09 Jan 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterI never excluded myself from this comment.
I guess that is why belief is such an important and vital aspect to our existence. In effect, your belief will mold the data before you to conform to your beliefs.---whodey-------
correction->>>>>
I guess that is why belief is such an important and vital aspect to our existence. In effect, OUR beliefs will mold the data before US to conform to OU ...[text shortened]... y beliefs much more than you are then I think this applies to you more than me don't you think?
09 Jan 09
Originally posted by FMFI would consider my speech to be moderate as well.
I would not. I would consider it to be anachronistic, irrational nonsense but because I do not hate you for your beliefs, my language would be moderate, as it is here and now.
I would never resort to name calling, but I have the right, just as everyone else, to state my beliefs and live accordingly as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others.
09 Jan 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterAs stated previously, I will not put up with being called names (including insane) anymore. You have been reported. Expect a message from the mods.
..and that's the difference between a fundie and a sane Christian.
Maybe if God told you that suicide bombing was "holy" you would not question it either? God has to be questioned - it's healthy heresy. The world is full of obedient non-questioning fundamentalists who cause great harm because they refuse to examine what they think God is saying. ...[text shortened]... sorry to be harsh - but if you cannot see where this kind of thinking can lead you are lost)
The operative word you used was GOD. "If GOD told me....." You see, " God told me..."is a declarative sentence fragment. You didn't say "If I BELIEVE God spoke to me and said...."; that would be a big difference. You flatly said "If God told me that something is a sin, would I accept it unconditionally." My answer is "You bet your arse!" If God whispers in my ear, phones me, sends me a tablet, text's me, e-mails me, or whatever--then rest assured I WILL listen. That's not insane--that's common sense and self-preservation. If God told me "Worship your toaster oven"---I'd be building an altar in my kitchen nook.
Now, as for someone else claiming to be God and making pronouncements, well that's a horse of another color, now ain't it? That's when you become like the good Bereans and research to find out if this claimant is indeed a prophet of the one and only living God. You would compare his statements with other scripture to check for inconsistencies.
You best get your analogies straight before making up untruths about people.
09 Jan 09
Originally posted by PinkFloydI doubt very much whether the moderators will take you very seriously as they will understand the point I am making. A fundamentalism which says that reason has to go out of the window completely when one is "hearing God" to the extent where even the wildest , bizarrest things remain unchallenged or questioned is in my view insane.
As stated previously, I will [b]not put up with being called names (including insane) anymore. You have been reported. Expect a message from the mods.
The operative word you used was GOD. "If GOD told me....." You see, " God told me..."is a declarative sentence fragment. You didn't say "If I BELIEVE God spoke to me and said...."; ...[text shortened]... ou best get your analogies straight before making up untruths about people.[/b]
You have apparently forgotten that many suicide bombers are convinced that God IS talking directly to them. Since the Bible tells us that Satan is the great deceiver and can masquerade as a being of light I think it's very important that we reserve judgement if we think we are hearing from God.
The Bible tells us to "test the spirits" , so if God told me that sandwiches where abominable I would use my reason (God given) and think to myself that it was a bit of a potty thing for God to say - that would cause me to question whether I really was hearing from God after all.
If a fundie suicide bomber had these reasoning skills they would be less likely to do what they do. We MUST keep our duty to question.
09 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydYou flatly said "If God told me that something is a sin, would I accept it unconditionally." My answer is "You bet your arse!"-----------------------------------floyd----------------
As stated previously, I will [b]not put up with being called names (including insane) anymore. You have been reported. Expect a message from the mods.
The operative word you used was GOD. "If GOD told me....." You see, " God told me..."is a declarative sentence fragment. You didn't say "If I BELIEVE God spoke to me and said...."; ou best get your analogies straight before making up untruths about people.[/b]
Unconditionally? Under no circumstances would you question it? If God said that believing in Jesus was a sin would you accept it unconditionally? You answer has to be no surely. So there are some conditions you would place on whether you will accept what God says is a sin.
Now let's try ...say God said peeling babies alive was not a sin , what say ye , ye man of sanity?
