Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
31 online now:
GDR, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 0/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christianity Needs to Return to Being a Good Example
ringo
Member
Posts: 17292
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 46 of 57 (861686)
08-25-2019 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Thugpreacha
08-24-2019 4:25 PM


Re: Missionary: FAIL??
Phat writes:

If, however, our money were worthless, or our jobs vanished...


Google "Great Depression".

Phat writes:

... or our government turned out to be a people who valued things that we abhor....


Trump.

"Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns"
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Thugpreacha, posted 08-24-2019 4:25 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3846
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 47 of 57 (861743)
08-26-2019 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Thugpreacha
08-24-2019 1:57 PM


Re: Missionary: FAIL??
Thugpreacha writes:

Stile writes:

Being rude and forcing your views on others is bad and wrong, regardless of how logical it may or may not be.
There are many ways to set a good example and allow others to choose to investigate your motives if they desire.

Spread the word using good methods.
I agree. Critics would say, however, that the end justifies the means. If we suffered an economic collapse or another major 9-11 type attack, forcing us into war, the streets would run thick with preachers and society likely would have them arrested. Whether that would further add fuel to the fire in a war of ideologies is uncertain as of yet.

Let me get this straight...

Are you suggesting that since there's a slim chance some bad stuff might happen in the future... that this is a valid excuse to do bad things today?

Are you sure you're on Christ's side of this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Thugpreacha, posted 08-24-2019 1:57 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Thugpreacha, posted 08-26-2019 12:49 PM Stile has responded

    
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12805
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 48 of 57 (861751)
08-26-2019 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Stile
08-26-2019 8:24 AM


Re: Missionary: FAIL??
Stile writes:

Let me get this straight...

Are you suggesting that since there's a slim chance some bad stuff might happen in the future... that this is a valid excuse to do bad things today?

First off, lets be specific. What bad things are we discussing? Forcing ones views?

Do I come across as forcing anyone to believe? At worst, I feel as if I try and get people (like you) to consider my positions and that their conclusions may be premature. Its a bit like a good beer. If you find one that you really like, don't you try and get your friends to try it? Forcing them to try it would be too extreme of course.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Stile, posted 08-26-2019 8:24 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Stile, posted 08-27-2019 2:09 PM Thugpreacha has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5805
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 49 of 57 (861755)
08-26-2019 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
11-23-2018 11:49 AM


What do you think?
Should Christianity continue to try and force itself on anyone and everyone they can?
Or should Christianity go back to it's roots and try to provide a good example and gain whatever social growth is possible that way?

I agree with the main thrust of his point, but then why not take it a step further and disavow Christianity altogether? Of course the bible has a set of morals, many which I and most everyone else agrees with. The abrasive, brow-beating typified by fundamentalists is obviously not only guaranteed to not get converts, but to actually create enemies out of them. I view the bible as an important collection of historical documents. That we have a mostly intact collection that offers a preview of the ancient world is of enormous value. But maybe that just appeals to my interest in history. What it doesn't certify is the validity of that historical document. I could write a novel about an alien invasion that took place on this day, bury it in the dessert, and with any luck some schmuck is gonna find it 2,000 years from adn fawn over it like it was the holy grail. It'll be a historical document at that point... but it doesn't mean anything I wrote actually happened.

So it seems to me that while you understand his premise, at the same time what is even the point then of "being a Christian?" He stated that you don't need Christianity to understand morality. If that's the case, then what do you need Jesus for at this point in time?

There is one argument that the fundamentalists make that does make sense to me. This push for a feel good gospel, one that is inclusive and non-abrasive, makes people feel all warm and squishy on the inside. It does promote love, inclusion and unity. But then you also exclude all the other parts that aren't so warm and squishy. In which case, why do you promote it at all? Like it or not, you have no frame of reference for Jesus outside of the bible. But this isn't a pick and choose adventure. You either believe all of it, warts and all, or you don't... or shouldn't.

So why is he a Christian then at all? I can extract just as much meaning and value from Jesus' parables without having to swallow the whole thing. But if he isn't willing to swallow the whole pill, then he's not a Christian... he's just an admirer of Jesus' teachings. That's an important distinction if you ask me.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stile, posted 11-23-2018 11:49 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by GDR, posted 08-26-2019 9:02 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4961
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 50 of 57 (861782)
08-26-2019 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Hyroglyphx
08-26-2019 1:12 PM


Hyroglyphx writes:

There is one argument that the fundamentalists make that does make sense to me. This push for a feel good gospel, one that is inclusive and non-abrasive, makes people feel all warm and squishy on the inside. It does promote love, inclusion and unity. But then you also exclude all the other parts that aren't so warm and squishy. In which case, why do you promote it at all? Like it or not, you have no frame of reference for Jesus outside of the bible. But this isn't a pick and choose adventure. You either believe all of it, warts and all, or you don't... or shouldn't.

So why is he a Christian then at all? I can extract just as much meaning and value from Jesus' parables without having to swallow the whole thing. But if he isn't willing to swallow the whole pill, then he's not a Christian... he's just an admirer of Jesus' teachings. That's an important distinction if you ask me.

That makes no sense to me. The Bible is a library of 66 books, written in different times, in different cultures for different reasons and with different motives. It isn't at all necessary to view the Bible as a book dictated by God but IMHO, we should view it as a book that God is able to speak to us through, with parables, histories that worked out well and not at all well, where people get it right and more often wrong, and so on.

We should work our way through different Biblical writings and figure out what the message is for us. As a Christian I start with the resurrection of Jesus and work from there. Also to properly understand Jesus' message we need the OT as He is constantly quoting it in the Gospels. We can understand the message in the OT through the lens of Jesus.

For example if we accept on faith the accounts in the NT that Jesus embodied the Word or the nature of God, then we can come to the conclusion that when we are told to love our enemies we can more than reasonably know that we can reject the OT accounts that have Yahweh both committing and commanding genocide.

Your all or nothing approach makes no sense.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-26-2019 1:12 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-26-2019 9:50 PM GDR has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5805
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 51 of 57 (861784)
08-26-2019 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by GDR
08-26-2019 9:02 PM


That makes no sense to me. The Bible is a library of 66 books, written in different times, in different cultures for different reasons and with different motives. It isn't at all necessary to view the Bible as a book dictated by God but IMHO, we should view it as a book that God is able to speak to us through, with parables, histories that worked out well and not at all well, where people get it right and more often wrong, and so on.

It was written at slightly different times, but not from different cultures. The entirety of the bible was written from and written by the Jewish perspective. All of it. Of course now we're getting into whether the bible was written by God, through man, or whether it was divinely inspired by God but still has all the frailties of man interlaced in it. But either the bible has authority or it doesn't. And if we have to figure out which parts were authored by God and which parts were authored by men, then why have any regard for it at all? I am certain that I can find wisdom somewhere within the Vedic text. I can find wisdom somewhere in the teaches of Buddah. Somewhere in the teaching of the Qur'an. But do I regard myself as a Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu? No, I don't. Why? Because to make that monumental leap of faith is to buy into it wholesale. And if you buy into it wholesale, then you're somewhat obligated to believe all of it. If not, by what measure do you use to believe some of it, but not others?

We should work our way through different Biblical writings and figure out what the message is for us. As a Christian I start with the resurrection of Jesus and work from there. Also to properly understand Jesus' message we need the OT as He is constantly quoting it in the Gospels. We can understand the message in the OT through the lens of Jesus.

Jesus may have said that he didn't come to abolish the law, but in practice that is exactly what he did. I mean, its no wonder 1st century Jews thought he was a heretic. I may personally have agreed with him and found his message so much more palatable than the Torah, but I certainly can understand why most Jews rejected it for having been so far removed by Jesus.

For example if we accept on faith the accounts in the NT that Jesus embodied the Word or the nature of God, then we can come to the conclusion that when we are told to love our enemies we can more than reasonably know that we can reject the OT accounts that have Yahweh both committing and commanding genocide.

Ah, but are you not then worshipping a God of your choosing? You can't imagine the petulant indignation of Yahweh spoken about in the Torah and Mishnah being the same as the love of God spoken of by Jesus... but you'll use the OT when its quoted by Jesus. You have created for yourself a Mr. Potato Head God... picking the parts of God that you find palatable and excluding the parts that seem contradictory to it. Not a 'jot' or a 'tittle' shall pass away until it all be fulfilled... Translation: every apostrophe and every comma in the Mishnah is from God... so believe all of it and follow all of it. But you don't. And you've now said as much.

Was it a different God that was ordering genocide and smashing Phillistine infants on the rocks? Did he change his mind? Can god in one instance command death of the first born son also be the same God that commanded us to love even our enemies? You seem to say, no. But the bible says, yes. And if you think this part of the bible was compromised by the frailty of man then what makes you think the warm and squishy parts weren't? What is your metric?

Your all or nothing approach makes no sense.

Either you are a Christian or you are an admirer of Jesus. Its okay to be an admirer of Jesus if that's what you are. I am too.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by GDR, posted 08-26-2019 9:02 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by GDR, posted 08-27-2019 2:06 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4961
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 52 of 57 (861788)
08-27-2019 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Hyroglyphx
08-26-2019 9:50 PM


Hydroglyphx writes:

It was written at slightly different times, but not from different cultures. The entirety of the bible was written from and written by the Jewish perspective. All of it. Of course now we're getting into whether the bible was written by God, through man, or whether it was divinely inspired by God but still has all the frailties of man interlaced in it. But either the bible has authority or it doesn't. And if we have to figure out which parts were authored by God and which parts were authored by men, then why have any regard for it at all? I am certain that I can find wisdom somewhere within the Vedic text. I can find wisdom somewhere in the teaches of Buddah. Somewhere in the teaching of the Qur'an. But do I regard myself as a Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu? No, I don't. Why? Because to make that monumental leap of faith is to buy into it wholesale. And if you buy into it wholesale, then you're somewhat obligated to believe all of it. If not, by what measure do you use to believe some of it, but not others?

Once again it makes no sense to understand it all in the same way. The books cover a span of at least six centuries involving a multitude of authors. Even whoever wrote the Gospel of Luke said that he used a variety of sources to compile a cohesive account of what happened.

The word inspired also gets way overused in this context. I think that CS Lewis was inspired to write what he did but that doesn't mean that God dictated it to him. Yes, I think that the Biblical authors were inspired but neither does that mean that God dictated it to them. In some cases in the OT the stories were written by scribes that were obviously motivated to write accounts in a way that would please their master who had the power of life and death over them.

What we do have though is a narrative of a progressive understanding of the nature of God with the Israel story climaxing in Jesus. In the Gospels, and particularly in the Sermon on the Mount we can see where Jesus corrects many of the laws from the Torah and criticizes the multitude of laws that the Pharisees tried to load on the nation.

Sure, you can find wisdom in all sorts of religious texts including the Bible. As John says in Chap 1, the Word became flesh. He didn't write that the Word became a book or more precisely a collection of books.

The Christian religion is centered on the belief that God resurrected Jesus and that when we want to understand the nature of God and what it means to our lives we look to Jesus. Of course when we want to understand Jesus we turn to the Bible. We can read there about the accounts compiled by the the different authors of the Gospels and then we can read the epistles written by the first theologians such as Paul who had access to Jesus' contemporaries.

Hydroglyphx writes:

esus may have said that he didn't come to abolish the law, but in practice that is exactly what he did. I mean, its no wonder 1st century Jews thought he was a heretic. I may personally have agreed with him and found his message so much more palatable than the Torah, but I certainly can understand why most Jews rejected it for having been so far removed by Jesus.

I agree. It was a tough message. He was very political in that He was telling them that if they carried out their plans for a military revolution the Romans would do what they always did. This of course ultimately was the case. His message essentially was that the enemy wasn't really the Romans but that the enemy was evil itself. The only weapon against evil is love, and that the way to change their situation was to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile and to love their enemies. It was all about changing hearts. So, yes, you are right, it wasn't a popular message, and hardly understood for that matter.

Hydroglyphx writes:

Was it a different God that was ordering genocide and smashing Phillistine infants on the rocks? Did he change his mind? Can god in one instance command death of the first born son also be the same God that commanded us to love even our enemies? You seem to say, no. But the bible says, yes. And if you think this part of the bible was compromised by the frailty of man then what makes you think the warm and squishy parts weren't? What is your metric?

You are correct in that you can't reconcile the genocidal Yahweh with the God that we see whose nature is embodied by Jesus. As I have said to Faith it is CHRISTianity and not BIBLEianity. If you worship an inerrant Bible then you understand the nature of God quite differently than you do if you worship God as we see Him in Jesus.

Hydroglyphx writes:

Either you are a Christian or you are an admirer of Jesus. Its okay to be an admirer of Jesus if that's what you are. I am too.

That's fine but it really isn't much different than being an admirer of Buddha or Gandhi for that matter. What is different about Jesus is that God resurrected Him. The Christian religion grew and spread based on that belief.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-26-2019 9:50 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-27-2019 2:34 AM GDR has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5805
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 53 of 57 (861789)
08-27-2019 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by GDR
08-27-2019 2:06 AM


The word inspired also gets way overused in this context. I think that CS Lewis was inspired to write what he did but that doesn't mean that God dictated it to him. Yes, I think that the Biblical authors were inspired but neither does that mean that God dictated it to them. In some cases in the OT the stories were written by scribes that were obviously motivated to write accounts in a way that would please their master who had the power of life and death over them.

