1
   

Any serious Christians left?

 
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Nov, 2006 08:16 pm
maporsche wrote:
FINE! So we agree...

YOU are imposing your religious beliefs on the rest of America.

Everyone else is also imposing their beliefs (religious or not) on the rest of America.

Now, will you please agree to abstain from stating that you are not imposing your beliefs.


If you had been reading more carefully you will find I have stated this numerous times throughout this thread. Idea
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Nov, 2006 08:20 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Hey, A M - I'm waiting for an answer to THIS - are we agreed on the definition of the word "Perfect"?


I'm working on it Timber. I do not feel this can be answered with a simple yes or no. Actually, I'm kind of looking forward to this discussion with you. Just be gentle with the big words, ok? Laughing I always have to look so many up! Seriously, those big words just give me more opportunity to learn. I'll be back on this.

I needed to revise this statement before I forget:

Quote:
If you had been reading more carefully you will find I have stated this numerous times throughout this thread.


I exercise my right the same as you. If you consider me doing that imposing my beliefs then that is what you believe. I do not consider you imposing your beliefs because this is your right. Now, I can't state it any clearer than that. I don't impose my beliefs anymore than you or anyone else. You just consider it an imposition and I don't because IT'S YOUR RIGHT!
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Nov, 2006 08:28 pm
Arella Mae wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
Hey, A M - I'm waiting for an answer to THIS - are we agreed on the definition of the word "Perfect"?


I'm working on it Timber. I do not feel this can be answered with a simple yes or no. Actually, I'm kind of looking forward to this discussion with you. Just be gentle with the big words, ok? Laughing I always have to look so many up! Seriously, those big words just give me more opportunity to learn. I'll be back on this.

That's a silly response; a yes-or-no answer is precisely and only what is called for. Let me rephrase the question for you: do you agree with the dictionary definition of the word "PERFECT"?
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Nov, 2006 08:41 pm
Arella Mae wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
What about voting to disallow it, if it is already occurring?


I'll give you this Butrflynet, you bring up some interesting points. According to our constitution we are allowed to lobby to change the laws. This would fall within that right.

Quote:
Also, is voting the only activity required of a christian to satisfy the bible's recording of god's word about gambling?


Some Christians don't even think you are supposed to vote, Butrflynet. The Bible says we are in this world but should not be part of it. Some take that to different levels. I do what I can do. I vote when I can. I do sign Petitions, etc., but that is about the extent of my involvement. Oh, other than talking about it on A2K that is. Laughing

Quote:
Is eliminating gambling in the United States all that is required by the bible, or must gambling be eliminated/disallowed all over the planet?

What about other countries that allow gambling? Since you don't have a vote in those countries, what does not condoning gambing in any way entail in regard to them? Do you boycott products from those countries, write letters to their governors, send funds to anti-gambling campaigns in other countries or anything else?


We can all do what we can do. I involve myself in the things that have to do with my community, my life, etc. As far as the rest of the world, well, they have their government, their laws, etc. It is up to each individual, in my opinion, as to how much they involve themselves and to what extent. Good question about the boycott issue. I think one would be hard pressed to do that for quite a few reasons. First, you'd have to know that country's views on it, etc. Good question for pondering on. Laughing


I find myself getting more and more confused. Isn't christianity a world-wide religion? Is the bible you use as your guding source for the word of god directed only at christians residing in the United States?

Why do you say the bible is interpreted as mandating a vote against gambling for ourselves and others in the United States where we have a vote in the legal process, yet in other countries you say it is up to each individual as to how much they involve themselves and to what extent? Why aren't we in the United States given that same opportunity to or not to involve ourselves in gambling?

What's the difference? I'm confused.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Nov, 2006 08:42 pm
timberlandko wrote:
That's a silly response; a yes-or-no answer is precisely and only what is called for. Let me rephrase the question for you: do you agree with the dictionary definition of the word "PERFECT"?


Ok, fine, if you want to just stick to that then no. And no because there are a couple questions I have about some of that stuff.

Gotta love it though. I'm taking the time to think and look at all of this and now I gave a silly response because I was? Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Nov, 2006 08:44 pm
In what respect(s) do you disagree with the standard dictionary definition of the word "Perfect"?



