One last go

Thomas

So it goes ...
Veteran Member
Messages
14,281
Reaction score
4,189
Points
108
Location
London UK
It seems that by always responding from the basis of my faith, I'm a 'broken record' on this forum, if not a p***k ... which seems a pretty odd response on an interfaith forum, but there you go.

... so here's the deal.

No longer shall I discuss Christianity, Catholicism, or my faith. I shall reserve my comments to the 'theology' board only, but will not engage in discussions on matters of Christian/Catholic theology as such, but rather offer philosophical speculations from a general theist position.

As pure philosophy, in the Western Tradition, was never other than theology, I think that's possible, and should prove amenable to all.

For my part, recent studies have triggered a renewed interest in an old friend of mine, Johannes Scotus Eriugena, in one of those 'the last to see it is you' moments in which I realised a number of threads all come together — metaphysics, nature, being, the person —

Eriugena may well prove to be ahead of his time ... certainly his anthropology speaks to many of the contemporary issues from a surprisingly 'phenomenological' perspective ...

Thomas
 
Your posts are amongst the most enlightening, sophisticated and interesting on the forum. Please do not stop sharing your ideas.
 
I have to agree with Netti-Netti here, Thomas. Attacking the person instead of rebutting the argument can be all too common (and all too human) when it comes to heated discussions. All too often, the consequences is a lack of heated debate, which is a great intellectual loss.

Please reconsider.
 
no offense but there are a lot of morons on this forum including myself, but you Thomas are not a moron your posts are intelligent and articulate, so keep up the good work :)
 
I think it is a shame Thomas, but I can't say I blame you. I really like your postings on your faith and religion. But, I agree that it is very frustrating to know that EVERY post you make about your religion is going to be jumped on from six different angles.

I guess a bit of my own frustration is showing today. :(
 
I agree with the general direction of all of the other posts in this thread. But in the end you have to do what you think is best.
 
Namaste Thomas,

Tis obviously me that you feel has blasted you so bad. And I've said repeatedly I have only one issue. And that is when you answer a response as to your correctness in the matter due to having apostolic succession or being the only one and true religion. And as I've repeatedly indicated this could very well be my issue.

When I indicate that I enjoy and am often enlightened by your posts, you tell me that that isn't true. Fact of the matter it is. What you seem to reject is that your opinion and your belief and your understanding is no different than our opinion, our belief and our understanding. Be you catholic, hindu, buddhist, baptist whatever...it is a belief system, all of which we individually feel has validity to us and others in our way....but none of us has all the answers despite how much any of us may think so.

I'll apologize again for letting you get under my skin and me getting under yours.
 
I think it is a shame Thomas, but I can't say I blame you. I really like your postings on your faith and religion. But, I agree that it is very frustrating to know that EVERY post you make about your religion is going to be jumped on from six different angles.
It could be more angles than that depending on how a point is argued.

In logic, appeal to authority is consided a fallacy (argumentum ad verecundiam). Appeal to church tradition may be a subset of it. It is sometimes combined with some vague, undocumented consensus claims to the effect that all the saints feel this way, all good Christians believe this, and so on.

Some of us who are blessed/cursed with a tendency toward critical thinking may see such styles of argumentation as obstacles to inquiry. Controversial issues are presented as though they should be considered settled simply by virtue of Church authority that is presumably beyond question.

But what is a reasonable, inquiring person to make of tradition when it is substantially and identifiably out of line with Scripture? And what does one make of attempts to defend Church doctrines, or practices in the absence of Biblical support? And what does one make of the suggestion that the Church is somehow exempt with respect to Scripture and reasonable guidelines for living?

Seasoned is not necessarily reasoned. Tradition that doesn't get examined reminds me of Jesus saying "If you're looking for real live religion, why are you looking in old books?" Traditionalists proclaim tradition for tradition's sake or maybe to signal to the group that they have the group's interest in mind (social identity and solidarity strategy). This has very little to do with a living faith, imho.

At any rate, it seems the underlying message is that archaic or medieval ideas shall remain immune to being updated until every last church has been shuttered. In the Netherlands, churches are being converted for some other use at a rate of 30-40 a year. That is saying something consider how small a country it is. I can't help but feel that it's somehow related to traditional religions being defended by traditionalists who are totally dependent on self-perpetuating fallacies to make their case and who are resistant to making any real attempt to explore the intrinsic merits of the traditions and who refuse to explore the religion's relevance to our contemporary situation.

Mystification and condemnation are in fact traditional means by which the Church has historically sought to preserve its stature. Consider the case of Meister Eckhart. After could no longer defend himself against such charged because he was deceased, Pope John issued a damnatio memoriae against him. Eckhart was identified as someone who "wished to know more than he should." So much for faith-seeking understanding.

On account of his involvement with religion, Eckhart was described by the Church as someone who was "led astray by the Father of lies," and who had supposedly sown "thorns and obstacles contrary to the very clear truth of faith in the field of the Church." He was also said to have presented "many things as dogma that were designed to cloud the true... " The upshot of all this condemnation, of course, is that the Church has a monopoly on religious truth and that mystics and inquiring minds have nothing to tell us.

Rigid tradionalism has only served to undermine the Church's credibility. As for the attempts to cast aspersions on personal motives, the personal attacks, the evasions and attempts to change the subject, refusing to answer questions, the carefully crafted ambiguities, the minimizations, scriptural misquotes and selective use of evidence, those are not real helpful either, though they could add some theatrical interest in some of these forum discussions.
 
Thomas- take no notice- I read ur posts, even if I don't reply (too many big words for me!) it would be a bum deal if you stopped doing what u do!
 
I dont blame you either, Thomas. I got tired of the general disrespect towards my faith and beliefs so I mostly avoid discussing my faith unless Im feeling particularily brave . I will miss your posts because I learned things that I didnt know and above and beyond you are a wonderful writer and teacher.

