories speak to them?
No I didn’t – only the people who actually do NOT do that.
I never said that people have to have the same paradigms that I do. All I have been saying is that we ought not to assume. As far as self-centeredness, restrictions and tunnel-vision, well, they are certainly not positives and conducive to human personal evolution, are they? So they are negatives. And personally, I do feel that it is a negative to NOT examine our own paradigms and plain laziness. It isn’t something I assume or take for granted – I affirm it. lol
The only difference here is that I know that I am quite often in the dark - some don’t. Not all but some don’t know they are in the dark but really is it even for me to point that out to them? That is the question, that is my predictament.
Not completely but for the most part yes. And that is the beauty of mystery. That is not to say that there is not beauty and fascination in learning and understanding about the universe but still…
Nope. Actually I sort of envy and admire anyone who can let go like that and simply know, have that kind of faith. For myself, I live in unknowing – but at the same time, there is kind of some trange light there.
Yes, c’est domage.
No, you were specifically saying that the Judeo-Christian creation myth counts as an instance of doing this. How the hell is that not a criticism of Christianity?
Oh, right. Because putting our responsibility for our actions onto someone else isn’t a bad thing, right? 
Yes.
So, when Christians DO feel shame and guilt for their actions, then we are going against the words of Christ who taught compassion and forgiveness, and when we DON'T feel shame and guilt for our actions, it's because we're abdicating responsibility to Adam and Eve. I see.
Maybe this- maybe somethings guilt is good, and sometimes guilt is bad. Maybe sometimes people act shitty, and sometimes people act great, and none of it is some amazing insight into the nature of Christian theology, hmm?
Which sounds like a great reason to blame Adam and Eve for everything to me, not that I agree with the above anyway.
Alright then, now that I choked that out of you, we can agree that "Do you find it a negative thing to *not* want to box a God in" is a loaded question. Whether or not Christians 'box God in' is the relevant question, you're just assuming the conclusion that characterizes the faith the way you want to characterize it, and giving me a trapped 'yes or no' option. "Do you still beat your dog?"
I reject your characterization in the first place that Christianity is about putting God in a box, and that abandoning Christianity has anything to do with letting one's conception of God grow.
Um, no. You were NOT talking about 'life-giving and beautiful creativity', you were talking about me making shit up about who the serpent in the Garden of Eden was. That's certainly not 'life-giving', and whether it not it was beautiful- well, maybe I'm an accidental poet, but I sure didn't intend it that way.
So anyway, yeah- whether or not God wants us to be creative depends on what we're creating and why. Pretty sure being 'creative' about His teachings wouldn't qualify.
And I would have said "Because they're stupid, or don't find the time/interest/value in investigating the issues more deeply". Which, by the way, is the exact same answer I'd give if you asked me "Why do some atheists assume..." or "Why do some free-thinkers assume..."
or “Why do some X’s assume”.
Why do some Christians eat their hamburgers with Mayo? Why would you ask me such a thing?
Oh. Well, it isn’t. Look up what the word ‘assume’ means, and contrast it with believing something because you were taught it by a trusted authority, and you’ll see they’re completely different.
Of course. There's only 24 hours in a day, the vast majority of the things I believe (outside of direct observation), I believe because I heard somebody say it (or read it) and decided to believe them. I think rigorously about philosophy and religion because that's the area I chose to study. When I hear something about the history of Uruguay or or the mineral composition of the Moon, I just sort of believe if it it's coming from a trusted source.
Maybe you do things differently, but then again, YOU aren't even sure if you're Napoleon or not, so your way of doing things doesn't recommend itself very well.
Really. Many Christians who have never heard of the Bible before, decide on first glance to believe everything it says without reading it first. Really.
Look at that. "Afraid" "Blind" "Comfort Zone". Whether you mean it or not, you're presenting Christians as retarded children who are unable to think for themselves. Now, we've already established that you don't mean ALL Christians, just some...but, what we haven't established is, why you feel the need to harp ON and ON and ON and ON and ON about this particular 'some', and why it is that every time you mention Christians, this is the 'some' you choose to mention.
