Christianity

[FlashDangerpants]

I do indeed have an ontological and ethical stance which I have often explained as well as I can, and will do so again to anyone who wants to listen. But right now, I won't be sidetracked from challenging you to express your ontological/ethical stance.

I am listening. I am ready.

In the long run you will have to express more of this -- if you wish constructive interchange with me. You have indicated that right now you want something specific from me. What is that?

You mention the problem of shifting populations. You have not expressed your morals regarding this. Either you are a wraithe that can drift above subjectivity, or you evade and mystify your stance on matters ontological/ethical.

We need a specific example to be able to examine the question. I regard the position articulated by Renaud Camus to be thoughtful, decent and also moral. And here I am speaking about the French cultural situation (not necessarily any other one). I am aware of his views and discourse, and I am aware of the political Right and their views on the topic of 'preserving' France and French culture. Establishing that or re-establishing that as a priority and opposing those who have other plans (expanding multiculturalism, expanding immigration, and not putting emphasis on 'reclaiming France' and also frenchness).

I am very much in pro of the communication of ideas on the issue that I outlined above. And believe me that conversation is going on extremely widely in France today. It is an intellectual and a cultural conversation.

I don't know how well you get along with French but here is a good one.

Here is one of a rather eloquent discourse but with subtitles.

These are perspectives and ideas that I have encountered and, in so many ways, have worked to better understand. By and large I definitely agree with them and I definitely regard them as moral and morally defensible.

So I offered you what I think you asked for. Now I ask for an equal amount of discourse explaining your views. And if you wish some explanation as to why you see Camus' of my views as wrong or reprehensible.

No. You can tolerate not knowing and that too is a position. However to have discussions with others we need as subjects to affirm, at least from time to time even if we do so tentatively, or without due attention to reason.

If you were a senseless thing and only if you were a senseless thing would you be unable to affirm.

I sort of get what you are saying. Please develop these thoughts further.

Hermeneutics. To interpret what someone means you need to have a base from which to compare.

I feel uncomfortable reading your posts because I don't like videos, preferring texts. Also because you substitute what other people such as e.g. Camus, or French intellectuals, are saying, not what you yourself believe.One wonders what you are afraid of.

Do you confuse a heuristic device with a claim? This a common error. But it's easily put right during further discussion.

Renaud Camus is not to be confused with Albert.

[Gary Childress]

Wouldn't it be just as hilarious to erect a bronze statue of someone like Maxine Waters or Hillary Clinton? How about Karl Marx? Or a statue symbolizing a doctor at an abortion clinic holding a coat hanger? Pretty funny, no?

I gather that you would rather not engage with me in regard to the many ideas and comments I made in those last posts?

Nothing there of interest? No possibilities for exchange?

What would you like from me? I'll be happy to exchange.

[Lacewing]

If God exists: surely He's a person, but not human, yes?

A person IS a human-being.

Why would a god surely be a person?

Move beyond limited thinking, Henry.

[Belinda]

I am listening. I am ready.

In the long run you will have to express more of this -- if you wish constructive interchange with me. You have indicated that right now you want something specific from me. What is that?


We need a specific example to be able to examine the question. I regard the position articulated by Renaud Camus to be thoughtful, decent and also moral. And here I am speaking about the French cultural situation (not necessarily any other one). I am aware of his views and discourse, and I am aware of the political Right and their views on the topic of 'preserving' France and French culture. Establishing that or re-establishing that as a priority and opposing those who have other plans (expanding multiculturalism, expanding immigration, and not putting emphasis on 'reclaiming France' and also frenchness).

I am very much in pro of the communication of ideas on the issue that I outlined above. And believe me that conversation is going on extremely widely in France today. It is an intellectual and a cultural conversation.

I don't know how well you get along with French but here is a good one.

Here is one of a rather eloquent discourse but with subtitles.