Or are we playing a game of jabberwock here ... if we are, I missed the slithy toves, but I s'pose there's been a bit of gyre and gimble in your posts.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Nov, 2006 09:05 pm
Butrflynet wrote:
I find myself getting more and more confused. Isn't christianity a world-wide religion? Is the bible you use as your guding source for the word of god directed only at christians residing in the United States?


I guess I didn't understand your question the way you meant it Butrflynet. Are you asking more as on Christianity as a whole or my views on this? I can't speak for anyone else but I would be happy to tell you my views on it. Just let me know.

Quote:
Why do you say the bible is interpreted as mandating a vote against gambling for ourselves and others in the United States where we have a vote in the legal process, yet in other countries you say it is up to each individual as to how much they involve themselves and to what extent? Why aren't we in the United States given that same opportunity to or not to involve ourselves in gambling?


You really ask some thought provoking and interesting questions. I believe the Word of God is for everyone. That doesn't mean everyone believes or accepts that, which I am sure you already understand. A person's religious, political, etc., convictions are personal to them. Some decide to involve themselves in world politics all the way to the other end of the spectrum where others involve themselves in no politics. So, in that respect it is up to each individual. But, as an individual, we are supposed to adhere to the Bible.

Quote:
What's the difference? I'm confused.


The difference? Now, I'm confused. Sorry. I hope I answered that a bit better for you. If not, just clarify where I am missing the point and I'll do my best to answer.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Nov, 2006 09:07 pm
timberlandko wrote:
In what respect(s) do you disagree with the standard dictionary definition of the word "Perfect"?



Or are we playing a game of jabberwock here ... if we are, I missed the slithy toves, but I s'pose there's been a bit of gyre and gimble in your posts.


I'm being serious Timber. There are a couple of questions I have on some things. I am multi-tasking right now but I'm working on it. I'll have it shortly. The posts I can answer quickly I do, but yours, well, I know how a stickler (not a bad thing) you are and I'm trying to be as clear as I can so I don't leave you any questions.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Nov, 2006 10:12 pm
timberlandko wrote:


Okay Timber, please understand I am not trying to be a smart alec, etc., in asking you these things. I am trying to make sure I understand this all and can hold a good discussion with you on it.

Quote:
1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type


My question is who defines the definition of an ideal type here? I'm sure you know as well as I do that the concept of God is not the same as one person's or the others.

Quote:
2. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement

3. exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose


Wouldn't this be subjective to the person in the situation Timber?

Quote:
4. entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings
5. accurate, exact, or correct in every detail
6. thorough; complete; utter
7. pure or unmixed
8. unqualified; absolute
9. expert; accomplished; proficient.
10. unmitigated; out-and-out; of an extreme degree


I don't personally have a problem with any of the definitions but from discussing this with others it would seem that they do. That's why I pointed this out.

Quote:
Mirriam-Webster Online: Perfect

1 a: being entirely without fault or defect, flawless
1 b: satisfying all requirements


In this case, speaking for myself I'd say yes. But again, isn't this subjective to the person in the situation? What they feel may be a requirement not met may not be what another or God would feel as a requirement not met?

Quote:
1 c: corresponding to an ideal standard or abstract concept


Who decides what that concept is?

Quote:
2: Expert, proficient
3a: Pure, Total
3b: Lacking in no detail
3c: Complete

Synonyms: PERFECT, WHOLE, ENTIRE, INTACT mean not lacking or faulty in any particular. PERFECT implies the soundness and the excellence of every part, element, or quality of a thing frequently as an unattainable or theoretical state <a>. WHOLE suggests a completeness or perfection that can be sought, gained, or regained <felt>. ENTIRE implies perfection deriving from integrity, soundness, or completeness of a thing <the>. INTACT implies retention of perfection of a thing in its natural or original state <the>.


Quote:
American Heritage: Perfect

1. Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.

2. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.

3. Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient.

4. Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation: She was the perfect actress for the part.

5a. Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman.
5b. Accurately reproducing an original: a perfect copy of the painting.

6. Complete; thorough; utter: a perfect fool. 7. Pure; undiluted; unmixed: perfect red.

8. Excellent and delightful in all respects: a perfect day.


Quote:
Encarta: Perfect

1. without faults: without errors, flaws, or faults
in perfect condition

2. complete and whole: complete and lacking nothing essential

3. excellent or ideal: excellent or ideal in every way
That's the perfect word to describe him.

