- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28795
22 Jan 20
1 edit
@kellyjay saidTo be honest Kelly, when you start a sentence 'you supposedly studied...' I stop reading.
You supposedly studied both the OT and the NT, and you cannot tell it is the same God in both? God started a work in the beginning and is completing it still, at the end that same God is going to judge all evil and wickedness and cast all who do them into a fire that is going to burn forever and ever. That occurs in the NT, and God does not play with evil and wickedness. It ...[text shortened]... y surprise, they were both right. It isn't bears that is the main focus of either the OT or the NT.
I have freely and honestly shared with this community about what I studied. As a consequence I endured months of abuse by Romans who on a 'daily basis' (often several times a day) would ridicule this personal information. You do not get to do likewise and expect civil discourse between us to follow.
22 Jan 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidAllowing us to act as we will is what is going on. The evil in the world is done by us, we can stop it or take part. Perfectly loving, define how that should work in your opinion.
Yes, lack of divine intervention is noticeable in such an event, but then such a lack of divine intervention is common throughout human history and is fundamentally at odds with a being who reports to be all powerful and perfectly loving.
22 Jan 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou read it, but you don't see the most important parts of the Book, twisting them into disjointed pieces disconnecting the most important things in the book to justify your stance about God, not the harmony of scripture.
To be honest Kelly, when you start a sentence 'you supposedly studied...' I stop reading.
I have freely and honestly shared with this community about what I studied. As a consequence I endured months of abuse by Romans who on a 'daily basis' (often several times a day) would ridicule this personal information. You do not get to do likewise and expect civil discourse between us to follow.
22 Jan 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI could go back and bring up shots you've taken at me too. I'm sure we could both not be so harsh with one another and stay on topic. I'll attempt to limit my shots at you, you are right about that.
To be honest Kelly, when you start a sentence 'you supposedly studied...' I stop reading.
I have freely and honestly shared with this community about what I studied. As a consequence I endured months of abuse by Romans who on a 'daily basis' (often several times a day) would ridicule this personal information. You do not get to do likewise and expect civil discourse between us to follow.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28795
22 Jan 20
@kellyjay saidYes, please do reference incidents where you have shared personal information that I have responded to as is they 'supposedly' occurred.
I could go back and bring up shots you've taken at me too. I'm sure we could both not be so harsh with one another and stay on topic. I'll attempt to limit my shots at you, you are right about that.
Perhaps if you had studied the OT and the NT yourself to a higher level you too would be more aware of the scriptural inconsistencies, especially in relation to the way God is referenced and presented. Indeed, when you post about the harmonious nature of God across the testaments it is a clear indication to me that you have a very superficial grasp of scripture and are simply unaware of its many flaws and frailties.
And let's be clear, I do not think there are two Gods, one in the OT and one in the NT. I think there are no Gods whatsoever, and that the Bible as a whole lacks a consistent deity.
23 Jan 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidPerhaps if you met God, you'd change your tune too. I'm well aware you have studied the text; you are just blind to its truth and reality. You have said that the Bible contains more than one god, and I know you don't believe in any. That makes all of your interpretation nothing but 66 different book reviews as if they were on any books of fiction, not Biblical revelation. As I have said to you before, you talking about something that you claim isn't real — thus making it no different than you talking about the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. You can make it up as you go, and you do, you give weight to some things and ignore others while they all play an essential part of the meta-narrative of the whole body of text OT and NT.
Yes, please do reference incidents where you have shared personal information that I have responded to as is they 'supposedly' occurred.
Perhaps if you had studied the OT and the NT yourself to a higher level you too would be more aware of the scriptural inconsistencies, especially in relation to the way God is referenced and presented. Indeed, when you post about ...[text shortened]... he NT. I think there are no Gods whatsoever, and that the Bible as a whole lacks a consistent deity.
23 Jan 20
@ghost-of-a-duke said"you have a very superficial grasp of scripture"
Yes, please do reference incidents where you have shared personal information that I have responded to as is they 'supposedly' occurred.
Perhaps if you had studied the OT and the NT yourself to a higher level you too would be more aware of the scriptural inconsistencies, especially in relation to the way God is referenced and presented. Indeed, when you post about ...[text shortened]... he NT. I think there are no Gods whatsoever, and that the Bible as a whole lacks a consistent deity.
I beg to differ of course, you are missing the whole point of the revelation, making you totally blind to the whole point.
23 Jan 20
Disclaimer: This post is directed at no one. I also realize that those who may read it may be guided by their own agenda, and so may have differing reactions to it. That's as may be; it doesn't affect what I write in this post in the slightest.
