Originally posted by nemesio
Originally posted by pcaspian
Irrespective of RBHill's 'God,' be it generic, Christian,
or otherwise, when he or anyone else makes claims on
behalf of that God that make no sense, I will call them
out, for fear that someone read it and misunderstand it.
A Christian God is rather important. Ofcourse no-one can make a claim about a generic 'God' , however they can about a Christian God. Scriptures are quite helpfull in that case.
You can argue, 'Everyone knows what he meant,' if you
want, but I place the expectation upon people that, if they
are going to represent themselves and especially God,
they better say what they mean.
Called being pedantic. You can either treat a discussion as a loving brother in Christ (if you do accept RBHill) or you can treat him like an enemy. You seem to be taking the latter route.
I'm sorry that you don't like this approach, but I'm not
going to change just because you think that RBHill is
somehow privied to protection because he is, as you
say, 'an easy target.'
Ofcourse you may pick on someone's weakness (first language, lack of grammar etc), however as the object of the discussion is not to 'win' the debate (correct me if I am wrong), but to actually pass information and opinion, perhaps trying to agrue his view, instead of the person may be more constructive. Use it, don't use it.
First of all, the thread is about alcoholism; you brought up
the word 'drunkard.'
I mentioned the term 'drunkard' as the biblical term 'drunkard' is used in to describe a sin that will prevent you from entering Heaven. Ofcourse the term 'alcholism' is not a sin. An alchoholic can either be an active alchoholic, or a recovering alchoholic. As such, the only term that requires discussion is 'drunkard'.
As for it taking a concerted effort
to become an alcoholic, I'd like you to expand upon this.
Do you mean people consciously make an effort to become
an alcoholic?
Why would I suggest that ? Alchoholism is a state where a dependancy develops on alchohol. Every person that drinks alchohol knows what an alchoholic is and that the amount of alchohol (and frequency with which they consume it) could result , in time, in them becoming dependant on the substance. It is a conscious risk they take. As such, a comparison to any other 'dependency' over which the person have no conscious control over, is futile.
Many people drink casually and do not become alcoholics. Many people drink heavily and frequently and do not become alcoholics. What do you mean a person 'chooses' to become addicted to alcohol?
See answer above.
However, your oversimplification that 'alcoholism is sin, therefore one should 'choose' not to be an alcoholic' is, I believe, insulting...
Ok.. lets try again. Being a 'drunkard' is a sin, 'alcoholism' an end product.
Your opinion about my sincerity has no currency with me.
Well, simply put I choose not to discuss Biblical scriptures with people that I believe are not out for open discussions. Ofcourse I can have discussions with people I consider jerks, or foolish, or uninformed, but not with those out to redicule the scriptures. I guess that would be "Casting pearls before swine". Thus if you care not for whether I believe you to be sincere or perhaps think you're simply out to argue with me over scriptures, I suggest you inform me now so we can end this debate.
As I disagree that people 'choose' to become alcoholics, and that
you haven't demonstrated it, yes, my conclusion is that your opinion
is unjust.
I have quantified my comment (in my previous post) and in this one regarding why I used the term 'choose' in reference to the comparison between 'cerebral palsy' and 'alcholism'. Ofcourse you then follow it up with the sarcastic "I wonder if you believe people 'choose' to be depressed, or 'choose' to have obsessive-compulsive disorders ".
Simply put, if you have difficulty understanding my text, ask me to quantify, instead of insinuating meaning.
I do not deny that alcoholism is something that can be overcome, but
the way in which you are presenting this -- like it's as simple as whether or not I wear a blue tie or a purple tie -- is either disingenous, manipulative, or ignorant.
If you care for personal attacks, just get on with it. Disguising it indirectly and claiming it is aimed at alchoholics is poor form. My comment (which you choose to blow out of proportion) was directed again at your comparison between alchoholism and 'cerebral palsy', with me stating the difference being that an alchoholic has a way out.
Ofcourse if you struggle to understand the difference and require me to quantify what I mean with 'way out', please do so, instead of making assumptions.
I know a lot of people with a lot of problems. This does not make
me an expert on the curing of those problems, only with the way in
which their problems effect me.
Your claimed was that I was ignorant regarding the problem of alchoholism. I refuted that stating real life examples, now you are insinuating that I claimed to be an expert. Not quite.
