"But it was Written by Ignorant Desert Dwellers"

[Nathan Poe]

Please understand that time constraints prohibit me from answering all your points -- I'll try to hit the highlights.

So why believe your opinion?


So then the question still remains, why should I take your opinion seriously, when there is evidence against it?

So don't. I offer it for what it's worth, and if you have evidence against it, it's not worth much.

Sorry child, but how does giving a ‘rude answer’ equal ‘blowing their stack’?

Unless you want to claim that rudeness wasn't an outburst, but was Jesus' normal disposition.

Another assertion I see, without evidence and again, it will be dismissed as such. Sorry, but the two are not mutually exclusive, it is possible to not give a ‘nice answer’ and not be ‘blowing your stack’ or is that how you operate so you assume everybody else operates that way too?

I was giving Jesus the benefit of the doubt -- I was assuming that a man who preached benevolence made a habit of practicing it, and wouldn't break the habit without a reason.

But you are right -- clearly this is an assumption without evidence.

More passive-aggressiveness, got to love it. Sorry dear heart, but just because you ‘blow your stack’ when you give a not so nice answer doesn’t mean everybody else does too. I am, right now, calm as can be and I have told people, in a calm voice and tone, they are being idiots.

And yet...

So ‘doing better’ means being passive-aggressive and simply trying to brow beat people to your position? How is that ‘being better’ again?

You think this is browbeating? My dear, you need to get out more.

Go read their bio’s and their books so you can see for yourself. I’m not going to hold your hand for you though everything because I know Chesterton has a society dedicated to his works and CS Lewis has a huge following and both of these men had tons of their stuff available online. I also know that the saints I mentioned have their bio’s and works available to read online, for free, as well. I took the time to go read what they had to say and find out why they are such positive influences, to men and women, to this very day. Perhaps you should do the same.

Perhaps I should've rephrased the question: what didn't lead to their success?



Nah, I can also name some things about these people too, but it is your job to show that their use of insults somehow takes away from their words. [/QUOTE]

If their insults add to their position and they are better people for it, then I stand corrected. If not, either the insults add nothing (in which case there's no reason to imitate them), or they do indeed detract (granted, the impact is negligible, but still not exactly role model material, would you agree?)

Thus far, you seem unable to do it and thus try to act as though insults are equal to something like drunkenness or adultery

Not really -- it's more an issue of scale. Their bad habits are, of course, nowhere near as heinous as drunkenness or adultery, but that doesn't mean that they are to be imitated by those who seek to follow in their footsteps.

If you prefer, we could make up some more proportionate bad habits, and (hypothetically speaking) claim that they were chronic nailbiters or nose-pickers, and my point would still stand -- one has very little to gain, and far more to lose, if one hopes to imitate these great thinkers by imitating their not-so-great habits.

(which none of these guys engaged in and all the married ones, Luther, Chesterton, and Lewis, showed a lot of dedication to their wives). Do you have any evidence at all that it does or is this again, your opinion and nothing else?

I'm not going to provide evidence for something that isn't my position. You're smart enoguh to have a sense of scale; surely you can tell the difference between a debilitating bad habit and a trivial one.

Nevertheless, littlepixie, you've made your point clearly enough -- this is your normal personality, and it would be presumptuous of me to ask you to change it -- even if I could offer evidence to your satisfaction (which I currently cannot do).

Kindly accept my apologies. I'm more than happy to let the matter drop and get back to the business at hand.

[lilpixieofterror]

So don't. I offer it for what it's worth, and if you have evidence against it, it's not worth much.

So why are you posting it?

Unless you want to claim that rudeness wasn't an outburst, but was Jesus' normal disposition.

Why was it an ‘outburst’ because you said so? I’m sorry, but giving a rude response and having an outburst are two different things and if you think they are one in the same, it is your job to prove it.

I was giving Jesus the benefit of the doubt -- I was assuming that a man who preached benevolence made a habit of practicing it, and wouldn't break the habit without a reason.

