Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhen I say "People here will be the judge of whether I offer a personal perspective or whether I have adopted ~ and propagate ~ the ideas of others", it is neither "appealing to popular opinion" nor is it an "argument".
did you originate the ideas or did you not? appealing to popular opinion is not a valid argument.
What it means is, whether I am offering my own ideas or the ideas of others is something the people who read what I write can decide for themselves.
Originally posted by FMFYour whole criticism of organised religions is that they are pre-packaged, off the shelf and contain dogma and yet here you are using exactly the same type of off the shelf pre packaged material under the guise of FMF'ism. You did not originate those anthropological studies and their findings, you did not originate those psychological studies and their findings, you merely assimilated them to form a tool for evaluation, the same as anyone does when they read a portion of scripture with an open mind. They assimilate the principle or idea and use it to evaluate what they know already or apply it to a specific circumstance. You pretend to be different but you are no different and neither is your thought process. The fact that a belief may be endorsed by other people with a similar perspective does not negate its value unless evidence is produced to the contrary, the fact that those beliefs may form a tenet of faith among those people again does not negate its value unless evidence is produced to the contrary, truths are truths regardless. Simply stating that its off the shelf says nothing.
When I say "People here will be the judge of whether I offer a personal perspective or whether I have adopted ~ and propagate ~ the ideas of others", it is neither "appealing to popular opinion" nor is it an "argument".
What it means is, whether I am offering my own ideas or the ideas of others is something the people who read what I write can decide for themselves.
What is the Christian to do, end up pinging a triangle like divesjester and pretending Jacobs cream crackers and Ribena are fit for a celebration of the Eucharist? I don't think so.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't think this is true.
Your whole criticism of organised religions is that they are pre-packaged, off the shelf and contain dogma and yet here you are using exactly the same type of off the shelf pre packaged material under the guise of FMF'ism.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI didn't claim to have originated any anthropological or psychological studies. This is a straw man.
You did not originate those anthropological studies and their findings, you did not originate those studies and their findings, you merely assimilated them to form a tool for evaluation, the same as anyone does when they read a portion of scripture with an open mind. They assimilate the principle or idea and use it to evaluate what they know already or apply it to a specific circumstance.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The fact that a belief may be endorsed by other people with a similar perspective does not negate its value unless evidence is produced to the contrary, the fact that those beliefs may form a tenet of faith among those people again does not negate its value unless evidence is produced to the contrary,....
Here you are totally correct. People tend to gather around the "tenet of faith or belief" that they have in common.
truths are truths regardless.
It is HERE where you make the giant, and totally unjustified judgement (implied) that a particular group's "tenets of belief" (maybe YOURS?) are truth.
Simply stating that its off the shelf says nothing.
This, again, is correct.
What is the Christian to do, end up pinging a triangle like divesjester and pretending Jacobs cream crackers and Ribena are fit for a celebration of the Eucharist? I don't think so.
You see, this proves my point. It may very well be that for some groups (mine, for example) it makes no iota bit of difference whether you DO ping a triangle and use Ribena (whatever that is) for celebration of the Eucharist. But YOU clearly think it is anathema.
So what is your point in all this? Groups differ, have different interpretations, different dogmas and doctrines. Good for you and go in peace!
Not ONE person in the world is not affected by the thinking of others and totally original. We should all cut each other some slack.
Just sayin'....
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAll humans assimilate information to produce knowledge and opinions. I have never claimed that I do not assimilate things. This is just a straw man again.
No its not a straw man, its clear you use and assimilate material from elsewhere, that is a fact.
Originally posted by CalJustOn the contrary i have not stated nor given the impression that my truths are any more truthful than anyone elses. You are slobbering in that regard. Please try not to misrepresent what i have said.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]The fact that a belief may be endorsed by other people with a similar perspective does not negate its value unless evidence is produced to the contrary, the fact that those beliefs may form a tenet of faith among those people again does not negate its value unless evidence is produced to the contrary,....
...[text shortened]... king of others and totally original. We should all cut each other some slack.
Just sayin'....[/b]
Originally posted by Proper KnobI want to think about this answer instead of one off the cuff.
I get that, I've been posting on this forum long enough to understand what Christians believe in this regard.
But I'm interested in your claim of a 'reality' and a 'relationship' with Jesus. These are two aspects that you have claimed FMF can't of had when he was a Christian, otherwise he wouldn't have lost his faith. Can/Could you please explain wha ...[text shortened]... an by 'reality' and 'relationship' as these appear to be the central focus of the issue at hand?
The words I used I meant, relationship, and reality.
Kelly
Originally posted by FMFI have never claimed that you don't assimilate material so you are slobbering, infact i even stated that you do, so you can continue to slobber or you can try to represent what i have actually said, either way, you are slobbering.
All humans assimilate information to produce knowledge and opinions. I have never claimed that I do not assimilate things. This is just a straw man again.