@philokalia saidIt's interesting to see how often your contributions to these personal and basically inconsequential conversations rarely, if ever, extend much beyond an appeal to authority. I realize it is a common logical fallacy for people to use, especially religionists, but it is odd to see how often you seem to limit yourself to it. You even use it on non-believers, which is even odder.
Your heresy is not alleged. It's absolutely factual by the canons of the Orthodox or Catholic church, and the statements of faith and doctrines found in every single Protestant church I really know of.
@fmf saidOdder still is the presumption that ones own contributions, ideas and thoughts are anything more than his/her own opinions.
It's interesting to see how often your contributions to these personal and basically inconsequential conversations rarely, if ever, extend much beyond an appeal to authority. I realize it is a common logical fallacy for people to use, especially religionists, but it is odd to see how often you seem to limit yourself to it. You even use it on non-believers, which is even odder.
Appealing to an authority, in this case God the highest of all authority, is the only logical thing to do when in pursuit of truth.
If one doesn't believe or know or think there is an absolute and immutable source of truth, then one is confined to the ultimate fallacy of appealing to the authority of mortal men, which is indicative of irrational pride.
@secondson saidI disagree. On a diverse message board like this, sharing opinions is all anyone can do. Appeal to authority - in this case something like "the Catholic Church" - seems to be a bit of a logical fallacy. If your opinion is that something is "heresy", what's the scripture? What's the interpretation? What are the consequences? Why is it "heresy"? Resort to argumentum ad verecundiam seems a bit weak.
Odder still is the presumption that ones own contributions, ideas and thoughts are anything more than his/her own opinions.
Appealing to an authority, in this case God the highest of all authority, is the only logical thing to do when in pursuit of truth.
If one doesn't believe or know or think there is an absolute and immutable source of truth, then one is confined t ...[text shortened]... timate fallacy of appealing to the authority of mortal men, which is indicative of irrational pride.
@fmf saidI agree in the main, but like everyone else I consider my opinions better informed. That's my opinion.
I disagree. On a diverse message board like this, sharing opinions is all anyone can do. Appeal to authority - in this case something like "the Catholic Church" - seems to be a bit of a logical fallacy. If your opinion is that something is "heresy", what's the scripture? What's the interpretation? What are the consequences? Why is it "heresy"? Resort to argumentum ad verecundiam seems a bit weak.
Why? Because I appeal to an authority greater than any. If such an absolute and immutable authority does exist, then "argumentum ad verecundiam" is become null and void.
And since this is a diverse message board I can claim that as both my opinion and my modus operandi.
Appealing to authority is a fundamental principle in virtually all of this life's operations from the civil to the state.
@secondson saidTalking about the "authority" your God is in your eyes is fine. Talking about which verses justify the charge of "heresy" is fine. Asserting your own authority, as it were, based on a Biblical argument is fine. But insisting something is "heresy" because groups like the Catholic Church say so seems an oddly weak way to participate in a conversation supposedly about the nature of that "heresy". If it's "heresy" then what is the argument? ~~~ 'It's "heresy" because the Catholic Church agrees with me' ~~~ ...is not an argument asserting "heresy", it's a logical fallacy called argumentum ad verecundiam.
I agree in the main, but like everyone else I consider my opinions better informed. That's my opinion.
Why? Because I appeal to an authority greater than any. If such an absolute and immutable authority does exist, then "argumentum ad verecundiam" is become null and void.
And since this is a diverse message board I can claim that as both my opinion and my modus operan ...[text shortened]... y is a fundamental principle in virtually all of this life's operations from the civil to the state.
@FMF
Hellfire is hell; it is described as fire, but we are taught in the Orthodox tradition that Heaven is indescribable in human language, and that hell may be similarly indescribable. There are other details as well.
...
The important thing, though, is that Christians use the Bible; I would never "appeal to the Bible" when it comes to you, as you do not accept it as a sort of authority. it would not make sense. We have to argue with things far beyond that.
However, in terms of Dive, he has to actually argue from the basis fo the Bible, or he is a Christian who rejects the Bible -- an even more confusing and strange position, which is probably objectively far more problematic for even atheists to deal with than is a Bible affirming Christian.