There are three things I do not talk about at work. These things are religion, politics, and sex. This is because I do not wish to make enemies in that environment. No matter what one has to say, one may make an enemy of anyone opposing what you say. You may think that what you are saying is the most obvious thing, that what you are saying is the mildest reaction ever to those you are talking to, but I guarantee that if your audience is large enough, there will always be someone who takes the most egregious offence possible at what you say, no matter how benignly you mean it. This is why internet discussions always seem to be the most volatile. Your potential audience is huge, and there will always be someone willing to not only take great offense at what you say, but also willing to tell you all about it.
That's all I have to say. I do not draw any conclusions from this and I'm not asking for any. I only offer it for the reader's consideration. As always, YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary).
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28795
23 Jan 20
@suzianne saidIt is true that no matter how reasonably or tactfully we may say something on such a topic somebody somewhere will be offended by it. My honest response is, so what? Should I be silenced talking about something I am interested in out of fear of offending somebody? Maybe, sometimes, it is good for us to be offended by something, to have us reflect on our own position. - Don't get me wrong, I don't set out to offend anybody, but am certainly not governed by the possibility that I might.
Disclaimer: This post is directed at no one. I also realize that those who may read it may be guided by their own agenda, and so may have differing reactions to it. That's as may be; it doesn't affect what I write in this post in the slightest.
There are three things I do not talk about at work. These things are religion, politics, and sex. This is because I do no ...[text shortened]... for any. I only offer it for the reader's consideration. As always, YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary).
23 Jan 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidOne might understandably be reticent to discuss religion at work. You have to go in every day and deal with those people and having that kind of stumbling block doesn't lend itself to smooth work relationships when everyone should be working together. On the internet, there is no such incentive to be sociable, and even those who would not walk up to a co-worker and say "You know what? Your religion is false and you're a liar and an otherwise horrible person for having faith in it" would probably have no compunction against saying the same highly offensive thing on the internet. If what you say is as true for your personal contacts as it apparently is with your internet contacts, then apparently you get in fistfights all the time. There are just some things a relatively socialized adult does not say to people they do not know and yet we feel perfectly fine ripping people up online saying the same things we would not say to another's face in RL.
It is true that no matter how reasonably or tactfully we may say something on such a topic somebody somewhere will be offended by it. My honest response is, so what? Should I be silenced talking about something I am interested in out of fear of offending somebody? Maybe, sometimes, it is good for us to be offended by something, to have us reflect on our own position. ...[text shortened]... g, I don't set out to offend anybody, but am certainly not governed by the possibility that I might.
Again, I'm not singling people out here, the methodology I describe is fairly common knowledge. FMF calls it online disinhibition syndrome (or something similar, I forget the exact phraseology). I'm just saying that one might expect some pushback on some of the things they say, and doing so is not the hallmark of a horrible person, it's natural.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28795
23 Jan 20
@suzianne saidHappy to report I have never been in a fistfight, despite being open and honest in my real-life conversations. Perhaps it is due to my inability to experience anger that such conversations don't end in such an ungentlemanly state of affairs.
One might understandably be reticent to discuss religion at work. You have to go in every day and deal with those people and having that kind of stumbling block doesn't lend itself to smooth work relationships when everyone should be working together. On the internet, there is no such incentive to be sociable, and even those who would not walk up to a co-worker and say "Yo ...[text shortened]... on some of the things they say, and doing so is not the hallmark of a horrible person, it's natural.
😀
23 Jan 20
@suzianne saidDo you participate on any message boards where people say things akin to "Your religion is false and you're a liar and an otherwise horrible person for having faith in it"?
On the internet, there is no such incentive to be sociable, and even those who would not walk up to a co-worker and say "You know what? Your religion is false and you're a liar and an otherwise horrible person for having faith in it" would probably have no compunction against saying the same highly offensive thing on the internet.
24 Jan 20
@suzianne saidYou can choose your friends, but your boss chooses your colleagues. I don't think you should hide who you are, but I agree that it's a good policy to avoid starting conversations about emotive topics.
One might understandably be reticent to discuss religion at work. You have to go in every day and deal with those people and having that kind of stumbling block doesn't lend itself to smooth work relationships when everyone should be working together. On the internet, there is no such incentive to be sociable, and even those who would not walk up to a co-worker and say "Yo ...[text shortened]... on some of the things they say, and doing so is not the hallmark of a horrible person, it's natural.
FMF is using a standard term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect