Spirituality
15 May 06
16 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI find it far more likely that many of them are simply not aware of thier existance and where they are they are seriously misinformed as to their origins. However choice of books always comes down to something like:
Probably because most Christians today have more important things in life to worry about than apocryphal Gospels.
Thats what my forebears used.
or Thats what my pastor says.
or Thats what sounds right to me.
Rather than say:
These have been shown to be more historically accurate than those.
The same applies to interpretation of the Bible and choices on how to practice Christianity. If you critisize a fellow Christian as being wrong you are basically just saying that his interpretation is different from yours. However 90% of Christian beliefs can be considered cultural and interpretation rather than 'facts or directives' stated in the Bible.
In my home town of Livingstone, Zambia population 100,000 approx, there are about 150 different Christian denominations. In other words it is rather hard to find more than about 200 people whose beliefs are similar enough that they are willing to meet and worship under the same roof. Even within denominations there are often partial splits or disagreements.
16 May 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhile I agree that denominations and schisms within the body of Christ represents a harsh indictment upon the members, the same do not necessarily negate the message of the Bible.
I find it far more likely that many of them are simply not aware of thier existance and where they are they are seriously misinformed as to their origins. However choice of books always comes down to something like:
Thats what my forebears used.
or Thats what my pastor says.
or Thats what sounds right to me.
Rather than say:
These have been shown to ...[text shortened]... nder the same roof. Even within denominations there are often partial splits or disagreements.
There is only one truth, regardless the subject matter. If we were to use consensual agreement as the barometer for the rightness of any given field, we could fairly conclude that nothing is true... which we know is not true.
16 May 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat you say about most Christians is probably true - they probably believe what they believe because it was what they were taught. But then the same can be said about most things. Why, for instance, do you believe that stars are suns like our very own Sun but thousands or millions of light-years away? Have you ever been to a star? Seen it up close in a telescope? Ever studied astrophysics?
I find it far more likely that many of them are simply not aware of thier existance and where they are they are seriously misinformed as to their origins. However choice of books always comes down to something like:
Thats what my forebears used.
or Thats what my pastor says.
or Thats what sounds right to me.
Rather than say:
These have been shown to ...[text shortened]... nder the same roof. Even within denominations there are often partial splits or disagreements.
(Incidentally, if you have done one or more of these things, I can chose an example from a completely different field - but I think you're smart enough to get my point.)
If you critisize a fellow Christian as being wrong you are basically just saying that his interpretation is different from yours.
Here, I disagree. For instance, you can criticise a fellow Christian by pointing out that his interpretation does not follow from his own hermeneutic/exegetical principles; or that they are flawed in some way (logical, historical, philosophical). None of these entail a "you're wrong because I say so" argument.
16 May 06
Originally posted by no1marauderBTW, both of you managed to take the thread off-topic with personal attacks while hypocritically criticizing others for doing so.
More stupidity from two simple minded, dogmatic parrots. I haven't called either of you servants of mythical creatures or other non-existent things. Neither of you are "reasonable"; you both are insufferable, intolerant fools. LH is more laughable because he tries to pretend to have some knowledge of history, law and philosophy when his posts make it cle ...[text shortened]... read off-topic with personal attacks while hypocritically criticizing others for doing so.
Your insights are darn near intuitive. Prior to this post of yours, I had posted thrice. The first two were in response to the subject matter of the thread, i.e., Jack Chick. The third was in response to TH's post, which itself had taken a slight detour off subject, but addressed it indirectly, nonetheless.
There is not a personal attack in any of the three posts. Maybe that's the problem: maybe you don't know the difference between a statement of fact and a personal attack. Now your incongruity is making more sense. BTW, having howardgee agree with your sentiment is a sure sign that better self-reflection is required.
16 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, you did call him the "king of personal attacks".
[b]BTW, both of you managed to take the thread off-topic with personal attacks while hypocritically criticizing others for doing so.
Your insights are darn near intuitive. Prior to this post of yours, I had posted thrice. The first two were in response to the subject matter of the thread, i.e., Jack Chick. The third was in response to TH's post, wh ...[text shortened]... g howardgee agree with your sentiment is a sure sign that better self-reflection is required.[/b]
16 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerShhh: he'll hear us "attacking" him and cite us for being off-topic, to boot. You know how much he loves to stay on topic. I'm surprised he hasn't started talking about Jack Chick's tracts on pedophile priests and the whore of Babylon that is the RCC.
Now, now - no1 is a republican (small 'r'😉.
16 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYep. I don't know what I'll do the next time he decides to steal that matchbox in which all my knowledge is apparently stored.
Shhh: he'll hear us "attacking" him and cite us for being off-topic, to boot. You [b]know how much he loves to stay on topic. I'm surprised he has started talking about Jack Chick's tracts on pedophile priests and the whore of Babylon that is the RCC.[/b]
16 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerLearn to read. 1) I didn't say "all your knowledge"; I referred to specific areas that you are sadly ignorant in; 2) Since I said your knowledge in those areas wouldn't fit on a matchbox, it would be an inappropriate storage area for such a small quantity.
Yep. I don't know what I'll do the next time he decides to steal that matchbox in which all my knowledge is apparently stored.
16 May 06
Originally posted by no1marauderROTFLMAO!!!
More stupidity from two simple minded, dogmatic parrots. I haven't called either of you servants of mythical creatures or other non-existent things. Neither of you are "reasonable"; you both are insufferable, intolerant fools. LH is more laughable because he tries to pretend to have some knowledge of history, law and philosophy when his posts make it cle ...[text shortened]... read off-topic with personal attacks while hypocritically criticizing others for doing so.