quote:

Originally posted by Joan:

quote:

Originally posted by bird:
Oh man this circle is getting bigger.

Birdie, all we see here is 2 gentlemen trying to outdo each other in intellect and arrogance. We need your input to bring some levity to this heated discussion. Just kidding, esteemed gentlemen.

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:

quote:

Originally posted by SuperMike:

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bird:
Oh man this circle is getting bigger.[/QUOTE

Birdie: you right. Bigger but not necc. more interesting. I see the same canards adn presuppositions replaying themselves with irritating frequency. U better start some treads..]

Ah like how yu put this lam-mu-ta bannas antabanta to his place..him with all dem fancy language trying to impress dunce guys like me when he rass ain't no shyte...who tell him he gat the what it takes to debate with a scholar like you.E betta lef you alone and try go looking fu that bridge betwen India and Lanka.

Super M: I think ANtabanta ain't bad..but he frames his suppostions from the idea that man must be in the image of god..as shown in his earlier post, so anytnhin that challenges it is going to be attacked. problem is that I have shown in Judaism and early Ch., this was not so.

quote:

Originally posted by SuperMike:

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:

quote:

Originally posted by SuperMike:

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bird:
Oh man this circle is getting bigger.[/QUOTE

Birdie: you right. Bigger but not necc. more interesting. I see the same canards adn presuppositions replaying themselves with irritating frequency. U better start some treads..]

Ah like how yu put this lam-mu-ta bannas antabanta to his place..him with all dem fancy language trying to impress dunce guys like me when he rass ain't no shyte...who tell him he gat the what it takes to debate with a scholar like you.E betta lef you alone and try go looking fu that bridge betwen India and Lanka.

Super M: I think ANtabanta ain't bad..but he frames his suppostions from the idea that man must be in the image of god..as shown in his earlier post, so anytnhin that challenges it is going to be attacked. problem is that I have shown in Judaism and early Ch., this was not so.

He is a good katahar trying to spar with an expert.He lil shyte-ah-battie thing who can't find the bridge so lang.:):)

quote:

Originally posted by André:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SuperMike:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dara shikoh:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SuperMike:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dara shikoh:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bird:
Oh man this circle is getting bigger.[/QUOTE

eh eh SuperMike. look how yuh kissing up to Dara now an when de man fuss come aboard yuh did almost want fuh tek a cutlish to he :-))

quote:

did almost want fuh tek a cutlish to he :-))

quote:

Originally posted by SuperMike:

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:

quote:

Originally posted by SuperMike:

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bird:
Oh man this circle is getting bigger.[/QUOTE

Birdie: you right. Bigger but not necc. more interesting. I see the same canards adn presuppositions replaying themselves with irritating frequency. U better start some treads..]

Ah like how yu put this lam-mu-ta bannas antabanta to his place..him with all dem fancy language trying to impress dunce guys like me when he rass ain't no shyte...who tell him he gat the what it takes to debate with a scholar like you.E betta lef you alone and try go looking fu that bridge betwen India and Lanka.

Super M: I think ANtabanta ain't bad..but he frames his suppostions from the idea that man must be in the image of god..as shown in his earlier post, so anytnhin that challenges it is going to be attacked. problem is that I have shown in Judaism and early Ch., this was not so.

He is a good katahar trying to spar with an expert.He lil shyte-ah-battie thing who can't find the bridge so lang.:):)