Seriously, you could say the above about SOME atheists, SOME Jews, SOME Muslims, SOME whatever-the-hell-you-are's, etc. Any group at all, short of "The set of all people who don't do that". But what does it serve us to talk about them? If I went to an atheist forum, and asked, "Why are some atheists afraid to step out of their blind faith, their comfort zone, and really examine what Richard Dawkins is saying?", wouldn't the most appropriate answer be, "For the same reason that some Christians act that way"?
Some people, in any group, are just like. There’s nothing to be concluded from pointing out (repeatedly, and with great joy) that some people in THIS or THAT group are like that. Settled issue?
And as far as what the word ‘assume’ actually means, almost nobody ever does that. People put varying degrees of effort into examining their beliefs depending on their interest, and what else they have going on in their lives. If you live the kind of life where you have thousands of hours to devote to reading about religion and staring at the sky thinking about stuff, then good for you…so do I. But what about the people who don’t have our same luxuries? Or what about the people who have that time, but choose to spend it doing something else, like learning how to perform surgery or play the piano or something?
Surely you can’t be saying that everybody, everywhere, needs to be a philosopher or else they aren’t allowed to believe anything because they didn’t ‘earn’ it. So…assuming you AREN’T saying that, what is there for these people to do except believe whom they consider trusted authorities- the people who DID put in the time and study that you’ve been praising as so very important?
Heya Uccisore
When I saw this thread a mischievous smile found it’s way onto my face as I thought of all the “hard” questions I might ask you… but then I remembered… we’ve already been through most of it.
Instead let me simply say… I miss our discussions.
This place is not the same without you.
Well, he is here for NOW.
That means a lot coming from you, considering how we’ve gone at it in the past. Seriously, thanks.
Things got heated because we both cared what the other had to say… which is also why I miss it.
Glad to hear that your doing well. Hope grad school works out for you. You’ll make a great lecturer one day. You’ve got the cranium for it.
I rarely check-in here any more myself. I’ve been really busy with NIH grants and other obligations for the last year or so. My lab has expanded and I don’t have as much time to care about Bob’s heresy, or talk with every fresh-faced atheist who just decided that the church is evil and that they are the new ordained one man anti-christian army.
Plus, when I do check-in here, I just don’t see much worth commenting on anymore. Maybe it’s just me, but it’s mostly nonsense that I can’t work up the enthusiasm to care about. Except old Felix. I still read any of his threads if I have the time.
Anyway! Glad that you checked-in again, snake-boy!
Hi Ucc.,
I have to concede that I haven’t the Genius that you have - nor will I ever have that. However, an friend gave me a nudge and told me about Kierkegaard’s differentiation between the Genius and the Apostle, so the question is, seeing as the Apostle or Prophet is often a heretic in the society he lives in, which of us has the calling which bestows authority?
Shalom
It took you how many days to come up with that snap?
And that was all you had? Come on, Bob, you can do better than that! Throw out passive-aggressive insults, sure, but make sure the barb is sharp! That is how Jesus would want it!
All this on his Birthday, too!
Sorry that I don’t live up to your expectancies, but I am rarely aggressive - frustrated occasionally, but aggressive? No. I probably use the smilies too little, otherwise you’d understand that there is very often a smile on my face when I write in ILP … look at my avatar!
Shalom
I’m just a philosopher, I’d never claim to be a Prophet. But if you see the virtue in yourself to claim the title, you must be very proud.
Curious that you would want to see it that way, but do not prophets often feel an obligation that has nothing at all to do with pride?
“I stand here and can do nothing else!” Luther is said to have blurted out when being questioned. But what about the less prominent carriers of the word, the unknown prophets and martyrs who have died in prison or been executed - were they proud? Did they see virtue in themselves?
I tend to think that you really only scratch the surface … for all of the Genius that you are.
Shalom
Bob and Ucci, would it not be better just to leave things as they are before things are said that cause ill feelings?
I dunno, are you comparing yourself to them, too in your humility? Really, what are you darkening my doorstep for just now?