4. especially suitable: having all the necessary or typical characteristics required for a given situation
the perfect candidate for the job

5. skilled: very proficient, skilled, or talented in a particular area
a perfect host

6. utter or absolute: used to emphasize the extent or degree of something
a perfect nuisance
perfect happiness

7. exact as reproduction: exactly reproducing an original
a perfect likeness

Does that about sum up the definition of "PERFECT" as you understand it?


To me, God does meet all of those definitions. Now, I would venture a guess and say to some He doesn't, right? So, isn't this all a matter of perception until (and I'll say if for those that don't believe) we meet God at the end of it all? Can any of these questions be answered to 100% of anyone's satisfaction? I don't think they can be, Timber. I believe God is perfect and because of that belief I can accept the answer to many questions as, "because He's God" and leave it at that. Now, I realize that not everyone does, can, will, etc., do that. Some require that evidence. Some require more evidence than others. Throughout all my posting on A2K if I could have one question answered it would be, why do you need evidence and I don't? That's another question I don't know if I will ever get an answer to.

But yes, I believe God is perfect but I do understand how others may view Him differently. That's why I asked about parts of those definitions. Because I do realize that it's different for everyone. I guess that's why religion is such a personal thing.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Nov, 2006 10:20 pm
Arella Mae wrote:
Actually Intrepid, I cannot tell you 100% whether that it is or not. However, I do feel that if one wants to do the "lesser of two evils" that it would be the way to go. But, at one time, I considered that. It didn't matter. I got the same responses to that than I am getting now. Don't know if that helps or not. Maybe others can help with it.


I am not talking about responses here. I am asking whether abstaining from a vote would be the same as condoning the vote. If not, abstinence may be the way to go.

By lesser of the evils, you seem to be saying that both ways are not good. If that is the case, it becomes a quandary indeed.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Nov, 2006 11:06 pm
Arella Mae wrote:
I exercise my right the same as you. If you consider me doing that imposing my beliefs then that is what you believe. I do not consider you imposing your beliefs because this is your right. Now, I can't state it any clearer than that. I don't impose my beliefs anymore than you or anyone else. You just consider it an imposition and I don't because IT'S YOUR RIGHT!


It is the DEGREE OF IMPOSITION that is key to this discussion and what separates your position from those of the opposition.

As Phoenix has related to you many times, and I completely agree with her on this, "The right to swing your arm ends at the other fellow's nose".

Another way to put it would be "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.".

Those concepts weigh heavily on any voting decision that I make that would have a direct bearing on other peoples lives.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Nov, 2006 11:31 pm
Intrepid wrote:
I am not talking about responses here. I am asking whether abstaining from a vote would be the same as condoning the vote. If not, abstinence may be the way to go.

By lesser of the evils, you seem to be saying that both ways are not good. If that is the case, it becomes a quandary indeed.


What I meant by "lesser of two evils" is 1) those that consider me (you, anyone) voting no is a restriction of someone's rights; 2) abstaining is not actually voting against nor for. I didn't actually mean it was "evil" or wrong in any sense. I guess I should have used a different phrase.

I mentioned the responses I had gotten because I thought it was pertinent to your question. I thought a situation had been presented addressing your question and I was relating the overall concensus.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Nov, 2006 11:51 pm
The horse is now no longer recognizable as formerly a mammal.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Nov, 2006 11:53 pm
mesquite wrote:
It is the DEGREE OF IMPOSITION that is key to this discussion and what separates your position from those of the opposition.

As Phoenix has related to you many times, and I completely agree with her on this, "The right to swing your arm ends at the other fellow's nose".

Another way to put it would be "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.".

Those concepts weigh heavily on any voting decision that I make that would have a direct bearing on other peoples lives.


Then all I can suggest to you and everyone else is that you do what you can to change the law so that I can't "swing my arm" the way the constitution now states that I can.

I took this this issue to a Christian Chat room that I frequent. Now, you will probably find just as many non-believers in this chat room as you will believers. I got answers ranging all the way from my point of view to yours (Phoenix's, etc.) point of view.

