[quote]H factor wrote:Lol SMH, if Gandhi’s in hell and Dahmer isn’t and I get to heaven…I’ll personally ask to be escorted downstairs. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2065289,00.html [/quote]Rob Bell is a classic anti Christian apostate. “Emergent church” cultic heretic. I would not be shocked to learn that he has fans here.
If you get to heaven this will be the last thing on your mind. I promise. Or hell for that matter.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:The eyes that look upon him [Jeffrey Dahmer] in self righteous disdain, as if to say “WELL!!! I would NEVER do something like THAT. hmmff, so there”. You already have and far worse.
[/quote]Emphasis mine.
I’ve quoted this in the hope that you’ll read it, regret it, and have some kind of epiphany.[/quote]I know and meant exactly what I said. My epiphany was 28 years ago right about this time of year. Luke 18:9-14 Tax collectors were the lowest, most hated scum of the earth then. That’s why he chose one, Matthew, to be a disciple and write one of His gospels. [quote]9-He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11-The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12-I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ 13-But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” 14-I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."[/quote]If from his heart Jeffery Dahmer cried “God be merciful to me a sinner” and trusted Jesus for his righteousness then he is in heaven. If Ghandi did not then he is not.
Isn’t Tirib accurately–if ineloquently–stating the primary Christian principle: if you believe you go to heaven, if you don’t you go to hell, period, regardless of what else you do on earth. That’s basically what I was taught in church. (The other stuff about what god likes and dislikes is obviously BS and hyperbole.)
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Ya know what God hates worse than Jeffery Dahmer’s sick, twisted and perverse behavior? The eyes that look upon him in self righteous disdain, as if to say “WELL!!! I would NEVER do something like THAT. hmmff, so there”. You already have and far worse.
[/quote]
How do you know what God hates worse than Jeffery Dahmer’s sick, twisted, and perverse behavior?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:Ya know what God hates worse than Jeffery Dahmer’s sick, twisted and perverse behavior? The eyes that look upon him in self righteous disdain, as if to say “WELL!!! I would NEVER do something like THAT. hmmff, so there”. You already have and far worse. [/quote]How do you know what God hates worse than Jeffery Dahmer’s sick, twisted, and perverse behavior?[/quote]Because of what His bible says. Don’t get me wrong. God hates ALL sin and there are levels of suffering in damnation, but a prideful self righteous spirit is consistently declared to be that which He abhors like no other particular sin. Probably because it leads to all others.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Isn’t Tirib accurately–if ineloquently–stating the primary Christian principle: if you believe you go to heaven, if you don’t you go to hell, period, regardless of what else you do on earth. >>>[/quote]It DOES matter what yo do, but salvation or damnation is determined exclusively by being deliberately in Christ or not respectively. [quote]jjackkrash wrote:<<< (The other stuff about what god likes and dislikes is obviously BS and hyperbole.) [/quote] No it actually isn’t.
[quote]H factor wrote:Lol SMH, if Gandhi’s in hell and Dahmer isn’t and I get to heaven…I’ll personally ask to be escorted downstairs. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2065289,00.html [/quote]Rob Bell is a classic anti Christian apostate. “Emergent church” cultic heretic. I would not be shocked to learn that he has fans here.
If you get to heaven this will be the last thing on your mind. I promise. Or hell for that matter.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:The eyes that look upon him [Jeffrey Dahmer] in self righteous disdain, as if to say “WELL!!! I would NEVER do something like THAT. hmmff, so there”. You already have and far worse.
[/quote]Emphasis mine.
I’ve quoted this in the hope that you’ll read it, regret it, and have some kind of epiphany.[/quote]I know and meant exactly what I said. My epiphany was 28 years ago right about this time of year. Luke 18:9-14 Tax collectors were the lowest, most hated scum of the earth then. That’s why he chose one, Matthew, to be a disciple and write one of His gospels. [quote]9-He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11-The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12-I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ 13-But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” 14-I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."[/quote]If from his heart Jeffery Dahmer cried “God be merciful to me a sinner” and trusted Jesus for his righteousness then he is in heaven. If Ghandi did not then he is not.
[/quote]
I’d appreciate it if you responded to my posts in the Creationism thread, asking whether or not you can make a positive, logical argument showing this worldview to be inevitable. You were willing to discuss until we reached a point at which you were going to be forced to say something you didn’t want to say, at which point you disappeared.
