100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: premises which render an argument moot | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
TheLonelyWalker
on
Sat 08/09/08 11:57 AM
|
|
First of all, and most important of all, both parties must know that the purpose of an argument (not a debate) is to provide the audience with both points of view in a subject, and not to debate each others points of view. Therefore, it follows that instead of sharing points of views the argument turns into an attack in each others points of view, then the argument is moot.
If we start with premises such you are delusional because of your point of view or you are evil (or a pack of vipers) then the argument also becomes moot. No matter how ridiculous the other party's reasoning seems to me, I can't diminish or be derogatory towards to the other party. For instance, I was reading in a thread that somebody has the theory the Holy Virgin was raped when she conceived Jesus, and that is why she kept it secret. In all honesty such train of thought seemed to me very ludicrous. However, I must respect the person who came to such conclusion. I don't know this person's reasons, it could have been ignorance, misconceptions who knows. It's not my mission to criticize this person, but to inform. It isn't my mission either to try to change this person's mind. This individual can keep thinking as he/she so wish. But at least if this person is respectful enough to read my point of view (if I state it), and see and respect my position about the issue. If there is not respect towards each party the argument is also rendered moot. When my initial intention is to proselytize in either way (christian or atheist proselytism) the argument is also rendered moot. It's such a waste of time trying to convert people, faith is a personal response of the individual, and it cannot be forced, as some fundamentalists pretend to do. Even worse when the means used to convert are hate and fear. Finally, if my ego is bigger than my butt any statement coming from me is also invalid, ergo, my position is erroneous, and the argument is rendered moot. TLW |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay when does it start. I will be the audience
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay when does it start. I will be the audience
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, and most important of all, both parties must know that the purpose of an argument (not a debate) is to provide the audience with both points of view in a subject, and not to debate each others points of view. Therefore, it follows that instead of sharing points of views the argument turns into an attack in each others points of view, then the argument is moot. If we start with premises such you are delusional because of your point of view or you are evil (or a pack of vipers) then the argument also becomes moot. No matter how ridiculous the other party's reasoning seems to me, I can't diminish or be derogatory towards to the other party. For instance, I was reading in a thread that somebody has the theory the Holy Virgin was raped when she conceived Jesus, and that is why she kept it secret. In all honesty such train of thought seemed to me very ludicrous. However, I must respect the person who came to such conclusion. I don't know this person's reasons, it could have been ignorance, misconceptions who knows. It's not my mission to criticize this person, but to inform. It isn't my mission either to try to change this person's mind. This individual can keep thinking as he/she so wish. But at least if this person is respectful enough to read my point of view (if I state it), and see and respect my position about the issue. If there is not respect towards each party the argument is also rendered moot. When my initial intention is to proselytize in either way (christian or atheist proselytism) the argument is also rendered moot. It's such a waste of time trying to convert people, faith is a personal response of the individual, and it cannot be forced, as some fundamentalists pretend to do. Even worse when the means used to convert are hate and fear. Finally, if my ego is bigger than my butt any statement coming from me is also invalid, ergo, my position is erroneous, and the argument is rendered moot. TLW I can get with these parameters... Only thing is... I have no argument. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, and most important of all, both parties must know that the purpose of an argument (not a debate) is to provide the audience with both points of view in a subject, and not to debate each others points of view. Therefore, it follows that instead of sharing points of views the argument turns into an attack in each others points of view, then the argument is moot. If we start with premises such you are delusional because of your point of view or you are evil (or a pack of vipers) then the argument also becomes moot. No matter how ridiculous the other party's reasoning seems to me, I can't diminish or be derogatory towards to the other party. For instance, I was reading in a thread that somebody has the theory the Holy Virgin was raped when she conceived Jesus, and that is why she kept it secret. In all honesty such train of thought seemed to me very ludicrous. However, I must respect the person who came to such conclusion. I don't know this person's reasons, it could have been ignorance, misconceptions who knows. It's not my mission to criticize this person, but to inform. It isn't my mission either to try to change this person's mind. This individual can keep thinking as he/she so wish. But at least if this person is respectful enough to read my point of view (if I state it), and see and respect my position about the issue. If there is not respect towards each party the argument is also rendered moot. When my initial intention is to proselytize in either way (christian or atheist proselytism) the argument is also rendered moot. It's such a waste of time trying to convert people, faith is a personal response of the individual, and it cannot be forced, as some fundamentalists pretend to do. Even worse when the means used to convert are hate and fear. Finally, if my ego is bigger than my butt any statement coming from me is also invalid, ergo, my position is erroneous, and the argument is rendered moot. TLW I can get with these parameters... Only thing is... I have no argument.
