Finding Meaning & Delivering Confessions
Replies
-
I think you had a very negative experience with religion as a child and it is informing your current attitude. You have strong emotions about this and they color your arguments, which prove nothing at all.The Bible is full of parables - but it informs you it is a parable prior to giving the parable - not just blasting off stories like its fact.
If all you are thinking is it is parables then you don't believe it anyway - its just parables.
Let me explain a specific Catholic belief along these lines, having to do with evolution and why Catholics believe that evolution and the creation story are not mutually exclusive:
In the Catholic Church, the belief if that God tells these stories in the simplest terms in order for humans to understand them in a way they wouldn't be able to if He tried to teach them at a higher level. So, the church teaches that Adam and Eve represent mankind at the moment of evolution when we became homo sapiens, and while in the Bible they are two people only, they actually represent the entire human race. So to the Catholics, Genesis is the story of evolution as a parable.
The Old Testament (the Torah) is all parable while in the New Testament, the writers are relaying events and in the course of those events, parables are told and introduced as such.
Not all Christians believe this, but some sects do. And since the nature of religion is that one cannot KNOW, but only have faith, you cannot prove God's existence nor His non-existence. So you either believe or you don't.
That you don't believe and so you interpret extremely circumstantial evidence as "proof" doesn't actually prove anything.
^interesting and I know this- I wasn't referring to Catholics I was referring to Christians, Catholics pervert Christianity just like Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses- all the bat ****. My point in arguing was to those that actually believe the Bible, and if you can only believe parts - why believe in it at all? The BIBLE ITSELF says it is accurate and the WORD OF GOD - you can't just say the text it is based on can be wrong and then the religion can still be right. - the Catholics are a cult - they do not believe the Bible. The baptist, southern baptist, pentecostal - they believe in the literal bible - and that is what I disproved someone who is not cherry picking what parts of the bible they want to believe in to meet their world view.
Thankfully, I have not had negative experiences with religion and while I don't believe in any of the existing organized religions personally, I also am not emotional about whether they are real or a farce. What I do know is enough about religion and philosophy that I can unequivocally state that nothing you have posted here and nothing you CAN post (because it doesn't exist) will prove any religion a farce. You don't have to practice or believe in them. But you cannot prove your position any more than the people who believe can prove theirs.
So stop being so angry about it and live your life.
No - you have not answered my point. The TEXT says it is 100% accurate, God-Breathed, Perfect, God's 'love message' on how to find him. Christianity is based on this text. Real Christianity. - I have proved the text wrong. The text is wrong. Christianity is wrong.
I'm not angry, I am angry at the lack of debate. - no refuting my points, no arguments what-so-ever rather you concede the text is wrong and attempt to excuse it by mentioning off-shoot cults that don't take it all literally as someone Christianity still potentially being true.
No the text says it is all true - the text is not true - the religion based on the text is not true then.
like what da faq? I'm not hostile to Christianity, I'm frustrated about how you can't see my point.
And I have found God in the text without believing that it is literal history. Badabing.
smh - but that is not Christianity then.
The Bible says it is.0 -
I think it is important for you to understand that the Bible itself tells you that divine revelation is needed to fully understand it. Jesus' disciples were constantly scratching their heads to understand what Jesus said. When he walked down the road with two of them after his ressurection, he "opened up the scriptures," to them. I don't pretend to fully understand it, but I can tell you from personal experience that I've read certain scriptures dozens of times, having a certain understanding, then, suddenly, I get a deeper understanding, another "big question" answered. God has revealed himself hidden in plain sight. Awesome.
And, not sure if you really considered my personal history. Those were real and actual miracles. I was prayed for in Jesus' name then immediately healed of a very painful disease. What you are looking at intellectually is not intellectually percievable, but is rather relational and experiencial. You learn about love by loving and being loved, not by reading about neurological processes and chemicals. You experience God by faith, not by sight.
^I can't argue your experience. If you have a relationship with a 'God' who answered your request personally - so be it. I can't argue or disprove that.
That however is not proof to me of a God. When I was an addict I know people who overcame the addiction due to 'the aid of a benevolent loving God' they will swear to me up and down that God cured them of their addiction - I can't disprove this, but I overcame my addiction by myself through white knuckles and a great deal of will-power.
This however isn't Christianity it is your experience with Christianity.