Then why is it revered as if God wrote it? Jews certainly believe that every word in it was authored by God, spoken through Moses, or David, or Daniel, or whomever.

You are correct in that you can't reconcile the genocidal Yahweh with the God that we see whose nature is embodied by Jesus. As I have said to Faith it is CHRISTianity and not BIBLEianity. If you worship an inerrant Bible then you understand the nature of God quite differently than you do if you worship God as we see Him in Jesus.

While your point is well taken its important to remember that without the bible there is no framework in which to know Jesus -- as the bible is the only measure to know who he was and what he was about. And then of course, he himself had stated "I AM," which assuredly was very much intentional given his audience. This was his way of saying that he didn't merely come as a messenger from God, but that he IS God. And all of this is context of the Torah, which, in his roundabout way was him saying trust the Torah and also trust in me, for I am the summation and the fulfillment of the Law.

But the point is, you obviously can't have one without the other, seems to me. They are inextricably linked... as you said from John's gospel, the Word became Flesh and Jesus was the Word... the living embodiment; the living testament; the living validation that what was written is a preview into the mind of God.

So how do we reconcile that with all the heinous savagery that is also contained therein?

That's fine but it really isn't much different than being an admirer of Buddha or Gandhi for that matter. What is different about Jesus is that God resurrected Him. The Christian religion grew and spread based on that belief.

Yes, I agree it propagated from that central tenet, but it does not mean it is accurate anymore than it is the belief that Noah's Ark saved only 7 people in the entire planet to repopulate earth filled with inbreds. At some point we have to ask rhetorical questions. Was this event meant to be believed in a literal sense, was this something akin to a parable, and how should we be able to know in either direction?


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by GDR, posted 08-27-2019 2:06 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by GDR, posted 08-27-2019 11:20 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4961
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 54 of 57 (861805)
08-27-2019 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hyroglyphx
08-27-2019 2:34 AM


Hydroglyphx writes:

Then why is it revered as if God wrote it? Jews certainly believe that every word in it was authored by God, spoken through Moses, or David, or Daniel, or whomever.

It is revered because it is the story of how the Jews worked out their understanding of God over the centuries. More often than not they were part of the problem, and were no better than their pagan neighbours. But through all of it, (starting with their monotheistic views), the nature of God as we see in Jesus gradually crept in. It is also revered because God speaks to us through the Scriptures when it is read with a mind and heart that understands it through the lens of Jesus.
I would question your comments about the Jews. Jews like Christians have various views about the Scriptures. Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount corrected what was in the Scriptures. When he talked about divorce he went so far to say that it was Moses who said what he said and not God who said it, and then went on to say that it came from hard hearts but that He was correcting it. He also said that it wasn’t about an eye for an eye but that we were to love our enemies.

Hydroglyphx writes:

While your point is well taken its important to remember that without the bible there is no framework in which to know Jesus -- as the bible is the only measure to know who he was and what he was about. And then of course, he himself had stated "I AM," which assuredly was very much intentional given his audience. This was his way of saying that he didn't merely come as a messenger from God, but that he IS God. And all of this is context of the Torah, which, in his roundabout way was him saying trust the Torah and also trust in me, for I am the summation and the fulfillment of the Law.

Christians have so often focused on the point of Jesus being God that they forget about Jesus being a flesh and blood human being. He suffered the trials and tribulations of being human, including His torture and excruciatingly painful and humiliating dehumanizing death on the cross. He went into Jerusalem as an act of faith knowing what the authorities would do to someone doing what He was about to do. Remember He prayed to the Father that He could be spared the whole thing, but through prayer and through His understanding of the narrative of the Jewish story as told in their Scriptures, and that this was His calling. He also on faith believed that the Father would affirm and vindicate His life and death.
When Jesus was crucified His disciples saw Jesus as another failed messiah but then the resurrection changed all that. They then were able to look back at Jesus’ life and teaching. He referred to Himself as the “Son of Man” which was an obvious reference to the “Son of Man’ being enthroned over a worldwide kingdom in Daniel 7. They saw Him forgiving sins which only God could do. They came to understand that this was the time of God’s visitation, or return, embodied in the man Jesus. They saw Jesus as the new Temple where on could go meet and be forgiven by God.

