Total posts: 80
I agree with the checkpoints.
What do you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Well I ask you this, and I would like an answer, please.
- How may non-NFL fans know his name?
- How long did he help keep #blacklivesmatter in the news?
- How effective have his actions been at highlighting the huge problems with "the thin blue line"?
I would say very effective. That ain't no bitch action, and he ain't no coward. Took huge chestnuts to sacrifice his entire career for something he believed in, that benefits others.
A selfless act, no one got hurt, it was not illegal, and it accomplished a lot.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
@BrotherDThomas
@Singularity
@fauxlaw
I am fascinated by this conversation.
I have to give Props to Stephen. You asked a very very clear question, and yet it is still not fully answered.
We have Singularity who is making gang shit up, painting a picture that he is some theological mystic with his finger on the pulse of the eras zeitgeist.
We have Fauxlaw who is trying to justify his position based on the incoherent babble of biblical references served with a side order of Pharisee's genealogy, trying to paint a picture that he is a theological scholar.
And then we have Brother who shows that Singularity and Fauxlaw are selectively ignoring huge parts of the bible.
Have either of you Singularity or Fauxlaw ever said "Good question, I don't know... or hmmm "that seems like a bit of a paradox". Fuck no... you are both too caught up in your half-assed beliefs that you don't have the balls to say that you don't know it all.
To top it off you have Stephen, who like me, is asking very basic questions, the one thing we both know... IS WE DONT KNOW EVERYTHING, and yet he can't get a straight answer.
I sit and wait for clarity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I am starting to see that.
It is very depressing for me. I just want genuine dialogue.
Your post reminds me of a quote that has resonated with me by Richard Halverson. He was the US Senate Chaplain.
In the beginning, the church was a fellowship of men and women centering on the living Christ.
Then the church moved to Greece where it became a philosophy.
Then it moved to Rome where it became an institution.
Next, it moved to Europe, where it became a culture
It then moved to America where it became an enterprise.
It finally moved to DART where it has become a center of Holy Rollers and Soup-Takers.
Well, I added that last bit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Now I am very confused. In my post about cherry-picking verses, you went through great effort to try to persuade me that (as a summary) there really is only one true view, that all Christians believed in. I gave a detailed response (#38), that you ignored. Why are you ignoring me?
So I will summarize the most applicable point to this topic. Above you state that multiple denominations are a good thing. Yet you stated in the other post that on must understand "this hermeneutic".
Here is the logic of what you said --
Understand this hermeneutic. -- IF FALSE "you take OT one way."
IF TRUE then "the OT is not done away but rather fulfilled in Christ."
AND/OR IF TRUE then you believe "It is also a rule of thumb that the OT laws are perfect in substance - and that it is the spirit of the law we are to understand and apply - not necessarily the literal letter of the law."
You are tying the hermeneutic to a "rule of thumb". Not a belief, or a perspective, but a rule. And so you can't support multiple denominations if you, on the one hand, believe that all must follow your one hermeneutic, and rule of thumb, yet in the other believe multiple people can have multiple interpretations.
You also stated "the hermeneutic approach of Christians will lead you along one stream of thought - and not applying the same one - will lead you elsewhere. "
This is a singular approach. You are saying all Christians have the same hermeneutic approach, so how can there be thousands of denominations that are all "connected by something greater than a simple belief. "
Can you reconcile why you are saying two very different things at the same time? Either all Christians have the same approach and same rule of thumb, or they all don't and are connected by "something greater". whatever that means.
Perhaps you will ignore this post as well and just start a new forum topic somewhere else about another conflicting topic.
I am a guy who has enough knowledge to ask questions, yet when I try to have a conversation I am showered in conflicting, illogic, absurdities, with a side order of ad hominem attacks.
.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
That really does suck. I would be pissed. Have you tried disk recovery tools?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Sure did. When I read it, the issues were very clear. I did not need to pull out an abacus and an electron microscope to fully diagnose it.
It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, I don't need to put my finger in its ass to make sure its a duck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
Well, I think it is cracking a nut with a sledgehammer.
It's not like this is court. There are a few options
- Give a multiple of value if you explain.
- Give weights to votes based on voter experience.
- Add a no explanation needed extension for votes that have their voting period expired.
It is kinda like voting is deliberately complicated to discourage it.
Created:
Posted in:
I just posted my first vote. I read the rules, and then as I was reading, I realized I have to read and justify every single point. It took me an hour to read and judge one debate. Even though when I did my quick read, it is very obvious who won.
Are the voting complexities discouraging people from voting? I see a number of debates get no votes.
I doubt I am going to go through that effort again. If the rules allowed for a simpler response maybe I would.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Don't call me friend and ignorant in the same post.
Context is subjective. There is no uniform accepted view on what all of the verses mean. There are different interpretations.
I will give you an interpretation. Calling someone ignorant who asks a genuine question is pretty fucking rude.
That's my interpretation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Hmmm,
I on the other hand don't have an issue with someone who has a different view - so long as they don't resort to being rude or disingenuous.
It is but clear that your behaviour clearly demonstrates otherwise kind Sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I gotta call foul.
I cannot think of one denomination that has ever started because of a so called ambiguity in the bible.
Differences in interpretation are because of ambiguity. The details need. to be speculated, or conjectured.
For political reasons. people will interpret it in their own way. They justify the interpretation because of the ambiguities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Hey PGA
You state
Do you deny that to understand someone you need to understand the context, the specific word meaning, and intent of what the author or communicator means?
Sure you need to try to understand that, however, my entire point is that the aforementioned process is still subjective. Look at all the different opinions you have on this thread alone. And everyone would claim to have a proper understanding.
You were not there, or in the head of the other. So all you can do is speculate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
You state
there is only one correct understanding.
Yet then you state
the Scriptural verse and the surrounding passage (context) need to be considered. The audience of address, the timeframe, the culture of the times all plays a role.
So how is everyone supposed to get the correct? understand with all the subjectivity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Thank you for your detailed response.
1. I appreciate your qualification that your comments are restricted to Christianity based on your experience.
2. While you did not expressly say that Christians do not cherry-pick in my presence, you did say Christians do not cherry-pick. You actually signed off with it; At the beginning, you said non-believers cherry-pick, which I would assume is the same thing. You cant be a Christian and a non-believer. So if Christians don't cherry-pick then, they don't do it in my presence.
Hence, your accusation that Christians cherry pick is incorrect and my allegation that you don't have the ability to read is more accurate.
3. I do not know where the accusation of me not being able to read came from. Nowhere did I hint at the corpus of my original question being driven from a written or reading experience. This is not cherry-picking. You accused me of not being able to read when that was not even part of the original question. Can you tell me where my ability to read is a driving factor behind my curiosity of the original question, please?
4. I reread your entire post three or four times. And I still think my original understanding of your hermeneutic being "the" one required So I boolean logic the narrative for you.
a). You state: -- Understand this hermeneutic. -- IF FALSE "you take OT one way." IF TRUE then "the OT is not done away but rather fulfilled in Christ." AND/OR iIF TRUE then you believe "It is also a rule of thumb that the OT laws are perfect in substance - and that it is the spirit of the law we are to understand and apply - not necessarily the literal letter of the law."
You are tying the hermeneutic to a "rule of thumb". Not a belief, or a perspective, but a rule.
Rather than insult me about my reading ability, why don't you ask for clarification, or maybe look at the way you articulated it.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned, I will point out that I appreciated your explanation of sacrifice. That concept makes sense to me, and you explained it well.
b). You stated in your most recent response "the hermeneutic approach of Christians will lead you along one stream of thought - and not applying the same one - will lead you elsewhere. " This is a singular approach. Very much like my deduction from your first post, you reassert the same principal here. You are saying all Christians have the same hermeneutic approach. I have said repeatedly they do not. Therefore my original deduction still stands and is not the bastard child of the inability to read, rather an accurate representation of what you have said in two different posts.
c). You stated. "I have answered calmly and non-judgmentally - well at least until my last sentence where clearly I attempted to mock you." Is that an apology?
5. Now we are getting to the meat.
I genuinely do not understand what you mean by this. Can you please elaborate.
that this does not mean you leave the context out, or the culture out, or the type of genre out.
6. The purpose of me quoting John 15:7 was to show a (very limited) example of what I was told. My perception of this verse being a justification is "if you remember and quote my words, then prayer will work for you". It was meant to be used as a verse to support the mindset of blind memorization of verses.
So with that in mind, I explored Google for references to memorizing verses. It is remarkable how many sites are out there to memorize scripture. Not understand it. Not apply it to any philosophy. But to actually memorize it. That verse, and the following, were justification for pure memory
Matthew 4:4. [But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”]
Provers 3:5 [Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.]
Revelations 1 [Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy]
In summary, despite your quoted claim to the contrary Christians do cherry-pick. Not all perhaps, but certainly some do. I have had the same conversation experience with Muslims and Jewish. despite your claim, there is only "the" hermeneutic, there are in fact 100s of thousands if not more methods to interpret. This is evidenced by all the denominations of Christianity alone.
So with all the above, there lies a potential answer. From a Christian perspective, there are a few verse examples that appear to clearly state that the words alone are what is important. Yet let's agree that hermeneutics required. Bam! There appears to be a conflict. A verse by the word that justifies a belief or behaviour gets qualified by the "word only" textual justification. Where the verse does not meet or contradicts my belief I put it in the bucket of hermeneutics. A "believer" can move the goalposts and justify whatever is said based on either side.
How is this wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
There you go again.
it ought to be clear that his non-reading is not that he has no ability to read but that he is reading according to his own hermeneutic and not as Christians tend to read.
I stated there are 10's of thousands of denominations, ad the driving factor is different interpretations. So who are you to say your analysis applies to all Christians.
Your narcissism and self-righteousness are nearly biblical in volume.
Side question: As a Christian why would you mock someone for asking a question?
.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Reading your posts and I think I am watching Father Ted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I will back everything up.
Thats fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
How do you share a burden of proof when you first stated:
" I truly do not believe you can demonstrate an adequate or reasonable explanation for morality other than a necessary Being - God - since without an absolute, objective, omniscient, unchanging, eternal source and reference point all you have is subjectivism and relativism. "
Then you stated:
"God as a necessary Being is the most reasonable explanation for morality."
What BOP do I have other than addressing your statements? Tell me what BOP I should have. Better yet, why don't you set the entire thing up and invite me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You actually answered my question.
It is funny how when I open it up to be taught, PGA2.0 will not respond.
Very insightful contributions. Thanks BDT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Invited you to a debate about it so you can set me straight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Yep. I could drive a truck through your argument. But you are in the middle of a debate so you count crowdsource input.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
There are many religions out there that use scripture. The NT is not necessary for the purposes of my question. I just used the OT demonstrably, I am asking a question based on observation.
Hence, your accusation that Christians cherry pick is incorrect
I never said Christian once. In addition, you state that no Christian has cherry-picked verses in my presence is incorrect, and something you can't know, as you have not been in my presence during those times. You could have said I may be misinterpreting, or ask for a specific example. However, you do not. You immediately jump to the conclusion that I am talking about Christians, and no matter what I experience I am wrong because.....
you don't have the ability to read is more accurate.
,...,, which is you assuming that I am talking about written narrative, rather than spoken.
You state:
If you don't understand this hermeneutic,
So in your words... there is no proper interpretation unless you "understand". and agree with your stated NT hermeneutic about Peter's dream. Clearly hermeneutics is a core reason why there are 10's of thousands of Christian denominations around the world. So your view is not the only one.
Your entire response is assumptive and defensively focused on your individual Christian belief structure.
Back to my point, and to address your Christian angle, I was told a reason to remember, and quote verses word for word, and not try to over-interpret them.
John 15:7 says that having God’s Word in your heart also leads to answered prayers. It says, “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you”
So if you decide to respond, may I ask you please to not be defensive and attacking. I am asking a genuine question.
Created:
Posted in:
Example:
Scripter followers Claim: God's laws, are the laws of morality.
Their Support: 10 Commandments Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21
My retort: Well there are lots of examples of conduct that is immoral like
Supporting slaves: Ephesians 6:5: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Killing babies and raping woman cause your pissed off: Isaiah 13:16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated.
The Response: Either crickets or "...... you're taking it out of context. What they really mean is. we can wordsmith whatever we want to appease our agenda. Go away heathen"
WHY??
Created:
It is a sign of respect for the judges. If you have to make the judges do extra work to find your arguments, that is pretty rude.
In a verbal debate, you have structure and presentation points. You get docked if you mumble or are erratic. I see S&G as the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
Hey. you up there!!
No one is looking at your posts and wondering if you are in a state of self-gratification.
I suggest you climb down from that high horse of yours before you fall off and get hurt. If there was a downvote feature I may have used it on you to protest your narcissistic indulgence.
Created:
Posted in:
Intellectual
But many say I am not
Dumb as a post then
I used to like porn
An angry priest gave me scorn
No masturbate horn
Mother says Shut Up
I say you bitch you grow up
Beaten with a stick
Trump's brain is so big
And his hair is not a wig
Orange skin is in
You think you are smart
Because you think you know art
You smell like a fart
Created: