5
   

True Religion

 
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Nov, 2019 08:47 pm
@livinglava,
Attempts at asserting truth? Do you mean my request that you actually educate yourself to the differences before you come to a conclusion? Or do you mean my pointing out the gaping flaws in your own analogy - that you provided as excuse not to educate yourself before arriving at a conclusion? Or something else?

Quote:
I think your problem is that you are unable to reconcile superficial differences with deeper unity.
And here's the crux of the problem - you don't even know if they are superficial differences. It's just an ignorance based guess for you.

Unfortunately this sort of slipshod belief foundation is all too common with you.
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 30 Nov, 2019 08:53 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Attempts at asserting truth? Do you mean my request that you actually educate yourself to the differences before you come to a conclusion? Or do you mean my pointing out the gaping flaws in your own analogy - that you provided as excuse not to educate yourself before arriving at a conclusion?

No, I just noted the fact that you believe that you are asserting a truth that cannot be escaped by me, so you are just as aware of the power of Truth's singularity as I am, even though you are trying to assert it more for your own personal power trip than to honor God, I assume.

Quote:
I think your problem is that you are unable to reconcile superficial differences with deeper unity.
And here's the crux of the problem - you don't even know if they are superficial differences. It's just an ignorance based guess for you.[/quote]
How can you tell if something is superficial or deep? Is it just a subjective difference? What is the Truth in this matter?

Quote:
Unfortunately this sort of slipshod belief foundation is all too common with you.

It always comes down to insults and ridicule with you. Why don't you put the effort you put into hammering down on me or others into finding Truth and preaching it? I would rather read you saying what you believe to be true than ridiculing me for things that only matter to you.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Nov, 2019 09:15 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
I just noted the fact that you believe that you are asserting a truth that cannot be escaped by me
Which, like when you replied to Fresco, you are not prepared to name...so an easy, vague, cop-out or a response.

Quote:
How can you tell if something is superficial or deep? Is it just a subjective difference? What is the Truth in this matter?
Something you can't know without actually having knowledge of the differences.

Quote:
It always comes down to insults and ridicule with you.
A pattern of avoidance, dishonest intellectual logic, and refusal to educate yourself on things you make judgements on, will always deserve ridicule.

Habib, for all that I disagree with him, is much better than you in this department. You will find I 'ridicule' him far less than yourself, despite our vast differences in opinion. That is because he has put much more thought and honesty into his beliefs than you. I'm not saying he is anywhere near perfect in this regard - just far better at logic and intellectual honesty than you.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Nov, 2019 09:36 pm
For, the wages of religion is judgement.
livinglava
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2019 10:14 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Quote:
I just noted the fact that you believe that you are asserting a truth that cannot be escaped by me
Which, like when you replied to Fresco, you are not prepared to name...so an easy, vague, cop-out or a response.

One of the reasons I don't like you is that you go on pressing like an interrogator instead of reading my response and responding to that. If you don't like what I say in response to something you said, you don't have to continue discussing it. You become like a rapist who goes on forcing yourself on someone who doesn't respond to your advances as punishment for not responding.

Quote:
How can you tell if something is superficial or deep? Is it just a subjective difference? What is the Truth in this matter?
Something you can't know without actually having knowledge of the differences.[/quote]
A meaningless response.

Quote:
It always comes down to insults and ridicule with you.
A pattern of avoidance, dishonest intellectual logic, and refusal to educate yourself on things you make judgements on, will always deserve ridicule.[/quote]
You don't deserve to be an agent of ridicule. You don't deserve to have that much power, yet you take it anyway because you can.

Quote:
Habib, for all that I disagree with him, is much better than you in this department. You will find I 'ridicule' him far less than yourself, despite our vast differences in opinion. That is because he has put much more thought and honesty into his beliefs than you. I'm not saying he is anywhere near perfect in this regard - just far better at logic and intellectual honesty than you.

All you are saying is that you compare people with each other in an attempt to stimulate competitive ego trips in service to you as judge. There are also better judges than you. It is not worth my effort to try to compete with Habib or anyone else in your eyes.

