I'll give you this, you can turn a phrase. But when it's all unpacked it still reduces to subjective, unsupported and unargued declarations. Or, a lot of lumber but no house to speak of.
Are black on white attacks justified?
- Thread starter jzeidler
- Start date
- Status
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
it's like looking in a mirror, eh?
Quetzal
New member
HA! I just noticed your little rant with TH in your signature. I mean, if you ever wanna see other people you can stalk me for a bit. I leave the house around 7 and drive a red sedan. :rotfl:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
:chuckle:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I had someone read it and they said it was utterly inappropriate. It's sincere and unconditional.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
This is sincere. Do you accept it?
dummy
Well it's certainly something dude although I wouldn't suggest going into graphic design as a career alternative...
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
It's actually the opposite, and is utterly and absolutely objective as truth. What I can't do is convey or imbue two decades of ontological and epistemological transformation with any effective brevity.
There is a lexical means of understanding and exegetically applying the original created functionality of man before the lapse of the cosmos. It's not a war of subjective opinions or alleged facts.
It's about reversing and inverting the long-term results of modern derivative low-context language by accessing the original languages of scripture. Babel's far-reaching influences exist today as never before.
English has corrupted valid Semiotics for language and culture. Everything is illusory and subjectivized through oblique and tangential concepts; and largely due to Sophistric influences that remain from that period and have been enhanced by Modernism, Post-Modernism, and the disolution of Philology, etc.
Hearts and minds have been sculpted, and it's subconscious since the gestational development of limbic functionality in the womb. Modern Western minds/wills are interposed in both their disposition and application at the subcognitive levels.
We're admonished to not be ignorant of Satan's devices. Devices is "noema", which is resulting concepts of the mind as a form of "nous" (mind), which is superordinantly the intuiting faculty above its intellectual properties.
My "arguments" are supported by the very hypostasis (substance) of God and of faith. Debate is a modern innovation. Spiritual truth is predominantly Didactic, not Dialectic. The latter is an outgrowth of Theosophy and Hermeticism in recent centuries (among other contributions, like Empiricism, Naturalism, Positivism, Pluralism, and Reductionism).
We ARE the house, because Jesus is the house. It's the false employment of the Informative (Law) that prevents the Performative (Gospel). The Mosaic Law was a covenant, not codified legislation. You in particular have a heart of codification according to dialectic. It's your very foundational onotology (being) and epistemology (knowing) for economy (doing) and methodology (patterning). And it conforms to the culture-sculpting of modern societies by the enemy of man's souls.
I can hardly even share a snippet of anything, for so many have no idea what words mean in a pure sense of Semiotics (sign and signified). The Word of God has been usurped for the vast majority, and it's cognitively and volitionally structural.
Even all of this won't explain it to you. English minds are low-context minds. It takes some time and specificity of content to invert the damage done.
Last edited:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
A little request for clarity in the aftermath of the above...
I have understood you to be:
Atheist or Agnostic.
Anti-Conservatism, and seemingly anti-Christian (or anti-religion in general).
Anti-Creationist.
Anti-Original Sin.
Am I mistaken?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Anti label is probably a good descriptor.
I don't hold to any 'orthodox' or 'traditional' belief system but I'm not an atheist.
I'm not anti Conservative or anti Christian in itself. I find many on the far right to lack basic understanding and compassion for people, but zealotry of any stripe is similarly bereft of reason in my experience and that certainly isn't a blanket judgment on conservatives in general.
I'm only 'anti creationist' in the sense that belief in a young earth is integral to any meaningful faith. Science is not the enemy of belief and there's no cognitive dissonance to be had with accepting an old earth, evolution and faith, as evidenced by plenty on here alone.
I don't hold with the notion that eating an apple brought sin into the world and that Adam & Eve brought that all about because a talking snake told them to, no. I think there's rather more allegory going on in that.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Anti label is probably a good descriptor.
I don't hold to any 'orthodox' or 'traditional' belief system but I'm not an atheist.
I'm not anti Conservative or anti Christian in itself. I find many on the far right to lack basic understanding and compassion for people, but zealotry of any stripe is similarly bereft of reason in my experience and that certainly isn't a blanket judgment on conservatives in general.
I'm only 'anti creationist' in the sense that belief in a young earth is integral to any meaningful faith. Science is not the enemy of belief and there's no cognitive dissonance to be had with accepting an old earth, evolution and faith, as evidenced by plenty on here alone.
I don't hold with the notion that eating an apple brought sin into the world and that Adam & Eve brought that all about because a talking snake told them to, no. I think there's rather more allegory going on in that.
That's all very helpful for basic clarity.
This is sincere. Do you accept it?
dummy
<<<<< :rotfl: >>>>>
I literally just scared the cat.
That's another declaration and one equally without evidence. Saying a thing is so doesn't move the point. Proving it, arguing for it, illustrating and reasoning in such a way as to allow anyone to either arrive necessarily at the conclusion you've come to or address any failure in your methodology, in part and on the whole; that's the real sum and meaning. You don't seem to get that your declarations aren't self-authenticating, aren't inherently anything more than a statement of your belief absent more. And by more I don't mean seeing how much of a given lexicon you can string throughout a paragraph.
If you can't make your argument, then you have a problem I haven't encountered in anyone who understands what they believe and why others should. I've spent decades considering my own journey, years being trained to hone a natural gift for critical analysis. But the point and weight of that should be found in the argument and approach, not in my noting it in lieu, as you just did, if with fewer particulars.
I know that you believe that to be true, but you've given me no reason to accept it. And so far, all you're offering is subjective opinion and the semblance of facts and understandings beyond your ability to reduce to particulars...well, asylums are filled with likened claims.
You haven't presented arguments. That's been the problem. As to your faith in what you believe, every man carries it. The rest is communication, examination and either acceptance or rebuttal.
Not unless your understanding or "modern" is a bit broad.
You say that, but you don't offer any proof of its/your veracity on the point. That's why these laundry lists of terms aren't moving anyone anywhere. Not because of their complexity, but because they're artfully, densely packed conclusions.
So you can't communicate your understanding of decades but you have no problem trying to pack mine in.
lain: That's some trick. If anything you share approaches that definition I might have an aneurysm. The rest of this verse is the same as the first. Let me know if you ever get tired of making an impression and get around to making an argument. It could be fun.
I closed this thread because the back and forth fighting is getting old. You all are acting like a bunch of kids!
- Status