Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Hooks vs Meta: Was Paul insane?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    part 3 2NC

    Here are some other claims by Paul, which are utterly contemptuous of the human condition, and have no basis in reality.
    this is symptomatic of your Xenophobic outlook. You can't understand the culturally relative nature of the ancient world. They ant in Kansas Toto. You have no right to label them in such a manner just because they differ from your view.

    Paul’s Texts on Worthlessness
    I have earlier discussed Paul’s lacking sense of self and his concept of worthlessness. This theme, too, stretches across most of his writings. I have highlighted some of the places where this theme comes to the fore. (I was merely going to give the references to conserve, but I have decided to include the passages, so the reader doesn’t have to look them up.)
    that is what you want to see. That's in keeping with the outmoded Freudian assertions about religion. It doesn't even dawn on you that people are getting huge amounts of social and psychosocial well being from such passages. Several major Shrinks documented this fact such as Karl Menninger and Abraham Marlow, William James.. Most of the material of the 200 studies that I speak of all the time is in testimony to the fact that Biblical teaching and religious belief make people psychologically.

    People have religious experiences are less likely to be depressed or have mental illness. You can see all of that here:

    http://www.doxa.ws/experience/Instict2.html


    Religion is the most powerful Factor in well being.

    Poloma and Pendelton The Faith Factor: An Annotated Bibliography of Systematic Reviews And Clinical Research on Spiritual Subjects Vol. II, David B. Larson M.D., Natiional Institute for Health Research Dec. 1993, p. 3290.

    Quote:

    "The authors found that religious satisfaction was the most powerful predicter of existential well being. The degree to which an individual felt close to God was the most important factor in terms of existential well-being. While frequency of prayer contributed to general life satisfaction and personal happiness. As a result of their study the authors concluded that it would be important to look at a combindation of religious items, including prayer, religionship with God, and other measures of religious experince to begin to adequately clearlify the associations of religious committment with general well-being."


    (5) Greater happiness


    Religion and Happiness

    by Michael E. Nielsen, PhD


    Many people expect religion to bring them happiness. Does this actually seem to be the case? Are religious people happier than nonreligious people? And if so, why might this be?

    Researchers have been intrigued by such questions. Most studies have simply asked people how happy they are, although studies also may use scales that try to measure happiness more subtly than that. In general, researchers who have a large sample of people in their study tend to limit their measurement of happiness to just one or two questions, and researchers who have fewer numbers of people use several items or scales to measure happiness.

    What do they find? In a nutshell, they find that people who are involved in religion also report greater levels of happiness than do those who are not religious. For example, one study involved over 160,000 people in Europe. Among weekly churchgoers, 85% reported being "very satisfied" with life, but this number reduced to 77% among those who never went to church (Inglehart, 1990). This kind of pattern is typical -- religious involvement is associated with modest increases in happiness


    Argyle, M., and Hills, P. (2000). Religious experiences and their relations with happiness and personality. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10, 157-172.

    Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Nielsen, M. E. (1998). An assessment of religious conflicts and their resolutions. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 181-190.

    Nielsen again:

    In the days before research boards reviewed research proposals before the studies were conducted, Pahnke devised an experiment to induce people to have a religious experience. On a Good Friday, when they were to meditate in a chapel for 2.5 hours, twenty theology students were given either psilocybin or a placebo. The students who were given the psilocybin reported intense religious experiences, as you might imagine. Their levels of happiness also were significantly greater than the control group reported. But what is especially interesting is that these effects remained 6 months after the experiment, as the psilocybin group reported more "persistent and positive changes" in their attitudes to life than did the placebo group.

    on that page we also find the Amaro quote that the unsterilized person is the sick soul. Yet you are assuming spiritualized is sickness. Paul Paul is doing is being spiritual that's the spirituality of his milieu.


    Romans
    No one who understands, no one who seeks God … all … become worthless.… Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips … ruin and misery mark their ways (Rom 3:11–16 NIV).
    For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23 NIV).
    When we were still powerless (Rom 5:5 NIV).
    all of that came to him original through his tradition. the idea "all have sinned" is OT from the prophets. that what I said in one of my opening observations you have proved me right, you have done what I said you would do. You have construed your cultural milieu as absolute and use that as a standard which you are attempted to judge other cultures. You are reading cultural constructs as personally unique psychological symptoms.



    When we were God’s enemies (Rom 5:10 NIV).
    Therefore just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned (Rom 5:12 NIV).
    For if the many died by the trespass of the one man (Rom 5:15 NIV)
    all this kind of talk about 'sin entering the body" that's all coming from the Rabbis. That's Paul's tradition. you are acting like it's nutty becuase you are not part of that world and you don't understand it. That's just Xenophobic, since you don't theology you don't know where he got it. I'm not going to bother defending particleboard passage what you are doing here is absurd. its' absolutely silly.

    what you are doing is no more professional or scientific then deciding that Paul was nuts because he didn't go to the prom or to a sock hop when he was a teenager. It's like deciding the was mentally ill becuase he didn't watch television. you are just enshrining your community and your cultural milieu as the valid test of all human sanity.


    why accept Paul's authority?

    he makes this observation several times asserting that there is no reason. It's really window dressing because it has no logical meaning in relation to his argument. dos my failure to understand Paul's authority make Paul mentally ill? What if was mentally ill but there is good to assume he had authority? Does not erase his mental illness? No I don't think so. How does my not having a reason to accept his authority make him mentally ill? that really has no relation to the question.


    Nevertheless there is dandy reason to assume Paul's authority. The major reason being the chruch did. The leaders accepted his message they sent to the gentiles expressing a degree of confidence in his calling. Luke in Acts records that he did work miracles and other prophets attest to his calling and gifts. The Four daughters of Philip and Agabus attest to him in Acts.

    the functionality argument stands. He was functional he guided his wing of the chruch and produced both practical and theoretical theology that built the chruch.
    Last edited by Metacrock; 06-23-11, 06:30 PM.
    Lord what fools these mortals be.
    Puc, Mid Sumer Night's Dream, A Midsummer-Night's Dream. Act III. Scene II

    President Roosevelt to Rich republicans: "I welcome your hatred."

    Comment


    • #17
      this is the same thing. the same arguemnts apply, he's multiplying examples. he's just taking Biblical passages he doesn't understanding without regard to there history or their fittednes to their tradition and assuming they indicate insanity because they don't come from his own time and place.

      that is exactly what I said he would do in my first three observations.

