Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
Climbing for Christ
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 22 Next page Last page  View All


coloredchalker


Nov 14, 2006, 9:54 AM
Post #201 of 535 (1440 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 550

Re: [squamishdirtbag] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Mideast violence is fueled by religion. I can't even think of a way to dispute this?? CAn you

I don't think anybody would dispute your statement.

In reply to:
Theres only one RIGHT GOD IS DEAD

Man I don't see what kind of point your trying to make with your original quote. So religion is responsible for lots of violence, so what? That doesn't make the violence right, and I haven't heard anyone hear trying to excuse religious violence either, but there isn't anything I can do about the past. Only I can try to keep it from happening in the future. SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT!
Yeah, God's dead, I'm gonna take your word for it.
In this case I'd say that christian climbers take less risk than nonchristian climbers (yeah squam I know that doesn't have anything to do with your post, it's in reply to an earlier one, in case you missed it.).


coloredchalker


Nov 14, 2006, 9:56 AM
Post #202 of 535 (1438 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 550

Re: [squamishdirtbag] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

all three of us can't be right either.
Crazy


slablizard


Nov 14, 2006, 10:03 AM
Post #203 of 535 (1436 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 5558

Re: [coloredchalker] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Mideast violence is fueled by religion. I can't even think of a way to dispute this?? CAn you

I don't think anybody would dispute your statement.

Does God send people to hell? That's a pretty important question to answer, and I'll use an analogy (my apologies) to illustrate how I think about it.
God has a big house that he is inviting people into. To get in you just have to, first of all, know the owner of the house and secondly, enter the house the way he tells you to, 2 easy things. Now if you choose not to get to know the owner of the house or try to enter the house a different way you'll be prevented from getting in to the house. Because you have made a choice not to do the necessary things.
So if you end up outside of Gods house, through the choices you made, then you will be in hell. Hell would be anything outside of Gods house.
God is not willing that anyone should choose to stay outside of his house but that all should come in. (to paraphrase).


FANTASTIC!Wink

so basically my free will is to chose bethween heaven and hell! Hey you want to live with all the angel or all the devils? Oh yeah you can choose! MadSlySlySlyLaughLaugh
And what if I don't want to be invited at all?


coloredchalker


Nov 14, 2006, 10:11 AM
Post #204 of 535 (1435 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 550

Re: [slablizard] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Mideast violence is fueled by religion. I can't even think of a way to dispute this?? CAn you

I don't think anybody would dispute your statement.

Does God send people to hell? That's a pretty important question to answer, and I'll use an analogy (my apologies) to illustrate how I think about it.
God has a big house that he is inviting people into. To get in you just have to, first of all, know the owner of the house and secondly, enter the house the way he tells you to, 2 easy things. Now if you choose not to get to know the owner of the house or try to enter the house a different way you'll be prevented from getting in to the house. Because you have made a choice not to do the necessary things.
So if you end up outside of Gods house, through the choices you made, then you will be in hell. Hell would be anything outside of Gods house.
God is not willing that anyone should choose to stay outside of his house but that all should come in. (to paraphrase).


FANTASTIC!Wink

so basically my free will is to chose bethween heaven and hell! Hey you want to live with all the angel or all the devils? Oh yeah you can choose! MadSlySlySlyLaughLaugh
And what if I don't want to be invited at all?
Are you talking Hells Angels or VikkiS' Angels?
If you don't want to be invited just ignore the invitation, thats up to you Cool


htotsu


Nov 14, 2006, 10:30 AM
Post #205 of 535 (1432 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 10, 2005
Posts: 673

Re: [jt512] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
Yes, it was the point at which you turned off your rational mind.

Jay
Oh, Jay. Bill is not a Christian, and even he boos your post. I pity you, not because we disagree about the Christian faith, but because this is how you choose to conduct yourself. Ghandi said you must be the change you want to see in the world. Why don't you show us all how you'd like for us to behave? I sure hope that wasn't it.


htotsu


Nov 14, 2006, 11:13 AM
Post #206 of 535 (1428 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 10, 2005
Posts: 673

Re: [billl7] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Still, is it wrong to bring children into the world just because you do not know what their ultimate choices will be?
No - we probably agree with that. But I also suspect that neither of us would reject our biological or adopted child for eternity just for the reason that the child rejected me/you as parent for the remainder of his/her relatively short life (no threat intended to my kids if they are reading this Wink ).

Bill L
:) Thanks for this. I definitely understand where you are coming from here, and I respect your view and your difficulty with the the choosing you or not choosing you part. I know how extreme it sounds.

To clarify the point I was trying to make with this analogy, I was focusing on the idea that the choices your children make can lead them to positive or negative circumstances. Whether it's about you in particular, or about something you have tried to teach them, they will make their choices and live with those results, whatever those results may be. There can be times when you see them going in a direction that you know will lead to trouble, and you tell them so, and that it will affect the path that their lives will take, but they may choose it anyway.

I was comparing this to your temporal mistake comment. Even in this life you can make one mistake that will truly affect the rest of your life, so it's not that unusual an idea. Choices have consequences. But we (not I - not yet!) bring children into the world anyway, hoping - but not knowing whether - they will make choices that will end well. Ultimately they make the decisions and live with the consequences. If the just consequence of their choice is prison, for example, you don't love them any less, but you still have to watch them go to prison. You don't change the legal system. Even if you have the power to do so, if you are just, then you will not.

So back to your point. You and I may have a lot in common with regard to whatever "legal system" we would set up for our own kids, and we may have areas where we differ. As for whether we would reject a child for eternity, it's moot because we don't deal in eternity with one another in this life. But there are parents whose children have done them, or others, serious wrongs, and that affects the remainder of their natural lives. There's a precedent for this, whether parents cut their kids out of their wills, or just never speak to them again after a certain point. You and God may disagree on what constitutes a "serious wrong"! That's for sure. But there are parents who give up on turning a wayward child around, whatever the waywardness involved, according to those parents and the rules they set. With God the idea is that as long as you are alive there is a chance for reconciliation. That's the case for some parents, and not the case for others. As for the kids, and as for us, again, the choice is always ours to make, and to answer for if necessary.

(This post was edited by htotsu on Nov 14, 2006, 11:14 AM)


jt512


Nov 14, 2006, 11:24 AM
Post #207 of 535 (1423 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21887

Re: [htotsu] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Yes, it was the point at which you turned off your rational mind.

Jay
Oh, Jay. Bill is not a Christian, and even he boos your post. I pity you, not because we disagree about the Christian faith, but because this is how you choose to conduct yourself. Ghandi said you must be the change you want to see in the world. Why don't you show us all how you'd like for us to behave? I sure hope that wasn't it.

I must have misinterpreted his post then. Nonetheless, the point where you abandon critical thinking and make the decision to accept religion on faith is indeed the point at which you turn off your rational mind. Christians have phrases from the Bible that they quote, when convenient, to justify this precise behavior, so I do not understand why you would be offended by my post.

Jay


billl7


Nov 14, 2006, 11:32 AM
Post #208 of 535 (1420 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [coloredchalker] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
How does "2 easy things" jive with "few are chosen" and something about the difficulty of a camel getting through the eye of a needle (or maybe that's low gate of a city)?
"Easy", because it's not a matter of a long list of do's and don'ts. "obey all these commands and then maybe I'll let you in", nope.
I would use the word "simple" where you use "easy".

Sure, it is a simple thing to get in - but one has to want in which requires belief as a very first step. Yes? For me, my coming to "belief" is not easy ... indeed I would say impossible ... more so than the challenges faced by rich/wealthy folks you mention who already want in.

Apples versus oranges.

Bill L


coloredchalker


Nov 14, 2006, 3:13 PM
Post #209 of 535 (1402 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 550

Re: [jt512] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Yes, it was the point at which you turned off your rational mind.

Jay
Oh, Jay. Bill is not a Christian, and even he boos your post. I pity you, not because we disagree about the Christian faith, but because this is how you choose to conduct yourself. Ghandi said you must be the change you want to see in the world. Why don't you show us all how you'd like for us to behave? I sure hope that wasn't it.

I must have misinterpreted his post then. Nonetheless, the point where you abandon critical thinking and make the decision to accept religion on faith is indeed the point at which you turn off your rational mind. Christians have phrases from the Bible that they quote, when convenient, to justify this precise behavior, so I do not understand why you would be offended by my post.

Jay

Jay,
true enough that faith and rationale are at opposite ends of the spectrum most of the time. But what ever you believe is no different as far as balancing rationale and faith. You have faith that your belief system is right, because you can't prove that it is. Maybe you have more rationality to it but there is still a part of it that is based on faith.
Thats life!, we're not going to get all the answers 'till we cross over, and faith makes up the difference


coloredchalker


Nov 14, 2006, 3:17 PM
Post #210 of 535 (1400 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 550

Re: [billl7] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
How does "2 easy things" jive with "few are chosen" and something about the difficulty of a camel getting through the eye of a needle (or maybe that's low gate of a city)?
"Easy", because it's not a matter of a long list of do's and don'ts. "obey all these commands and then maybe I'll let you in", nope.
I would use the word "simple" where you use "easy".

Sure, it is a simple thing to get in - but one has to want in which requires belief as a very first step. Yes? For me, my coming to "belief" is not easy ... indeed I would say impossible ... more so than the challenges faced by rich/wealthy folks you mention who already want in.

Apples versus oranges.

Bill L

"Whats impossible for man is possible for God." But it does take "want" on your part. No problem though, sincerely, I hope you have a great and happy life what ever your beliefs are. Smile


billl7


Nov 14, 2006, 4:34 PM
Post #211 of 535 (1391 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [coloredchalker] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
How does "2 easy things" jive with "few are chosen" and something about the difficulty of a camel getting through the eye of a needle (or maybe that's low gate of a city)?
"Easy", because it's not a matter of a long list of do's and don'ts. "obey all these commands and then maybe I'll let you in", nope.
I would use the word "simple" where you use "easy".

Sure, it is a simple thing to get in - but one has to want in which requires belief as a very first step. Yes? For me, my coming to "belief" is not easy ... indeed I would say impossible ... more so than the challenges faced by rich/wealthy folks you mention who already want in.

Apples versus oranges.

Bill L

"Whats impossible for man is possible for God." But it does take "want" on your part. No problem though, sincerely, I hope you have a great and happy life what ever your beliefs are. Smile
Is it possible for the Christian God to make me believe?

Are you saying that belief comes after want when you say: "... it does take "want" on your part...? Just want to be clear.


blondgecko
Moderator

Nov 14, 2006, 4:48 PM
Post #212 of 535 (1389 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

Re: [c4c] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
I am the way, the truth and the life.

If I had a dollar for every person in history who's made a similar claim to that...

I think that you would have a dollar.

Oh dear, you're even further gone than I thought. Frown


cintune


Nov 14, 2006, 5:44 PM
Post #213 of 535 (1384 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1293

Re: [blondgecko] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

An imaginary friend, the opposite of an imaginary enemy, is a made-up person, animal or character that is created in the minds of some people, especially young children, and is sometimes seen in those with autism. Despite an imaginary friend being unreal, the child will act as if the imaginary being is physically present by talking to it, playing with it, or even attempting to feed it. Of course, to another person it will seem as though the child is talking into thin air. If told that there is nothing there, the child will often retaliate in a defensive manner by stating that the so-called imaginary friend is invisible.

Oftentimes children will dismiss the imaginary friend once they find real ones or become old enough to realize that their friend is fictional. Parents shouldn't be worried about their children having an imaginary friend, as it often helps a child realize the difference between reality and fantasy, as well as give them some form of self-esteem.

Having imaginary friends at an advanced age should be looked at by a proper psychologist, as it may be a mental or drug-related problem. It has been suggested that deities, spirits, totems, demons, and similar supernatural beings are the invisible friends of adults and children alike.

[edit] Explanation of behavior

People may invent imaginary friends for companionship, as part of play, or for other reasons. Imaginary friends can serve as an important source of companionship to some children and adults, especially if companionship is absent for them in the social world. As an example, young children in boarding schools often develop imaginary friends to cope with extreme stress and separation from their intimate relations.

The development of imaginary friends by a person does not signify a problem or disorder.[1][2] However, it can occasionally become problematic if it begins to interfere with everyday social interactions. For parents, an understanding of a child's conversations with their imaginary friends can reveal a lot about the anxieties and fears of that child. It can also give an insight into the child's aspirations and perception of the world. Some children report that their "imaginary friends" manifest themselves physically, and are indistinguishable from "real" people, however it is unknown whether these cases correspond specifically to any condition.

Children often use their imaginary friends as outlets for expressing desires which they would normally be afraid to engage in or for which they would normally be punished. For example, it is not uncommon for a child to engage in mischief or wrong-doing and then to blame the crime on their imaginary friend. Through the imaginary friend, the child is able to act out fantasies that they are otherwise restricted from experiencing due to societal constraints. It is also common for children to give their imaginary friends personality traits that they themselves would like to exhibit but lack the self esteem to do so: shy children often describe their imaginary friends as playful and outgoing jokesters who are always making them laugh and who are very popular. In this way, children see their imaginary friends as ideal versions of themselves but simply haven't developed the ability to internalize this image into an abstraction in the mind's eye. In other words, they lack the ability to set goals inside their minds, and instead must envision these goals as concrete objects in the real world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_friend


Partner rrrADAM


Nov 14, 2006, 5:57 PM
Post #214 of 535 (1378 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

OK... For those who believe that God loves us, wants us to go to heaven, but gave us 'freewill' to make our own choices, of which will determine if we go to heaven or hell, especially if we choose to believe in him or not.

You mean to tell me that your omnipitant being, capable of creating everything and knowing EVERYTHING is reduced to just sitting there with his fingers crossed "hoping" that you'll make the correct choice ???



And... What was your God doing before he created everything ??? As many of you believe, he says "...I am the Alpha (beginning) and the Omega (end)..." What was he doing for an eternity before the "beginning", and why didn't he create it earlier ???


Hmmm... If Jesus and God are the same (Trinity=Father, Son, & Holy Spirit), who was Jesus praying to. Be carefull how you answer this, as you may violate the "Thou shalt not put any other Gods before me." commandment.


Or... Why did he even create all this and us ??? He was lonely, and wanted someone to worship him ???


Even... You all do understand that the Jewish God, Christian God, and Muslim God are ALL THE SAME DUDE, right ??? Just different names depending on the revision of the original Hebrew superstitions/traditions that became the formalized Jewish religion. Yet more people have died in the name of this 'one God' than anything else, even fellow believers in the same God (but different revision) and are still being killed in the name of as we type.



Now... These are NOT dificult questions, and they are even direct not fague questions, so I would appreciate direct answers, not fague interpretations of standard quips that answer nothing.

It has been my experience 100% of the time that these types of questions CANNOT be directly answered, and are more than likely all together ignored as it requires one to directly confront the fact that there are inconsistant and unreasonable core beliefs that make up any religion, and if one confronts those facts then there are consequences they are not willing to deal with. And in the rare case when any attempts at answers are even given, they answer nothing directly, and just really skirt the question.


(This post was edited by rrradam on Nov 14, 2006, 6:40 PM)


htotsu


Nov 14, 2006, 6:54 PM
Post #215 of 535 (1358 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 10, 2005
Posts: 673

Re: [rrradam] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

What is the meaning of eternity, and what came before that? Sure, simple question. Why do we exist? Christians and non-Christians alike have been asking that question long before you were in diapers, my friend. No answer that I could provide would satisfy you.

If you do not know the answers, then how can you be so sure that you are not asking difficult questions? As if you are the first to ask them.