Then I had a long, long discussion with someone in the chatroom that actually admits to hating religion and all it stands for. That person told me that I am well within my rights and he would defend my right to vote my conscience no matter what. Now, on every other issue concerning religion he and I are at complete ends of the spectrum. FTW said, "(word left out because I don't cuss)" them. You vote your conscience no matter what because that is your right." He is also a person that would vote yes for gambling and same sex marriage. Though he is only one person, it was nice to have someone just say, "you vote your conscience no matter what". Laughing He also said to say, "An atheist agrees with me!" Laughing

I didn't need him to tell me that I wasn't doing anything wrong according to the constitution, which is all I have been trying to get across to anyone anyway. Now, it may be your opinion and the opinion of others that I am wrong in doing this, but until I am restricted by the Constitution of the United States of America in voting my conscience, that is what I am going to do. And I fully expect each and everyone of you to do the same thing, whether I agree with your decision or not.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Nov, 2006 11:56 pm
snood wrote:
The horse is now no longer recognizable as formerly a mammal.


I know. I am actually beginning to believe in evolution because this seems to have evolved into a horse of a whole new breed!http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/24.gif

Actually, as long as the conversation stays civil I don't mind discussing it. Laughing
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Nov, 2006 11:57 pm
Arella Mae wrote:
Okay Timber, please understand I am not trying to be a smart alec, etc., in asking you these things. I am trying to make sure I understand this all and can hold a good discussion with you on it.

Quote:
1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type


My question is who defines the definition of an ideal type here? I'm sure you know as well as I do that the concept of God is not the same as one person's or the others.

Irrelevant; nothing pertaining to God or to "ideal type" is at discussion - soley operative is that attribute defined by the word "Perfect".

Quote:
Quote:
2. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement

3. exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose


Wouldn't this be subjective to the person in the situation Timber?

No, for the purpose of this discussion not at all; no being, human or devine, and neither purpose nor situation are relevant to the core concept behind that attribute defined by the word "Perfect", which word and concept are all that is at discussion.

Quote:
Quote:
4. entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings
5. accurate, exact, or correct in every detail
6. thorough; complete; utter
7. pure or unmixed
8. unqualified; absolute
9. expert; accomplished; proficient.
10. unmitigated; out-and-out; of an extreme degree


Quote:
I don't personally have a problem with any of the definitions but from discussing this with others it would seem that they do. That's why I pointed this out.

First, I'm not interested for the moment in what other people think, I'm discussing this with you, seeking your ideas. Second, whatever problem others mught have is between those others and The English Language as it is written and understood - nothing either of us can do about that, but as it is irrelevant to this discussion, it is of no consequence in this discussion. All that is at discussion here is that attribute defined by the word "Perfect".

Quote:
Quote:
Mirriam-Webster Online: Perfect

1 a: being entirely without fault or defect, flawless
1 b: satisfying all requirements


Quote:
In this case, speaking for myself I'd say yes. But again, isn't this subjective to the person in the situation? What they feel may be a requirement not met may not be what another or God would feel as a requirement not met?

Subjectivity is no consideration here, we're discussing only that attribute defined by the word "Perfect".

Quote:
Quote:
1 c: corresponding to an ideal standard or abstract concept


Who decides what that concept is?

Irrelevant; neither "who decides" nor what any concept might be are at discussion here, all we are concerned with is that atribute defined by the word "Perfect"

Quote:
2: Expert, proficient
3a: Pure, Total
3b: Lacking in no detail
3c: Complete

Synonyms: PERFECT, WHOLE, ENTIRE, INTACT mean not lacking or faulty in any particular. PERFECT implies the soundness and the excellence of every part, element, or quality of a thing frequently as an unattainable or theoretical state <a>. WHOLE suggests a completeness or perfection that can be sought, gained, or regained <felt>. ENTIRE implies perfection deriving from integrity, soundness, or completeness of a thing <the>. INTACT implies retention of perfection of a thing in its natural or original state <the>.


Quote:
American Heritage: Perfect

1. Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.

2. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.

3. Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient.

4. Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation: She was the perfect actress for the part.

5a. Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman.
5b. Accurately reproducing an original: a perfect copy of the painting.

6. Complete; thorough; utter: a perfect fool. 7. Pure; undiluted; unmixed: perfect red.

8. Excellent and delightful in all respects: a perfect day.


Quote:
Encarta: Perfect

1. without faults: without errors, flaws, or faults
in perfect condition

2. complete and whole: complete and lacking nothing essential

3. excellent or ideal: excellent or ideal in every way
That's the perfect word to describe him.

4. especially suitable: having all the necessary or typical characteristics required for a given situation
the perfect candidate for the job

5. skilled: very proficient, skilled, or talented in a particular area
a perfect host

6. utter or absolute: used to emphasize the extent or degree of something
a perfect nuisance
perfect happiness

7. exact as reproduction: exactly reproducing an original
a perfect likeness

Does that about sum up the definition of "PERFECT" as you understand it?


Quote:
To me, God does meet all of those definitions. Now, I would venture a guess and say to some He doesn't, right?

Right or wrong, "does" or "doesn't - all that is irrelevant; you and I, not you and others, not I and others, not you and I and others, just you and I, are discussing that attribute defined by the word "Perfect".

Quote:
So, isn't this all a matter of perception until (and I'll say if for those that don't believe) we meet God at the end of it all?[color]

Perception does not enter into this discussion of that attribute defined by the word "Perfect", nor does belief or disbelief, and neither does any God or gods; we are discussing only that attribute defined by the word "Perfect" in no particular context, with reference to nothing, simply itself, by itself.

Quote:
Can any of these questions be answered to 100% of anyone's satisfaction? I don't think they can be, Timber.

Any question other than what is meant by the word "Perfection" is beyond the immediate scope of this discussion, and any quality or degree of satisfaction with the answer to any question other than the meaning of the word "Perfect" is entirely irrelevant. The only matter currently at question is that attribute defined by the word "Perfection.


Quote:
I believe God is perfect and because of that belief I can accept the answer to many questions as, "because He's God" and leave it at that. Now, I realize that not everyone does, can, will, etc., do that. Some require that evidence. Some require more evidence than others. Throughout all my posting on A2K if I could have one question answered it would be, why do you need evidence and I don't? That's another question I don't know if I will ever get an answer to.

Fine, you " ... believe God is perfect" - to save time and effort here, we'll stipulate to whatever meaning you prefer as pertains to the word "God", which is not at discussion right now anyway; what is at question, and only that which is at question, is that attribute defined by the word "Perfect".

Quote:
But yes, I believe God is perfect but I do understand how others may view Him differently. That's why I asked about parts of those definitions. Because I do realize that it's different for everyone. I guess that's why religion is such a personal thing.

We are not discussing "God" at the moment, we are discussing specifically precisely and only that attribute defined by the word "Perfect". The issue here is to establish a common understanding of that attribute defined by the word "Perfect", that, only that, apart from any other consideration.

In further interest of saving time and effort in this amazing journey to arrive at a mutually acceptable definition for that common, pre-gradeschool-level vocabulary English word, "Perfect", I'll ask you to define - with reference to and dependent on nothing else, not God, not "Others", not the relative fat content levels of assorted brands of pet food, just "What does the word 'Perfect", by itself - applied to nothing else, reference nothing else, compared with nothing else, subject to nothing else - mean to you? May we agree the sense of the word itself, apart from any consideration of to what or to whom it may be applied, embodies and entails the concept of absolute completeness, as in without flaw, lack, fault, want, need, restriction, limitation, imperfection, or other qualification?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Nov, 2006 12:04 am
the old grey mare she ain't what she used to be
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Nov, 2006 12:12 am
snood wrote:
the old grey mare she ain't what she used to be


http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/24.gifhttp://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/24.gif
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Nov, 2006 12:14 am
Some people have difficulty with the definition of one word, "perfect."
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Nov, 2006 12:18 am
timberlandko wrote:
.....May we agree the sense of the word itself, apart from any consideration of to what or to whom it may be applied, embodies and entails the concept of absolute completeness, as in without flaw, lack, fault, want, need, restriction, limitation, imperfection, or other qualification?


Ok Timber, I think I am following you. I understand about the irrelevants and all. So, yes, I think can go with your description with one tiny exception, which I guess we can discuss when it is relevant. The word want I wouldn't include in the description.

You know that I am no where near your level of being able to debate Timber. I appreciate you taking the time to help me try to understand this process, etc. Please don't get too frustrated with me if I don't quite get it. I do have a problem with the red herring and straw man thing and most of the time don't understand how it applies. I am willing to learn though! Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 12:07:03