Hydrpglyphx writes:

But the point is, you obviously can't have one without the other, seems to me. They are inextricably linked... as you said from John's gospel, the Word became Flesh and Jesus was the Word... the living embodiment; the living testament; the living validation that what was written is a preview into the mind of God.
So how do we reconcile that with all the heinous savagery that is also contained therein?

You can’t.

GDR writes:

That's fine but it really isn't much different than being an admirer of Buddha or Gandhi for that matter. What is different about Jesus is that God resurrected Him. The Christian religion grew and spread based on that belief.

Hydroglyphx writes:

Yes, I agree it propagated from that central tenet, but it does not mean it is accurate anymore than it is the belief that Noah's Ark saved only 7 people in the entire planet to repopulate earth filled with inbreds. At some point we have to ask rhetorical questions. Was this event meant to be believed in a literal sense, was this something akin to a parable, and how should we be able to know in either direction?

The flood story is part of the great Hebrew mythologies. In it we can see a story of how God is always with us and that even if there is but one godly man left on the planet He won’t give up on us.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-27-2019 2:34 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3846
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 55 of 57 (861827)
08-27-2019 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Thugpreacha
08-26-2019 12:49 PM


Re: Missionary: FAIL??
Thugpreacha writes:

First off, lets be specific. What bad things are we discussing? Forcing ones views?

Well, if we follow the thread connections back, you can see that the things I was discussing with Faith were along the lines of those that were "logically justified." My examples given were:

quote:
If you believe bringing God to strangers is a life or death issue, then it's logical to force your ideas of God on strangers.
If you believe waving hello to strangers is a life or death issue, then it's logical to wave to all strangers.
If you believe insulting strangers is a life a life or death issue, then it's logical to force your insults on strangers.

Message 35


So - maybe those?
I don't know - you're the one who wanted to be specific and then didn't mention any specifics.

"Forcing one's views" can cover a rather large range:

1. Look at my views on the internet as long as you do a similar search and click around a bit.
2. Look at my views as I stop you on the street and take up your time for my own personal judgement of what's important.
3. Do as I say or else I will be upset and walk the other way.
4. Do as I say or else I will fight you.
5. Do as I say or else I will kill you.
6. Do as I say or else I will burn you in hot fires for all eternity even after you die.

Where do you think the scale stops from being "acceptable" to being "too much?"
I'm not even a big fan of #2. Therefore, #2 and beyond I consider to be "bad stuff we're doing in the present."

Do I come across as forcing anyone to believe?

You come across somewhere between #3 and #4.

At worst, I feel as if I try and get people (like you) to consider my positions and that their conclusions may be premature.

Perhaps that's what you intend, but what you actually do is mis-characterize others a lot in an attempt to shame them into agreeing with you.
Which is "somewhere between #3 and #4."

Forcing them to try it would be too extreme of course.

Now it's your turn to be specific.
Do you agree with my scale? (If not - feel free to create another.)
Where do you find yourself on it?
Where do you see me?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Thugpreacha, posted 08-26-2019 12:49 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Thugpreacha, posted 08-27-2019 4:20 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12805
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 56 of 57 (861831)
08-27-2019 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Stile
08-27-2019 2:09 PM


Re: Missionary: FAIL??
Stile writes:

Now it's your turn to be specific.
Do you agree with my scale? (If not - feel free to create another.)
Where do you find yourself on it?
Where do you see me?


Your scale seems ok for the purpose for discussion. Politics is another strong topic, and we both know that it can land quite squarely on #4 much of the time.

and whats odd is that the way that Christ is perceived through the eyes of many apologists is strikingly like #6! I see you as an advocate of more of a live and let live type of Deity (or Deityless human spiritual reality) You might see Jesus..if He existed...as empathetic to the individual feelings, beliefs, and preferences of His audience rather than One sent by an authoritarian God to warn us of our inability to achieve the necessary standard. You are nearly a #1. You believe strongly that humans *should* eternally and always have free will, even to the point of freely rejecting an authoritarian God, should One exist. One thing is appearing increasingly probable: People tend to *know* what conforms most closely to their pre-existing beliefs.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Stile, posted 08-27-2019 2:09 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
AlexCaledin
Member
Posts: 56
From: Samara, Russia
Joined: 10-22-2016


Message 57 of 57 (861838)
08-27-2019 6:11 PM


It's not time to force any view/example, it's just "let the one who is filthy still be filthy and let the one who is righteous still practice righteousness".

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019