Your tone suggests to me that you believe that you already know the answers, or have no real interest in them because you have no real interest in better understanding those whom you are asking. (Asking on a rockclimbing forum rather than simply doing a search on your own is an interesting choice for someone who feels strongly enough about this to write such a lengthy post).

Nonetheless, I'll take the trinity for 100, Alex. Ice, liquid, and steam. Three different forms, yet all are water.


Partner rrrADAM


Nov 14, 2006, 7:39 PM
Post #216 of 535 (1351 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: [htotsu] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

As I said... You answered nothing.

In reply to:
"What is eternity?"
Ummm... Its defined as forever, unending time. Both ways, not just forward.

Yes, I do know the answers, and to me they are VERY consistant and reasonable, which is the anithesis of what you may believe to be answers, even though you failed to share them with me.

I can answer them for you, but since I've had to read and research literally volumes of text and information, religious, mmetaphysical, as well as sientific, written by PhDs, Gurus, and Theologists... Don't expect me to be able to explain it to you "easily in less than 100 words", as even the PhDs, Gurus, and Theologists need volumes to explain the details of the true nature of reality.

Will you not agree that the person who has weighed and considered the most options makes a better more informed choice than someone who has considered only a few or just one ??? Can you consider anything that directly opposes your belief with equal weight ??? I believe that you cannot, and will instinctively defend your belief... Rather than "objectively" consider it, you will "subjectively" debate it.


A brief synopsis...

What was before the beginning? Before the Big-Bang, which created 'spacetime' as well as all the energy/matter, there was nothing. No such thing as time, whithout 'spacetime', thus no "before" since that is a measure of time.

As for water, ice, and steam... All are different phase transitions of the molecule H20, depending on the energy contained within a large group of molecules. BTW... You left out water vapor and plasma, the latter of which is a 4th phase transition in which all its electrons have been stripped away.



As for the common christian belief in the Trinity, it was invented by man in 325 AD by the Council of Nicaea to answer the question I asked, as well as a few others. Please see this for details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...st_Council_of_Nicaea

Just as the same is true for todays common christian belief in The Rapture, only that was invented/popularized much later, as in the late 1800's. Please see this for details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture

How many examples of how religious beliefs are "man-made" would you like me to provide.

In reply to:
(Asking on a rockclimbing forum rather than simply doing a search on your own is an interesting choice for someone who feels strongly enough about this to write such a lengthy post).
Even worse than a BS answer, this is just a snipe at me. I didn't start this thread on a "rockclimbing forum", and as you can see, I have done quite a bit of "searching" in my 40 years.


Any more questions about what you "think" you know to be true, about science or even your own beliefs ???

For example...
Did you know that Noah was really commanded to take "...7 pairs of clean animals, and 1 pair of unclean animals..." aboard his boat ??? Or are you in the vast majority (98%) of people who believe he was told to take a pair of each ??? We won't get into the FACT that there is lots of geological evidence that the "...earth was flooded to a depth of 20 feet above the highest moutain tops..." is not true.


In reply to:
No answer that I could provide would satisfy you.
This I agree with, as you and I have vastly different standards to which we evaluate "truths" and "facts".



There ya go... The above is an example of direct answers regarding just a sampling of my beliefs, and I can site experimental and observational evidence to back it up, not just quips and circular questions... Now you try.


(This post was edited by rrradam on Nov 14, 2006, 8:41 PM)


squamishdirtbag


Nov 14, 2006, 7:41 PM
Post #217 of 535 (1349 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 17, 2005
Posts: 115

Re: [coloredchalker] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

"Man I don't see what kind of point your trying to make with your original quote. So religion is responsible for lots of violence, so what?"

SO WHAT? ARE YOU FUCKed IN THE HEAD!!!!! I bet you wont say that if it was your house being bombed or your head rolling on the ground.
I hope you just didnt word your post right, cuz the vibe im getting is that you think violence is ok. The point of my original post is to show an obvious fact that religion is a major cause of violence/suffering.
So that makes it pretty frickin WRONG ...?

