Diego_008

Member
  • Posts

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Diego_008

  1. 29 minutes ago, Pastor Dave said:

    Actually yes. I have called your expertise into question and you have provided no proof of your said expertise. You can tell me you're the fire chief all day long but until I see a badge and an ID stating you are a fire chief you have no more standing as an expert than Joe Schmoe.

     

    If you are a part of academia you would know that, when I asked if you were published I wasn't referring to a post on a forum.

     

     

    By the way, I was not referring to a post on a forum either. I am writing a graduate school textbook on the history of the Holy Roman Empire, and another book on Lutheran Liturgy and its translations into English in the last three centuries. The fact that YOU thought I was referring to writing Forum posts makes me wonder what is wrong with you, in all sincerity.

  2. 16 minutes ago, Pastor Dave said:

    Actually yes. I have called your expertise into question and you have provided no proof of your said expertise. You can tell me you're the fire chief all day long but until I see a badge and an ID stating you are a fire chief you have no more standing as an expert than Joe Schmoe.

     

    If you are a part of academia you would know that, when I asked if you were published I wasn't referring to a post on a forum.

     

     

    This, of course, implies that you have no brain. I am NOT going to give out my name on the Internet! Whilst I do not think that you are a psychopath (lacking in sense yes; a psychopath, no), there are plenty of psychopaths out there. I already have indicated where I live. Giving out my name, when I have a wife and child to protect, would be the height of STUPID. I don't care if you challenge me or not. I am well aware of my skills, and the books that attest to said skills. You can question all you want. The more fool you.

  3. 59 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

     

    Hello Diego_008,

    Since credential presentation seems to be jaunting along in this thread.  I will oblige but it is highly unusual. 

     

    Too, all of the precision and sparing has certainly sidetracked the original purpose of your post. 

    Also unusual, but it is your thread so I'll just loop things back to the point of origin. 

     

    Like you - I have a college degree plus a bit more.   Like you - I have studied three languages beyond my native tongue.

     I do not claim mastery in any of them - but certainly I get by when pressed to do so - in all of them.

      I appreciate learning and listening.   I find darn near every person I have ever met teaches me something.

      I also did okay with book learning as well.   I graduated with a boatload of honors from college and have been

    offered additional educational opportunities by way of scholarships.  I declined that opportunity.  

     But they sure made me feel good offering it! 

     

    Early on - I was a slow reader.  I was a very poor student until the fifth grade.  When I finally got glasses.

     Gee, what a difference that made in my life.   Once I got the knack of reading - well books are always

    stacked around me.  Like people, most books have taught me much.

     

    To the point of your topic at hand -  I have attempted to read the Qur'an on two separate occasions.

     I have a copy sitting on my desk a the moment.  I studied once with a classmate while earning my

    first undergraduate degree.   I studied it the second time on my own.  I HAVE read the book in that

    I turned the pages and understood the words.  I did not however understand the meaning in proper context.  

     

    Therefore, I have no perspective to offer.   Which is interesting in a fashion.

      Almost always after one or two tries I can glean some conclusions.  

    I admit I really didn't "get" the book at all.   I have decided to put it aside and try again at a later date.

     I am sure there is much wisdom in it.   I see followers of that faith with holy and consistent devotion.

       I find those who live the faith to consistent in behavior with devotees of other religions.

     They share many admirable traits.  They are often assets to their community at large.

       I also see some who claim to be followers that don't seem to get the message any better than I did.  

     

    It was easier for me to "get" the Christian bible....I don't ascribe to it as a guide for life but I at least

    feel as if I could discuss it reasonably (not sure that would imply logically in the context of your postings)

    - but certainly I could step up in the area of reasonable.   

     

     I will confess I have never taken a logic course.  I have never taken a philosophy course.

     And after reading through the pages of the thread to this point - it would seem my observations

    might not have value without that foundation in this thread in spite of education.  

     

    In addition to formal education I have learned a great deal from others.  

    Not necessarily as educated as myself but by golly they were as intelligent, (often more so)

    ...and they were insightful and experienced.  They often possessed talents I lack.  

    I am grateful to them for helping me to see more clearly.  Children are often very good teachers.  

     

    In life, I have found justice at times is not fair.  I have found wisdom often comes without proof.

     I have found people respond emotionally (often correctly) on impulse and kindness and love at least

    as often as they win with logic and facts.   I am quite certain in life being right is NOT enough.

     repeat:  Being right is NOT enough. 

     

    Certainly, no one need agree with any of that. 

    My successes in life are decent in number. 

    My blessings without measure.

    My gratitude is pretty much a second skin. 

     

    My greatest evidence of success is contentment and gratitude.

