Paul Washer has a message for Christians
28 Jul '07 08:432 editsOriginally posted by epiphinehas
Give me a break, Nemesio. Just because you're more intelligent than almost everyone on this forum doesn't mean jack. You believe one way, someone else believes another way. Period. Just because that person can't match wits with you doesn't necessarily mean their faith is immature and yours is not.
Don't start a pity party to distract from what's going on here. It's not about intelligence. It's about
intellectual honesty. When someone says that 'before' really means 'after,' how do you seriously
expect a person to respond? I'm not asking deep philosophical questions here, like explain the
nature of the mystery of the Trinity or how water could turn to wine. I'm asking questions which
make people really reflect upon their beliefs.
I'm the bad guy because I expose this? Because I ask questions that make people put their beliefs
on the table? Sorry, I'm not going to tolerate such a BS claim.
Very often the reason people disengage from arguing with you has nothing to do with refusing to think critically about their beliefs. Because it's not true that you are just here to learn. When you engage someone you don't do so with any objectivity because right from the start you are already seeking to establish your beliefs as superior, and with the intent to ridicule.
I've not even stated my beliefs, so how could I possibly be making any sort of comparison?!? And,
don't you think that your beliefs are superior to, say, a Hindu or Moslem? Look at whodey's less-than-
charitable discussion of Islam. Look at Jaywill's discussion about hellbound Jews. That's not ridicule?
Everybody here thinks that their beliefs are the best ones available, otherwise they wouldn't hold it.
People say 'The Bible says X' and I say, but 'what about Y?' Then they get all uncomfortable because
Y is a challenge. Look at you: You disappeared because you wanted to believe that the Bible demonstrates
Jesus' divinity and I pointed out it didn't. This doesn't make me 'smarter' or you 'dumber.' It means
I've read the Bible with an open mind and you've read it with preconceptions. Now, I'm sure you
felt dumb, but that's not my responsibility. Your feelings are your own.
And when you came back, you didn't reopen the discussion. Why not? Upon reflection, did you agree
with me? No. Did you devise a defense for your belief? No.
You just put it out of your mind because the fact that what I was saying very probably might be true
was scary. You had grown comfortable with your belief and didn't want it challenged. Well, that's
just too bad. I think Jesus wanted people to wear their hearts on their sleeves, to take all comers,
to compel them with the force of Wisdom. You want to be like Christ but duck the hard questions
about how you believe?
In polite society such confrontations rarely occur, so we don't often get to feel that uncomfortable silence when a person no longer feels welcome and suddenly would rather be anywhere else. From your end you say the other person 'withers' and therefore their faith is immature and they haven't thought critically about their beliefs. No, more often than not it's simply not worth arguing over matters of faith to the nth degree you like to bring it to. Why? Because it's one thing to share a belief, it is quite another to be forced to justify it to someone, especially when the person you are trying to justify it to is much smarter than you.
Sure. If you're surrounded by a bunch of people who just nod their heads in assent without thinking
about what they're doing, sure such confrontations rarely occur. Me? I'm surrounded by people who
challenge what I think and how I act all the time, and I'm thankful for it. The challenge me (like
Jesus challenged the people around Him) to be more attentive to the Truth instead of clutching blindly
to falsehoods.
Yes, it's frustrating. Yes, it's humbling. All of my closest friends are five times smarter than I am.
But I'm a better man for it, because they chip away at the worst parts of me, leaving only the best
parts to remain.
If people are coming here to be coddled, then they should just go away. I come here to learn and
to teach. If people want to say the Bible says 'X' when it doesn't, I shall not be silent. If they
want to say the Bible teaches 'X' when it teaches '~X,' I shall not be silent. If people only want
reinforcement for their perversions of Jesus' teachings, then they should find another medium.
But, hey! You think my interpretation is perverse! And, unlike you, I say, show me why! I say,
point out where I err. Lucifershammer has corrected my misunderstanding of Roman Catholic doctrine
at least a dozen times. Checkbaiter and Vistesd taught me an entirely different understanding of
what prophecy could mean in 1st-century Jewish culture. I'm sure you can review my five years' worth
of posts and find a hundred times when I've been wrong and changed my perspective.
Unlike you, I like to have people correct my error. I like when people show me I'm wrong. It makes
me a better individual.
Not wishing to continue justifying a belief doesn't necessarily indicate a person has not thought critically about that belief, as you claim, nor that a person's faith is immature. Often it is just the sudden dawning of the happy truth that what you believe in doesn't need to be defended.
This is utter BS. If someone said that the Bible teaches that we should murder homosexuals like the
'godhatesfags.org' crowd, I'd expect people to demand a defense of that. I'd expect people to rise up
and challenge such a belief because it is a demonstrable perversion of Christian teaching.
A good faith is one that can withstand the pressures of scrutiny.
Jesus was put under the gun throughout His entire ministry. He was asked challenging questions, and
He answered them all. He was challenged by the most learned men of His time. But He had confidence
in being correct. He taught openly to all who wanted to hear, and even to those who didn't.
When I make people uncomfortable, it's because they recognize something infelicitous about their faith.
