|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Book Of Acts | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Why cant I be hypothetical without forever constructing strawmen?
Because it is dishonest and not a valid argument. By using this comment you invalidate your whole argument.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Where does it suggest any unusual unification of mind and heart to the extent that this passage suggests?
Here is the passage yet again:
Acts 2:44 writes: All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. The only thing in that passage that might not be found in a secular socialist or communist community is "praising God".Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
It does not suggest anything directly in that passage...but a bit later...
Acts4:32 writes: When was the last time you let someone borrow your car? Your guns? Your clothes??(not that you wouldn't do so....but admittedly this type of community sharing is unusual) All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. Lets say though for arguments sake you are correct. There are other parts of Acts that suggest an undue influence by said Holy Spirit. Though I'm not sure what point I wish to prove..... Add by edit: Check this out: Give And Take: How The Rule Of Reciprocation Binds Us Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And again, read the passage you provided as support.
Acts 4:32 writes: All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. Once more the passage simply says that they developed a communistic/socialistic society. It says NOTHING about spiritual beliefs or the Holy Spirit. The problem Phat is that you are not reading or studying Acts, not examining what the book actually says, but rather inserting your own additional editorial comments to make it "MEAN" what YOU want it to mean. But does YOUR interpretation have anything to do with what Acts actually says?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Tell me when you have seen the following behavior exhibited in a "normal" secular society?
For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. Im saying that what was happening in the book was not normal human behavior. and I challenge anyone who claims they would gladly live this way. It just aint normal. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Again, it is normal socialist/communist behavior and a pretty common behavior even under capitalism.
Have you ever been to the Denver Public Libraries, driven on roads without paying a toll, have a Fire Department require a payment before responding to a fire? Did you know that there are almost 2000 Carnegie libraries in the US. In Baltimore I spent many hours in the Enoch Pratt free library, another example.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
ok i think i see where this is going. You would allow that the behavior in the Book of Acts is possible in any normal human society and that we dont require any special blessing or favor from God to accomplish what we know to do.
And yes, perhaps I want there to be such a special bestowing, and admittedly will continue to believe it. I am not as optimistic about humans being responsible without help as you perhaps are......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Again, what does the book actually say, not what does Phat want the book to say.
There are many examples of similar societies, for example most of the Native American Indian societies. They did not "own" land or resources and had rules seeing that women and children got fed first and that widows and orphans were taken care of.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 832 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
So your accusation that some people "reject the idea of god simply because of wishing to preserve the right of one to think freely without limits or constraint on behavior that such a Spirit may impose on a human conscience" is a hypothetical scenario that you "cant see being valid"? Is that correct?
If so, you should be aware that that is a common accusation made towards atheists/nonbelievers by religionists. Furthermore, if it is a hypothetical scenario, why would you say you can't see it being valid? What purpose does it serve to construct a hypothetical scenario, an accusation which is actually laid by other members of your religion as a serious one and not a hypothetical scenario; one they actually believe, to say that you can't see it as being valid? Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given."Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I say that I DO see it being valid and, in fact, rather common.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 832 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
You said in Message 15,
Phat writes: but the one I cant see being valid is rejecting the idea of God simply because of wishing to preserve the right of one to think freely without limits or constraint on behavior that such a Spirit may impose on a human conscience. Is that the word CAN'T as in a conjunction of CANNOT, or CAN? These two words are exactly opposite and have different meanings. You can't say that you erroneously added a T at the end because you used it as a contrary example to the other two that you can see the logic of. Which is it Phat? edit:Furthermore, I will ask the same as jar. Since you think there are actual cases where non-believers don't believe simply because they wish to be free from the shackles of this dictator god, you could provide them. I hope if you do so, you will provide solid evidence of their reasoning and not merely "Phat thinks that is their reason for not believing the bible". You've gotten yourself in a bit of a jam here. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given."Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Then I imagine you can provide examples to support your assertion.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
oh ok, my bad. in context, can't is what I meant.
I can't see that as being a valid reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 832 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Ok. Back to Message 17
hooah writes: You do realize that is a strawman caricature of atheists you religious types have created, right? The one you "cant see being valid" is one that you have made up and one that you assume is a reason atheists choose not to believe. What kind of argument are you laying out here?
I can't see that as being a valid reason. Neither can anyone else. Which is why it is asonine for you religious types to constantly bring it up or mention it, yet you do constantly. It IS a strawman that you can easily knock down. It is NOT a position that ANY non-believer holds, nor a reason any non-believer uses as a basis for their non-belief."Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
It is NOT a position that ANY non-believer holds, nor a reason any non-believer uses as a basis for their non-belief. oh come on! Do you expect me to believe that? Just for fun, I'll give you that point...though I think that you are stretching reality at least as far as I was. The issue can't simply be framed as "because God is fiction." That is a belief and not a fact. Or am I again constructing a strawman.....??
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024