PS(no beef on the dali lama and his peps there pretty chill, mostly bashing Judiasm, Islam and Christianity)


Partner rrrADAM


Nov 14, 2006, 7:49 PM
Post #218 of 535 (1347 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: [squamishdirtbag] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

And yea, I know... My spelling sux, and I'm too impatient to use the spell check.

Feel free to discredit my post on the basis that I can't spell, I've had people use that argument on me.Tongue


Partner rrrADAM


Nov 14, 2006, 8:15 PM
Post #219 of 535 (1334 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: [squamishdirtbag] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
PS(no beef on the dali lama and his peps there pretty chill, mostly bashing Judiasm, Islam and Christianity)

You should read The Universe in a Nutshell by: Tenzin Gyatso (Dali Lama) Its pretty deep, and not a religious book, more philosophical.


And just to state to all, I am not "bashing" any particualr 'religious' belief, I am drawing attention to some of the items that are willfully ignored regarding most religious dogma, and since I am challanging believers to 'confront' these items, it is by definition "confrontational".

For what its worth... My wife's a practicing Catholic, we just don't talk much religion, unless she wants to know where something is in her book, as I'm better versed in the book than most christians.



What I will "bash" is the implication that all most all religions make, including christianity, is that any belief other than their own is inherantly wrong. I will ask them, "What evidence leads you to believe that your belief is correct, and all others are wrong?" The only answers I've been provided with are ones that ironically are used by all religions to validate their own, and invalidate the of others.


(This post was edited by rrradam on Nov 14, 2006, 8:37 PM)


Partner blazesod


Nov 14, 2006, 8:55 PM
Post #220 of 535 (1314 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 27, 2002
Posts: 247

Re: [rrradam] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Adam, (and other skeptics)
You must look from outside of time to understand them true meaning of omnipotent.

God is not simply a creature, but an idea of everything... that every being is connected. Surely you must have felt this to some extent as we all live in a symbiotic circle?

What it comes down to is:
You are simply arguing with one another because you believe you are right.

There is no right.
Let mankind believe what they will
climb for each other :)

eat your rice, drink your tea, wear your clothes.

Cheers,
Dave


htotsu


Nov 14, 2006, 8:56 PM
Post #221 of 535 (1314 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 10, 2005
Posts: 673

Re: [rrradam] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
And yea, I know... My spelling sux, and I'm too impatient to use the spell check.

Feel free to discredit my post on the basis that I can't spell, I've had people use that argument on me.Tongue
If I had any interest in using that on you, I would have done so in my last response. Note that I did not.

You spend a lot of time telling me what you think I believe and asking me whether I know what is actually in the bible. I have actually read it, thank you. Enough to remind you of scriptural reference that I knew of already, and are even touched upon in your own source, for what is currently CALLED the rapture
- 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17
http://www.biblegateway.com/...204;&version=50;
- Matthew 24:31-51
http://www.biblegateway.com/...024;&version=50;

and enough to know that there are far too many references to post here of the holy spirit/holy ghost being linked to Jesus being linked to God the father.

Also, I respectfully ask that you pay attention to your own sources. The link you posted in wikipedia indicates clearly that the purpose of the Council of Nicaea was to resolve conflicts that already existed, which means that the concept of whether Jesus was of the same substance as God or of something somewhat lesser already existed. It was not invented at this council. Furthermore, the concept of trinity is not even mentioned there. Read it again. For someone who mentions science as much as you do, I would expect you to recognize that trinity refers to three beings, not just the two that are referred to in this particular conflict.

At least you took the time to qualify your reference to "the rapture" by using the convenient "invented/popularized" wording. Regardless, that does not mean the scripture references were not already there to be found. People believed the earth was flat, but the bible even refers to it as "the circle of the earth" in Isaiah 40:22. Maybe people should have been paying more attention. Back to H20, water was water before you called it that. What you call it doesn't change what it is, be it trinity, rapture, water, or even, say, courteousness.