Maybe it is worth it to you to try to compete with God as judge in my eyes, but I don't think you stand a chance and it makes you a worse person for trying.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2019 12:48 pm
@livinglava,
The only times I press are when:
- you avoid answering questions (because you claim truth and honesty)
- you display hypocrisy (because you claim truth and honesty)
- you fail at logic (because you claim claim logical)

In comparison, as you see in this thread when you admit to a mistake - I have no issues with such. Same for if I disagree but you show you have thought through your beliefs (take Habib for instance). So you can call it what you want, and demonise it how you want, to assuage your needs for whatever it is.

Quote:
A meaningless response.
Um wow. Akin to saying "I can come to any conclusion I like without information or knowledge of the subject"...well you can, but don't claim accuracy or truth in your response.

Quote:
You don't deserve to be an agent of ridicule. You don't deserve to have that much power, yet you take it anyway because you can.
Ummm...this as a whole is a rather delusional view. No one deserves anything (we just like to think we do). The rest seems paranoid - we all do things because we can (ie we can't do what we can't do) - it's the other motivations that matter

Quote:
All you are saying is that you compare people with each other in an attempt to stimulate competitive ego trips in service to you as judge. There are also better judges than you. It is not worth my effort to try to compete with Habib or anyone else in your eyes.
Comparison is used because of your paranoia "You must be against me for #### reason"...when it is shown, even in this thread with people I disagree with, that disagreement isn't an issue...the issue, as always is hypocrisy, avoidance etc - behaviours of yours I've mentioned many times before to you, but you continue to engage in.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2019 01:36 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

The only times I press are when:
- you avoid answering questions (because you claim truth and honesty)
- you display hypocrisy (because you claim truth and honesty)
- you fail at logic (because you claim claim logical)

That's like telling your rape victim the only times you rape are when they 1) resist 2) fail to show interest in your 3) say 'no.'

Quote:
In comparison, as you see in this thread when you admit to a mistake - I have no issues with such. Same for if I disagree but you show you have thought through your beliefs (take Habib for instance). So you can call it what you want, and demonise it how you want, to assuage your needs for whatever it is.

Your opinion/perceptions don't matter very much to me because I see you as being very superficial and technicality-oriented, like a bad lawyer. You argue about things that you don't seem to grasp at a deep level based on these superficial technicalities.

Like I told you before, inconsistency isn't a principle you can apply to dogs and cats. You have to understand things at a deeper so you don't equate things that are radically different in various ways.

Quote:
Ummm...this as a whole is a rather delusional view. No one deserves anything (we just like to think we do). The rest seems paranoid - we all do things because we can (ie we can't do what we can't do) - it's the other motivations that matter

I only used the concept of 'deserving' in response to you using it, i.e. because I assumed you think in such terms. You are right that no one deserves anything. We are all sinners. We deserve nothing, yet receive grace and mercy; from God at least, anyway.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 12:10 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
That's like telling your rape victim the only times you rape are when they 1) resist 2) fail to show interest in your 3) say 'no.'
Rofl. Rape is a crime. Pointing out when you, or any poster, engages in hypocrisy etc is not.

Your comparison can directly be compared to saying 'logic debating classes where you point out logical flaws (or avoidance of answering a question, etc) are like the rapist pointing out the only times they rape are when the other 1)resists 2)fails to show interest in the rapist 3) says no." It is such an ridiculous comparison that I'm somewhat surprised you made it.

livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 05:14 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Quote:
That's like telling your rape victim the only times you rape are when they 1) resist 2) fail to show interest in your 3) say 'no.'
Rofl. Rape is a crime. Pointing out when you, or any poster, engages in hypocrisy etc is not.

Saying it once is not pushy and goading, like an interrogation. What you do is ignore my response in order to continue pushing me to respond to you in your paradigm, which I already explained was invalid in my response. At that point, if you continue pushing your own paradigm without respecting my response to it, you are being pushy and disrespectful toward the POV you are speaking to.

Of course you are free to express your own POV, and that is exactly what you should express and explain, but when you start pushing it without responding to someone else's reasons for responding differently than you wish, that becomes aggressive.

Quote:
Your comparison can directly be compared to saying 'logic debating classes where you point out logical flaws (or avoidance of answering a question, etc) are like the rapist pointing out the only times they rape are when the other 1)resists 2)fails to show interest in the rapist 3) says no." It is such an ridiculous comparison that I'm somewhat surprised you made it.

It's not a ridiculous comparison. It exaggerates the level of pushiness in order to clarify what you're doing on a more subtle level.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 10:55 pm
@livinglava,
I chose what seemed most apt to respond to. What in particular would like me to respond to?

Quote:
It's not a ridiculous comparison. It exaggerates the level of pushiness in order to clarify what you're doing on a more subtle level.
There's no subtlety whatsoever to it - when you engage in avoidance, hypocrisy, poor logic etc, I have pointed it out. The unfortunate thing is the excessive amount of times you have engaged in such behaviour. That has lead to me starting to point out your pattern of behaviour - with examples / explanation at each step to illustrate the issue.

As it stands, your comparison is a ridiculous comparison - even you admit that it's exaggerated - but you weren't prepared to say just how exaggerated (extremely), nor do you acknowledge the attempt to demonise pointing out hypocrisy etc (through comparative association with one of the most vile crimes known to humans).

The thing about both honesty and logic is:
- it needs no exaggeration
- it doesn't need over the top comparisons (which are neither accurate nor truthful)
- it doesn't need to divert attention or avoid issues,
- it doesn't need to make vague allusions because it can explain what it wants to explain (or admits that it can't)
- it can explain things in a structured way that stands up to scrutiny (or admits that it can't),
- and it can stand on it's own merits -
- and also admits when it is faulty or wrong .


livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Dec, 2019 09:32 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Quote:
It's not a ridiculous comparison. It exaggerates the level of pushiness in order to clarify what you're doing on a more subtle level.
There's no subtlety whatsoever to it - when you engage in avoidance, hypocrisy, poor logic etc, I have pointed it out. The unfortunate thing is the excessive amount of times you have engaged in such behaviour. That has lead to me starting to point out your pattern of behaviour - with examples / explanation at each step to illustrate the issue.

You don't make a case and implore a response. Rather, you try to push with a preponderance of suggestion in order to overpower questioning. What you should be doing is inviting critical questioning of your claims, which I have, and then giving consideration to that instead of dismissing it in order to push your own POV. Remember, you are not making a case about something neutral but about another person's POV/meaning/intent. You are basically seeking to define another person against their will, and denying their own perspective.

I would not say that you must accept someone else's perspective about themselves, because people can be in denial, consciously/intentionally or subconsciously/unintentionally about things that are true, including things about themselves, but you should respect and attempt to understand their side of it, and always keep in mind that your perspective is also potentially influenced/biased by your subjectivity.

Quote:
As it stands, your comparison is a ridiculous comparison - even you admit that it's exaggerated - but you weren't prepared to say just how exaggerated (extremely), nor do you acknowledge the attempt to demonise pointing out hypocrisy etc (through comparative association with one of the most vile crimes known to humans).

Your subjective feelings about how vile something is has not relevance here. The fact is that you are pushy/aggressive and the best comparison in terms of a physical/material analogy is a rapist who would use sexual violence to punish a victim for not responding to his advances while calling her 'b*tch," "wh*re," etc. Bracket your emotion response to this analogy as vile for a moment in order to objectively contemplate it as a tactic of interpersonal power relations between someone whose feelings are hurt by rejection and someone else who rejected the aggressor.

Quote:
The thing about both honesty and logic is:
- it needs no exaggeration
- it doesn't need over the top comparisons (which are neither accurate nor truthful)
- it doesn't need to divert attention or avoid issues,
- it doesn't need to make vague allusions because it can explain what it wants to explain (or admits that it can't)
- it can explain things in a structured way that stands up to scrutiny (or admits that it can't),
- and it can stand on it's own merits -
- and also admits when it is faulty or wrong .

This is all character-attack logic. Honesty is only about saying what you really think/believe. If it happens to divert from something else, that can be a byproduct of an honest belief that something irrelevant can be explained more relevantly by explaining it on a different level.

What would be dishonest is if you did any of the things you mention with a manipulative intent instead of sincere intentions. Insincere intentions make for dishonesty, and perhaps unwillingness to consider other perspectives. It is not dishonest to give fair consideration and then reject it after honest assessment. That is still honesty, provided it isn't due to conscious or subconscious bias/manipulation, which it often is because humans are subjective creatures and thus prone to manipulation by their own biases, often subconsciously.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 01:33 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
You don't make a case
Your opinion - and one that relies on you ignoring the quotes and/or explanations I provide each time. You are of course welcome to try and provide example where I don't do this.

