Untitled

[12:37] <AntimatterCarp> philosophy_friday, So I learned that I can open two connections at once

[12:37] <philosophy_friday> that sounds really neat

[12:38] <MatterCarp> Huh

[12:38] <~sinner> philosophy_friday> faith in Christ is, I've argued before, the single most important thing in this history of the worl

[12:38] <~sinner> yes, but it comes from God

[12:38] <~sinner> so what are you gonna do to achive it, other than submit?

[12:39] <~sinner> achieve

[12:39] <AntimatterCarp> philosophy_friday, Using it for a parody of SJWs in another channel

[12:39] <~sinner> as belief itself is something humans can only hope for

[12:39] <philosophy_friday> AntimatterCarp: gotcha lol

[12:40] <philosophy_friday> sinner: im a little lost what you are talking about right now

[12:40] <MatterCarp> CISHET SCUM!

[12:40] <~sinner> philosophy_friday, look

[12:40] == MatterCarp [~Antimatte@Rizon-33D45A40.phlapa.fios.verizon.net] has left #8church []

[12:40] <~sinner> belief is nothing you get from claiming it

[12:40] <~sinner> it’s not 'works'

[12:40] <philosophy_friday> ok

[12:40] <AntimatterCarp> Getting all protestant up in here

[12:41] <~sinner> it comes from God and from God’s grace alone

[12:41] <philosophy_friday> ok

[12:41] <~sinner> because:

[12:41] <AntimatterCarp> But anon! Faith without works is dead!

[12:41] <~sinner> that’s something else mang

[12:41] <~sinner> if belief came from me on my own, why can’t agnostics just believe in God as a social contract

[12:41] <~sinner> it’s not just a positum but something real

[12:42] <philosophy_friday> wait, are you implying people don't do that?

[12:42] <~sinner> I am saying that God as a social contract is not belief

[12:42] <~sinner> basically

[12:43] <philosophy_friday> I think you need to define your words, quite frankly

[12:43] <philosophy_friday> because we might be running into an equivolency problem

[12:43] <~sinner> belief is something that involves conversion

[12:43] <~sinner> and as faith, hope and love are divine virtues, one could always emulate God with 'pretending' them, but eventually these things have to come from God and be real

[12:44] <~sinner> and faith is a fact that cannot be proven, kinda

[12:44] <philosophy_friday> so, you are just saying thigns right now, you need to define exactly what you mean with those words

[12:44] <~sinner> which words do i need to define ffs

[12:45] <~sinner> I will

[12:45] <~sinner> but tell me which wods

[12:45] <~sinner> and I really need to buy a mechanical keyboard

[12:45] <philosophy_friday> all of them, considering someone beliving God is a social construct is a belief by defination, you saying "well it's not a belief", define belief then

[12:46] <philosophy_friday> then define "divine" to explain what you mean between a divine virtue and a regular virtue, and then define virtue so I can know what sort of virtue you are referencing, if it's a aristotialian conception or something more metaphorical

[12:46] <~sinner> >divine

[12:46] <~sinner> from God

[12:46] <~sinner> obviously

[12:47] <~sinner> as I said, belief is faith, and faith follows conversion which comes from God. If conversion was something that other Christians could achieve by teaching others the faith, it would make it something that is a social agreement rather than a submission to God

[12:47] <~sinner> faith is achieved by submission to God

[12:47] <philosophy_friday> from God as in...relgating to the agent intellect, a la Aquinas? Or divine as in taking part in his nature via reflection?

[12:47] <~sinner> could you be less rationalising please?

[12:48] <~sinner> if I say from God, I mean from God

[12:48] <~sinner> I don’t mean any terminology

[12:48] <~sinner> I mean God

[12:48] <~sinner> as in God as defined in the creed

[12:48] <philosophy_friday> yah and different Christian theologians mean that exact statment in a dozen different ways, even from the same denomination (Aquinas and Augustine, for instance)

[12:48] <~sinner> I mean God as in the highest being that man can think of

[12:48] <~sinner> t. Anselm

[12:49] <~sinner> Aquinas and Augustine aren’t far away from each other

[12:49] <philosophy_friday> lol

[12:49] <~sinner> if you were theology friday, you’d understand it

[12:49] <philosophy_friday> lol

[12:49] <~sinner> both certainly had the sensus fidei

[12:50] <~sinner> and both were the same breed of catholic (read: cathodox) that exists now in every proper catholic (orthodox)

[12:51] <~sinner> because St. Thomas surely honoured St. Augustine

[12:51] <philosophy_friday> I am fully aware

[12:52] == AntimatterCarp [~Antimatte@Rizon-33D45A40.phlapa.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving]

[12:52] <~sinner> what is funyn about defining 'divine' as 'coming from God'?