^for the record - nor would I want to argue or take away your relationship with your 'God' - I just think it dulls critical thinking and prevents personality development. Now if you are content (and I used content not apathetic or lethargic) in your belief - so be it. When I was a Christian it could not answer my questions - and one MUST be a determinist to be a Christian because of God's foreknowledge and predestination which is so glooomy.0 -
I think you had a very negative experience with religion as a child and it is informing your current attitude. You have strong emotions about this and they color your arguments, which prove nothing at all.The Bible is full of parables - but it informs you it is a parable prior to giving the parable - not just blasting off stories like its fact.
If all you are thinking is it is parables then you don't believe it anyway - its just parables.
Let me explain a specific Catholic belief along these lines, having to do with evolution and why Catholics believe that evolution and the creation story are not mutually exclusive:
In the Catholic Church, the belief if that God tells these stories in the simplest terms in order for humans to understand them in a way they wouldn't be able to if He tried to teach them at a higher level. So, the church teaches that Adam and Eve represent mankind at the moment of evolution when we became homo sapiens, and while in the Bible they are two people only, they actually represent the entire human race. So to the Catholics, Genesis is the story of evolution as a parable.
The Old Testament (the Torah) is all parable while in the New Testament, the writers are relaying events and in the course of those events, parables are told and introduced as such.
Not all Christians believe this, but some sects do. And since the nature of religion is that one cannot KNOW, but only have faith, you cannot prove God's existence nor His non-existence. So you either believe or you don't.
That you don't believe and so you interpret extremely circumstantial evidence as "proof" doesn't actually prove anything.
^interesting and I know this- I wasn't referring to Catholics I was referring to Christians, Catholics pervert Christianity just like Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses- all the bat ****. My point in arguing was to those that actually believe the Bible, and if you can only believe parts - why believe in it at all? The BIBLE ITSELF says it is accurate and the WORD OF GOD - you can't just say the text it is based on can be wrong and then the religion can still be right. - the Catholics are a cult - they do not believe the Bible. The baptist, southern baptist, pentecostal - they believe in the literal bible - and that is what I disproved someone who is not cherry picking what parts of the bible they want to believe in to meet their world view.
Thankfully, I have not had negative experiences with religion and while I don't believe in any of the existing organized religions personally, I also am not emotional about whether they are real or a farce. What I do know is enough about religion and philosophy that I can unequivocally state that nothing you have posted here and nothing you CAN post (because it doesn't exist) will prove any religion a farce. You don't have to practice or believe in them. But you cannot prove your position any more than the people who believe can prove theirs.
So stop being so angry about it and live your life.
No - you have not answered my point. The TEXT says it is 100% accurate, God-Breathed, Perfect, God's 'love message' on how to find him. Christianity is based on this text. Real Christianity. - I have proved the text wrong. The text is wrong. Christianity is wrong.
I'm not angry, I am angry at the lack of debate. - no refuting my points, no arguments what-so-ever rather you concede the text is wrong and attempt to excuse it by mentioning off-shoot cults that don't take it all literally as someone Christianity still potentially being true.
No the text says it is all true - the text is not true - the religion based on the text is not true then.
like what da faq? I'm not hostile to Christianity, I'm frustrated about how you can't see my point.
And I have found God in the text without believing that it is literal history. Badabing.
smh - but that is not Christianity then.
The Bible says it is.
are you just like trolling me? The Bible says it is perfect and 'God-breathed' - if you found God knowing the text was not accurate you are not a Christian. Christianity is based on the text - the text says it is perfect and literal. like da faq am I missing here?0 -
I think it is important for you to understand that the Bible itself tells you that divine revelation is needed to fully understand it. Jesus' disciples were constantly scratching their heads to understand what Jesus said. When he walked down the road with two of them after his ressurection, he "opened up the scriptures," to them. I don't pretend to fully understand it, but I can tell you from personal experience that I've read certain scriptures dozens of times, having a certain understanding, then, suddenly, I get a deeper understanding, another "big question" answered. God has revealed himself hidden in plain sight. Awesome.
And, not sure if you really considered my personal history. Those were real and actual miracles. I was prayed for in Jesus' name then immediately healed of a very painful disease. What you are looking at intellectually is not intellectually percievable, but is rather relational and experiencial. You learn about love by loving and being loved, not by reading about neurological processes and chemicals. You experience God by faith, not by sight.
^I can't argue your experience. If you have a relationship with a 'God' who answered your request personally - so be it. I can't argue or disprove that.
That however is not proof to me of a God. When I was an addict I know people who overcame the addiction due to 'the aid of a benevolent loving God' they will swear to me up and down that God cured them of their addiction - I can't disprove this, but I overcame my addiction by myself through white knuckles and a great deal of will-power.
This however isn't Christianity it is your experience with Christianity.