These are perspectives and ideas that I have encountered and, in so many ways, have worked to better understand. By and large I definitely agree with them and I definitely regard them as moral and morally defensible.

So I offered you what I think you asked for. Now I ask for an equal amount of discourse explaining your views. And if you wish some explanation as to why you see Camus' of my views as wrong or reprehensible.


I sort of get what you are saying. Please develop these thoughts further.

Hermeneutics. To interpret what someone means you need to have a base from which to compare.

I feel uncomfortable reading your posts because I don't like videos, preferring texts. Also because you substitute what other people such as e.g. Camus, or French intellectuals, are saying, not what you yourself believe.One wonders what you are afraid of.

Do you confuse a heuristic device with a claim? This a common error. But it's easily put right during further discussion.

Renaud Camus is not to be confused with Albert.

Thanks Flash. I was confused! Renaud Camus: famous for a conspiracy theory about population replacement.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Wouldn't it be just as hilarious to erect a bronze statue of someone like Maxine Waters or Hillary Clinton? How about Karl Marx? Or a statue symbolizing a doctor at an abortion clinic holding a coat hanger? Pretty funny, no?

I gather that you would rather not engage with me in regard to the many ideas and comments I made in those last posts?

Nothing there of interest? No possibilities for exchange?

What would you like from me? I'll be happy to exchange.

Only if you’d like: see the recent posts with various comments. Or are you merely riffing off the word exchange?

[Gary Childress]

I gather that you would rather not engage with me in regard to the many ideas and comments I made in those last posts?

Nothing there of interest? No possibilities for exchange?

What would you like from me? I'll be happy to exchange.

Only if you’d like: see the recent posts with various comments. Or are you merely riffing off the word exchange?

What does "riffing" mean?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I was confused! Renaud Camus: famous for a conspiracy theory about population replacement.

To use the common term ‘conspiracy theory’ is a way to insulate yourself (oneself) from thinking fairly and freely about the actual issue. To understand the issue you’d have to be willing to read, think, ponder those concerns, and to examine and consider the perspectives of those who have those concerns.

Scary words or words that reduce a given concern to stupidity, is another way that concerns and narratives are ‘spun’ negatively.

I admit I am surprised that you wouldn’t have understood this. About this issue but also many others.

My object (speaking for myself) is free thought. Not as easy as one would think.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What does “riffing” mean?

riff (rĭf)
n.
1. Music A short rhythmic phrase, especially one that is repeated in improvisation.
2. A repeated or varied theme, idea, or phrase: gave us another of his riffs on the decline of civilization.
intr.v. riffed, riff·ing, riffs

[Gary Childress]

What does “riffing” mean?

riff (rĭf)
n.
1. Music A short rhythmic phrase, especially one that is repeated in improvisation.
2. A repeated or varied theme, idea, or phrase: gave us another of his riffs on the decline of civilization.
intr.v. riffed, riff·ing, riffs

I see. I've never heard the word used outside of music before. Still not sure what "riffing off the word exchange" means.

[Belinda]

I was confused! Renaud Camus: famous for a conspiracy theory about population replacement.

To use the common term ‘conspiracy theory’ is a way to insulate yourself (oneself) from thinking fairly and freely about the actual issue. To understand the issue you’d have to be willing to read, think, ponder those concerns, and to examine and consider the perspectives of those who have those concerns.

Scary words or words that reduce a given concern to stupidity, is another way that concerns and narratives are ‘spun’ negatively.

I admit I am surprised that you wouldn’t have understood this. About this issue but also many others.

My object (speaking for myself) is free thought. Not as easy as one would think.

Conspiracy stories are improbable explanations. Certainly I recommend thinking about and evaluating improbable stories, including the intention of the author. Sometimes we should explain why a story is improbable. So called conspiracy theories are simplistic and paranoid.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Conspiracy stories are improbable explanations. Certainly I recommend thinking about and evaluating improbable stories, including the intention of the author. Sometimes we should explain why a story is improbable. So called conspiracy theories are simplistic and paranoid.

Your interposed term was ‘conspiracy theory’. It is not a term I would use. It is a term that has become defunct.

You are interposing that term as a tactic to avoid considering the reasoned position of those, like Renaud Camus, and others.

That is your prerogative. I do not recommend shutting down any investigation of an social issue through that means.

Your decision to do that surprises me.

[Alexis Jacobi]

double post

[iambiguous]

Did John Calvin Believe in Free Will?
MATTHEW BARRETT at the TGC website

Willful Captivity

Does [the above] mean that Calvin does affirm “free will”? If by freedom one means, as Pighius argues, that man’s will is in no way determined but that man has the self-power to will good or evil toward God (what is today titled libertarian freedom), so that by his own strength he can equally will either, then free will is rejected by Calvin.

That's when some here will start insisting that nothing of what we opine about any of this is really philosophically relevant until we first define what we mean by words like free will, determinism and compatibilism.

Or how we define God?

So, I would then interject, given a particular experience that Calvin might have encountered himself, what did he affirm as a manifestation of how he defined free will, determinism and compatibilism? And what if others defined them differently? How would we go about pinning down the optimal definition? And how does that relate to the manner in which different people define God differently?

Connecting the dots between those words and the world we lived in...and the world we interact with others in.

But if by free will one means, as Augustine maintained, that man wills out of voluntary necessity (not coercion) then willful choice can be affirmed.

Again, pinning down the exact definition of necessity and coercion so as to precisely differentiate them...given a particular situation?

In any event, ever and always keep all of this up in the clouds of abstraction:

Nevertheless, even if man wills out of necessity it is only a necessity to sin prior to effectual grace. “For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity wills in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity.”

Got that? Something to with how each of us understands "in our head" the existential bond between an omniscient God and human autonomy? And the existential bond between human autonomy and Original Sin?

Therefore, the bondage of the will to sin remains and yet such slavery is a voluntary and willful captivity. For example, consider the Devil himself. The Devil can only do evil all of the time and yet he is fully culpable for his actions and commits them voluntarily though out of necessity.

What could be clearer?

Now all we need from Christians here is for them to note specific examples of how all of this plays out in regard to the behaviors that they choose.

As for the Devil only being able to do evil but still being culpable for doing evil?

Come again?

Besides, if God is omnipotent, the Devil doing evil can only be construed as part of His mysterious ways. As with Judas Iscariot betraying Christ. Otherwise, He had the power to stop Judas and the Devil from doing what they did. Allowing them to be able to do good instead.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What does “riffing” mean?

riff (rĭf)
n.
1. Music A short rhythmic phrase, especially one that is repeated in improvisation.
2. A repeated or varied theme, idea, or phrase: gave us another of his riffs on the decline of civilization.
intr.v. riffed, riff·ing, riffs

I see. I've never heard the word used outside of music before. Still not sure what "riffing off the word exchange" means.

Forget about it Gary. I don’t think you are interested in communication on the topics of my last few posts to you.

[FlashDangerpants]

Conspiracy stories are improbable explanations. Certainly I recommend thinking about and evaluating improbable stories, including the intention of the author. Sometimes we should explain why a story is improbable. So called conspiracy theories are simplistic and paranoid.

Your interposed term was ‘conspiracy theory’. It is not a term I would use. It is a term that has become defunct.

You are interposing that term as a tactic to avoid considering the reasoned position of those, like Renaud Camus, and others.

That is your prerogative. I do not recommend shutting down any investigation of an social issue through that means.

Your decision to do that surprises me.

He theorises that there is a conspiracy organised by "elites" to replace white Europeans with racially inferior brown people who are easier to control and manipulate.

That's why these things are called conspiracy theories, it references the conspiratorial theorising they involve. It's direct, it's accurate, and it's not going to stop just because some of you tinfoil behatted weirdos feel maligned.