Is there any wonder......

Do not confuse your ignorance of history and the origins of your religious beliefs for harassment and ridicule.

Regardless of what you call yourself the origins of your spiritual practices are rooted in Montanism.

Montanism was considered heresy by orthadox Christianity

Montanists were persecuted back in the day.

Sound familiar ?

 

When you approach me with ridiculing and demeaning remarks such as the above highlighted text: Yes! Because you have a history of attacking Christians in that same manner, I have determined to view all of your postings as being one of ridicule, harassment, and lacking in integrity.

Now, because you desire to make such attacks regarding your claim of my 'ignorance of history'... let us move forward and speak of your profound ignorance of spirituality.

Take 2 seconds and tell us all you know about spirituality.

 

I forgot to post the link .. my apologies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanism

I have pointed out evil. If some of this evil has been conducted by people Christians that does not mean I am attacking all Christians. This is your imagination.

I have not ridiculed you or demeaned you in any way. The belief you follow has its origins in Montanism. I am not sure why you would find that demeaning.

That the Church considered Montanism heresy is not my fault, just historical fact. Why do you consider this historical fact ridicule ?

Tertullian was the oldest extant writer to use the term "trinity" while he was a Montanist. The orthadox church considered the trinity heresy at that time.

Later on the Church accepted Tertullian's version of the trinity as doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian

Why is it that you feel ridiculed by being associated with Montanism ?

 

Now that the thread has been thoroughly disrupted by off-topic BS, let us get back to the topic of this thread:
".... why there is so much contention on this forum and all the other forums? Well, let me suggest that the contentions are due to the large number of differing and sometimes opposing philosophies that are being incorporated and subsequently the forum or even a single thread within a forum will engage in a volley of arguments hoping to win favor and prestige above all the others on that forum or thread.

To show an example of what I am talking about.... see here for a list of a large number of recognized philosophies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies

Interesting, without even using that scroll bar, you will see Atheism and Christianity listed. Clicking on either will show that they stand in opposition to one another. Further down on the list is the Philosophy of Science. So, like I said previously... we are using differing philosophies and subsequently differing forms of logic."

Can anyone offer any input into this matter that is supported by empirical evidence on one side of the fence or the other, yet remaining on topic?

 

Is there any particular point that has caught your attention causing you to say "interesting"? Just curious.

 

Good advice saintmichaeldefendthem: I am beginning to see the WISDOM of your choice of action. On the other hand, I am a very hard headed person, and able to endure until the Lord says enough is enough,, then I turn the matter over to the Lord and allow Him to handle the matter according to the ways that were accomplished in Psalms. But I like and respect that advice you offer.

 

What specific hope or hopes does your world have? What particular and specific understanding does your world hold?

 

Hey wolverine... did you perhaps overlook this thread and the question above?

 

There are no different forms of logic which apply to different philosophies, either the argument follows logic or not.

"Differing forms of logic" isn't really the problem, rather the lack of logic or reasoning skills, and disagreement about the premises.

Oh, and of course the notorious lack of comprehension skills displayed in a number of posts.

 

If Incorporeal uses a different kind of logic then the problem is only that he thinks it's a good thing

 

Your entire argument is lost in your opening sentence.
http://educationalphilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/05/forms-of-logic.html
Have a nice day.

 

Read the article you linked to.

I have not posed an argument, but made statements - none which is contradicted by the article. dooh!

 

Do yourslef a favor and study just a tiny little bit.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/structure.html

 

Read the article yet?
No? Oh my...

 

Still throwing out your presumptions without any evidence to support the presumptions... par for the course. You see, you have no way of determining what I actually think. You lost again.

 

Oh my... Well of course I read it before I posted it.

 

Oh, I forgot to add earlier that one needs to utilise the "Verstand" to grasp what the article says.

 

That is such an astute observation on your part. Amazing

 

Have you attained that Understanding yet?

 

Have you?

Then kindly correct your mistake.

 

Well of course I have. Now why don't you be the cute little child and explain to daddy why you think there is a mistake. Come on, talk to daddy.