Momma Angel wrote:Well, y'all have been quite busy I see?
Okay, let's get the attacking issue out of the way. Yes, it happens. We all know it happens. Almost everyone has done it at least once. Some admit they do it and some don't. But we all know it happens.
I think I finally have it figured out. As long as you do not 'DIRECTLY' attack someone with your words, it's ok. It's okay to call someone's beliefs assinine but it's not okay to call that person an ass. I understand how it works now and will definitely keep that in mind.
edgarblythe,
I do appreciate you elaborating on what you said about me being strident, in particular. I was going to respond but the thread got locked.
J_B (I believe it was J_B) posted something explaining what a fundamentalist Christian is. Hey, guess what? I agree with only a couple of those things pointed out. How about that? Seems I have been labeled a fundamentalist for my belief in, what? three of those things?
Another word I saw in that article was "vocally". Well, can you consider this forum vocal? Perhaps. But, this is as far as my vocalism goes other than discussing things with friends. I do not go out there and lobby for any of this stuff. I vote my conscience. Yep, sorry, I base that vote on my belief in God. I won't deny it. I won't apologize for it. I will not vote for something I believe to be wrong no matter who else thinks it is right. To me, there is no "it's right for me." There are rights and wrongs. They are for everyone. We do not get to choose what things we want to be okay to do based on what we want. God does not work that way.
So, the plain fact is this, I don't care if you think I am a fundamentalist. I don't care if you think I am an idiot. I don't care if you think I believe in an imaginery anything. I care only what God thinks about it.
As part of my belief system, namecalling and ridiculing is not okay. Do I do it? Very rarely but there is no excuse for it.
There are many non-believers on this forum that have no problem NOT sinking to the level of ridiculing. Special pleading? No. If you call asking for common decency special pleading, well, maybe that is what it is to you because someone wants something from you that you are not wanting or willing to give. Now, I don't mean the you literally so if it does not apply to you, then ignore that.
So, edgar, call me what you want. Feel about me as you want. I don't know you anymore than you know me. From this forum only. You have no effect on my life. There are some in these threads that do; however, those being the ones that honestly do want to exchange ideas and beliefs and talk. Some very fine people I believe and I am honored to include them in my life.
It goes back to the belief that much of what is said here in this forum....would never be said in someone's face.
Phoenix,
I see the problem here. As long as one is not boxed into that closed system, as you call it, that makes one open-minded? In your opinion, maybe.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe those with beliefs just might still seek answers and the truth? Do you really believe we think we have all the answers? Well, we don't. But, it sounds like to me, that if you really feel we are boxed in to a closed system there is no hope for us finding, what? The truth you have found? The truth others found? Why is your truth truth and mine is not?
I am not saying these things to you personally, Phoenix. This is more in general. I hope you understand that.
I am firmly planted in my beliefs, yes. There is nothing anyone can say or do to make me turn from God. However, I do not believe I have 100% truth of anything. I believe as we grow in our relationship with God, our knowledge grows. You don't feed a baby steak and potatoes from the gitgo. God reveals to us what knowledge we can comprehend at the time. So, I am not close-minded about gaining knowledge or truth. I really don't believe there are too many people that are that close-minded. :wink:
Bartikus,
Well, perhaps we should all try to stick to "if I can't say it to your face, I wouldn't say it behind your back" way of thinking. :wink:
I am far more confrontational in person than I am on a2k.
dyslexia wrote:I am far more confrontational in person than I am on a2k.
That's the opinion the state has of me.lol
That's something to be proud of.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Momma wrote:I am firmly planted in my beliefs, yes. There is nothing anyone can say or do to make me turn from God.
Momma- That is exactly about what I am saying. What your statement says to me, is that even at some time in the future, the concept of a God was totally discredited, you would still believe in the concept.
What I am saying, is that I don't know if there is a God or not. I certainly cannot conceive of the Bible as being anything but a magnificent historical artifact. I am also saying, that as I grow in knowledge, I will consider all logical possibilities, even ones concerning a God, as they are presented to me.
At this time though, I do not believe that there is a scintilla of proof that a God exists. I do have faith, but not the kind that "does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". The faith that I have is based on"confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing", based on prior experience.
Does that mean if logical proof or evidence was provided....you would believe? Could you be deceived by material evidences provided? Does man have a history of finding evidences that say one thing...then later reveals that the evidences say another? Do you see what i'm saying?
Faith has it's place...so does science.
One reaches into eternity....the other the temporal.
God is eternal.....this world as it is.....is not.
Bartikus wrote:timberlandko wrote:Intrepid wrote:Questioner wrote:Intrepid wrote:That is where faith comes in. I have it.... you do not. Therefore, you cannot understand it.
This is another Christian fallacy, that simply because someone doesn't have/agree with the faith that they therefore must not be able to understand it.
It's not difficult to comprehend faith, it's merely difficult to commit to it.
If one fully comprended it, it would be much less difficult to commit to it. :wink:
Functional here is the absurity that the religionist proposition, particularly as expressed through the tenets of that subset of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia known as Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, proceeds from an illicit premise and is supported wholly through specious argument; the only authority and validity possessed by the proposition is that claimed for itself within itself. I submit your response is purely circular, and meaningless; "In order to have faith, one must have faith"
Bartikus wrote:Thank's for sharing your beliefs.
I submit my observations per the issue at discussion do not consist of or constitute "beliefs", but rather that they are axiomatic. I present to you the following challenge:
Demonstrate that "Faith" and "Superstition" be functionally differentiable - note the "Functionally" requirement; neither personal preference norsocial convention makes the cut.
Thanks for sharing....what you don't know!
I submit your response, in that it in no way addresses the challenge, but rather seeks to ignore the challenge and distract from it via a baseless, unfounded, non sequitur statement, serves implicitly as admission of defeat; your proposition is refuted by your own response to the challenge.
Phoenix,
Then, what's the point? The belief in God is based on faith, not proof. So, who is right?
Timber,
Apparently! :wink:
Ok, what did I miss?