100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Faith is not a warring tactic! | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
WOW! I have to hand it to both of you...
wouldee & voileazur You both certainly have a way with words. I know! I know!  Just wanted to give some KUDOS!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mon capitan!!! no need to be sore. I thought you would be pleased. we need to know, capitan, was it a fun sail? Tell us of your exploits and how deep the waters are in " faith as a warring tactic"!!!!!! Please, mon capitan!!!! Do tell of your successful exploitation of lesser men!!!! your students need you. I need you. Who will lead us mon capitan? when you leave again for so long an absence. Oh you leave us in such dire straits. These rocks shall tear our hulls and leave us wrecked on the craggy shore forlorn and in distess without your masterful guidance, O Enlightened One!!!! Do tell of your exploits against that mean man. please, pretty please?????  I am SO on topic, Homer.       Well actually Wouldee... Voilizer's comment: For it to be true for everyone else, so to speak, or be accepted as true of proven at large, it needs to be ascertainable, and must be ascertained on a public basis. This is really a warring factor. Another, ehem.. contradiction. We live in the world yet Christ says to pray for unity in the body (whole other story). I have to ask this question...does anyone here think that anything worthwhile is easily attainable? Won't there always be naysayers, sceptics etc in this life? Why is God any different? When & who decided that all things are open for discussion other than Christian faith? Honestly speaking wouldee...even Christians don't always agree with 1. the Bible & therefore 2. eachother or there would be no need for "denominations." So Voilizer et al...this is why I believe God & Him alone. Whatever my expereince is, it's enough for me to take God at His word. There is too much out there to confuse people & it comprimises our integrity. That is how I feel about life in general. It wasn't always like that but with all we are blessed with too many lost their souls because of comprimise. For my own peace I just can't go there anymore. Do some here actually think we didn't take the same road of do your own thing, experiment & be openminded blah blah blah??? Come on! Been there done that. Ain't going back. We started off as a Christian nation...look at how long it took for secular liberalism to take root. I think I liked it better when we collectively had rules & we WERE one nation. We all believed in God & based our laws on His laws & abided by them. We were doing so well. Now look at us???? What I'm trying to say is Warring doesn't only apply to faith. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voila, but is it faith itself that is undertstood by you, at all, for what it is, in truth? I see prejudices in your examination of QS's response, and I do not see the opportunity for which her words should apply to your careful desemination of explaining faith as you know it to be. You see, my short sided friend, you have precludud her to be bearing assumptions you yourself impart to your own conclusions. that is even more conclusory that QS's remarks. Her remarks are conclusory, yes, and according to her experiences, but they in no wise, excuse the pun, ignore the resounding of glorying in faith itself. Her words establish for me that she knows what faith is and that it is not God, by definiton, but a step we all take in life, no matter our personal pilgrimage of choice, and that, my deluded friend, is faithfully shared here by her conclusory remarks. I am shocked that you do not recognize that she understands what faith does as an action to her being. Do reconsider your evaluation of faith, won't you?  EXACTLY...Wouldee!!! If that's "dogma" I'll take it any day!!!! LOL Somehow I attach that word dogma to religiosity, not faith. Am I wrong in my assumption? I tend to think the same about the word dogma QS. Thanks Brit...I'm not sure that dogma is so bad either. that's a whole other topic though. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The arrogance of those who think quoting the Bible is just quoting another book is absurd. Q.S. Why would you call that "arrogance?" To me, arrogance is thinking that just because you believe a book to be "God's word" for no reason other than it says it is, that you would expect other people to believe it too. Yours is only faith and that it is God's word. Why is is arrogant for someone else to doubt your faith when you have no proof? It does beg the question why people who are seeking don't believe God's word? It's the way of learning too. That's why God instructs people to KNOW Him by His word or they will fall under any old spirit...and yes, there is a spirit world. Q.S. You can "beg the question" and you will get the answer. There is no proof and no reason to believe that the Bible is God's word. There is your answer. No begging necessary. You say God "instructs" people to "know him by his word." Really? How does he do that unless you are reading "his word" which you claim is the Bible? What if the Bible is not God's word? What if it was written by men? What if the whole story of Jesus was written by Calpurnius Piso family, who was a Roman aristocrat (as it says in the book "The True Authorship Of The New Testament by Abelard Reuchlin?") What if the New Testament and all the characters in it - Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, John the Baptist - all are fictional? What if the story if Jesus is a plagiarized myth similar to the myth of Mithra told 500 years before the "birth of Jesus?" What would you do then? Where would your faith in God be then? JB That is exactly the point of this thread JB and QS!!! Faith; a belief without proof. Of course QS, everyone requires 'a' belief without proof to access the abstraction of faith, the instinctive need to 'have' faith. This is where 'belief' comes into play. Belief is an 'assent of the mind', a mental construct, which yields a 'sense', a picture, a seemingly likelyhood of what might be true for one person at a time!!! ... ALL THAT, WITHOUT ANY 'PROOF' WHATSOEVER!!! Personal experiences maybe. Personal justification of those personal expereriences, MAYBE, BUT NOT PROOF!!! So faith in your case QS is clearly mentally constructed around a belief in the bible, every word of it. That is personal to YOU. Even if it is personal to a few friends of yours whom share the same mental construct for themselves, it is still personal to you and them. Well actually...it's God who speaks to me thru His word but it is comfirmed thru other people unknown us, to eachother. For example, I was at a conference & during the session I experienced something in the supernatural. When the spokesperson got up they spoke exactly what I experienced, & this person & I don't know eachother. Many experienced the same thing. These things can't possibly be without God's move giving people unknown to each other the same understanding & experience. The problem, where 'faith', completely mischaracterized, becomes a warring tactic, is when the micharacterization difforms 'a belief without proof', into this perversion a lot of you claim as the 'only proof of a true faith'!!! The lie and mischaracterization and ensuing war of words+, starts when you (the larger 'you'), imply that everyone else's faith, ... based on a similar 'mental construct' which also sits on a 'belief without proof', isn't acceptable, somehow due to the fact that THEIR faith, is derived from a DIFFERENT mental construct, which sits on a 'belief that is equally without proof', just as yours. That's the rub. No getting out of it. It only leads to war. I never said it wouldn't. God's word says this, His word is like a two edged sword..dividing even bone & marrow asunder. The war is not with man to man but God & man's unbelief. If I throw jabs that's me...not God, but when it comes to God's word & the things of God, I have to speak His words only...not mine. I realize that is an offense to some & even that is confirmed in the Bible. Maybe that is where the contradictions come from. Yu think? The war is not with man to man but God & man's unbelief. Spirit?!?!?! Forget it! There is no spirit possible in separation!!! Not true. When one consciously or unconsciously, with or without conviction, denies someone else's legitimate faith construct, presuming theirs is the only right ONE!!! A War of Separation occurs, not a meeting in spirit!!! That's it folks!!! Bible inerrancy, which pushes for the bible (belief without proof), to be the 'proof of the belief', IS THE DROP OF PISS IN THE SOUP!!! THE SAND IN THE TRANSMISSION!!! THE TADPOLE IN THE BED SHEETS!!! It is the ennemy!!! Not the fundies!!! Not the evangelicals!!! Not the bible thumpers!!! Those are our brothers and sisters whom are crying out to be 'saved' from the lies and divisive evil of 'bible inerrancy'!!! A human concept of the worst perversion. Let's not throw the illusion of 'fundamentalist babies' with the bathwater!!! Uh! I think you are the one who is fighting flesh & blood here...my God says we war not against flesh & blood but powers & principalities in the heavenlies. I suppose your are just defending your atheistic POV. Then there are those who realize there IS a higher power & want to pursue it. I guess I speak to them according to what I believe. God's word is the manual but it's God alone who brings it to life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Faith is not a warring tactic!"
