My two cents for the member who never responds to my posts (you know who you are).

I'm watching you tap-dance and jive your way through this thread and I've noticed a tactic you commonly use when your arguments have finally devolved into near meaninglessness - please forgive me for being slow on the uptake (or perhaps just holding on to optimism a bit too long).

It goes like this...

Someone posts a sharp and clear rebuttal to one of your assertions arguments, and you respond with...



Then your deflection is addressed and you attempt to redirect to a differing assertion argument, completely washing over the second (and sometimes third and fourth) attempts made by others in an effort to get you back on track toward addressing the first point that you evaded with...



To all of this, where I once felt hope

Now all I do is...

(September 15, 2014 at 1:17 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(September 15, 2014 at 12:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No. They're all Christians but not what mainstream Christians are referring to when they talk about those that share their beliefs.

Then that really doesn't answer my question, does it?

According to Drich, your god is okay with people interpreting scripture/christianity differently and finding whatever meaning they want, but only to a limit. I'm asking what that limit is. At what point would you say to someone who is "creatively interpreting the bible" that he is not a Christian.

And, how much of the Bible can be totally ignored ??

90%

99%

99.9%

99.99%



Where is that line, too ??

(September 15, 2014 at 1:17 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(September 15, 2014 at 12:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No. They're all Christians but not what mainstream Christians are referring to when they talk about those that share their beliefs.

Then that really doesn't answer my question, does it?

According to Drich, your god is okay with people interpreting scripture/christianity differently and finding whatever meaning they want, but only to a limit. I'm asking what that limit is. At what point would you say to someone who is "creatively interpreting the bible" that he is not a Christian.

Yes it does I think. Mainstream churches decide between themselves if any denomination strays from the faith. What I've given you are clear cut examples, that are yet confusing to some outsiders. There are more intricate cases that are harder to explain, but I hope you can see the principle.

So there are still thousands of doctrinally diverse branches of the mainstream Christian Church that are completely compatible yet unique in their interpretation of the faith.

---

(September 15, 2014 at 1:38 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: And, how much of the Bible can be totally ignored ??

0%

(September 15, 2014 at 3:48 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Mainstream churches decide between themselves if any denomination strays from the faith.

By thumb-wrestling? I bet they settle that stuff by thumb wrestling.

(September 15, 2014 at 3:48 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yes it does I think. Mainstream churches decide between themselves if any denomination strays from the faith. What I've given you are clear cut examples, that are yet confusing to some outsiders. There are more intricate cases that are harder to explain, but I hope you can see the principle.

Your explanation and examples are quite clear-cut - with regards to what is mainstream Christianity and what is fringe Christianity. The distinction seems to be akin to a bunch of popular kids voting who should sit with them at lunch. But the unpopular kids are still allowed in the lunch room. That is, they are still considered Christians.

My question is about which kind of fringe group who claim to be Christians, would be considered non-Christian. So, unless you are saying that these fringe groups shouldn't be considered Christians and the mainstream simply doesn't have the balls to call them out, you haven't answered the question.

(September 15, 2014 at 3:48 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So there are still thousands of doctrinally diverse branches of the mainstream Christian Church that are completely compatible yet unique in their interpretation of the faith.

Compatible? Really? You and Drich contradicted each-other here on this forum. How can contradictory interpretations be compatible?

Drich and I don't have incompatible interpretations. In fact I can't see that we even disagree. I would have far greater issues with Catholics, pentecostals and southern baptists.

Regarding your first point, I'm afraid I'm not involved to the great extent that I once was. I couldn't tell you what goes on in big church life.

Last example I remember was a church that was part of the assemblies of God which the church decided veered too far from the faith and so we're ostracised by the church. I have no idea what it was about.

I have great friends, who are great Christians that I respect a lot, who are creationists. I have quite a few evangelical friends locally, all of whom are creationists. I disagree strongly, but I still consider them all to be equal siblings in Christ. There is nothing in their differing understanding that makes me doubt their faith.

The criteria outlined in the Nicene creed are the only important ones. Outside of those you can pretty much do what you like.

Some churches, evangelicals and pentecostals to name two, are more limiting than most in what they'll tolerate. The penties, for example, think that Catholics are not Christians, where I think that both are.

I can't go to some meetings because I find it too frustrating not to say something. A recent series of talks at the local evangelical church for example would have me self harming.

Still those Christians are my siblings in Christ. Some differences are minor.

(September 15, 2014 at 5:35 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Drich and I don't have incompatible interpretations. In fact I can't see that we even disagree.

You say your god loves everyone. Drich says no, there are people he hates. You disagree on your respective interpretations regarding your god's love and that's what makes them incompatible.

(September 15, 2014 at 5:35 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Still those Christians are my siblings in Christ. Some differences are minor.

Fair enough - but then, my question wasn't directed at you because you weren't the one imposing limits on interpretations of your biblical god.

(September 15, 2014 at 5:56 pm)genkaus Wrote: You say your god loves everyone. Drich says no, there are people he hates. You disagree on your respective interpretations regarding your god's love and that's what makes them incompatible.