[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< I’d appreciate it if you responded to my posts in the Creationism thread, asking whether or not you can make a positive, logical argument showing this worldview to be inevitable. You were willing to discuss until we reached a point at which you were going to be forced to say something you didn’t want to say, at which point you disappeared.[/quote]LOL! You’re alright in my book man. "Let’s back to the part where I can be sure none of this true.
I have really tried making this clear. Again. I can’t make a positive logical argument on your epistemology that 2+2=4. Do you hear me? Your faith provides me neither common ground with you on which to do so or any ground whatsoever. Only my faith does and you don’t have it which is the point. We both rely on what is ultimately unprovable to able to even believe that 2+2=2. Look at my recent posting history and you tell me if I’ve disappeared. I am one guy dude and for all the talk of how idiotic and irrelevant I am, I simply CANNOT keep up with the incessant demands upon me here.
We all live by faith.
According to you, uncertainty is the best you can hope for yours to provide. Which I absolutely agree with and which also means it explains exactly NOTHING.
My faith is in an infinite ontologically distinct creator and designer whose nature and being explain absolutely everything, ONCE YOU HAVE FAITH IN HIM. His triune nature is an instant solution to the most basic and knotty philosophical problem there’s ever been.
Number 3 is the rub. “SOOOOOO, I have to have faith in him first huh?” YES, just like you have faith in you know which is an utterly futile absurdity on every level.
[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< I’d appreciate it if you responded to my posts in the Creationism thread, asking whether or not you can make a positive, logical argument showing this worldview to be inevitable. You were willing to discuss until we reached a point at which you were going to be forced to say something you didn’t want to say, at which point you disappeared.[/quote]LOL! You’re alright in my book man. "Let’s back to the part where I can be sure none of this true.
I have really tried making this clear. Again. I can’t make a positive logical argument on your epistemology that 2+2=4. Do you hear me? Your faith provides me neither common ground with you on which to do so or any ground whatsoever. Only my faith does and you don’t have it which is the point. We both rely on what is ultimately unprovable to able to even believe that 2+2=2. Look at my recent posting history and you tell me if I’ve disappeared. I am one guy dude and for all the talk of how idiotic and irrelevant I am, I simply CANNOT keep up with the incessant demands upon me here.
We all live by faith.
According to you, uncertainty is the best you can hope for yours to provide. Which I absolutely agree with and which also means it explains exactly NOTHING.
My faith is in an infinite ontologically distinct creator and designer whose nature and being explain absolutely everything, ONCE YOU HAVE FAITH IN HIM. His triune nature is an instant solution to the most basic and knotty philosophical problem there’s ever been.
Number 3 is the rub. “SOOOOOO, I have to have faith in him first huh?” YES, just like you have faith in you know which is an utterly futile absurdity on every level.[/quote]
This is exactly what I was hoping we’d conclude.
By the way, the leap of faith that I take to believe that two and two are four seems to me to be very similar to the leap of faith which you make in order to believe in your God. If I have to make a similar leap for everything, so be it: you do too, indirectly at least, because any certainty in your life is, just like mine, predicated on a leap of faith. The difference is that all of your beliefs are predicated on one leap of faith, whereas mine are individual and innumerable. A stock broker might counsel you to diversify your portfolio…just in case.
But anyway, the point is that your worldview is not logically or evidentially inevitable–that it requires faith. I just really wanted to see you say that.
And for the record: “for all the talk of how idiotic and irrelevant I am;” I think you’re smart and I think you’re a decent guy, and I enjoy discussing things with you. You and I disagree about as much as two people can, but that doesn’t mean I harbor any ill will toward you at all, because I don’t.
[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< I’d appreciate it if you responded to my posts in the Creationism thread, asking whether or not you can make a positive, logical argument showing this worldview to be inevitable. You were willing to discuss until we reached a point at which you were going to be forced to say something you didn’t want to say, at which point you disappeared.[/quote]LOL! You’re alright in my book man. "Let’s back to the part where I can be sure none of this true.
I have really tried making this clear. Again. I can’t make a positive logical argument on your epistemology that 2+2=4. Do you hear me? Your faith provides me neither common ground with you on which to do so or any ground whatsoever. Only my faith does and you don’t have it which is the point. We both rely on what is ultimately unprovable to able to even believe that 2+2=2. Look at my recent posting history and you tell me if I’ve disappeared. I am one guy dude and for all the talk of how idiotic and irrelevant I am, I simply CANNOT keep up with the incessant demands upon me here.
We all live by faith.
According to you, uncertainty is the best you can hope for yours to provide. Which I absolutely agree with and which also means it explains exactly NOTHING.
My faith is in an infinite ontologically distinct creator and designer whose nature and being explain absolutely everything, ONCE YOU HAVE FAITH IN HIM. His triune nature is an instant solution to the most basic and knotty philosophical problem there’s ever been.
Number 3 is the rub. “SOOOOOO, I have to have faith in him first huh?” YES, just like you have faith in you know which is an utterly futile absurdity on every level.[/quote]This is exactly what I was hoping we’d conclude. >>>[/quote]I jist bet you were, but you still misunderstand. Your faith provides allies in neither certainty NOR probability. Mine provides both of us with both. You use mine constantly while refusing to recognize it and and proclaiming your own which would itself be impossible without mine.[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< But anyway, the point is that your worldview is not logically or evidentially inevitable >>>[/quote]It’s NOT “logically or evidentially inevitable”. That implies that it is a conclusion. It is NOT a conclusions. It is the foundation for ALL conclusions. Even unbelief. It preexists both our logic and ALL the evidence and is in fact the basis for both. Yuo cannot mutter so much as one syllable of intelligible protest because you have yourself stated that you have neither certainly nor probability, which if you ever actually put into practice would make you an intellectually paralyzed gumby. You DO NOT however put it into practice. You practice my worldview of certainty to proclaims yours of UNcertainty. Itself with certainty it appears. Your absolutely certain we can’t know anything for certain right? Oh wait, you’re NOT certain we can’t know anything for certain. Hold on… oh nevermind. [quote]smh23 wrote::<<< --that it requires faith. I just really wanted to see you say that. >>>[/quote]Dude I have been saying that for years here. [quote]smh23 wrote:<<< And for the record: “for all the talk of how idiotic and irrelevant I am;” I think you’re smart and I think you’re a decent guy, and I enjoy discussing things with you. You and I disagree about as much as two people can, but that doesn’t mean I harbor any ill will toward you at all, because I don’t.[/quote]Amen. It may get tense on occasion, but I hold you in high regard as well and thank you for the kindness.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
you have yourself stated that you have neither certainly nor probability
[/quote]
I haven’t said I don’t have probability. In fact, I did not protest at the time, but when you defined probability as “more or less certainty”–cleverly, I might add, after I’ve admitted a lack of certainty–I meant to respond: I don’t believe probability is a measure of certainty. It’s a measure of likelihood; and likelihood is not contingent upon the existence of certainty.
Please explain to me how that is anything except a distinction without a difference, if even that.
EDIT: I know it’s wikipedia, but this is the first sentence in their article on “probability” for what it’s worth. Also they have a whole series on “certainty” linked at the right hand side of the page indicating that whoever did that article at least, certainly (no pun) saw them as very closely related. Probability - Wikipedia [quote]Probability is a measure of the expectation that an event will occur or a statement is true. Probabilities are given a value between 0 (will not occur) and 1 (will occur).[1] The higher the probability of an event, the more certain we are that the event will occur.[/quote] Of course I wouldn’t bind you to this as you are free to choose whatever definition of probability you want, but in the realm of epistemology? “Likelihood” and “certainty” are two close shades of the same color.
Looks like the Supremes are going to look at the DOMA and California’s Prop 8 rulings. Its going to be interesting to see how the issues get framed and whether they punt on some of the bigger con-law questions.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Please explain to me how that is anything except a distinction without a difference, if even that.
EDIT: I know it’s wikipedia, but this is the first sentence in their article on “probability” for what it’s worth. Also they have a whole series on “certainty” linked at the right hand side of the page indicating that whoever did that article at least, certainly (no pun) saw them as very closely related. Probability - Wikipedia [quote]Probability is a measure of the expectation that an event will occur or a statement is true. Probabilities are given a value between 0 (will not occur) and 1 (will occur).[1] The higher the probability of an event, the more certain we are that the event will occur.[/quote] Of course I wouldn’t bind you to this as you are free to choose whatever definition of probability you want, but in the realm of epistemology? “Likelihood” and “certainty” are two close shades of the same color. [/quote]
I’m going to paraphrase you here, so call me out if I misrepresent your position:
Smh, how can your worldview allow for probability if it is devoid of absolute certainty? Probability is a measure of certainty (or likelihood, which is close enough to certainty to pose problems for you), which you’ve already discarded with.
My answer–and this is why I say it’s a question of semantic minutia–is that probability cannot be defined as a “measure of certainty” because that notion requires that certainty be allowed to exist in variable amounts, which is logically impossible. Something cannot be either more or less certain–it can only be certain or not certain. Every probability save for 0 percent and 100 percent, then, is the literal opposite of certainty–it is uncertainty.
It is a bit like bad writers who say that something is “more unique” or “the most unique”–unique means “one of a kind,” and something can’t be either “more” or “less” one of a kind, only one-of-a-kind or not.
Which means that probability is an expression of uncertainty–which you’ve already said is the purview of my worldview.
For the sake of relieving you of this intolerable semantic burden, without conceding your point whch I am NOT doing, let’s say then that probability is measured as being closer TO or further away FROM certainty rather than more or less OF it. The fatal reality is that probability MUST be defined in relation to certainty in some way in order to to even exist, nevermind have any useful meaning. That’s what probability IS. A point, even if itself imprecise, on the scale of certainty. No certainty? No probability. To deny that is like talking about a seashore with no sea.
For the sake of relieving you of this intolerable semantic burden, without conceding your point whch I am NOT doing, let’s say then that probability is measured as being closer TO or further away FROM certainty rather than more or less OF it. The fatal reality is that probability MUST be defined in relation to certainty in some way in order to to even exist, nevermind have any useful meaning. That’s what probability IS. A point, even if itself imprecise, on the scale of certainty. No certainty? No probability. To deny that is like talking about a seashore with no sea.
[/quote]
Certainty still exists, but as a concept rather than an actuality. Probability requires only the concept of certainty for its existence.
I will explain this by delving again into my “unique” analogy. Imagine a world populated only by shapes–triangles, squares, and circles. Every triangle is identical to every other triangle, and so it is with the squares and circles. There are two triangles and hundreds of thousands of squares and circles, and none of them can be created or destroyed.
You could not say that any one of the shapes is “unique”–none of them is the only one of its kind–but you would be correct in saying that the two triangles are closer to being unique than either the squares or the circles.
So it is with probability. There are two probabilities that are “off limits”–0 percent and 100 percent, the two certainties. All the rest may be right or wrong, but their existence is not threatened by the unattainability of the two certainties.
If you had only one triangle it would be 100% certain that your triangle was unique in the context of that world. Assuming the standard definition of “unique”.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If you had only one triangle it would be 100% certain that your triangle was unique in the context of that world. Assuming the standard definition of “unique”. [/quote]
Indeed it would, but I’ve created the arbitrary rule that shapes can be neither created nor destroyed. In other words, the quality of “uniqueness” will never be attained–just like, in our world, the quality of objective and absolute “certainty” will never be attained.
However, in spite of the fact that “uniqueness” is impossible, a triangle is closer to unique than a square or a circle.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If you had only one triangle it would be 100% certain that your triangle was unique in the context of that world. Assuming the standard definition of “unique”. [/quote]
Indeed it would, but I’ve created the arbitrary rule that shapes can be neither created nor destroyed. In other words, the quality of “uniqueness” will never be attained–just like, in our world, the quality of objective and absolute “certainty” will never be attained.
However, in spite of the fact that “uniqueness” is impossible, a triangle is closer to unique than a square or a circle.[/quote]
But aren’t the circles inherently unique because they are circles? Regardless of how many they are, as a group (or perhaps in terms of the shape itself) they are unique.
I’ve been reading Greek text non-stop since 9:30 this morning… I’m so tired…
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If you had only one triangle it would be 100% certain that your triangle was unique in the context of that world. Assuming the standard definition of “unique”. [/quote]
Indeed it would, but I’ve created the arbitrary rule that shapes can be neither created nor destroyed. In other words, the quality of “uniqueness” will never be attained–just like, in our world, the quality of objective and absolute “certainty” will never be attained.
However, in spite of the fact that “uniqueness” is impossible, a triangle is closer to unique than a square or a circle.[/quote]
But aren’t the circles inherently unique because they are circles? Regardless of how many they are, as a group (or perhaps in terms of the shape itself) they are unique.
I’ve been reading Greek text non-stop since 9:30 this morning… I’m so tired…[/quote]
Great point. However, it doesn’t derail the analogy: no individual shape can ever be called “unique”–just like I can never be said to be objectively certain of anything–and yet an individual triangle is “closer to” being unique than any individual square or circle.