Harold's powerless, impotent, amoral god.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Mike, maybe you've missed the dozens upon dozens (hundreds?) of posts Harold and I've made back and forth on these issues over the years, but I honestly don't know how you could be so seemingly clueless about why he posts what he posts and why I post what I post. In any event I think you should have waited and given him a shot at me first. But hey, maybe that's your "alternative view" of proper forum netiquette.

And this is where the response ends out disproportionate to the cause. What I am saying is that you quote from one of his posts and make broad statements about what it all means, not just that you have a problem with those particular statements.

Your response reminds me of the person who has listened to a whole lot of different things that were deemed to be going wrong, but did not comment, then finally the dam breaks and everything that was ever wrong with everything is dumped onto the present situation. While it is popular to discuss the straw that broke the camel's back, in reasoned discussion, you can't do it that way. You have to take on each issue discretely. Having done that, you can then bring a number of them together to make statements.

But this discussion starts cold with a post from another thread, followed by a statement that defines in rather absolute terms, the nature of the G(g)od that Harold believes in. I see the same things you do and I find that despite the amount of rhetoric that could support that position, I also see some that does not. Therefore the blanket declarations you made as fact are disputable.

And don't forget that when you blow-up at a coworker, spouse, friend about one somewhat small thing because of what you have kept buried inside, you are often the one that seems off kilter.

And what you did looks nothing like a discussion. More like an ambush. You want to discuss any of those items? Provide a specific quote (enough to be sure it is not out of context) and tell what that quote seems to be saying to you.

And I can assure you that a quote about the nature of orthodoxy ("right thinking") does tend to be dogmatic and unbending. As people we are too prone to fight for what we think is true without really considering any contrary ideas. If you don't actually consider other ideas then you can't really say you have right thinking. You can only clearly say that you have the thinking you want to have.

But this small quote about "right thinking" does not support a statement of "blind, deaf and dumb god who's only virtue is that he loves everything and everyone unconditionally." That is a non sequitur. Sort of like some of the jokes going around when I was in Jr High.

Q: What's the difference between a motorcycle?
A: A telephone pole because a tree has no doors.

Disjointed gibberish.

No what you wrote was not meaningless. But it was not connected to what you went to great lengths to set up to topple.

I hate to say it, but the way you approached responding to a statement about orthodoxy and rigid thinking was more of an ad hominem or a strawman.

And that is the entire premise of the first post setting up the contents of a new thread.

I don't care how much I wish Harold would be more focused and at least rational in his responses rather than seeming to be out to be the fly in every tub of ointment. If you want to have a discussion about the nature of God/god, then do that. Don't just show up to declare that someone has said it. You need to prove it. Not just point to "all the previous posts over a lot of time."

That is the kind of thing that Lee did to get us to accept that he was right about whatever. He used it on the meaning of economy in The Economy of God. (paraphrased)"If you look through the whole of scripture you will see that . . . ." Where? Show me one example. Don't just say it is so. And don't put up a quote that really has nothing to do with it.