You say, 'a process.' By this I take it to mean that you acknowledge
the validity of other processes? Do you think that the most effective
process is to accept Christ or the AA 12-step program? What statistics
can you cite to support what you believe?
Curious, do I ask you to quantify all personal beliefs with statistical data ? This smacks of someone that needs to chill out a bit more.
As I have already stated, I know 2 recovered alcoholics ( non-christian) . I believe the AA program to be excelent and should any alchoholic approach me for help that would be my first suggestion. I also believe a sincere prayer to God to be a solution, however I do not neccesarily expect such a prayer to result in an instant cure. I have absolutely no doubdt that it can result in an instant cure, however that would require the alcoholic to really understand what it means to be 'reborn', and God to choose to remove that person's vice immediately instead of gradually through AA. As stated previously, I believe too many people don't quite understand what it is to be 'reborn'.
Anything? Faith can overcome bactierial pneumonia? With what kind of regularity? Is faith a better cure for it than antibiotics?
You lack faith Nemesio.
Mat 17 vs 14 When they reached the crowd, a man approached and knelt down before Him. 15 "Lord," he said, "have mercy on my son, because he has seizures and suffers severely. He often falls into the fire and often into the water. 16 I brought him to Your disciples, but they couldn't heal him." 17 Jesus replied, "O unbelieving and rebellious generation! How long will I be with you? How long must I put up with you? Bring him here to Me." 18 Then Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and from that moment the boy was healed. 19 Then the disciples approached Jesus privately and said, "Why couldn't we drive it out?" 20 "Because of your little faith," He told them. "For I assure you: If you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will tell this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you. 21 [However, this kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting.]"
This is the kind of careless statement that I find irritating, by the way,
irrespective of who makes it.
Originally posted by RBHILLSo when Jesus turned water into wine, he was encouraging weakness so, like the military, he could break them down only to build them up again?
Like Starrman said drinking is a weakness, God uses weaknesses that people have to come to Jesus to show that He is real by healing them.
Originally posted by pcaspian
A Christian God is rather important. Ofcourse no-one can make a claim about a generic 'God' , however they can about a Christian God. Scriptures are quite helpfull in that case.
Any God is rather important to the person who holds faith
in Him/Her/It/Them. There common notions about what
being a God means and the relationship between those
God-images and humankind. This is what I took to mean
by generic God. Anyone who claims to speak on behalf of
any God ought to be able to do it well, otherwise find another
gift of the spirit.
Called being pedantic. You can either treat a discussion as a loving brother in Christ (if you do accept RBHill) or you can treat him like an enemy. You seem to be taking the latter route.
If by questioning what he says he believes that means I am
treating him like the enemy, then we all do this with every
person in the debate forum. You have a misguided notion
of what debates are supposed to be if by questioning somone
you believe that person is being treated unfairly.
Ofcourse you may pick on someone's weakness (first language, lack of grammar etc), however as the object of the discussion is not to 'win' the debate (correct me if I am wrong), but to actually pass information and opinion, perhaps trying to agrue his view, instead of the person may be more constructive. Use it, don't use it.
I have never backed away from a debate, irrespective of
whatever 'weaknesses' they have. By asking my probing
questions, I hope to pass on information. I'm sorry you
have a problem with this approach, but I can't help you.
If you want to turn every debate into a him vs. her kind
of scenario, your distorted view of the world is not going
to be changed by what I say.
Consider the derision with which you treat royalchicken,
bbarr, and kirksey. You don't want to learn from them,
you jump in where you feel you can lob some sort of
Biblical handgrenade and run away. You are prepared to
lump me with them, not because I agree with them, but
because you disagree about one of the fundamental facts
about debate: challenge.
I mentioned the term 'drunkard' as the biblical term 'drunkard' is used in to describe a sin that will prevent you from entering Heaven. Ofcourse the term 'alcholism' is not a sin. An alchoholic can either be an active alchoholic, or a recovering alchoholic. As such, the only term that requires discussion is 'drunkard'.
The fact that you mentioned it doesn't mean anything: It's
not the topic of this thread, though you are making an effort
to bend it that way.
Why would I suggest that ? Alchoholism is a state where a dependancy develops on alchohol. Every person that drinks alchohol knows what an alchoholic is and that the amount of alchohol (and frequency with which they consume it) could result , in time, in them becoming dependant on the substance. It is a conscious risk they take. As such, a comparison to any other 'dependency' over which the person have no conscious control over, is futile.
Some people become alcoholics very, very quickly, others drink
their whole lives and never become one. If your argument is that
all people should be alcohlically abstinent so that they will avoid
any chance of becoming an alcoholic, then you should say that.
Given the variability and the fact that people do not immediately
realize when they 'become' an alcoholic, I cannon agree why with
your statement that people 'choose' to become an alcoholic (again,
unless you are proscribing alcohol abstinence).
Well, simply put I choose not to discuss Biblical scriptures with people that I believe are not out for open discussions.
I find it hard to believe that you actually wrote this. You believe
that there is only one right way to read Scripture, no? You totally
rejected my proposed way to view Scripture (despite its internal
logic, consistency, and humanity). What is your definition of
'open discussion?'
If you care for personal attacks, just get on with it.
I see that you are a person who believes that, should I call something
you say ignorant or malicious, you equate this with my believing that
you are ignorant or malicious. I am criticizing your position; if you
want to take it personally, I can't help that, but it isn't what I said
nor intended.
I might add that, for a person who claims to know whether Kirksey
or I will be saved, I find this 'don't insult me' attitude awfully audacious.
You lack faith Nemesio.
Here is a statement of my character, not my ideas or beliefs. This,
pcaspian, is an insult, something you said that we should be avoiding.
Of course, perhaps you believe that it is okay to insult people whom
you classify as 'non-Christian' since their souls don't matter anyway,
but whatever your justification is, you are the one flinging insults, not
I.
I'll repeat my questions:
Can faith overcome bactierial pneumonia? With what kind
of regularity? Is faith a better cure for it than antibiotics?
I don't want a Scriptural reference of one of Jesus' on-site healings.
I am well aware of the contents of the New Testament, so spare me.
I want your opinion about this. Do you think that prayer is a more
powerful form of healing than science? Do you think that religious
people get healed more than non-religious people, and if so, why?
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesio
Anyone who claims to speak on behalf of
any God ought to be able to do it well, otherwise find another
gift of the spirit.
RBHill was speaking on behalf of his God. Your claim was where RBHill's authority lay to speak on behalf of a generic God. He was not doing that, simply repeating scripture. As such, his views of a Christian God are valid as the Christian God is defined by scriptures.
If by questioning what he says he believes that means I am
treating him like the enemy, then we all do this with every
person in the debate forum. You have a misguided notion
of what debates are supposed to be if by questioning somone
you believe that person is being treated unfairly.
Should you treat debates as some competition, so be it. I don't treat scriptures as such. It was not intended to be 'argued'.
Consider the derision with which you treat royalchicken,
bbarr, and kirksey. You don't want to learn from them,
you jump in where you feel you can lob some sort of
Biblical handgrenade and run away.
I purposefully ignore BBarr and RC and no1Marauder. So no, I do not 'jump in' where I can lob a granade.
You are prepared to lump me with them, not because I agree with them, but because you disagree about one of the fundamental facts
about debate: challenge.
Had I 'lumped' you with them, I would not be debating with you. And no, I don't consider debate a challenge. Ofcourse should one care to debate a random issue, so be it, but christians should not see scriptures as a means for competition.
The fact that you mentioned it doesn't mean anything: It's
not the topic of this thread, though you are making an effort
to bend it that way.
The topic of the thread originated from the 'sin' thread we discussed previously. My argument is that the Biblical text describes 'drunkardness' as a sin, not having an addiction to alchohol.
Some people become alcoholics very, very quickly, others drink
their whole lives and never become one. If your argument is that
all people should be alcohlically abstinent so that they will avoid
any chance of becoming an alcoholic, then you should say that.
That is not my argument. Even the quickest of alcoholics still need to get pissed many a time before building up a dependency. Even then there will be should be warning signs. Treating alcoholics as victims is silly, that would be like treating a person who developed lung cancer from chain smoking as a victim as not all smokers develop cancer.
Given the variability and the fact that people do not immediately
realize when they 'become' an alcoholic, I cannon agree why with
your statement that people 'choose' to become an alcoholic (again,
unless you are proscribing alcohol abstinence).
