Freethought & Rationalism Archive

BadBadBad · 09-13-2004, 03:06 PM

Sorry about this, but I can't help it:

Quote:

If we take everything in the Bible literally, there are contradictions. Since all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), the Bible cannot contradict itself. Therefore, some Scriptures must be figurative or symbolic (John 16:25). The challenge is to determine what is literal and what is symbolic.

We must let the Bible interpret the Bible.

BadBadBad · 09-13-2004, 03:13 PM

More on motivation:

Quote:

While we should not accept conditionalism over traditionalism simply because it makes more sense to our human minds, the repulsive nature of everlasting torment should make traditionalists at least consider other views.

inquisitive01 · 09-13-2004, 04:38 PM

<edited> You constantly ask questions you seem to either already know the answers to OR you've already made up your mind about. However, you ask anyway like this is some twisted game for you.

This is demonstrated in the form of the following: 1). Is this so? 2). If so, how can this be? 3). But if that's so, how can this be? 4). But he said this was so, is it? 5). If this is so, how can that be so?

See what I mean? Nothing rational there. Just nitpicking.

Gawen · 09-13-2004, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive01

I agree. Even an atheist could claim to be a Christian if he/she wanted to. However, that does not make it so. If one claims being a Christian, yet does not live by Christ's teachings, the Ten Commandments, etc., the claim (even though it still registers as being a claim) is false.

One can be a member of a gym, and legitimately claim his or her membership, but that doesn't mean he/she is actually going to the gym and working out. But leaving out that last detail (about not actually working out at the gym) might lead others to believe that he/she is working out, since membership with a gym has been claimed.

What if a person goes to a gym and just runs on a treadmill...leaving everything else out? What if a person does everything at the gym but not the treadmill?

When all Christians can come together and figure out what it means to be a Christian, then we'll all be the wiser...maybe. And our arguments will go a lot easier too...

BadBadBad · 09-13-2004, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive01

<edited> You constantly ask questions you seem to either already know the answers to OR you've already made up your mind about. However, you ask anyway like this is some twisted game for you.

This is demonstrated in the form of the following: 1). Is this so? 2). If so, how can this be? 3). But if that's so, how can this be? 4). But he said this was so, is it? 5). If this is so, how can that be so?

See what I mean? Nothing rational there. Just nitpicking.

Yes, I do see what you mean. There's nothing rational here. Nothing but ad homenim even after it was edited. You can attack a person and their method, or who ever it is that you're talking about, but this post doesn't in anyway rebut what anyone has said in this thread. It's nothing but criticism of the person; an ad homenim fallacy. I assume you offer this up only to detract from your inability to respond to the arguments presented here, even if those arguments are presented as a recursive sequence of questions to your baseless assertions. Those arguments stand without rebuttal. I assume this means we win and you give up?

Now, you would like to claim that the authors of the Gospels did not intend for Hell to be a place for eternal torture of souls as God's justice. My position is that it's clear what the Bible says. The traditional view of satan's hell was well established by the early church in a society that is much closer to the original language.

Now that view is not politically correct. People are leaving the church and religion in droves. Suddenly, we have a new kinder and gentler interpretation, and you have evidence. I think I've rebutted the evidence in the first URL you listed, and I didn't even ask you a single question. Care to respond?

Bright Life · 09-13-2004, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive01

<edited> You constantly ask questions you seem to either already know the answers to OR you've already made up your mind about. However, you ask anyway like this is some twisted game for you.

This is demonstrated in the form of the following: 1). Is this so? 2). If so, how can this be? 3). But if that's so, how can this be? 4). But he said this was so, is it? 5). If this is so, how can that be so?

See what I mean? Nothing rational there. Just nitpicking.

Even with the insults deleted (good catch, Cynthia), this post is out of bounds. Calling into question the motives for a poster's replies is a no-no.

Brettc, even in your simplistic reduction, is using a perfectly valid means of establishing a point. So, if you ever feel that you must resort to personal attack, step back and think:

"Why am I going on the attack?"
"Am I not making a good argument?"
"Has a fellow poster struck a nerve?"
"What other reply could I make that supports my position, while not personally attacking any other poster?"

You may now resume your regularly scheduled thread.

Bright Life
GRD Moderator

inquisitive01 · 09-14-2004, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawen

What if a person goes to a gym and just runs on a treadmill...leaving everything else out? What if a person does everything at the gym but not the treadmill?

When all Christians can come together and figure out what it means to be a Christian, then we'll all be the wiser...maybe. And our arguments will go a lot easier too...

That is fine, as long as the person doesn't deceive everyone else into thinking that he/she is doing more than just using the treadmill at the gym... OR as long as the person doesn't deceive everyone else into thinking that he/she is doing all exercises (including the treadmill) if the treadmill is indeed not being utilized by this person.

Based on the Bible, it (Christianity) does not mean that one can simply sin continuously with a desregard for the Bible's and Jesus' teachings/principles. For example, if someone claims being a Christian, but continues to lie, cheat (i.e., adultery), steal, etc., then the claim is nothing more than a lie. Should a person continue doing these things and still believe he/she is a Christian, then the person is simply lying to (or deceiving) himself/herself.

inquisitive01 · 09-14-2004, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bright Life

Even with the insults deleted (good catch, Cynthia), this post is out of bounds. Calling into question the motives for a poster's replies is a no-no.

Brettc, even in your simplistic reduction, is using a perfectly valid means of establishing a point. So, if you ever feel that you must resort to personal attack, step back and think:

"Why am I going on the attack?"
"Am I not making a good argument?"
"Has a fellow poster struck a nerve?"
"What other reply could I make that supports my position, while not personally attacking any other poster?"

You may now resume your regularly scheduled thread.

Bright Life
GRD Moderator

Please see posts #21 and #24 by brettc (responded to with my posts #23 and #27, respectively). I posted in one of those posts that we don't have (and cannot have) all knowledge regarding the soul. The other questions (in previous postings, prior to and even including #21 and #24) are ones that I attempted to answer for brettc to the best of my knowledge based on what is written in the Bible.

However, although it might not be brettc's motive to continually create more and more questions related to the same already-answered (if they could be) topics, it sure seems this way. I feel posts #21 and #24 justify my reasoning in post #83 (the one that was edited). Put simply, it seems to me that brettc is nitpicking (but whether brettc truly is nitpicking I can't know with 100% certainty, since I can't read brettc's mind). Therefore, my statement(s) regarding this should probably be something more like "It seems possible that brettc is just nitpicking with all of these made-up questions, but whether he truly is nitpicking is only known for sure by him."

inquisitive01 · 09-14-2004, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brettc

Yes, I do see what you mean. There's nothing rational here. Nothing but ad homenim even after it was edited. You can attack a person and their method, or who ever it is that you're talking about, but this post doesn't in anyway rebut what anyone has said in this thread. It's nothing but criticism of the person; an ad homenim fallacy. I assume you offer this up only to detract from your inability to respond to the arguments presented here, even if those arguments are presented as a recursive sequence of questions to your baseless assertions. Those arguments stand without rebuttal. I assume this means we win and you give up?

Now, you would like to claim that the authors of the Gospels did not intend for Hell to be a place for eternal torture of souls as God's justice. My position is that it's clear what the Bible says. The traditional view of satan's hell was well established by the early church in a society that is much closer to the original language.

Now that view is not politically correct. People are leaving the church and religion in droves. Suddenly, we have a new kinder and gentler interpretation, and you have evidence. I think I've rebutted the evidence in the first URL you listed, and I didn't even ask you a single question. Care to respond?

If you go by the original language, you will know that the term "hell" is a derivative of both "Hades" and "Sheol." Therefore, what you are claiming that is "well established" by the early church does not seem to be the same as what is established in the original language.

Btw, this interpretation is not at all "new" to me. However, I guess we simply disagree. {Edited}

Once again, just ask (but please try to ask only those questions that can be answered by humans).

Dean Anderson · 09-14-2004, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive01

Please see posts #21 and #24 by brettc (responded to with my posts #23 and #27, respectively). I posted in one of those posts that we don't have (and cannot have) all knowledge regarding the soul. The other questions (in previous postings, prior to and even including #21 and #24) are ones that I attempted to answer for brettc to the best of my knowledge based on what is written in the Bible.

However, although it might not be brettc's motive to continually create more and more questions related to the same already-answered (if they could be) topics, it sure seems this way. I feel posts #21 and #24 justify my reasoning in post #83 (the one that was edited). Put simply, it seems to me that brettc is nitpicking (but whether brettc truly is nitpicking I can't know with 100% certainty, since I can't read brettc's mind). Therefore, my statement(s) regarding this should probably be something more like "It seems possible that brettc is just nitpicking with all of these made-up questions, but whether he truly is nitpicking is only known for sure by him."

If you have complaints about moderation, please use the Problems and Complaints forum, rather than derailing the thread with them.

Furthermore, it seems that any civil discussion that this thread once contained has come to an end, so I am locking it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-13-2004, 04:38 PM	#83
inquisitive01 Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: East U.S.A. Posts: 883	<edited> You constantly ask questions you seem to either already know the answers to OR you've already made up your mind about. However, you ask anyway like this is some twisted game for you. This is demonstrated in the form of the following: 1). Is this so? 2). If so, how can this be? 3). But if that's so, how can this be? 4). But he said this was so, is it? 5). If this is so, how can that be so? See what I mean? Nothing rational there. Just nitpicking.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.