Originally posted by moonbusI believe it is an offensive question. If one is in love and believes the other one loves them too, it would be an offensive thing to put into the mind of one of the lovers that the other one is cheating and therefore does not really love them.
I did not imply that. It is a hypothetical situation.
Let me reformulate: Let's accept it as objective fact that one's spouse is faithful. It is possible for someone to come to believe something based on faulty or incomplete evidence, or a faulty interpretation of evidence. So, it is possible that one spouse comes to form a fear, a suspicion, a jealousy, ...[text shortened]... would you feel if the grounds of your belief were removed? Not: is your belief objectively true?
That is the kind of relationship we Christians have with our God. We love Him, because he first loved us. (1 John 4:19 King James Version)
HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!
Originally posted by SuzianneI take you to be a thinking person. The age of blind faith is long gone (though one does still ocassionally run into anachronistic examples of people still living and believing in that mode). In our modern pluralistic society, a thinking Christian is bound to find him or herself in close proximity to people from different religions, some of them (such as Buddhism) which dispense with the god-concept, as well as very well-informed agnostics and atheists. 500 years ago a thinking Christian could expect no searching questions from Buddhists or atheists or agnostics because there simply wheren't any in medeaval Europe. A few hundred years ago a thinking Christian (Bruno, for example) could expect to be persecuted by his own church, imprisoned, subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" by the Inquisition, and burnt at the stake. Bruno was willing to test his faith on pain of death--that's how important it was to him; are you not willing to test yours with very little risk involved?
Sorry, I see no traction for you here.
The faith of some is already an ephemeral thing. Anything that bolsters anyone's faith is a good thing, anything that denigrates or erodes that faith is a bad thing, mmmm, k?
What you atheists are doing here is attacking our faith from another angle, is all. To me, it's "same stuff, different day". If you want ...[text shortened]... for what it is, then you can call me every name in the book, and it won't matter to me one iota.
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat part of "what if ... " don't you understand?
I believe it is an offensive question. If one is in love and believes the other one loves them too, it would be an offensive thing to put into the mind of one of the lovers that the other one is cheating and therefore does not really love them.
That is the kind of relationship we Christians have with our God. We love Him, because he first loved us. (1 John 4:19 King James Version)
HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!
Originally posted by RJHindsHonestly, I do not deliberately try to offend you. It repeatedly surprises me what things you take offense at. Maybe you should consider avoiding public forums and starting a private forum instead. You could institute your own level of offenselessness and never have to read anything which might trouble your waters.
If someone says that he is afraid of spiders, or snakes, or perhaps skydiving, why must one insist on knowing the threshold for it? Why not just accept it and move on?
Originally posted by moonbusHonestly, you and another profess you don't wish to offend, yet he belittles
Honestly, I do not deliberately try to offend you. It repeatedly surprises me what things you take offense at. Maybe you should consider avoiding public forums and starting a private forum instead. You could institute your own level of offenselessness and never have to read anything which might trouble your waters.
with names, you suggest they run off into a private forum and hide from the
rest of the world. I think the words 'not deliberately' is really not honest as
you use them at this time.
Originally posted by KellyJaySome people take offense where none is given. If everyone were to abide by RJH's criteria of offensiveness here, it would be a soliloquy, not a forum.
Honestly, you and another profess you don't wish to offend, yet he belittles
with names, you suggest they run off into a private forum and hide from the
rest of the world. I think the words 'not deliberately' is really not honest as
you use them at this time.
Originally posted by KellyJayI do care, but you'll get no apology from me. If there was a "real jerk" here, it was Suzianne. The thread initiator, vivify, presented a simple hypothetical question. And right from the gate, Suzianne did nothing but malign and misrepresent the underlying motivations behind it. She clearly does not understand the point of a hypothetical and is frankly just very insecure. If her display here just stemmed from this sort of ignorance and insecurity, that would be one thing. But, what we saw in this thread is that she continues to flagrantly misrepresent the motivations of those offering the hypothetical exercise, despite clear clarification to the contrary. This stems from a bigotry that she holds against atheists, which manifests in her projection of ignoble and accusatory intentions and motivations.
You are a real jerk here in my opinion, you get told you are being offensive
so your response is start with the calling people bigots. Lost a lot of respect
I used to have for you, but after watching you here, I doubt you care.
I also do not subscribe to your insinuations that any time one claims offense, I have some obligation to take them seriously. That's daft. People can misfire badly on all sorts of things, and the issue of identifying offense is no different. Just because Suzianne claims to have been offended, there is no obligation to accept that or take it seriously. Actually, to be honest, her claim of offense is laughable here. She is taking offense at the "heinous" motivations of those who would offer such a hypothetical, when in reality those motivations are just something that she projects as a manifestation of her own bigotry. So cry me a river, Suzianne. The only persons who rightfully should take offense in the exchange are those who have continually had their motivations flagrantly misrepresented by Suzianne.
For your edification, the type of thought experiment here is just an engagement with some subjunctive reasoning modes, which can have any number of benefits and practical uses. It has no set agenda per se: it is open-ended. It's not like an argument that works toward a specific conclusion. It implies nothing about the subject of faith, and there's no particular reason to think it will undermine anyone's faith. There are just as many reasons to think the deliberations involved only serve to bolster one's faith. There's simply no reason to get our panties in such a wad over it. And there is certainly no reason to flagrantly misrepresent the intentions of those who would offer up such a thought experiment, especially when we have subsequent clarification on the matter.
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo, pared down to its essence your post says "I am offended that you do not take vivify seriously, and I'm going to call you a bigot for it, and yet I am under no obligation to take you seriously, and therefore I'm also going to call you daft and laughable."
I do care, but you'll get no apology from me. If there was a "real jerk" here, it was Suzianne. The thread initiator, vivify, presented a simple hypothetical question. And right from the gate, Suzianne did nothing but malign and misrepresent the underlying motivations behind it. She clearly does not understand the point of a hypothetical and is frankl ...[text shortened]... er up such a thought experiment, especially when we have subsequent clarification on the matter.
Right. Got it. Not surprised.
2 edits
Originally posted by moonbusNever mind that while people like LJ call it a "faith testing" exercise, I've already called it as I see it, a "faith eroding" exercise. Be that as it may.
I take you to be a thinking person. The age of blind faith is long gone (though one does still ocassionally run into anachronistic examples of people still living and believing in that mode). In our modern pluralistic society, a thinking Christian is bound to find him or herself in close proximity to people from different religions, some of them (such as Bud ...[text shortened]... s how important it was to him; are you not willing to test yours with very little risk involved?
You guys are always willing to "test the faith" of others. Jesus called this "tempting the Lord thy God". I'm perfectly okay with my faith, it has been tested already and requires no further tests from me. As someone said, "it is what it is". But it's telling that you, of no faith, are so eager to "test" (I called it erode ) the faith of others. How about you? Are you willing to participate in a "faith building" exercise? No, probably not, LJ either, I assume. Right, then.
Originally posted by RJHindsRight, Ron, very good. This escapes them because they do not have eyes to see nor ears to hear. (Matthew 13)
I believe it is an offensive question. If one is in love and believes the other one loves them too, it would be an offensive thing to put into the mind of one of the lovers that the other one is cheating and therefore does not really love them.
That is the kind of relationship we Christians have with our God. We love Him, because he first loved us. (1 John 4:19 King James Version)
HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!
The irony here is easy to see. They see our offense as meaningless because they don't think God exists at all, and therefore, according to them, our "offense" is fake. But they think they are perfectly reasonable in feeling offense themselves simply because we are "falsely" offended.
Originally posted by SuzianneReading comprehension not your forte?
So, pared down to its essence your post says "I am offended that you do not take vivify seriously, and I'm going to call you a bigot for it, and yet I am under no obligation to take you seriously, and therefore I'm also going to call you daft and laughable."
Right. Got it. Not surprised.