I've quantified my statement on several occasions and you know it was with regard to the difference between how one cannot help getting C.P, but one can prevent becoming an alcoholic.
As for becoming an alcoholic there any many signs that drink is affecting your lifestyle. I can hardly imagine someone becoming addicted to alcohol without actually at some point thinking 'Am I drinking too much' ? Having a dependency on alcohol is not neccesarily a sin, acting out on that dependency to the extent where you lose control of yourself, however is. That is alcoholism. If active, the person cannot stop at just one or two drinks, they drink until they pass out.
I find it hard to believe that you actually wrote this. You believe
that there is only one right way to read Scripture, no? You totally
rejected my proposed way to view Scripture (despite its internal
logic, consistency, and humanity). What is your definition of
'open discussion?'
An open discussion is one where the person you are discussing something with is actually interested in debate, for purposes of furthering knowledge or re-evaluating their views. A discussion with RC, or no1 for that matter is futile. I dare put Cribs in that group too, as he seems more interested in arousing anger in people than actually discussing the issues at hand. I have little doubdt you haven't come across 'Casting pearls before swine' . I find it a disservice to God to discuss the Bible with someone who is not actually interested in God. "They will trample you". As such I question your views, whether you can remove anger and resentment over any of my previous views and debate the Biblical scripts at hand.
I see that you are a person who believes that, should I call something
you say ignorant or malicious, you equate this with my believing that
you are ignorant or malicious. I am criticizing your position; if you
want to take it personally, I can't help that, but it isn't what I said
nor intended.
We are judged by our actions. If my views are ignorant or malicious it is a relection upon myself. I don't quite understand how you do not believe the two go hand in hand.
I might add that, for a person who claims to know whether Kirksey
or I will be saved, I find this 'don't insult me' attitude awfully audacious.
I simply do not have time, nor energy to spend an hour composing a reply should the only responses I will get is in the form of insults or replies filled with anger. Should you consider my view regarding your salvation as insulting, I appologise. I have little choice. Should you claim to be a Christian, it is (as you may know from the scriptures) my duty to judge you.
Here is a statement of my character, not my ideas or beliefs. This,
pcaspian, is an insult, something you said that we should be avoiding.
Of course, perhaps you believe that it is okay to insult people whom
you classify as 'non-Christian' since their souls don't matter anyway,
but whatever your justification is, you are the one flinging insults, not
I.
What makes you believe one's character is not defined in your idea's and beliefs ? I questioned your (and Kirk's salvation) based on what you claim to be your beliefs. Had we been in the same church I would have done the same. Can you really have 1 person preaching about 'lust' being good, yet the rest of the congregation believing it to be an evil ? Can you really claim that a belief is Jesus's death and ressurection to be integral to salvation, yet have the preacher claim (and preach) otherwise ? If I were in your church and claiming that 'charity' is not salvation, but only a belief in Christ, would you not doubdt my salvation ? How many am I leading away from God if I claim this ?
I'll repeat my questions:
Can faith overcome bactierial pneumonia? With what kind
of regularity? Is faith a better cure for it than antibiotics?
I don't want a Scriptural reference of one of Jesus' on-site healings.
I am well aware of the contents of the New Testament, so spare me.
I want your opinion about this.
If you are suggesting 'faith as a placebo' is more beneficial, the answer is no. If you are questioning whether having a faith and God healing you , then clearly the answer is yes.
Would I recommend someone not taking antibiotics, just pray, then no. God is not a circus act, and doesn't perform miracles at a whim.
Do you think that prayer is a more
powerful form of healing than science? Do you think that religious
people get healed more than non-religious people, and if so, why?
It entirely depends of the Will of God. Am I to die of cancer and is this God's Will ? The question at hand is not whether we are praying for 'healing', but praying for salvation, praying to rid us of sin. We know God wills all to be saved, as such, should we pray to overcome our vices, I believe God will do this for us. Whether through the AA, or a miracle, a sincere prayer from the heart and a willingness to give your life to Christ is the requirement for salvation. You may not be cured of cancer, or lose your tattoos, but through God, things that seemed impossible, can become possible.
Originally posted by pcaspian
RBHill was speaking on behalf of his God. Your claim was where RBHill's authority lay to speak on behalf of a generic God. He was not doing that, simply repeating scripture. As such, his views of a Christian God are valid as the Christian God is defined by scriptures.
I don't recall claiming tha the spoke on behalf of a generic God,
I think you asserted that I did. I said 'irrespective' which means,
'whether or not.'
His first statement was 'I would say it is a sin because you are
letting the Alcohol control your life.'
This is not a repetition of Scripture, but his interpretation of it.
I found it flawed and so I posed a question in response, one that
raised doubt as to his posited 'cause-effect' relationship. You
seem to think that I did this because he is an 'easy target.'
I have raised issues with you as well. Do you think of yourself
as an 'easy target.' I have raised issues with DoctorScribbles
and Ivanhoe. Do believe that they are easy targets.
No. I raised the quesiton because I think his view is flawed and
I think I can demonstrate that to him. However, you jumped in
because, somehow, you think people shouldn't badger his flawed
views because 'he is easy,' or whatever.
Don't paint me to be the bad guy. You are the one passing
judgment on RBHILL, I am simply passing judgment on his views.
Should you treat debates as some competition, so be it. I don't treat scriptures as such. It was not intended to be 'argued'.
What? Are you suggesting that people ought not post objections to
Scriptures? Are you saying when someone says, 'Scripture means xxx'
that someone else shouldn't say, 'No, it means yyy.'
Does this only hold for Judeo-Christian Scripture, or do you hold all
Holy Books by all faiths in the same category of sacrosancity?
I purposefully ignore BBarr and RC and no1Marauder. So no, I do not 'jump in' where I can lob a granade.
This does not attest to your so-called open mindedness.
Had I 'lumped' you with them, I would not be debating with you. And no, I don't consider debate a challenge. Ofcourse should one care to debate a random issue, so be it, but christians should not see scriptures as a means for competition.
Just a moment. Scripture is debated all the time. Romans
think different from Lutherans think different from Presbyterians
think different from Pentecostals. Each one asserts their
understanding of Scripture as the 'One, True, and Authoritative'
reading. Each group decidedly tries to compel members of the
other group to defect and 'convert.'
Do you not believe that this is competition? Don't you think
that by seeking to convert people you are, in some way,
competing with other religious traditions?
Indeed, being a proselytizer involves competition, and uses
the Scripture as the basis of that. That doesn't necessarily
mean that it is a bad thing, but it is the pitting of the Truth
of one tradition against another's.
That is not my argument. Even the quickest of alcoholics still need to get pissed many a time before building up a dependency. Even then there will be should be warning signs. Treating alcoholics as victims is silly, that would be like treating a person who developed lung cancer from chain smoking as a victim as not all smokers develop cancer.
Note that you wrote: 'Treating alcoholics as victims is silly.'
I don't dispute that there are warning signs, I don't dispute
that it takes some time to become an alcoholic. But the slide
in to alcoholism is a gradual one; it doesn't require your getting
drunk, either, but using alcohol to numb pain.
Many times the soon-to-be-alcoholic won't listen or change. What
then? He's already an alcoholic. Now what? Tell him he's silly?
Treat him like it's all his fault and that he can 'just change.'
This attitude that an alcoholic is silly is damaging, pcaspian. You've
got to concede this point. It is insensitive, devoid of compassion, and,
based in ignorance about the way in which alcoholism progresses.
Yes, the alcoholic stops drinking by his own volition, but the attitudes
around him are very much an important part of that process. If he
is surrounded by love and support, compassion and concern, he stands
a much better chance than a person surrounded by people who think
he's a 'sinner' and 'silly.'
I can hardly imagine someone becoming addicted to alcohol without actually at some point thinking 'Am I drinking too much' ?
Whether you believe it or not, many alcoholics do not perceive things
as clearly on the road to alcoholism as they do after they have been
in recovery. The point isn't whether they ask it, but how they answer
it. Invariably, they answer, 'No, I'm fine.' This is the problem, that
they don't clearly see the impact of their actions upon themselves and
their loved ones.
An open discussion is one where the person you are discussing something with is actually interested in debate, for purposes of furthering knowledge or re-evaluating their views.
Are you suggesting that you are willing to reevaluate your views about
Scripture?
Or are you just interested the (perverse?) ways in which other people
view it?
Why debate about the Bible at all if you are so positive that you are
right?