even better |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wouldee
on
Sat 08/09/08 12:40 PM
|
|
this forum is called, "Religion Chat"
not religion 'debate'. not religion 'argument'. not religion 'proselytizing'. not religion 'dogma'. Were that true that Christianity is not chat then christians would be absent, one could surmise, if one particular scripture were adhered to as definitive of pure religion. James 1:27. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. Is this forum 'their affliction'? Perhaps I should get that word, 'unspotted' out of 400 year old English and bring it up to date. It still means 'unblemished' in Greek, as written. And the word for 'world' means 'orderly arrangement', i.e. 'decoration' Yet, it is implied by implication to mean the 'world' in a narrow or wider sense, including it's inhabitants. Also, morally, it can mean 'adorning', literally or figuratively. The word, 'from', also is a prefix, and would read as apo-kosmos as written. It means, literally, "off" or, i.e.'away' ( from something near). In composition, (as a prefix) , it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc. So, it could mean that apart from drawing attention to ourselves, we (as christian) ought to be providing aid and comfort to those vulnerable to violence, abuse, need , deprivation, disease, harm, torment, lack, danger, etc. hmmmmm.....  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, and most important of all, both parties must know that the purpose of an argument (not a debate) is to provide the audience with both points of view in a subject, and not to debate each others points of view. Therefore, it follows that instead of sharing points of views the argument turns into an attack in each others points of view, then the argument is moot. I'm in total agreement with you Miquel. I'm also in agreement with Wouldee when he says that this forum is supposed to be a Chat forum. One the big problems is that "Chats" often become argumentative debates. For example, suppose someone would like to "Chat" about their own personal feelings of what the bible means to them. Suppose they want to take a non-Christian view of the doctrine and discuss it from the point of view that it was indeed written by men. Some of whom were well-meaning, whilst others may have had their own personal agendas. The first thing that happens is that a so-called "Christian" will come along (usually a fundamentalist) and begin to argue that only Christians can speak for the Bible. But is that a valid even a valid view? Christianity is a religion that has proclaimed a tenet that it will only use the Bible as it's source of Holy Scripture. But does that mean that the Christians own the Bible? Does that mean that only Christians have exclusive rights to give their opinions and interpretations of the Bible? No it doesn't mean that at all. Christianity is simply a religion that decided that it will only use the Bible as it's only source of spiritual information. They have absolutely no right whatsoever to demand that no other humans use those doctrines as references. That's actually one huge the mistake the people who follow Christianity make. They don't own the Bible. They have merely restricted themselves to only using it. They have absolutely not right whatsoever to claim that no one else can use the doctrines as merely one of the many writings of man. They have it backwards. Christianity doesn't own the Bible. It merely restricts itself to only using that document as a basis for it's belief system. People who want to view it as nothing more than writings of man have every right to view it as such and to discuss it as such. This idea that Christians have exclusive rights to hoard the Bible, and hoard God, is totally unwarranted and without merit. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Quikstepper
on
Sat 08/09/08 01:46 PM
|
|
First of all, and most important of all, both parties must know that the purpose of an argument (not a debate) is to provide the audience with both points of view in a subject, and not to debate each others points of view. Therefore, it follows that instead of sharing points of views the argument turns into an attack in each others points of view, then the argument is moot. I'm in total agreement with you Miquel. I'm also in agreement with Wouldee when he says that this forum is supposed to be a Chat forum. One the big problems is that "Chats" often become argumentative debates. For example, suppose someone would like to "Chat" about their own personal feelings of what the bible means to them. Suppose they want to take a non-Christian view of the doctrine and discuss it from the point of view that it was indeed written by men. Some of whom were well-meaning, whilst others may have had their own personal agendas. The first thing that happens is that a so-called "Christian" will come along (usually a fundamentalist) and begin to argue that only Christians can speak for the Bible. But is that a valid even a valid view? Christianity is a religion that has proclaimed a tenet that it will only use the Bible as it's source of Holy Scripture. But does that mean that the Christians own the Bible? Does that mean that only Christians have exclusive rights to give their opinions and interpretations of the Bible? No it doesn't mean that at all. Christianity is simply a religion that decided that it will only use the Bible as it's only source of spiritual information. They have absolutely no right whatsoever to demand that no other humans use those doctrines as references. That's actually one huge the mistake the people who follow Christianity make. They don't own the Bible. They have merely restricted themselves to only using it. They have absolutely not right whatsoever to claim that no one else can use the doctrines as merely one of the many writings of man. They have it backwards. Christianity doesn't own the Bible. It merely restricts itself to only using that document as a basis for it's belief system. People who want to view it as nothing more than writings of man have every right to view it as such and to discuss it as such. This idea that Christians have exclusive rights to hoard the Bible, and hoard God, is totally unwarranted and without merit.