     

    I am sure in time, in the pages of the Qur'an I will also find nuggets to assist me to improve. 

    I suspect strongly it is not the book that might be lacking.  I suspect it is my own 

    readiness level that is at fault.   I find I tend to "get things" when I am ready.   

     

    I might be willing...and certainly I am able to master a  passable grasp of the language

    - but perhaps I am simply not in the right place to be fully ready.   Learning can be like that. 

    It is my understanding from all faiths that God (not man) awards faith in God's time.

    Humans are not able to give that gift.  When I am ready - I will understand more and better 

     

    Thank you for allowing all of us to participate. 

    I might suggest if you are interested in more than a conversational exchange you note

    that on the original post. There are some powerfully learned people in this Forum and 

    they too might enjoy a formal debate.    There is a long-standing assumption that unless

    noted at the outset - anyone is welcome to participate.  We sort of take people "as is"

    in this forum.    We are fairly proud of our inclusion of all.   

     

    Over the many years I have visited this site - it seems the vast majority of people posting

    offer what they can to the best of their ability, take what they can that helps

    them.....and always - most offer kindness.    BY FAR they offer kindness.  Forgiveness too.

    Giving of their best self is pretty much a staple.  

     

    Again, welcome.  Thanks for allowing us to learn from you.

    von

     

     

    Greetings:

     

    You, my brother, are making some sense! This, I can appreciate. As far as languages go, I am fluent in two (my native English and my very nearly native Spanish), I can curse extremely well in Yiddish, I have some decent knowledge (including but not limited to cursing) of one of the many constructed languages, and can make my tortured way, horribly slowly and with much agony, through a Greek Testament.

     

    I have three degrees, one of which simply superceded one of tge others, as it is advanced. I too, graduated college with honours aplenty. I was honoured in both my degree programmes, and would have qualified for scholarships had I continued in Philosophy, but I chose to continue in History, in which I was honoured, but not to the same level. Ergo, though I was accepted easily to continue my studies, I think I only got a few scholarships, whereas had I continued in Philosophy, life would have been easier.

     

    Re: the Noble Qur'an, I don't blame you for missing much of it. Understanding it without first knowing the History of Arabia and surrounding lands would be difficult. Even WITH that knowledge, the text is often quite cryptic. UNlike the Bible, it does not follow a particular pattern. The Surahs (Chapters, although the word "Surah" is used in Arabic only to describe the divisions of the Qur'an, and another word is used for other books; hence, most scholars retain the Arabic term) are not placed in order of their revelation by date. In fact, some of the verses of the longer Surahs were received at different times than others! In general, the order is longest to shortest, with the exception of Surah 1, which is an opening prayer, sometimes compared to the Lord's Prayer in terms of its importance.

     

    With this unusual structure, understanding the Qur'an almost REQUIRES a person to know the Prophet Muhammad's personal history as well as the general history of Arabia. There are quite a few good biographies of the man out there, by both Muslims and non-Muslims. I have "The Sealed Nectar: Biography of the Noble Prophet". It is written by a Muslim, and is supposed to be one of the best out there. I have not yet begun reading it, so I cannot state that from personal knowledge. I have two others, one by an Ahmadiyah Muslim (they are commonly regarded as heretics by orthodox Muslims, particularly in Saudi Arabia and in their native Pakistan), which I have read, and I can say is good, and one by a non-Muslim which is decent, albeit very old (1936, if memory serves).

     

    If you DO intend to reread the Qur'an, might I suggest Abdullah Yusuf Ali's ttanslation with Commentary?  It is well regarded, and tends to steer clear from polemics. Mohammed Muhsin Khan's is good, but gets a bit polemical.

     

    Well, I noticed two replies that came in, so I must get to them. I shall bid you fond adieu for the present. I look forward to hearing from you.

     

     

     

     

  4. On 8/25/2017 at 6:53 PM, Rev. Calli said:

    Greetings to you my brother,

     

    Thank you for providing me with an explanation of the other books you had mentioned.  I will perhaps at some point read it.  But to be honest, I had a hard enough time getting thru the Qur'an.  In truth tho, there are parts of the Holy Bible I find difficult to read, so I guess this is something else the blessed Qur'an and the Holy Scriptures of my faith  have in common ;)

     

    God is so great that any of the writings that we as humans deem to be inspired cannot possibly encompass all there is to know about the Creator of all things.  Indeed they are all inspired by God, but written for a people of a particular time and place, helping them to come to a relationship with God in ways that make sense to their culture and in ways they can understand.  When we insist that one of these writings contain all revelation, all knowledge of the Creator, we show our arrogance.  I see these books, as well as others that have been deemed as sacred in other faith traditions, as doors that open up and lead us all to different rooms, but in the same house.  A house where we are all a part of the same family, with the same parent who loves us and cares for us.  A parent who wants us to love each other as we are loved.