And why is giving a rude response not benevolence? I always thought benevolence had to do with physical actions and had nothing to do with rude ones. Do you have any evidence that proves otherwise?

But you are right -- clearly this is an assumption without evidence.

So why are you preaching it?

And yet...

You think this is browbeating? My dear, you need to get out more.

I didn’t say it was very good browbeating, but your attempts to make others feel ‘sorry’ or to act as though giving a ‘rude response’ is due to some sort of outburst comes shining though. Sorry, but the two are mutually exclusive. It is possible to give an outburst and not be rude about it and it is possible to be rude without outburst.

Perhaps I should've rephrased the question: what didn't lead to their success?

Are you seriously thinking that I think it had a thing to do with their success? Where did I say that? I didn’t, I did say though these people engaged in it and their works are still seen as being great examples, so can you produce a reason why we should simply ignore their insults and pretend they were not there?

If their insults add to their position and they are better people for it, then I stand corrected. If not, either the insults add nothing (in which case there's no reason to imitate them), or they do indeed detract (granted, the impact is negligible, but still not exactly role model material, would you agree?)

Considering that Mere Christianity and Orthodoxy are seen as some of the best defenses of Christianity of the 20th century, have remained in print since they were first written, and are praised by scholars and non scholars alike would indicate that it doesn’t subtract from their position at all and it is your burden to prove otherwise.

Not really -- it's more an issue of scale. Their bad habits are, of course, nowhere near as heinous as drunkenness or adultery, but that doesn't mean that they are to be imitated by those who seek to follow in their footsteps.

And why is a few insults a ‘bad habit’? Because you said so?

If you prefer, we could make up some more proportionate bad habits, and (hypothetically speaking) claim that they were chronic nailbiters or nose-pickers, and my point would still stand -- one has very little to gain, and far more to lose, if one hopes to imitate these great thinkers by imitating their not-so-great habits.

And again, you fail to produce evidence, now answer the question…

“The reason that insults shouldn’t be used is….”

Can you answer the question already or is assuming your position, from the start, all you are capable of producing? Sorry, I do not see insults as being, in of themselves, a ‘character flaw’ and you have failed to prove it. Therefore, again, your opinion is dismissed until you can provide evidence to back up your assertions and judging by your inability to do it thus far, I might be waiting awhile…

I'm not going to provide evidence for something that isn't my position. You're smart enoguh to have a sense of scale; surely you can tell the difference between a debilitating bad habit and a trivial one.

And I do not think it is a bad habit and you have, thus far, failed to prove it is.

Nevertheless, littlepixie, you've made your point clearly enough -- this is your normal personality, and it would be presumptuous of me to ask you to change it -- even if I could offer evidence to your satisfaction (which I currently cannot do).

And what is my ‘normal personality’? Do you know that or do you just assume you know it?

Kindly accept my apologies. I'm more than happy to let the matter drop and get back to the business at hand.

Very well, but if you can’t back up your opinion with facts, why should I believe it?

[Nathan Poe]

And what is my ‘normal personality’? Do you know that or do you just assume you know it?

I only know what you're telling me -- you're not being emotional nor "blowing your stack," so this is how you usually deal with people you think deserve it.

As you yourself say, you're giving people what they earn -- and you've made no secret as to what you think that is. Is that not normal for you?

[lilpixieofterror]

I only know what you're telling me -- you're not being emotional nor "blowing your stack," so this is how you usually deal with people you think deserve it.

Yep.

As you yourself say, you're giving people what they earn -- and you've made no secret as to what you think that is. Is that not normal for you?

To give people what I believe they earn, yeah, it's quite normal.

[Nathan Poe]

Yep.



To give people what I believe they earn, yeah, it's quite normal.

So when I categorized this behavior as "your normal personality," I was correct. Just checking.