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
So you make a clainm that is basd on your pretended knowledge. By the ignorant for the ignorant..and you do this what what background? Can you for example tell me of the philosophy of hinduism or islam? While I claim arrogance, yours manifests itself in the most inane way..making statementst ath are baseless.U seem to overlook what I asked: literacy does not teach one to argue: look at your for example. I still ask: can you tell me why Ibn rushd stumped the world then and still does with his philosophy based on religion? Can you answer the same about maimonides?
You claim to be an expert in martial arts: so am I . I do not disagree with you..but read my post again: "alleged folly" ANd confidence when based on knowlege comes forth as arrogance.
As in your case for exampel:someone with time and inclination can study and "know": relgion? Then tell me: the MA and PHD wannabes who study do have the time andinclination: and we refuse a lot of them.YOu work on the laity's assumption that relgion that that what you want it to be: we know different. Y seem to want to carry on a discusion, but don't have the intellectual foudnations for it. How so? YOur question re the image of god...any philospher (not religion specialist) would tell you that the concept of limitation applies to humans, no matter how far they may go..whereas that concept does not apply to the divine. THis is why in abrahamic religionk, the idea of image of god was only p8ushed by xians and later jews. If you can't even get this, and seek to feel intelligent by purporting to present an argument: then you are wasting time. My advice: take a course on religion theory then come and try to sound intelligent. Right now, all I have is your purporte "knowledge: of martial art and its philosophy. Correction" here is what I KNOW: in the US, you may be a fine practitioner. The philosophy is another thing: I know. I spent years in Malaysia and PHilippines studying theirs as well. And the inculcation of religion into SOME of theirs, plus the aikido and other japanese arts, if available to you, would have let you fraem your questions differently.

quote:

Originally posted by antabanta:

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
So you make a clainm that is basd on your pretended knowledge. By the ignorant for the ignorant..and you do this what what background? Can you for example tell me of the philosophy of hinduism or islam? While I claim arrogance, yours manifests itself in the most inane way..making statementst ath are baseless.U seem to overlook what I asked: literacy does not teach one to argue: look at your for example. I still ask: can you tell me why Ibn rushd stumped the world then and still does with his philosophy based on religion? Can you answer the same about maimonides?
You claim to be an expert in martial arts: so am I . I do not disagree with you..but read my post again: "alleged folly" ANd confidence when based on knowlege comes forth as arrogance.
As in your case for exampel:someone with time and inclination can study and "know": relgion? Then tell me: the MA and PHD wannabes who study do have the time andinclination: and we refuse a lot of them.YOu work on the laity's assumption that relgion that that what you want it to be: we know different. Y seem to want to carry on a discusion, but don't have the intellectual foudnations for it. How so? YOur question re the image of god...any philospher (not religion specialist) would tell you that the concept of limitation applies to humans, no matter how far they may go..whereas that concept does not apply to the divine. THis is why in abrahamic religionk, the idea of image of god was only p8ushed by xians and later jews. If you can't even get this, and seek to feel intelligent by purporting to present an argument: then you are wasting time. My advice: take a course on religion theory then come and try to sound intelligent. Right now, all I have is your purporte "knowledge: of martial art and its philosophy. Correction" here is what I KNOW: in the US, you may be a fine practitioner. The philosophy is another thing: I know. I spent years in Malaysia and PHilippines studying theirs as well. And the inculcation of religion into SOME of theirs, plus the aikido and other japanese arts, if available to you, would have let you fraem your questions differently.

What pretended knowledge? What background is needed to read a religious work and understand religious teachings? What skill is needed other than literacy? Literacy can teach anyone who wishes to argue how to argue. Knowing you have the physical, mental and spiritual prowess to face another in phyical combat and proving yourself provides a great degree of self-confidence and is completely different from the arrogance presumed by someone based merely on being literate enough to read ancient texts. And that sums up my argument. Since anyone literate enough to open a book and read it can easily acquire your self-proclaimed unique knowledge your arrogance is unfounded. Not anyone can face another in individual combat.

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
U keep regurgigating material that manifests one thing: the impermeability of a neanderthal intellect to anything intelligent. ONce again, whether you like it or not, I am the one with the credentials...you are not. once again, I had to defend my thesis against secular scholars of religion. Once again, I did not get my credentials at some normal u, but at one of the world's best in general, and certainly in my specialty, the trend setter. And what do you have to come with? Some statement about literacy. Let us, nonetheless, take your argument to its logical conclusion: what is literacy? is it simply the ability to READ a text, or to be able to decipher it in a way that only a specialist can? And what prerequisites are needed?
But instead of embarking on the intellectual discourse you wanted to start, and no longer have the capability to pursue, you resort to taking about "individual combat"--the very criterion by which, presumably, neanderthals solved their problems. "Physical, mental and spiritual" prowess of combat?
I wonder why there are divisions in kumite in weight class?
U are wasting my time..I love a good discussion, even when it is acerbic...D2 afforded me those, and even when CHief, Super M, Abu and I were at our combative climax, at least there was no repetition. YOur "comebacks" are nauseatingly repetitive, and only reflect what I prefaced my discussion with: the inability to digest information: thus manifesting your lack of full comprehension of the meaning of "literacy." Since I prefer to deal with people who do know, and who argue intelligently instead of make inane comments regarding what is needed to get a degree, I shall desist from further response. I wanted to use the word "disputation" or "argumentation" instead of "response"..but either of the former two would have implied some acknowledgement of discussion among para cum pari..unfortunately, you do not qualify. Go take an exam, see if you can get into community college, then when you have graduated, take some courses in comprehension, philosophy, religion, logic, read levi strauss, malinowski, weber, geertz etc...then read Iqbal Then do a grad degree and perhaps i will entertain you as a student in my summer class....until then, vaya con dios