No one is hoarding anything. We point out incorrect things people twist from God's word. When those people want to insist that red is blue instead of red...we have the freedom to say red is red. That's not hoarding...it's telling the truth. It's your assumption that we hoard or have exclusive rights... God says for as many as would believe His word, to them He gave sonship. What are you talking about? LOL Hysterical...really. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No one is hoarding anything. We point out incorrect things people twist from God's word. When those people want to insist that red is blue instead of red...we have the freedom to say red is red. That's not hoarding...it's telling the truth. It's your assumption that we hoard or have exclusive rights... God says for as many as would believe His word, to them He gave sonship. What are you talking about? LOL Hysterical...really. That's hoarding QS. Only Christians are allowed to do the twist. And the only people who are premitted to be called "Christians" are people who have accepted the twisted words of the religion. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christianity is a religion that has proclaimed a tenet that it will only use the Bible as it's source of Holy Scripture. Well that is as far as the fundamentalists. The Catholic Church has more sources to base the faith. But since even the Bible is a fairy tale, whatever other sources the Catholic Church has will be also fairy tales for you. Ergo, it's not worth it explaining them to you. Just keep in mind that just the fundies believe in the doctrine of SOLA SCRIPTURA, I don't agree with that. It's utterly ridiculous. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No one is hoarding anything. We point out incorrect things people twist from God's word. When those people want to insist that red is blue instead of red...we have the freedom to say red is red. That's not hoarding...it's telling the truth. It's your assumption that we hoard or have exclusive rights... God says for as many as would believe His word, to them He gave sonship. What are you talking about? LOL Hysterical...really. That's hoarding QS. Only Christians are allowed to do the twist. And the only people who are premitted to be called "Christians" are people who have accepted the twisted words of the religion.
No..your incorrect there. You hate when Christians quote God's word because it dispells the lies being said. You can't have it both ways. If you don't believe God's word then just say so, but don't sit there & tell people that you know best when you are the one having trouble believing it. You can even say "I don't believe the God of your Bible" but then don't use it to argue your point because you lose credibility when you say you don't believe it. I have to state this again... the secret things belong to God but the things REVEALED belong to us. There are secret things that man can only get from God Himself...that is much more than mere humanity itself. Heavenly secrets. That is why the Bible says our works is as filthy rags because it doesn't compare to God's glory revealed IN US. That is why it is very easy for a believer to believe in things that can't always be explained away. Like the parting of the Red Sea...all the way to Christ's miracles & ressurrection. Yes! The Bible is full of what SEEMS to be contradictions. I can live with that because I know if I ask God for an answer He WILL give it. Do I have to know & experience EVERYTHING in order to believe? No! What He has revealed to me is enough for me to take Him at His word. God IS the God of impossibilities. All debating with a non believer does is show there ARE two sides to the story. A believing & a non believing side. That's all. If you want to talk about other gods...be my guest but if you are talking about God of the Bible & Jesus then expect answers according to GOD'S word...not ours. Stop shooting the messenger & we will all get along better. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 08/09/08 08:45 PM
|
|
The first thing that happens is that a so-called "Christian" will come along (usually a fundamentalist) and begin to argue that only Christians can speak for the Bible. But is that a valid even a valid view? Christianity is a religion that has proclaimed a tenet that it will only use the Bible as it's source of Holy Scripture. But does that mean that the Christians own the Bible? Does that mean that only Christians have exclusive rights to give their opinions and interpretations of the Bible? No it doesn't mean that at all. Christianity is simply a religion that decided that it will only use the Bible as it's only source of spiritual information. They have absolutely no right whatsoever to demand that no other humans use those doctrines as references. That's actually one huge the mistake the people who follow Christianity make. They don't own the Bible. They have merely restricted themselves to only using it. They have absolutely not right whatsoever to claim that no one else can use the doctrines as merely one of the many writings of man. They have it backwards. Christianity doesn't own the Bible. It merely restricts itself to only using that document as a basis for it's belief system. People who want to view it as nothing more than writings of man have every right to view it as such and to discuss it as such. This idea that Christians have exclusive rights to hoard the Bible, and hoard God, is totally unwarranted and without merit.