I don't deny that God punishes or that he is wrathful. I've already explained that my interpretation of hate is biased dislike. That's how I see hatred in people... they take a dislike to someone and then dislike everything that they do wether it's good or bad. This isn't Drichs' meaning. He is talking about an extended dislike of continually bad action that is justified. I have no problem with that definition of hatred.

God is love. Gods love is agape. Drich is correct in pointing out the weakness in my language. God is neither benevolent nor unconditionally loving given just reward.

And as Drich said, we both strive towards that same truth. If I'm wrong still I hope to realise and correct myself. I've known Christianity seriously now for 30 years. I'm always learning. I'm naturally sceptical of everything, especially my own ideas.

(September 15, 2014 at 9:54 am)genkaus Wrote: Can you name a few illegitimate denominations and the reasons for their illegitimacy?

frodo beat me to my two goto's. The branch davidians, and the jones towners are two more. Basically anyone who replaces the doctrine of Christ with the teachings of a false prophet and yet still wish to be called Christians.

Quote:There is a multitude of threads all over the forum and you haven't been able to take care of them. I'm not holding my breath here.

and there are quit a few more that I have. Just because you do not like or agree with what I have said does not mean you do not have an accurate biblically based answer.

Quote:And the fact that your fellow Christians are apparently muddying the waters and making false claims about your god doesn't bother you?

why should it? We are only responsible to what has given us over to understand about Him. I maybe a hand in the body of Christ while my brother maybe a foot. Just because my perspective is different than his doesnot mean we are both wrong nor both right. It just from out fix point of time space and personal capasity for knowledge of ?God we may have a different understanding.

Quote:But doesn't your god consider not worshiping him to be wicked?

My passage in psalms 11 as well as my pervious references to what Christ said about the wicked define what and who God sees as wicked. (The unrepentant heart is among that list.)

Quote:And how does he react to spreading incorrect information about him?

it depends on the person, and their heart.
If an unrepentant person seeking to cause a believe to stumble or fall, then harshly. For the Christian doing his best to comprehend a given aspect of an infinite God, and is willing to take correction and direction.. He will be offered the same atonement given when he willfully sins. (With grace)

(September 15, 2014 at 8:53 am)Drich Wrote: Please explain your logic there.

Quote:I thought it was obvious:

You claim that your god's morality cannot be used to justify all the raping and killing and pillaging and that only man's morality can used to do that and yet, here we have a specific instance of raping and killing and pillaging being commanded by your god and those actions are justified based on that command.

I see only four options here:
1. The whole thing is made up. There was never an actual command and the events, if they happened, were the result of people doing terrible things in your god's name. In which case, the whole fantasy of bible being true and accurate runs into reality.
2. He did command it, but his moral views have changed since then.
3. He did command it and his morality remains the same today - in which case it doesn't matter if your god no longer issues such commands, they are still consistent with and can still be justified based on your god's morality.
4. Your god commanded something that was contradictory to his morality - which would make him a hypocrite.

Option 5: the act of raping and killing in of themselves have nor hold any intrinsic value. (Meaning they are morally neutral) until God makes a decree or command concerning a given act.

In short this is how it is ok for God to command what is being discussed in 1sam and other OT passages, and restricted these same acts in other parts of the bible.

Which is consistent with His title of Alpha, and Omega (the beginning and end) this title means that their is nothing above God not even the governing principles of 'morality.' This title means God has control over what is right and what is wrong, rather than the acts themselves have a set moral value. In short a given act is only wrong because God says it is in a given instant.

Quote:Are you claiming that your biblical morality is not absolutist and authoritarian?

see above explaination

Quote:d your own argument. By your own admission, they fabricated the facts and reasoning. There so-called moral obligations were not based on any actual facts. Which is what makes it irrational.

maybe you do not see that even now we fabricate facts and reasoning, just like they did.

Maybe you also do not understand that all it takes for a fabricated 'fact' to become an absolute truth is popular belief.

Example, most atheist Americans believe that Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian. I have argued this ad nausium. Even in the light of the recorded history @ Monticello.org

The facts remain that Jefferson was a solid Christian, yet popular belief places him as an atheist. http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
How much long do you think before history is changed to support the current popular belief? How long before the supporting documentation of Jeffersons faith is lost?
http://www.monticello.org/site/research-...e/Religion

Granted Jefferson was no respecter of religion, but he did acknowledge God, and was a devout church goer/seeker of God.

Quote:Facts have everything to do with the truth. A fact (derived from the Latin factum) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. If something is disproven, then it is not a fact. Truth is a statement that corresponds to facts. The Germans were overwhelmed with lies presented as factual, which were not facts.

Maybe you do not know me so well, but the others here should know I am a 'fact' checker. I am constantly scrutinizing words, their meaning and source orgins.

If I say a fact is a statement that can be proven or disproved then, know I generally have several sources that will support what I have said.
We can start here and escalate if wish.
http://www.oii.org/cyberu/html/fact.htm
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Quote:Yes, it does. The whole point of a definition is to convey the meaning of the thing it refers to and if that communication is so bad that it can be interpreted in many different ways, then it was poorly defined to begin with.

I disagree. A definition is neutral in how people want to use it. Case in point the word 'fact.'

The good people at auburn.edu as well as the other two reference I listed define a fact as a verifiable statement, and yet despite several clear cut definitions you have insisted that a fact always pertains to truth.

Is the definition at fault for being unclear? Or are you for adding to it to support personal belief?

Quote:Sure.

Here are your definitions:

Sin : anything outside the expressed will of God.
Evil : a willful endulgence or delight in being outside the expressed will of God.

Here are your links:
Sin : http://studybible.info/vines/Sin%20(Noun%20and%20Verb)
Evil : http://studybible.info/vines/Evil,%20Evil-doer

Go to the page and see if your definition is given there - should be easy, you just press ctrl+f and do a search.

If you can't find it, then your source doesn't support your definition. Hence, refuted.

You do know what a summery is correct? It's when one takes two or three pages of info and condenses the information down two a couple of sentences.

Next I need to ask you if you understand the concept of refutation?
In order to refute something one must find contradictory information.

Now with those two concepts in mind find where my summation contradicts the two pages of source material I provided. That is what I asked you to do. Not find where I plagiarized these two pages of text.

Quote:Do you not understand that argument from majority is a logical fallacy and therefore not rational?

so Darwinism is not rational?

Quote:Wrong. Majority support does not make a belief sound. For a proposition to be sound it has to be logically concluded from factual premises. Theirs', as you said, wasn't.

Homosexuality (both sides of the arguement) is a perfect example of majority support, being a sound belief.

50 years ago beating and oppressing gay people was indeed ones societal responsibility. Now the opposite is true. Why one and not the other? In short the only reason is [/quote]majority beliefs changed.

---

(September 15, 2014 at 1:05 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(September 15, 2014 at 9:52 am)Drich Wrote: Are you really surprised that God would favor and forgive the saved/believers over the unsaved/non believers

Given the pseudo-intellectual basis by which Christians such as yourself distribute labels such as "saved/believer," YES... quite surprised.

How so?

---

(September 15, 2014 at 1:17 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(September 15, 2014 at 12:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No. They're all Christians but not what mainstream Christians are referring to when they talk about those that share their beliefs.

Then that really doesn't answer my question, does it?

According to Drich, your god is okay with people interpreting scripture/christianity differently and finding whatever meaning they want, but only to a limit. I'm asking what that limit is. At what point would you say to someone who is "creatively interpreting the bible" that he is not a Christian.

The limit is different for each of us.

Christ describes these limits in the parable of the talents.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ESV

If God gives you the capacity for a level 3 understanding then it is to that 'level 3' that you must remain faithful.

However if you get that ability for a 'level 7' and you stick around level 3 then you have exceeded the grace God is willing to give you.

---

(September 15, 2014 at 1:34 pm)ShaMan Wrote: My two cents for the member who never responds to my posts (you know who you are).

I'm watching you tap-dance and jive your way through this thread and I've noticed a tactic you commonly use when your arguments have finally devolved into near meaninglessness - please forgive me for being slow on the uptake (or perhaps just holding on to optimism a bit too long).

It goes like this...

Someone posts a sharp and clear rebuttal to one of your assertions arguments, and you respond with...



Then your deflection is addressed and you attempt to redirect to a differing assertion argument, completely washing over the second (and sometimes third and fourth) attempts made by others in an effort to get you back on track toward addressing the first point that you evaded with...



To all of this, where I once felt hope

Now all I do is...

Are you speaking to me?

What is it I am to respond to?


The last thing said to me by you is atheist do not believe in God...

What am I supposed to say? You are not atheist? Then why do atheist ask questions about him? If you do not believe then Why do you argue?

I do not believe in Rah, if someone were to say Rah is the one true God I would simply smile and move on.

When I was a child I acted and thought as a child. When I grew up I put away childish things... Like Starting non topical threads for attention.

(September 15, 2014 at 6:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I don't deny that God punishes or that he is wrathful. I've already explained that my interpretation of hate is biased dislike. That's how I see hatred in people... they take a dislike to someone and then dislike everything that they do wether it's good or bad. This isn't Drichs' meaning. He is talking about an extended dislike of continually bad action that is justified. I have no problem with that definition of hatred.

God is love. Gods love is agape. Drich is correct in pointing out the weakness in my language. God is neither benevolent nor unconditionally loving given just reward.

Not really seeing much in way of an argument here. Just saying you don't have a problem with incompatible views doesn't make them compatible.

(September 15, 2014 at 6:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: And as Drich said, we both strive towards that same truth. If I'm wrong still I hope to realise and correct myself. I've known Christianity seriously now for 30 years. I'm always learning. I'm naturally sceptical of everything, especially my own ideas.

Not enough to the basis of your ideas - apparently.