1. Yes, I get that you put your reason to the "litmus test" of
Scripture, prayer, etc... BUT how do you assess what those things mean?
DO YOU NOT USE YOUR REASON?
2. What do you have or how are you using your reason in ways that are different than what I am doing?
3. What is different from my way and your way?
4. CRAIG: "your underlying premise, (Reason is all we have) remains unproven."
As is the claim that we have some other Thing in addition to Reason, right?
5. What else, in addition to reason, do you use?
1. I use every resource available to me including my reason, scripture, the counsel of others, the accumulated wisdom of my family, my community, as well as the breadth of accumulated wisdom and knowledge from the past. So, as I have said, I use my reason as one part of the process but subordinate it when it disagrees with things I value more highly than my selfish desires. I assess what things mean by using my ability to read and understand the English language. If my reason tells me I should be graceless and derisive and my reading of scrfipture tells me otherwise, then I (should) subordinate my reason to scripture. It's really not that difficult.
2. I am subordinating my personal reasoning to other things or people, not elevating my personal, subjective, fallible, inconsistent, limited, human reason to superiority over other factors.
3. Since this is the exact same question you just asked, worded slightly differently I'm going to point out that you have this incredibly stupid habit of asking the same questions over and over in the same comment. It's pointless, stupid and annoying. I suspect it's a way to allow you to say that I didn't answer all of your questions.
4. No, I have listed things other than reason that are all tools that I use. You, still haven't proven that the claim of fact you use as your underlying premise is actually true.
5. Again, you ask the same question twice in the same comment. It's ridiculous, stupid and petty. But since I've already answered it...
There. Answers to Dan's questions. They are statements. They are not intended as a basis for further conversation, merely as a means to stop the constant harping and to allow Dan to misrepresent other things. I don't really care if these answers are satisfactory to Dan, I don't care if his subjective worldview won't allow for this kind of diversity of thought. I don't even make the claim that these are objectively true for others in the same way they are for me.
But, they are answers, and they are the last answers I will give to these question.
It's interesting, the amount of pressure Dan is applying in trying to force me to conform to using his term of choice, "Reason". He's complaining, that my answers aren't enough, of course ignoring the fact that of his 5 questions, two are simply repeating earlier question and one is simply an attempt to draw attention away from his unproven, unsupported, premise which he demands should be accepted without question. Or at least declines to provide any evidence of.
It seems clear that his commitment to rationalism is incredibly strong, so strong that he is willing to go to significant lengths to insist that it is our only option. In his commitment, he is willing to abandon the grace, and benefit of the doubt he claims to give others and is unwilling to even tolerate the possibility that someone would have the temerity not to agree with his unproven, unsupported premise.
With that said, I'm sure that the pressure, lies, and demands will continue unless I simply capitulate and agree to use his terms and his definitions.
It's strange that I (the closed minded , intolerant conservative) am willing to live and let live on this point. Even though I find his worldview, limited, limiting, depressing, nihilistic, and self centered. I find it hard to believe that one could base ones worldview solely and completely on the basis if ones personal, subjective, fallible, limited, human Reason, yet Dan claims to have done just that. Have I been derisive? Demeaning? Ridiculed him? Tried to bully him into conforming with my worldview or into using the terminology I prefer?
It's becoming more clear that this rationalism that Dan is so committed to is something that he holds very deeply and given great value to. It is something so dear to him that in a world where he holds virtually everything else to be subjective, this rationalism is the one objective thing he has to cling to. I can see how it could be a bit scary when people don't blindly accept something that you cling so tightly to, but when you can't even explain why,( out of all the other things you find subjective) this one premise is so far beyond sacred that you can't even entertain the need to provide evidence for is a bit disconcerting.
In conclusion Dan, I am well aware that you can read and comprehend English, so any further attempts at coercion or bullying will simply indicate that you have chosen to not read this entire post or that you have chosen to ignore it.
With the revisions above, I've given you all the answer I intend to, additional attempts at shame, coercion, bullying, ridicule and derision will simply be met with me pointing out your unwillingness to read the entire post. I know that you don't like my answer, perhaps your don't understand it (earlier I compared this to my writing in Urdu or Tagalog). But my answer is my answer, the only choice you have it this point is to continue in pressure, coercion, bullying, derision, and ridicule or to embrace the tolerance, grace, and benefit of the doubt you talk so much about.
Your call, will you embrace grace?
"
I will note that some people - many people - are so heavily invested in
their human ideas and opinions that attacks on those opinions, to them,
feel like attacks on them, or perhaps to their faith."
I will note that this has the appearance of an acute pot/kettle crisis.
