Harvard disagrees with you.
Who give a damn about Harvard?
Harvard disagrees with you.
Then they're as stupid as you are, Lon!
'
Saying it doesn't make it so, nor is this ANY kind of rebuttal.
No, the rebuttal was the very next sentence, MORON!
It is relegated to rubbish and unworthy of my time.
You're the one wasting everyone's time with literal stupidity. If you don't like me pointing it out then I invite you to leave.
It matters not a whit what you think is stupid.
I wasn't giving an opinion. I was stating facts.
It really doesn't and you are wasting your and my 'time.'
Hypocrite!!!!
By 'reality' do you mean the physical universe He created?
No, you idiot! I mean reality! God didn't create Himself did He?
Your logic is often bound to this world, Clete.
You are as stupid as the day is long!
Boy, there is a boatload in that question. First of all, of course 'irrational' is real, else we'd not know what it means. Second, no. I was intimating that you and I aren't wholly rational and some things you think are rational, aren't. I realize it makes sense, but that doesn't mean right. Rationality is a search for what is true, not a means to an end. You and I have a long way to go. Paul said it clearly: We see through a glass darkly. Open Theism intimates glass clearly and is poorer for it.
As I said, go and just believe anything you desire because there is no distinction, in your world, between truth and error. You couldn't prove that this post exists or that you know how to read it!
Man doesn't live by bread alone, but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
Completely irrelevant nonsensical quotation of a verse that has exactly nothing to do with anything either of us has said.
The only rationality is when we grasp what is true, however dark the glass between us may be.
If so, then there's no way to know anything. Including that there's any such thing as grasping anything or seeing things darkly. There's no way to know the difference between being blind and clear sight.
Of course this assails your ideology, but you can do no better than glass darkly, either.
It has nothing to do with MY ideology you stupid fool!
I didn't have anything to do with making the universe or how it works nor did anyone consult me on whether the truth is allowed to contradict itself.
Further, if it is allowed to contradict itself you'd have no way of knowing whether it "assailed" (i.e. contradicts) my idiology or not nor would you have any grounds to object if it did.
Is my glass even more dark than yours?
You've chosen to shut your eyes and to tell me it's a waste of time to try and get you to open them and then to dance around in circles trying to elevate your self-imposed blindness to the status of wisdom.
Such is about degrees and often in this intimation, I'm trying to get you to question what usually seems crystal clear to you.
No you're not! You're trying to get me to shut off the only light that exists by which truth and error can been seen and discerned!
Lest Paul be wrong, your glass, however clearer than mine, perhaps, is but darkly. Glass darkly is about perception where mystery is necessary.
Actual mystery, Lon! NOT CONTRADICTION! NOT IRRATIONALITY!!!
You a fool and don't know the difference!
Paul asked for his malady to be removed. God told him His grace was sufficient. My parents occasionally said 'because I said so' when I asked 'why.' God does so as well.
Blasphemy!!!!!
You say such things, not in the context of ignorance or of accidental error but in the context of defending irrational nonsense! In the context of open contradiction! In the context of turning off one's mind so that a favored doctrine can be accepted. In the context of defending a lie!
No Lon, it was not. Typos are one thing. Speaking like you've had 8 beers is another.
It is simply explaining that if we don't meet halfway in consideration, the conversation has no place to go but further conversations of this same fruitless end.
What is the half way point between being rational where contradiction is evidence of error and an appeal to "mystery" where contradiction is presented as proof of truth?
Where is that middle ground, Lon?!
In any compromise with reason only the irrational can benefit. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.
In conversation, we either entrench and posture which is the impetus for all 'stupid, dumb' etc. intimations.
As I said, you might be posturing but I most certainly am not. I am standing on sound reason against you appeal to literal mindlessness.
Such language is meant to stop conversation and get out. It is the end of conversation wherever it appears on TOL.
As it should be!
Why should I tolerate stupidity? Who profits other than the idiot at my expense?
Glass darkly, not crystal clarity.
You have no way of knowing the difference!
We can see through dark glass with enough light, hence scripture as well as the enlightenment of God's glory and guidance.
Whether darkly or otherwise, the point is that we can, in fact, see and what it properly seen whether darkly or otherwise, IS NOT SELF-CONTRADICTORY! EVER!
Paul's phrasing is not an excuse to accept stupidity as truth, Lon!
I surely acquiesce there is crystal clarity in our faith, I'm merely intimating it isn't all clarity and I yet believe it is nowhere near as clear as Open Theism intimates.
Well, as it seems is now YOUR favorite thing to say, SAYING IT DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!
Of the two of us, it is I who challenge you to prove me wrong while you make a case for how no case can be proven at all.
Simplicity is clear, but it won't work with Algebra, Statistics, or Calculus.
Studity! I literally cannot even figure out what you MIGHT have meant by bringing up mathematics!
We then start with what is clear between us, then consider what is through the dark glass.
There can be no such thing as starting with what is clear when you accept stupidity, irrationality and flagrant self-contradiction as the very definition of what it means to "see through a glass darkly"!
See how that works? A typo can be read though and still clearly understood. Writing sentences with no regard to the rules of the English langage is a different story!
I'm unfamiliar with LCD (not picking, making sure so I don't miss something). I'd imagine allowing demons in is very real, however chaotic the reality. To them, very real, but I'm perhaps missing your intent. I'm not quite catching where you are headed. I think I agree with the intimations, just not quite following and perhaps even this brief response illustrates your point?
Lon, if you accept that "seeing through a glass darkly" gives you cause to accept that some truths might seem irretrievably self-contradictory then you've brought the truth all the way down to the level of a drug induced hallucination. You're saying that the road to enlightenment is to poke your eyes out; that to learn we must shut off our minds. It is spiritual suicide.
Don't bother responding to this post, Lon! I will not read it.