Quote:
Rather, you try to push with a preponderance of suggestion in order to overpower questioning.
Your previous post said I avoided your question. I offered to answer such if you would specify which question you believed I avoided (neither of these should need quotes, but feel free to ask)....and rather than state what you wanted answered, you post the above.

So yet more avoidance / ignoring what is on offer.

Quote:
What you should be doing is inviting critical questioning of your claims, which I have
Do you mean like your vague statements that you refuse to clarify relating to you having deeper understanding, despite being challenged to make them less vague? Or your analogy that you provided of blind men touching an elephant that was so flawed that you wouldn't reply to the flaws that were pointed out? These two are examples of yet more avoidance. I've said this is a tactic of yours before, and it continues to be.

If you mean something else - please provide an quoted example, rather than vague allusions. I very much doubt you can, while I provide examples and specificity each time.

Quote:
but you should respect and attempt to understand their side of it, and always keep in mind that your perspective is also potentially influenced/biased by your subjectivity.
Respect isn't owed just for its own sake (ie. there's nothing to respect about dishonesty, avoidance, or hypocrisy). We start with a modicum, and from there respect grows or diminishes based on behaviour.

Quote:
You are basically seeking to define another person against their will, and denying their own perspective.
Actually, when I am critical of your posts - I talk continually about behaviour. Behaviour doesn't define a person, for they have within who they are, to continue, or cease contentious behaviours, without changing who they are.

Quote:
The fact is that you are pushy/aggressive and the best comparison in terms of a physical/material analogy is a rapist who would use sexual violence to punish a victim for not responding to his advances while calling her 'b*tch," "wh*re," etc. Bracket your emotion response to this analogy as vile for a moment in order to objectively contemplate it as a tactic of interpersonal power relations between someone whose feelings are hurt by rejection and someone else who rejected the aggressor.

- You could of course use any number of better comparisons for your perspective: pushy telemarketers/used car salesmen/insurance salesmen, Mormons or Jehovahs Witnesses (for continuously knocking on your doors), Army trainers, Social Media bullies etc.

- You have not been raped. The 'trauma' you experience from having any dishonesty etc pointed out is likely not even 1/1000th of the trauma experienced by a rape victim, but you want to claim it is comparable. This is a ridiculous, insensitive, and almost unconscionable comparison.

- What we have is: I see that you frequently engage in behaviours of avoidance, dishonesty etc, and many times you do so (not even every time), I point it out, with quotes of yours and explanation. This in your eyes is pushy. This is purely your perspective. And a self serving one at that, as you so very obviously don't like your poor behaviours being pointed out.
vikorr wrote:
The thing about both honesty and logic is:
- it needs no exaggeration
- it doesn't need over the top comparisons (which are neither accurate nor truthful)
- it doesn't need to divert attention or avoid issues,
- it doesn't need to make vague allusions because it can explain what it wants to explain (or admits that it can't)
- it can explain things in a structured way that stands up to scrutiny (or admits that it can't),
- and it can stand on it's own merits -
- and also admits when it is faulty or wrong .
livinglava wrote:
This is all character-attack logic.
It is logic that stands on its own. It can apply to me, to you, or in fact to any person. Nothing you provided showed any of the listed outcomes of logic and honesty, to not be outcomes of logic and honesty.

Calling it 'character attack logic' is purely diversionary, and another form of avoidance (in this case, avoidance in addressing the list if you in fact, disagreed with it)

Your reply by the way, separated the two (I posted them as outcomes of the two traits being applied together, or if you like, honest logic), and then dealt only with honesty, and even then, avoided what makes a belief honest. 'You believe it to be true' is not enough for honesty (as opposed to 'the truth' in your eyes) because in holding a belief, you could not want any further to see if it is truly true or not (which is not honest), and therefore be left with just "I believe it to be true". Honesty demands you acknowledge problems and try and reconcile them, until you reach an understanding. Honesty demands keeping an open mind (so that you can become aware of any problems, rather than dismissing them out of hand)

Quote:
What would be dishonest is if you did any of the things you mention with a manipulative intent instead of sincere intentions. Insincere intentions make for dishonesty, and perhaps unwillingness to consider other perspectives. It is not dishonest to give fair consideration and then reject it after honest assessment.
All quite true.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 01:46 am
@livinglava,
Each time you reply, you provide more evidence of just how unfamiliar you are with self honesty. I've never come across anyone so unfamiliar with self honesty or the principles that lead to self honesty. And no matter how much the character traits of self honesty are explained to you - you avoid, divert, and make excuse after excuse for yourself. If you wonder why we can never have a sane conversation - this is the reason. All the other excuses you make in your mind about my motivations are just that - excuses for your own benefit.