This is so true Abra. I don't care what they say, they certainly do feel that they own the Bible. They also feel that they own God. (Or I could say that they believe that their false alien god is the one and only true God.) They also feel that their interpretation of the Bible is the right one and no one else has the authority or the right to read and interpret the Bible, or quote the Bible if they are not professed Christians. They deny and deny and deny this, but it is apparent in everything they say. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't believe God's word then just say so, but don't sit there & tell people that you know best when you are the one having trouble believing it. You can even say "I don't believe the God of your Bible" but then don't use it to argue your point because you lose credibility when you say you don't believe it.
There is no loss of credibility in questioning the validity of ancient superstitions. On the contrary there is loss of credibility for those who still fear to question such things. If you want to talk about other gods...be my guest but if you are talking about God of the Bible & Jesus then expect answers according to GOD'S word...not ours. Stop shooting the messenger & we will all get along better.
There is no such thing as "other Gods" QS. If there is a supreme creator it is the creator of all of us. The very notion of "other Gods" is a poorly thought out notion. That kind of thinking is nothing more than a childish fantasy and denial. If we have a creator it's our creator QS. Not 'my creator' versus 'your creator'. That's the very mentality that causes people to become divided and creates political unrest and war. If humanity has a creator we're all in this together QS. I'm a human being first and foremost. My thoughts on our creator are every bit as valid as any other human being. If it is being claimed that the Holy Bible contains the words of our creator. They I have every right to look into that document and the religions that surround it and voice my concerns about why I do, or do not, believe it could be a valid story of our creator. For you to suggest that I have no credibility to speak of such things is for you to denounce my credibility as a human being. Everyone has a right to voice their opinions on anything that claims to be a description of our creator. You can't just push people aside and tell them to go believe in their own 'gods'. That totally misses the point of humanity. If you want to believe in the Biblical picture of God, then do so. But don't tell other people that they have no credibility to speak about it. The religion claims to be a picture of the creator of humanity. As long as I'm human I have every right to speak out on a religion that claims to be a picture of our creator. I'm not telling you that you can't believe in that picture. All I'm telling you is why I don't believe in it. And, as a human being, I have every right to voice my concerns. To say that I have no credibility is to denounce my humanity. Are you denouncing my humanity? My right to speak out as a human on issues of humanity? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first thing that happens is that a so-called "Christian" will come along (usually a fundamentalist) and begin to argue that only Christians can speak for the Bible. But is that a valid even a valid view? Christianity is a religion that has proclaimed a tenet that it will only use the Bible as it's source of Holy Scripture. But does that mean that the Christians own the Bible? Does that mean that only Christians have exclusive rights to give their opinions and interpretations of the Bible? No it doesn't mean that at all. Christianity is simply a religion that decided that it will only use the Bible as it's only source of spiritual information. They have absolutely no right whatsoever to demand that no other humans use those doctrines as references. That's actually one huge the mistake the people who follow Christianity make. They don't own the Bible. They have merely restricted themselves to only using it. They have absolutely not right whatsoever to claim that no one else can use the doctrines as merely one of the many writings of man. They have it backwards. Christianity doesn't own the Bible. It merely restricts itself to only using that document as a basis for it's belief system. People who want to view it as nothing more than writings of man have every right to view it as such and to discuss it as such. This idea that Christians have exclusive rights to hoard the Bible, and hoard God, is totally unwarranted and without merit.