[12:53] <~sinner> circular reasoning is only fallacious in certain circumstances, not absolutely wrong

[12:53] <philosophy_friday> it lack any meaningful precision if you wanted to have a serious discussion

[12:53] <~sinner> I already used the definition of Anselm

[12:53] == faggetttss has changed nick to \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

[12:54] <~sinner> I guess the one to interrupt meaningful discussions is the one rationalising things beyond our ratio

[12:54] <philosophy_friday> you defined God by Anslems assertion, not necessairly the divine quality, since you implied paticular virtues were divine, which you then defined as "divinly inspired"

[12:54] <philosophy_friday> "beyond our ratio" ? Is english your second language?

[12:55] <~sinner> yeah

[12:55] <philosophy_friday> gotcha

[12:55] <~sinner> I am German

[12:55] == AntimatterCarp [~Antimatte@Rizon-33D45A40.phlapa.fios.verizon.net] has joined #8church

[12:55] <philosophy_friday> I understand now

[12:55] <~sinner> if you only realised now it speaks for me, I guess,

[12:56] <~sinner> some vocabulary if English borrowed it from other languages cannot be fully guessed

[12:56] <philosophy_friday> Sure

[12:56] <~sinner> as German directly adopts the grammar of the languages in that way

[12:56] <~sinner> anyway, these virtues are not defined by me but defined by the magisterium, as love can only be love if it is based around natural law

[12:57] <~sinner> love, being charity

[12:57] <~sinner> and hope cannot be an aspect of melancholy but rather the taking of melancholy and transformation thereof into something good

[12:58] <philosophy_friday> So, I hate to cut your legs off in the moment, but this conversation is going to inherently lack depth. Mostly because I understand these terms in very explicit and precise ways. The meanings of which are equally nuanced.

[12:58] <~sinner> because these feelings seem to be related in terms of human reasoning

[12:58] <philosophy_friday> A lot of it is simply not going to translate through broken speech.

[12:58] <~sinner> >broken speech

[12:58] <philosophy_friday> Like you are telling me all this and you appear like a drunken highschooler, but I can guess you probably have a much deeper understanding than I can access in this conversation.

[12:59] == Rosenmann [~Rosenmann@Rizon-FF1D9B15.warszawa.vectranet.pl] has quit [Quit: Leaving]

[13:01] <~sinner> it seems more of an intellecual dead end in your line of thinking, tbh

[13:01] <~sinner> to be*

[13:01] <~sinner> as if philosphy was only possible in a certain, given teminology for you, not a fluid thing to respond to

[13:02] <~sinner> if you don’t philosophy enough to adapt to it outside of an academical context, I guess you should stop

[13:02] <philosophy_friday> No, it's that the terms have real meanings, and very specific intents depending on how defined, so if someone cannot have an intellegible conversation about it, it's a moot point

[13:03] <philosophy_friday> In reality, your brutal ignorance of these things you say makes it probably impossible to have a conversation about these things even if someone did speak german

[13:03] <~sinner> well, if I was Heideggering the fuck out of you now as my language has an actual philosophical fortitude, you’d probably shit your pants

[13:04] <philosophy_friday> lol, go for it, I am well schooled on Heidegger

[13:04] <~sinner> because any suffix I use in my own language is stylin on your adoption of any sort of 'school'

[13:05] <philosophy_friday> Sure.

[13:05] <~sinner> but yeah, if you want to base your conversations on that level, I guess my non-native speaker level is never up to your academical level of your own language

[13:05] <~sinner> but if you cannot understand me either way that’s a sing of your lack of intellectual capacities

[13:05] <~sinner> sign

[13:05] <philosophy_friday> Yes, I said that before. If we can't speak the same language, we can't talk about it. That is sort of a property of language.

[13:06] <~sinner> as I said already, that’s more of a limit to you than to me

[13:06] <philosophy_friday> True, in theory I could have learned German at some point. Forgive me for not preparing in advanced by learning your language.

[13:06] <~sinner> if buddhism was a thing I advise you to be reborn into a German body

[13:07] == \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ has changed nick to faggetttss

[13:07] <philosophy_friday> lol

[13:08] == Breitbard [~Breitbard@Rizon-8C12F06D.cable.virginm.net] has joined #8church

[13:08] <Breitbard> hey

[13:08] <philosophy_friday> sup

[13:08] <~sinner> so next time you wouldn’t have to employ superficial criteria to mask some sort of argumentational incapability of yours

[13:08] <Breitbard> What is the conversation topic?

[13:09] <~sinner> I could argue that you lack the theological education to even eat my cum, under these circumstances

[13:09] <philosophy_friday> He was trying to lecture me about something, but I asked him to define his terms, he couldn't, and now he is mad at me for not speaking german

[13:09] <~sinner> >he couldn’t

[13:09] <~sinner> > Mostly because I understand these terms in very explicit and precise ways

[13:09] <Breitbard> That’s not enough info

[13:09] <Breitbard> I want to interject with the opinion of the most holy Archbishop of Canterbury

[13:10] <~sinner> if you understand the terms I used wrong, it’s not really my fault

[13:10] <philosophy_friday> lol he started calling me names at some point, he's quite a class act

[13:10] <~sinner> because faith is understood by protestants in a complete different way as it is by catholics

[13:10] <philosophy_friday> yes it is. I am glad you are aware of that.