I don't know if there is any point to conversations with you. I am quite an optimist, but it seems you truly wish to excuse yourself from embracing principles necessary to self honesty.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 11:26 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Quote:
but you should respect and attempt to understand their side of it, and always keep in mind that your perspective is also potentially influenced/biased by your subjectivity.
Respect isn't owed just for its own sake (ie. there's nothing to respect about dishonesty, avoidance, or hypocrisy). We start with a modicum, and from there respect grows or diminishes based on behaviour.

Respect doesn't mean acceptance. It just means respecting someone else's POV as long as its sincere. It might be wrong, but if they sincerely believe something and aren't lying for the sake of manipulation, then you should respect their POV as being the best they can do under the circustances with the knowledge and information and other resources they have available to them.

What you deem hypocricy might not be hypocrisy in someone else's eyes. I've given the example many times of how your view of marriage for heterosexuals and not homosexuals as inconsistent and hypocritical as not being hypocritical from a certain perspective, but because you don't want to recognize and respect that perspective, you simply dismiss/reject it as hypocrisy without trying to understand it as anything more than simple discrimination rooted in homophobia, which it isn't even if homophobia may cause many people to support it as a view without understanding the deeper philosophy behind it.

Quote:
You are basically seeking to define another person against their will, and denying their own perspective.
Actually, when I am critical of your posts - I talk continually about behaviour. Behaviour doesn't define a person, for they have within who they are, to continue, or cease contentious behaviours, without changing who they are. [/quote]
But you deny philosophical disagreement about what makes 'contention behaviors' contentious or not in the first place. You simply take that for granted in your attack on them. In short, you don't put your reasoning on the table for discussion before seeking to enforce your conclusions.

Quote:
The fact is that you are pushy/aggressive and the best comparison in terms of a physical/material analogy is a rapist who would use sexual violence to punish a victim for not responding to his advances while calling her 'b*tch," "wh*re," etc. Bracket your emotion response to this analogy as vile for a moment in order to objectively contemplate it as a tactic of interpersonal power relations between someone whose feelings are hurt by rejection and someone else who rejected the aggressor.

- You could of course use any number of better comparisons for your perspective: pushy telemarketers/used car salesmen/insurance salesmen, Mormons or Jehovahs Witnesses (for continuously knocking on your doors), Army trainers, Social Media bullies etc.[/quote]
Social media bullying not an analogy; it's what you're doing. Marketers/salesman could also be compared to rapists when they use rape-like tactics. Jehovahs Witnesses and Mormon's just knock on your door and ask if you would like to hear about their religion; they aren't pushy. What you did was like a rapist forcing himself on his victim to punish them for not accepting his advances. There is no comparison in those other analogies you mentioned.

Quote:
- You have not been raped. The 'trauma' you experience from having any dishonesty etc pointed out is likely not even 1/1000th of the trauma experienced by a rape victim, but you want to claim it is comparable. This is a ridiculous, insensitive, and almost unconscionable comparison.

And a bottle rocket is not even 1/1000th of the Atlas moon rocket, but they still work the same way.

Quote:
- What we have is: I see that you frequently engage in behaviours of avoidance, dishonesty etc, and many times you do so (not even every time), I point it out, with quotes of yours and explanation. This in your eyes is pushy. This is purely your perspective. And a self serving one at that, as you so very obviously don't like your poor behaviours being pointed out.

You turn it into character assassination. It is pushy and aggressive.

vikorr wrote:
The thing about both honesty and logic is:
- it needs no exaggeration
- it doesn't need over the top comparisons (which are neither accurate nor truthful)
- it doesn't need to divert attention or avoid issues,
- it doesn't need to make vague allusions because it can explain what it wants to explain (or admits that it can't)
- it can explain things in a structured way that stands up to scrutiny (or admits that it can't),
- and it can stand on it's own merits -
- and also admits when it is faulty or wrong .
livinglava wrote:
This is all character-attack logic.
It is logic that stands on its own. It can apply to me, to you, or in fact to any person. Nothing you provided showed any of the listed outcomes of logic and honesty, to not be outcomes of logic and honesty.[/quote]
Character-assassination objectifies people instead of addressing something they said. It is a way of attacking someone in lieu of discussing something outside of the person.

Quote:
Calling it 'character attack logic' is purely diversionary, and another form of avoidance (in this case, avoidance in addressing the list if you in fact, disagreed with it)

On the contrary, character attack/assassination is diversion from discussion issues outside of people themselves and their character.

Quote:
'You believe it to be true' is not enough for honesty (as opposed to 'the truth' in your eyes) because in holding a belief, you could not want any further to see if it is truly true or not (which is not honest), and therefore be left with just "I believe it to be true".

Honesty is an attitude. What you are saying is that if you aren't open to being manipulated into doubt and lies, you aren't honest; but that's not true. Submission to lies is not part of honest.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 11:28 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Each time you reply, you provide more evidence of just how unfamiliar you are with self honesty. I've never come across anyone so unfamiliar with self honesty or the principles that lead to self honesty. And no matter how much the character traits of self honesty are explained to you - you avoid, divert, and make excuse after excuse for yourself. If you wonder why we can never have a sane conversation - this is the reason. All the other excuses you make in your mind about my motivations are just that - excuses for your own benefit.

I don't know if there is any point to conversations with you. I am quite an optimist, but it seems you truly wish to excuse yourself from embracing principles necessary to self honesty.

Yet another character attack post.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 03:00 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
I've given the example many times of how your view of marriage for heterosexuals and not homosexuals as inconsistent and hypocritical as not being hypocritical from a certain perspective
This is a problem with conversing with you - the frequent removal of conversations from context. I've never commented on gay marriage. I've commented on God's hate of gay people, which he created with gay genes.

Quote:
But you deny philosophical disagreement about what makes 'contention behaviors' contentious or not in the first place.
And yet another problem. I've no problem with differences in philosophy (hence pointing out people where this is the case), so long as they are well thought out. Almost every time I've been critical (in the way that you complain about) - has been in relation in relation to your behaviour, in relation to avoidance, poor logic, dishonesty, and hypocrisy - not in relation to philosophy.

Quote:
Yet another character attack post.
Actually, the first that could be legitimately viewed as such - the rest talk of behaviours. Also a necessary statement due to overwhelming evidence that you don't wish to embrace the principles & behaviours necessary to self honesty, and by now, the pointlessness of trying to explain them to you. It's obvious now, that you simply don't wish to engage in such where it is inconvenient to your beliefs.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 06:40 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Quote:
I've given the example many times of how your view of marriage for heterosexuals and not homosexuals as inconsistent and hypocritical as not being hypocritical from a certain perspective
This is a problem with conversing with you - the frequent removal of conversations from context. I've never commented on gay marriage. I've commented on God's hate of gay people, which he created with gay genes.

You fundamentally misunderstand the relationship between God, His love, the temptations of this world, sin, and His forgiveness/redemption from sin.

Carnal lust is sin. Heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, pedophiles, and everyone else with hormones experiences sexual desire and thus temptation to pleasure, which blocks the higher process of making intentional choices in the interest of higher purpose than pleasurable indulgence.

Heterosexual lust is sin just as much as homosexual/bisexual lust, and it tempts people into numerous sins of sexual abuse, such as adultery, etc. It just so happens, however, that heterosexual sex has the natural consequence of pregnancy, which results in procreation of human bodies, which are temples for the soul's ascent into higher awareness and moral reason, self control/discipline, etc. Life's potential for conscience and conscious intent are realized best in human minds, as far as we know, so pregnancy is a blessing that sometimes emerges from the cross of sexual temptation, which can otherwise lead to sin.

When people experience temptations to sin, it gives them/us the awareness and motivation to resist temptation. We pray the Lord's prayer, "lead us not into temptation" (or "do not let us fall to temptation") to ask for God's help in gaining strength against acting on lust and other temptations.

