For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
lapona – “Are you going to alvinize all people around here? I know you are plantigated, but try to speak like normal people.“
Bringing in the big guns?
“alvinize, v. To stimulate protracted discussion by making a bizarre claim.“
It would be helpful if you could explain how and why what I’ve said is bizarre.
Then we can establish what passes for normal and ponder the advisability of adhering to that standard.
Robin Ludvig Isomaa responding to the blog post by Neil Carter – “Even as a lover of truth, I have to ask you to delete this post (for the greater gooooood). Usually when a Christian says that they only follow Jesus, it can be translated into secular-speak as ‘I want to be a decent person’. In the long run, these are our allies. We can’t deconvert them, so let’s empower them to be good people, regardless if their beliefs don’t fit with your reading of that old book of bad ideas (and kinda okay poetry). The more Christians distance themselves from the Bible, the better.“
I like this post but had to overlook the implicit assumption of a superior and finished insight.
A Christian who transcends the limits of Bibleism and goes forward from there, still rides at the back of the truth train?
Otto responding to Robin Ludvig Isomaa – “//Usually when a Christian says that they only follow Jesus, it can be translated into secular-speak as ‘I want to be a decent person’//.
I think it is often translated to ‘I am unable to justify much of the Bible so I just focus on Jesus’.
and I think it is a cop out.“
Maintaining access to the Guru archetype, instead of succumbing to dismissive and possibly petulant certainties, is a cop out?
Otto – “Yes, if one maintains that certain information from said guru is divine in origin (and the guru himself is divine) and said information comes from a book that is claimed to be at least to some extent divine in origin, but not all of it and of course they know just what to cut out.“
What is divine? A better criteria would be, is the teaching moving the individual towards undeniable authenticity of experience?
Our personal limitations are not applicable to others. They are also not immutable.
We determine what and how much we want to understand and how rapidly we come into understanding.
Attachment and the habits of expectation govern of our progress.
If Christianity is not a good fit why do you linger in it’s orbit?
Max Doubt – “//A Christian who transcends the limits of Bibleism and goes forward from there, still rides at the back of the truth train?”//
The truth is that there is no objective evidence to support any claims that any gods exist. The truth is there is no substantive difference between what a person believes to be a god and any other figment of their imagination. So yes, bible or not, if someone believes gods exist they’re disregarding the truth.“
This statement, about what you believe to be an example of truth, also falls into the category of imagination.
So where do we go from there?
Max Doubt – “//This statement, about what you believe to be an example of truth, also falls into the category of imagination.//
No. My statement is a rejection of the claim that gods exist outside of the imagination. Unless someone can objectively demonstrate that gods are substantively different from any other figment of the imagination, my statement remains true. Your dishonest attempt to shift the burden of proof is noted.
//So where do we go from there?//
Go? The place to start would be for those who believe gods actually exist to defend their belief with honesty rather than dishonesty. But you and I both know that won’t happen. It would require agreeing that gods have no affect on the universe and should be given exactly the same consideration as anything else which cannot be shown to exist as part of reality.
Honestly people claim gods exist, but honestly there is no objective evidence to support any claims that any gods are real. Honestly god believers have nothing but the same sort of juvenile fantasy as a kid who believes there’s an invisible magical princess at her make believe tea party or a monster under his bed. So where to go from there? Honestly acknowledge that the alleged existence of gods is indistinguishable from their non-existence.“
Your statement was.
“The truth is there is no substantive difference between what a person believes to be a god and any other figment of their imagination.“
Which I actually agree with. My stance is that the imaginative conception of God is not God.
All mature practices of God/Self realization make this the starting point.
“Your dishonest attempt to shift the burden of proof is noted.“
This remains in the realm of imagination as well, but I don’t need you to prove anything one way or the other.
In light of the above clarifications I imagine that the my original statement remains useful.
Max Doubt – “You don’t have a stance. You’re all over the place in this thread, as you have been in other discussions on these forums.“
I just told quite clearly what my line of commentary is about.
Since it still bounces off your hard-wired rhetoric, the conversation can only draw to a close.
The limitations that you set are not mine, so why would I pander to them? Or, respect any declaration of nonsense? That being the only argument you seem capable of making.
[responding to a long and progressively rabid summary by Max Doubt]
“I have the luxury of being correct from the git-go. It’s the people who think gods exist who are responsible for making their case.“
So, … now you will have to make your own case won’t you? Oh, self declared one.
Good luck to you chuckles.
[Unpleasant reading though it be, I’ve included an excerpt from his follow-up for the sheer irony.]
Max Doubt – “//Good luck to you chuckles.//
Not only do you possess a grasp on reality comparable to that of six year old child, you’re an asshole, too.“