. . . and The RestDiscuss just about anything besides Politics and Religion! Discuss sports, pop culture, computers, videogames, welcome new members, wish someone a happy birthday. Or just chit chat!
The only thing you let me think is that you wear a perpetually dirty diaper.
I see. So in response to a heartfelt post your only option is to go to the gutter?
Quote:
A place you should know well.
Better here where it is only temporary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uberpod1
A life lived with authenticity and integrity.
What is inauthentic about living up to the standards one believes in? Where is the lack of integrity?
Can one be more authentic and have more integrity by demanding that people believe there is no after-life, no judgement, no consequence and no chance for fulfillment?
Location: Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
Rep Power: 157434
Other
More left than right
Slogan/motto:
Blah, waffle, moan, grumble etc....
Reputation:
December 16th, 2011, 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripe
And let you think it's OK to die in rebellion against your Maker? No. Hitchens is now spending his time in vast and irreconcilable embarrassment and despair. The thing he is wishing for the most is just one more chance, or at least a chance to warn his friends.
Perhaps before you die you will think through a bit more carefully what is real and what is of eternal value.
You aren't in any position to comment on what state Hitchens is in or what he's wishing for either.
Or, Christians spend their whole lives worshiping an imaginary friend and then die. What a waste. How stupid are Christians?!
Not remotely, since that worship and faith provides them with a superior and more rewarding context for their existence, whatever the underlying truth. And if you value virtue then you lose nothing in the exchange.
The old gamble was always wrongly focused. It should never have been about escaping hell, but always about the bit of heaven to be had here and in the now and in relation, both with God and one another.
The tragedy of Hitchens, whom I watched debate live on a couple of occasions, was that he fought a hard fight for a flag that didn't deserve him to an end that could only depress him if he'd more fully considered the implications of the sweep of history and the nature of man.
worship and faith provides them with a superior and more rewarding context for their existence.
Well we disagree on this point both as a truth and as a life philosophy.
Quote:
The tragedy of Hitchens, whom I watched debate live on a couple of occasions, was that he fought a hard fight for a flag that didn't deserve him to an end that could only depress him if he'd more fully considered the implications of the sweep of history and the nature of man.
And he's responded to this very sentiment with something along the lines of "beans".
My post was only a counter declaration to Stripes. That was its only intention.
I understood, Dr.
I do think there's an important difference that should be more seriously considered though and I used your response to get to it. I was very fond of Hitchens and hoped he'd beat cancer, perhaps one day reconsider his aim and efforts on the issue. It's a sad notice for me to find that hope ended along with him.
It's a sad notice for me to find that hope ended along with him.
Hope for what? His eternal gift is the memories he's left with his friends and fans. He was an adamant supporter for human rights and dignities and he will live on forever in that regard. I think that was enough for him to die with a smile on his face. He required nor wanted any extra eternal rewards for that.
I can only hope to have that same impact. Very few do.
Well we disagree on this point both as a truth and as a life philosophy.
And I believe you can be objectively unhorsed on this point, that you take a position at odds with man's emotional, intellectual and even biologically recognizable drive across the sweep of that previously referenced human history.
Quote:
And he's responded to this very sentiment with something along the lines of "beans".
With respect to our mutually admired, I've read his discussions of theology and his background and demonstrated understanding of the matter makes me feel like Barth by comparison. I don't believe his objection was rooted in a serious analysis, but in something other and fundamental to his personality or experience that colored both his consideration and his willingness to dig into the thing he found objectionable. Theism is subject to rather profound criticism and open to any number of objections that Hitch never reached. It was, I always thought with a degree of amazement, so very unlike him else.
With respect to our mutually admired, I've read his discussions of theology and his background and demonstrated understanding of the matter makes me feel like Barth by comparison.
You would considering he wasn't a theologian nor considered himself lacking for it. Plus the topic really isn't a "theological" one anyway (whatever this term really means, I haven't a clue. To me it seems to imply ill placed obsessive consideration over ideas of which their veracity can never be obtained. And it's about as gratifying as pondering how many invisible infinitesimally sized dancers can do the tango on a match-head).
You would considering he wasn't a theologian nor considered himself lacking for it.
A bit like a man arguing over a legal matter who doesn't bother reading the Code though. That is, his objections tend to be personal and less informed for it, with many a particular more the result of a skewed perspective than a defensible posit. In the same way some, outside of Catholicism, might object to the "worship" of Mary.
Reasoned objection is, of course, still possible without a thorough steeping in theology, a word and discipline no more mysterious in approach than philosophy or law or medicine, if differing in consideration--but, the less you know about a thing you find objectionable the more time wasted addressing "issues" that aren't particularly or necessarily existent.
Quote:
Plus the topic really isn't a "theological" one anyway (whatever this term really means, I haven't a clue).
"The study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world...." Merriam-Webster
Quote:
To me it seems to imply ill placed obsessive consideration over ideas of which their veracity can never be obtained.
Any idea how easily slapped on any number of things that particular objection is?
Quote:
And it's about as gratifying as pondering how many invisible infinitesimally sized dancers can do the tango on a match-head).
Interesting the number of atheists who appear to enjoy it, or at least the criticism of it. Unfortunately, a good many of those share Hitchens' willful handicap, though by no means all.
Slogan/motto:
Luke 9:23 Then He said to them all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me."
Reputation:
December 16th, 2011, 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Watson
And it's about as gratifying as pondering how many invisible infinitesimally sized dancers can do the tango on a match-head).
I find that gratifying. Einstein's discovery was probably along the same lines.
"If a sheerly linguistic version of the gospel could be concocted, it would merely so be no longer the gospel. In the Lutheran Reformation’s understanding, which we believe in this matter to be correct, the sacraments make the inalienable externality of the gospel message and therefore are necessary to the authenticity of that message." (Christian Dogmatics [1984], II:302-303 as cited in Pontifications)
The only thing you let me think is that you wear a perpetually dirty diaper.
Linear Mode