[13:11] <~sinner> well, maybe instead of pretending to be intellectual, you should have honestly tried to understand my position

[13:11] <philosophy_friday> I was, it's why I wanted you to define the words you were using.

[13:12] <~sinner> but I guess self-proclaimed philosophs would be incapable of adhering to terms they haven’t defined themselves

[13:12] <philosophy_friday> I feel like that was supposed to be an insult, but your broken english makes it hard to figure out.

[13:13] <Breitbard> When Kech was explaining the difference I didn’t think it was particularly major, just a different relationship between Faith/Works but on the whole just a matter of reframing the same biblical truth in different words.

[13:13] <~sinner> >broken English

[13:13] <~sinner> :^)

[13:14] <philosophy_friday> I don't know what you are so upset about. You know you aren't really hurting me, right? It pains me none if you are ignorant of something. I just ask if you want to start trying to give me a lecture, that you explain your position, this way I don't just smile and nod, and waste everyones time.

[13:14] <philosophy_friday> Take your hatred somewhere else, it has no value here.

[13:14] <~sinner> I think my vocabulary and grammar can be 'dodgy' at times but calling it broken English seems to be somewhat far off the mark if it was put in relation to native speakers

[13:15] <~sinner> besides, you’re not even British

[13:16] <~sinner> >hatred >implying you didn’t just try to devaluate me based on my native language

[13:16] <philosophy_friday> You seem to have trouble defining basic key theological concepts, but seem perfectly able to tell me to eat your cum. I just tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to language barrier

[13:16] <~sinner> actually, before you attested to any sort of language barrier existing, you said I was a drunk highschooler

[13:17] <Breitbard> As a true Jew, being of the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:29, Romans 9:6) I would very much like an apology for the holocaust Sinner. Otherwise I’m going to get Mossad on you! :  ^    )

[13:17] <Hrodberht> all I need is a signature and my forms are done

[13:17] <Hrodberht> hopefully everything is in order and I get a grant

[13:17] <Breitbard> Grant for what, post-grad?

[13:17] <~sinner> Breitbard, which Holocaust do you want to base on catholics? there was no German party in Germany :^)

[13:17] <philosophy_friday> Even that seems to be a product of a language barrier. The sentence structure comes off like a drunk highschooler. You read into that

[13:17] <Hrodberht> FAFSA

[13:17] <~sinner> catholic

[13:18] <~sinner> what it comes off as is not the matter anyway

[13:18] <philosophy_friday> Also I like how you percieve an insult and then just start calling people names.

[13:18] <~sinner> I defined faith as a divine virtue

[13:18] <~sinner> what are you incapable of understanding as a sober academic

[13:18] <philosophy_friday> Yah and I told you both of those words need to be defined further, as they maintain a very diverse set of definations.

[13:18] <~sinner> I guess you’re an idiot then

[13:18] <philosophy_friday> lol

[13:19] <~sinner> well if you don’t understand 'divine', what could you and I be talking about anyway?

[13:19] <Breitbard> Sinner: Catholics? They are the Jews that suffered under Germany, in the confessional church.

[13:19] <Breitbard> Or wasn’t the confessional church Protestant

[13:19] <Breitbard> I don’t know, maybe.

[13:19] <~sinner> if divine needs to be defined, you’re probably the idiot

[13:19] <philosophy_friday> sure, I'm dumb,define it please

[13:20] <~sinner> no matter my level of native language or inebriation

[13:20] <~sinner> anyway, you’re marked off as an idiot now

[13:20] <~sinner> or at least as a cunt

[13:20] <~sinner> but I’d like to give you the benefit of doubt and ignorance

[13:20] <philosophy_friday> lol

[13:20] <philosophy_friday> Is anyone else reading this?

[13:21] <philosophy_friday> Or you just stay silent?

[13:22] <~sinner> well you might 'lol' but you’re the first person to ever employ this sort of pseudo-intellectual superiority in this channel

[13:22] <~sinner> but whatever floats your boat

[13:23] <~sinner> I would say if you cannot understand a foreigner properly, the only one not speaking your native language to a fulfilling extent is you

[13:23] <philosophy_friday> If asking you to explain your position is too much, then it is not my problem.

[13:23] <philosophy_friday> No one is going to say anything about this? I must say, I find this disappointing

[13:23] <~sinner> look, if you’re an academic and cannot understand a layman, who is wrong in their business?

[13:24] <~sinner> is it the layman or the academic who cannot be brief

[13:24] <philosophy_friday> The problem is not understanding you. The problem will be you understanding me.

[13:24] <philosophy_friday> If the words chosen don't mean the same thing, it won't matter what is said.

[13:25] <philosophy_friday> I think you have a lot of ugliness in your heart. Insecurities maybe. Or just plain anger. Either way, this doesn't seem like a space I care to share with you anylonger.

[13:26] <~sinner> hahaha

[13:26] <~sinner> my vocabulary is enough to understand you

[13:26] <~sinner> but you’re not smart enough to understand me outside of your defined terms