Pros and Cons of Proving God Exists?

[Elok]

So he's right about being little.

I don't live in Amsterdam, dude. My height's above average by U.S. standards.

[Elok]

blah blah blah. Why should I read a long post when you've accused yourself of nonsense. All I read is some nonsense about that not being a strwman that I didn't argue against for so long.

So you're not willing to support your own arguments or read others'? What are you willing to do?

[Al B. Sure!]

I don't live in Amsterdam, dude. My height's above average by U.S. standards.

Ahem...

In stature the Manlet was dwarfish--
No burly, big Blunderbore he;
And he wearily gazed on the crawfish
His Wifelet had dressed for his tea.
"Now reach me, sweet Atom, my gunlet,
And hurl the old shoelet for luck;
Let me hie to the bank of the runlet,
And shoot thee a Duck!"

[Kidlicious]

The only thing I argued against is, "God is no rule maker." Your strawman is your own fault dumb****.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course, the Spirit doesn't break the rules and disobey God. YOU BREAK THE RULES AND DISOBEY GOD!

The Spirit IS God, or did you not know?

[Elok]

What, is it poetry time now? Nothing comes to mind, since I don't care much for poetry.

XPost

[Elok]

The only thing I argued against is, "God is no rule maker." Your strawman is your own fault dumb****.

You've been arguing with Imran this whole time. He said a lot of other things besides that, and you argued with them all. Like I said, you need to learn...does that even count as nuance? You just aren't even reading what he says, it seems.

[Kidlicious]

What? Another strawman? You two have no shame and will never learn.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually, I should qualify that last statement. The impression I get of Existentialism is of an extremely varied philosophy which falls into two broad groups: the vaguely postmodern type Imran appears to favor, and the kind championed by Nietzsche, Camus and Sartre, which strikes me as a lot of words for a little wad of arrogant, posturing, world-weary misanthropy. But even the second kind relies heavily on complicated abstractions.

Existentialism is really the "big tent" of philosophy. I mean any philosophical viewpoint that can include BOTH Kierkegard and Nietzsche is a bit wide-netted to begin with. I'd like to say that I have existentialist leanings (I believe very much in the importance of subjectivity of religious experience and how that relates to post-modern views of Christianity) but I haven't read enough to claim myself fully as existentialist.

[Elok]

What? Another strawman? You two have no shame and will never learn.

You don't appear to know what a strawman is.

[Elok]

Existentialism is really the "big tent" of philosophy. I mean any philosophical viewpoint that can include BOTH Kierkegard and Nietzsche is a bit wide-netted to begin with. I'd like to say that I have existentialist leanings (I believe very much in the importance of subjectivity of religious experience and how that relates to post-modern views of Christianity) but I haven't read enough to claim myself fully as existentialist.

I haven't read a lot of it, myself. It's hard for me to get into, since I lean towards the concrete side of things. What I have read, though, is not for people who like things clear-cut.

[Al B. Sure!]

What? Another strawman? You two have no shame and will never learn.

What is strawman? What is strawman? What is strawman?



















What is strawman?


























What is strawman?

[Imran Siddiqui]

From wikipedia (I feel I may have posted this before):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_existentialism

An existential reading of the Bible demands that the reader recognize that he is an existing subject, studying the words that God communicates to him personally. This is in contrast to looking at a collection of "truths" which are outside and unrelated to the reader.[5] Such a reader is not obligated to follow the commandments as if an external agent is forcing them upon him, but as though they are inside him and guiding him internally. This is the task Kierkegaard takes up when he asks: "Who has the more difficult task: the teacher who lectures on earnest things a meteor's distance from everyday life, or the learner who should put it to use?"[6] Existentially speaking, the Bible doesn't become an authority in a person's life until they authorize the Bible to be their personal authority.

Does Kid, as a so called Christian Existentialist wish to reconcile his arguments with the above stated text? Especially vis-a-vis the discussion we've been having about the Spirit rather than external rules placed from above.

[Kidlicious]

Of course it was a strawman. Show otherwise. When did I ever argue against following the Spirit of the law. You're the worst liar I've ever known. You're an absolute horrible human being.

[Kidlicious]

You already posted that and I responded. What is wrong with you?