Go back
Theism's Perversion of Basic Terms

Theism's Perversion of Basic Terms

Spirituality

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is very relevant to the discussion, the right to do His will with His creation
any way He deems fit is going to found with someone else's views of right
and wrong? Seriously, you want to hold God accountable for your likes and
dislikes?

I imagine you can no doubt about it, but do you have the right with that
ability? The right to protest a traffic ...[text shortened]... e system and the laws
how is it not His right to do anything He wants the way He wants?
Kelly
Your view entails that it is God's right to torture infants at length for no particular reason at all.

Do you have any thoughts on this entailment of your view?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by LemonJello
So, as I thought, you have no actual clarifications to provide here. Okay then.

Feel free to just keep telling everyone that all this bizarro usage must be taken on faith. As I already explained to you, that basically just makes my point for me.
Sorry, non sequitur.

Faith IS real, regardless of your opinion.

And as I already said, there is no "bizarro usage". Christians define these terms as the dictionary does, nothing more, nothing less.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by LemonJello
Your view entails that it is God's right to torture infants at length for no particular reason at all.

Do you have any thoughts on this entailment of your view?
God's right to torture infants? Where in the world did you get that?
Kelly


Originally posted by Suzianne
Sorry, non sequitur.

Faith IS real, regardless of your opinion.

And as I already said, there is no "bizarro usage". Christians define these terms as the dictionary does, nothing more, nothing less.
You claim there is no bizarro usage going on here, and yet you are unable to explain how your reading of the terms at issue make any sense whatsoever; instead you chalk it up to one of the mysteries of faith. Sounds like you are in bizarro usage denial.

I'm still waiting for your points of clarification. And just to be clear, I'm asking for actual clarification, not bizarro-clarification. You and RJHinds and others have been resorting to bizarro-clarification, examples of which include telling your interlocutor that she justs need to have faith, or telling her that she needs to have a heart transplant in order to understand the material at hand.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
God's right to torture infants? Where in the world did you get that?
Kelly
What didn't you understand about it? It's an entailment of your own view, after all, that God reserves the right to torture infants at length for no particular reason at all.

Do you have any thoughts on this entailment of your own view?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FMF
Welcome back sumydid.
Thank you FMF! love the avatar...


Originally posted by Suzianne
Christians define these terms as the dictionary does, nothing more, nothing less.
Which contradicts your earlier claims that understanding the terms and concepts requires faith.
Of course the funny thing is, is that you do not know whether or not every Christian has a totally different understanding of the concepts in question as you cannot explain to each other in plain words what the concepts are. You must instead have faith that other Christians understand it the way you do.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Kids, how many bizarro terms do you see in this post? 😵
None

Vote Up
Vote Down

I don't think people are getting the way we rever to certain things to describe certain things. This argument is going to continue in circles because of technical issues.

The gift of salvation is still a gift, we are living in God created space and need to apply to His rules. Whether or not you believe that is up to you, you still have the choice.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nicksten
Whether or not you believe that is up to you, you still have the choice.
Bizzaro choice. One does not 'choose' to believe.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nicksten
I don't think people are getting the way we rever to certain things to describe certain things.
Which is the whole point of this thread. The real question is why do theists use words in a bizzaro way. I think it is largely because they want people to misunderstand. They want you to think they are talking about 'love', 'life', 'justice' because those things evoke a positive image.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by twhitehead
Bizzaro choice. One does not 'choose' to believe.
You choose to disbelieve. 😏

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which is the whole point of this thread. The real question is why do theists use words in a bizzaro way. I think it is largely because they want people to misunderstand. They want you to think they are talking about 'love', 'life', 'justice' because those things evoke a positive image.
I think you are getting closer to the significant point (from my point of view) Arguably, the way language is used within a faith system is not interesting until they transfer their thinking into another domain. Every social group has its own way of using language and its own socially accepted terminology. Engineers and social workers and lawyers and accountants do not talk the same language and can often misunderstand each other as a result. Mumbo jumbo is the common language of politics and management.

My concern with faith groups arises when they are employed in a political programme. Christian evangelicals, for example, are vulnerable to being led by the nose into a very anti democratic, anti libertarian political agenda. single issues (such as the reproductive rights of women) are deployed for example to crowd out rational political discourse. With the right mix of appeals to religious fundamentals, politicans can evade scrutiny over their true intentions. This is the context in which the rather specialised meanings attached to a concept such as Justice become so important. Are we looking to create a just society, or one that conforms with a set of religious social doctrines masked with the term "just?"

Any scrutiny of the agencies funding and organising religious fundamentalism in the States soon identifies a very overt and determined political agenda, in which the religious sensitivities of ordinary people are manipulated to ends that are deplorable, anti democratic, anti liberal, anti humane, and comfortably pro unregulated corporate power, militarism and exploitation. The self styled doctines of God's Love smoothly translate into the promotion of hatred towards target goups such as the gay and lesbian community. A doctine of personal morality rapidly becomes a campaign to dismantle socially supportive collective effort. It is such a smoothly managed confidence trick and people are sucked in like lemmings to endorse their own oppression and the escalating, unnaccountable power of extreme wealth.

Slippery language is part of a direct assault on democratic institutions and social progress!

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by LemonJello
What didn't you understand about it? It's an entailment of your own view, after all, that God reserves the right to torture infants at length for no particular reason at all.

Do you have any thoughts on this entailment of your own view?
Again, where did you get that?
Kelly

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which is the whole point of this thread. The real question is why do theists use words in a bizzaro way. I think it is largely because they want people to misunderstand. They want you to think they are talking about 'love', 'life', 'justice' because those things evoke a positive image.
I'm thinking it is your concept of a Christian (excuse me, "theist" ) that is "bizarro".