If you want to come across as someone who knows so very much, and if you want to attempt to make others appear uninformed, then at least do some more research. But here you clearly have a preset notion, and are using other things to support it, rather than starting from evidence and drawing conclusions from it. Sounds a lot like the way people criticize the religious for their faith. Funny how it never applies to the non-religious. Funny how the non-religious don't see that they still base many of their beliefs on faith disguised as fact so they can look down their noses at those who put their faith in different things.

In any case, we can play dueling scriptures and wikipedia all you want, but I will point out that your tone is deliberately disrespectful. I have not done this to you. If you are so confident in what you consider to be your well-researched wikipedia facts (in addition to the volumes of texts, etc., etc.) then why the need for the attitude? You are so condescending. As if I had no idea that water was H20. As if I couldn't possibly be educated just because we disagree on these matters.

Anyway, believe what you like. I said it before - we each get to choose. You don't have to like my choice, I don't have to like yours. I do believe that a little humility goes a long way, and that is a lesson you (and I, and all of us) could stand to keep in mind a bit more often.

(This post was edited by htotsu on Nov 14, 2006, 9:00 PM)


Partner rrrADAM


Nov 14, 2006, 9:29 PM
Post #222 of 535 (1298 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: [htotsu] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Oh God... Why am I gonna do this, as is t even possible for you to in any way objectively ANYTHING that implies you may be wrong ???

In other words, I know I'm wasting my my time, but...


In reply to:
Furthermore, the concept of trinity is not even mentioned there. Read it again.
"In 325, the Council of Nicaea adopted a term for the relationship between the Son and the Father that from then on was seen as the hallmark of orthodoxy; it declared that the Son is "of the same substance" (ὁ) as the Father. This was further developed into the formula "three persons, one substance". The answer to the question "What is God?" indicates the one-ness of the divine nature, while the answer to the question "Who is God?" indicates the three-ness of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

The Council of Nicaea was reluctant to adopt language not found in Scripture, and ultimately did so only after Arius showed how all strictly biblical language could also be interepreted to support his belief, that there was a time before Jesus was created when he did not exist. In adopting non-biblical language, the council's intent was to preserve what they thought the Church had always believed, that Jesus is fully God, coeternal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
I had linked Council of Nicaea, as that was what I was reffering to, as it was there that this "common belief was formalized".

In reply to:
At least you took the time to qualify your reference to "the rapture" by using the convenient "invented/popularized" wording.
See above in the Trinity response, note word in bold, looks like common.

In reply to:
Regardless, that does not mean the scripture references were not already there to be found.
Honestly answer this... How many people interpret things in the manner that they want to ??? Look again at the quote above I supplied regarding the "interpretations" made in order to support their ideas. This is true of all religions, even in the many different sects of christianity. How can you state that your interpretation is right, and all others are wrong?

In reply to:
People believed the earth was flat, but the bible even refers to it as "the circle of the earth" in Isaiah 40:22. Maybe people should have been paying more attention.
I guess you weren't around then to correctly interpret this, and all the scollars could have benifitted for your insight...
(Note-That was sarcasm)
The 'christian' monk Bruno certainly would have, as he was burned at the stake in a italian piaza by his own church for his belief that the earth may not be the ceter of the universe. Again, see "interpretations".

In reply to:
Back to H20, water was water before you called it that. What you call it doesn't change what it is, be it trinity, rapture, water, or even, say, courteousness.
Actually, you have apples and oranges here, as H2O is not man-made, nor is it open to interpretaion. H2O is H2O to a Christian, Muslim, Athiest, Caveman, or even Duck... Trinity and Rapture are "man-made" concepts and constructs, and are only correct to a select few "men" (and women) who choose to believe it. Correctness is a way of quantifying a evidence, truth or fact, and is directly subject to one's knowlege-base.

