Originally posted by galveston75I rather think the problem lies with you being unable to explain coherently the "morality" of being politically neutral about issues of right and wrong, being unable to speak out or act in political way to oppose or change what some might describe as "evil". Rather than standing up for something, you seem to be just waiting for the End of the World.
They do not understand these scriptures on neutrality so no matter what we say, they will never understand us.
If they understood those scriptures, they would not be continually asking us to explain our biblical stand on this and they would "get it".
Your stance seems to be one of impotence, negativity, misanthropy and cop-out, rather than something principled or "moral". Your reference to the scriptures seems vague and obtuse. You clearly have internalized some instructions that you believe amount to a "moral" position, but why can't you show how that "moral behaviour" applies to anyone other than yourself?
In fact, I think I understand you very well. But if you are convinced that my understanding is the difficulty here, why not have a go at explaining the moral substance of your stance rather then resorting to flimsy victimhood-esque assertions about people not understanding you?
Originally posted by FMFOur answers are totally coherent. It is not us that has the problem understanding the bible and it's explinations. It is you that has the problem seeing the answers.
I rather think the problem lies with you being unable to explain coherently the "morality" of being politically neutral about issues of right and wrong, being unable to speak out or act in political way to oppose or change what some might describe as "evil". Rather than standing up for something, you seem to be just waiting for the End of the World.
Your stan ...[text shortened]... n resorting to flimsy victimhood-esque assertions about people not understanding you?
Originally posted by galveston75Explain the moral substance - not the instructions that you want to conform to, but the moral substance - of being politically neutral about issues of right and wrong, being unable to speak out or act in political way to oppose or change what some might describe as "evil".
Our answers are totally coherent. It is not us that has the problem understanding the bible and it's explinations. It is you that has the problem seeing the answers.
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75Interesting that i know what you profess and you know what i profess yet we have
Our answers are totally coherent. It is not us that has the problem understanding the bible and it's explinations. It is you that has the problem seeing the answers.
never met in person, how do you think that is possible if we are both incoherent?
Another absurdity of FMF which cannot stand the test of empirical evidence or logic.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat is coherent is that you and galveston75 have internalized instructions, robbie. What is incoherent is your attempt to explain the moral substance of following these instructions. Regurgitating the instructions over and over again does not answer the question about the morality of the action you say is demanded by the instructions.
Interesting that i know what you profess and you know what i profess yet we have
never met in person, how do you think that is possible if we are both incoherent?
Another absurdity of FMF which cannot stand the test of empirical evidence or logic.
Originally posted by FMFAgain the scriptures have been shown to you. If you don't understand them, there isn't much Robbie or I can say to you or anyone else to MAKE you understand God's thoughts and laws on on remaing neutral with this worlds issues.
Explain the moral substance - not the instructions that you want to conform to, but the moral substance - of being politically neutral about issues of right and wrong, being unable to speak out or act in political way to oppose or change what some might describe as "evil".
We have given more then enough effort to help you understand God's message to us on this.
I would suggest you pray to him for those answers if you are truly looking for them.
Originally posted by galveston75Once again, I understand that you have internalized instructions based on your interpretation of the scriptures. What you have failed to explain is the moral substance of following these instructions.
Again the scriptures have been shown to you. If you don't understand them, there isn't much Robbie or I can say to you or anyone else to MAKE you understand God's thoughts and laws on on remaing neutral with this worlds issues.
We have given more then enough effort to help you understand God's message to us on this.
I would suggest you pray to him for those answers if you are truly looking for them.
Originally posted by galveston75Actually, I reckon you cannot explain the moral substance of following the instructions. And this is precisely why you have only offered the "I tried by scripture" thing, and used this to avoid addressing the moral question.
I tried by scripture. Sorry I can't help you with this.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFTake the info and do what you want with it but you either get it or you don't. Sorry you don't as I truly wish you did.
Actually, I reckon you cannot explain the moral substance of following the instructions. And this is precisely why you have only offered the "I tried by scripture" thing, and used this to avoid addressing the moral question.
Originally posted by galveston75"Info" about a perceived instruction in a book is not an explanation of anything. If there were genuine moral substance in the action resulting from this instruction, and if it were applicable to all mankind, then you would just offer an explanation of its moral justification. Instead you dodge the issue by claiming you have already explained it.
Take the info and do what you want with it but you either get it or you don't. Sorry you don't as I truly wish you did.
Originally posted by FMFWell I have as well as Robbie. Sorry you don't see it. I truly wish you did.
"Info" about a perceived instruction in a book is not an explanation of anything. If there were genuine moral substance in the action resulting from this instruction, and if it were applicable to all mankind, then you would just offer an explanation of its moral justification. Instead you dodge the issue by claiming you have already explained it.
Originally posted by galveston75No you haven't. You have offered what you call "info". But when asked to explain how you justify personally extrapolating what you do from this "info", and justify its moral underpinning, as opposed to simply establishing that the "info" is written somewhere, you skip straight to saying you have 'already explained it'.
Well I have as well as Robbie. Sorry you don't see it. I truly wish you did.