Critique Time!

[Mister Agenda]

For what it's worth, I seem to recall hearing that a wise man advised Christians, or at least Christian missionaries, to be as harmless as doves and wise as serpents. Or as shrewd as snakes and innocent as doves. Something like that. The (figurative) wisdom of the serpent referst to being knowledgeable, picking your battles, understanding the position of those to whom you are talking, that kind of thing, I think. The innocence or harmlessness would seem to be meekness, gentleness, humility, and empathy.

I know that's a hard standard and I don't expect perfection, but you would be more effective if you attempt to follow that advice, IMHO.

Picking battles is why i let certain topics go. Once people start talking past each other the conversation becomes moot.

I am working on 'meekness' that was the point of this thread.

I agree. That's a good start, then. Credit where it's due.

Gentleness may work well in person, as it can be demonstrated. I find it difficult to balance what the current perception of what gentleness should be, against how Christ Himself was 'gentle' to the pharisees in a place like this.

Jesus didn't seem to have an interest in saving the pharisees. We are in no wise pharisees. A pharisee then was a strictly legalistic Jew. That is not analogous to the atheist position. Legalism is a classic danger for theists, though.

The current soceitial understanding of Humility is a quality I also find hard to demonstrate.

You and me both, brother! In my case, being humble is recognizing my fallibility and capacity for error. It gets harder as I get older and become more and more right.

To be Humble in the site of God is to not speak boastfully about one's self or act that way. In our soceity to be humble is to never gain the upper hand to always yield to the proud.

I don't expect you to avoid gaining the upper hand, just allow for the possibiltiy that you can be wrong and not brag or crow too much.

Gaining the upper hand is a non issue scripturally if one gives God his due. One can even boast of what God has done for or through Him. Paul did this many times. As he was proud of what God did for and with Him. I too am very proud of what God has done for and with me.

Nothing wrong with that, in moderation. Through the internet, it's just another claim, though. If you get too extravagant, people will start asking for evidence.

Empathy is very difficult for me personally because I was raise a different way. in that life is not about the indivisual it is about the family or the soceity as a whole. "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few."

It's a human capacity to put yourself in someone else's shoes that I expect you possess in full measure, but maybe it's a muscle you could develop with a little exercise.

I do and have always done what is best for the group in given situation, despite what I personally feel. If I ignore my own personal feelings for the greater good, then how is it I am supposed to acknoweledge another person's 'feelings' if it is not also for the greater good?

If Christianity is the one true religion and witnessing is the way it's spread and spreading it is what God wants AND empathy is helpful in understanding how to convince people, it seems to me it would be for the greater good to use empathy when witnessing. Persuasion is much more difficult if you don't really 'get' the people you're trying to persuade.

I am not ready for that one yet. If I can suck it up and put my 'feelings' aside and deal with the given facts of the matter then i expect anyone wanting to be apart of a given discussion to do the same.

There is a danger in understanding other people too well. Frankly, believers coming to understand us well is one of the ways atheists are made. Your caution is understandable.

---

I do understand this and did before I came to this forum.

My problem is atheist seem to refuse anything we state, no consideration of it's possible validity.

More likely its possible validity was considered and found wanting.

To totally disregard the Bible just because one doesn't like what said in it IMO is being dishonest.

We don't disregard it. Many of us have read it. Judging from Bible knowledge, more atheists in America have read it as a percentage than have Christians. And it being full of things we love wouldn't make it any truer. Liking or not liking what is in a book is irrelevant to whether what's in the book is actually true. The Bible has lots of bits in it that I like, that doesn't make the stories they're in more or less likely to be true.

Things Christians use from the Bible are tossed aside, atheist refuse for the most part to examine what we present, they pass it off as worthless.

It not being supernatural doesn't make it worthless. It's not our fault that fundamentalists can't get past whether their scriptures were authored by the author of the universe. There's plenty of good in that book, but YOU don't talk about that stuff much, do you? The story of the Good Samaritan is one of the most profound moral lessons to be found anywhere, have you ever brought it up?

I've given valid explanations to Bible verses even using the history ie. life style of the day and yet the info is rejected without consideration I'm correct, no counter proof given to discount what I presented.

You keep saying that, but I think you're a liar. I see detailed refutations of things you've posted all over this forum. The problem you have isn't that we aren't considering what you have to say, it's that we are.

Yet atheist believe we should accept everything they say about science and this is when they state things that are at best speculation, no solid proof to go with it, yet we're suppose to accept it without question.

And that's a lie as well. Don't follow what we say, investigate what the scientists themselves have to say, including how they reached their conclusions. Go to a dig, visit a museum, heck, get a degree in evolutionary biology or paleontology so you'll really be able to uncover evidence of the hoax you think is being perpetrated. Question until you're blue in the face. But don't tell us YOU've given due consideration when you don't even understand what you're arguing against.

This has to work both ways or all we're going to get is things like Min's little snipes.

Well, we're clear you think the Bible is the word of God and that you believe it's entirely true. Sorry if someone give you the impression that we're fuzzy on that.

---

Reasons for rejecting the Bible:

1. Historical inaccuracies
2. Scientific inaccuracies
3. Internal and external contradictions
4. Written decades to centuries after the alleged events it contains
5. Not written by eye witnesses

1. Ancient records emphasized narrative over factual documentation.
2. Symbolic content cannot be interpreted scientifically.
3. Apparent contradictions are not as problematic as they seem.
4. Original story confirmed by the on-going revelation.
5. So what?

So you're not a fundamentalist. Drich and GC seem to disagree with you almost as much as with us.