😀
I haven't yet worked out of you are dangerous or just a bit silly.
10 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydYou must be joking!! There are far worse things flying round this forum for them to be bothered with this. All I said (as far as I can remember) was that it was insane for someone to think that God would declare eating sandwiches an abomination. If you got such a bizarre message from God I would hope that you would either ...
a) think you had just really got your wires crossed somewhere and go and seek spiritual counsel
OR
b) seriously question the validity of such a message and your own thinking
If you just say to yourself "God said it therefore I cannot question it" then you are opening yourself up to all sorts of problems.
If you have suffered from mental health problems in the past that involved dubious messages from God then I apologise if it's offended you , but even if that is true then it's all the more reason to question these "messages".
My guess is the moderators will have responded to you out of due course because they have to be polite , but really , look around - what I said was nothing really. A fundamentalism that says we can believe sandwiches are sinful is insane , irrational , whatever.
It's offensive to thinking Christians to suggest that we cannot challenge such thinking styles for what they are. All we need one day is a fundi in a nation state with his finger on a red button and one message from God and bbbaannnngggg!
I personally find it utterly offensive (given that the thinking styles of suicide bombers is so similar) that you do not join me in challenging such a simplistic , blindly obedient and dangerous way of thinking.Instead you appeal to the moderators instead of really thinking about it.
What's next , you going to call your Dad round to beat up my Dad?
11 Jan 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterI find that the most valid argument does not usually triumph. I guess that it the frustration of arguing. At least, that has been my impression from both winning arguments and losing them. In addition, I have also found that even though one may have the most valid argument, it does not always make them right.
Then you meant "your" as in "one's" -yes? In which case your point is a truism and says nothing either way interms of who has the most valid argument.
It reminds me of a debate I got into with a lady about abortion. I was in rare form that day and to make a long story short, I argued circles around her and in the end I could see that I had won the argument. I could see that I was wearing her down and just as I was about to move in for the kill she then looked at me and congratulated my on my debating skills. She even said that I would make a good lawyer. Then as I was bursting with pride and grinning ear to ear she then looked at me and said that even though she thought I was right, she still thought that women should be able to have abortions!??!!??!!? LOL. You could audibly hear may ego burst as if a needle had let the air out.
So I will reiterate, logic and arguing is no match for ones beliefs. I find that the root of our beliefs are spiritual in nature. As for myself, you probably see me as spiritually "blinded" and vise versa. You might then wonder why I engage in such debates. In fact, I often wonder that myself. 😛
11 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeySo I will reiterate, logic and arguing is no match for ones beliefs. I find that the root of our beliefs are spiritual in nature.
I find that the most valid argument does not usually triumph. I guess that it the frustration of arguing. At least, that has been my impression from both winning arguments and losing them. In addition, I have also found that even though one may have the most valid argument, it does not always make them right.
It reminds me of a debate I got into with You might then wonder why I engage in such debates. In fact, I often wonder that myself. 😛
Logical argument is a way of testing the justifications for belief—including one’s own.
Are you saying that “spiritual” means “without logical justification”? Are you saying that you yourself cannot logically justify to yourself your own beliefs?
[EDIT: Just questions for your own consideration...]
11 Jan 09
6 edits
Originally posted by vistesdOf course I can logically justify my own beliefs. In fact, just about anything can be no matter how far you may be seeming to "stretch" things. However, even though the losing side appears to be "stretching" things, does not mean they are wrong. In fact, I have been apart of arguments where the losing side has lost the debate but later on they were proved to be correct.
[b]So I will reiterate, logic and arguing is no match for ones beliefs. I find that the root of our beliefs are spiritual in nature.
Logical argument is a way of testing the justifications for belief—including one’s own.
Are you saying that “spiritual” means “without logical justification”? Are you saying that you yourself cannot logically justify to yourself your own beliefs?