[SarahB]

Any argument where it's actually worth discussing as opposed to throwing up one's hands in disgust. How many people are going to recognize the veracity of an argument when the person presenting it is such a miserable shrew that anything to be learned from the exchange is overshadowed from her grating personality and snobbishness to the point where no further discussion is even desired?

That does seem to be LPOT's primary role: to make people like you prefer to go away.

I just happen to be of the opinion that it's possible (not to mention more effective) to be both a good apologist/debater and a civil human being at the same time -- think Matthew 16:26, and all that.

Of course, most reasonable persons, theist and non-theist, will agree with that statement.

I don't think she has any concern for Matt 16:26 or for those who may be turned away from Christianity because of her miserable shrewness.

[Chrawnus]

Do you guys hear a hypocricket chirping in the night too?

[Tassman]

This from the poster who claimed all of Aquinas' Five Ways had been refuted, but then couldn't actually state what premises were in even one of the Five Ways?
You've already demonstrated elsewhere that you have no idea what Aquinas actually argues, and your claim above clearly shows that.

You have reduced several pages of a previous discussion, in a different thread, on a different topic, to one paragraph of an out-of-context smear, with no links and no quotes and I'm expected to take your word for it. Well done! I expect nothing less. How else can the likes of you defend supernaturalism?

And still no ‘Jump-To’ facility I see. Well, we can’t have people checking back for the actual context of the discussions can we (sarcasm) – they may discover just how dishonestly misleading you are.

The rest of your post is a similar mass of already refuted 'argument', red herrings, out-of-context mangling of what I have been discussing with The Pixie, and statements that really just prove my point. Thanks for demonstrating once again why 95% of what you post is not worth talking seriously.

Quit poisoning the well Max and just answer the questions.

Why, would you even consider the question of miracles existing in the first place - i.e. why raise the question at all?

When would a natural explanation of an unusual occurrence NOT be the most probable explanation – i.e. When would a supernatural explanation be the more likely explanation?

Oh, and regarding your evangelical mini bliss-bomb directed to TP with a smile, namely “Hey, miracles aren't impossible!” Please support this bald assertion - and I don’t mean personal testimony re your "personal relationship" with an invisible supernatural entity.

.

[Sparko]

That does seem to be LPOT's primary role: to make people like you prefer to go away.

Of course, most reasonable persons, theist and non-theist, will agree with that statement.

I don't think she has any concern for Matt 16:26 or for those who may be turned away from Christianity because of her miserable shrewness.

Perhaps you should take heed of your own advice Sarah.

[SarahB]

Perhaps you should take heed of your own advice Sarah.

Shouldn't we all!

[ukchristian28]

You really are a one-trick pony Sarah.

[Ygarl]

So basically, "Ancient people was stupid."

The Antikythera mechanism suggests that the ancients had a far more sophisticated understanding of the universe than you're willing to give them credit for.

Not to mention - a far better understanding than almost any city-dwelling artificial-light-seeing football-watching Westerner I know.
Don't believe me? Try to see how many of your friends know what and epicycle looks like, or how often Venus is visible in the evening...
Or for that matter - how long an average bright comet is visible in the sky (or that the answer is more easily answerable in days or weeks - not seconds)
Almost any marginally observant shepherd could tell you these - certainly any decent Iron- or Bronze-age (or probably late Neolithic) astrologer could.

[showmeproof]

Ignorance is not equivalent to stupidity. No one is suggesting that the authors of the bible were stupid. Only that they did not have pertinent information that we now have available. In light of the information we now have available, the 'desert dwellers' were ignorant about many things; most prominently natural sciences.

[Sparko]

Ignorance is not equivalent to stupidity. No one is suggesting that the authors of the bible were stupid. Only that they did not have pertinent information that we now have available. In light of the information we now have available, the 'desert dwellers' were ignorant about many things; most prominently natural sciences.

And they didn't have iPhones!!! durn idiots.

[Seasanctuary]

I would insult desert dwellers, but that might come back to haunt me considering this summer's weather in the midwest.