^for the record - nor would I want to argue or take away your relationship with your 'God' - I just think it dulls critical thinking and prevents personality development. Now if you are content (and I used content not apathetic or lethargic) in your belief - so be it. When I was a Christian it could not answer my questions - and one MUST be a determinist to be a Christian because of God's foreknowledge and predestination which is so glooomy.
Not necessarily.0 -
I think it is important for you to understand that the Bible itself tells you that divine revelation is needed to fully understand it. Jesus' disciples were constantly scratching their heads to understand what Jesus said. When he walked down the road with two of them after his ressurection, he "opened up the scriptures," to them. I don't pretend to fully understand it, but I can tell you from personal experience that I've read certain scriptures dozens of times, having a certain understanding, then, suddenly, I get a deeper understanding, another "big question" answered. God has revealed himself hidden in plain sight. Awesome.
And, not sure if you really considered my personal history. Those were real and actual miracles. I was prayed for in Jesus' name then immediately healed of a very painful disease. What you are looking at intellectually is not intellectually percievable, but is rather relational and experiencial. You learn about love by loving and being loved, not by reading about neurological processes and chemicals. You experience God by faith, not by sight.
^I can't argue your experience. If you have a relationship with a 'God' who answered your request personally - so be it. I can't argue or disprove that.
That however is not proof to me of a God. When I was an addict I know people who overcame the addiction due to 'the aid of a benevolent loving God' they will swear to me up and down that God cured them of their addiction - I can't disprove this, but I overcame my addiction by myself through white knuckles and a great deal of will-power.
This however isn't Christianity it is your experience with Christianity.
^for the record - nor would I want to argue or take away your relationship with your 'God' - I just think it dulls critical thinking and prevents personality development. Now if you are content (and I used content not apathetic or lethargic) in your belief - so be it. When I was a Christian it could not answer my questions - and one MUST be a determinist to be a Christian because of God's foreknowledge and predestination which is so glooomy.
Not necessarily.
:noway:0 -
I think you had a very negative experience with religion as a child and it is informing your current attitude. You have strong emotions about this and they color your arguments, which prove nothing at all.The Bible is full of parables - but it informs you it is a parable prior to giving the parable - not just blasting off stories like its fact.
If all you are thinking is it is parables then you don't believe it anyway - its just parables.
Let me explain a specific Catholic belief along these lines, having to do with evolution and why Catholics believe that evolution and the creation story are not mutually exclusive:
In the Catholic Church, the belief if that God tells these stories in the simplest terms in order for humans to understand them in a way they wouldn't be able to if He tried to teach them at a higher level. So, the church teaches that Adam and Eve represent mankind at the moment of evolution when we became homo sapiens, and while in the Bible they are two people only, they actually represent the entire human race. So to the Catholics, Genesis is the story of evolution as a parable.
The Old Testament (the Torah) is all parable while in the New Testament, the writers are relaying events and in the course of those events, parables are told and introduced as such.
Not all Christians believe this, but some sects do. And since the nature of religion is that one cannot KNOW, but only have faith, you cannot prove God's existence nor His non-existence. So you either believe or you don't.
That you don't believe and so you interpret extremely circumstantial evidence as "proof" doesn't actually prove anything.
^interesting and I know this- I wasn't referring to Catholics I was referring to Christians, Catholics pervert Christianity just like Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses- all the bat ****. My point in arguing was to those that actually believe the Bible, and if you can only believe parts - why believe in it at all? The BIBLE ITSELF says it is accurate and the WORD OF GOD - you can't just say the text it is based on can be wrong and then the religion can still be right. - the Catholics are a cult - they do not believe the Bible. The baptist, southern baptist, pentecostal - they believe in the literal bible - and that is what I disproved someone who is not cherry picking what parts of the bible they want to believe in to meet their world view.
Thankfully, I have not had negative experiences with religion and while I don't believe in any of the existing organized religions personally, I also am not emotional about whether they are real or a farce. What I do know is enough about religion and philosophy that I can unequivocally state that nothing you have posted here and nothing you CAN post (because it doesn't exist) will prove any religion a farce. You don't have to practice or believe in them. But you cannot prove your position any more than the people who believe can prove theirs.
So stop being so angry about it and live your life.
No - you have not answered my point. The TEXT says it is 100% accurate, God-Breathed, Perfect, God's 'love message' on how to find him. Christianity is based on this text. Real Christianity. - I have proved the text wrong. The text is wrong. Christianity is wrong.
I'm not angry, I am angry at the lack of debate. - no refuting my points, no arguments what-so-ever rather you concede the text is wrong and attempt to excuse it by mentioning off-shoot cults that don't take it all literally as someone Christianity still potentially being true.
