Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if the people who talked the most about "agape" actually demonstrated it, then it would have more credibility. they may "specify" it but that is not the same as putting it into action here on the forum.
THAT is what creates the confusion. It is not a lack of "understanding." It is a lack of seeing it demonstrated by those who bang that drum the loudest.
And precisely what you are talking about is that you are not getting the "warm fuzzies' you are so hung up on. What you ARE getting is a dose of then truth you NEED to come to an understanding of what is needed for an honest, loving relationship with God and man and you don't like it.
Tell that to people like Tzaph who actually think that it is part of critical thinking. She actually engages in it in the first part of her explanation of it and then compounds the error by expounding on why character assassination (she calls it evaluating and examining the source) is an essential part of critical thinking! Nowhere in her understanding of critical thinking is any concern for the validity or internal consistency of the content being presented.
QED!!!!
Your hubris exceeds any bounds given your lack of knowledge of the underlying science involved. "Never" produce "valid" results???? You are free to be skeptical of them but to pronounce what they NEVER can be is supercilious and overbearing! More superciliousness given your lack of knowledge, Arq, especially since you have NOT shown at any time even that you understand it at all, let alone better than I do. But you DO repeatedly assert these asinine claims along with fantasies about debunkings. Get some help, old friend.
i have pointed out to you a number of double standards.
A double standard is just that =a lack of internal consistency of the content being presented.
That is part of critical thinking. That is part of evaluating the credibility of the source.
thus far you have not responded to most of them.
Gaylen and Trans enter into discussion on such points. What ensues is a conversation. That is a discussion. That is rational discourse. We still may end up disagreeing which is fine but at least there is a back and forth, listening, questions, responding.
i think there could be some equally engaging conversation with you but you are so quick to jump to words like "overbearing" "supercilious" "asinine" "fantasies" "character assassiation" "hubris" which are both disrespectful and conversation stoppers.
never mind the repeated refrain of "agape love" playing in the background like a stuck record. another instance of lack of internal consistency
in defense of Trans he has a very good grasp of topics. he researches deeply and he thinks into things deeply and he shows up for the conversation with a good faith participating. He recognizes the importance of not talking down to people. He asks questions for clarification and he actually listens to what people say and he is articulate and clear in his posts.
Tell that to people like Tzaph who actually think that it is part of critical thinking. She actually engages in it in the first part of her explanation of it and then compounds the error by expounding on why character assassination (she calls it evaluating and examining the source) is an essential part of critical thinking! Nowhere in her understanding of critical thinking is any concern for the validity or internal consistency of the content being presented.
QED!!!!
Your hubris exceeds any bounds given your lack of knowledge of the underlying science involved. "Never" produce "valid" results???? You are free to be skeptical of them but to pronounce what they NEVER can be is supercilious and overbearing! More superciliousness given your lack of knowledge, Arq, especially since you have NOT shown at any time even that you understand it at all, let alone better than I do. But you DO repeatedly assert these asinine claims along with fantasies about debunkings. Get some help, old friend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
I have pointed out to you a number of double standards.
A double standard is just that =a lack of internal consistency of the content being presented.
That is part of critical thinking. That is part of evaluating the credibility of the source.
You have NOT addressed any ACTUAL content. You have addressed what you see as my lack of consistency in promoting agape love in my posts versus demonstrating it in the tone and tenor of my responses to posters. That focuses on my character (that you apparently do not approve of) and has nothing to do with critical thinking and analysis of the ACTUAL content of the issues under discussion.
Quote:
i think there could be some equally engaging conversation with you but you are so quick to jump to words like "overbearing" "supercilious" "asinine" "fantasies" "character assassination" "hubris" which are both disrespectful and conversation stoppers.
never mind the repeated refrain of "agape love" playing in the background like a stuck record. another instance of lack of internal consistency
I have responded to any actual content you have ever presented,, but there has been very little. it is all criticisms of me, my language, my tone, and tenor, etc,.etc. as in the above. QED.
Quote:
in defense of Trans, he has a very good grasp of topics. he researches deeply and he thinks into things deeply and he shows up for the conversation with a good faith participating. He recognizes the importance of not talking down to people. He asks questions for clarification and he actually listens to what people say and he is articulate and clear in his posts.
