Originally posted by ScriabinOkay, you are a self appointed thought police, you don't like another's
wasn't it clear that it isn't the discussion but rather the ones providing input that made a difference?
sorry, it was simply YOUR views I was referring to.
point of view YOU feel justified in saying don't post?
Kelly
Originally posted by ScriabinWell I guess it depends what you believe. As for myself, it is the God of the Bible.
back to asking what you mean by "God?"
another way to phrase the question:
who gets to tell us who "God" is and what "God" says and wants us to do or not do?
If there be a God to know he exists we either have him reveal himself to us or we make observations deducing his existence or both.
Originally posted by KellyJaypost all you care to -- please do not expect me or other rational people to respond to or read what you have to say. For whatever reason, you choose to put forward truly monumentally vapid, vacuous and recycled right wing cant. So, do what you like -- but from here on out, I can say you are no longer beneath my contempt.
Okay, you are a self appointed thought police, you don't like another's
point of view YOU feel justified in saying don't post?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyno, you missed it again.
Well I guess it depends what you believe. As for myself, it is the God of the Bible.
If there be a God to know he exists we either have him reveal himself to us or we make observations deducing his existence or both.
Even if we are talking about the God that is in the Bible, there are lots of different people with different views of what the Bible means or what God says, etc.
So who gets to tell us what God means for us to do, not do, etc.?
Who is the mouthpiece for the God of the Bible?
What authority, in other words, exists to tell us the correct view of God's will?
It hasn't, historically speaking, been altogether a matter of choice. A lot of lives have been and are continually being lost as a result of how one makes this call.
Originally posted by ScriabinSweet look forward to not hearing from you.
post all you care to -- please do not expect me or other rational people to respond to or read what you have to say. For whatever reason, you choose to put forward truly monumentally vapid, vacuous and recycled right wing cant. So, do what you like -- but from here on out, I can say you are no longer beneath my contempt.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou do as you usually do - listen at rational arguments. Neglect them, deny them, look at some other aspect that you hae opinions about. But don't ever confront subjects that you are about to lose. In that way you will continue to think that you are right in anything - including dinos on the ark.
Sweet look forward to not hearing from you.
Kelly
Originally posted by ScriabinThose that view scripture as being "inspired" by God see those who have written it as have been inspired by God to do so. At this stage, many different religions would agree, however, then comes the nagging question as to how these things should be interpreted. Case in point is the whole issue as to who and what Christ was all about. Something of interest about the whole debate is how Christ revealed himself to others. He did not go around anouncing to the world who and what he was all about. In fact, he did not even tell his disciples. He then went around to each of his disciples and asked them privately who he was. His disciples just looked at one another and came up with a list of people prophets that others came up with but then Peter spoke up and told him that he was the Christ, the Son of God. Christ then turned to him and told him that the Father had revealed this to him.
no, you missed it again.
Even if we are talking about the God that is in the Bible, there are lots of different people with different views of what the Bible means or what God says, etc.
So who gets to tell us what God means for us to do, not do, etc.?
Who is the mouthpiece for the God of the Bible?
What authority, in other words, exists to tell ...[text shortened]... lot of lives have been and are continually being lost as a result of how one makes this call.
Having said that, from my understanding of scripture, you have the inspirired word of God and the ability of God to reveal the truth behind it. Without either, however, you have nothing.
Originally posted by whodeywhy do you avoid the question posed?
Those that view scripture as being "inspired" by God see those who have written it as have been inspired by God to do so. At this stage, many different religions would agree, however, then comes the nagging question as to how these things should be interpreted. Case in point is the whole issue as to who and what Christ was all about. Something of interest ...[text shortened]... the ability of God to reveal the truth behind it. Without either, however, you have nothing.
I stipulated to what you say here -- that there are those who believe as you say is not at issue, not the point.
Again: who gets to be the authority who hands the word of God down to us in the form of enforceable rules in every day life?
The Pope at one point held such temporal power.
Now, who is the authority or ought to be today?
Originally posted by FabianFnasI'm applying the same rule to all who demonstrate various forms of dramatic or eccentric personality disorders.
You do as you usually do - listen at rational arguments. Neglect them, deny them, look at some other aspect that you hae opinions about. But don't ever confront subjects that you are about to lose. In that way you will continue to think that you are right in anything - including dinos on the ark.
They have to be absolutely in the right (or on the right) and make every issue about themselves.
You spot them by their failure to address facts presented, to change their views or admit error.
It isn't about winning or losing -- this isn't a chess game.
It is about being worth talking to or not.
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou have given rational arguments in the past, when? I don't neglect
You do as you usually do - listen at rational arguments. Neglect them, deny them, look at some other aspect that you hae opinions about. But don't ever confront subjects that you are about to lose. In that way you will continue to think that you are right in anything - including dinos on the ark.
them I actually confront the subjects I care about. The only thing you
ever do is crap like this, belittle, state your beliefs, and insult. You
do not defend anything outside of your insults towards other people,
the topics of discussion you basically let others talk to the points and
play a little hit and miss with those you disagree with taking cheap
shots at every chance you get. I'd love to see you actually defend
your stance for a change and not attack those you disagree with it
would be a nice change. I guess you believe that if you insult someone
one enough that means what they are saying you disagree with is
wrong, basically all that really does is just insult another you disagree
with and shows you to be small minded.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by ScriabinSince God is the ultimate authority, he decides who he speaks through and who he does not. Since I am not Catholic, I do not look soley to the Pope for my spiritual guidance. I look to Christ and what he was proported to have said and done. Therefore, if the Pope strays from these teachings, as some have done in the past, then nothing they say will sway me their direction. I would even go so far as to say the same thing about my pastor.
why do you avoid the question posed?
I stipulated to what you say here -- that there are those who believe as you say is not at issue, not the point.
Again: who gets to be the authority who hands the word of God down to us in the form of enforceable rules in every day life?
The Pope at one point held such temporal power.
Now, who is the authority or ought to be today?
Originally posted by ScriabinI think we would split here, because Jesus said when He went away
why do you avoid the question posed?
I stipulated to what you say here -- that there are those who believe as you say is not at issue, not the point.
Again: who gets to be the authority who hands the word of God down to us in the form of enforceable rules in every day life?
The Pope at one point held such temporal power.
Now, who is the authority or ought to be today?
that the Holy Spirit of God would come to lead us and the teach us.
We need no man to be in charge God has entered into the lives of
those that serve Him literally, why now would someone else need
to come? There are still offices in the church, but as far as someone
who is the authority; that type of authority only resides in God alone
not a single man or any denomination among man.
Kelly
Originally posted by whodeyso you won't answer the question.
Since God is the ultimate authority, he decides who he speaks through and who he does not. Since I am not Catholic, I do not look soley to the Pope for my spiritual guidance. I look to Christ and what he was proported to have said and done. Therefore, if the Pope strays from these teachings, as some have done in the past, then nothing they say will sway me their direction. I would even go so far as to say the same thing about my pastor.
I did not ask what God decides or whether or not he chooses to speak thru someone.
We don't know what God decides or what he says.
I want to know who is empowered with God's voice such that their word should be enforceable law in our everyday life.
1 edit
Originally posted by Scriabin"It isn't about winning or losing -- this isn't a chess game."
I'm applying the same rule to all who demonstrate various forms of dramatic or eccentric personality disorders.
They have to be absolutely in the right (or on the right) and make every issue about themselves.
You spot them by their failure to address facts presented, to change their views or admit error.
It isn't about winning or losing -- this isn't a chess game.
It is about being worth talking to or not.
No it isn't. In a chess game there is always a winner, if it's not a draw. In a debate there can be two winners, one winner and one loser, or two losers.
In chess the winner is the one giving a mate. In a discussion is the one learning something a winner. The one who don't learn anything is the loser.
My intention to debate with Kelly is to learn retorics. I use him as a source of how fundamentalists are argueing for their sake. There are KellyJays all-over. Retorics of those who follow the normal discussion protocoll you can find in every book about retorics. But these books seldom knows anything about the fundamentalist retorics. Kelly is following this special kind of retorics, so he is a very fine source about this.
So I am a winner in this game, believe me on that.
Is KellyJay also a winner? Perhaps, he is about to shift. He is very much more open to evolution ideas than before. He won't admit it, because this is the nature of an fundamentalist. A fundamentalist never bend. Kelly is starting to do that. So in the long run he will be a winner too.
But when he stubbornly use old passages of the bible to back him up, and treat them as there were evidence of a highr truthness than modern science, then he is nothing but a loser.
*What* KellyJay opinions are are not important, the interesting part is *how* he argue for his opinion, i.e. the infamous KellyJay-retorics.
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou I don't believe have ever debated me, you have insulted me,
"It isn't about winning or losing -- this isn't a chess game."
No it isn't. In a chess game there is always a winner, if it's not a draw. In a debate there can be two winners, one winner and one loser, or two losers.
In chess the winner is the one giving a mate. In a discussion is the one learning something a winner. The one who don't learn anything i ...[text shortened]... interesting part is *how* he argue for his opinion, i.e. the infamous KellyJay-retorics.
belittled me, but you have not gone into any point per point
discussion. The only points I ever recall from you are the anti
science ones. You spend time telling what I should think, you never
discuss the why.
Kelly