      I. We must avoid confusing modern cultural phenomena with universal principles about humanity. Aka imposing our cuture as mental health

      Just because we find that in our time and our culture that psychosis takes a ****** form that all behaviors in history that seem similar to that form are therefore pyschosis. This is important because he has to avoid reading in his own modern understanding from culture and imposing it on a time and a place where it may not apply. There is no empirical scientific study form the ancient world establishing that their mental health was the same as our mental health.

      II. We must avoid confusing spiritual experience and belief with bad mental health.
      Aka imposing mutualism at mental health


      We can’t assume that just because we feel we know better than ancient world people that this means their beliefs are the result of mental illness. So we have to watch for Hooks to read into the words of Paul assumptions about his mental state based upon a sense of norm form our own culture, and ignoring the spiritual insight and belief of Paul’s day. What appears to be psychosis to a modern person might just be normal belief to an ancient world person.

      In other words I expect him to read in his own ideas to Paul’s words.

      III. We must avoid the assumption that mystical experience is mental illness.
      Aka preoscriging religions as mental illness.


      I think his assumptions are coming from a basic distrust of religious experience. A huge number of studies demonstrate that mystical experience is not mental illness. Based upon these insights we have to give Paul the benefit of a doubt.

      Therefore Paul has presumption. That means Hooks has the burden of proof he must prove his case with data not merely with interpretation.

      Look at his first speech and I will show that he is merely imposing his own views.
      Lord what fools these mortals be.
      Puc, Mid Sumer Night's Dream, A Midsummer-Night's Dream. Act III. Scene II

      President Roosevelt to Rich republicans: "I welcome your hatred."

      Comment


      • #18
        Metacrock's Mystical Mumbo Jumbo Doesn't Apply Here

        Did Paul communicate directly with a god? That is the question we must answer. Because if he did not, then it is a pretty safe assumption that he had a mental illness. Meta, says the following:
        Originally posted by Metacrock View Post
        Where does Paul say he was an oracle? Oracle si the words itself. Paul never claimed to be divine.
        Are we going to waste time with common definitions, and bog down this debate. It is 2011, Meta. So we use common definitions, and we don't play these stunts that say they don't apply to ancients. The word "schizophrenia," for example was crafted in the last century. Obviously, it something we are using to see if ancients fit a CURRENT pattern. Continuing to say it is outside our ability or right to do so is absurd.
        _______
        Here is the common definition of oracle: 1. a: a person (as a priestess of ancient Greece) through whom a deity is believed to speak.
        .
        Here, again is what Paul said:
        I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ (Gal 1:11–12 NIV).
        _______
        People who claim to have had directly revelation from a god, and a message that wasn't taught, or received (like from reading scriptures) are oracles by definition. There were a lot of oracles when Paul wrote his letters. There were a lot of ancients, including elites, who thought the oracles of Delphi, for example, really did communicate with the gods.
        _______
        So, Meta needs to say why, out of all the oracles of that time, we should believe Paul was telling the truth, and all those other oracles were not. (Please note: if Meta tries to claim the other oracles may have communicated with a god, too, then he is so far outside the bounds of evangelical belief, as to make this debate nearly meaningless. Because Meta,who would be a heretic in nearly any Christian era, including our own. And I take for granted, and have no interest in defending, that none of oracles of Delphi communicated with a god.)
        _______
        Here is what Meta says, which contradicts Paul's own claims:
        Originally posted by Meta
        Paul is hardly the first person to claim to have had had visions, but it's not clear what he means by that. Does he mean that he heard an audible voice? Of does he just mean that God expanding his understanding so that suddenly old passages had new applications he had not thought of before?
        Paul said he did not receive his message from any man, which would include "old passages" written by man. But even if I am wrong about that, the only claim of Paul's that matters is the one where he says quite explicitly that the only source of his gospel was "revelation from Jesus Christ."
        .
        Meta, rather than scoffing at the actually words of Paul's that I use in my argument, has to show where Paul said something differently. But ... he will not be able to.
        Moreover you are making assertions about religious that have no evidence to back up. You can't assert that having visions and voices is always the same for ever one. Just becuase one persona's visions are false delusion doesn't mean all visions are so.
        I agree. That is why ask the following follow up question: If Paul, who claimed to have visions and direct communication with God displayed common characteristics of those inflicted with paranoid schizophrenia, what is more likely--that Paul communicated with a real God, and just coincidentally show characteristics of a schizophrenic person, or were his communications with a god explained by a mental illness?
        _______

        Given Paul wrote things that are far outside of normal that are common in paranoid schizophrenics, the the origins of Paul's revelations seems obvious. Paul was most likely mentally ill.

        Paul had delusions of control (e.g., his body was literally controlled by sin, and he was powerless against it) and had a dismal self image (e.g., he described himself as an abortion [and readers can see the long list of passages were Paul describes a worthless, wretched human condition that has no basis in reality]).


        Paul's delusions have roles for Paul that are grand (to be the frontman for God, in bringing the gospel to the Gentiles) and Paul had powerful enemies. These are characteristic of paranoid schizophrenia, as well.