No the text says it is all true - the text is not true - the religion based on the text is not true then.
like what da faq? I'm not hostile to Christianity, I'm frustrated about how you can't see my point.
And I have found God in the text without believing that it is literal history. Badabing.
smh - but that is not Christianity then.
The Bible says it is.
are you just like trolling me? The Bible says it is perfect and 'God-breathed' - if you found God knowing the text was not accurate you are not a Christian. Christianity is based on the text - the text says it is perfect and literal. like da faq am I missing here?
The Bible is perfect. The knowledge it leads you to is perfect. The actual content is training that God created to educate humans on his/her/its perfect nature.0 -
smh - but that is not Christianity then.
You paint the entire world with a monochromatic palette and then complain about what a dull and lifeless portrait it makes, and pat yourself on the back for your incisive critique.
What confuses is me why you're being so thoroughly humored by these people.0 -
smh - but that is not Christianity then.
You paint the entire world with a monochromatic palette and then complain about what a dull and lifeless portrait it makes, and pat yourself on the back for your incisive critique.
What confuses is me why you're being so thoroughly humored by these people.
Because I was young and dumb and loved Rand at one point too.
I also basically had a nervous breakdown while traveling for work.0 -
I think it is important for you to understand that the Bible itself tells you that divine revelation is needed to fully understand it. Jesus' disciples were constantly scratching their heads to understand what Jesus said. When he walked down the road with two of them after his ressurection, he "opened up the scriptures," to them. I don't pretend to fully understand it, but I can tell you from personal experience that I've read certain scriptures dozens of times, having a certain understanding, then, suddenly, I get a deeper understanding, another "big question" answered. God has revealed himself hidden in plain sight. Awesome.
And, not sure if you really considered my personal history. Those were real and actual miracles. I was prayed for in Jesus' name then immediately healed of a very painful disease. What you are looking at intellectually is not intellectually percievable, but is rather relational and experiencial. You learn about love by loving and being loved, not by reading about neurological processes and chemicals. You experience God by faith, not by sight.
^I can't argue your experience. If you have a relationship with a 'God' who answered your request personally - so be it. I can't argue or disprove that.
That however is not proof to me of a God. When I was an addict I know people who overcame the addiction due to 'the aid of a benevolent loving God' they will swear to me up and down that God cured them of their addiction - I can't disprove this, but I overcame my addiction by myself through white knuckles and a great deal of will-power.
This however isn't Christianity it is your experience with Christianity.
^for the record - nor would I want to argue or take away your relationship with your 'God' - I just think it dulls critical thinking and prevents personality development. Now if you are content (and I used content not apathetic or lethargic) in your belief - so be it. When I was a Christian it could not answer my questions - and one MUST be a determinist to be a Christian because of God's foreknowledge and predestination which is so glooomy.
Not necessarily.
:noway:
Well, the Bible tells us we have free will.0 -
I think you had a very negative experience with religion as a child and it is informing your current attitude. You have strong emotions about this and they color your arguments, which prove nothing at all.The Bible is full of parables - but it informs you it is a parable prior to giving the parable - not just blasting off stories like its fact.
If all you are thinking is it is parables then you don't believe it anyway - its just parables.
Let me explain a specific Catholic belief along these lines, having to do with evolution and why Catholics believe that evolution and the creation story are not mutually exclusive:
In the Catholic Church, the belief if that God tells these stories in the simplest terms in order for humans to understand them in a way they wouldn't be able to if He tried to teach them at a higher level. So, the church teaches that Adam and Eve represent mankind at the moment of evolution when we became homo sapiens, and while in the Bible they are two people only, they actually represent the entire human race. So to the Catholics, Genesis is the story of evolution as a parable.
The Old Testament (the Torah) is all parable while in the New Testament, the writers are relaying events and in the course of those events, parables are told and introduced as such.
Not all Christians believe this, but some sects do. And since the nature of religion is that one cannot KNOW, but only have faith, you cannot prove God's existence nor His non-existence. So you either believe or you don't.
That you don't believe and so you interpret extremely circumstantial evidence as "proof" doesn't actually prove anything.
^interesting and I know this- I wasn't referring to Catholics I was referring to Christians, Catholics pervert Christianity just like Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses- all the bat ****. My point in arguing was to those that actually believe the Bible, and if you can only believe parts - why believe in it at all? The BIBLE ITSELF says it is accurate and the WORD OF GOD - you can't just say the text it is based on can be wrong and then the religion can still be right. - the Catholics are a cult - they do not believe the Bible. The baptist, southern baptist, pentecostal - they believe in the literal bible - and that is what I disproved someone who is not cherry picking what parts of the bible they want to believe in to meet their world view.
Thankfully, I have not had negative experiences with religion and while I don't believe in any of the existing organized religions personally, I also am not emotional about whether they are real or a farce. What I do know is enough about religion and philosophy that I can unequivocally state that nothing you have posted here and nothing you CAN post (because it doesn't exist) will prove any religion a farce. You don't have to practice or believe in them. But you cannot prove your position any more than the people who believe can prove theirs.
So stop being so angry about it and live your life.
No - you have not answered my point. The TEXT says it is 100% accurate, God-Breathed, Perfect, God's 'love message' on how to find him. Christianity is based on this text. Real Christianity. - I have proved the text wrong. The text is wrong. Christianity is wrong.
I'm not angry, I am angry at the lack of debate. - no refuting my points, no arguments what-so-ever rather you concede the text is wrong and attempt to excuse it by mentioning off-shoot cults that don't take it all literally as someone Christianity still potentially being true.
No the text says it is all true - the text is not true - the religion based on the text is not true then.
like what da faq? I'm not hostile to Christianity, I'm frustrated about how you can't see my point.
And I have found God in the text without believing that it is literal history. Badabing.
smh - but that is not Christianity then.
The Bible says it is.
are you just like trolling me? The Bible says it is perfect and 'God-breathed' - if you found God knowing the text was not accurate you are not a Christian. Christianity is based on the text - the text says it is perfect and literal. like da faq am I missing here?
The Bible is perfect. The knowledge it leads you to is perfect. The actual content is training that God created to educate humans on his/her/its perfect nature.
^But the Bible is not perfect? I just provided like a huge set of examples making that case?
And God refers to himself as his - not it or her.0 -
got read later....0
-
smh - but that is not Christianity then.
You paint the entire world with a monochromatic palette and then complain about what a dull and lifeless portrait it makes, and pat yourself on the back for your incisive critique.
What confuses is me why you're being so thoroughly humored by these people.
Because I was young and dumb and loved Rand at one point too.
I also basically had a nervous breakdown while traveling for work.
Even if he is actually interested in the topic - rather than just messing with you - I contend that it is impossible for you to broaden his horizons. If the dichotomous logic of youth was something that could simply be talked away, our universities would produce much more well-rounded, mindful, and productive people.
Instead, we get Jersey Shore here arguing God's gender.0 -
smh - but that is not Christianity then.
You paint the entire world with a monochromatic palette and then complain about what a dull and lifeless portrait it makes, and pat yourself on the back for your incisive critique.
What confuses is me why you're being so thoroughly humored by these people.
Being sincere here- what do you mean? I can see the world through different world views.
And 'patting myself on the back' - because I said I made a 'mind faq'? - because I did, but I'm not entirely sure I'm correct myself - like which is why I started this thread to begin with - feel the friction of ideas to sharpen and learn more about my own.
-because people to me are important because I gave them a deep sense of meaning for myself. Sort of cathartic perhaps, but to atone for a guilty conscious from previous days of abuse I try to display a great deal of respect and like to hear people out entirely - even if it is a stranger on the internet.0 -
smh - but that is not Christianity then.
You paint the entire world with a monochromatic palette and then complain about what a dull and lifeless portrait it makes, and pat yourself on the back for your incisive critique.
What confuses is me why you're being so thoroughly humored by these people.
Because I was young and dumb and loved Rand at one point too.
I also basically had a nervous breakdown while traveling for work.
Even if he is actually interested in the topic - rather than just messing with you - I contend that it is impossible for you to broaden his horizons. If the dichotomous logic of youth was something that could simply be talked away, our universities would produce much more well-rounded, mindful, and productive people.
Instead, we get Jersey Shore here arguing God's gender.
:noway: wow. what an @$$h0le.
Thanks for shedding so much light on all the topics we discussed here yourself. You remind me of CS Lewis - grand accusations, grand statements - but nothing refuting your grand claims.0 -
-because people to me are important because I gave them a deep sense of meaning for myself.0
-
my bro used to take horse back riding lessons. they kept some animals behind an electric fence. i inexplicably enjoyed touching the electric fence. i assume the same drive is bringing me back to this thread0
-
my bro used to take horse back riding lessons. they kept some animals behind an electric fence. i inexplicably enjoyed touching the electric fence. i assume the same drive is bringing me back to this thread
lol. I broke horses and would make them rideable years ago. There was a guy there that shared your joy of touching the electric fence.
I thought I had met a truly unique person then -lmao.
People keep me in a constant state of perspective.0 -
smh - but that is not Christianity then.
You paint the entire world with a monochromatic palette and then complain about what a dull and lifeless portrait it makes, and pat yourself on the back for your incisive critique.
What confuses is me why you're being so thoroughly humored by these people.
Because I was young and dumb and loved Rand at one point too.
I also basically had a nervous breakdown while traveling for work.
Even if he is actually interested in the topic - rather than just messing with you - I contend that it is impossible for you to broaden his horizons. If the dichotomous logic of youth was something that could simply be talked away, our universities would produce much more well-rounded, mindful, and productive people.
Instead, we get Jersey Shore here arguing God's gender.
:noway: wow. what an @$$h0le.
Thanks for shedding so much light on all the topics we discussed here yourself. You remind me of CS Lewis - grand accusations, grand statements - but nothing refuting your grand claims.
Awww. Once upon a time I loved the Screwtape Letters too.
Tolkien always thought that Lewis was a bit wack.0 -
smh - but that is not Christianity then.
You paint the entire world with a monochromatic palette and then complain about what a dull and lifeless portrait it makes, and pat yourself on the back for your incisive critique.
What confuses is me why you're being so thoroughly humored by these people.
Because I was young and dumb and loved Rand at one point too.
I also basically had a nervous breakdown while traveling for work.
Even if he is actually interested in the topic - rather than just messing with you - I contend that it is impossible for you to broaden his horizons. If the dichotomous logic of youth was something that could simply be talked away, our universities would produce much more well-rounded, mindful, and productive people.
Instead, we get Jersey Shore here arguing God's gender.
Well, at least I don't have to live in BF nowhere while pointlessly arguing with undergrads, so there's that.0 -
well, in my defense, i was 8 years old lol0
-
smh - but that is not Christianity then.
You paint the entire world with a monochromatic palette and then complain about what a dull and lifeless portrait it makes, and pat yourself on the back for your incisive critique.
What confuses is me why you're being so thoroughly humored by these people.
Because I was young and dumb and loved Rand at one point too.
I also basically had a nervous breakdown while traveling for work.
Even if he is actually interested in the topic - rather than just messing with you - I contend that it is impossible for you to broaden his horizons. If the dichotomous logic of youth was something that could simply be talked away, our universities would produce much more well-rounded, mindful, and productive people.
Instead, we get Jersey Shore here arguing God's gender.
:noway: wow. what an @$$h0le.
Thanks for shedding so much light on all the topics we discussed here yourself. You remind me of CS Lewis - grand accusations, grand statements - but nothing refuting your grand claims.
Awww. Once upon a time I loved the Screwtape Letters too.
Tolkien always thought that Lewis was a bit wack.
:drinker: I still love them both. So entertaining and passion - even if it is wrong is still catchy
I think Lewis was so sincere, and incredibly brilliant - didn't mean to smack him down so hard.
I think Tolkien got frustrated because he influenced Lewis into becoming a believer and then Lewis decided to be the spokesman of Christianity and ended up getting pummeled in some debates.0 -
Even if he is actually interested in the topic - rather than just messing with you - I contend that it is impossible for you to broaden his horizons. If the dichotomous logic of youth was something that could simply be talked away, our universities would produce much more well-rounded, mindful, and productive people.
Instead, we get Jersey Shore here arguing God's gender.
agree on this0 -
IDK why? - obviously my horizons get broadened - it is how I adapt and change. And he says 'If the dichotomous logic of youth was something that could simply be talked away' - what is wrong with dichotomous logic? And how else does one reason with others to learn?
Even if he is actually interested in the topic - rather than just messing with you - I contend that it is impossible for you to broaden his horizons. If the dichotomous logic of youth was something that could simply be talked away, our universities would produce much more well-rounded, mindful, and productive people.
Instead, we get Jersey Shore here arguing God's gender.
agree on this
And our universities do produce many well-rounded, mindful, productive people
I am right outside of Philly so no idea of what the correlation is concerning the Jersey Shore comment either. - my appearance?0 -
Look. Only 29 more posts and it's off all of your feeds.0
-
smh - but that is not Christianity then.
You paint the entire world with a monochromatic palette and then complain about what a dull and lifeless portrait it makes, and pat yourself on the back for your incisive critique.
What confuses is me why you're being so thoroughly humored by these people.
Because I was young and dumb and loved Rand at one point too.
I also basically had a nervous breakdown while traveling for work.
Even if he is actually interested in the topic - rather than just messing with you - I contend that it is impossible for you to broaden his horizons. If the dichotomous logic of youth was something that could simply be talked away, our universities would produce much more well-rounded, mindful, and productive people.
Instead, we get Jersey Shore here arguing God's gender.
:noway: wow. what an @$$h0le.
Thanks for shedding so much light on all the topics we discussed here yourself. You remind me of CS Lewis - grand accusations, grand statements - but nothing refuting your grand claims.
Awww. Once upon a time I loved the Screwtape Letters too.
Tolkien always thought that Lewis was a bit wack.
:drinker: I still love them both. So entertaining and passion - even if it is wrong is still catchy
I think Lewis was so sincere, and incredibly brilliant - didn't mean to smack him down so hard.
I think Tolkien got frustrated because he influenced Lewis into becoming a believer and then Lewis decided to be the spokesman of Christianity and ended up getting pummeled in some debates.
it was more that Lewis's understanding was a bit surface-level.0 -
28... i mean 260
-
I think you had a very negative experience with religion as a child and it is informing your current attitude. You have strong emotions about this and they color your arguments, which prove nothing at all.The Bible is full of parables - but it informs you it is a parable prior to giving the parable - not just blasting off stories like its fact.
If all you are thinking is it is parables then you don't believe it anyway - its just parables.
Let me explain a specific Catholic belief along these lines, having to do with evolution and why Catholics believe that evolution and the creation story are not mutually exclusive:
In the Catholic Church, the belief if that God tells these stories in the simplest terms in order for humans to understand them in a way they wouldn't be able to if He tried to teach them at a higher level. So, the church teaches that Adam and Eve represent mankind at the moment of evolution when we became homo sapiens, and while in the Bible they are two people only, they actually represent the entire human race. So to the Catholics, Genesis is the story of evolution as a parable.
The Old Testament (the Torah) is all parable while in the New Testament, the writers are relaying events and in the course of those events, parables are told and introduced as such.
Not all Christians believe this, but some sects do. And since the nature of religion is that one cannot KNOW, but only have faith, you cannot prove God's existence nor His non-existence. So you either believe or you don't.
That you don't believe and so you interpret extremely circumstantial evidence as "proof" doesn't actually prove anything.
^interesting and I know this- I wasn't referring to Catholics I was referring to Christians, Catholics pervert Christianity just like Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses- all the bat ****. My point in arguing was to those that actually believe the Bible, and if you can only believe parts - why believe in it at all? The BIBLE ITSELF says it is accurate and the WORD OF GOD - you can't just say the text it is based on can be wrong and then the religion can still be right. - the Catholics are a cult - they do not believe the Bible. The baptist, southern baptist, pentecostal - they believe in the literal bible - and that is what I disproved someone who is not cherry picking what parts of the bible they want to believe in to meet their world view.
Thankfully, I have not had negative experiences with religion and while I don't believe in any of the existing organized religions personally, I also am not emotional about whether they are real or a farce. What I do know is enough about religion and philosophy that I can unequivocally state that nothing you have posted here and nothing you CAN post (because it doesn't exist) will prove any religion a farce. You don't have to practice or believe in them. But you cannot prove your position any more than the people who believe can prove theirs.
So stop being so angry about it and live your life.
No - you have not answered my point. The TEXT says it is 100% accurate, God-Breathed, Perfect, God's 'love message' on how to find him. Christianity is based on this text. Real Christianity. - I have proved the text wrong. The text is wrong. Christianity is wrong.
I'm not angry, I am angry at the lack of debate. - no refuting my points, no arguments what-so-ever rather you concede the text is wrong and attempt to excuse it by mentioning off-shoot cults that don't take it all literally as someone Christianity still potentially being true.
No the text says it is all true - the text is not true - the religion based on the text is not true then.
like what da faq? I'm not hostile to Christianity, I'm frustrated about how you can't see my point.
And I have found God in the text without believing that it is literal history. Badabing.
smh - but that is not Christianity then.
The Bible says it is.
are you just like trolling me? The Bible says it is perfect and 'God-breathed' - if you found God knowing the text was not accurate you are not a Christian. Christianity is based on the text - the text says it is perfect and literal. like da faq am I missing here?
The Bible is perfect. The knowledge it leads you to is perfect. The actual content is training that God created to educate humans on his/her/its perfect nature.
^But the Bible is not perfect? I just provided like a huge set of examples making that case?
And God refers to himself as his - not it or her.
The Bible is perfect. It is a perfect collection of stories God made up to educate us. No train left New York at 6:30 am, and yet you still have the ability to apply the formulas to real-world situation.
God also refers to themself as a trinity.0 -
https://mises.org/mmmp/mmmp1.asp
The social sciences in general and economics in particular cannot be based on experience in the sense in which this term is used by the natural sciences. Social experience is historical experience. Of course every experience is the experience of something passed. But what distinguishes social experience from that which forms the basis of the natural sciences is that it is always the experience of a complexity of phenomena. The experience to which the natural sciences owe all their success is the experience of the experiment. In the experiments the different elements of change are observed in isolation. The control of the conditions of change provides the experimenter with the means of assigning to each effect its sufficient cause. Without regard to the philosophical problem involved he proceeds to amass "facts." These facts are the bricks which the scientist uses in constructing his theories. They constitute the only material at his disposal. His theory must not be in contradiction with these facts. They are the ultimate things.
The social sciences cannot make use of experiments. The experience with which they have to deal is the experience of complex phenomena. They are in the same position as acoustics would be if the only material of the scientist were the hearing of a concerto or the noise of a waterfall. It is nowadays fashionable to style the statistical bureaus laboratories. This is misleading. The material which statistics provides is historical, that means the outcome of a complexity of forces. The social sciences never enjoy the advantage of observing the consequences of a change in one element only, other conditions being equal.
you can disagree with it, but you can't act like i'm a fool for suggesting it. i'm actually surpised that you could have gone through that much schooling without the subject ever coming up or it simply occuring to you on your own.
Anthropology and sociology, yeah. Absolutely.
Psychology works to get inside the black box of how our brains respond to the world. Psychologists test this in labs with controlled experiments that alter single variables.0 -
smh - but that is not Christianity then.
You paint the entire world with a monochromatic palette and then complain about what a dull and lifeless portrait it makes, and pat yourself on the back for your incisive critique.
What confuses is me why you're being so thoroughly humored by these people.
Because I was young and dumb and loved Rand at one point too.
I also basically had a nervous breakdown while traveling for work.
Even if he is actually interested in the topic - rather than just messing with you - I contend that it is impossible for you to broaden his horizons. If the dichotomous logic of youth was something that could simply be talked away, our universities would produce much more well-rounded, mindful, and productive people.
Instead, we get Jersey Shore here arguing God's gender.
:noway: wow. what an @$$h0le.
Thanks for shedding so much light on all the topics we discussed here yourself. You remind me of CS Lewis - grand accusations, grand statements - but nothing refuting your grand claims.
Awww. Once upon a time I loved the Screwtape Letters too.
Tolkien always thought that Lewis was a bit wack.
:drinker: I still love them both. So entertaining and passion - even if it is wrong is still catchy
I think Lewis was so sincere, and incredibly brilliant - didn't mean to smack him down so hard.
I think Tolkien got frustrated because he influenced Lewis into becoming a believer and then Lewis decided to be the spokesman of Christianity and ended up getting pummeled in some debates.
I'm sure Lewis will survive the pissant attempt.0 -
https://mises.org/mmmp/mmmp1.asp
The social sciences in general and economics in particular cannot be based on experience in the sense in which this term is used by the natural sciences. Social experience is historical experience. Of course every experience is the experience of something passed. But what distinguishes social experience from that which forms the basis of the natural sciences is that it is always the experience of a complexity of phenomena. The experience to which the natural sciences owe all their success is the experience of the experiment. In the experiments the different elements of change are observed in isolation. The control of the conditions of change provides the experimenter with the means of assigning to each effect its sufficient cause. Without regard to the philosophical problem involved he proceeds to amass "facts." These facts are the bricks which the scientist uses in constructing his theories. They constitute the only material at his disposal. His theory must not be in contradiction with these facts. They are the ultimate things.
The social sciences cannot make use of experiments. The experience with which they have to deal is the experience of complex phenomena. They are in the same position as acoustics would be if the only material of the scientist were the hearing of a concerto or the noise of a waterfall. It is nowadays fashionable to style the statistical bureaus laboratories. This is misleading. The material which statistics provides is historical, that means the outcome of a complexity of forces. The social sciences never enjoy the advantage of observing the consequences of a change in one element only, other conditions being equal.
you can disagree with it, but you can't act like i'm a fool for suggesting it. i'm actually surpised that you could have gone through that much schooling without the subject ever coming up or it simply occuring to you on your own.
Anthropology and sociology, yeah. Absolutely.
Psychology works to get inside the black box of how our brains respond to the world. Psychologists test this in labs with controlled experiments that alter single variables.
Someone cited https://mises.org/ :drinker:
Wish more people spent time on there. The Austrian School of ECON will be making a comeback someday.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions