A RESPONSE TO THOMAS KELLY (Religion)

by Thomas Kelly , Monday, June 04, 2012, 16:56 (4553 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Monday, June 04, 2012, 17:42

dhw,-You put.-"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."-You didn't answer suitably the questions of my answers to your first post.-You put.-"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"."-Why did you "hear loud alarm bells" ?-As for answering suitably, you may if you have enough knowledge of what you've been asked which it appeared you didn't and you may see how below.-You put.-"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"." -You've not understood what I put and I'm not convinced you have enough knowledge of language. You may read again below.-"If wrongdoers did not receive the knowledge and wisdom as they grew from being babies and in childhood have been ignorant in their living and you were in that situation, judging by the command in Matthew 7:12 from above, what do you desire for you, that ignorant person ?"-The part started with the word "If" and was the start of reasoning of a an unreal situation to discuss. The word "If" shows the doubt in comparing the unknown pasts. So in the question was a desire to cause a comparison of what may be a wrongdoers past and reason of it being yours and not saying it was. -You put-"For myself and also for others, regardless of ignorance, I desire happiness. I do not consider biblical finger-wagging relevant to my quest."-Why did you tell me about biblical finger-wagging ? There may be happiness in the knowledge and wisdom of God. This part of your reply made me reason of if you have looked at and understood my answers to your original post.-You put.-"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.-Partly done.-You put.-"Perhaps you will now do me the courtesy of examining my replies completely and responding to them."-Maybe after you answering the question of comparison of yourself and ignorant wrongdoer I will.-*******-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.-You put.-"Thomas, this discussion is becoming pointless. I did not say you had done wrong."-I didn't say you said I had done wrong . I put "I have done no wrong". I told you of my judgement of myself. -You put.-"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."-That was similar to what I thought.-You put.-"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"? Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain what you yourself hope to gain from all this preaching."-This is a forum, there is no wrong in me posting evidence and asking a question and I wasn't pretending to invite discussion, how is asking "true of false" wrong ? That was a question of discussion. I posted in the religion part, people may choose if they want to answer.-I don't know what I may gain and I'm here to give any knowledge or wisdom I may have. -You put.-"In the meantime, I must ask you to stop this practice, please." -Did I need to tell you I didn't know there was a limit to posting evidence with a question or with other information.-You put.-"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."-Sermons are useful and you may need to know I don't know what you may have thought about sermons. I now have some knowledge of the limit you put and what you showed as justice to you.

--
All guessed.