God Bless.
 
I will miss your posts because I learned things that I didnt know and above and beyond you are a wonderful writer and teacher.
I think fallacies are a potentially a good way to teach religious concepts. But only if they are detected.... or explained at a later date if no one detects them.

In a very real sense, those who don't detect the fallacies and actually agree with them don't learn anything.
 
No longer shall I discuss Christianity, Catholicism, or my faith. I shall reserve my comments to the 'theology' board only, but will not engage in discussions on matters of Christian/Catholic theology as such, but rather offer philosophical speculations from a general theist position.

As pure philosophy, in the Western Tradition, was never other than theology, I think that's possible, and should prove amenable to all.

For my part, recent studies have triggered a renewed interest in an old friend of mine, Johannes Scotus Eriugena, in one of those 'the last to see it is you' moments in which I realised a number of threads all come together — metaphysics, nature, being, the person —
should prove interesting as you seem a scholarly chap and dredge some interesting bits of history up from time to time.
I can't say I will miss the catholic perspective, the only part I was ever put out by was the "we are right and have the one true way without which you are f***** " point of view.
those kind of responses always raise my hackles, as whoever says so is full of BS, IMO, regardless of how emotionally attached they are to their beliefs.
Thanks for the "heads up" m8:)
 
should prove interesting as you seem a scholarly chap and dredge some interesting bits of history up from time to time.
I can't say I will miss the catholic perspective, the only part I was ever put out by was the "we are right and have the one true way without which you are f***** " point of view.
those kind of responses always raise my hackles, as whoever says so is full of BS, IMO, regardless of how emotionally attached they are to their beliefs.
Thanks for the "heads up" m8:)

I have to respectfully disagree with this post.

A major aspect of interfaith dialogue is to discuss and learn about religious concepts that you do not agree with. This is a type of diversity in religious studies.

I have to conclude that you do not understand much of what Thomas is trying to communicate to you. :mad:

By the way, you used quotation marks in your post, could you please provide the link that is purportedly quoted (and please take care when quoting because it has meaning, which you apparently do not understand either).
 
Thomas, as you haven't answered posts to this thread, I take it you have your mind set already on this particular course. But I did enjoy debating with you from the basis of your faith, and we had a pretty good heated debate going there at one point.

If you haven't completely made up your mind about this, then I'll offer encouragement in the phrase "Don't let the b@st@rd5 grind you down," Lol. Sry bout that, lol.

If you are set on this new path of discussion, it does sound rather interesting. In any case, I hope to get into discussions with you for some time to come, whatever form they might take. :)
 
I agree that Thomas' posts are often filled with wonderful information and I love to see where they intersect with some of my own inclinations while having no inclination to pick apart any differences. There is a huge difference between dialogue and attack which anyone can discern. There really is no room for attack mode here. Thomas, my only reading of or about Eriugena was in a book I have by Christopher Bamford: "The Voice of the Eagle: The Heart of Celtic Christianity," his essays about JS Eriugena's homily on the prologue to the gospel of St. John. Think you'd probably enjoy it.:) earl
 
Avi, I don't mean to be rude, as I can see you were upset by Shawn's post, but I don't think he was quoting Thomas specifically.

He was using the quotes in an ironic fashion, I believe...

Quotation mark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I use quotes like this all the time, so I'm partly covering my own, lol. But there ya go.

Hi Mort, you are not being rude. On a forum we only have our words to go by so they are pretty important. And don't worry about my comments to Shawn, after all, he is one of my "friends" :).

Regarding the quotation marks. The way that Shawn used them they implied that he was quoting Thomas. Since I have never seen Thomas use words like that I know that it was not actually a quote, and that was my point.

Of course, that was only my secondary point, my primary one was that Shawn was being careless and insensitive. He does not understand the importance of having diverse thought in an interfaith enviroment.

Btw, I have enjoyed your posts very much :)
 
Hi Mort, you are not being rude. On a forum we only have our words to go by so they are pretty important. And don't worry about my comments to Shawn, after all, he is one of my "friends" :).

Regarding the quotation marks. The way that Shawn used them they implied that he was quoting Thomas. Since I have never seen Thomas use words like that I know that it was not actually a quote, and that was my point.

Of course, that was only my secondary point, my primary one was that Shawn was being careless and insensitive. He does not understand the importance of having diverse thought in an interfaith enviroment.

Btw, I have enjoyed your posts very much :)
The quote was used as opposed to bold type to set it apart, not that such a comment was ever made specifically, but that has been the tone that I have read into many of the posts made by aforementioned individual (with my added bluntness).

Now, I like to interact with Thomas as he seems a very learned fellow.
I said as much also in that post.
Maybe I should have a disclaimer
*starts thinking of various disclaimers*
so that people realize that even though I may be cheeky:rolleyes:, it is in good humor and not serious;)
I don't dislike anyone here ( I may not agree with some), and If I am really opposed I just won't dialogue with them.

I do understand the importance of "having diverse thought in an interfaith enviroment" (quoting Avi), but realize that it must play second fiddle to an open-mind.
I am in agreement with Bill Maher in his attitude of intolerance for religious based arrogance (the whole * believe things our way as we have the One and only truth and without it you are doomed* attitude) as our world at our present stage of technological development, cannot afford to tolerate such medieval thinking. (see the movie Religulous.... Watch Religulous Online Free - Watch Movies Online For Free Full Movie Downloads)
 
Think it applies but over the years I have been on here it is the same topics, over and over and over and over again..... So to a degree most of you are like a broken record.... *shrugs* Who knew?

Also shouldn't this be in the Feedback forum hmmmm? Or something.... *nudges it out of his lounge*
 
Back
Top