02 Jan 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"You imply that somehow a person’s disbelief that there is a god would cause him to be evil..."
[b]…Have you ever considered that it is because of the lack of God in peoples lives that causes them to commit evil? ..…
You imply that somehow a person’s disbelief that there is a god would cause him to be evil which is nonsense. If that were true then very young children and even babies are evil!!! (because they haven’t yet been brainwashed ...[text shortened]... n then to commit evil, how strongly a person believes there is a god is irrelevant to the issue.[/b]
I did not! Learn to read.
02 Jan 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne"I'm just trying to get you back on topic."
There's nothing at all disengenuous about it. The topic is "Why is it that "Christianity", as it is practiced today, is anemic?", not "At what point are we accepted by God?". I'm just trying to get you back on topic.
I answered the question as follows with the salient points in bold. Now, if you were questioning whether or not Christians are taught a ...[text shortened]... until such a transformation is complete.
Why do you think it so?"[/b]
We were on topic until you doubled back.
If Christianity is anemic in the way it is practiced today, and it is practiced that way because people fail to be "born of the spirit", then how does one become "born of the spirit"?
It's a simple question and quite on topic since you claim it is what is lacking in the lives of those that practice an anemic Christianity.
02 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by josephw"We were on topic until you doubled back."
[b]"I'm just trying to get you back on topic."
We were on topic until you doubled back.
If Christianity is anemic in the way it is practiced today, and it is practiced that way because people fail to be "born of the spirit", then how does one become "born of the spirit"?
It's a simple question and quite on topic since you claim it is what is lacking in the lives of those that practice an anemic Christianity.[/b]
lol. Once again, the topic is "Why is it that "Christianity", as it is practiced today, is anemic?" Your basically claiming that by "doubling back" to the question and asking you to answer it, takes us off topic.
If Christianity is anemic in the way it is practiced today, and it is practiced that way because people fail to be "born of the spirit", then how does one become "born of the spirit"?
It's a simple question and quite on topic since you claim it is what is lacking in the lives of those that practice an anemic Christianity.
You're going in circles. I've already given you three things that hinder Christians from being "born of the spirit" which I stated as part of my answer to the question.
1) Many Christians are taught and believe that it is impossible for them to stop committing sin.
2) Many Christians are taught and believe that they have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" even though they continue to commit sin.
3) Many Christians are taught and believe that they are
"accepted by God the way they are" even though they continue to commit sin.
What part of the above don't you understand?
02 Jan 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne3) Many Christians are taught and believe that they are
[b]"We were on topic until you doubled back."
lol. Once again, the topic is "Why is it that "Christianity", as it is practiced today, is anemic?" Your basically claiming that by "doubling back" to the question and asking you to answer it, takes us off topic.
If Christianity is anemic in the way it is practiced today, and it is practiced that ...[text shortened]... nue to commit sin.[/i]
What part of the above don't you understand?
"accepted by God the way they are" even though they continue to commit sin. ----ToO--------------------------
You think that God does not accept a person until they meet with his standards of holiness? What exactly does that mean to do that? Have you met his standard of holiness and purity?
At some point God HAS to accept persons who are less than holy (sinning) otherwise we would all be lost. If he does not extend his love and salvation to those who are not fully righteous then it's game over. It's a basic no-brainer.
If God does not accept you as you are right here , right now then Christianity is a crock. God is the loving Father who extends his hand to us and shows compassion and understanding when we have even given up on ourselves. In your mind you equate his acceptance of us with him saying *that's Ok , just keep sinning" - that's where you always got it wrong. You never really got it.
02 Jan 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI never asked you what hinders one from being "born of the spirit".
[b]"We were on topic until you doubled back."
lol. Once again, the topic is "Why is it that "Christianity", as it is practiced today, is anemic?" Your basically claiming that by "doubling back" to the question and asking you to answer it, takes us off topic.
If Christianity is anemic in the way it is practiced today, and it is practiced that ...[text shortened]... nue to commit sin.[/i]
What part of the above don't you understand?