It's curious how discussion of faith often becomes war on these boards. Is it the faith, the faithful, or the faithless? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wouldee
on
Sun 08/17/08 10:30 AM
|
|
faith itself needs to be defined and codified, apparently.
history hasn't answered that point sufficiently for many. so on and on it goes. the human pursuit, working backwards to figure out that, yes, we are here. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Sun 08/17/08 11:05 AM
|
|
Well actually Wouldee... Voilizer's comment: For it to be true for everyone else, so to speak, or be accepted as true of proven at large, it needs to be ascertainable, and must be ascertained on a public basis. This is really a warring factor. Another, ehem.. contradiction. We live in the world yet Christ says to pray for unity in the body (whole other story). I have to ask this question...does anyone here think that anything worthwhile is easily attainable? Won't there always be naysayers, sceptics etc in this life? Why is God any different? When & who decided that all things are open for discussion other than Christian faith? Honestly speaking wouldee...even Christians don't always agree with 1. the Bible & therefore 2. eachother or there would be no need for "denominations." So Voilizer et al...this is why I believe God & Him alone. Whatever my expereince is, it's enough for me to take God at His word. There is too much out there to confuse people & it comprimises our integrity. That is how I feel about life in general. It wasn't always like that but with all we are blessed with too many lost their souls because of comprimise. For my own peace I just can't go there anymore. Do some here actually think we didn't take the same road of do your own thing, experiment & be openminded blah blah blah??? Come on! Been there done that. Ain't going back. We started off as a Christian nation...look at how long it took for secular liberalism to take root. I think I liked it better when we collectively had rules & we WERE one nation. We all believed in God & based our laws on His laws & abided by them. We were doing so well. Now look at us???? What I'm trying to say is Warring doesn't only apply to faith. Opening side note: Eventhough I do not take offense to your gross misspelling of my 'pseudo', I couldn't help notice you got quite upset with posters whom didn't get the right spelling of yours. No need to apologize, but I'll be curious to see how you spell my pseudo in your next reply. Hoping of course that you will... The point of this thread Quikstepper, is why does 'warring' apply to faith at all?!?!?! Why!!! Seriously why?!?!?! Does anyone feels obligated to fight to the death for 'faith'!!! Fighting for faith can no longer be faith, unless the definition of faith as gotten seriously difformed along the way. Faith stands alone, and sovereign!!! It need not be 'sold', argued over, or imposed by anyone to anyone else!!! It is an abstraction. Ever try to impose YOUR definition of love to anyone?!?!?! Will never work!!! And yet, that personal experience of love, is the only access all of us have to ... experience love for ourselves!!! Ever wonder why song, or poems about love never stop coming?!?!? No one, and not one, can possiblycoin it!!! It an abstraction, which takes shape only in our own personal experience. So it is with faith! If you have a political agenda, founded on thoughts of a homogeneous nation, sharing & serving the same ideological principles, post it on political forums, or support a politician whom stands for similar values as you, or better yet, write your own platform and get elected! But I promise, all this has nothing to do with faith. Personal beliefs surely, but not faith. Collapsing all words in a indiscernable mush, faith(s), belief(s), religion(s), dogma, only serves to confuse everything, and everyone. When faith gets mischaracterized to mean a specific dogma, or religion, or set of beliefs, which by definition all belong to the personal domain, it brings about the type of delusional premise that if one doesn't know 'YOUR GOD', one is faithless, morality deprived, unethical, and must be 'saved', and brought in to the 'right' path. Not true! Not even close! The small group of christian believers, sharing the dogma of bible inerrancy, doesn't have any claim or dominion over 'faith', 'morality' or 'ethics'. And while all are free to believe what they wish, believing in the dogma of 'bible inerrancy', brings with it an 'all or nothing' perversion, which excludes, and 'wars' against anything and everything which doesn't subscribe to the perverted 'bible inerrancy dogma'. That being said, it matters little that you and I agree or disagree QS. What matters, is that as long as there are human beings whom feel that they have some sort of dominion over other human beings, 'wars' will ensue. There can be no peace in the exclusion of the legitimacy of others. Faith is not personal, nor does it belong to one particular group. Sets of beliefs, supporting universal human faith, are personal, and not to be confused with FAITH. Beliefs support ONE'S faith, but are never faith itself!!! Whether we like it or not. Whether we believe in this definition of faith or not, ... we all need to honor and respect that all human beings are legitimate in universal good 'faith'. That we share or not the beliefs which constitute faith, is of little importance. It is not to be settled in the religious, or 'believing' domain. That is why we have rule of law, and democratic systems. As many do, convert your beliefs into political agendi, and put them through the democratic process. We will then all live with the result of the majority rule!!! Collapsing and confusing word definitions and vastly distinct perspectives, will always bring about feuding and warring!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wouldee
on
Sun 08/17/08 10:58 AM
|
|
There can be no peace in the exclusion of the legitimacy of others
well, that explains overposting and stalking me last night , mon capitan. now that you see that, please apply it and learn the lesson, then teach it. it is still too fresh in your mind. it will require faith, Voila!!!! use it. Even if you have to war with yourself to accomodate putting the lesson into practice. great lesson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There can be no peace in the exclusion of the legitimacy of others well, that explains overposting and stalking me last night , mon capitan. now that you see that, please apply it and learn the lesson, then teach it. it is still too fresh in your mind. it will require faith, Voila!!!! use it. Even if you have to war with yourself to accomodate putting the lesson into practice. great lesson. More 'emoticons'!!! I hate to think of the stench they must leave in your home!!! Just a suggestion: lower the sugar ration!!! Maybe they'll be less annoying, with all this rolling aimlessly all over the place!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Quikstepper
on
Sun 08/17/08 12:14 PM
|
|
Well actually Wouldee... Voilizer's comment: For it to be true for everyone else, so to speak, or be accepted as true of proven at large, it needs to be ascertainable, and must be ascertained on a public basis. This is really a warring factor. Another, ehem.. contradiction. We live in the world yet Christ says to pray for unity in the body (whole other story). I have to ask this question...does anyone here think that anything worthwhile is easily attainable? Won't there always be naysayers, sceptics etc in this life? Why is God any different? When & who decided that all things are open for discussion other than Christian faith? Honestly speaking wouldee...even Christians don't always agree with 1. the Bible & therefore 2. eachother or there would be no need for "denominations." So Voilizer et al...this is why I believe God & Him alone. Whatever my expereince is, it's enough for me to take God at His word. There is too much out there to confuse people & it comprimises our integrity. That is how I feel about life in general. It wasn't always like that but with all we are blessed with too many lost their souls because of comprimise. For my own peace I just can't go there anymore. Do some here actually think we didn't take the same road of do your own thing, experiment & be openminded blah blah blah??? Come on! Been there done that. Ain't going back. We started off as a Christian nation...look at how long it took for secular liberalism to take root. I think I liked it better when we collectively had rules & we WERE one nation. We all believed in God & based our laws on His laws & abided by them. We were doing so well. Now look at us???? What I'm trying to say is Warring doesn't only apply to faith. Opening side note: Eventhough I do not take offense to your gross misspelling of my 'pseudo', I couldn't help notice you got quite upset with posters whom didn't get the right spelling of yours. No need to apologize, but I'll be curious to see how you spell my pseudo in your next reply. Hoping of course that you will... I stand corrected. It was not to insult you but I never saw that name before. Some spelled my name wrong as an insult. A taunt. Big difference. Not that I really care but was pointing out their own hypocrisy to them. The point of this thread Quikstepper, is why does 'warring' apply to faith at all?!?!?! Why!!! Seriously why?!?!?! Does anyone feels obligated to fight to the death for 'faith'!!! Well now I wouldn't say I fight to the death. It's more an insistance that I am not being arrogant about the fact that I had an experience someone else didn't. It's not to say they never will except in their mind only. See? Faith stands alone, and sovereign!!! It need not be 'sold', argued over, or imposed by anyone to anyone else!!! It is an abstraction. Ever try to impose YOUR definition of love to anyone?!?!?! Will