[EDIT: Just questions for your own consideration...][/b]
As I said before, what creates a belief I think puzzles all of us to some degree. I have seen you and others like you seemingly win logical debates, yet, much to your chagrin it seems futile in the long run. Don't you scratch your head in such instances? No doubt, the reason probably given is that they have abandoned logic. More than likely it is because those who lose the "logic wars" simply do not bow to the Master of human reason? It reminds me of that song by Sting, "A do do a da da da, that is all I have to say to you". In the song the opposition is shown to be able to run logical circles around you while all the while raping you of what they want from you via superior intellect. From the perspective of the one singing the song, their fate will not be determined by the logical superiority of their adversary but instead will be governed more by their basic intuition. It also reminds me of the scripture in Proverbs 3 which states that we should not lean on our understanding. Granted, their is a difference between leaning on it and abandoning it altogether.
To sum up, I am convinced that their are other hidden and vastly superior forces at play that shape our belief system other than human reason. For example, from a Biblical perspective, I cannot bring anyone to Christ, rather, it is up to the Holy Spirit to bring them. All I can do is initiate the exchange no matter how "logical" or "illogical" I may be.
12 Jan 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo I'm Not joking.
You must be joking!! There are far worse things flying round this forum for them to be bothered with this. All I said (as far as I can remember) was that it was insane for someone to think that God would declare eating sandwiches an abomination. If you got such a bizarre message from God I would hope that you would either ...
a) think you had just r ...[text shortened]... thinking about it.
What's next , you going to call your Dad round to beat up my Dad?
If you think the mods "can't be bothered" with such comments, you're in for a surprise. Calling people names is going to cease, and the fact that you might find worse "flying round" these forums does not excuse your behavior.
No I won't be calling upon "my Dad"--he has a heart condition.
12 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydWhen did I call you a name? I simply pointed out the difference between sane Christianity and insane fundamentalism (eg that says that if God declares sandwiches to be a sinful abomination then we should not question it Duh?)
No I'm Not joking.
If you think the mods "can't be bothered" with such comments, you're in for a surprise. Calling people names is going to cease, and the fact that you might find worse "flying round" these forums does not excuse your behavior.
No I won't be calling upon "my Dad"--he has a heart condition.
You have yet to explain why there is anything sane about the belief that sandwiches are sinful. I also feel that my comment was not exactly a tirade or very personal , infact it was quite general really . I did not say "you are a >>>>" or something like that NOR was my point just random or superficial - there was a reasoning behind it. If you don't understand why taking such a blindly obedient approach to God is dangerous then it's not surprising that you are so easily offended by a little critical humour.
If I do get a reprimand I will assume that some of the moderators' cheese has started to fall off their cracker.
It sounds to me as if there are others out there who have been having a go at you and I'm just kopping all the flak.
Anyway , while I wait for the moderators to reprimand me I'll put my feet up and have a packet of crisps - relax - I can always repent afterwards LOL.
12 Jan 09
Originally posted by whodeyHow does a homosexual act prevent reproduction? A homosexual might well have not been able to contribute anyway due to not being attracted to the opposite sex. In male terms a man could be in a homosexual relationship but still fertilise a woman anyway , however , this brings us issues around whether polygamy would be acceptable to God in times of reproductive need.
Off the top of my head I can think of one reason it was included. Namely there was a directive to reproduce in the Mosaic covenant. After all, they were small in number and had a "mission" from God to inherit the promised land. Of course, you may or may not agree that this "mission" was ordained by God since you question what was inspired or not inspired. ...[text shortened]... to decide what is right or wrong in your own sight in terms of what God thinks and desires.
Also , does that mean that once the reproductive crisis was over honosexuality would be Ok? Are you seriously saying that that was God's only problem with it?
13 Jan 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterNothing is humorous about calling people insane, or any other derrogatory terms.
When did I call you a name? I simply pointed out the difference between sane Christianity and insane fundamentalism (eg that says that if God declares sandwiches to be a sinful abomination then we should not question it Duh?)
You have yet to explain why there is anything sane about the belief that sandwiches are sinful. I also feel that my comment ...[text shortened]... put my feet up and have a packet of crisps - relax - I can always repent afterwards LOL.