A RESPONSE TO THOMAS KELLY (Religion)

by dhw, Monday, June 04, 2012, 13:47 (4565 days ago) @ Thomas Kelly

THOMAS (2 June at 1.49): I haven't examined your replies completely and I may have something to settle this.-THOMAS (3 June @ 21.27): I haven't examined your last post completely. It looks like you didn't answer suitably the questions put to you. Will you answer those questions ? Each one. Then we may see the truth of things.-Thomas, if you cannot be bothered to examine my posts before replying but are only prepared to follow your own lines of thought, there is no point in continuing this discussion.-By answering "suitably", I presume you mean giving the answers you want, but I hear loud alarm bells when you talk of "the truth of things". -The only unanswered questions (sometimes difficult to follow) that I have found in your previous post appear to concern 1) what I as an ignorant wrongdoer desire for myself. I agree that I am ignorant on many subjects, but I do not identify myself with the term "wrongdoer". For myself and also for others, regardless of ignorance, I desire happiness. I do not consider biblical finger-wagging relevant to my quest. 2) Do the authorities have the right motivations to protect people? Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. 3) Is resentment the right motivation? No.-Perhaps you will now do me the courtesy of examining my replies completely and responding to them.-*******-I have just seen your latest post:-dhw,
You put.
"Thomas quoted Matthew's advice to love, bless, serve, pray for, benefit etc. our enemies, which I suggested was impractical in certain circumstances. Thomas now says "it becomes a judgement of the loss and gain of lives in a defence of mankind", and there may be "a defence of using force for preservation." So you are now telling me what I was telling you: Matthew's advice requires qualification. What, I wonder, was the point of quoting it in the first place?"
You may look at what you quoted in my answers to the questions of your original post. I have done no wrong. You may look at a post on this website in this forum from the link below and some information is near bottom of the post.http://www.agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=10084
I may answer about Matthew's advice and loss and gain of people later, you may have enough to do in answering the questions you didn't answer suitably.-Thomas, this discussion is becoming pointless. I did not say you had done wrong. I said you were now telling me what I had told you ... namely that Matthew's quote required qualification, and I did not understand why you quoted it in the first place. I see you have now referred us to yet another mini-sermon on yet another subject (Faith and Reason***) from your favourite book, once more pretending to invite discussion by asking "true or false"? I must ask you to stop this practice, please. We are limited to highlighting the last 40 posts, and it would be unfair to others if you monopolized the space simply by posting chapter after chapter and sermon after sermon.-*** Of course I have no objection to this as a subject for genuine discussion. ----