quote:

What thesis could you possibly have to defend on religion? Did you start a new one?

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:

quote:

What thesis could you possibly have to defend on religion? Did you start a new one?

THis is too funny. I promised not to come back..but break it here. So Phd theses are not on new theories? YOu talk of a grad degree..and I don't deny you probably have one...but you are living proof of what a lack of knowledge and intelligence brings. WOrking without a full deck.
I do jlike your analogy of driving..but here are some things for you to consider. And this will indeed by my last on this since it would appear that some are reading:
1. In any school...prep, under, or grad--a student who cannot ansnwer questions or avoids questions--especially when such lack of answers represents the majority of his contribution, would fail. Check how many questions you have actually answered in my rebuttals.
2. YOu talk of "literacy"..check this thread's title...and in case you don't know it...just from the hindu view, the vedas could not be 'read"...any one who 'reads" them and thinks he understands is in trouble. There had to be the actual sitting with the scholars.
3. This leads to what every PH. D knows as 'field research.:
4. It is indeed irritating to find you try to sound as if you know about religion, when you obviously have a problem comprehending.
5. Some say God works in mysterious ways..others say it is falling into a pit you tried to dig for others..I put it as sawing the branch on which you were sitting: yoru entire attempts at rebuttal etc show you cannot decipher simple constructs.
I do boast about my degree..and I do boast about being invited and addressing international symposia...my accomplishments give me the right--arrogant nonetheless--to speak of what I have accomplished. YOu, on the other hand, seek to argue pointlessly to establish something so nonsensical that if your thought would be recognised, it would mean the death of humanities and social sciences. YOu remind me of the jailhouse lawyer..the convict who argues that the judge misinterpreted the law...I find that analogy most apt because you have committed an intellectual crime by attempting to portray yourself as learned.
And just for the hell of it..if you did not get my point about kumite, then you really do need to learn about how intellectuals deal with physicality..
Incidentally, my foray into "flowery" language is to prove a point..that comes not with reading, but with a command...and yes, I do boast about that too. See, I boast and I provide the evidence..which is rather different to what you attempt to do...trying to insinuate some superior scholarship...it is funny. In academe, we get it a lot...at several conferences, I am often assailed by people like you..."I have not studied the field, but know it." They, for the most part, however, can be shown their error. For they have the faculty of perception.
.Au revoir.

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
I wonder why is it that you keep trying to create the non-existent? Philosohpical term by the way. My accomplishments...don't go there. YOu can't touch the lowest of them. I know for the simple reason my journal articles are in the academic publications of the highest caliber and if I do remember..sunil posted an article a while back wherein a juror gave his humble estimation of me. IMAO, he shortchanged me. But when you get invited to the top universities to lecture and deliver, then talk to me of accomplishments. Until then, stop trying to sound like you have what you don't. And if you are exhibiting latent jealousy, it does not become you.
As for your sordid stab at other posters...I leave them to answer you. My point about your lack of knowledge in trying to sound intelligent when you don't even know the diff between creation and interpretation makes it easy for them...

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
Super M: what yu doing up so late?
Nah...Anta is okay...but he embarked on a discussion that was out of his field and he does not seem to get it.
BTW, if you got time, must read sayyid hosein nasr. He deep.

quote:

Originally posted by SuperMike:
Laad Dara..U teeching dis dunce Anta wan pra..pra lesson ya...Ok cut him some slack now..too much bloze yoo...but then again this is what you get when you want to tumble with a scholar.