In reply to:
If you want to come across as someone who knows so very much, and if you want to attempt to make others appear uninformed, then at least do some more research. But here you clearly have a preset notion, and are using other things to support it, rather than starting from evidence and drawing conclusions from it. Sounds a lot like the way people criticize the religious for their faith. Funny how it never applies to the non-religious. Funny how the non-religious don't see that they still base many of their beliefs on faith disguised as fact so they can look down their noses at those who put their faith in different things.
Another snipe... And this does apply to "scientists" as well, as I personally believe string theory to be crap as far as a Theory of Everything (for which it was constructed), and when string theorists are confronted with something that shows they are wrong, they cook up another theory or adjust a parameter to explain it... This is just how things are "reinterpreted" in religion to keep pace with undeniable facts, but it has to be undeniable before they will confront it. And I certainly don't "look down my nose" at my wife's beliefs, and I'd never tell her her beliefs are rubish.

In reply to:
In any case, we can play dueling scriptures and wikipedia all you want, but I will point out that your tone is deliberately disrespectful. I have not done this to you. If you are so confident in what you consider to be your well-researched wikipedia facts (in addition to the volumes of texts, etc., etc.) then why the need for the attitude? You are so condescending. As if I had no idea that water was H20. As if I couldn't possibly be educated just because we disagree on these matters.
There is no emotion in my posts, thus no diliberate disrespect. Just stating things, sorry I can't 'sugar coat' it. I do however ridicule those who believe their belief is correct, and that everybody else is inherantly incorrect. That's a jugement, whether direct or implied. As for the use of the term H2O instead of water, it was necessary to better explain phase transitions, and how your use of that as an analogy is incorrect, sorry you were offended. And I can't paste pages of text books into this thread, so wikipedia was an easy source... If you'd rather, I'll give you the published research papers instead, but they are not easy reading.

In reply to:
Anyway, believe what you like.
OK.


(This post was edited by rrradam on Nov 14, 2006, 9:42 PM)


billl7


Nov 14, 2006, 9:32 PM
Post #223 of 535 (1295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [htotsu] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Well, I think I will just saunter away from this thread with an "air" of victory. Wink

Seriously, thanks to htotsu and c4c for the honesty and directness. It was more than 20 years ago that I made my decision about the subject of this thread (i.e. no thanks). Somehow, it has been refreshing to re-hash the issues again: feel like I learned something.

Bill L


c4c


Nov 15, 2006, 4:04 AM
Post #224 of 535 (1273 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 18, 2006
Posts: 1279

Re: [billl7] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Thanks Bill-- keep on the journey, never stop learning.

I'm still watching from a distance to scared to jump in. I always lost those debate things in High school.

My reply would be that If we could rationally explain God then He wouldn't be God. I know that will not satisfy rrradam though. I am enjoying the discussion though very thought provoking! Angelic I like that new smilie---Angelic very....angelic!


htotsu


Nov 15, 2006, 4:27 AM
Post #225 of 535 (1340 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 10, 2005
Posts: 673

Re: [rrradam] Climbing for Christ [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

rrradam, hey, my bad - I read through that page, and only saw the numerous refs to Jesus and God, and obviously missed that ref to three instead of two. The trinity is hereby mentioned.

But it doesn't change my other point. You specifically said that the notion was "invented" and "man-made" at that council. That was incorrect and misleading, and you are now backpedaling on that. Being "invented" is not the same as it being "formalized," and there are still those who have different views on the matter today.

As for tone, you think I'm referring to your arguments, but I'm not. Comments like " Oh God... Why am I gonna do this, as is t even possible for you to in any way objectively ANYTHING that implies you may be wrong ??? In other words, I know I'm wasting my my time, but... " and making references to your "volumes of text by PhDs, gurus and theologians" as though that makes anything you have to say better than anything anyone else (who does not agree with you) has to say, are condescending and obnoxious. I can't make you see it.

In reply to:
I do however ridicule those who believe their belief is correct, and that everybody else is inherantly incorrect.
The way you have been posting, it boggles the mind that you don't see how closely this describes you.

And why do you look at the speck in your brothers eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, Let me remove the speck from your eye; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brothers eye. - Matthew 7:3-5

In any case, Bill, glad to have had the convo with you as well. We can agree to disagree wherever we need to, but I think we each gained something in understanding where the other is coming from.

First page Previous page 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 22 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$4.05 (10% off)
$12.56 (10% off)
$76.46 (10% off)
$49.46 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook