I believe my skepticism is Valid not ignorant do you ?

[intojoy]

I have wrestled with that question as some will say he goes to hell. I disagree, as truly good and righteous people are rewarded by God.

Fail

 

[intojoy]

@town heretic
Ok you seem to be determined to assume i am linking my perceived values of good for the purposes of this debate, let me re articulate.

So lets assume there is a child born in a remote African village... he is orphaned... he is brought up by animals in the wilderness ,he lives his entire adult life in solitude... by some amazing co-incidence he lives his entire life true to Christian values and doctrine with receiving no education or awareness of the church or any God .

Should he not have the chance in death to be accepted into heaven ? or are you saying due to complete ignorance that is no fault of his own he is rightly condemned to hell ??

The word of God teaches that within creation man has enough evidence for belief in the One God Creator. Scripture further says that if that native looks at his surroundings and concludes that there is a God, and forsakes his idols and those of his fellow tribesmen that God will reveal more truth to him. Eventually some white dude with a bible will show up, share the gospel and whammy he gets saved!

Now ponder this - the revelation of God's existence in creation is sufficient to condemn but not sufficient to save. Salvation is had via the revelation thru God's word the bible.

 

[quip]

PROVE IT.

DROP DEAD.

By men I learned of God...by those same men I consistently grow disgusted by their learned ways.

 

[quip]

I don't believe that people proselytize others because they care about their souls.

Then I'd say whatever your life context you've reached critical mass with cynicism that precludes objectivity.

Either that or there's a sought amenity in greater numbers.

 

[PureX]

The word of God teaches that within creation man has enough evidence for belief in the One God Creator. Scripture further says that if that native looks at his surroundings and concludes that there is a God, and forsakes his idols and those of his fellow tribesmen that God will reveal more truth to him. Eventually some white dude with a bible will show up, share the gospel and whammy he gets saved!

Now ponder this - the revelation of God's existence in creation is sufficient to condemn but not sufficient to save. Salvation is had via the revelation thru God's word the bible.

And there we have the very definition of biblical idolatry. A book written by men becomes the magical hand of God, bestowing the miraculous cure for mankind's universal ailment … to those who will agree to worship it as such.

 

[intojoy]

And there we have the very definition of biblical idolatry. A book written by men becomes the magical hand of God, bestowing the miraculous cure for mankind's universal ailment … to those who will agree to worship it as such.

I do not worship the Bible. I worship the God of the Bible. The fact that the Bible is the Word of the Living God means that the Bible is the final authority on the affairs of human life. Plus it is the Bible that should be our source of faith and not miracles or emotional experiences.

 

[PureX]

Because you wrote:

and I find that dogmatically judgmental, unfair and remarkably blinkered, as cynical a statement as could be found on the point.


I didn't say you had. But yes, really. It's a horrible stereotype of the sort that just doesn't rationally stand up. I've known people who pray to be seen praying and it's not hard to spot them and I've known people who went door to door out of an earnest concern and in gratitude. To suggest only the meanest interpretation of action on the point is staggeringly jaded and, I think, contrary to reason.


No, you won't make the case to whomever asks...good grief, you might as well be going door to door yourself or shouting at the faithful from a street corner with that bit.


It is if you understand the word. You can argue a case, but making one requires agreement or all you're saying is that you're satisfied on the point and nothing else matters.

I think your exaggerated protestations reveal a fear of your own that I'm right. A fear you really don't want to acknowledge.

We all have egos, and we are all being controlled by them much of the time. And this is true regardless of what we think is controlling us much of the time. I don't doubt that the proselytizers think they care about the souls of those they want to judge and control with their religious beliefs. But that desire to judge and control reveals the falseness of their proclaimed motive. Because if they really cared about the souls of others, they would understand that you can't help them by judging them and trying to control their thoughts and actions with some religious dogma. We help each other by BEING the spiritual salve that they are in need of: by BEING the forgiveness, by BEING the appreciation, by BEING the joy, and by BEING the wisdom that all human souls seek, to be fulfilled.

All this unsolicited proselytizing ever does is annoy and condemn the victims, while the perpetrators walk away wrongly presuming themselves to be smug, superior, and righteous. Which is really all they wanted, and what all the proselytizing was about.

 

[intojoy]

Homosexuality is a sin purex.

 

[PureX]

I do not worship the Bible. I worship the God of the Bible. The fact that the Bible is the Word of the Living God means that the Bible is the final authority on the affairs of human life. Plus it is the Bible that should be our source of faith and not miracles or emotional experiences.

According to your post, you have endowed the Bible with the power and authority to "save" those who agree to idolize it the same way you do. That is the definition of idolatry: endowing man-made objects with divine powers and worshipping (revering) them as if they are divine beings.

 

[intojoy]

According to your post, you have endowed the Bible with the power and authority to "save" those who agree to idolize it the same way you do. That is the definition of idolatry: endowing man-made objects with divine powers and worshipping (revering) them as if they are divine beings.

You're weak. You are reading you preconceived philosophical prejudice into my position. Because of the weakness of your response to my clear post, this is not worth defending.

It's not my fault you aren't able to think thru what I've posted. The sin of homosexuality leads to a reprobate mind.

 

[OCTOBER23]

Lets see what we have here.

BORIS uses mediums

Purex uses Tools

Heretic is for the birds

Reign likes flowers

Patrickjane is a thinker

Wonderful is wondering

Doser likes Stuff

IntoJoy Enjoys Suffering.

And I am Out to Lunch

 

[Stripe]

I need to see hard evidence to believe in such a big thing as a GOD.

Here's a rock. :up:

 

[ok doser]

I have wrestled with that question as some will say he goes to hell. I disagree, as truly good and righteous people are rewarded by God.

i believe this is the position of the RCC, but in order to make it work they have to come up with purgatory and other work-arounds

 

[Town Heretic]

Heretic is for the birds

That your A game? lain: Well, your day is coming.

See what I did there?

I think your exaggerated protestations

They aren't exaggerations. Your position is an exaggeration. It's so broadly and negatively encompassing it can't be held reasonably, which goes to my counter. Here's your bit again:

I don't believe that people proselytize others because they care about their souls. I believe they do it because they are addicted to the idea of their own righteousness.

That's like suggesting that every republican is a gun owner or every democrat supports abortion. Even if it's mostly true it begs qualification. And you can't and haven't even made the objective case for mostly.

reveal a fear of your own that I'm right. A fear you really don't want to acknowledge.

Along with a fear of cake. lain: :chew: So whatever you do don't give me a cake. Or throw one at me. No, I understand you're on a mind and heart reading jag, but you're not in the zip code of the parking lot of the tram that takes you to the game with that one.

We all have egos, and we are all being controlled by them much of the time.

You're the most dogmatic relativist I've ever met.

I don't doubt that the proselytizers think they care about the souls of those they want to judge and control with their religious beliefs.

Or maybe they simply believe in the reality of their faith and within its context desire that people outside of it are made free from sin and its control, ruled instead by virtue and a desire for the good.

But that desire to judge and control reveals the falseness of their proclaimed motive.

But it's your invention and insertion, Pure. You decided that they desire to judge and you determined the need for control right before you passed sentence. And you know what you did then? You judged. And now you're trying to control the perception of their motivation. That's what you were attempting with the fear approach to me. And you know what that serves? Ego.

All this unsolicited proselytizing ever does is annoy and condemn the victims,

No, sometimes it begins dialog. Sometimes it even works. Mostly? I think it's mostly an invitation to entrenchment, but you never know. Not my approach, but I'm not going to say it never works because a great revival was once predicated on that tactic.

while the perpetrators walk away wrongly presuming themselves to be smug, superior, and righteous.

Ever? All? Maybe a little, maybe some, or maybe most of the time that's true. I don't know. I don't think you really know either. But i do know that calling people who are trying to do something that serves the good within their context "perpetrators", a word typically reserved for criminal activity...that's just odd.

Which is really all they wanted, and what all the proselytizing was about.

Supra.

 

[PureX]

That your A game? lain: Well, your day is coming.

See what I did there?

They aren't exaggerations. Your position is an exaggeration. It's so broadly and negatively encompassing it can't be held reasonably, which goes to my counter. Here's your bit again:

That's like suggesting that every republican is a gun owner or every democrat supports abortion. Even if it's mostly true it begs qualification. And you can't and haven't even made the objective case for mostly.

Along with a fear of cake. lain: :chew: So whatever you do don't give me a cake. Or throw one at me. No, I understand you're on a mind and heart reading jag, but you're not in the zip code of the parking lot of the tram that takes you to the game with that one.

You're the most dogmatic relativist I've ever met.

Or maybe they simply believe in the reality of their faith and within its context desire that people outside of it are made free from sin and its control, ruled instead by virtue and a desire for the good.

But it's your invention and insertion, Pure. You decided that they desire to judge and you determined the need for control right before you passed sentence. And you know what you did then? You judged. And now you're trying to control the perception of their motivation. That's what you were attempting with the fear approach to me. And you know what that serves? Ego.

No, sometimes it begins dialog. Sometimes it even works. Mostly? I think it's mostly an invitation to entrenchment, but you never know. Not my approach, but I'm not going to say it never works because a great revival was once predicated on that tactic.

Ever? All? Maybe a little, maybe some, or maybe most of the time that's true. I don't know. I don't think you really know either. But i do know that calling people who are trying to do something that serves the good within their context "perpetrators", a word typically reserved for criminal activity...that's just odd.

So basically, the only argument you can offer is that I didn't qualify my generalizations? Man! That's a pretty weak argument. And it only serves to support my theory that you knew I was right all along, but that you just don't want to acknowledge it. Now, here you are acknowledging it, reluctantly, and then trying throw mud over it as best you can by pointing out my not qualifying my generalizations. … I'm "satisfied".

Unfortunately, I don't think you've learned anything. You're still an automatic apologist for any and all sins committed by your fellow religious Christians. And that's too bad. Because repentance is the beginning of spiritual healing.

 

[Town Heretic]

So basically, the only argument you can offer is that I didn't qualify my generalizations?

I always know when someone is in trouble. They go for the huge block quote then misstate something. That's what you did there.

To begin with you haven't presented an argument, only a conclusion supported by declarations that are themselves conclusions. Edit: And it was in its offering a broad attack, so the want of qualification is fairly important.

You declared what was in the mind and hearts of those bringing witness and did so universally. I noted that the want of qualification itself spoke to a problem in your methodology and judgment. Then I turned your method on you.

Man! That's a pretty weak argument.

Nice flag. Hand stitched. Too bad you didn't put that work into your posit.

And it only serves to support my theory that you knew I was right all along,

Of course you did. That's always the case when you begin with a conclusion.

Unfortunately, I don't think you've learned anything.

No, but I've seen this tactic before.

You're still an automatic apologist for any and all sins committed by your fellow religious Christians.

No more true than it was the first time you wrote it. I've been fairly harsh with a number of people who use the Bible as a weapon to demean and insult, and/or as an extension of personal malice. I'm equally committed to opposing people who try what you just did. But then, I'm not a relativist, I'm a rationalist.

 

[Rusha]

This angered the chap`s they both wandered off , but not before turning and warning me again about my impending doom.

So im interested on people views on A : my view on skepticism & B: these guys behavior and in my view ignorance.

Thanks All.

Welcome to the forum, Boris.

Skepticism is normal. IF it weren't, there would be no evangelists. IMO, the very fact that these individuals got so nasty says more about their motives and own vulnerabilities than it does about your response.

They lashed out defensively because you presented more of a challenge than they were capable of answering.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

It's not my fault you aren't able to think thru what I've posted. The sin of homosexuality leads to a reprobate mind.

Actually the inverse.

The sin of homosexuality is evidence of a reprobate mind.

 

[PureX]

I always know when someone is in trouble. They go for the huge block quote then misstate something. That's what you did there.

Or they don't intend to maintain a pointless 'tit-for-tat' debate in which the point gets lost and you feel most comfortable.

In this instance, it was because that conversation was over. I had made my point, and you had acknowledged it … grudgingly.

 

[bybee]

Lets see what we have here.

BORIS uses mediums

Purex uses Tools

Heretic is for the birds

Reign likes flowers

Patrickjane is a thinker

Wonderful is wondering

Doser likes Stuff

IntoJoy Enjoys Suffering.

And I am Out to Lunch

What's on the menu?