--
There isn't that much of a need to dwell on the fact that all Dive can do is say "love" a thousand times, "torture" a thousand times, and then call everything symbolism.
But a question -- do you consider 'heaven' to be pure symbolism, Dive?
@philokalia saidYou have several times in posts to me simply used appeal to authority and cited the Orthodox and Catholic Churches; no argument, no discussion, just your appeal to their authority ~ 'these people agree with me'. It makes no sense.
I would never "appeal to the Bible" when it comes to you, as you do not accept it as a sort of authority. it would not make sense.
@philokalia saidSo in answer to "What is this "hellfire", according to your beliefs? What does it entail?" you're saying you don't really know. Can we add a bit like this: ~~ 'You don't really know, you don't know what it entails, but whatever it is, it is right & true & morally sound [although you won't say why], and the Orthodox and Catholic Churches agree with you' ~~ a fair summation?
Hellfire is hell; it is described as fire
@philokalia saidFrankly speaking, all you and others here seem to be able to do is insist that sometimes stuff is symbolism when it suits you and other times it is not symbolism when it suits you. This discursive Moebius band is starkly clear to a neutral looking in and listening to torturer god ideologues talking to non-torturer god ideologues.
There isn't that much of a need to dwell on the fact that all Dive can do is say "love" a thousand times, "torture" a thousand times, and then call everything symbolism.
@philokalia saidIs "Annihilationism" heretical in your view?
However, in terms of Dive, he has to actually argue from the basis fo the Bible, or he is a Christian who rejects the Bible -- an even more confusing and strange position, which is probably objectively far more problematic for even atheists to deal with than is a Bible affirming Christian.
@fmf saidI do not think that it is if it is some very ultimate, later conclusion, it is necessarily heretical, for there are passages which imply that hell will one day be entirely abolished. However, it is not a standard interpretation that, say, every soul that enters it is very shortly thereafter abolished. But it is definitely less heretical than saying that it does not exist at all.
Is "Annihilationism" heretical in your view?
In regards to your other posts in this vain: I am showing that my interpretations of the Bible are completely in line with what is normally said about it by the absolute leading authorities, which go to show why the viewpoint is literally heretical.
Obviously, anyone can construct a series of arguments where X is all symbolic, and Y is not meant to be interpreted that way, and get the Bible to say whatever you want it to say. But that is not ocnsistent and proper, and it is not part of any of the great traditions within Christianity.
Since we've exhausted the topic of hell and it always goes back to this, I think it is succinct to just summarize it that way.
The fact that you are not persuaded by it is hardly of concern to me.
This is a theological discussion, and the Bible and major authorities of the Bible are going to be relevant to the discussion, whereas some atheist trying to "square one" us on the idea that there is no God and that thi sis all irrelevant is just not that relevant to us.
No, I do not need to spend 1000 words of every interaction on the Spirituality forum accounting for atheism -- especially when this is all about someone who identifies as Christian.
You just aren't the center of this discussion.
@philokalia saidWhy? You haven't said "...why the viewpoint is literally heretical" and have only said that there is an "authority" that agrees with you.
I am showing that my interpretations of the Bible are completely in line with what is normally said about it by the absolute leading authorities, which go to show why the viewpoint is literally heretical.
@philokalia saidFair enough. I don't see any sonhouse threads on the top page. Maybe you mean sonship. I'll take a look.
I have stated why that is the case not long ago here, and Sonhouse is doing a thread on it that is very active right now, a thread which KellyJay has also been very active in.
The horse has been beaten to death.
@divegeester saidBump for philokalia.
Firstly I don’t recognise the cannons of the orthodox or Catholic Churches as being anything other that a construct of corporate religiosity.
Secondly, I’m pretty sure that in both of those It requires that in order to accuse someone of heresy you need to put together a documented case. Have you put together a documented case Jacob?
I have made many cases that wha ...[text shortened]... s you are a gutless intellectual weed.
Edit: Here you go Jacob Thread 178755 page 7
I guess you decided to run away again.