never work!!! And yet, that personal experience of love, is the only access all of us have to ... experience love for ourselves!!! Ah but "love" is also something that requires faith. Add to your faith... love...peace...joy...patience...kindness..gentleness. It is personal. Remember that first love that led to a broken heart? Makes one to know they can be loved & yet sick for it's loss? How do you think Christians feel about God? Ever wonder why song, or poems about love never stop coming?!?!? No one, and not one, can possiblycoin it!!! It an abstraction, which takes shape only in our own personal experience. So it is with faith! Agreed! You have no arguement with me here. If you have a political agenda, founded on thoughts of a homogeneous nation, sharing & serving the same ideological principles, post it on political forums, or support a politician whom stands for similar values as you, or better yet, write your own platform and get elected! Here is where there might be some disagreement. all you have to do is look at society & look at the human condition to see the fruits...let's say...of secularism on society & govt as opposed to society & govt. under God of...whoever. God says If My people who are called by My name will repent of their ways I will forgive them their sins & will heal their land. He also say seek first the kingdom of God & HIS righteousness & all these things SHALL BE ADDED UNTO YOU! So what I'm proposing is faith first then dogma on a societal level of life & living. I know God has divine power but I think there also has to be something said for societal norms that APPROVE God's handywork. You do want proof...right? When faith gets mischaracterized to mean a specific dogma, or religion, or set of beliefs, which by definition all belong to the personal domain, it brings about the type of delusional premise that if one doesn't know 'YOUR GOD', one is faithless, morality deprived, unethical, and must be 'saved', and brought in to the 'right' path. I am not mischaractorizing anything. I am sharing my experience. I expect you to call God's divinity delusional because that is the athiest's premise. If they can exclude that from the conversation then they can decieve many to agree with their premise that God doesn't exist. However, there is a testimony of many who don't agree & by sharing their faith in God of the Bible others can know Him too. there are also many who are still seeking who are honest enough with themselves to know they have an instinct of God that can't be talked away. You will never win them over. The small group of christian believers, sharing the dogma of bible inerrancy, doesn't have any claim or dominion over 'faith', 'morality' or 'ethics'. Why are you calling God's divinity errancy? That's crazy!!!! That being said, it matters little that you and I agree or disagree QS. What matters, is that as long as there are human beings whom feel that they have some sort of dominion over other human beings, 'wars' will ensue. There can be no peace in the exclusion of the legitimacy of others. Faith is not personal, nor does it belong to one particular group. Sets of beliefs, supporting universal human faith, are personal, and not to be confused with FAITH. Beliefs support ONE'S faith, but are never faith itself!!! It's your assumption or interpretation not what we are saying. Faith is personal & I never said it's exclusive. What I am saying is people should be careful WHAT they believe. Truth is absolute. As long as people have souls humans will always war over the things of God. His word is a sharp & powerful two edged sword splitting asunder even bone & marrow. BTW, most religions teach works not grace...only Christianity teaches the grace of God. Big difference. It takes an act of faith to put one's self down as a living sacrifice so God can possess us. I can't even say I am totally there yet. I can only go as far as I am willing to give Him control. If you think that is easy guess again...but is it worth it? YES! That is why we have rule of law, and democratic systems. As many do, convert your beliefs into political agendi, and put them through the democratic process. We will then all live with the result of the majority rule!!! Actually we live under a republic form of Govt. It's not a democracy or a majority rule. Collapsing and confusing word definitions and vastly distinct perspectives, will always bring about feuding and warring!!! Well actually I think the only confusion was brought upon America was the counter culture. It's poison to our nation. Until then everything was defined very nicely...and it worked too!!! ...but that's something for the politics board. I raise the issue because I see nothing wrong with religion in society. It helps build people up to what they should be instead of dumb them down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wouldee
on
Sun 08/17/08 01:58 PM
|
|
faith not required when the state has the answers.