You are confounding the line of thought by failing to follow the sequence of replies.
The last question in the sequence was mine.
How does one become "born of the spirit"?
02 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by BadwaterGo watch a Clint Eastwood movie punk.
Oh for heaven's sake - it's time to grow up already.
That said, I'm sure your head is implanted firmly in the fortress of your own ignorance, for which only you suffer. Enjoy!
I already raised kids as old as you.
02 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwI know you didn't ask me that. However it seems you're having trouble staying with the line of thought. I don't know if you'll be able to follow but I'll try again. The topic is ""Why is it that "Christianity", as it is practiced today, is anemic?" I gave three reasons that speak directly to the question. I also observed that these three reasons hinder one from being "born of the spirit". So, it is these three reasons that are of primary importance to the topic, not being "born of the spirit". As such your question is only tangentially related.
I never asked you what hinders one from being "born of the spirit".
You are confounding the line of thought by failing to follow the sequence of replies.
The last question in the sequence was mine.
How does one become "born of the spirit"?
Are you ever going to get back to the topic question or are you going to persist in trying to explore this tangent?
02 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterEvasive? I did my best to meet your question head-on. I don't actually know KM in real life; I thought you understood that we were only speaking hypothetically here [indeed, you used that word first].
I never said empirical proof is out of bounds! Why imply that did?
In fact it's what I'm asking you for isn't it....empirical proof that KMs wife loves him. Like you ask christians for empirical proof.
Stop being evasive.
I'm starting to think that you're just a wind-up artist.
03 Jan 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitIt is hypothetical of course, and I'm not sure why you think it's a wind-up, my posts are very clear i think. Your earlier post:
Evasive? I did my best to meet your question head-on. I don't actually know KM in real life; I thought you understood that we were only speaking hypothetically here [indeed, you used that word first].
I'm starting to think that you're just a wind-up artist.
"Of course I will use empirical proof to convince you that KM loves his wife. I'm not sure where you got the idea that empirical evidence was somehow out-of-bounds.
I can only prove inductively that she loves him [evidence shows that is more likely than not that she does] by observing words and actions [if she does not speak ill of him to others, but speaks highly of him; if she spends her free time with him rather than out partying with friends; etc. etc.] Yes, I am proving it by experience - but not the direct sort of experience that you spoke of earlier."
My reply is that empirical evidence is what is needed (in this argument) to PROVE the persons love. This cannot be provided outside of KMs experience, or yours as a hypothetical observer. Your experiencial evidence also being more likely to carry error of course.
If we stay on track, this premis is not about proving "existence", god or anyone else. Neither is it proposing that the existance of love proves a persons existance, it's about recognising that some things in life are indeed certainly facts, but not possible to prove through empirical evidence. That is: If your wife tells you she loves you, it is probably true (most wives love thier husbands), - but you cannot prove it.
If you track back to KMs original point on this you will see this was what he was saying.
03 Jan 09
Originally posted by divegeesterBut that isn't even much of a claim. It's obvious that some things are facts even though there is no evidence for them. The real question is, can a fact be known without good evidence, empirical or otherwise?
...it's about recognising that some things in life are indeed certainly facts, but not possible to prove through empirical evidence.
03 Jan 09
Originally posted by josephwReminder of your comment in the last post at the bottom of page 3 of this thread;
[b]"You imply that somehow a person’s disbelief that there is a god would cause him to be evil..."
I did not! Learn to read.[/b]
…Have you ever considered that it is because of the lack of God in peoples lives that CAUSES them to commit evil?...… (my emphasis)
03 Jan 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitWether or not it's "much of a claim" or not, is irrelevant; it is what we are discussing.
But that isn't even much of a claim. It's obvious that some things are facts even though there is no evidence for them. The real question is, can a fact be [b]known without good evidence, empirical or otherwise?[/b]
KM was originally responding to rwingett about the nature of proof of a fact, i.e. does it have to be empirical always. Glad we agree that it "obviously" doesn't.