Go Back   Christian Guitar Forum > Deeper Issues > Theology
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Arcade Mark Forums Read

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 12-05-2016, 07:20 PM   #16
Laborer/Philosopher
 
Chrysostom's Avatar
 

Joined: Sep 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 18,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
I suspect what it actually basically boils down to is that I don't accept the doctrines you believe and so you're telling yourself this is somehow because I'm "a history guy, not an exegete or theologian". I'm pretty clear on the relevant exegesis and theology thanks. You need to accept that there are many, many people who disagree with your religious ideas and that it may actually be you that's wrong.
I've got some alternative hypotheses, Tim.

First, that I'm viscerally aware that there are many, many people who disagree with my "religious ideas," undefined as those are. I met them at APA, AAR, and SBL. At Union, Chicago, and Cambridge. In the overwhelming majority of my library authored by those of contrasting perspectives. Yes I know how to tell the difference between disagreeing with someone on the premise and conclusion, or the interpretation and the insight. Yes I'm aware of just how wrong I so often am.

Second, that something stands behind the fact that you elected not to take the many outs I offered and instead continued to pick a fight. It's the reason you needed to register for someone else's tiny discussion forum on which someone of no significance to you said something about you to others whom you'll never meet. It's the reason you seek benighted dogmatists on the internet to illuminate. Ego is a cruel master, demanding both to be defended and to be fed.

__________________
Peace,
John

CGR Blog
Chrysostom is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Unread 12-06-2016, 07:37 AM   #17
Hipper Than Thou
Administrator
 
Leboman's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Geezerville
Posts: 56,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uptown Thrunk View Post
To be fair, the Philosophy Sub-Forum was deleted a year or so ago when the decision was made to simplify the site.

I've started a thread in the Mod Sub-Forum, however, to discuss this and the (to my mind) outdated rules regarding faith claims and posting in the Theology Sub-Forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by athanatos View Post
Per our discussion I'm okay suspending the application of the rules indefinitely with respect to this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by athanatos View Post
Carry on.
There is discussion in the Admin forum as well. I personally don't see a problem with this thread at the moment.
__________________
Nothing (Without You)
Nothing (Without You) on YouTube
Granville Center Church of Christ Sermons
My German is pre-industrial and mostly religious.

Last edited by Leboman; 12-06-2016 at 11:02 AM.
Leboman is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-06-2016, 11:45 AM   #18
Registered User
 
TimONeill's Avatar
 

Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysostom View Post
I've got some alternative hypotheses, Tim.

First, that I'm viscerally aware that there are many, many people who disagree with my "religious ideas," undefined as those are. I met them at APA, AAR, and SBL. At Union, Chicago, and Cambridge. In the overwhelming majority of my library authored by those of contrasting perspectives. Yes I know how to tell the difference between disagreeing with someone on the premise and conclusion, or the interpretation and the insight. Yes I'm aware of just how wrong I so often am.

Second, that something stands behind the fact that you elected not to take the many outs I offered and instead continued to pick a fight. It's the reason you needed to register for someone else's tiny discussion forum on which someone of no significance to you said something about you to others whom you'll never meet. It's the reason you seek benighted dogmatists on the internet to illuminate. Ego is a cruel master, demanding both to be defended and to be fed.
I have no interest in "a fight". If the things you claim I am not right about are to do with "theology and exegesis", then we're simply talking about the fact you accept Christianity and I don't. I can think of few things more tedious than a "fight" about the claims of Christianity with yet another Christian - I got bored with that about 30 years ago. You accept Christianity? Good for you. Off you go - go and enjoy that. I'm not one of those atheists who needs to tell Christians they are wrong.

I commented (and, yes, this required registration) because I was intrigued by your original claims - still unsubstantiated and not elaborated on - that I tend "to take the view a few books as a given and proceed from there" and that I "[elide] over some important distinctions in order to serve [my] overall point". These seemed to be claims about my analysis of history and that is something I do take seriously. Or at least seriously enough to spend a few seconds registering on a forum where they are made and asking "what?" If those comments were about my analysis of history, I'd ask you, yet again, to back them up. Because you seem to be backpedalling away from them pretty hard now that I've shown up to hold you to account about them.

Finally, it's ironic being accused of having an "ego" by a guy who doesn't seem to be able to post without repeatedly name-dropping and humble-bragging ("having taught at Columbia", " I met them at APA, AAR, and SBL. At Union, Chicago, and Cambridge"). Ironic and amusing.