self determination and creative endeavor in the marketplace reflect faith in ACTION Still, all in all, faith itself is not defined by these consequences of faith in action. The warring tactics of faith can be evidenced in the diesire to control, limit, sequester, censor and moderate the free discourse of offerings made on any topic and in any agenda. Yet, as a warring tactic, it is not evident by the employ of faith itself; not until the lack of faith of others wrestles with any free expression and exercise engaged by the faith if one, does the other present itself for fear and anxiety, expressed in warring fashion. Kind of like getting the last word in. kind of like overposting to dilute any expression unagreeable to the warrior so inclined so as to arbitrate dilution of words exppressed in contrarian form and substance. . This form of "monkey see and monkey do" is mind control at its most elementary, and only serves to accentuate the incompetence of inarticulate responses fearing open and free acknowledgement and contemplation not according to any agenda fearing and dsiguising its unmeritirious and ill conceived licentiousness and prejudice. More often than not , a genuine expression falls prey to the filter of of "titillating original thoughts" deliberately void of any genuine and well trodden principle in the name of "eradicating ancient superstition" Which brings me to wonder if 'faith' itself as a God given inherence can discover itself in contemporary civil society that insists on "evolving" everything as an alternative to the real virtue of safeguarding future generations from "being condemned to repeat history's lessons ill applied". Obstinance and rebellion smack of a lack of respect for authority. just because it can in free discourse. That seems to invoke prejudices of agendas conceived. That also precipitates re-inventing rebelliousness and impertinence in a civil society at rest from outside intervention, but achieves little fomenting civil disobedience engendering entitlement and parity conceived in laziness, not creative genuine endeavor. Such tug of wars contribute to the subjective nature of whether war is causal from free expression or effective because free expression and autonomous discourses challenge the status quo and disply the incompetence of the weak minded and selfish among us that "cry foul" over dilegence and the lack thereof with imbalance and unjust and improper coherence and comprehension of what constitutes faith as faith is. Without faith, faithfulness would bear impossible and indiscernable results. But it is faith that displys faithlessness and unfaithfulness to any principle or value or expression of intent and endeavor. Faith is a warring tactic when feared by the bereft of faith. It is their moniker, those so bereft. Misery loves company and the miserable have faith in spreading the news of their apprehensions through force. How quaint.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voileazure quoted:
The point of this thread Quikstepper, is why does 'warring' apply to faith at all?!?!?! Why!!! Seriously why?!?!?! Does anyone feels obligated to fight to the death for 'faith'!!! -- I do not think they honestly do. They may convince themselves they do, but that does not necessarily make it true. Belief(s) on the other hand, yes I believe that can lead to fighting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QS quoted: Thanks Brit...I'm not sure that dogma is so bad either. that's a whole other topic though. --- I can agree with that, it has its place and for some it can be a very good thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sun 08/17/08 02:15 PM
|
|
Voil If you have a political agenda, founded on thoughts of a homogeneous nation, sharing & serving the same ideological principles, post it on political forums, or support a politician whom stands for similar values as you, or better yet, write your own platform and get elected! QS Here is where there might be some disagreement. all you have to do is look at society & look at the human condition to see the fruits...let's say...of secularism on society & govt as opposed to society & govt. under God of...whoever. So what I'm proposing is faith first then dogma on a societal level of life & living. I know God has divine power but I think there also has to be something said for societal norms that APPROVE God's handywork. You do want proof...right? Just want to make sure I understand what you are saying QS. You seem to believe that if a whole society held the very same beliefs, regarding the god of the Christian bible, that the human condition would be greatly improved. This is what I see in you post. Not trying to put words in your mouth or ideas on this page that have not been spoken by you, just trying to restate them from what you have written. OK? If I have managed to restate your position properly, then the following would be my response. There are questions that arise from your position. First, who would decide what the ‘norms’ of the society should be? How closely would laws resemble the bible? Who would be allowed to interpret the bible and thus make decisions for all of society based on that interpretation? Not to be argumentative, in the midst of these questions, but I sort of get a vision of the Vatican here and it papestry. Something else comes to mind, regarding the ‘human condition’. I can’t help but wonder if you have considered all that, actually, has an effect on the human condition, such as technology, science, medicine. In years past much has been accomplished in the medical field, in opposition to, some religious beliefs, specifically Christian. Do you propose that we are not meant to advance in technology or medicine where those advancements go against the biblical interpretation of one in charge? These are just some thoughts and questions I’ve considered after reading the above part of your post. QS I am not mischaractorizing anything. I am sharing my experience. I expect you to call God's divinity delusional because that is the athiest's premise. If they can exclude that from the conversation then they can decieve many to agree with their premise that God doesn't exist. However, there is a testimony of many who don't agree & by sharing their faith in God of the Bible others can know Him too. there are also many who are still seeking who are honest enough with themselves to know they have an instinct of God that can't be talked away. You will never win them over. Here is an example of that which turns a conversation, a discussion, a debate, into a warring tactic. “I expect you to call God's divinity delusional because that is the athiest's premise” and the final blow “You will never win them over.” Just as some Christians believe atheists can’t possibly understand the Christian view, some Christians, seem to include in their beliefs that atheists, in fact, all non-Christian people, begin from some premise that speaks directly and adversely of Christian beliefs. As if it’s the primary goal on our agenda to “win over” those whom Christians have dibbs on. Sorry, but those words are what I saw in your writing. They are words to endorse war, not discuss issues. Voil
Faith is not personal, nor does it belong to one particular group. Sets of beliefs, supporting universal human faith, are personal, and not to be confused with FAITH. Beliefs support ONE'S faith, but are never faith itself!!! QS It's your assumption or interpretation not what we are saying. Faith is personal & I never said it's exclusive. What I am saying is people should be careful WHAT they believe. Truth is absolute. As long as people have souls humans will always war over the things of God. His word is a sharp & powerful two edged sword splitting asunder even bone & marrow. Are you saying that the ONLY definition that can stem from the word faith has it’s base in religion? Your words here have confused me. You explain that the definition of truth is ABSOLUTE. What is it in this existence that can qualify as truth, according to you? Also, do you ‘believe’ that one person’s qualifier for truth can and may be different than your own? These are examples of words that can be used as a warring tactic, especially when an intellectual mind knows and understands how these words may be used for that purpose. As Voil has stated below. Collapsing and confusing word definitions and vastly distinct perspectives, will always bring about feuding and warring!!! QS Well actually I think the only confusion was brought upon America was the counter culture. It's poison to our nation. Until then everything was defined very nicely...and it worked too!!! ...but that's something for the politics board. This could be an interesting line (or tactic.) If this were in another thread, I might question you thus? What in your view is the ‘counter culture’. Give some history, some background and explain in what way this ‘culture’ has poisoned the nation, please. BUT that would be off topic, just something to think about though. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sun 08/17/08 02:22 PM
|
|
The warring tactics of faith can be evidenced in the diesire to control, limit, sequester, censor and moderate the free discourse of offerings made on any topic and in any agenda. I think I understand this. You mean when someone responds to a reply like this. WRONG WRONG WRONG WHEN WILL YOU PEOPLE EVER GET A CLUE or in a manner so condescending that it's only offering can be seen as offensive? Is that what you mean, Wouldee? I guess some would just be expected to act that way, and those of us who know better, should not sink so low, - not even in an attempt to show a person how rediculous their attitude is. Gee Wouldee, anything in those words you think you and I can learn from? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yet, as a warring tactic, it is not evident by the employ of faith itself; not until the lack of faith of others wrestles with any free expression and exercise engaged by the faith if one, does the other present itself for fear and anxiety, expressed in warring fashion. Kind of like getting the last word in. kind of like overposting to dilute any expression unagreeable to the warrior so inclined so as to arbitrate dilution of words exppressed in contrarian form and substance. . This form of "monkey see and monkey do" is mind control at its most elementary, and only serves to accentuate the incompetence of inarticulate responses fearing open and free acknowledgement and contemplation not according to any agenda fearing and dsiguising its unmeritirious and ill conceived licentiousness and prejudice. You mean like the word tactics and the outright prejudice and believe that only one can be correct, that is shown in the last post of QS? Just asking! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sun 08/17/08 02:34 PM
|
|
So Wouldee, is it only those who claim to be athiests that you see as miserable?
What about those who have a deep commitment to some cultural way of life that has nothing to do with a god at all? Are they also miserable? Or perhaps the question I should be asking is this: Is anyone who is not deeply committed to the Christian faith through biblical scripture, miserable? Just asking for clarification. I wouldn't want to fall prey to a warring tactic, unnessicarily. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The warring tactics of faith can be evidenced in the diesire to control, limit, sequester, censor and moderate the free discourse of offerings made on any topic and in any agenda. I think I understand this. You mean when someone responds to a reply like this. WRONG WRONG WRONG WHEN WILL YOU PEOPLE EVER GET A CLUE or in a manner so condescending that it's only offering can be seen as offensive? Is that what you mean, Wouldee? I guess some would just be expected to act that way, and those of us who know better, should not sink so low, - not even in an attempt to show a person how rediculous their attitude is. Gee Wouldee, anything in those words you think you and I can learn from? Oh come on now Redy! You got it bad for FC. You are always attacking her. Frankly that surpizes me about you because I like hearing from you. You are otherwise more thoughful & spunky at the same time. So what's up with that? Inquiring minds wanna know...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wouldee
on
Sun 08/17/08 02:54 PM
|
|
So Wouldee, is it only those who claim to be athiests that you see as miserable? What about those who have a deep commitment to some cultural way of life that has nothing to do with a god at all? Are they also miserable? Or perhaps the question I should be asking is this: Is anyone who is not deeply committed to the Christian faith through biblical scripture, miserable? Just asking for clarification. I wouldn't want to fall prey to a warring tactic, unnessicarily. Hi redy.  I hadn't anticipated that my remarks would badge athiests as miserable in their sufferings. How thoughtless of me not to have been cognizant that the implication was so narrow. I think in more macro cosmic ways. I am much more universal in my understanding that misery loves company. I would not assume that athiests find themselves the arbiters and sole harbingers of such torment. I am certain that misery is not so limited in its reach as an emotional trigger for retributions sufferable by such a dysfunctional embrace. Your observation is telling, though. If it speaks to you, then at least it has reached someone LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The warring tactics of faith can be evidenced in the diesire to control, limit, sequester, censor and moderate the free discourse of offerings made on any topic and in any agenda. I think I understand this. You mean when someone responds to a reply like this. WRONG WRONG WRONG WHEN WILL YOU PEOPLE EVER GET A CLUE or in a manner so condescending that it's only offering can be seen as offensive? Is that what you mean, Wouldee? I guess some would just be expected to act that way, and those of us who know better, should not sink so low, - not even in an attempt to show a person how rediculous their attitude is. Gee Wouldee, anything in those words you think you and I can learn from? \ hi redy. Well, in the case of kittycat rebuttals, there is a fluidity to the obnstinate rebellions exhibited against her with consistent and droning repititions found "worjking so well". Such responses have contextual competence, as far as I can see. She merely gives those that are seeking a cookie cutter response the attention they deserve. Yousee, redy, the inattentiveness given her posts is rewarded in like kind. Some lessons are well learned and no need is present to alter that which is learned. I would call it "filing the minutia" Works for her. It gives her time to respond to the sincere that have a thoiughtfu;l response with requests for more, or expressions of joy found appropriately due in love. I hope that answers your question regarding a certain kittycat. I know the stoop is low, so I have kept it on target and succinct for you.
|
|
|
|
|