I respect Arq and he has a fine mind but he lacks significant knowledge, especially in science, and he routinely overestimates his grasp of issues that are clearly over his head. But he will latch on to anyone who claims to have the knowledge he lacks and who then challenges me. He can't actually follow the ensuing explications of the science but automatically assumes I got debunked. It is quite frustrating. What you call talking down to people is simply acknowledging their limitations when discussing extremely complex subject matter.
OK mystic here is an example of a situation , with various responses or approaches we have seen in threads when someone doesn't understand a concept or text or chapter or book.
nate recently mentioned it in this thread there are in his words contradictions in a holy book.
several people including me have had trouble understanding statements you have made mystic.
you mystic have expressed you can't make sense of the book of Ezekiel.
those have a common element. a person doesn't understand what they are reading or hearing.
here are some of the responses we have seen:
tell the person (in so many words) they are too dumb to understand it / deficiency in the reader
the person calls the book they don't understand "nonsense" "LSD drug trip" or not valid / deficiency in the text
explanations are given for what the text is saying / they are rejected the person doesn't like the explanation
a person is invited to ask in another thread / they decline
sometimes the book is attacked with "anti holy book" or "anti religion" remarks
sometimes it is evident the person is frustrated or upset they don't understand what they are reading
sometimes a person demands an explanation and none is given for whatever reason / the person may get upset
those are some examples we've seen. this is not about personalities, it is about internal consistency and trying to avoid a double standard. there will be things we don't understand. there will be things we don't like once we hear the explanations. there will be questions we ask that aren't answered at all, or that we don't like the answer to.
what bothers me is the double standard of being told i'm too dumb to understand an explanation; but when that person doesn't understand something himself he claims the text he doesn't understand is deficient or nonsense or something wrong with it.
You have NOT addressed any ACTUAL content. You have addressed what you see as my lack of consistency in promoting agape love in my posts versus demonstrating it in the tone and tenor of my responses to posters. That focuses on my character (that you apparently do not approve of) and has nothing to do with critical thinking and analysis of the ACTUAL content of the issues under discussion. I have responded to any actual content you have ever presented,, but there has been very little. it is all criticisms of me, my language, my tone, and tenor, etc,.etc. as in the above. QED. I respect Arq and he has a fine mind but he lacks significant knowledge, especially in science, and he routinely overestimates his grasp of issues that are clearly over his head. But he will latch on to anyone who claims to have the knowledge he lacks and who then challenges me. He can't actually follow the ensuing explications of the science but automatically assumes I got debunked. It is quite frustrating. What you call talking down to people is simply acknowledging their limitations when discussing extremely complex subject matter.
there you are doing it right now.
i'm calling you on double standard.
book of Ezekiel.
if you are going to say Trans and others including me "they lack significant knowledge and have limitations when discussing extremely complex subject matter" then you yourself "lack significant knowledge and you yourself have limitations when discussing extremely complex subject matter" book of Ezekiel. It is one of the most complex books there is. You are "clearly over your head" on concepts you "can't actually follow."
OR - if you dismiss it as "nonsense" "LSD drug trip" then that applies to your speculative ideas. They too are "nonsense" and "LSD drug trip."
OR it could be that you don't have the skill to explain your ideas in a coherent manner. It's on you Mystic to communicate. if you can't do that it remains incoherent gobbledegook, your inflated sense of your own knowledge notwithstanding.
now apply it to Nate. He said a few posts ago there are contradictions in a book. are you going to tell him he is "clearly over his head" with material that he "can't actually follow." are you going to tell Nate he "lacks significant knowledge when discussing extremely complex subject matter." or will you find something wrong with the book since Nate finds contradictions. Which would mean your concepts are defective because people find contradictions in your material.
Do you see the double standard?
and yes double standard is indicative of a lack of critical thinking. and a lack of rational thinking.
it is not "character" it is an aspect of how credible a source is. if a source declines to recognize, address, remedy a double standard, then they lack critical thinking and it is irrational behavior.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-28-2018 at 09:07 PM..
I like this video. I would enjoy hearing Tza's response to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
Here is one definition of critical thinking:
"Critical thinking is that mode of thinking — about any subject, content, or problem — in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing it. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking.
"It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities, as well as a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism"
I don't disagree with this definition of critical thinking, but I don't find it quite as useful as I would like. Too many of the terms are, themselves, in need of a great deal of clarification. Take "skillfully analyzing" for example. Yes, of course, skillful analysis is great. Nobody consciously strives for sloppy analysis. "Rigorous standards of excellence" are, well...excellent! But what are the criteria a for being rigorous or excellent? I'm feeling unsatisfied, so I'm going to see if I can zero in on what I think are some key features of critical thinking that are shared by most of the people who are trying to define and explain critical thinking (whether they explicitly say so, or not).
(1) A willingness to discover that some of your beliefs and assumptions need to be changed. I'm giving this the honor or #1 because it is absolutely essential to critical thinking. It is certainly best if this is an explicitly conscious willingness - an attitude of discovery, rather than an attitude of "I already know with certainty that X has to be true and now I'm going to prove that X is true to everyone else." Sometimes it is possible for someone to be dragged kicking and screaming toward the feeling that some cherished prior belief may be wrong. This starts off as overconfidence - a feeling that it is impossible for any contrary view to infect my mind, so I can safely study the opposing views without fear of unsavory contaminations. This was me reading things like Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible when I was in high school (shortly after reading the Bible and realizing that there was some crazy stuff in there). The more I read, pro and con, the more I came to realize that I didn't really know much at all about the ultimate truths of reality. I guess that unconsciously my mind was more willing to accept contrary evidence than I consciously realized. In any case, some sort of willingness must have been there somewhere, because eventually I did change my views. (BTW: Although the process can be uncomfortable, finding out that I have to give up some old beliefs in order to adopt some new beliefs is always vastly more interesting than finding out that I was right all along. If I find that I am right about too many things, I tend to grow a bit bored and restless and, eventually, a little suspicious.
(2) A willingness - indeed, preferably, a flat-out desire - to study the best argument on BOTH (or ALL sides) of the contentious issue that you are trying to think critically about. This, too, is essential. You almost never understand any issue as well as you think you do, but you are a total goofball if you think you've earned a blackbelt in some issue by beating up a bunch of strawmen. There is way too much information out there to study everything, which is why it is crucial to pick at least some examples from the best and the strongest arguments on all sides. If you are not feeling much desire to find the best and strongest arguments that make you the most uncomfortable, then this is a good indication that you already failed back there at step #1.
(3) When trying to think critically about X, try to identify the assumptions that underlie your beliefs about X, and then adopt an attitude of skepticism toward each of these assumptions. This is where studying the best argument for/against X become helpful. For most important issues, some people have spent lifetimes trying to identify the relevant assumptions. Stand on their shoulders. This will give you a chance to see what they saw and, with luck, maybe even see a bit further.
(4) Try to think of some ways to collect evidence for or against X. If you can't think of any way to collect evidence, then articulate a good argument for why it is okay to believe X, even though there can't be and/or does not have to be any evidence for X.
(5) Do a bunch of the other stuff that critical-thinking advocates suggest (logical analysis, creativity, synthesis, mindfulness - especially mindfulness...that's a really good one - etc.)
You have NOT addressed any ACTUAL content. You have addressed what you see as my lack of consistency in promoting agape love in my posts versus demonstrating it in the tone and tenor of my responses to posters. That focuses on my character (that you apparently do not approve of) and has nothing to do with critical thinking and analysis of the ACTUAL content of the issues under discussion. I have responded to any actual content you have ever presented,, but there has been very little. it is all criticisms of me, my language, my tone, and tenor, etc,.etc. as in the above. QED. ...
and those are all indicators of how credible a source is. a credible source is able to engage in rational discourse. if they are behaving in an irrational manner (hostility, name calling, pejoratives) that is not rational discourse.
it is not just content. for a source to be credible and demonstrate critical thinking they need to be able to engage in rational discourse.
did you see the post with elements of critical thinking? it includes integrity, consideration of others, humbleness, and self improvement among other things. i think it is an excellent guide. clearly it is more than just content.
I don't disagree with this definition of critical thinking, but I don't find it quite as useful as I would like. Too many of the terms are, themselves, in need of a great deal of clarification.
i agree. the second post i posted on critical thinking a few posts after that one i like much better, it was more detailed and explicit, i found it much more helpful
OK mystic here is an example of a situation, with various responses or approaches we have seen in threads when someone doesn't understand a concept or text or chapter or book.
nate recently mentioned it in this thread there are in his words contradictions in a holy book.
several people including me have had trouble understanding statements you have made mystic.
you mystic have expressed you can't make sense of the book of Ezekiel.
those have a common element. a person doesn't understand what they are reading or hearing.
here are some of the responses we have seen:
tell the person (in so many words) they are too dumb to understand it / deficiency in the reader
the person calls the book they don't understand "nonsense" "LSD drug trip" or not valid / deficiency in the text
explanations are given for what the text is saying / they are rejected the person doesn't like the explanation
a person is invited to ask in another thread / they decline
sometimes the book is attacked with "anti-holy book" or "anti-religion" remarks
sometimes it is evident the person is frustrated or upset they don't understand what they are reading
sometimes a person demands an explanation and none is given for whatever reason / the person may get upset
those are some examples we've seen. this is not about personalities, it is about internal consistency and trying to avoid a double standard. there will be things we don't understand. there will be things we don't like once we hear the explanations. there will be questions we ask that aren't answered at all, or that we don't like the answer to.
what bothers me is the double standard of being told i'm too dumb to understand an explanation; but when that person doesn't understand something himself he claims the text he doesn't understand is deficient or nonsense or something wrong with it.
Sorry if I have not been complete in my responses to you, Tzaph. I will try to do better. I do not accuse anyone of being too dumb to understand, but I DO question the level of knowledge someone has when their responses indicate a lack of actual knowledge of the subject. I believe you have misidentified the book I have issues with. It is Revelation NOT Ezekiel. My comments about it reflect my intellectual impression of its content. It is very reminiscent of descriptions I have read of bad LSD trips and other drug-induced ramblings. That is simply being honest. The symbolic references I have seen purporting to explain the "revelations" have ranged from extremely unconvincing to ridiculous fantasies. You may not agree with my impressions but they are honest and sincere. Revelation can be interesting but anyone who claims to definitively understand it is not being honest with themselves. Below is what I consider a rational symbolic interpretation of Daniel's dream.
Understand, Tzaph, I am not averse to symbolic interpretation and I have engaged in it with the dreams of David (which are similarly symbolic). I see them as references to religions, NOT worldly kingdoms or other fanciful interpretations because it is claimed they emanated from Heaven and are supposed to presage the end of the world which has NOT yet ended. A secular contemporaneous historical analysis is a common misuse of scriptures which is why I reject the myriad interpretations of Revelation. Scriptures are inspirations recorded primarily to aid our consciousnesses in understanding God and our ultimate purpose NOT to provide a historical or anthropological description of our past or future! We should NOT be looking for the secular significance of what is written. We should always seek out the spiritual significance since scripture is dedicated to revelations of religious significance rather than secular significance.
Using Daniel as worldly prophesy, you would have had to exclude Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome from contention as the beasts (kingdoms) because despite its successes Rome did NOT devour the whole earth (and the world has not ended). Since no other "kingdom" has yet dominated the world, the vision must refer to things unfulfilled so no reasonable symbolic relationships could be attached to any other secular kingdoms. It is also far more likely that it is a religious "kingdom" that Christ will preside over since God's kingdom is within and the idea of actual worldly kingdoms is gradually disappearing from human society.
The prophecies in Daniel are repeatedly referred to in discussions of the end days.
Daniel 12:4 King James Version (KJV)
4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
Daniel 12:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
Daniel 2:28 King James Version (KJV)
28 But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these;
Daniel 8:19 King James Version (KJV)
19 And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.
Daniel's dream about the four beasts in Daniel 7 is controversial because people keep trying to use a carnal and secular historical bias instead of a spiritual perspective for interpretation. Secular kingdoms are NOT the focus of Daniel's dream in Daniel 7. The Bible is first and foremost a spiritual book. Our consciousnesses are on a spiritual quest, not a carnal secular one.
It is much easier to draw symbolic spiritual connections to Daniel’s dream using as "kingdoms" the religious faiths that have emerged and persist even to this day. It is also important to remember that the order of appearance in the dream has nothing to do with the order of appearance historically. Linear time sequences were NOT part of the mindset of Daniel and our ancient ancestors . . . the character and specifics ALONE identify the "kingdoms" . . . NOT the order of appearance.
Daniel 7 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)
From Daniel 7:2, the origin of the beasts,
. . . And behold the four winds of heaven strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts, different one from another, came up out of the sea.
Thus, the origin of the beasts is heaven, a logical source of religious beliefs.
From Daniel 7:4,
. . . The first was like a lioness and had the wings of an eagle: I beheld till her wings were plucked off and she was lifted up from the earth, and stood upon her feet as a man, and the heart of a man was given to her.
This would be a reference to Judaism (the lion of Juda) from whom the wings of eternity were plucked and the heart of Jesus was given to her in crucifixion.
From Daniel 7:5,
. . . and behold another beast like a bear stood up on one side: and there were three rows in the mouth thereof, and in the teeth thereof, and thus they said to it: Arise, devour much flesh.
This is a reference to Islam, (the bear of Persia) and the rows of teeth are the offshoots of it. Indeed, the holy war or Jihad that established Islam "devoured much flesh" and it continues to do so.
From Daniel 7:6,
. . . After this I beheld, and lo, another like a leopard, and it had upon it four wings as of a fowl, and the beast had four heads, and power was given to it.
The four heads immediately bring to mind Brahmanism (the leopard of India). Originally five heads were assigned to Brahma, but one was destroyed by Siva. The four heads symbolize the main offshoots of it. The power that was given to it was probably the Taoist philosophy or the way of life which stresses charity (agape love). The wings most likely symbolize the capability of each offshoot for flight into heaven.
From Daniel 7:7,
. . . After this I beheld in the vision of the night, and lo, a fourth beast, terrible and wonderful, and exceeding strong, it had great iron teeth, eating and breaking in pieces, and treading down the rest with its feet.
This would be the Christianity of Roman Catholicism, (the Iron of the industrial revolution) and the eating and breaking in pieces, signifies the splitting into various "Protestant" sects that it has been undergoing during its spread throughout the world.
From Daniel 7:23
23And thus he said: The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be greater than all the kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
<snip>
From Daniel 7:28
28 Hitherto is the end of the Word.
The phrase "end of the Word," since the Word is God (John 1:1) would seem to further corroborate this general line of interpretation. Since the fourth beast is Christianity . . . which seems to have special significance, e.g. "shall devour the whole earth" . . . I am confident that Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 01-28-2018 at 09:13 PM..
You have NOT addressed any ACTUAL content. You have addressed what you see as my lack of consistency in promoting agape love in my posts versus demonstrating it in the tone and tenor of my responses to posters. That focuses on my character (that you apparently do not approve of) and has nothing to do with critical thinking and analysis of the ACTUAL content of the issues under discussion. I have responded to any actual content you have ever presented,, but there has been very little. it is all criticisms of me, my language, my tone, and tenor, etc,.etc. as in the above. QED. I respect Arq and he has a fine mind but he lacks significant knowledge, especially in science, and he routinely overestimates his grasp of issues that are clearly over his head. But he will latch on to anyone who claims to have the knowledge he lacks and who then challenges me. He can't actually follow the ensuing explications of the science but automatically assumes I got debunked. It is quite frustrating. What you call talking down to people is simply acknowledging their limitations when discussing extremely complex subject matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
there you are doing it right now.
i'm calling you on double standard.
Everything I said about Arq, is true based on his own expressed lack of knowledge and his incessant pretense to debunkings of what he clearly does NOT understand. I have explained my position on the book of Revelation (NOT Ezekiel) and presented what I would consider a rational explanation of the symbolism in Daniel's dream with my reasons explained. Revelation defies my ability to explain the symbolism rationally and none of the explanations I have seen are remotely rational. Of course, you understand I do not consider anything magical to be rational.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