So perhaps you could finally back up your claims. Or, if they are simply about your Christian perspectives on theology and exegesis, don't bother because I'm supremely uninterested in that conversation (so much for "ego"). Over to you.
TimONeill is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-06-2016, 05:04 PM   #19
Hipper Than Thou
Administrator
 
Leboman's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Geezerville
Posts: 56,211
If you guys want to have a personal pissing match, take it to PMs.
__________________
Nothing (Without You)
Nothing (Without You) on YouTube
Granville Center Church of Christ Sermons
My German is pre-industrial and mostly religious.
Leboman is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-06-2016, 06:18 PM   #20
Laborer/Philosopher
 
Chrysostom's Avatar
 

Joined: Sep 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 18,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
I have no interest in "a fight". If the things you claim I am not right about are to do with "theology and exegesis", then we're simply talking about the fact you accept Christianity and I don't. I can think of few things more tedious than a "fight" about the claims of Christianity with yet another Christian - I got bored with that about 30 years ago. You accept Christianity? Good for you. Off you go - go and enjoy that. I'm not one of those atheists who needs to tell Christians they are wrong.

I commented (and, yes, this required registration) because I was intrigued by your original claims - still unsubstantiated and not elaborated on - that I tend "to take the view a few books as a given and proceed from there" and that I "[elide] over some important distinctions in order to serve [my] overall point". These seemed to be claims about my analysis of history and that is something I do take seriously. Or at least seriously enough to spend a few seconds registering on a forum where they are made and asking "what?" If those comments were about my analysis of history, I'd ask you, yet again, to back them up. Because you seem to be backpedalling away from them pretty hard now that I've shown up to hold you to account about them.

Finally, it's ironic being accused of having an "ego" by a guy who doesn't seem to be able to post without repeatedly name-dropping and humble-bragging ("having taught at Columbia", " I met them at APA, AAR, and SBL. At Union, Chicago, and Cambridge"). Ironic and amusing.

So perhaps you could finally back up your claims. Or, if they are simply about your Christian perspectives on theology and exegesis, don't bother because I'm supremely uninterested in that conversation (so much for "ego"). Over to you.
"Having taught at Columbia" is a characteristic not of me but of Weinberg -- who was mentioned as a respected, neutral figure who prefers "vigor" to "rigor." That is, I wasn't saying anything negative about you, nor anything positive about me. Prior to the final post I simply said that I'm "some yahoo on the internet" so there would be no reason to take any of my critical remarks seriously.

We agree that arguing about theology or exegesis would be tedious and should be avoided. But whether one is a theologian or exegete is distinct from whether one is accurate on this or that matter of theology or exegesis. It's a question of degree of texture, not simply of right or wrong. So in this case I was also not saying anything negative about you -- unless you spend your time comparing Maximos the Confessor with Henri de Lubac, which I suspect you quite justifiably do not, again not a negative.

The tenor of the conversation at this point will, unfortunately, prevent it from finding a constructive future.
__________________
Peace,
John

CGR Blog
Chrysostom is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-06-2016, 08:16 PM   #21
Registered User
 
TimONeill's Avatar
 

Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysostom View Post
We agree that arguing about theology or exegesis would be tedious and should be avoided. But whether one is a theologian or exegete is distinct from whether one is accurate on this or that matter of theology or exegesis. It's a question of degree of texture, not simply of right or wrong.
For someone who was making some very specific claims just five days ago, you've become remarkably shy about specifics now. Your replies have been getting more and more vague as they go on.

One last time - here are the very specific claims you made:

"Not a vocational scholar, so he tends to take the view a few books as a given and proceed from there."

That's pretty specific. I can't imagine anyone writing that sentence without at least one example in mind, but when you've been repeatedly challenged to back it up with anything of substance we've seen ... nothing. Nothing except evasion. What exactly were you referring to? Which "few books" exactly? And why have you been working so hard to avoid previous polite requests to explain that very specific assertion?

"The bad thing is that sometimes he elides over some important distinctions in order to serve his overall point."

Again, this is very specific. "Sometimes"? Okay - which times? Where? When? Explain to us exactly what you were thinking of when you made that claim.

And please stop evading this quite simple and polite request. You weren't shy about making these assertions when I wasn't here, so it's plain rude to avoid substantiating them now I am here and am explicitly asking you to back them up.

Details, substance and specifics please.
TimONeill is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-09-2016, 07:51 PM   #22
Laborer/Philosopher
 
Chrysostom's Avatar
 

Joined: Sep 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 18,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
For someone who was making some very specific claims just five days ago, you've become remarkably shy about specifics now. Your replies have been getting more and more vague as they go on.

One last time - here are the very specific claims you made:

"Not a vocational scholar, so he tends to take the view a few books as a given and proceed from there."

That's pretty specific. I can't imagine anyone writing that sentence without at least one example in mind, but when you've been repeatedly challenged to back it up with anything of substance we've seen ... nothing. Nothing except evasion. What exactly were you referring to? Which "few books" exactly? And why have you been working so hard to avoid previous polite requests to explain that very specific assertion?

"The bad thing is that sometimes he elides over some important distinctions in order to serve his overall point."

Again, this is very specific. "Sometimes"? Okay - which times? Where? When? Explain to us exactly what you were thinking of when you made that claim.

And please stop evading this quite simple and polite request. You weren't shy about making these assertions when I wasn't here, so it's plain rude to avoid substantiating them now I am here and am explicitly asking you to back them up.

Details, substance and specifics please.
Read the first line in each of my first two responses to you.
__________________
Peace,
John

CGR Blog
Chrysostom is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-09-2016, 08:16 PM   #23
Psychic theo-philosopher
 
athanatos's Avatar
 

Joined: May 2008
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 2,991
paid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysostom View Post
Read the first line in each of my first two responses to you.
I don't see how they answer his question. His replies asked for clarification, and you didn't give them. At this point, you have basically just said "I was clear enough the first time." If you can clarify, why not? If you cannot, then just retract your statements, bro.
__________________
my glob

They want to stop the ones who want
Prosthetic foreheads on their heads
But everybody wants prosthetic
Foreheads on their real heads

We Want a Rock, They Might Be Giants

Hidden?
athanatos is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-10-2016, 06:11 PM   #24
Registered User
 
TimONeill's Avatar
 

Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by athanatos View Post
I don't see how they answer his question. His replies asked for clarification, and you didn't give them. At this point, you have basically just said "I was clear enough the first time." If you can clarify, why not? If you cannot, then just retract your statements, bro.
Exactly. It's beginning to be clear that he knows he can't back those original very specific claims up and so is fudging.
TimONeill is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-10-2016, 09:24 PM   #25
Psychic theo-philosopher
 
athanatos's Avatar
 

Joined: May 2008
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 2,991
paid
Thread closed per request. PM me if there are concerns.

[edit]
There was some miscommunication. My apologies. It is my fault for prematurely closing thread.
__________________
my glob

They want to stop the ones who want
Prosthetic foreheads on their heads
But everybody wants prosthetic
Foreheads on their real heads

We Want a Rock, They Might Be Giants

Hidden?

Last edited by athanatos; 12-11-2016 at 11:50 PM.
athanatos is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-17-2016, 10:14 AM   #26
Laborer/Philosopher
 
Chrysostom's Avatar
 

Joined: Sep 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 18,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
Exactly. It's beginning to be clear that he knows he can't back those original very specific claims up and so is fudging.
Agreed. You win. I'm a nuisance. Goodbye.
__________________
Peace,
John

CGR Blog
Chrysostom is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-17-2016, 10:41 AM   #27
Laborer/Philosopher
 
Chrysostom's Avatar
 

Joined: Sep 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 18,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by athanatos View Post
I don't see how they answer his question. His replies asked for clarification, and you didn't give them. At this point, you have basically just said "I was clear enough the first time." If you can clarify, why not? If you cannot, then just retract your statements, bro.
I don't understand. What would I say that did not appear in those two statements?

Edit to explain: I said clearly that the initial post was pure provocation and should be disregarded. I offered to provide genuine critical remarks if he thought that would be helpful. I noted that they would fall into two broad categories, essentially that some things are out of focus when you are focused on another thing -- and I think there is nothing wrong with that, as I explained multiple times.

Tim's response was to reject my offer to provide genuine critical remarks on the grounds that he thinks of me condescendingly. He then pressed his own line of provocation, and I responded that either the conversation had lost context or I wasn't interested. It was the latter.

That is, as far as I can tell those two lines supplant the question. I'm sincerely happy to help as needed, but I do not understand what else is left for me to say.
__________________
Peace,
John

CGR Blog
Chrysostom is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-19-2016, 06:24 PM   #28
Gone
 
Ted Logan's Avatar
 

Joined: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 9,167
The internet is bizarre.
__________________
broccolifish at SoundCloud - synthpop and chiptunes I've made

Give thanks to YHWH, for He is good!


Gone
Ted Logan is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-20-2016, 10:41 AM   #29
Lieutenant Commander
 
slap_j's Avatar
 

Joined: Nov 2002
Location: the U.S.
Posts: 21,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Logan View Post
The internet is bizarre.
Let me try something:

Papa Bill Gates, Deacon of DOS, grace us with your presence.
__________________

A d A s t r a P e r A l a s P o r c i
slap_j is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-02-2017, 05:14 PM   #30
assistant regional mgr.
 
Dwight Schrute's Avatar
 

Joined: Apr 2003
Location: Scranton, PA
Posts: 5,551
__________________


Awesome Blog
Dwight Schrute is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:54 AM.


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2