RE: The fool

[anjkara]

You sound exactly like someone called abolitionist. Exactly.

Here, to save time, have a read through these discussions. It starts here and continues over a number of other threads (all linked).

If you can come up with anything different, giz a shout.

Comments

[gideondelta]

The conversation is here. The claims you made were regarding my post. The objections you made were of my comments.

So far, you've refused to justify any of them.

You've accused me of being the,

the great moral judge for all Steemit content

But I think that's ironic in light of your original comment. At least I can (and will) justify my moral value statements -- and I don't have to borrow from someone else's worldview to do it.

In the face of God’s revelation the unbeliever is “without an apologetic” (cf. Rom. 1:20, in the Greek). His intellectual position has no worthwhile credentials in the long run. When he comes up against the intellectual challenge of the gospel as Paul would present it, the unregenerate is left with no place to stand. The outcome of the encounter is summarily expressed by Paul when he declares, “Where is the wise? Where is the disputer of this world?”

The fact is that God makes foolish the wisdom of this world, and thus the genuinely wise unbeliever is not to be found. The man who can adequately debate and defend the outlook of this world (i.e., unbelief) has never lived.

Rejection of the Christian faith cannot be justified, and the intellectual position of the unbeliever cannot be genuinely defended in the world of thought.

Dr. Greg Bahnsen, "Always Ready"

And, that, by the way, is how you properly quote a book in a comment.

[anjkara]

There's no conversation here.

[gideondelta]

There's no conversation here

Not when one person hits and runs with judgements, no, there isn't a conversation.

Here's the rub: there are always gonna be people whose opinions differ from ours. Sensible adults work this out via dialogue.

But a dialogue actually requires you to engage with and interact with what I say, not dodge, dismiss, ignore, and avoid. And, certainly not stand on a pedestal and expect me to accept your presuppositions, arguments, and claims wholesale without a challenge — something you've done from the beginning.

But let's make this simple. In your original comment, you presupposed "wisdom and compassion" were positive things. You just assumed I would also accept these as positive things.

For the sake of argument, what if I didn't? As an Atheist, 1) What does that matter to you? and 2) What pronouncement can you make which is objective?

That is, one which transcends your personal experience, culture, time, and location?

Or to simplify 2), maybe, simply 3), can you make an objective pronouncement to me regarding the value of wisdom and/or compassion?

[anjkara]

Hear me, oh Entitled One:

I don't want a dialogue with you!

It's a waste of time. I've answered those questions in discussion with abolitionist. If you're interested in my point of view (you're not), go and read the link. Don't bore me with the same circular, word-salad nonsense again.

[gideondelta]

Thank you for your time.

[anjkara]

I knew your first downvote was intentional. Haha!
Favour returned.

[gideondelta]

For the sake of argument, as an Atheist, how exactly can you find an objection to hypocrisy or lying?

Unlike the original, which I retracted (and has remained retracted), these downvotes are strictly intentional.