You did not qualify "common" and "standard" as being in the microcosm of internet science forums, where atheism tends to be grossly over-represented. This is a bit of cherry-picking you should have just copped to immediately instead of making all of these justifications.
as usual, you jump all over every little deviation from your reality tunnel as though you had a point. Of course, the standard position in America is not atheism, it is a sketchily defined god, and the belief that religion is confused, just as i stated. Do you really believe that isn't the standard? If so please tell me what the standard is. As far as ideas being in common use, among people all over the world it is clear that the "problem of evil" is discussed and argued over, not just in internet forums, and people do trot out the millennia-old ideas. If you wish to dispute that, please present your case, i.e. say they do not, don't just try to define my points in terms i don't support. The straw here is ridiculous.
Again, you are conflating common knowledge in the general populous with "common knowledge" among atheists. Do you really think that Christians are cognizant of the bible only being some explanation of god, or do they take that description to be of the identity of god? Why else would they study the Bible seeking to "know God"? Quit adding claims you cannot support in a vain attempt to justify your earlier claims.
no, you are conflating all that with your false ideas of what i said. Unlike you, i realize that there are a bunch of people out there all believing different stuff, and their attempt, and possible failures, to "know God" imply only that God may be found in the bible, according to some. You are the only one who is trying to jump on semantics instead of dealing with the ideas.
ad hoc
adj1. Formed for or concerned with one specific purpose2. Improvised and often impromptu[/indent]
can you just come straight out and say something obviously ridiculous such as presenting the idea that my usage of the phrase "ad hoc" is not used commonly for, "the first thing you can grab"? Are you REALLY willing to say that my usage isn't seen all the time? Sad.
Most people would say that Christianity deals with more than just explaining god. Morality, salvation, afterlife, etc.. And Christianity certainly is not made up on the spot for each case. And before you quote the adverb definition, you used it as an adjective.
as i said, please go on pretending my usage was not a common one, if that makes you feel you had a point. And various versions of christianity are being constructed all the time by millions around the world, so whatevs dude.
If you really must have something Latin for "readily accessible" try "opportunus".
first off, not often used and a douchey thing to include in one's writing. Second, i didn't mean to say, "suitable", or "advantageous", or "useful". I meant to say, as is a common usage for "ad hoc", "closest thing you can grab". If you really must be a douche, and pick at nothing because you don't have an actual argument against what i am saying, please douche in private.
You have not pointed out any specific principle, nor shown how a lack of devotion necessitates a disbelief in a particular god.
We were not discussing belief in principles, we were talking about belief in a god.
i said, "decisions on morality without agreeing with a particular biblical idea", so ACTUALLY i was specifically talking about a SPECIFIC principle. Another false problem your strange reading of my words has created.
Do you have to vote for a particular elected official in order to believe they hold a public office? No, your actions are inconsequential to your belief.
Would you walk over a bridge without believing it will hold you up? It is just as simple to say that all your actions are contingent on your beliefs, as to say they aren't. This is a silly point to argue. EDIT* what i mean by this is that it is a silly argument to have from either side right now, not that your idea here is more silly than the contrary idea.
Moral relativism is not equivalent to "lack of morality". You have yet to describe any specific comparisons between gnosticism and orphism, so as yet it is still a non sequitur. In comparison to the Christian notion that descriptive morality has some salvific eternal consequences, yes, gnosticism does reject any such system. Salvation for a gnostic can only come through gnosis.
Orphic similarity was simply a possibility, a perfectly valid possibility, so please show otherwise with some reasoning or sources.
Also, until you show Valentinus rejects the "any such systems of morality" you, one of which is partially described by his own words in the fragment i posted, you aren't making your point. Please address that if you wish to actually MAKE a POINT.
It is silly to insist I outline the whole of gnostic thought for you. If you have sufficient knowledge then you would not be claiming this false compromise of "OUR knowledge is too lacking".
I was simply pointing out that you might want to know about what someone else knows before you say they don't know enough to talk. AND, it is quite reasonable for some true expert of Gnosticism to say I don't have the background to converse reasonably on the details of the subject, even though that would be a dick move for that expert to pull, but i can tell you aren't a true expert on the subject, because an expert on any subject doesn't often use the word "never".
Gnostic descriptive morality is never considered in any way compulsory. It varies to accommodate the subjective needs of the individual, which is the primary concern of those seeking gnosis.
Valentinus says "do x and y". Please present the gnostic material that shows we are our own law if you wish to make a point. My initial distrust of your statement comes when you use the word "never". You love that stuff huh? Never! I am actually interested to know if you actually are saying something valid here, because it would be enlightening if your are.
You are the only one running with this straw man about accepting Iranaeus as any sort of authority. All apparently to avoid having to refute the fact that gnosticism has a generally secular morality, subject to moral relativism.
YOU brought him into this as SOMETHING, if not an authority, then what? If you were just presenting iranaeus as a possible description of Gnosticism, I can easily accept that. You could have just said that.
Here, I quoted it so you could read my reply in context, which you seem to have trouble doing. YOU are the one who mentioned fundamentalist ideas, so that is yours to clarify. You will notice that I was asking you to do just that. You likened Christianity to Gnosticism and then seemed to likened fundamentalist ideas to those of gnosticism. Or was fundamentalism completely superfluous to whatever you were trying to say?
i said, "If some future person were to find an attack on christianity, based on an attack on fundamentalist ideas, from someone who may or may not have properly understood what christians actually taught, with no possibility of hearing christianity's description of its own ideology, we couldn't say that that was entirely informative material." It is pretty clear what i was talking about, i.e. the fact that we are not completely informed on Gnosticism. Do you deny that there is some lack of historical material describing gnosticism and additionally that there are conflicting ideas about what teachers should even be considered gnostic?
That is the fallacy of an argument to moderation. You have failed to refute what you claim is lacking.
please go back up to the point about valentinus and then get back to me on this idea.
