Religion III

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

What condition in the DSM do you think hcap needs treatment for? What are your qualifications for making this diagnosis?

The insanity that reigns in his heart.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Bogus studies. How many evangelical Christians were included in the study? And how would the researchers know in the first place who is a genuine believer?

Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and you will find the answers to both questions.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The insanity that reigns in his heart.

As has been previously pointed out the heart is a pump. I don't think you will find any reference to it in the DSM.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and you will find the answers to both questions.

Life is too short to read such drivel.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

As has been previously pointed out the heart is a pump. I don't think you will find any reference to it in the DSM.

It is that and more. Get a dictionary. Mine has six definitions.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

It is that and more. Get a dictionary. Mine has six definitions.

Irrelevant! Is the word in the DSM?

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Actor

As has been previously pointed out the heart is a pump. I don't think you will find any reference to it in the DSM.

Do you ever follow your heart?
(Do you know anyone who has?) Just askin'?

[dnlgfnk]

https://www.richarddawkins.net/2012/...er-of-science/ ...

What would Aguazul, Dawkins' apostle and worshiper of "capital S" science and "capital M" mathematical thought, say about the use of "heart" when discussing man? "Just because metaphorical thought isn’t like Scientific or Mathematical thought doesn’t mean it is wrong or useless".

I need no further confirmation for what I accept as the fundamental explanation of reality, from which all else flows, save for gaining access to levels of depth that may be allowed me. However, even if I were completely swayed to the materialist camp, I would run in horror from the utterly formal, staid, exacting, quantifying, rigid, definition-requiring, lab-coat-as-straitjacket types for one reason alone.

Boredom.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

https://www.richarddawkins.net/2012/...er-of-science/ ...

What would Aguazul, Dawkins' apostle and worshiper of "capital S" science and "capital M" mathematical thought, say about the use of "heart" when discussing man? "Just because metaphorical thought isn’t like Scientific or Mathematical thought doesn’t mean it is wrong or useless".

I need no further confirmation for what I accept as the fundamental explanation of reality, from which all else flows, save for gaining access to levels of depth that may be allowed me. However, even if I were completely swayed to the materialist camp, I would run in horror from the utterly formal, staid, exacting, quantifying, rigid, definition-requiring, lab-coat-as-straitjacket types for one reason alone.

Boredom.

Do you need any confirmation a "Christian" should not prance around playing "Holier-than-Thou" to the hilt, proclaiming my, or anyone else's heart suffers this, once again as usual demonstrating he probably does not have one.

Originally Posted by boxcar

The insanity that reigns in his heart.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Irrelevant! Is the word in the DSM?

Got me. If it isn't, it should be.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

Do you need any confirmation a "Christian" should not prance around playing "Holier-than-Thou" to the hilt, proclaiming my, or anyone else's heart suffers this, once again as usual demonstrating he probably does not have one.

I address the nonsensical refusal of Actor to admit metaphor used by everyman everywhere, and that means I'm supporting Boxcar's ad hominems and capacity to read souls?

My ears were ringing about a week ago, and not from my usual tinnitus. I return here and find my Catholicism is one of the "vehicles" whose passengers think they have arrived, even though the claimant of that observation relies on Catholics like Aquinas when he needs to unite faith and reason. It was an especially funny observation to me since theological presumption is a no-no in Catholicism and elsewhere, not to mention Romans 5. I think your opponent is on dangerous ground, and would be better served spiritually by abandoning his seemingly insatiable desire to be right on the internet.

Internet debate requires thick skin much of the time. Frankly, I do not understand why the resources at your disposal to direct your interior life are not helping you avoid such individuals that apparently disturb your peace. Mine do. And not by running from challenges, but from the understanding that the challenges have been stated by far more profound intellectual camps than found on most internet forums, across lands and times, and met by far more profound individuals than myself.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I address the nonsensical refusal of Actor to admit metaphor used by everyman everywhere, and that means I'm supporting Boxcar's ad hominems and capacity to read souls?

My ears were ringing about a week ago, and not from my usual tinnitus. I return here and find my Catholicism is one of the "vehicles" whose passengers think they have arrived, even though the claimant of that observation relies on Catholics like Aquinas when he needs to unite faith and reason. It was an especially funny observation to me since theological presumption is a no-no in Catholicism and elsewhere, not to mention Romans 5. I think your opponent is on dangerous ground, and would be better served spiritually by abandoning his seemingly insatiable desire to be right on the internet.

Internet debate requires thick skin much of the time. Frankly, I do not understand why the resources at your disposal to direct your interior life are not helping you avoid such individuals that apparently disturb your peace. Mine do. And not by running from challenges, but from the understanding that the challenges have been stated by far more profound intellectual camps than found on most internet forums, across lands and times, and met by far more profound individuals than myself.

Earlier I tried to present a rebuttal to boxcar's exclusivity that Jesus was the only way to the divine. Brought up as a Jew with later extensive first-hand experiences with many ways and traditions, I categorically reject that notion.

I attempted to contrast the antisemitism of his Martin Luther's worn out jalopy, versus Jesus' Cadillac. There are obvious differences.

I did a week long retreat with Catholic brothers 50 years ago. None of them pranced around chanting "I am Holier-than -Thou. And condemning their fellow beings to hell. Or objecting a non-Catholic learn from them lovingly and humbly. Their braggadocio was in check. That was part of the goal

You object

...I address the nonsensical refusal of Actor to admit metaphor used by everyman everywhere

Yet you have not objected to the misunderstanding of THE METAPHOR, NOT FACT, that the Jews murdered Jesus, entrenching Christianity in a 2,000 year dark shadow of antisemitism and ignorance cast by the likes of Luther.

There is no comparison in Actors evident objection to boxcar's insult leveled at me, and psychiatry, and to boxcar's jalopy rambling around, running out of gas, and running people over.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I address the nonsensical refusal of Actor to admit metaphor used by everyman everywhere, and that means I'm supporting Boxcar's ad hominems and capacity to read souls?

My ears were ringing about a week ago, and not from my usual tinnitus. I return here and find my Catholicism is one of the "vehicles" whose passengers think they have arrived, even though the claimant of that observation relies on Catholics like Aquinas when he needs to unite faith and reason. It was an especially funny observation to me since theological presumption is a no-no in Catholicism and elsewhere, not to mention Romans 5. I think your opponent is on dangerous ground, and would be better served spiritually by abandoning his seemingly insatiable desire to be right on the internet.

Internet debate requires thick skin much of the time. Frankly, I do not understand why the resources at your disposal to direct your interior life are not helping you avoid such individuals that apparently disturb your peace. Mine do. And not by running from challenges, but from the understanding that the challenges have been stated by far more profound intellectual camps than found on most internet forums, across lands and times, and met by far more profound individuals than myself.

Right is right (or truth is true) even when that truth is claimed by someone whose faith is opposed to evangelical Protestantism. Shouldn't we all be on the side of "right"? Have I not championed much of what Dr. Feser wrote about the myth of athesim? So, no...I'm on very solid ground. His name is the Rock!

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Right is right (or truth is true) even when that truth is claimed by someone whose faith is opposed to evangelical Protestantism. Shouldn't we all be on the side of "right"? Have I not championed much of what Dr. Feser wrote about the myth of athesim? So, no...I'm on very solid ground. His name is the Rock!

If you mean me, I am not "opposed to evangelical Protestantism", in whatever broad description that term can be applied. However, I accept all that flows from the "deification" of man--infused grace, which enables our participation in divine nature, our literally being co-heirs with Christ, the unification of justification and sanctification vs. their separation, etc. That brings about a further depth of fulfillment which the Reformers abandoned, rather than a being "opposed" to evangelical Protestantism. A Father before a judge, a family room before a courtroom, since in the inner life of the Trinity, the Father is eternally communicating his life and love to the Son. Father/family is who God is in his essence. Judgement is what God does.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

If you mean me, I am not "opposed to evangelical Protestantism", in whatever broad description that term can be applied. However, I accept all that flows from the "deification" of man--infused grace, which enables our participation in divine nature, our literally being co-heirs with Christ, the unification of justification and sanctification vs. their separation, etc. That brings about a further depth of fulfillment which the Reformers abandoned, rather than a being "opposed" to evangelical Protestantism. A Father before a judge, a family room before a courtroom, since in the inner life of the Trinity, the Father is eternally communicating his life and love to the Son. Father/family is who God is in his essence. Judgement is what God does.

Well...we'll have to agree to disagree on the major elements of salvation. I just don't have the time debate soteriology with you.

Love is also what God does because its his sacrificial love for his elect in the first place that moves Him to save those who are at enmity at Him.

P.S. Good to see you back. I wonder where SMTW is?