Sorry! I meant, your presentation involves a number of appeals to logic that were mostly first espoused in Germany in the 19th century, and I led with that thought in answer to your question of what it "sounds like" to me. My larger point is that we don't determine it by what it sounds like, and thus having an agreement on a way to resolve differing sounds seems to me more essential than you suggested.
I don't want to sound standoffish or anything; you've taken it on yourself to seek to give me a clearer view of things than the one I profess, and I'm interested in whether I'm wrong or not. If you wish to teach me what satan is and I don't find it convincing, my general question was how we could resolve such an impasse. For instance, we could appeal to common external revelation, or to a common external Spirit speaking to us both, or to common objective logic, definitions, historical facts, etc. You appeal to "critical thinking" but I've used that and gotten different conclusions, so it seems we need to be clearer on how we use critical thinking (or anything else) to arrive at the same answer. In math everyone gets the same answer with the same start, and it'd be nice for the same to happen in informal logic.
your presentation involves a number of appeals to logic that were mostly first espoused in Germany in the 19th century
OK. I had no idea. I have not looked at anything specific from Germany in the 19th century. I admit I briefly glossed at Friedrich Hegel and the Hegelian Dialectic, which inspired both Marxist theory and existentialist thought, albeit in radically different directions. But, I wasn't thinking of that when I replied to your message.
I'm interested in whether I'm wrong or not
I'm not sure either if you're right or wrong. To me that's really not that important, we have many lives to get everything right. I'm not trying to teach you who Satan is, I don't really know myself who he is or is not. I read to LaVeyan Satanism, Satan is a symbol of virtuous characteristics and liberty. To Christians Satan is the god of this world, who has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. I read to to Muslims he is known as Shaytaan. To Muslims he is the cause of deceptions originating from the mind and desires for evil. He is regarded as a cosmic force for separation, despair and spiritual envelopment.
You appeal to "critical thinking" but I've used that and gotten different conclusions, so it seems we need to be clearer on how we use critical thinking
Sure, you're right about this. Let me get back to you. Now I recall Jesus healed the man born blind. The disciples asked, "Who sinned? This man or his parents?". They were thinking in demiurgic terms. Jesus said, "Neither". Jesus was thinking in spiritual terms, the fullness/the Pleroma where there is no such thing as sin. It was not about critical thinking, Jesus and the disciples were not on the same page.
Sorry! I meant, your presentation involves a number of appeals to logic that were mostly first espoused in Germany in the 19th century, and I led with that thought in answer to your question of what it "sounds like" to me. My larger point is that we don't determine it by what it sounds like, and thus having an agreement on a way to resolve differing sounds seems to me more essential than you suggested.
I don't want to sound standoffish or anything; you've taken it on yourself to seek to give me a clearer view of things than the one I profess, and I'm interested in whether I'm wrong or not. If you wish to teach me what satan is and I don't find it convincing, my general question was how we could resolve such an impasse. For instance, we could appeal to common external revelation, or to a common external Spirit speaking to us both, or to common objective logic, definitions, historical facts, etc. You appeal to "critical thinking" but I've used that and gotten different conclusions, so it seems we need to be clearer on how we use critical thinking (or anything else) to arrive at the same answer. In math everyone gets the same answer with the same start, and it'd be nice for the same to happen in informal logic.
OK. I had no idea. I have not looked at anything specific from Germany in the 19th century. I admit I briefly glossed at Friedrich Hegel and the Hegelian Dialectic, which inspired both Marxist theory and existentialist thought, albeit in radically different directions. But, I wasn't thinking of that when I replied to your message.
I'm not sure either if you're right or wrong. To me that's really not that important, we have many lives to get everything right. I'm not trying to teach you who Satan is, I don't really know myself who he is or is not. I read to LaVeyan Satanism, Satan is a symbol of virtuous characteristics and liberty. To Christians Satan is the god of this world, who has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. I read to to Muslims he is known as Shaytaan. To Muslims he is the cause of deceptions originating from the mind and desires for evil. He is regarded as a cosmic force for separation, despair and spiritual envelopment.
Sure, you're right about this. Let me get back to you. Now I recall Jesus healed the man born blind. The disciples asked, "Who sinned? This man or his parents?". They were thinking in demiurgic terms. Jesus said, "Neither". Jesus was thinking in spiritual terms, the fullness/the Pleroma where there is no such thing as sin. It was not about critical thinking, Jesus and the disciples were not on the same page.