This is so true Abra. I don't care what they say, they certainly do feel that they own the Bible. They also feel that they own God. (Or I could say that they believe that their false alien god is the one and only true God.) They also feel that their interpretation of the Bible is the right one and no one else has the authority or the right to read and interpret the Bible, or quote the Bible if they are not professed Christians. They deny and deny and deny this, but it is apparent in everything they say. JB Hmmm... There's that "they" again. Put down that wall paper brush Jeannie - your accusations hold true for such a select few. First of all - and this extends to Abra - we "christians" don't "own" the bible, we just believe it. You are free to believe it or not - but you are no more worthy of claiming it's falsehood as fact than I am of it's being true. That would be "owning it". When you give up the guilt on that - perhaps "they" will as well. Also - Christians don't "own" God. They have a relationship with him. This is manifested in answering the call when it comes. Or in their seeking of him - he is found. If one is not looking for God - they won't find him (the one of the scripture anyway). In this way - isn't ownership abandoned? So what is this point about owning God? I don't pretend to know how to interpret the bible correctly in every way - but I find it easy to recognise when it's misinterpreted, like Abra, Tribo, Redy and you do. You are quick to point out other references to support yourselves. Please explain to me how that is not claiming a right to "interpret scripture"? What you do NOT have a right to do - is claim that you think you know how I - as a christian - intepret scripture, and make decisions in my life based on those assumptions. Like "my need to have Religion" or my "God is my crutch" and other such nonsense. Such remarks are poinless and without substance, and certainly are unsupported by evidence. This is what is "denied, denied, denied". That you would even conjecture how I view life because of my belief the scriptures are worthy of examining. Once you walk through the door of stating "This is what THEY think" - you have walked into a room where you should be RIGHTLY examined for your idea's and opinions. And you put yourself up to being told you are wrong if you attempt to stand in this room without ALL the facts. Else, just stand outside the room and state what you THINK is meant. Then you will find no need for a post such as the one you've written. Fair enough? If I walk into the room where Aliens are refered to - would you not hold me up to a standard of having more than just an opinion if I state you are delusional? Wouldn't you EXPECT me to have at least examined the documentation that exists on the subject? Of course you would. Don't expect "them" to do any differently. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Quikstepper
on
Sun 08/10/08 04:53 AM
|
|
The first thing that happens is that a so-called "Christian" will come along (usually a fundamentalist) and begin to argue that only Christians can speak for the Bible. But is that a valid even a valid view? Christianity is a religion that has proclaimed a tenet that it will only use the Bible as it's source of Holy Scripture. But does that mean that the Christians own the Bible? Does that mean that only Christians have exclusive rights to give their opinions and interpretations of the Bible? No it doesn't mean that at all. Christianity is simply a religion that decided that it will only use the Bible as it's only source of spiritual information. They have absolutely no right whatsoever to demand that no other humans use those doctrines as references. That's actually one huge the mistake the people who follow Christianity make. They don't own the Bible. They have merely restricted themselves to only using it. They have absolutely not right whatsoever to claim that no one else can use the doctrines as merely one of the many writings of man. They have it backwards. Christianity doesn't own the Bible. It merely restricts itself to only using that document as a basis for it's belief system. People who want to view it as nothing more than writings of man have every right to view it as such and to discuss it as such. This idea that Christians have exclusive rights to hoard the Bible, and hoard God, is totally unwarranted and without merit.
This is so true Abra. I don't care what they say, they certainly do feel that they own the Bible. They also feel that they own God. (Or I could say that they believe that their false alien god is the one and only true God.) They also feel that their interpretation of the Bible is the right one and no one else has the authority or the right to read and interpret the Bible, or quote the Bible if they are not professed Christians. They deny and deny and deny this, but it is apparent in everything they say. JB Hmmm... There's that "they" again. Put down that wall paper brush Jeannie - your accusations hold true for such a select few. First of all - and this extends to Abra - we "christians" don't "own" the bible, we just believe it. You are free to believe it or not - but you are no more worthy of claiming it's falsehood as fact than I am of it's being true. That would be "owning it". When you give up the guilt on that - perhaps "they" will as well. Also - Christians don't "own" God. They have a relationship with him. This is manifested in answering the call when it comes. Or in their seeking of him - he is found. If one is not looking for God - they won't find him (the one of the scripture anyway). In this way - isn't ownership abandoned? So what is this point about owning God? I don't pretend to know how to interpret the bible correctly in every way - but I find it easy to recognise when it's misinterpreted, like Abra, Tribo, Redy and you do. You are quick to point out other references to support yourselves. Please explain to me how that is not claiming a right to "interpret scripture"? What you do NOT have a right to do - is claim that you think you know how I - as a christian - intepret scripture, and make decisions in my life based on those assumptions. Like "my need to have Religion" or my "God is my crutch" and other such nonsense. Such remarks are poinless and without substance, and certainly are unsupported by evidence. This is what is "denied, denied, denied". That you would even conjecture how I view life because of my belief the scriptures are worthy of examining. Once you walk through the door of stating "This is what THEY think" - you have walked into a room where you should be RIGHTLY examined for your idea's and opinions. And you put yourself up to being told you are wrong if you attempt to stand in this room without ALL the facts. Else, just stand outside the room and state what you THINK is meant. Then you will find no need for a post such as the one you've written. Fair enough? If I walk into the room where Aliens are refered to - would you not hold me up to a standard of having more than just an opinion if I state you are delusional? Wouldn't you EXPECT me to have at least examined the documentation that exists on the subject? Of course you would. Don't expect "them" to do any differently. So true... is what I have been saying. Why are Christians wrong for pointing out ever so clearly that the power of God surpasses the physical realm of possibilities??????? I am AMAZED at what people will turn to instead. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't believe God's word then just say so, but don't sit there & tell people that you know best when you are the one having trouble believing it. You can even say "I don't believe the God of your Bible" but then don't use it to argue your point because you lose credibility when you say you don't believe it.
There is no loss of credibility in questioning the validity of ancient superstitions. On the contrary there is loss of credibility for those who still fear to question such things. You call the power of God superstition? Come on now ??? What about miracles & signs & wonder? What about the ability of God to do what is impossible for man to do. This is not an attack on our personhood but only WITh God can we attain to the heavenly realm on earth dear man. Only WITH God can these seemingly conflicts in His word can be made understood. You are missing an entire dynamic because of unbelief. Just sayin'... If you want to talk about other gods...be my guest but if you are talking about God of the Bible & Jesus then expect answers according to GOD'S word...not ours. Stop shooting the messenger & we will all get along better.
There is no such thing as "other Gods" QS. If there is a supreme creator it is the creator of all of us. Anything that sets itself up AGAINST God's word are other "gods." That's scriptural... The very notion of "other Gods" is a poorly thought out notion. That kind of thinking is nothing more than a childish fantasy and denial. Anything that sets itself up AGAINST God's word are other "gods." That's scriptural... If we have a creator it's our creator QS. Not 'my creator' versus 'your creator'. That's the very mentality that causes people to become divided and creates political unrest and war. God says there is only one way to Him...Jesus. There is no other mediator between God & man. That is also in God's word.. I do understand why people feel this way though. If humanity has a creator we're all in this together QS. I'm a human being first and foremost. My thoughts on our creator are every bit as valid as any other human being. If it is being claimed that the Holy Bible contains the words of our creator. They I have every right to look into that document and the religions that surround it and voice my concerns about why I do, or do not, believe it could be a valid story of our creator. If you look at it from resistance then you won't be able to agree with it... that's your carnal man interfering with it. BTW...I have np with your assessment of God being Creator of all. For you to suggest that I have no credibility to speak of such things is for you to denounce my credibility as a human being.You have no crediblity when you mix alot of other stuff with wanting to change what God is saying. Again...I go by God's word... not man's. BTW... again...you are twisting my words. I never made any judgement about YOU. Everyone has a right to voice their opinions on anything that claims to be a description of our creator. there are opinions then facts. As far as God's word there is alot that is black & white. People even twist that. Christians will speak up...for sure. You can't just push people aside and tell them to go believe in their own 'gods'. That totally misses the point of humanity. If you want to believe in the Biblical picture of God, then do so. But don't tell other people that they have no credibility to speak about it. The religion claims to be a picture of the creator of humanity. As long as I'm human I have every right to speak out on a religion that claims to be a picture of our creator. Well then state the fact that you don't agree that God has ultimate power over all creation then because that's how you come across when YOU express unbelief. I'm not telling you that you can't believe in that picture. All I'm telling you is why I don't believe in it. And, as a human being, I have every right to voice my concerns. To say that I have no credibility is to denounce my humanity. Are you denouncing my humanity? My right to speak out as a human on issues of humanity?
These are your words not mine. I never made any mention of your "humanity." That's a stretch there guy. Get a grip. LOL The things you make up in your mind? hehehe Listen up...I realize that there is frustration with those who have not had that ressurrection experience... some wait for God while others feel rejection or not good enough or all these negative emotions. Or maybe you think you missed the boat. I am telling you all today that that is a lie from the pit of hell. God loves you so much...know you are loved by God. The fact that you are here & still talking about God means you all have questions that need answering. Best to you in your journey. I have no doubt that Jesus Our Great Sheppard will find His lost sheep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 08/10/08 08:10 AM
|
|
The first thing that happens is that a so-called "Christian" will come along (usually a fundamentalist) and begin to argue that only Christians can speak for the Bible. But is that a valid even a valid view? Christianity is a religion that has proclaimed a tenet that it will only use the Bible as it's source of Holy Scripture. But does that mean that the Christians own the Bible? Does that mean that only Christians have exclusive rights to give their opinions and interpretations of the Bible? No it doesn't mean that at all. Christianity is simply a religion that decided that it will only use the Bible as it's only source of spiritual information. They have absolutely no right whatsoever to demand that no other humans use those doctrines as references. That's actually one huge the mistake the people who follow Christianity make. They don't own the Bible. They have merely restricted themselves to only using it. They have absolutely not right whatsoever to claim that no one else can use the doctrines as merely one of the many writings of man. They have it backwards. Christianity doesn't own the Bible. It merely restricts itself to only using that document as a basis for it's belief system. People who want to view it as nothing more than writings of man have every right to view it as such and to discuss it as such. This idea that Christians have exclusive rights to hoard the Bible, and hoard God, is totally unwarranted and without merit.
This is so true Abra. I don't care what they say, they certainly do feel that they own the Bible. They also feel that they own God. (Or I could say that they believe that their false alien god is the one and only true God.) They also feel that their interpretation of the Bible is the right one and no one else has the authority or the right to read and interpret the Bible, or quote the Bible if they are not professed Christians. They deny and deny and deny this, but it is apparent in everything they say. JB Hmmm... There's that "they" again. Put down that wall paper brush Jeannie - your accusations hold true for such a select few. Well now you know how it feels to be clumped into a group of non-believers and called "Pagans" etc. I say "they" to mean a majority of Christians that I have been exposed to in my life. I speak from my personal experience. I don't have time to keep a list of names of every Christian I have met and what exactly he or she said to me. Mine is an over all impressions from my personal experience. First of all - and this extends to Abra - we "christians" don't "own" the bible, we just believe it.
I agree. I did not say you Christians owned the Bible. I said you (most of you) give the impressions or think you do. I will alter that statement to "You give the impression that you think you own the Bible." And that has been my personal experience. You are free to believe it or not - but you are no more worthy of claiming it's falsehood as fact than I am of it's being true. That would be "owning it". When you give up the guilt on that - perhaps "they" will as well. If Christians would not go around claiming the Bible is true and Historical fact, I would have no desire or need to tell them that it is not fact. It is when an author claims his book is the truth that people scrutinize it. Don't you understand this concept? Also - Christians don't "own" God. They have a relationship with him. This is manifested in answering the call when it comes. Or in their seeking of him - he is found. If one is not looking for God - they won't find him (the one of the scripture anyway). In this way - isn't ownership abandoned? So what is this point about owning God?
Here is the point about Christians who think they own God. 1. They claim that there is only one God. 2. They describe that God as being the one in the Bible. 3. Any other concept of God is called "a false God" or the "worship of Satan." Can it get any clearer than that? I don't pretend to know how to interpret the bible correctly in every way - but I find it easy to recognise when it's misinterpreted, like Abra, Tribo, Redy and you do. You are quick to point out other references to support yourselves. Please explain to me how that is not claiming a right to "interpret scripture"?
We do claim the right to interpret scripture, as is your right too. It is only your opinion that we have "misinterpreted" it because it disagrees with your own interpretation. Why do you jump up and assume that it is we who have misinterpreted it? Is it not for the purpose of personal interpretation? Does not every person interpret things in their own personal way? Who has the authority to say "you are wrong?" No one does. We do it, but we don't have that authority. All we have are opinions. Period. What you do NOT have a right to do - is claim that you think you know how I - as a christian - intepret scripture, and make decisions in my life based on those assumptions. Like "my need to have Religion" or my "God is my crutch" and other such nonsense.
Those are opinions and should not be taken personal. Such remarks are poinless and without substance, and certainly are unsupported by evidence. This is what is "denied, denied, denied". That you would even conjecture how I view life because of my belief the scriptures are worthy of examining.
My statements are my opinions and not to be taken personal. I think that is the problem with expressing opinions from a personal perspective. I do so to reveal myself and for no other reason. I give of my personal experience to others for the purpose of better understanding. No other reason. Once you walk through the door of stating "This is what THEY think" - you have walked into a room where you should be RIGHTLY examined for your idea's and opinions. And you put yourself up to being told you are wrong if you attempt to stand in this room without ALL the facts. Else, just stand outside the room and state what you THINK is meant. Then you will find no need for a post such as the one you've written. Fair enough? If I walk into the room where Aliens are refered to - would you not hold me up to a standard of having more than just an opinion if I state you are delusional? Wouldn't you EXPECT me to have at least examined the documentation that exists on the subject? Of course you would. Don't expect "them" to do any differently. I have examined your documentation. I have read the Bible. No, I have not studied it for years and years or read it over and over, nor have I committed to believing it on faith or been "born again" or any of that. But I have given it as much attention as I felt it deserved, and I decided that it is not credible enough information for further study. I am sure there are people who will say the same about my alien evidence. We only have opinions, that is all. I don't know what Christians think. Any general statements I make are based loosely on my over all personal impressions and experience. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QS wrote:
The fact that you are here & still talking about God means you all have questions that need answering. Well, if we go by that then you must have questions about God that need answering because you're here too. 
Clearly you make up these little things to try to justify your conclucions, but as you can see they have no substance. God says there is only one way to Him...Jesus. There is no other mediator between God & man. That is also in God's word.. I do understand why people feel this way though.
No, God didn't say that. The Bible makes that claim. However, the Bible also says, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." And then later it suggests that the only way to get to this God is if you put Jesus before him. Clearly the bible cannot be the word of God because God would never be that confused. The Bible is nothign but mixed messages that constantly contradict previous messages. The whole way through your post you continually harp about the Bible being the word of God. You try to refer to miracles as support for the Bible. But the existence of miracles wouldn't mean that the Bible is the word of God anyway. That would just mean that there are supernatural forces at work. And besides, what miracles are you talking about? I know of no miracles. However, you seem to keep forgetting that I'm not an atheist. All I'm saying is that the Bible can't be the word of God. I'm not saying that there is no such thing as "god". Clearly you are not able to converse about the topic objectively because you are so totally convinced that the Bible is the word of God that you can't even separate the two. As far as you're concerned the Bible is God. If you discovered that the Bible is mythology then your God would no longer exist. You have no choice but to defend the book. You have no God without it. You don't trust God to exist unless you have a fable to go with him. A lot of people are in that boat QS you're not alone in that I assure you. It takes real faith to beleive in God directly without the need for fables. Most people can't muster real faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have examined your documentation. I have read the Bible. No, I have not studied it for years and years or read it over and over, nor have I committed to believing it on faith or been "born again" or any of that. But I have given it as much attention as I felt it deserved, and I decided that it is not credible enough information for further study. JB Well, I can very honestly say that I have given it far more attention that it deserves. I've given the Bible every possibiliy that I can imagine. I've left no stone unturned. I've even tried to make it work in the face of absurdities to no avail. QS would like to discredit me, but on the contrary I have more credibility to speak on the topic than a lot of people probably including her. I've spent far too much time looking into the possiblities. My conclusions are the same as the great Isaac Newton. It can't be made to work. Period. That's the only conclusion that can be drawn IMHO. JB was simply convinced of this more easily. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
splendidlife
on
Sun 08/10/08 12:02 PM
|
|
I don't think of this as "Us" and "Them". I hear truth in everyone's words (even when, at times, some words seem completely condemning). The reason I don't declare any one religion is simply because it would define beliefs, locking them in one place in time, leaving no room for new discovery. New discovery is neither good nor evil. Or, perhaps it's both and perhaps that's exactly as it's meant to be. Just as we have been given brains meant to continuously discover the Universe around us, I believe we have been given the ability to allow for evolving possibility in all. Is it my ego that stops me from declaring one belief because I think I'm larger than that? Could be. But, at least I can be free of having to be right.
Thank God! |
|
|
|
|
