1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Ask an Evangelical IV

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by GhostWriter16, Aug 30, 2012.

  1. timtofly

    timtofly One Day

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    9,429
    Thank you kind sir for your honesty. You are forgiven if this is just trolling.

    Since this is not a debate, those words are acceptable, though they may be construed as misleading and exaggerating.

    Would not a firm grasp on the Bible drive people away any ways? Being kind and forgiving are personal traits that have to be developed. Stating what a person's understading of the Bible is, will always* be offensive.

    *
    Spoiler :
    As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
    If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
    To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
    Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
    Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
    Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
    And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
    But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
    Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
    Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;
    Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
     
  2. Borachio

    Borachio Way past lunacy

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    26,698
    Not a troll, I assure you.



    I'm not sure what to make of this. I don't see how knowledge of a book in itself does anything to drive people away.

    And who is stating whose understanding is what?

    Are you saying that my perception of other's people's understanding is offensive?

    For, you see, I cannot know what people actually think. If someone says they think the Bible says such and such, that's really all I think I know: they have said such and such. What they genuinely believe is beyond my grasp. It could be anything, or nothing, at all.

    Your spoiler quotes are interesting, but perplexing.

    Your meaning, sir, is obscure.
     
  3. classical_hero

    classical_hero In whom I trust

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    33,262
    Location:
    Perth,Western Australia
    Well the first thing you need to realise is that Jesus created lots of conflict, since he would make statements that would bring our people's sin out in the open. Jesus clearly told the people that thee religious leaders of the time were hypocrites, so that everyone would know what not to do. Jesus even condemns cities for their lack of faith.
    Matthew 10:20-24 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
    21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
    22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
    23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
    24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.


    You have to point out the wrongs first before you can start to teach the rights. If someone doesn't know what is wrong, then they can never know what is right.
     
  4. Borachio

    Borachio Way past lunacy

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    26,698
    I wonder what your intention is in posting this, CH.
     
  5. timtofly

    timtofly One Day

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    9,429
    It is not the printed page, but what the printed page represents.

    If a person had a firm grip on the Bible, what they say should reflect that. If they convey that understanding into their conversation; it again, is not the thought but what that thought represents just like what the printed page represents above.

    No. There should be no offense taken by any communication that comes from you. One who has a firm grasp on the Bible will not be offended by anything.

    A person's level of understanding is not easily defined, but from the passage I gave, it seems to indicate that if one willfully disregards what they do understand of the Bible that is when the Bible becomes offensive. I hate repeating myself, but will explain at the end what the Bible represents that is offensive.

    I would agree with you very much, because as has been stated, most of the defense of the Bible is psuedo interpretation and more a hinderance to the gospel instead of a help.

    They are just words from the Bible. I admit that I took them instead of others because they address what is offensive about the Bible. They still give one wiggle room to avoid complete understanding. I tend to think that the Bible is not as binary as some would like, because there is still that element of "free will" and not total coercion that allows trust to take place. It also stated that Christians are supposed to represent not judge. And there is a difference between a person being offensive and the Bible being offensive.

    These are my thoughts on the matter, and some may agree and some may disagree.
    First off there needs to be equal ground for there to be understanding. The Bible represents many ideas and some are inclusive and some are not. To me the central theme and only message that would be inclusive to all is the death of Jesus on the cross. Now there may be the objection of all those other gods that are worshipped out there. My return would be when it comes to the Bible itself it is the central and most important equalizer. Now Jews may disagree with that, because historically the church did alienate them. Look at the passage again though. The passage was written by a Jew to the Jews and the Gentiles were the ones on the outside looking in. Yet 2000 years later as a Gentile, I can claim the same view while not excluding the Jews at all.

    tldr: Jesus death that corrected the disobedience of Adam is the most offensive thing to all humans who are saddled with the consequences but at the same time have no knowledge of how they can escape such consequences. Accusing christians of being offensive while it may be based on the truth or done out of spite is the objective way to show one's resentfulness at a God who is offensive in his dealings with mankind.
     
  6. Harv

    Harv Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,262
    The quote in Post #101 appears to be a quotation of Romans Chapter 3 in its entirety. I do not know which translation it is.

    The quote in Post #106 appears to be a quotation of Romans Chapter 5, verses 12 through 21. Again, I do not know which translation it is.

    The quote in Post #161 appears to be a quotation of First Peter Chapter 2, the King James translation.

    I was lurking this discussion for a while but decided to give the references for the quotes.
     
  7. Global Skeptic

    Global Skeptic King

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2012
    Messages:
    618
    Okay, short and to the bone.
    This human is evil.
    This argument is bad.

    Abstract way the particulars and we get X is "negative". Always look out for that one and now you ask the relevant human doing this:
    How do you see (as see) that?
    Now we are right back even before Jesus Christ to one of these dead Greek guys - Protagoras "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not". Now look at the word measure and connect it to good/right and bad/wrong/evil and repeat - How do I see (as see) good/right and bad/wrong/evil???

    The rest is notes, references and clarification. In the western cultural tradition the moment these Greek city states had these men with enough time on their hands to start "<snip>" around with each others souls/minds/brains, they figured out the core basics of the human existence and we are no different - we have enough time on our hands to start "<snip>" around with each others souls/minds/brains.

    In other words reality is subjective and objective and we are "fighting" over whether ethics are subjective or objective. That has nothing to do with usual divides in left or right, religion or atheism, science or not, critical thinking or not and skepticism or not. In general the objectivists in ethics can prove that other humans and their way of thinking are right or wrong. All I do is ask them this: How do you see that?

    Moderator Action: Inappropriate language removed.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

    Edit: "<snip>" goes back to in one sense one of the four Fs in biology as to fornication, feed, fighting and flight. I.e. we as social humans "fight" over the meta-narrative as to what good and evil really is. :)
     
  8. Borachio

    Borachio Way past lunacy

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    26,698
    @timtofly Your understanding of these issues seems, to me, to be very sophisticated, and I would hesitate to describe you as Evangelical at all.

    @Global Skeptic It would seem that what you write makes sense to you, but I don't find it easy to understand. To the point where I'm not sure there is much sense to be found.
     
  9. Global Skeptic

    Global Skeptic King

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2012
    Messages:
    618
    Hi Borachio.

    Science is in short: Prior knowledge/belief-hypothesis-deduction-control by observation.

    So how do you see that an argument is bad?
    You put it like this - you can say "your idea is mistaken".
    So how do you know than an idea is mistaken?
    Can you see an idea?
    Can you see mistaken?
     
  10. Borachio

    Borachio Way past lunacy

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    26,698
    I'm not sure I see your intention here.

    If you present me with an idea and I wish to determine whether it is correct, for me, I do the following sort of, nonexhaustive, tests:

    1. Does it make sense i.e. do I understand it (which is naturally a subjective feeling)?
    2. Does it correspond to what I think is reality? (again subjective)
    3. Is it internally consistent? i.e. can I spy any contradictions? (pretty much subjective)

    Now, these tests are not in themselves particularly scientific. But they are, I believe, the way most people proceed in practice.

    The word "see" is not to be understood as used in the sense of I "see" a tree. But see as in understand.

    So can you understand an idea? What else would you do with one?
    Can you understand that something might be mistaken? So, could you understand that something might be "taken"?

    I'm not sure how fruitful this line of inquiry could turn out to be. I suspect not at all fruitful.
     
  11. rugbyLEAGUEfan

    rugbyLEAGUEfan Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    5,290
    Location:
    sydney australia
    Wow, relatively even the evangelists are making sense now.
     
  12. Trev

    Trev Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    498
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    Absolutely true. However the flood covered the highest hills BEFORE the mountains of Ararat existed, and the Himalayas etc. The 40 days of rain was only a small proportion of the water which caused the flood. The early earth had massive reservoirs of underground water, geological upheaval caused these to erupt spewing hot water into the oceans and over the continents. The massive torrents of water that came out caused massive underwater erosion resulting in sediment rich water which laid down massive sedimentary beds of several kilometres depth over most continental and other surfaces as the waters rose to cover the whole earth within the space of around 6 months. There is no other logical reason for the depths of sediments over the continents as erosion usually exceeds by far the laying down of sediments on land surfaces.

    The sediment rich, sometimes hot steamy waters resulted in the deaths of most marine life and therefore the fossils of fish in the sediments.
    Later to get rid of the waters from the continents, futher geological upheaval deepened the ocean basins and raised the continents and mountains resulting in the himalayas, andes, mountains of Ararat etc allowing the earth to drain over approzimately another 6 months and life on earth to resume when Noah left the Ark with the animals
     
  13. Borachio

    Borachio Way past lunacy

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    26,698
    Oh yes? So, Noah and Mount Ararat? Fiction is it?

    But, anyway, I suspect you have not looked into any books on geology. So I rather fancy you just make stuff up as it enters your head.

    There is really little point in using pseudo-science to justify anything. Why not just say you believe bonkers stuff and have done with it? I can't see anything wrong with doing so if that's what floats your boat.
     
  14. Global Skeptic

    Global Skeptic King

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2012
    Messages:
    618
    I can't believe what you believe, therefore you can't believe either, Borachio. Do you understand?!!
    I can't understand you, therefore you can't understand at all. ;) ;) ;)

    Do yourself a favor and study theory of mind and not just as philosophy.
     
  15. Borachio

    Borachio Way past lunacy

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    26,698
    You have this wrong, it appears to me.

    I say: "I don't understand you, try as I might. Therefore...nothing."

    This is what my theory of mind suggests:

    You say: "You can't understand me, therefore my understanding must be more sophisticated than yours."
     
  16. Global Skeptic

    Global Skeptic King

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2012
    Messages:
    618
    No, my understanding is different, not more sophisticated.

    Sorry for using Wikipedia but it will do for now.
     
  17. Borachio

    Borachio Way past lunacy

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    26,698
    You seemed to be suggesting that I have a theory of mind impairment.

    As far as I am aware, autism is not, particularly, a feature of my makeup. The same goes for schizophrenia, ADHD, emotional or physical pain. Neither am I drunk, nor on drugs, nor sleep-deprived.

    An important feature of ToM, though, is that an individual should be able to recognize when another does not have access to some knowledge/understanding or other.

    I still don't see that this is leading anywhere.
     
  18. Arakhor

    Arakhor Dremora Courtier Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    33,756
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Now that really is bonkers. Short of explicit divine intervention, how exactly did any of that happen in a recordable time frame?
     
  19. Borachio

    Borachio Way past lunacy

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    26,698
    Yes, I don't see why you don't just say "And a(nother) miracle occurred", rather than make out it's all reasonably scientific. The evidence is just not out there in the real world.
     
  20. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust New Englander

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    24,103
    Location:
    High above the ice
    Trev made my point better than I could.
     

Share This Page