Jesus took on all comers. What's with the Christians here who get into a tight spot and then cry,
'Foul!' and expect me to agree to disagree? That's in the image of Christ?
People agree to disagree, and that's one thing, but you seem not to be satisfied until others agree to agree with you, and if you cannot accomplish that then you simply ridicule and taunt. Agreeing to disagree at least allows people to discuss opposing views amicably, but with you that isn't possible; everything is personal with you.
What a laugh! Everything is personal with me? You're the one who feels ridiculed and taunted, even
though you'll not find an example in my posts to you. You're the one who feels like running away
when the cards don't fall your way.
Why should I agree with things that are false? When someone says 'before' means 'after' or
'2+2=4' is at least 90% true or that the stone was moved both before and after the women get to
the tomb -- why should I say, 'Well, gee whiz. I guess we just disagree' and let it go? I should
just agree with things that are blatantly false or profoundly misguided?
Or just I just agree with the things that you think are okay...
It's okay to argue with the Jew or Moslem, or the gay-murdering Christian. But I have to sit tight
with your beliefs?
You're making this personal by testifying to your faith and then saying 'Don't challenge me. I like it
just the way it is.' And then you feign indignation when I say 'No. I will challenge this.' You feel
ridiculed because you find that your emperor is wearing less and less.
Well, I'm not apologetic for challenging people's faith. I take understanding God as seriously as an
individual can. I take being misguided about God as something that ought to be corrected post haste.
And I take people who say 'I have the Truth, but don't challenge me' to be a grave offense.
I have not spent the majority of my adult life researching religious traditions just so I can argue with you.
Don't be so self centered. I have not studied the Bible in Greek so I can argue about stones with a
bunch of people who think the earth is 10000 years old. I don't get up from my computer smugly
laughing about how I outsmarted someone. Most of the time, I'm nearly weeping -- half from
frustration from why people would continue to maintain falsehoods, half from the lives that these
fearful people must lead.
Knowledge is liberating, and one who is unfettered by falsehoods will have nothing but the Truth to
embrace. But liberating oneself is a painstaking process.
That Checkbaiter doesn't want to share with you his beliefs without some assurance that you aren't going to berate, taunt, belittle or ridicule him should tell you something. He's not being unfair by asking that, in fact it's a perfectly understandable request. Frankly, your supposed indignation is laughable.
If I said, 'You're stupid,' then you'd be right. If I said, 'You're a jerk and God sucks,' then you'd be
right. If I always responded with, 'You're fooling yourself. There is no God,' with no elaboration,
then you'd be right.
(cont.)
Give me a break, Nemesio. Just because you're more intelligent than almost everyone on this forum doesn't mean jack. You believe one way, someone else believes another way. Period. Just because that person can't match wits with you doesn't necessarily mean their faith is immature and yours is not.
Don't start a pity party to distract from what's going on here. It's not about intelligence. It's about
intellectual honesty. When someone says that 'before' really means 'after,' how do you seriously
expect a person to respond? I'm not asking deep philosophical questions here, like explain the
nature of the mystery of the Trinity or how water could turn to wine. I'm asking questions which
make people really reflect upon their beliefs.
I'm the bad guy because I expose this? Because I ask questions that make people put their beliefs
on the table? Sorry, I'm not going to tolerate such a BS claim.
Very often the reason people disengage from arguing with you has nothing to do with refusing to think critically about their beliefs. Because it's not true that you are just here to learn. When you engage someone you don't do so with any objectivity because right from the start you are already seeking to establish your beliefs as superior, and with the intent to ridicule.
I've not even stated my beliefs, so how could I possibly be making any sort of comparison?!? And,
don't you think that your beliefs are superior to, say, a Hindu or Moslem? Look at whodey's less-than-
charitable discussion of Islam. Look at Jaywill's discussion about hellbound Jews. That's not ridicule?
Everybody here thinks that their beliefs are the best ones available, otherwise they wouldn't hold it.
People say 'The Bible says X' and I say, but 'what about Y?' Then they get all uncomfortable because
Y is a challenge. Look at you: You disappeared because you wanted to believe that the Bible demonstrates
Jesus' divinity and I pointed out it didn't. This doesn't make me 'smarter' or you 'dumber.' It means
I've read the Bible with an open mind and you've read it with preconceptions. Now, I'm sure you
felt dumb, but that's not my responsibility. Your feelings are your own.
And when you came back, you didn't reopen the discussion. Why not? Upon reflection, did you agree
with me? No. Did you devise a defense for your belief? No.
You just put it out of your mind because the fact that what I was saying very probably might be true
was scary. You had grown comfortable with your belief and didn't want it challenged. Well, that's
just too bad. I think Jesus wanted people to wear their hearts on their sleeves, to take all comers,
to compel them with the force of Wisdom. You want to be like Christ but duck the hard questions
about how you believe?
In polite society such confrontations rarely occur, so we don't often get to feel that uncomfortable silence when a person no longer feels welcome and suddenly would rather be anywhere else. From your end you say the other person 'withers' and therefore their faith is immature and they haven't thought critically about their beliefs. No, more often than not it's simply not worth arguing over matters of faith to the nth degree you like to bring it to. Why? Because it's one thing to share a belief, it is quite another to be forced to justify it to someone, especially when the person you are trying to justify it to is much smarter than you.
Sure. If you're surrounded by a bunch of people who just nod their heads in assent without thinking
about what they're doing, sure such confrontations rarely occur. Me? I'm surrounded by people who
challenge what I think and how I act all the time, and I'm thankful for it. The challenge me (like
Jesus challenged the people around Him) to be more attentive to the Truth instead of clutching blindly
to falsehoods.
Yes, it's frustrating. Yes, it's humbling. All of my closest friends are five times smarter than I am.
But I'm a better man for it, because they chip away at the worst parts of me, leaving only the best
parts to remain.
If people are coming here to be coddled, then they should just go away. I come here to learn and
to teach. If people want to say the Bible says 'X' when it doesn't, I shall not be silent. If they
want to say the Bible teaches 'X' when it teaches '~X,' I shall not be silent. If people only want
reinforcement for their perversions of Jesus' teachings, then they should find another medium.
But, hey! You think my interpretation is perverse! And, unlike you, I say, show me why! I say,
point out where I err. Lucifershammer has corrected my misunderstanding of Roman Catholic doctrine
at least a dozen times. Checkbaiter and Vistesd taught me an entirely different understanding of
what prophecy could mean in 1st-century Jewish culture. I'm sure you can review my five years' worth
of posts and find a hundred times when I've been wrong and changed my perspective.
Unlike you, I like to have people correct my error. I like when people show me I'm wrong. It makes
me a better individual.
Not wishing to continue justifying a belief doesn't necessarily indicate a person has not thought critically about that belief, as you claim, nor that a person's faith is immature. Often it is just the sudden dawning of the happy truth that what you believe in doesn't need to be defended.
This is utter BS. If someone said that the Bible teaches that we should murder homosexuals like the
'godhatesfags.org' crowd, I'd expect people to demand a defense of that. I'd expect people to rise up
and challenge such a belief because it is a demonstrable perversion of Christian teaching.
A good faith is one that can withstand the pressures of scrutiny.
Jesus was put under the gun throughout His entire ministry. He was asked challenging questions, and
He answered them all. He was challenged by the most learned men of His time. But He had confidence
in being correct. He taught openly to all who wanted to hear, and even to those who didn't.
When I make people uncomfortable, it's because they recognize something infelicitous about their faith.
Jesus took on all comers. What's with the Christians here who get into a tight spot and then cry,
'Foul!' and expect me to agree to disagree? That's in the image of Christ?
People agree to disagree, and that's one thing, but you seem not to be satisfied until others agree to agree with you, and if you cannot accomplish that then you simply ridicule and taunt. Agreeing to disagree at least allows people to discuss opposing views amicably, but with you that isn't possible; everything is personal with you.
What a laugh! Everything is personal with me? You're the one who feels ridiculed and taunted, even
though you'll not find an example in my posts to you. You're the one who feels like running away
when the cards don't fall your way.
Why should I agree with things that are false? When someone says 'before' means 'after' or
'2+2=4' is at least 90% true or that the stone was moved both before and after the women get to
the tomb -- why should I say, 'Well, gee whiz. I guess we just disagree' and let it go? I should
just agree with things that are blatantly false or profoundly misguided?
Or just I just agree with the things that you think are okay...
It's okay to argue with the Jew or Moslem, or the gay-murdering Christian. But I have to sit tight
with your beliefs?
You're making this personal by testifying to your faith and then saying 'Don't challenge me. I like it
just the way it is.' And then you feign indignation when I say 'No. I will challenge this.' You feel
ridiculed because you find that your emperor is wearing less and less.
Well, I'm not apologetic for challenging people's faith. I take understanding God as seriously as an
individual can. I take being misguided about God as something that ought to be corrected post haste.
And I take people who say 'I have the Truth, but don't challenge me' to be a grave offense.
I have not spent the majority of my adult life researching religious traditions just so I can argue with you.
Don't be so self centered. I have not studied the Bible in Greek so I can argue about stones with a
bunch of people who think the earth is 10000 years old. I don't get up from my computer smugly
laughing about how I outsmarted someone. Most of the time, I'm nearly weeping -- half from
frustration from why people would continue to maintain falsehoods, half from the lives that these
fearful people must lead.
Knowledge is liberating, and one who is unfettered by falsehoods will have nothing but the Truth to
embrace. But liberating oneself is a painstaking process.
That Checkbaiter doesn't want to share with you his beliefs without some assurance that you aren't going to berate, taunt, belittle or ridicule him should tell you something. He's not being unfair by asking that, in fact it's a perfectly understandable request. Frankly, your supposed indignation is laughable.
If I said, 'You're stupid,' then you'd be right. If I said, 'You're a jerk and God sucks,' then you'd be
right. If I always responded with, 'You're fooling yourself. There is no God,' with no elaboration,
then you'd be right.
(cont.)
Back to Top