        Here is why Meta says we should believe Paul communicated with a god:
        Originally posted by Meta
        sure we do, that's another assertion for which you have no back up. The prima facie reason we have is that Paul said it. The Christian tradition, the magisterium and the Bishops accepted Paul's testimony so should we. We don't reasons beyond that it's a prima facie reason.
        There is nothing prima facie in this fallacious argument from authority. In fact, I am surprised to find this weak argument is the cornerstone of my opponents argument. As for me, I couldn't care less what the bishops or magistropoly (or whatever he called them) thought or accepted. And Meta has given us no reason why I should care what they thought. Here is what Meta says of my analysis:
        Originally posted by Meta
        you are also interpreting him in a way that bolsters your assumptions about his sanity rather than actually taking seriously what he says. You are reading in a meaning in such a way as to bolster your argument.
        I have no idea what he is referring to here, and I will wait for him to provide evidence for this ad hominem assertion. I hope he has not given up already, and resorted to impugning my character.
        you have no real reason to say he's mentally ill you are reading symptoms you want to be there. I took your assertion apart in part 1 where you manipulate things and contradict yourself. Whatever he said you would say it is indicative of mental illness. if he said "voices and visions are for fools" you would say proves he was mentally ill.
        Are this evidence free, personal attacks all you have?
        Sure as hell do. The Magisterium accepted his views as coming from God. That's the authority of the tradition. There's no need for any other basis.
        So it is clear Meta is basing his whole argument on a fallacious appeal to authority. Maybe he can persuade us that these ancients were super special people who we should consider authoritative. But, so far he has given us nothing.
        This is a huge misconception about the nature of belief.
        What is Meta referring to in this baseless ad hominem? he never says.
        I do not have to establish reasons and I don't have to prove them to you. It's the basis of the community and the tradition to accept the decisions of the Bishops and to respect their teaching authority. It comes with the pancake just accepting that a creed is a historically based test for membership in the fiat, so accepting the authoritative nature of Paul's words becasue they testified to by the community, is also part of the faith.
        Accepting what bishops say is part of faith? This comes out of right field, doesn't it. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the topic. Did Paul communicate with a god, or was he nuts? If a bunch of bishops chose to believe he communicated with a god, as many elites thought the oracles of Delphi communicated with gods, then what difference does that make?
        There is no reason why I should have to prove that any more than I have to prove that I really believe in god or I'm my parents son.
        Great example! If the debate was "Is Meta Crock the son of Mr. and Mrs. Crock?" then you would have to prove it. You would need to show your birth certificate, or a DNA test from you and your parents--or perhaps siblings or cousins. If you didn't want to debate this topic, you shouldn't have agreed to do so. If your defense is simply, I believe it, because I believe it, and it's part of faith, then this is a pointless exercise. I cannot overcome a person's desire to maintain a false belief in the face of overwhelming evidence against the false belief. Moving on:
        Originally posted by Metacrock View Post
        Part 2--2NCI question your knowledge of schizophrenia.
        So? Your anecdotal stories don't belong in a formal debate.
        no one was more functional than Paul.
        Bobby Fischer (world chess champion) and John Nash (Nobel prize winner in economics) were functional for a period of time, as well. Both of these men were profoundly mentally ill.
        You assert that anyone who thinks they are in contact with God has to be mentally ill so therefore Paul is mentally ill a priori.
        This is utter nonsense, and directly contradicts what I said in my opening argument. It is yet another baseless ad hominem. I will no repeat what I already said.
        you say that as though it means something of cousre it does not. not to you.
        Another, baseless ad hominem. Are you a mind reader?
        _______
        Do not claim to know my thoughts. It is so vile, and you do it all the time. Stop!
        _______
        You have enough work. I am keeping this abbreviated, because I am no interested in litigating your barrage of personal attacks.
        Last edited by Hooks; 06-25-11, 03:03 PM.
        ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Metacrock View Post
          this is the same thing. the same arguemnts apply, he's multiplying examples. he's just taking Biblical passages he doesn't understanding without regard to there history or their fittednes to their tradition and assuming they indicate insanity because they don't come from his own time and place.that is exactly what I said he would do in my first three observations.I. We must avoid confusing modern cultural phenomena with universal principles about humanity. Aka imposing our cuture as mental healthJust because we find that in our time and our culture that psychosis takes a ****** form that all behaviors in history that seem similar to that form are therefore pyschosis. This is important because he has to avoid reading in his own modern understanding from culture and imposing it on a time and a place where it may not apply. There is no empirical scientific study form the ancient world establishing that their mental health was the same as our mental health.II. We must avoid confusing spiritual experience and belief with bad mental health.Aka imposing mutualism at mental healthWe can’t assume that just because we feel we know better than ancient world people that this means their beliefs are the result of mental illness. So we have to watch for Hooks to read into the words of Paul assumptions about his mental state based upon a sense of norm form our own culture, and ignoring the spiritual insight and belief of Paul’s day. What appears to be psychosis to a modern person might just be normal belief to an ancient world person.In other words I expect him to read in his own ideas to Paul’s words.III. We must avoid the assumption that mystical experience is mental illness.Aka preoscriging religions as mental illness.I think his assumptions are coming from a basic distrust of religious experience. A huge number of studies demonstrate that mystical experience is not mental illness. Based upon these insights we have to give Paul the benefit of a doubt.Therefore Paul has presumption. That means Hooks has the burden of proof he must prove his case with data not merely with interpretation.Look at his first speech and I will show that he is merely imposing his own views.
          I am going to briefly respond to this post.I couldn't care less what Meta thinks "We must avoid." His rant has nothing to do with this debate. And, more importantly, I never did any of the things that, with his fancy formatting, he implies is directly referring to me.


          He is correct, though, I do not give Paul the benefit of the doubt. He shows all the characteristics of a mental ill man, whose vile view of humankind is abhorrent and dangerous.


          If Meta meant this rant as an early concession speech, then I humbly apologize.
          Last edited by Hooks; 06-25-11, 03:00 PM.
          ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

          Comment


          • #20
            [QUOTE=Hooks;1783850]I am going to briefly respond to this post.I couldn't care less what Meta thinks "We must avoid." His rant has nothing to do with this debate. And, more importantly, I never did any of the things that, with his fancy formatting, he implies is directly referring to me.[quote]

            that's really bad form. Not only are you totally ignoring the format you agreed to debate by but what you are saying here is clearly BS.


            [SIZE=4]I claim for-fit[/SIZE]. you agreed to the format now you are going back on it, this is your first affirmative rebuttle that means you said. becasue u are not answering most of what I said.

            It also seems you are throwing a tantrum. you see that your case has been demolished. you are filled with rage.


            He is correct, though, I do not give Paul the benefit of the doubt. He shows all the characteristics of a mental ill man, whose vile view of humankind is abhorrent and dangerous.
            He doesn't show any of them. You did not answer my argument about that. I said in the fist response that he is known as arrogant, that contrasts your view about Schizophrenics. he's not Borderline personality he's very arrogant and full of himself he has strong sense of self. I quoted three sources. You did not respond.

            If you do not respond to an argument in constructive speeches you lose that argument.


            If Meta meant this rant as an early concession speech, then I humbly apologize.
            How dare you? I have never seen anyone as rude in a 1x1 debate. you have not right to call speech a "rant." you are throwing a tantrum beaus I improved your carp.

            you have been acting like you don't need to bother yourself with answering my argument. that's just hogwash and it's poor debate edict and it means you lose because what you don't answer you lose.

            you never responded to my three observations. the last speech I did was all about how your theory violates those observations. since you answer them you lose those arguments.
            Lord what fools these mortals be.
            Puc, Mid Sumer Night's Dream, A Midsummer-Night's Dream. Act III. Scene II

            President Roosevelt to Rich republicans: "I welcome your hatred."

            Comment


            • #21
              He agreed to debate by the NFL-NDT format adaptde for online. that format is the only one I like so I always suggest it. He never said no. I ask him "if you don't agree let me know"he did not say p-turkey. So I must assume he agreed.

              the format has constructive speeches and rebuttals. New arguments can be brought up in constructive but no new arguments in rebuttals.

              the format:

              1AC first affirmative constructive
              1NC frist Negative constructive
              2AC second affirmative constructive
              2NC seocnd negative construtive
              !NR fist negative rebuttle
              1AR first affirmative rebuttle
              2NR
              2AR

              this last post he just made is his 1AR. He didn't respond to most of what I said. Rather than responding he just called it names, which is very bad form. I've never had this happen before. I was polite. I didn't insult him. he flys off the handle and calls my speech names then makes this non speech who what he expects it to be.

              I don't know what to do now. In a real debate he would definitely have lost. In fact I actually bent the rules by giving him two second affirmative constructive.

              I think he's just whining because he's losing a debate to someone not his alleged profession.
              Lord what fools these mortals be.
              Puc, Mid Sumer Night's Dream, A Midsummer-Night's Dream. Act III. Scene II

              President Roosevelt to Rich republicans: "I welcome your hatred."

              Comment


              • #22
                what speech is this? I reckon it should be 1AR, extension.

                Metacrock's Mystical Mumbo Jumbo Doesn't Apply Here
                He is clearly the first to begin personal insults. I have not insulted or called his ideas names or said anything derogatory about his views.

                Did Paul communicate directly with a god? That is the question we must answer. Because if he did not, then it is a pretty safe assumption that he had a mental illness.
                no we don't need to answer it because it's irrelevant. Paul believed he was communicating with God and that doesn't not make him mental. I know people think God is talking to them and they are quite functional, very sharp, not mentally ill at all.

                Weather God is actually communicating or not is an unanswerable question.


                Meta, says the following:
                Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
                Where does Paul say he was an oracle? Oracle si the words itself. Paul never claimed to be divine.

                Are we going to waste time with common definitions, and bog down this debate. It is 2011, Meta. So we use common definitions, and we don't play these stunts that say they don't apply to ancients. The word "schizophrenia," for example was crafted in the last century. Obviously, it something we are using to see if ancients fit a CURRENT pattern. Continuing to say it is outside our ability or right to do so is absurd.
                he just expects me to grant his points without even making an argument, he begrudges even answering a question.If he really understands what's going on in Paul's writings well enough to judge his sanity then he should understand he language and the culture that has a great deal to do with the normality of Paul's ideas. If he can't answer such question then obviously he doesn't' know enough to comment on Paul's state of mind.
                _______
                Here is the common definition of oracle: 1. a: a person (as a priestess of ancient Greece) through whom a deity is believed to speak.
                Is Paul a priestess of ancient Greece? who says this is the "common" definition? Is it a Greek defintion? what does it mean to use a common definition? common among scholars or among people who no scholarly training?
                .
                Here, again is what Paul said:
                I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ (Gal 1:1112 NIV).
                he doesn't' tell us how it was presented. He doesn't say "I saw a vision in space and time and I hear audible voices" How do we know that by "received it from Jesus" he doesn't' just mean he got the idea while reading the saying source of Jesus' sayings? Hook's hypothesis depends upon the former so he's of course committed to that. Does that make it so obvious that we don't need to consider alternative? Only if one is desperate to write off Paul.
                _______
                People who claim to have had directly revelation from a god, and a message that wasn't taught, or received (like from reading scriptures) are oracles by definition.
                not by the definition he gave above. that definition says you have to be a Greek Priestess. Hebrews might have had their own version don't you think? It sayas "through whom a deity is believed to speak." What do we mean by "speak?" Do we mean the very words Paul wrote were actually Jesus words? so when Paul says "I don't know how many of the hose of Stephanus I baptized" that's rally Jesus saying "I don't know how many." do you think Jesus would say that?

                when Paul says "go fetch my coat form Troas" is Jesus saying "I'm cold up here in heaven go get my coat send up here?" so obviously not all of his words are from Jesus. He doesn't say any of them are. He says God showed him truth, he doesn't say "I am writing the very words of God here." He didn't believe that he was. He had no reason t think that he wasn't writing the Bible he was sending letters to churches to help them with pragmatic problems.

                when he says the gospel was revealed to him does he mean the actual words of Romans or does he mean the ideas?He doesn't tell us, just might make a difference.


                There were a lot of oracles when Paul wrote his letters. There were a lot of ancients, including elites, who thought the oracles of Delphi, for example, really did communicate with the gods.
                where do you get that idea/ where does it call them "oracles?" Can you document it? Let's assume so for the sake of argument:

                so they were all insane? Mental illness is so pervasive that like half the population can be mentally ill? IF it's was common isn't that an indication that my criteria is true and we just be careful not to assume too much without knowing the culture? if it was common to think God was showing you things then isn't that less likely to be mental illness?
                _______
                So, Meta needs to say why, out of all the oracles of that time, we should believe Paul was telling the truth, and all those other oracles were not.
                who says that's the case. First you have to document that they existed. Secondly you have to prove that they did actually say things that contradicted Paul. Then we can worry about who was right. Even why would begin wrong amount to mental illness? If its a cultural thing to think you are speaking God's words then it's not mental illness it's just an idea in a culture.


                (Please note: if Meta tries to claim the other oracles may have communicated with a god, too, then he is so far outside the bounds of evangelical belief, as to make this debate nearly meaningless.
                that is not true. I'm afraid that my worthy opponent is rather confused bout both the nature debate and the nature of the ancinet world.

                First, it's his burden of proof to show that there all these oracles running about and he must also prove their messages differed form Paul's.

                Secondly,he must demonstrate the nature of Christan belief. I never claimed to be an evangelical and no one said anything about his debate being about evangelicalism. There's no why I should have to accept evangelicalism as some historical standard when in fact I don't believe it is. Evangelicalism came to be in the 19ty century. It is not historical Christianity in any way.

                Hooks failure to understand the recent nature of Evangelicalism is symptomatic of atheists who don't know theology. this illustrates the importance of knowing theology.

                Be that as it may it's his burden of proof to demonstrate the relation of these other guys' to Paul's message and to show why it matters. Paul can be wrong without being insane and vice verse.

                Its' too late now anyway because constructive are over. He can't a new argument and this is one.


                Because Meta,who would be a heretic in nearly any Christian era, including our own. And I take for granted, and have no interest in defending, that none of oracles of Delphi communicated with a god.)


                (1) what does that have to do with Paul being insane? That is merely a red herring and an ad hom. all these atheists are always talking about the nature of their opponents personalities and never about the issues. I could be a hieratic and Paul not be insane. so that's silly.

                (2) knowing as little as he does about theology he has no right o say any such thing. there are liberal Christians there are liberal denominations in them I am a moderate. 34% of the chruch is liberal theologically. Meaning his diatribe agaisnt me as a person is bunck and bosh.It should be knocked into a cocked hat.


                _______
                Here is what Meta says, which contradicts Paul's own claims:
                Quote Originally Posted by Meta
                Paul is hardly the first person to claim to have had had visions, but it's not clear what he means by that. Does he mean that he heard an audible voice? Of does he just mean that God expanding his understanding so that suddenly old passages had new applications he had not thought of before?



                Paul said he did not receive his message from any man, which would include "old passages" written by man. But even if I am wrong about that, the only claim of Paul's that matters is the one where he says quite explicitly that the only source of his gospel was "revelation from Jesus Christ."

                that doesn't mean he's the first guy to have visions. there are people before Paul having visions in the New Testament. Peter had one about animals i a blanket and Stephen had one as he was stoned, Paul was holding the coats of those stoning him so we know that was before Paul's vision. Several of the Hebrew prophets.

                He is confusing Paul's claim to have been taught the Gospel direly with the claim of having visions. two different things. Paul doesn't even claim that what he was taught differs form what Peter and the others were taught. He never makes that claim. he claimed only that they weren't true to what they had been taught.


                .
                Meta, rather than scoffing at the actually words of Paul's that I use in my argument, has to show where Paul said something differently. But ... he will not be able to.

                No I don't have to show that. it's your argument you must show how your interpretation is the only valid one. I have offered a plausible coutner interpretation you must show why it's not as likely as yours.


                Moreover you are making assertions about religious that have no evidence to back up. You can't assert that having visions and voices is always the same for ever one. Just becuase one persona's visions are false delusion doesn't mean all visions are so.

                I agree. That is why ask the following follow up question: If Paul, who claimed to have visions and direct communication with God displayed common characteristics of those inflicted with paranoid schizophrenia, what is more likely--that Paul communicated with a real God, and just coincidentally show characteristics of a schizophrenic person, or were his communications with a god explained by a mental illness?
                your reasons for assuming that things he says are indicative of MI were based upon reading in the result you want to see there and ignoring what others find, such as ignoring Paul's strong sense of self. that's a major issue because you make that the lynch pin of your while case. the other lynch pin is your literalistic take on his words about 'body of death." you are the only person in human history to ever interior it so absurdly. None of his followers ever did, no scholar ever did, no one anywhere ever saw it that way.
                _______

                Given Paul wrote things that are far outside of normal that are common in paranoid schizophrenics, the the origins of Paul's revelations seems obvious. Paul was most likely mentally ill.
                that's because you are reading it in. AS I just pointed out. no one else ever interpreted Paul's words as you do.

                Paul had delusions of control (e.g., his body was literally controlled by sin, and he was powerless against it) and had a dismal self image (e.g., he described himself as an abortion [and readers can see the long list of passages were Paul describes a worthless, wretched human condition that has no basis in reality]).

                that is reading in what you want to see there. I told before that the idea of sin nature being controlled by sin is an old idea that all over the old testament, the Rabbis had it the folks at Qumran even thought the messiah would die to redeem them from it. All of that is coming out of Paul's Hebrew background.
                Paul's delusions have roles for Paul that are grand (to be the frontman for God, in bringing the gospel to the Gentiles) and Paul had powerful enemies. These are characteristic of paranoid schizophrenia, as well.
                Paul did have powerful enemies, he was executed by Nero.so typical of shrinks. I knew this guy went to a shrink the shrink got it in his head that the guy made up his own brother. for a year the shrink insisted that the guy made up his own brother even when he got his brother to go with him the shrink insisted it was just a friend.
                Lord what fools these mortals be.
                Puc, Mid Sumer Night's Dream, A Midsummer-Night's Dream. Act III. Scene II

                President Roosevelt to Rich republicans: "I welcome your hatred."

                Comment


                • #23
                  Here is why Meta says we should believe Paul communicated with a god:
                  Quote Originally Posted by Meta
                  II didn't say we should believe that. I said (1) Paul believed because it fit his culture not because he was insane, you yourself have already tacitly given away the store on that. (2) I said I myself have a prima face reason that is the authority of the chruch and what they think of Paul. Paul's functionality and the result of his ministry. I didn't say we should think so I said I think so. I don't care if other don't believe that. I do. I have good reason to believe it.

                  sure we do, that's another assertion for which you have no back up. The prima facie reason we have is that Paul said it. The Christian tradition, the magisterium and the Bishops accepted Paul's testimony so should we. We don't reasons beyond that it's a prima facie reason.
                  I didn't mean we should believe it I meant we should accept that this reason enough for one to think so.

                  He changes the context so that the meaning of my statement is no longer clear. He also reduces a complex argument to utter simplicity so it loses meaning.


                  There is nothing prima facie in this fallacious argument from authority.
                  (1) you dont' know logic very well because you are confused about the nature of argument authority essentially apple to arthritis is not a fallacy. appeal to the wrong authority is fallacy.

                  look it up. it's called "appeal to UNNECESSARY authority not appeal to expert authority.

                  you want us to believe you are a shrink right? You have a degree (I presume) you want us to accept that you know your field and you have the authority to speak of your field. that's appeal to authority. But then you don't know beans about theology. so for you to think we should accept your word about oracles that's appeal to unnecessary authority. Because you are not an authority n that field.

                  In fact, I am surprised to find this weak argument is the cornerstone of my opponents argument. As for me, I couldn't care less what the bishops or magistropoly (or whatever he called them) thought or accepted. And Meta has given us no reason why I should care what they thought. Here is what Meta says of my analysis:
                  Because you know nothing of theology. you are accepted an invalid way of life in excavate for the spirit. That is the opinion of your subculture. you are shooting the fine so speak my culture, and trying to tell me that my culture is invalid and yours is the valid one but its' just a matter of what culture you are in. If you are in the chruch you accept get authority of the chruch. The magisterial means teaching authority just as you want to have authority for your degree, so why should other shave authority for heir degree? you want the privilege and you don't want those to have that you hate.

                  In other words you are just being a red neck. you are saying "my club is better than your club. One would think that a social scientist of all people would understand and respect idea of cultural relativity and membership in the community.

                  Quote Originally Posted by Meta
                  you are also interpreting him in a way that bolsters your assumptions about his sanity rather than actually taking seriously what he says. You are reading in a meaning in such a way as to bolster your argument.




                  I have no idea what he is referring to here, and I will wait for him to provide evidence for this ad hominem assertion. I hope he has not given up already, and resorted to impugning my character.
                  no one else in history ever thought Paul litterateur he was dead when speaks of death to self. NO one literally thinks that he means God is reanimating him. these re read-ins that you have done to make your views possible. Fist you have the idea the Paul is inside then you go looking for passages that you make say things, the one's you find you have to interpret super literally to make them mean what you want them to mean.


                  everything you have said about interpreting Paul is BS. every single thing is just you reading in what you want to be there.

                  you have no real reason to say he's mentally ill you are reading symptoms you want to be there. I took your assertion apart in part 1 where you manipulate things and contradict yourself. Whatever he said you would say it is indicative of mental illness. if he said "voices and visions are for fools" you would say proves he was mentally ill.

                  Are this evidence free, personal attacks all you have?

                  Look, I am Ph.D. candidate in the history of ideas. if there's One thing I know it's ho to quotation an interpretation. stop pretending like your work is so sacred no one can question it. Your argument is based largely upon a close reading of Paul I have every right to make my own close reading and to question your assumption.


                  Sure as hell do. The Magisterium accepted his views as coming from God. That's the authority of the tradition. There's no need for any other basis.


                  So it is clear Meta is basing his whole argument on a fallacious appeal to authority. Maybe he can persuade us that these ancients were super special people who we should consider authoritative. But, so far he has given us nothing.
                  Sorry I am determined not to return the same shapely treatment to my op pent that he uses in making quips and attacks. I would point out,however, as said before the fallacy is not appeal to valid expert authority. It's appeal to unnecessary authority. Moreover he doesn't seem o understand the issue there.

                  he thinks the issue is about the authorities say it so it must be true. No it's about why Paul believed what he said. The fact of the community authorities believing it is indication that it was cultural. That's the kind of stuff they accepted in that culture.

                  those assumption may seem schizoid in our setting they are normal in Paul's setting that's about the first observation I made remember, don't confuse their culture with our understanding.

                  This is a huge misconception about the nature of belief.

                  What is Meta referring to in this baseless ad hominem? he never says.
                  calling it an ad hom is calculated to make me look bad. I must admonish my op pent becuase saying that one has a misconception is well within the bound of valid debate educate. No ad hom, indeed the fact that I'm debating him means I disagree with his views. thus by definition his views have to be misconceived.

                  I do not have to establish reasons and I don't have to prove them to you. It's the basis of the community and the tradition to accept the decisions of the Bishops and to respect their teaching authority. It comes with the pancake just accepting that a creed is a historically based test for membership in the fiat, so accepting the authoritative nature of Paul's words becasue they testified to by the community, is also part of the faith.

                  Accepting what bishops say is part of faith? This comes out of right field, doesn't it. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the topic.
                  Of cousre it does. (1) it means Paul's acceptance of ideas and conventions form his own tradition are not insanity but culture. (2) it was a response to something you said.


                  Did Paul communicate with a god, or was he nuts? If a bunch of bishops chose to believe he communicated with a god, as many elites thought the oracles of Delphi communicated with gods, then what difference does that make?
                  It might prove he's not nuts. because the acceptance of it is based upon several things that you never answers, things that disprove your hypothesis.

                  (1) he was highly functional that itself disproves any schizophrenia.
                  (2) He was accepted by his peers and his fellows,no one thought he was off his rocker.
                  (3) If you understand his views correctly they are logical
                  (4) what you dismiss as "wired, strange, nutty" is just part of being in the club. you are not in the club you want to give it credence. that doesn't mean the club is insane, it means you are outsider
                  (5) behold the social scientist who doesn't' understand cultural relativity.

                  There is no reason why I should have to prove that any more than I have to prove that I really believe in god or I'm my parents son.


                  Great example! If the debate was "Is Meta Crock the son of Mr. and Mrs. Crock?" then you would have to prove it. You would need to show your birth certificate, or a DNA test from you and your parents--or perhaps siblings or cousins. If you didn't want to debate this topic, you shouldn't have agreed to do so.
                  correction please. you are missing the point. you are trying to use affairs related to a communist to which you do not belong, toward which you Demosthenes quite a bit of animosity and to show that base DuPont these community matters the leader is insane. but you are not basing that upon valid psychological reasons you are basing upon not being the club yourself and having no respect for it. That's just Chauvinism.



                  If your defense is simply, I believe it, because I believe it, and it's part of faith, then this is a pointless exercise. I cannot overcome a person's desire to maintain a false belief in the face of overwhelming evidence against the false belief. Moving on:
                  stop trying to reduce my argument to simplistically. I had a lot going on in that appeal that you have not begun to answer and I don't think you undersatnd it.You have actually blown your position rather badly. mental illness depends upon dysfunctional anti-social behavior to be meaningful. You can't take some guy who is highly successful and runs a big company everyone likes him and accepts his views and thinks of him as intelligent and tell people he's insane and then give wild interpretation to his words that no one else sees.

                  everyone else hears him say "stocks and bonds and economic stuff" they say "he's just being a normal tycoon. He's talking about the things that men of money talk about." You say "No he doesn't' mean it that way, when he says stocks he means inviolable fairly, when he says bonds he means space ships. You might have some reason for linking those meanings but no one else accepts. Is there is really a case given that functionality of the guy?

                  Paul ran this whole wing of the chruch that had several churches in different locations he was highly thought of by a bunch of people and apparently the other Apostles and authorities in the chruch were accepting of his views. No one ever took anything he said the way you do. No one in his churches ever taught the things you say he taught. you are just flying in the face of a fairly healthy functional person with great responsibility who has a cause and who is supported by others.

                  you raid to imply that accepted of Paul is also kind of crazy that's where I start talking about the community. There's more to it than just Paul. We have a whole big tradition with thinkers and a long history. ti' snot just one guy. You are violating all the canons of social scineces and cultural anthropology and community.


                  Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
                  Part 2--2NCI question your knowledge of schizophrenia.
                  So? Your anecdotal stories don't belong in a formal debate.
                  no one was more functional than Paul.


                  Bobby Fischer (world chess champion) and John Nash (Nobel prize winner in economics) were functional for a period of time, as well. Both of these men were profoundly mentally ill.

                  that's anecdotal because ou have not demonstrated your reading of Paul is valid. it makes no sense, no one else shares your view. it's just littering to an extreme degree.If I was in a chess club I would take Fisher's word for things about chess. I would say "who cares if he's insane he know show do that Spanish Dagger thing."

                  You assert that anyone who thinks they are in contact with God has to be mentally ill so therefore Paul is mentally ill a priori.

                  This is utter nonsense, and directly contradicts what I said in my opening argument. It is yet another baseless ad hominem. I will no repeat what I already said.
                  O brother you think haven't been in enough debates not to know that trick? Etiher your point is trival and has nothing intersting to comment it or you are tryign timply what you deny that you mean. Otherwise why have the debate at all?

                  do you really think we Chrsitians are so stupid we are going to say "Yes Paul had some traits of mental illness but he's not mentally lll." if you don't understand the implication of your hypothesis I thin you need a shrink. Its' clumsy and badly done.

                  you say that as though it means something of cousre it does not. not to you.
                  Another, baseless ad hominem. Are you a mind reader?
                  _______

                  Do not claim to know my thoughts. It is so vile, and you do it all the time. Stop!
                  you claim to know Paul's
                  _______
                  You have enough work. I am keeping this abbreviated, because I am no interested in litigating your barrage of personal attacks.
                  stop whining because I disproved your nonsense. I was perfectly polite to you. I have said nothing that was an attack. you have attacked me over and over again.

                  you are thoroughgoing a tantrum because I disproved your childish palaver.
                  Last edited by Metacrock; 06-26-11, 04:09 PM.
                  Lord what fools these mortals be.
                  Puc, Mid Sumer Night's Dream, A Midsummer-Night's Dream. Act III. Scene II

                  President Roosevelt to Rich republicans: "I welcome your hatred."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    a note on the nature of debate. I know I have a reputation for being insulting. I have never been insulting in a 1x1 debate. some people think it's insulting if you question their argument or say they are wrong. that is not insulting. that is the nature of debate. nothing is more in keeping with a proper debate ethic than to say "My worthy opponent is confused," or my worthy opent has a misconception."these are not personal attacks. saying "his mobo jumbo" is a persona attacked.

                    look back at the first constructive speeches you see I had three overvaluations I threepence them gain but he never answered them.

                    I. We must avoid confusing modern cultural phenomena with universal principles about humanity. Aka imposing our cuture as mental health

                    Just because we find that in our time and our culture that psychosis takes a ****** form that all behaviors in history that seem similar to that form are therefore pyschosis. This is important because he has to avoid reading in his own modern understanding from culture and imposing it on a time and a place where it may not apply. There is no empirical scientific study form the ancient world establishing that their mental health was the same as our mental health.

                    II. We must avoid confusing spiritual experience and belief with bad mental health.
                    Aka imposing mutualism at mental health

                    We can’t assume that just because we feel we know better than ancient world people that this means their beliefs are the result of mental illness. So we have to watch for Hooks to read into the words of Paul assumptions about his mental state based upon a sense of norm form our own culture, and ignoring the spiritual insight and belief of Paul’s day. What appears to be psychosis to a modern person might just be normal belief to an ancient world person.

                    In other words I expect him to read in his own ideas to Paul’s words.

                    III. We must avoid the assumption that mythical experience is mental illness.
                    Aka preoscriging religions as mental illness.

                    I think his assumptions are coming from a basic distrust of religious experience. A huge number of studies demonstrate that mystical experience is not mental illness. Based upon these insights we have to give Paul the benefit of a doubt.

                    Therefore Paul has presumption. That means Hooks has the burden of proof he must prove his case with data not merely with interpretation.


                    he never answered them.

                    His major argument upon which he basis the whole case is that Paul has a week sense of self and that was based upon the word translated "abortion." Paul supposedly calls himself an abortion. that's supposed to mean that he had poor sense of self. everything he introverts of Paul he does so based upon that word.

                    Yet I showed from two major lexicons, (Liddell and Scott is the most important one) that is also understood as "one untimely born." I showed by the context that this makes more sense in this passage. He's not saying my born agian didn't take he's saying I came late.

                    He is not putting himself down. he has a strong sense of self I quoted three people who show that. two were scholars one was an avid reader.

                    aside from this he has nothing. his other arguments are merely liberalizations and I expalined those.

                    He essentially can't prove that anything Paul says should ever be taken literally. he says Christ revealed the Gospel to me he didn't sI saw a vision in space and time. He could just as easily have mean "i got the idea." people in his culture believed in visions anyway. it's cultural it's not insane and he can't they were literal visions anyway.

                    he has no case.
                    Last edited by Metacrock; 06-26-11, 04:07 PM.
                    Lord what fools these mortals be.
                    Puc, Mid Sumer Night's Dream, A Midsummer-Night's Dream. Act III. Scene II

                    President Roosevelt to Rich republicans: "I welcome your hatred."

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Hooks View Post
                      Did Paul communicate directly with a god? That is the question we must answer. Because if he did not, then it is a pretty safe assumption that he had a mental illness. Meta, says the following:Are we going to waste time with common definitions, and bog down this debate. It is 2011, Meta. So we use common definitions, and we don't play these stunts that say they don't apply to ancients. The word "schizophrenia," for example was crafted in the last century. Obviously, it something we are using to see if ancients fit a CURRENT pattern. Continuing to say it is outside our ability or right to do so is absurd.
                      _______
                      Here is the common definition of oracle: 1. a: a person (as a priestess of ancient Greece) through whom a deity is believed to speak.
                      .
                      Here, again is what Paul said:
                      I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ (Gal 1:1112 NIV).
                      _______
                      People who claim to have had directly revelation from a god, and a message that wasn't taught, or received (like from reading scriptures) are oracles by definition. There were a lot of oracles when Paul wrote his letters. There were a lot of ancients, including elites, who thought the oracles of Delphi, for example, really did communicate with the gods.
                      _______
                      So, Meta needs to say why, out of all the oracles of that time, we should believe Paul was telling the truth, and all those other oracles were not. (Please note: if Meta tries to claim the other oracles may have communicated with a god, too, then he is so far outside the bounds of evangelical belief, as to make this debate nearly meaningless. Because Meta,who would be a heretic in nearly any Christian era, including our own. And I take for granted, and have no interest in defending, that none of oracles of Delphi communicated with a god.)
                      _______
                      Here is what Meta says, which contradicts Paul's own claims: Paul said he did not receive his message from any man, which would include "old passages" written by man. But even if I am wrong about that, the only claim of Paul's that matters is the one where he says quite explicitly that the only source of his gospel was "revelation from Jesus Christ."
                      .
                      Meta, rather than scoffing at the actually words of Paul's that I use in my argument, has to show where Paul said something differently. But ... he will not be able to. I agree. That is why ask the following follow up question: If Paul, who claimed to have visions and direct communication with God displayed common characteristics of those inflicted with paranoid schizophrenia, what is more likely--that Paul communicated with a real God, and just coincidentally show characteristics of a schizophrenic person, or were his communications with a god explained by a mental illness?
                      _______
                      Given Paul wrote things that are far outside of normal that are common in paranoid schizophrenics, the the origins of Paul's revelations seems obvious. Paul was most likely mentally ill. Paul had delusions of control (e.g., his body was literally controlled by sin, and he was powerless against it) and had a dismal self image (e.g., he described himself as an abortion [and readers can see the long list of passages were Paul describes a worthless, wretched human condition that has no basis in reality]). Paul's delusions have roles for Paul that are grand (to be the frontman for God, in bringing the gospel to the Gentiles) and Paul had powerful enemies. These are characteristic of paranoid schizophrenia, as well. Here is why Meta says we should believe Paul communicated with a god: There is nothing prima facie in this fallacious argument from authority. In fact, I am surprised to find this weak argument is the cornerstone of my opponents argument. As for me, I couldn't care less what the bishops or magistropoly (or whatever he called them) thought or accepted. And Meta has given us no reason why I should care what they thought. Here is what Meta says of my analysis: I have no idea what he is referring to here, and I will wait for him to provide evidence for this ad hominem assertion. I hope he has not given up already, and resorted to impugning my character.Are this evidence free, personal attacks all you have?So it is clear Meta is basing his whole argument on a fallacious appeal to authority. Maybe he can persuade us that these ancients were super special people who we should consider authoritative. But, so far he has given us nothing. What is Meta referring to in this baseless ad hominem? he never says. Accepting what bishops say is part of faith? This comes out of right field, doesn't it. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the topic. Did Paul communicate with a god, or was he nuts? If a bunch of bishops chose to believe he communicated with a god, as many elites thought the oracles of Delphi communicated with gods, then what difference does that make? Great example! If the debate was "Is Meta Crock the son of Mr. and Mrs. Crock?" then you would have to prove it. You would need to show your birth certificate, or a DNA test from you and your parents--or perhaps siblings or cousins. If you didn't want to debate this topic, you shouldn't have agreed to do so. If your defense is simply, I believe it, because I believe it, and it's part of faith, then this is a pointless exercise. I cannot overcome a person's desire to maintain a false belief in the face of overwhelming evidence against the false belief. Moving on: So? Your anecdotal stories don't belong in a formal debate. Bobby Fischer (world chess champion) and John Nash (Nobel prize winner in economics) were functional for a period of time, as well. Both of these men were profoundly mentally ill. This is utter nonsense, and directly contradicts what I said in my opening argument. It is yet another baseless ad hominem. I will no repeat what I already said. Another, baseless ad hominem. Are you a mind reader?
                      _______
                      Do not claim to know my thoughts. It is so vile, and you do it all the time. Stop!
                      _______
                      You have enough work. I am keeping this abbreviated, because I am no interested in litigating your barrage of personal attacks.
                      This was my rebuttal to your proper arguments. Did you not see this post? As for your post where you had made three baseless decrees that started, "We must avoid ..." I largely ignored those arguments, because nothing in any of your previous arguments, or in that rebuttal, established your contention. In other words, I don't need to avoid the things you say I have to avoid, because you did nothing to establish the significance of doing so. The only reason to "avoid" those things, it seems, is so you can have an excuse for avoiding the glaringly obvious similarities of Paul and modern paranoid schizophrenics. Similarly, I listed probably close to fifty verses where Paul tells us his bleak view of the human condition. You have essentially ignored commenting on these verses. As such, I took it that you were conceding that point to me. As I consider that view vile and dangerous, you are wrong to assert I never brought this up in past posts. Because it was a central tenet of all of my posts so far.
                      ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I'm sorry, you cannot ignore an argent in debate. the point of debating is to prove you are right, not to just make a proclamation as toughie you are God. you ca't decide it' snot a good argument you have to answer it. if think it's not good then say why.

                        I think what I said in those three point si obvious and only the must uneducated would think they are unimportant. considerations. everyone knows there's a thign cultural relativity. If you could go back in time to Paul's day they would see you as insane, or whatever concept they had that was close to that. If you don't understand the concept of culture then you are no shrink. you can't be in social science and not understand this.

                        you cannot ignore an argument in debate. you lose any argument you don't' answer.

                        if you think it's stupid you have to prove why it's stupid.
                        Lord what fools these mortals be.
                        Puc, Mid Sumer Night's Dream, A Midsummer-Night's Dream. Act III. Scene II

                        President Roosevelt to Rich republicans: "I welcome your hatred."

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X