So God doesn't hate gay people at all by including homosexuality in the many potential expressions of sexuality that exist inherently; rather He has given them the opportunity to see sexuality for what it is, creative power the brings with it temptation to sin. Just like heterosexuals, bisexuals, and pedophiles, homosexuals have the potential to channel their sexual energy into higher moral pursuits. Sexual energy is most fruitfully used for higher pursuits, and the fact that homosexual lust doesn't result in pregnancy provides people who are gay with a special vantage point in reflecting on the meaning and purpose of sexual energy, desire, and how to control/discipline it and channel it into higher pursuits than sexual indulgence. This doesn't mean that heterosexuals and bisexuals don't have equal opportunity to realize the higher potential for sexual energy as well, but just that gay people are in no way excluded from this potential for God-realization, and that they have a stronger moral foundation for celibacy in the fact that the call to have children doesn't connect with their sexual lust the way it does for heterosexuals who are more prone to misrecognizing lust as virtue because heterosexuality is traditionally associated with procreation.

Quote:
But you deny philosophical disagreement about what makes 'contention behaviors' contentious or not in the first place.
And yet another problem. I've no problem with differences in philosophy (hence pointing out people where this is the case), so long as they are well thought out. Almost every time I've been critical (in the way that you complain about) - has been in relation in relation to your behaviour, in relation to avoidance, poor logic, dishonesty, and hypocrisy - not in relation to philosophy.[/quote]
You judge how "well thought-out" a POV is without considering that you haven't thought it out well enough to recognize how well thought-out it is.' Consider Matthew 7:5
Quote:

You hypocrite! First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.

To put it more gently, when you are assuming someone else's POV is not well thought-out, consider that you might not have thought it out well enough to recognize theirs as well thought-out.

Quote:
Quote:
Yet another character attack post.
Actually, the first that could be legitimately viewed as such - the rest talk of behaviours. Also a necessary statement due to overwhelming evidence that you don't wish to embrace the principles & behaviours necessary to self honesty, and by now, the pointlessness of trying to explain them to you. It's obvious now, that you simply don't wish to engage in such where it is inconvenient to your beliefs.

You have recoded 'honesty' to mean something different than it means. When you do that, it makes your use of 'honesty' as a word irrelevant.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 08:34 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
You have recoded 'honesty' to mean something different than it means.
Not at all. Truth and honesty are two different things. You can deceive while telling the truth, but you cannot deceive while being honest.

As a note - you don't even debate what honesty is, and when you do, you refer to truth rather than honesty.There is a fundamental difference that you don't seem to, or want to, understand.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 09:50 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Quote:
You have recoded 'honesty' to mean something different than it means.
Not at all. Truth and honesty are two different things. You can deceive while telling the truth, but you cannot deceive while being honest.

'Truth' has two different but related meanings. One is being true/faithful to something, which is related to having true (i.e. straight) aim. The other is that something is true beyond the ability of any human authority to make it so or change it. E.g. 2+2=4 because it does and no one can change the truth by sincerely believing that 2+2=5 or some other number.

'Honesty' is a true orientation. You can be honest and get the wrong answer on a math problem. It is different than being dishonest and telling lies that you know aren't true.

You accuse me of dishonesty, but I'm not dishonest. There may be things that I honestly believe that aren't the truth, but that doesn't make me less true in my honesty. For you to judge someone else's honesty, you would have to be inside their mind, and since you can't be, you can only base your belief about their honesty or dishonesty on your own subjective assessment and/or will to trust or distrust, which is your prerogative but no basis for asserting factuality except insofar as you perceive it as such, which is also your prerogative, so long as you can admit the possibility that you're wrong.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 10:18 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
'Honesty' is a true orientation.
"True Orientation" is a problematic phrase. It leaves you going 'what exactly does a true orientation mean'?

Honesty can be applied in two directions - inwards (self honesty) and outwards (honesty to others). So, taking the two directions into account, honesty is an genuine intention to:
- Understand the truth, so that you do not deceive yourself
- Tell the truth, in a way that doesn't deceive/mislead the other

Because of that, you can associate behaviours with honesty.

Avoidance then, is dishonest (to yourself, and if put in public, to others). So is misrepresentation (to others). So is purposefully taking things out of context (to yourself, and if put in public, to others). So is exaggeration (to both). Etc.

Of course, none of that means an honest person can't unwittingly get their facts wrong.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » True Religion
  3. » Page 15
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/12/2019 at 05:27:39