     

    In solidarity,

    Rev. Calli

     

     

     

    I apologise for my delay in responding to your delightful post. I think the only thing in the Qur'an that does give me pause is the statement that Christ did not die on the Cross, but only appeared to do so.

     

    Either he DID die there, or he did not. There can be no two ways about it. But, that becomes a very lengthy topic. Of course, it IS an alternative way of explaining the Resurrection, which I suppose has a certain logic.

     

    I do agree that one religion probably does not contain ALL the truth. To make such a claim, one would have to be insufferably arrogant. I shall not go so far as to state such a point of view categorically. I DO believe that there ARE objective facts that either are true or false. Getting around that seems impossible. But acknowledging that all religions worthy of the name have some truth is simply common sense.

  5. 4 hours ago, Key said:

    As I have no need to stroke an ego, to flaunt any degree in education, nor to parry haughty expressions of contempt and condescension, I will now truly take my leave of this discussion and present you with the last word, as you seem to need it.

    I'll observe and withhold any judgments from your view to ease your mind. Enjoy.

    Actually, I do not have a degree in Education. I leave such matters to my Beloved Wife, who can teach children. I claim no such skill. I actually could care less what judgements you wish to post or not. But if you DO post, at least be logical.

  6. 1 hour ago, Pastor Dave said:

    Wouldn't that be argumentum ad verecundiam, also called the appeal to authority, setting yourself up to be the authority?

    First off, I don't think anyone here has seen your said degree. Secondly, even if you do have said degree that doesn't make you an authority.

    Are you published? If so where can I read some of your works?

    I don't think I've seen anyone tick so many members of this forum off in so little time. Even the highly obnoxious Gnostic Bishop took longer than four days.

    I've said what I came to say, you may now continue with your I'm Holier than all of you, I'm smarter than all of you, I'm more educated than all of you expression of your greatness.

    Carry on.

    Actually, no. Good try. A fire chief claiming he knows how to fight fire is not committing such a fallacy. The same thing holds here. 

     

    I am hardly going to display my name and credentials over the Internet, as I am not an idiot. I am a Professor, and a writer, to answer your question. In fact, I am writing now. 

     

    I never claimed to be smarter than anyone. To each their gifts. I do not care what a person believes. It is still a free country, at least in that regard. But if someone says that there are two different kinds of logic, both acceptable, I shall call them out on such nonsense. If one does not want to be called out, avoid outlandish statements, and you will not be.

  7. 1 minute ago, Key said:

    For someone who hates people making any assumptions, you certainly do a lot yourself.

    You think God taps only the educated to serve? You might be bettter versed at scripture or even more educated, but so what?

    Christ was far more versed at scripture than his disciples and those He ministered to, the poor, and infirmed (which could also imply uneducated in those times). He taught and persisted to teach even when He seemed exasperated to perform miracles or answer questions.

    Not everyone who comes here is extensively educated on philosophy, psychology, or even religion, and so on. But here they are. To learn and support each other.

    Here's an idea: make THAT an assumption and educate and share as Christ did.

    I can't fathom from your tone that you speak to adults much. Come off your high horse, lest God have you be struck from it.

    My, my, mon frere, such irritation. It does not become you to threaten me, or anyone, with Godly punishment.

     

    In fact I have no problem communicating with persons less educated than myself. The problem I DO have is such a person pretending otherwise. Just as I would not presume to discuss Mathematics or Economics or Scientific Disciplines (as in the Hard Sciences; I am perfectly competant in most of the Social Sciences) in any way beyond the general, and I certainly would not attempt to have a learned debate on those subjects with anyone trained formally therein (or even INformally) it strikes me as utterly foolish for a person who has not got a clue what they are talking about philosophically to attempt a debate with someone who does.

     

    I suggest very strongly that before you start threatening people with Godly punishment, you get off your OWN high horse. You might find other people to be better at the metaphorical equestrian arts about which you so arrogantly speak than you are.

  8. Just now, edcrain said:

    This forum is for persons 13+ NOT an adult site!

    I again assume that the current persons to whom I am speaking are adults, irrespective of the age at which persons are permitted on the Forum. If that is inaccurate, please so indicate. I have no intention of holding regular communications of a debate-like nature with someone who is NOT a legal adult. So your point is actually a non-point.

  9. 2 hours ago, Key said:

    "Threads" does appear to be wrong, perhaps I should have said posts. As for "proofs", you said "evidence" which implies 100 percent to most people's perspective. An assumption you fail to clarify.

    Whether philosophy discusses theory or not, it can be viewed as theory until conclusive evidence is provided. Of course, you'll disagree.

    Explaining simple logic is part of dialogue and debate. If you find it silly, then don't engage.

    How would you know when dealing with "some people who should know better" if you don't know those people, anyway? Never mind, that's asking to explain more silly logic.

    And when I suggest that "some people should know better",  I ASSUME I am speaking to persons of legal adult age, who I ASSUME (and perhaps such assumptions are unwise) have adult educations. There is little excuse to not have such. Ergo, as I am NOT speaking to children, the people to who I AM speaking should indeed "know better". It is as simple, and as logical, as that.

  10. 1 minute ago, mererdog said:

    Your phrasing is aggressively combative. This is not a matter of logic. It is a matter of communication and the common usage of language. If it is not your intention to be combative, I suggest putting some thought into your tone.

    It IS a matter of logic, despite your failure to recognise it as such. When having a philosophical debate, one should not resort to common, and inaccurate, uses of language. It is precisely this use of language, in a society (that of the USA), which is largely only 8th Grade literate (most newspapers are written at that level, and even the NY Times is only written at a 12th Grade level), that has produced the disastrous state of things in the USA. It is no wonder that non-Americans tend to laugh us to scorn, and humiliate us in most educational and other related benchmarks of success (or in our case as Americans, the lack thereof). I personally shall not follow this disgraceful trend. You are of course free to do so if you wish.

  11. 4 minutes ago, Key said:

    "Threads" does appear to be wrong, perhaps I should have said posts. As for "proofs", you said "evidence" which implies 100 percent to most people's perspective. An assumption you fail to clarify.

    Whether philosophy discusses theory or not, it can be viewed as theory until conclusive evidence is provided. Of course, you'll disagree.

    Explaining simple logic is part of dialogue and debate. If you find it silly, then don't engage.

    How would you know when dealing with "some people who should know better" if you don't know those people, anyway? Never mind, that's asking to explain more silly logic.

    Actually, I specifically stated that the evidences I provided were not 100% evidence. In Philosophy, the term "evidence" is often used interchangeably with "proof". The word "theory" is not used, as that is the term of scientists and the Scientific Method.

     

    Again, if you cannot use simple logic, I would encourage you to cease speaking, or at least review a logic textbook before you continue.

  12. 6 minutes ago, mererdog said:

    No. It shows only that he is imperfect. Any assumption of ignorance or unintelligence is simply a result of bias.  And he fell for the association fallacy, not reductio ad absurdum. It is a sort of blind spot he has. It is, of course, also the fallacy that sees missing a shot as evidence of not knowing how to make a shot.

    Actually, he fell for BOTH fallacies. He reduced my perspective to the absurd, AND he fell for association. So, there you are. And again, I committed no fallacy. I never said he WAS unintelligent. I said he made himself APPEAR to be. You know, if English comprehension is a concern for you, I have classes on English that I teach beginning in a few days. I am sure I can fit you in if you would like.

  13. 10 minutes ago, mererdog said:

    I have not found that to be the case. Of course, I tend to pay more attention to the people who quote Nietzche, Kant, and Humes than people who quote Plato, Aristotle, or Aquinas, so there is an obvious bias there. Do you have any studies to back the claim, or are you just going by personal experience?

    So, you attempt to have an argument about God based on atheist philosophers. And you reject the very bedrock of our civilisation (Plato and Aristotle). How silly of you.

  14. 7 minutes ago, Key said:

    I'm sorry, but of any philosophers I know of, these arguments are viewed as possibilities in theory, not evidence. And it sounds to me that you, whether intentional or no, hold those with no class experience in philosophy as beneath you.

    He made assumptions, and so did you. You felt insulted, despite a logical conclusion, though in error, and insulted in return, also based on a logical conclusion, also in error. Perspectives differ from one person to another, thereby assumptions may run rampant.

    If misinterpretations are not your problem, then it shouldn't be theirs when you do, either.

    I am not intending to attack or insult you, but rather giving you an outsider perspective.

    But as I've seen in these threads, it doesn't seem to matter. Somehow you'll feel I did and respond as such. Thus creating only the feeling of dread of any communication. So, I'll bow out as well. It would seem more mature than to engage in schoolyard mudslinging, especially when I only sought to clarify another view.

    Actually, I am only in two threads. And one is an introduction, where no argument is happening. So using the plural "threads" would appear to indicate that you do not read very thoroughly.

     

    Again, I did NOT say he was unintelligent. I merely said he made himself APPEAR to be. There is a difference. Ergo, no insult occurred.

     

    Every philosopher I have met considers the arguments I made to be proofs, albeit not 100% proof. Philosophy does not discuss theory. It discusses proof. Therein lies a difference between it and other disciplines, a difference you appear to have neglected. 

     

    I do not feel insulted by you. Rather, I find it a bit silly that I should have to explain simple logic to people who should know better.

  15. 26 minutes ago, mererdog said:

    For the record, he had evidence. Not 100% proof, but evidence, nonetheless. His logic ran along the lines of-

    Creationists cite the Argument From Design as evidence.

    You cited the Argument From Design as evidence.

    You are therefore a creationist.

    Faulty logic, to be sure, but no more so than your own response.

    You felt insulted, but he did not insult you. He mistakenly came to the conclusion that you are something you are not. If you walk into a bank wearing a mask, it is not an insult for people to assume you are a robber, even if they are wrong.

    To assume that only unintelligent people make mistakes is a fairly serious mistake to make.

    Most of us who have taken Philosophy courses, and have a degree in the subject, cite the Argument from Design as evidence of an intelligent Creator. That does NOT imply any acceptance even of Christianity, let alone a particular interpretation of the first 11 chapters of Genesis (commonly called Primeval History by scholars). I shall acknowledge that I am Christian. But to make a Reductio ad Absurdam Argument, as he did, implies having not even taken an introductory Logic course, let alone any Philosophy classes beyond that.

     

    There is nothing wrong with that. We all have our strengths. But do NOT try to argue with logic if you do not understand the basics thereof. It is perfectly logical for ME to point out that doing so makes a person LOOK unintelligent.  I did not say he was. I said he made HIMSELF appear to be. The fact that he, AND you, both misinterpreted what I said is NOT my problem.

  16. 4 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

     

    Thank you for understanding.  I don't need to be lectured to by a smug, condescending know-it-all.  It seemed best to walk away.  

     

    :mellow:

     

     

    How utterly immature of you. You are the one who called me a creationist with absolutely no evidence to support that. I simply indicated that I was not and that calling me such made you look unintelligent.

     

    If you want to look for smug and condescending individuals, I suggest you start by looking in the mirror. If you refuse to do that, then you are no longer my problem.

     

     

  17. 50 minutes ago, Key said:

    I must interject here. He did no insulting, YOU did, by equating that if he were not a Creationist, then he looked unintelligent.

    You also stated earlier in the thread that if he wasn't familiar with any of the argument theories you presented, you'd be "happy to enlighten", did you not? But then when he admits to not knowing one, you simply dismiss him and deflect to other sources.

    I don't understand where your combative dialogue comes from.

    Actually, by assuming that I am a Creationist, he DID insult me. And I DID enlighten him. I told him where he could find the information that he needed. I at the time did not have the time to engage in a conversation when I was able to tell him exactly where he needed to go to get the information he sought. It is that simple really. I'm not being combative at all. I simply don't like being insulted. When I am insulted, I tend to fire back pretty strongly. That is one of my not so decent traits, I admit, but welcome to reality. People are people, and they tend to do things like that. I actually never said anything about him not being a creationist and therefore being unintelligent. What I did say, is that if he assumed that I was a creationist, that he looked a bit unintelligent. I am not a creationist. Ergo, I would hardly accuse him of necessarily being one. Perhaps you should reread what I wrote. It might assist you before you attack me.

  18. Just now, RevTom said:

    You know what? come over to Facebook or Twitter if you want to keep being contentious...I'm through with you here.

    I neither have Facebook nor Twitter. Neither one serves any purpose whatsoever. Why would I want Facebook especially since given the fact that they don't even have a phone number that you can call when you need assistance. All you get is a voicemail telling you that there are no people to help you.

     

    Twitter is just beyond  illogical. Trying to make complete academic statements in 140 characters is completely ridiculous.

     

    You can certainly be free from here if you wish. It's up to you whether to continue the debate. The fact that you have been unkind, unfriendly, impolite,  and outright disrespectful seems not to disturb you at all. That's perfectly fine with me. But please note you still have not defended your case adequately. All you have done is appeal to Authority that frankly has none. As far as Christianity goes, appealing to the church fathers has far more Authority than appealing to various figures of the 20th century all of which assisted the Church of England and many other churches to lose their Orthodoxy completely as well as their orthopraxy.

     

    Again, I have no problem with you believing entirely as you wish. You are perfectly free to worship leprechauns  if that is what you want to do. I am simply suggesting that you recognize that in doing what you are attempting to do you are rejecting the church fathers and two thousand years of church tradition. You're welcome to do that but recognize that that is what you are trying to do.