[quote]Legionary wrote:
Aren’t you a Biblical literalist? You still haven’t answered why its impossible for a former Christian such as myself to now be a Deist. [/quote]Yer wastin my time pal. I can point you to some sources if you’re really interested in historically orthodox hermeneutics, which you aren’t. That’s fine, but I have other stuff to do.
You continue to refuse to answer why its impossible for a former Christian such as myself to now be a Deist. It is a indisputable fact that you cannot refute. Why is that, don’t you have all the answers Tiribulus? It’s not very Christian to brush away my philosophical inquiries because its an inconvenience to you.
Tiribulus is obviously not here to have an objective discussion, he’s here to preach and then runaway when something threatens his faith. He can’t even handle the fact that evolution is real. Bringing up Evolution sets his brain on fire and he starts screaming how it can’t be real because then his Bible can’t be taken literally lol
You have to love how he talks of metaphysics this epistemology that but he can’t even begin to fathom the concept of not using the scriptures to “provide evidence” for his positions. He is an example of how revealed religions can often vandalize the mind of even an intelligent man.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
You have to love how he talks of metaphysics this epistemology that but he can’t even begin to fathom the concept of not using the scriptures to “provide evidence” for his positions. He is an example of how revealed religions can often vandalize the mind of even an intelligent man.
And how did come to know yours, deist?
I am full up fellas. Sorry. DrMatt is a credentialed expert in his field and a juicy adversary. Much more can be accomplished with him than with any of you. I cannot help how this will sound, but you are at the moment low hanging fruit. I work for my meals. The God I love and serve will receive far greater glory in a gentlemanly conversation with him than a back alley beer belching contest with you guys. Feel free to stroke one another about how you’ve forced me to surrender. I really don’t care.
Go sulk in the corner Trib, no one here cares. You choose yourself to be an ignorant asshole.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:<<< Another truly interesting post. >>>[/quote]Whatever else happens here Dr.Matt? The Lord is definitely using you to teach me a lesson about my own elusive concision. I mean that sincerely and please believe me, as no insult either. Fletch and Cortes will thank you for it. Let me ask you this. Are you submitting that raw abstract intellectual numbers, sitting in the mind, unapplied to material objects are nothing? (man I wish we could do this in person.)
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:<<< Another truly interesting post. >>>[/quote]Whatever else happens here Dr.Matt? The Lord is definitely using you to teach me a lesson about my own elusive concision. I mean that sincerely and please believe me, as no insult either. Fletch and Cortes will thank you for it. Let me ask you this. Are you submitting that raw abstract intellectual numbers, sitting in the mind, unapplied to material objects are nothing? (man I wish we could do this in person.)
[/quote]
I am not certain he understands what you are driving at. Its mostly where math and philosophy join that people have defined what a number is. There are plenty of works on it though.
You are asking for something like this correct?
Especially bits like this?
In seeking a definition of number, the first thing to be clear about is what we may call the grammar of our inquiry. Many philosophers, when attempting to define number, are really setting to work to define plurality, which is quite a different thing. Number is what is characteristic of numbers, as man is what is characteristic of men. A plurality is not an instance of number, but of some particular number. A trio of men, for example, is an instance of the number 3, and the number 3 is an instance of number; but the trio is not an instance of number. This point may seem elementary and scarcely worth mentioning; yet it has proved too subtle for the philosophers, with few exceptions.
I started reading it last night Groo, but it was too late here for me to concentrate. I’m not a kid anymore. A couple things stood out which hopefully I can get to later today or maybe even this morning.
Yay Trib’s back after quitting for 4 posts!
[quote]groo wrote: I am not certain he understands what you are driving at. >>>[/quote]I am certain he does not understand, which I hasten to add says literally nothing about our relative intelligence. I have a response almost done for you Groo, but I want see DrMatt’s response before I post it. Ya know what, I’ll pm it to you. I don’t want to sidetrack him. I’ll post it here later. I have to tell you though. It will not be possible for me to carry an ongoing conversation with you in PM’s right now my friend.
EDIT: I don’t think you can get PM’s from me Groo.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
…I was a Christian, born and bred…
[/quote]
I’m certainly not one to fight YosemiteTiribSam’s battles but this is a lame post. Christians aren’t born and bred, pal. Not in the sense you obviously intended.
You might one to study your Christianity theology a bit more before implicitly suggesting you’re quite the exemplary scholar.
Who cares?
If you were truly bought with the blood of Christ you couldn’t renounce your faith. If you could, you never had any to begin with. It’s really not that difficult to comprehend.
By the way, you and OldHeadHunterManJoe are a boring bunch of ignorant-about-the-theology-you-profess-to-despise lamebrains.
In case you were wondering.
I’m sure you were.
[/quote]
Actually, I read both the Bible and Catechism multiple times before I became a Deist. Which is more than can be said for the vast majority of my peers who are Catholic and stayed in the Church. Study? Study what? Christians can’t even agree on what particular flavor of their faith is the right one among themselves.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Go sulk in the corner Trib, no one here cares. You choose yourself to be an ignorant asshole.[/quote]
Ignorant is factually not true, because he knows and understands but rejects it.
Asshole is just, like, your opinion maaan…
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Hahaha very nice! I’m glad that someone else can appreciate that Pandeism channel. Very interesting stuff.
Wow, feeding frenzy in here.