Originally posted by ThinkOfOne How about if I put it all in one place? Maybe it'll be simple enough for you to understand if it's all laid out for you.
1) TOO said: "...whether or not a given individual has overcome sin has absolutely no bearing on what Jesus meant..."
2) KM said: "What you are saying is that this "given individual" is actually you!"
3) TOO said: "Actually I' his, is there any wonder that you have so much trouble with more complex ideas?
The fact remains that what Jesus meant is not in anyway dependent on ANY individual overcoming sin. TOO------------------
But the point is that the whole debate is about what you think "jesus meant" and what I think "he meant". Therefore , we are in disagreement on this very issue. So in debating terms you can't take it as a given. You pre-suppose there is only one answer to "what jesus meant". This is like saying "I am right cos I is"
You need to own your "what jesus meant " for yourself and stop pretending it belongs to all of us or me. I obviously think Jesus meant something different from your interpretation which throws the whole to the wind.
All you can do is test me out on my interpretation of "what jesus meant" and I can do the same to you. Since your interpretation is that "what jesus meant" was that we should overcome sin 100% in order to be saved I feel entitled to ask you if this has happened to you or anyone you know of. If it hasn't then I feel entitled to then wonder if your interpretation of "what jesus meant" is correct.
It's a simple matter of owning your own position as yours and not mine and then holding yourself accountable to it.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne When someone takes to attacking another by spreading lies the loving thing to do is to rebuke him.
Of course there is nothing loving about attacking another by spreading lies.
God is truth. The truth will make you free.
"You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free"
"They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondag the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever." (John 8:32-35).
I just read the passage.
Will you please tell me what it is, theologically, that is causing the rift between the several of us?
Originally posted by Yuga http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121601723_pf.html
Yes. I read it. I'm not convinced that there is a real difference in weather patterns today that didn't happen before or won't happen again.
What I heard recently is that there has been a significant decrease in sun spot activity that will result in a 1 hundred year pattern of severely cold winters and cooler summers. There's a name for it, but I didn't catch it.
Originally posted by knightmeister I can see how taken out of context and interpreted in a certain way that it could be seen as self contradictory (Eg- Like saying "I am absolutely certain that there is no absolute truth" )
However , this is a pedantic point because whilst I am taking you to issue on your position it is YOUR position that is an "anti- position" to start with. Just ...[text shortened]... iefs and what it means to me ALONGSIDE my criticisms . You are offering no such input.
"...taken out of context and interpreted a certain way..."? Please. You're the one who started an atttack on this thread.
Like I've already said a couple of time here, "All I asked Josephw was if he recognized that 'Christianity' as a whole is filled with contradictions just as 'science' is." Then you started in with attacks related to a discussion we had some time ago.
Are you really so delusional that you believe that you're on some moral high ground here?
Originally posted by knightmeister The fact remains that what Jesus meant is not in anyway dependent on ANY individual overcoming sin. TOO------------------
But the point is that the whole debate is about what you think "jesus meant" and what I think "he meant". Therefore , we are in disagreement on this very issue. So in debating terms you can't take it as a given. You pre-suppose n position as yours and not mine and then holding yourself accountable to it.
Once again you've completely missed the point of my post. Try re-reading through this particular line of inquiry. I don't know why you insist on splitting up posts into multiple lines of inquiry. It's obvious that you have trouble keeping track of what was said in a given line.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne "...taken out of context and interpreted a certain way..."? Please. You're the one who started an atttack on this thread.
Like I've already said a couple of time here, "All I asked Josephw was if he recognized that 'Christianity' as a whole is filled with contradictions just as 'science' is." Then you started in with attacks related to a discussion we ...[text shortened]... you really so delusional that you believe that you're on some moral high ground here?
All I asked Josephw was if he recognized that 'Christianity' as a whole is filled with contradictions just as 'science' is."----ToO----
No , you didn't . You related them specifically to the interpretations of Jesus's teachings thereby linking this point to similar issues you have raised before.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne Once again you've completely missed the point of my post. Try re-reading through this particular line of inquiry. I don't know why you insist on splitting up posts into multiple lines of inquiry. It's obvious that you have trouble keeping track of what was said in a given line.
I think it's you that has trouble realising that you can't treat a variable in a debate as if it were a given. It's a mistake at the very root of your thinking on this.
If "what Jesus meant" = X then until we know X it's difficult to say what factors might come to bear on it.
If X = men must hold their breath for 2 hours then we might question if that really could be X.
Furthermore , if a man then claimed to know X better than someone else he had better expect to be asked how he holds his breath for 2 hours!
Originally posted by knightmeister All I asked Josephw was if he recognized that 'Christianity' as a whole is filled with contradictions just as 'science' is."----ToO----
No , you didn't . You related them specifically to the interpretations of Jesus's teachings thereby linking this point to similar issues you have raised before.
Originally posted by knightmeister I think it's you that has trouble realising that you can't treat a variable in a debate as if it were a given. It's a mistake at the very root of your thinking on this.
If "what Jesus meant" = X then until we know X it's difficult to say what factors might come to bear on it.
If X = men must hold their breath for 2 hours then we might question ...[text shortened]... er than someone else he had better expect to be asked how he holds his breath for 2 hours!
Listen. I suppose I could try to simplify this even more, but we've reached a point where it's getting exceedingly difficult to do so. It's just not worth it. Like you've been told many times before, thinking abstractly and/or logically just aren't your strengths. May you soon come to this realization.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne Listen. I suppose I could try to simplify this even more, but we've reached a point where it's getting exceedingly difficult to do so. It's just not worth it. Like you've been told many times before, thinking abstractly and/or logically just aren't your strengths. May you soon come to this realization.
The problem you have got is that Jesus didn't think abstractly NOR was he particularly logical. He appealed to the heart . He was passionate and he was intensely interested in congruence and whether a man could not just talk the talk but also walk the walk. For Jesus the two always went together.
So if we were debating something like whether a tree falling in the forest makes a noise if no-one is there to hear it , then fine -- get all abstract and philosophical.
You and I both know that the way Jesus approached life was not abstract (esp- regarding sin). So in the matter of whether ToO has overcome sin 100% or not me thinks Jesus would be very very interested in seeing whether what you talk about can be backed up by what you do.
If you don't realise this then you dont understand Jesus.
Originally posted by knightmeister The problem you have got is that Jesus didn't think abstractly NOR was he particularly logical. He appealed to the heart . He was passionate and he was intensely interested in congruence and whether a man could not just talk the talk but also walk the walk. For Jesus the two always went together.
So if we were debating something like whether a tree ...[text shortened]... can be backed up by what you do.
If you don't realise this then you dont understand Jesus.
You do have a way of going off on tangents. I've tried in various ways to try to keep you focused, but the effort it takes to keep dragging you back just isn't worth it.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne You do have a way of going off on tangents. I've tried in various ways to try to keep you focused, but the effort it takes to keep dragging you back just isn't worth it.
Your usual gambit I guess. Raise an issue , get challenged on it and then cry foul rather than engage with it. I expected nothing less , nothing more.
Next time you want to raise the issue of contradictions in Christianity have a think about whether you might need to address the contradictions within your own position and whether your life contradicts with what you exhort others to do. It's something we all need to do don't you think?
I'm not playing anymore . You are unlikely to come up with anything positive or substantial. Even if you did I couldn't challenge it because you would just accuse me of deceipt.
When you are ready , share your message with us and how it has helped you overcome sin. Until then , all that can be done is to challenge you , which is what I have done.
Originally posted by knightmeister Your usual gambit I guess. Raise an issue , get challenged on it and then cry foul rather than engage with it. I expected nothing less , nothing more.
Next time you want to raise the issue of contradictions in Christianity have a think about whether you might need to address the contradictions within your own position and whether your life contra ...[text shortened]... , all that can be done is to challenge you , which is what I have done.
I'm done here.
This would be funny if it wasn't so said. The issue I raised was that Christianity as a whole is filled with contradictions just as science is. You spent exactly no time on the issue. Instead you took this as an opportunity to attack me and my beliefs with an assortment of distortions, half-truths and outright lies.
Let me know if you ever want to seek truth instead of wasting your time and everyone else's on your ego-driven desires to "win debates". The sad thing is that you don't recognize that your inability to think logically and /or abstractly seriously hampers your ability to form an cohesive argument based on reason.
Science and schizophrenia
10 Feb '08 20:481 edit
Back to Top