Why I raise my children without ? .
Options
Comments
-
@oceanic. You are doing what a lot of so called Christians do when it comes to the Bible...you are convinced you know what it says. Just as it has gotten the world of Christendom in a lot of trouble, it can do the same to you. Surprisingly @janklow understands the Bible better than most of us Christian posters...and he's the UFC champ!!!!
-
i don't know that i agree with thisalissowack wrote: »Surprisingly @janklow understands the Bible better than most of us Christian posters
-
in the former, you're taking it that he wasn't blinded ("was supposedly blinded by a bright light"), presumably because you don't believe Paul. in the latter, you drop the supposedly. seems like a switch.
Nah, you're making it deeper than it's supposed to be. Going by what the Bible says, that's allegedly what happened??? I don't always type the same things verbatim every time I say them; that doesn't mean I don't feel the same way I did when I first typed it 2 or 3 posts ago.
???
That wasn't a switch.the thing is, if he's describing it as "a light from heaven," there's probably a little more contained in that phrase that "saw a bright light." how he then addresses this deity/vision is then up to him, i suppose.
...and again, it might also be because Paul presents himself as a non-believer having a conversion experience. it seems like a person who does not believe in ? who then experiences ? is going to have some questions..
Idk.. All I read was that he saw a bright light. Maybe something like this:
Bright enough for him to close his eyes and bright enough to supposedly blind him.since we're being pissy now, i will point out that you could have paid attention to MY post and noted why i called them "your" contradictions. but hell, you could also argue your point without getting mad on the internet because i used the phrase "your contradictions."
I'd like to know why you think I'm "mad" about anything. Aggression in debate does not equal anger.
"a good fighter is never angry"
--- Tao Te Ching
Maybe you're projecting.which, as we've discussed, makes sense for you, but which doesn't seem to lead to any actual Christians calling ? unknowable.
I'm arguing that Christians have no direct proof of ? 's existence which then requires strong belief or faith. If they had empirical evidence, they would provide it. They can't, so they say things like, "we live by faith, not by sight".nope, as i still consider Paul to be saying he saw ? /Jesus at Damascus. this would presumably be the light from heaven that blinded him, subsequently identified by as ? /Jesus/whatever.
Paul was blinded by the light but the light per se is not ? or Jesus as Paul established:
1 Timothy 6:16
who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see.
Paul didn't see any being. You said he did.if your argument is that the Bible is not reliable, then perhaps "I'm going by what the Bible says" should be restated?
The Bible isn't reliable but that doesn't mean I can't show you what it says.also, we're probably entering threefold repetition territory if we're going to keep debating "do Christians call ? unknowable"
Probably. I was getting bored anyway. Actually, I've received a new book in the mail from amazon that I've been reading at work now instead of logging onto the IC so if you're willing to wrap it up, I'm cool with that. -
Actually, I'll wrap it up for you..[faith] doesn't seem to lead to any actual Christians calling ? unknowable.
^^^I know that. I'm saying that the absence of evidence, which Christians admit in lacking, requires faith, which Christians claim to have. You've just admitted that belief and knowledge is not the same thing (as I've continuously said) and distinguished gnosticism/agnosticism from theism/atheism. So maybe your words will help you to understand my position in claiming that agnosticism is compatible with theism and/or atheism.
Since faith = belief, and belief or the absence of belief can be termed, when speaking of ? , either theism or atheism respectively, it has nothing to do with whether someone claims that ? to be knowable or unknowable. -
okay, final post incoming unless a whole new thing develops later; last couple points here:
fundamentally, you know that Paul's narrative is that he experienced ? /Jesus/whatever and converted as a result. whether or not he saw anything, or saw a bright light that wasn't ? , or actually saw what he claims ois a debate, but it's separate from what i am (was) talking about when i say Paul is not going to call ? unknowable due to this claim. what would be more relevant is if there was something indicating that Paul backed down from this story, as opposed to arguing why you think the story's false; absent the former, i would presume he would continue to claim "i saw (in whatever sense) ? on the road to Damascus."Idk.. All I read was that he saw a bright light. Maybe something like this:
i stated what i meant when i said "your" contradictions. continuing to fuss about it qualifies as getting pissy about it in my book. now, typed out, i suppose some nuances are lost, but i find it easier to believe you were being pissy about it as opposed to that you didn't follow what i meant.I'd like to know why you think I'm "mad" about anything. Aggression in debate does not equal anger.
i know this, but the argument stemmed from the claim that the majority of Christians would claim ? is unknowable. ultimately, this is still you saying they believe ? is unknowable while we actually have no evidence that's a popular opinion with Christians. you don't have to convince me that they should consider ? unknowable; you have to convince me a majority of Christians agree with you.I'm arguing that Christians have no direct proof of ? 's existence which then requires strong belief or faith.
i'm going to have to be redundant here, but in the end, if you see a bright light of supernatural origin that blinds you, and all of a sudden you're talking to Jesus, it's fair to assume seeing that light WAS seeing ? . i mean, we're talking about a deity here, so we should perhaps forgive a vision of him that isn't a old white guy with a beard.Paul didn't see any being. You said he did.
then why argue that they would say that? because that is the point i have being arguing here.
i'd rather ? it without closing the thread, basically. rebut as appropriate and i'll call this my last post on the current topic.Probably. I was getting bored anyway. Actually, I've received a new book in the mail from amazon that I've been reading at work now instead of logging onto the IC so if you're willing to wrap it up, I'm cool with that. -
i don't know that i agree with thisalissowack wrote: »Surprisingly @janklow understands the Bible better than most of us Christian posters
That point was a little exaggerated (if not a lot), but it is just to say you are at least willing to consider the context in which the Bible says things...which some of us Bible Thumpers fail to do. -
fundamentally, you know that Paul's narrative is that he experienced ? /Jesus/whatever and converted as a result.
People convert to different religions for different reasons; not necessarily because they experienced the deity per se but rather they interpret an experience in a way which attracts them to an ideology. Paul's story is no different.whether or not he saw anything, or saw a bright light that wasn't ? , or actually saw what he claims ois a debate.
It's not really much of a debate because he admits in 1 Timothy that ? has not been seen yet you're arguing that He has.but it's separate from what i am (was) talking about when i say Paul is not going to call ? unknowable due to this claim. what would be more relevant is if there was something indicating that Paul backed down from this story, as opposed to arguing why you think the story's false; absent the former, i would presume he would continue to claim "i saw (in whatever sense) ? on the road to Damascus.".
It's more underlying all of this including Paul's character/personality and his relation to the whole but we're not going to get into that obviously. Most likely, his conversion story was false but if you want to accept it as truth, you could, however it seems that either way, he did not admit to actually seeing ? .i stated what i meant when i said "your" contradictions. continuing to fuss about it qualifies as getting pissy about it in my book.
You calling the contradictions "mine" implies that I created them or that I made them up. That was a sly attempt at discrediting what was presented instead of arguing it. I had to explain to you why they're not "my" contradictions. You have yet to say anything relevent about it. Assumptions and accusations wont get you far.I'm arguing that Christians have no direct proof of ? 's existence which then requires strong belief or faith.i know this.
Okay then; well that's what I mean by "unknowable"; Christians claim to have faith as opposed to direct knowledge, meaning empirical evidence or proof, of ? .you don't have to convince me that they should consider ? unknowable; you have to convince me a majority of Christians agree with you.
Because we cannot fully know another person, let alone an infinite ? , all relationships require some degree of faith (trust). ? is our Father and it takes faith to believe that He loves us and that He provides for our needs.
Faith is also important because ? is not visible to humanity. Hebrews 11:1 teaches, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” We cannot see ? (John 1:18). However, we have faith in Him that provides assurance.
http://www.compellingtruth.org/? -require-faith.htmlif you see a bright light of supernatural origin that blinds you, and all of a sudden you're talking to Jesus, it's fair to assume seeing that light WAS seeing ? .
Why?? First, we don't know where the light came from. Secondly, Paul didn't see anybody; he only heard someone proclaiming to be Jesus (and we don't know where the voice came from or if it actually belonged to Jesus -- again, Paul didn't see him). Thirdly, Paul never met Jesus prior to his alleged "non-sighting". He could have heard James Earl Jones saying he was Jesus and Paul would have believed it simply because he did not know what Jesus sounded like.. because he never met him.[faith] doesn't seem to lead to any actual Christians calling ? unknowable.^^^I know that.then why argue that they would say that?
Because I'm arguing that unknowability leads to faith. Christians have faith in ? . Why? Because first of all, they claim ? is unknowable.
-
@Oceanic......
Objectively........
Janklow has been ethering your monkey ass for about a month now..........
-
...nope, still not posting anything else
-
I disagree with Janklow.
I dunno how only a few minority in the world
Don't get that agnosticism isn't mutually exclusive. -
...nope, still not posting anything else
That's fine. We'll have to agree to disagree. -
or, more to the point:That's fine. We'll have to agree to disagree.i'll call this my last post on the current topic.
-
In other words, you agree to disagree, like I said.
The term "agree to disagree" or "agreeing to disagree" is a phrase in English referring to the resolution of a conflict (usually a debate or quarrel) whereby all parties tolerate but do not accept the opposing position(s). It generally occurs when all sides recognise that further conflict would be unnecessary, ineffective or otherwise undesirable. They may also remain on amicable terms while continuing to disagree about the unresolved issues.
Anyway, I thought that was supposed to be your last post. If you're going to continue talking to me, you might as well start where we left off. -
Looks like he is letting you off the hook........
-
Looks like he is letting you off the hook........
Nah, letting someone off the hook is what I've done with you in your Darwin thread. -
Letting someone off the hook is also what @janklow did when you displayed your emotions in an assortment of rainbow colors:Drew_Ali/Bambu wrote: »You should have learned about stepping to me with what you are "pretty sure about"........
Fall back ? .......
I am "pretty sure" that if you did not act like a little ? and do your ? job we would not be here "wrecking" threads..........
before @kai_valya banned you about a week or two ago.
-
I was just reminding you that duke said he wasn't posting here anymore...........
Carry on............... -
I was just reminding you
And I was just reminding you what happened.
Run along then
-
Don't run from the debate ? ......
@Oceanic......
If you cant beat em'..........
Ban em'......................
-
nopeIn other words, you agree to disagree, like I said.
on the topic, yeah. of course, if it makes you feel better because this "counts," i can lock the threadAnyway, I thought that was supposed to be your last post. If you're going to continue talking to me, you might as well start where we left off.
-
-
...says the guy who tagged the post as "spam" because it hurt his feelings?Your childishness is surprising. Peace.
i made my final post, said go ahead and rebut and i was done, and ended it. then you want to give me ? about posting without responding to you, which would KIND OF go against my whole "guess i'll end debating this right here" post. was this unclear?
-
...says the guy who tagged the post as "spam" because it hurt his feelings?
Says the guy who continues to make baseless assumptions and accusations. I flagged your post as spam because you wanted to end the debate so I agreed in a peaceful manner yet you come in arguing about the way it was ended?? You don't have to have the last word. If you don't want to talk to me, then stop. But if you're wrong about something while talking to me, I'm going to address it. In this case, you're, for whatever reason, childishly refusing to accept that we "agreed to disagree" by definition, which is IMO absolutely ridiculous. Specifically, that's what's unclear to me. -
@oceanic. Maybe you should take heed the "agree to disagree" definition yourself. If you believe that any more responses posted whether right or wrong is not going to make a difference in the debate, then don't post and keep your disagreements to yourself. It just sounds more like you don't want to let this go. If I was moderating this, I would shut this thread down.
This discussion has been closed.