A necessary predicate for establishing belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
|
A necessary predicate for establishing belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I don't get the joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Jlisenbe - I'm going to try one last time. Why you cannot understand is truly beyond me and anyone else who reads these Shinto comments. You even wrote the true statement above!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
The shadowy figure named Athos used the Shinto religion as EVIDENCE (your word) of something you considered to be true about the nature of man.
SHINTO-IS-EVIDENCE-OF-THE-NATURE-OF-MAN. Full stop. Period. The evidence consists in primitive man attributing spirits in natural objects - like a tree or a big rock or the ocean or the sky. The belief continues to this day in the traditional Japanese religion called Shinto. How you get from this that I am a "Shinto-ist" boggles the mind.
I note you're slightly backtracking, so maybe there's hope for you yet.
As I clearly noted, I had to spread them around because the site would not post them all at once. Whoever organized them into a coherent series of posts has my gratitude. No one else has had trouble reading them. I suspect this is just another excuse for you to not reply when it does not suit you. Whenever you come up with charging members with "evasions", we all know you're just avoiding replying.Quote:
I'm not going to have a silly discussion spread around on several threads
When you can, I suggest you present your case as best you can. Bible believing is a legitimate approach but when it degenerates into nastiness, the approach is not well-served.
I will try to be more reasonable.Quote:
Your replies can be interesting and I do profit from reading them, but a measure of reason would be good.
I re-read this part of your post and I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The threads are getting far too muddled - partly my fault trying to fit in a too-long reply resulting in that 6-part fiasco.
So I will keep you and your posts active and not block them anymore. I hope the two of us can keep the nastiness out.
Anyway, "MAN THE GUNS"!!
I am NOT entitled to my own personal version of the truth concerning God and the Bible -- the truth as I understand it? Then whose version am I supposed to believe? Your version? Ah, I bet that's the real God's-truth version! You think you believe correctly and I don't?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Again, whose "true one" am I supposed to believe? Yours? And that is what?Quote:
Your question changes nothing. You seem to be saying that you don't know which truth is the true one. OK. That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that a "true one" does exist.
No, it's not. The beliefs of Shintoism are evidence of nothing more that the beliefs of Shintoism, and that's especially true when you profess from the other side of your mouth that you don't even believe their beliefs. Even worse, you seem to think that since Shintoism professes a belief in spirits existing in material objects, then that must surely prove that primitive man also believed that. But primitive men, if there was such a thing, were not adherents of Shintoism since it only dates back to about 500 B.C. So if your best evidence of your description of the nature of man is to refer to a philosophy that you don't even agree with, then you are bankrupt from an evidence point of view.Quote:
SHINTO-IS-EVIDENCE-OF-THE-NATURE-OF-MAN. Full stop. Period. The evidence consists in primitive man attributing spirits in natural objects - like a tree or a big rock or the ocean or the sky. The belief continues to this day in the traditional Japanese religion called Shinto. How you get from this that I am a "Shinto-ist" boggles the mind.
Happy days are here again.Quote:
So I will keep you and your posts active and not block them anymore.
Agreed.Quote:
I hope the two of us can keep the nastiness out.
You can believe anything you want. You cannot assume it is true, and certainly you cannot expect others to assume so, just because you believe it. The same is true for me. That is why I frequently ask people here for evidence, and why I don't ask for examples, or simply quaint stories of what others believe.Quote:
I am NOT entitled to my own personal version of the truth concerning God and the Bible -- the truth as I understand it?
I have never, ever, on a single occasion suggested you believe something simply because I do. If you are suggesting I have, then you are being blatantly dishonest.Quote:
Then whose version am I supposed to believe? Your version? Ah, I bet that's the real God's-truth version! You think you believe correctly and I don't?
Chiming in here -- have you studied Shinto beliefs? Some are actually quite similar to those of Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
So what?
If I want to introduce something as evidence, it needs to be true. "Your honor, I am introducing Shinto beliefs as evidence." "OK. Are these beliefs true?" "Your honor, I have no idea if they are true or not." "And you think you can introduce THAT as evidence? What law school did you graduate from?"
Someone needs to study the nature of evidence. And to say, "Oh, have you studied Shintoism??? Some of it is similar to whatever," is useless. That carries not one ounce of weight. The only thing that matters is that my evidence is true and I can demonstrate it is true. Otherwise, it is useless. Athos introduced the idea, so it would be his job to demonstrate that his evidence is true and therefore of some use.
If you believe the nature of evidence is otherwise, please give me an explanation of your belief and an example demonstrating your explanation.
Wow! This is your take on avoiding nastiness?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yes, that is my contention. We know from ancient religions that natural objects were worshiped. It is hardly a stretch to project that belief further back.Quote:
Even worse, you seem to think that since Shintoism professes a belief in spirits existing in material objects, then that must surely prove that primitive man also believed that.
Of course, there was such a thing. The fossil record is at least 4 million years ago. The earliest humans, compared to modern times, were clearly primitive. Here is another area where I simply cannot grasp what you are driving at by denying mankind in its primitive state.Quote:
But primitive men, if there was such a thing,
I never said primitive man was a Shinto believer. I used Shinto to indicate the age-old belief in nature spirits is still with us today in that religion.Quote:
(primitive man) were not adherents of Shintoism since it only dates back to about 500 B.C.
The USSR was a communist country. I don't believe in Communism. Does that mean my evidence for the USSR being Communist is "bankrupt".Quote:
So if your best evidence of your description of the nature of man is to refer to a philosophy that you don't even agree with, then you are bankrupt from an evidence point of view.
I hope you mean these comments. Maybe your first comment above was simply a hangover from times past.Quote:
Happy days are here again.
Agreed.
You are welcome to your contentions. That does not amount to anything even approaching evidence. You have no idea what ancient man believed. No one does.Quote:
Yes, that is my contention. We know from ancient religions that natural objects were worshiped. It is hardly a stretch to project that belief further back.
No, you tried to used Shintoism as evidence for this. "The first worshiper is the man “coming out of the ooze” and he sees this magnificent mountain (or anything else impressive to the primitive mind) and, like the later worshiper, he attributes certain qualities to it." Now if you think it might indicate that possibility, then fine, but it is certainly nothing even approaching reliable evidence that it happened.Quote:
I used Shinto to indicate the age-old belief in nature spirits is still with us today in that religion.
Oh? Describe that 4 million year record. Be specific about the fossils.Quote:
Of course, there was such a thing. The fossil record is at least 4 million years ago.
You're confused. You say you have evidence that the USSR is communist. If you do, and it's true, then that qualifies as evidence. It is a completely different matter to say you don't believe in communism. Your belief/non-belief in communism is not being presented as evidence for anything, so those are two totally separate issues because the question is not whether or not you believe in communism, but whether or not your evidence that the USSR was communist is demonstrably true. Only then does it rise above a "contention" and become evidence.Quote:
The USSR was a communist country. I don't believe in Communism. Does that mean my evidence for the USSR being Communist is "bankrupt".
You are reading my posts. Fine. It is not a major issue with me.Quote:
Happy days are here again.
Yes, my contention is based on various disciplines - anthropology and history being two. Contentions based on these disciplines do approach evidence. Then there's circumstantial evidence which I assume you would deny. When you wake up in the morning and see snow on the ground, that is circumstantial evidence that it snowed during the night. Do you accept that?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yes, I do have an idea of what ancient man believed. Ancient man left records that described his beliefs. That includes the Sumerians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Hebrews, and many others.Quote:
You have no idea what ancient man believed. No one does.
I'm beginning to see your difficulty concerning evidence. You want the past to be proved by an actual object. Much of the past can be surmised by the means I mentioned above. I can't show you a body of a human that lived in Slovakia one thousand years ago, but I'm positive a human did live in Slovakia one thousand years ago. I assume you would deny my statement unless I provided the body. If you tell me you love your children, should I not believe you for lack of evidence?Quote:
No, you tried to used Shintoism as evidence for this. "The first worshiper is the man “coming out of the ooze” and he sees this magnificent mountain (or anything else impressive to the primitive mind) and, like the later worshiper, he attributes certain qualities to it." Now if you think it might indicate that possibility, then fine, but it is certainly nothing even approaching reliable evidence that it happened.
Be glad to:Quote:
Describe that 4 million year record. Be specific about the fossils.
Australopithecines have been found in savannah environments; they probably developed their diet to include scavenged meat. Analyses of Australopithecus africanus lower vertebrae suggests that these bones changed in females to support bipedalism even during pregnancy.
Kenyanthropus platyops, a possible ancestor of Homo, emerges from the Australopithecus. Stone tools are deliberately constructed.[32]
Early Homo appears in East Africa, speciating from australopithecine ancestors. Sophisticated stone tools mark the beginning of the Lower Paleolithic Homo erectus derives from early Homo or late Australopithecus.
Homo erectus derives from early Homo or late Australopithecus. it is also known to have coexisted with H. erectus for almost half a million years
H. erectus is the first known species to develop control of fire
There's much more to be had from an easy trip to Wikipedia or one of dozens of other sites.
Well, there's no doubt that one of us surely is. Confused.Quote:
You're confused.
I used the same reasoning you did re Shinto. If my USSR example is wrong, then so is your Shinto example. You are way too deep in the weeds.Quote:
You say you have evidence that the USSR is communist. If you do, and it's true, then that qualifies as evidence. It is a completely different matter to say you don't believe in communism. Your belief/non-belief in communism is not being presented as evidence for anything, so those are two totally separate issues because the question is not whether or not you believe in communism, but whether or not your evidence that the USSR was communist is demonstrably true.
It seemed that it was, but no problem.Quote:
You are reading my posts. Fine. It is not a major issue with me.
Infojunkie - A reminder of your post that hasn't been answered yet.
Quote:
If we deny the authority of scripture concerning salvation, or any other spiritual thing for that matter, then we create a subjective version of Christianity.
If we start with the subjective version of Christianity, then how can we have an objective argument concerning the nature of Christianity?
If we are not speaking on Christianity, but of salvation of a different nature, then define your terms so we can consider those things.
It's good to define terms. Let's start with subjective and objective.
Subjective - based on opinion, belief, emotions personal judgement.
Objective - based on analysis, fact-based, measurable and observable.
Scripture, Christianity and other like systems, are clearly subjective.
To answer your question of how can we have an objective argument concerning the nature of Christianity, we can't.
Once again you have changed terms. Ancient man is not the same as primitive man. Primitive man was the topic. You have no idea what they believed. I have made no comment on ancient man. Obviously we know much of what they believed since we have some record of that, and those written records are EVIDENCE.
It might if you had presented any of that information. You have not, so it does not. The only "evidence" you presented was the Shinto religion, and that, as I pointed out, was evidence of nothing. You might as well suggest that you know that primitive man played sports and use the Major Leagues as "evidence".Quote:
Yes, my contention is based on various disciplines - anthropology and history being two. Contentions based on these disciplines do approach evidence.
No one has mentioned bodies or objects but you. You have presented conjecture but not evidence. You are presenting the three species below as examples of primitive man. Not you nor anyone else knows what those species believed, or even if they were capable of that type of religious belief which they were likely not capable of.
Primitive, yes. Man, no. Clearly an ape-like creature.Quote:
When it says it's a possible ancestor of homo, that clearly tells you it is not man.Quote:
And again, primitive yes, but man no.Quote:
So you have no genuine fossil evidence of a 4 million year old primitive man. And please don't try and tell me that you or anyone else knows that these ape like creatures engaged in the worship of mountains or anything else.
You didn't, and sadly you cannot see that. The only case your example tried to make was that the USSR was communist. I agreed that a person could present evidence for that. You also mentioned you did not agree with communism, but that was not being presented as evidence of anything, and neither was communism itself being presented as evidence, so your comparison fell flat since any belief or unbelief you might have had concerning communism made no difference as to whether or not the USSR was a communist system. It was two completely different positions.Quote:
I used the same reasoning you did re Shinto. If my USSR example is wrong, then so is your Shinto example. You are way too deep in the weeds.
BTW, even if you believed in Shintoism, you could not possibly use it as any real evidence of the beliefs of primitive man, a species you say existed about 4 million years prior to that religion. One would have had no impact at all on the other.
Quoting scriptures written by ancient man to promote his new religion isn't all that compelling of evidence, and who needs evidence to have FAITH? The very premise of salvation in my opinion is a bit overblown and the notion it's the exclusive domain of one religion is hard to believe since they all make that claim in one form or another.
I guess it just ain't enough to be a good human, imperfect and flawed and do your best to follow the path of good orderly direction, naw I have to do it your way or be damned? That's more a testament to YOU (Not you personally, but any rabid true believer selling their truth fervently.), than to ME!
I can accept and respect anyone's conviction without an argument or conflict so can I get the same? If not then carry on, I will just say a prayer and hope for the best for you.
Without an argument? That is hardly what anyone on this board does.
I never suggest that anyone do it my way. You are mistaken in that.
A good human imperfect and flawed? Which way is it? That’s like saying a person is a good law-breaker.
Just a gentle chide to your dismissal of the views of others while defending your own my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I am human flawed and imperfect, but endeavor to be a good human. Is that better? What law have I broken? Maybe a better analogy is in order.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You claimed that anyone who did not believe the way you believe was to spend eternity in hell being continuously tortured.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Do you no longer believe that?
I missed this the first time around. I don't know what the third person reference is supposed to mean, but the rest is simply JL doing his usual avoidance when he can't reply to comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The reader is advised to go to my posts numbered 1-6 at the Nature of Salvation. It's all there for anyone interested to see and understand.
Never, ever claimed that. Show me where I did.Quote:
You claimed that anyone who did not believe the way you believe was to spend eternity in hell being continuously tortured.
Never have believed it. Believing the way I believe is not at all important. Now believing what the Bible says??? THAT'S important.Quote:
Do you no longer believe that?
I will be happy to explain to you what third person means. When you have to refer to someone by their name, such as referring to me as JLisenbe in your posts, then you are using third person.Quote:
I missed this the first time around. I don't know what the third person reference is supposed to mean, but the rest is simply JL doing his usual avoidance when he can't reply to comments.
You want it done your way. I suppose you started a new thread so you could check and see if I posted. After all, you had me blocked. Whatever the reason is, I'm discussing the topic here along with other people. Join in if you want to. Or not. Your choice.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:06 AM. |