Originally posted by Suzianne Coming from someone who doesn't believe anybody can be "saved" at all, this rings astonishingly hollow.
I don't see how. I don't have emotions invested in Christian notions about "salvation" and immortality-gained-by-thinking-something, so my observation is on the ideology being put forward based on considering what it is and what sense it makes rather than it being a personal hope or aspiration. The whole idea of "once saved always saved" doesn't make much sense I think except to people who pin their hopes on it. Thus, their analysis ought to be taken with a generous pinch of salt.
Originally posted by Suzianne I'm not "getting at" anything. I was backing up your statement. Try not being so paranoid.
My not completely understanding your your post is not a symptom of paranoia and this silly jab by you is completely unnecessary. You could just try explaining yourself a little better.
Originally posted by karoly aczel What?Everyone must chose to give their free will over to Jesus/God and submit to It/Him/Them?
Is that what you mean?
No, that's not what I mean. Free will means that you have a choice, and you exercise that choice. When you exercise your choice, whatever it is, you are not "giving your free will over" to anybody. You are using it as intended.
The choice I speak of, IS the choice between accepting a Savior, or not. Your free will enables your choice. What I meant, is that everyone's choice is their own, and that no one can make the choice for another. Whether your choice is right, or wrong, has no bearing on the fact that you are entitled to make the choice, and no one else can make it for you, nor take it away from you. Meaning that the choice IS "on you", and no one else.
Originally posted by Suzianne You vilify someone for "attacking" you, when, in reality, they were reinforcing what you said. You "naysay" me only because you wrongly sensed "attack". You twisted what I said only because you wrongly sensed "attack". There was no attack.
As a matter of interest, in which posts did he "vilify" you? Why have you put the word attack in quotation marks repeatedly?
Originally posted by FMF I don't see how. I don't have emotions invested in Christian notions about "salvation" and immortality-gained-by-thinking-something, so my observation is on the ideology being put forward based on considering what it is and what sense it makes rather than it being a personal hope or aspiration. The whole idea of "once saved always saved" doesn't make much sense ...[text shortened]... who pin their hopes on it. Thus, their analysis ought to be taken with a generous pinch of salt.
The analysis that ought to be taken with "a pinch of salt", is the analysis of a person that doesn't believe in the value of the ideology in the first place. Of course, to them it is just "bunk". But that does not mean that it IS "bunk". Savvy?
Originally posted by divegeester My not completely understanding your your post is not a symptom of paranoia and this silly jab by you is completely unnecessary. You could just try explaining yourself a little better.
Or you could not assume that everything is an "attack".
Originally posted by Suzianne The analysis that ought to be taken with "a pinch of salt", is the analysis of a person that doesn't believe in the value of the ideology in the first place. Of course, to them it is just "bunk". But that does not mean that it IS "bunk". Savvy?
I believe the ideology you propagate ~ Christian beliefs ~ have plenty of value, especially for many of those who hold those beliefs, and in many cases for those around them who don't. I have said so, many, many times. To claim I don't believe in the value of the ideology to which you subscribe is nonsense. I have talked about its value numerous times.
Originally posted by Suzianne No, it is a matter of forwarding your agenda. And I'm not doing that, either.
I don't see in which posts he "vilified" you. You said he "vilified" you but I don't think you're telling the truth ~ unless you are sincere about seeing vilification when it simply is not there.
Originally posted by FMF "I don't have emotions invested in Christian notions about "salvation" and immortality-gained-by-thinking-something".
"immortality-gained-by-thinking-something"
That's not what it is. Way to trivialize my belief. And by "trivialize", I meant stomp it into the dirt and attempt to render it ridiculous. Don't use your language of "forum-combat" when speaking of my beliefs and characterizing them in a completely derogatory manner, only to step back and say "What? I didn't insult your beliefs" when confronted about it. That is what I'm talking about when I claim your manner is "passive-aggressive". And now you know.
Originally posted by Suzianne That's not what it is. Way to trivialize my belief. And by "trivialize", I meant stomp it into the dirt and attempt to render it ridiculous. Don't use your language of "forum-combat" when speaking of my beliefs and characterizing them in a completely derogatory manner, only to step back and say "What? I ...[text shortened]... t is what I'm talking about when I claim your manner is "passive-aggressive". And now you know.
I'm not being passive aggressive at all. I am telling you straight, candidly, and in my own words what I think about what you believe. You don't seem to know what passive aggressive means. The way I talk to you is the opposite of passive aggressive
The way it comes across to me is that you believe that someone who thinks that they will be "saved" if they accept what they think is "Jesus' redemptive sacrifice", will then think they will experience an eternal afterlife. I use the word "think" here as a synonym for "believe". That is the bare bones of the idea you are putting forward, is it not?
Originally posted by FMF I believe the ideology you propagate ~ Christian beliefs ~ have plenty of value, especially for many of those who hold those beliefs, and in many cases for those around them who don't. I have said so, many, many times. To claim I don't believe in the value of the ideology to which you subscribe is nonsense. I have talked about its value numerous times.
Only in a derogatory way. You talk about its value, but you do not actually value it. There is a difference. The only value you feel it has is some sort of placebo value, a sort of "whatever helps you sleep at night" kind of value. You don't believe in its actual value. And so you denigrate it by describing it as this "placebo" value. I believe they call this "damning with faint praise". We get a lot of this from you.
So yeah, your analysis of it should be taken "with a grain of salt".
Originally posted by Suzianne Only in a derogatory way. You talk about its value, but you do not actually value it. There is a difference. The only value you feel it has is some sort of placebo value, a sort of "whatever helps you sleep at night" kind of value. You don't believe in its actual value. And so you denigrate it by describing it as this "placebo" value. I believe they call this "damning with faint praise". We get a lot of this from you.
Well I don't hold Christian beliefs, if that's what you're getting at. You see vilification and denigration where it simply doesn't exist. I see real value for people in those Christian beliefs. I live among Christians - I have done my entire life. I felt the value of those beliefs for many years when I was myself a Christian. The suggestion that I don't think they have "actual" value is not one that you can substantiate. I have talked about their "actual" value many times here over the last decade.
Originally posted by FMF I'm not being passive aggressive at all. I am telling you straight, candidly, and in my own words what I think about what you believe. You don't seem to know what passive aggressive means. The way I talk to you is the opposite of passive aggressive
The way it comes across to me is that you believe that someone who [b]thinks that they will be "saved" if th ...[text shortened]... a synonym for "believe". That is the bare bones of the idea you are putting forward, is it not?[/b]
No, don't speak to me as a child. You are damning my beliefs without appearing to damn my beliefs. And that's passive-aggressive. If you were being "upfront and direct" about what you think of my beliefs, you would call them "hokum", lies, or "snake oil". But no, you speak about their "value" even while you denigrate them. You are being far less than transparent with your words, appearing to "analyze" them fairly, all the while putting them down as "not real". That's not "direct", that's circumlocution.
Originally posted by FMF Well I don't hold Christian beliefs, if that's what you're getting at. You see vilification and denigration where it simply doesn't exist. I see [b]real value for people in those Christian beliefs. I live among Christians - I have done my entire life. I felt the value of those beliefs for many years when I was myself a christian. The suggestion that I don't ...[text shortened]... can substantiate. I have talked about their "actual" value many times here over the last decade.[/b]
What you have described numerous times is far, far from their "actual" value.
But you've done what you came to do, turn away attention from the topic. And I said I wasn't furthering your agenda, but it appears I have. So... I'm out.
Collective salvation
24 Feb '16 07:54
Back to Top