I find it a disservice to God to discuss the Bible with someone who is not actually interested in God. "They will trample you". As such I question your views, whether you can remove anger and resentment over any of my previous views and debate the Biblical scripts at hand.
Once again, I must remind you: you do not anger me. I hardly
worry myself about you. You've been thinking about me far too
much (worrying about my salvation and all).
As for this 'disservice,' are you sure you haven't 'cast the dust off
of your feet too soon?'
We are judged by our actions. If my views are ignorant or malicious it is a relection upon myself. I don't quite understand how you do not believe the two go hand in hand.
Here is an example of why they don't necessarily go hand-in-hand:
Consider a person who is very generous and gives away 10% of his
earnings to the poor. We would describe this person as generous.
Now imagine that this same person wouldn't lend one of his books
out to a dear friend. We would describe this action as selfish.
Does that mean that this person is selfish? No. For the most part,
he is rightly described as a generous person. However, in one facet
of his life one could call him selfish.
By saying I find a view flawed, ignorant, or even malicious does not
necessarily reflect on the whole of a person's character.
I simply do not have time, nor energy to spend an hour composing a reply should the only responses I will get is in the form of insults or replies filled with anger. Should you consider my view regarding your salvation as insulting, I appologise. I have little choice. Should you claim to be a Christian, it is (as you may know from the scriptures) my duty to judge you.
So basically what you are saying is your duty as a Christian to
judge my salvatory status overrides your duty to be civil and
polite. I accept this as representative of your belief system
(while I categorically disagree with it).
However, you are saying that bbarr's or royalchicken's belief systems
do not afford them the right to question Scripture. I have no doubts
that they hold their systems in as high regard as you hold yours, and
I am sure that they feel just as validated and justified as you do.
What makes you believe one's character is not defined in your idea's and beliefs ? I questioned your (and Kirk's salvation) based on what you claim to be your beliefs.
As I have explicitly stated, I have made very few statements of belief
representative of my owh view. You have little evidence by which to
make this judgment.
Can you really have 1 person preaching about 'lust' being good, yet the rest of the congregation believing it to be an evil ? Can you really claim that a belief is Jesus's death and ressurection to be integral to salvation, yet have the preacher claim (and preach) otherwise ? If I were in your church and claiming that 'charity' is not salvation, but only a belief in Christ, would you not doubdt my salvation ? How many am I leading away from God if I claim this ?
If you are asking whether I hold all beliefs as equally valid, no
of course I do not.
Your questions involve someone preaching something contrary
to the tenets of your faith, your understanding of
Scripture. Your objections would be similarly viewed as heretical
in these supposed churches where 'lust' is a virtue.
You call people to task when they make such a claim, but you
want people to respect your views about Scripture. This is not
a fair model, not a level playing field.
If someone wants to call me to the carpet on something I've
said, I invite it. Cribs has done it to me many times at FW
and bbarr has humbled me more times then I care to admit.
But I feel the better person for it, because I am opened to the
idea that I might not have the perfect world view.
If you are suggesting 'faith as a placebo' is more beneficial, the answer is no. If you are questioning whether having a faith and God healing you , then clearly the answer is yes.
I am not suggesting the former. Please banish it from your head.
Would you mind elaborating by what you mean in the second case?
Give me a few hypothetical examples, since I work best by 'exemplar'
learning.
(cont.)
Originally posted by nemesioI have been out of town, but if you read in the Bible, the Book of Exodus. Moses had a speach problem as well and he did not want to speak to the people, but he did it anyway and God's Spirit flowed through him.
Anyone who claims to speak on behalf of
any God ought to be able to do it well, otherwise find another
gift of the spirit.
Originally posted by RBHILLYes. And I don't deny your right to do so (though
I have been out of town, but if you read in the Bible, the Book of Exodus. Moses had a speach problem as well and he did not want to speak to the people, but he did it anyway and God's Spirit flowed through him.
I question whether or not it might be your calling).
My point was that your statement was not an accurate
reflection of the Bible or, I think, how you felt and I
was trying to demonstrate that.
Pcapian was of the mind that I was doing it to embarrass
you, which is not true. Indeed, I felt bad about it
because you have talked candidly about your dyslexia
and I didn't know how not to come across as being
desparaging.
However, the idea that being an alcoholic is a sin because
it controls your life is not really what you meant (and it isn't
what pcaspian was saying). I was demonstrating that there are
a lot of things that control a person's life that aren't sinful.
The reasons that conservative Christian's believe that alcoholism
(or drunkardness, to be clear) is a sin is not simply because it
controls you, but for other reasons.
If you are going to testify to what you believe God's Word is,
you should make every effort to make it perfect. When it is
imperfect, you should try to refine it.
You may wish to talk to pcaspian about your classification in
his mind about being 'an easy target.'
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioI would say that RBHILL is an easy target in the debates, but I would not say that this makes him a bad person. We have all been blessed by God with different gifts. I've been blessed with a talent for writing, and because of this strength of mine, RBHILL, and many other debators, are in fact easy debate targets for me, because God has blessed them with other gifts.
You may wish to talk to pcaspian about your classification in
his mind about being 'an easy target.'
For example, I am an easy target on the chessboard. There are only a couple debators who I can compete against in chess. Most of the debators crush me on the chessboard. I'm an easy target there simply because God has blessed me with other gifts. But I still try to do my best when playing chess, and I encourage RBHILL to do his best in debating.
Dr. S
P.S. Nemesio has just taken another shot at an easy target - me. He pointed out that had I truly been blessed with the gift of writing, I would have said, "There are only a couple debators against whom I can compete in chess," instead of the above unparsable nonsense.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI would say that this is a fair summary. I believe my
I would say that RBHILL is an easy target in the debates, but I would not say that this makes him a bad person.
defensiveness about this issue comes from the suggestion
that I specifically chose to respond to RBHill's post because
he is an easy target. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
In the spirit of debate, I responded to this so that we could
explore the statement which I believed to be flawed and
hoped that I could help RBHill see the error in his reasoning,
thus making him a better debator. If my post discouraged
RBHill from debating, then I apologize. My only intent was
to, as you say, encourage his improvement in this medium.
I thank you, Doctor Bonum, for the clarification.
Nemesio
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWell, I have been 'outed.' I'm actually out to cause strife
Nemesio has just taken another shot at an easy target - me. He pointed out that had I truly been blessed with the gift of writing, I would have said, "There are only a couple debators against whom I can compete in chess," instead of the above unparsable nonsense.
in the forums. I am a disciple of...what was his name...the
young black man who was thrown off the site......
Hmm.
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioAlcohol can't be a God for some people, and that breaks the first commandment. That is why I say it is a sin. Money can be a god to. In the Bible it talks about Jesus speaking to a rich man to give his money away and follow him(Jesus). But the man would rather rely on his own wealth and not Jesus. And the Bible also say to be filled with the Spirit, not being drunk.
Yes. And I don't deny your right to do so (though
I question whether or not it might be your calling).
My point was that your statement was not an accurate
reflection of the Bible or, I think, how you felt and I
was trying to demonstrate that.
Pcapian was of the mind that I was doing it to embarrass
you, which is not true. Indeed, I felt bad abo ...[text shortened]... lk to pcaspian about your classification in
his mind about being 'an easy target.'
Nemesio
Ephesians 5:18 - And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
I won't lie recently I had talked with my Pastor about drinking even before this thread, and he said it is ok to have a drink,but the amount is different for all people. So don't git drunk and being a Christian I would rather be Blessed by God's Spirit living in me the being Drunk. And my pastor said if I do drink I sould pray about it, and also to stay away from hard drinks. For some reason when I drink thick drinks like Apple juice or orange juice in the morning I always gag on it and though it up sometimes and the same thing goes when I have a drink. But my dad is a dumb wine nut and I have told him I do not like to drink. And so anyways in the morning before College classes I have a Glass of water and a spoon of Ice cream before I leave home.
P.S. I am not a big eater.
Originally posted by KneverKnightIt's a well-known resource: the Catholic Encyclopedia.
http://www.newadvent.org/
For some background information on things Catholic, there is some here.
However, there have been a lot of advances in Catholic
thinking since that time and the parts dealing with liturgy
are totally outdated (although very good for the old Tredintine
Rite). There have been countless theological documents,
advances in the roles of women in the church, concepts about
sexuality which are not addressed, and so forth.
It's not the type of site that someone in this day and age should
rest their faith on. It's more of a historical document.
Nemesio