View Poll Results: would you call him/her a Christian

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes: Christian

    34 72.34%
  • no: not a Christian

    13 27.66%
Page 12 of 61 FirstFirst ... 2567891011121314151617181922 ... LastLast
Results 144 to 156 of 786
  1. #144
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,656
    Quote Originally Posted by sysint View Post
    The Scripture says he is the "firstborn of creation."

    1 Corinthians 8:6 is in agreement with this by stating: 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. NIV

    So, if all things are from the ONE God the father, and all those things are through Jesus, the scripture in Colossians has nothing to do with Jesus on earth.

    Proverbs 8:22 The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; 23 I was appointed from eternity,from the beginning, before the world began.....30 Then I was by him, as a master workman; And I was daily his delight, Rejoicing always before him --NIV

    1 Corinthians 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder--KVJ
    Yes, I agree that this seems to build a case that Jesus was created and thus not eternal.

    This will be interesting and precisely what I mean by "biblical conundrum" because I have no doubt that your opponents will pull some scripture that supports thier case. Again, it is hard to believe that God would present such a stunningly complex scenario that is not easily understood by all. Instead we need to argue passages and their translations and meanings within the proper context; not quite an ideal situation for all men, even if they are looking for a god.

    The bible has stunningly "whiffed" on the human condition. Certainly, not all on Earth are like we are in ARP, or else we would not see as much voter apathy as we do.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  2. #145
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Dallas,Texas
    Posts
    4,956
    Quote Originally Posted by sysint View Post
    I take it BeDuhn is now "approved" as a quote/mention? I remember bringing his book up before to you and you wouldn't look into it. Must be in a publication now. (everybody gets a dig-- don't take it too personal)

    EDIT-- "Rijkel Tate" I think yo have a typo here.

    I saw your prior reference and just did not mention it.

    Rijkel ten Kate

  3. #146
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kenilworth NJ
    Posts
    947
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Let me tell you of my friend Bootlen. In the three years I have spent on this board, he has been one of the very few, if not the only, frequent poster to the Christian discussions that also happens to BE a Christian and has yet to lose his temper with me.

    Even when I want him too.

    Now, I can be a downright pain in the ass, a "known ass" as the saying goes here on the forums. I respect Bootlen a lot. He has never ever declared me hopeless when I have repeatedly assured him that I am.

    Bootlen does seem a tad grouchy right now, but he also recently suffered a very close and important loss. I have never suffered a similar loss as yet so I can only imagine what it's like and what he is going through right now. And what I am imagining is not very good.

    That said, you should probably also know that Boot has openly admitted that he has a closed mind. He can afford to be that way, you see, because he's right.

    My anger over a certain recent event has now subsided, and I have returned for many reasons... among them to speak with you Numba. You seem a very refreshing voice "on the other side" as it were. But don't cast Bootlen down as the only stubborn believer on this board.
    Now that just Bites. I hate to beat people when they are down. I am very reserved with criticism, the old 'one finger pointing at you , three pointing back at me' addage comes to mind. THere is no reason to be offended by what others say here to me, as jesus did, I will try not to stoop to such levels as abusive speach:
    (Jude 9) But when Mi′cha∑el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Mosesí body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: ďMay Jehovah rebuke you.Ē
    The only times Jesus 'lost it' was when the spiritual wellbeing of innocent ones was at stake.
    I try to trust the others on the forum to post responsibly and honorably, and to either refrain if under unusual duress, or be willing to apologize if they find they responded out of turn. I never want to be one who is lioke this:
    (Isaiah 32:2) And each one must prove to be like a hiding place from the wind and a place of concealment from the rainstorm, like streams of water in a waterless country, like the shadow of a heavy crag in an exhausted land.
    That means being nice to all, but also sometimes stopping others from preventing some from listening to the truth through a, perhaps, overzealous representation, that may play to the fears common in society. I support a more responsible means of communicating bible truth.

    If Boot was having a bad day, or a bad week, I'm sorry. I feel as though I was slow and deliberate in the way I brought things to his attention, but to offend is never my intention.

    AS for you Scogdog, WE were in the middle of discussing your ideas concerning to Human condition in your thread:
    http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread....143002&page=37
    Post # 481

    It looks like you got that cranky-ectomy i reccomended
    Hmmmm....smells like numbatwo to me.

  4. #147
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kenilworth NJ
    Posts
    947
    ..
    Last edited by numbawunfela; 11-15-2007 at 10:51 AM. Reason: Duplicate post - dumb internet....
    Hmmmm....smells like numbatwo to me.

  5. #148
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kenilworth NJ
    Posts
    947
    Quote Originally Posted by TB View Post
    if Jesus was created we are in trouble. Only an eternal being can pay an eternal debt of sin against an eternal God, in a finite time. If Jesus was created, then he had a beginning, and therefore is not eternal. His death would not pay the debt caused by our sin against an eternal being. From Gen. 1:26 we can derive the understanding that God was talking to someone other than himself, but who and how many we don't know. Now since the NWT has been shown to be unreliable as a source of truth elseware, then it would be unwise to rely on it completely as a credible source of truth now.

    How about Isa 45 :18. If you consider this passage in Col. with that one in Isa. what do you conclude?
    I really like the way your line of reasoning develops in this post. I will try not to bring too many scriptures into play, since that makes for really really long posts, and I start to lose track. besides, I think you will know most of the verses I am alluding to.

    There is a matter of equivalency in Jesus' sacrifice that needs to be taken into consideration. Many do not realize that the sacrifice of Jesus had to correspond to that which was lost. However, In my study of the bible, I find that that which was losst was a perfect human Life, namely Adam. Adam lost perfection, and so Jesus restores this, becoming our father in place of Adam, adopting us as the offspring he could have had while a perfect human on earth, but was unable to since Satan Killed him. So when Jesus went back to heaven, he could offer the value of his perfect, sinless life, in place of Adam's, and then go back to living his heavenly spirit life he led before coming to earth. As a truly perfect human, under the Mosaic Law he was Entitled to ive forever, but now the value of that eternal existence that is not being used makes room for all of us to live forever.
    SO the equivalency is not compared to God, an eternal being, but Compared to Adam, a Perfect human, who was born, had a beginning, was less powerful than angels, yet more than a mere beast.

    We can understand Isa 45:18 in the context of all scripture,
    (Isaiah 45:18) For this is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the heavens, He the [true] God, the Former of the earth and the Maker of it, He the One who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited: ďI am Jehovah, and there is no one else.
    Just because God was the maker of the earth (indisputable really) doesn't mean he actually did the work, just as John Augustus Roebling is credited with building the Brookly bridge, it is unlikely he he did much physical labor, much less the all that would be required to accurately claim he built it according to the line of reasoning you propose. this idea is supported by scripture note the following:
    (Exodus 19:20) So Jehovah came down upon Mount Si′nai to the top of the mountain.
    (Exodus 20:1-3) And God proceeded to speak all these words, saying: 2*ďI am Jehovah your God, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slaves. 3*You must not have any other gods against my face.
    So God himself spoke according to Exodus, even calling himself by name, yet in Galations....
    (Galatians 3:19-20)Why, then, the Law? ... and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator.
    It says the law came though angels and a mediator. GOd was obviously the starting point. then angels participated in conveying it to the mediator, moses. It apparently wasn't God's voice that the Isrealites heard. REally the distinction is insignificant from the point of view of the origin of the Law. It was obviously God. But the clarification in Galations allows for the view that God made the earth, like an architect, designer, but that another actually did the work involved. Thus he would be speaking to this one in Genesis 1:26. Pretty cool that God COULD do it all himself, but that he honors others with the opportunity to participate.
    Hmmmm....smells like numbatwo to me.

  6. #149
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,656
    The point is that we all become a little testy at times, particularly when discussing this particular topic. The people I disagree with still add value to the discussion.

    I'll get to that other topic as soon as I can. I'll have to re-read some things. Right now it appears that you may have misunderstood the nature of my basic premise (which was not to imply that God is Nazi-like). The bible fails on three levels; It is often not logical, it is certainly not scientifc, and none of the beings in the bible have ever manifested themselves to me in any way.

    Your reply to that will be something along the lines of "you are too stubborn to hear the message" or "you believe yourself to be a God" if history is any teacher in this regard. Those very statements demonstrate a *fundamental* lack of understanding with regards to the human condition, with all due respect. It is a flat out fact that human beings use very different thought processes to arrive at conclusions. This has been discussed throughout history in philosophy and science.

    Let me try to explore this a bit further by examining some other beliefs men hold. Some believe in the following; Bigfoot, The Lochness Monster, Extraterrestrials. What would make me believe these things? What turns these beliefs in to fact? Easy. Hard evidence. Fuzzy photos/videos of ape-like creatures or shadows moving through the water or even of UFOs are all "soft" evidence. Hard evidence would be the remains or even just a skull of one of the creatures. An unknown alloy, a ray gun. Anything.

    It is my position now that none of these things exist. UFOs perhaps, but not alien beings. Now we could find hard evidence tomorrow and I'd change my mind. Just like that economist (whose name escapes me at the moment) who, when asked by Congress why his policies were all over the place, famously replied "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?"

    Now, here's the thing. Isn't it obvious to you that others base their beliefs on these items using a somewhat lesser standard than I do? What works for you doesn't necessarily work for me. We see this phenomena demonstrated every single day. Yet, the bible expects all men to hold a single idea or ideal as a "universal truth". That is flat out impossible, my friend.

    The other thing that is worth noting about the human condition is the root cause of things like racism. We humans are not comfortable with that which is unlike ourselves. We tend to make friends with people that share our views, and even in some cases, our physical attributes. And as we group in to these little cliques, we tend to look upon other groups as less. Because they do not speak, act or think as we do. Like I said in the OP in the other topic, the greatest ill of man is our need to be "right" and to cast others down as being wrong. Even understanding the condition I do this as well. I'm doing it right at this moment as a matter of fact.

    The point about 1984 and Orwell had not much to do with Nazis, much more to do with "being Orwellian" if you will. For what is the bible asking us to do? To group in to cliques of people who can accept things on faith using a somewhat lessor standard than others. And if you are not in that group, well then, God may just destroy you with a flood or put you in to his version of a concentration camp; hell. Further, even the chosen will have all that is bad removed from them before entering "paradise".

    Well, there ya go. Orwellian horror at its best. Only one group can be right. Others, well, we can try to make them see, but if they do not, in the end they will be culled from the herd. Orwell's 1984 and God can shake hands on that one. They are in full agreement.

    All Utopians share this philosophy. That's where the Nazi's came in... only as Utopians. There is more to being a Nazi than just being a Utopian though, right?

    Gods should seemingly not be subject to human failings. Wouldn't you agree?

    The other thing, of course, is the seeming lobotomy one must suffer before entering paradise. What makes a man good, my friend? Would you consider someone who had a lobotomy to be "fixed"? Does the path towards being "good" mean that it is acheived by *removing* that which makes us bad? Or is one percieved to be good because he is most often victorious in the inner struggle we all face in our day to day lives?

    Heck, I know it is wrong to look at my neighbor's wife and think she is hot and want to have sex with her. But I do, and I can't help it. Where I "win" the battle is that it never becomes more than a passing thought. If instead that temptation is removed, am I still good?

    Every item I have just described in this post, to me, shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how humans "work". Therefore my contention that the bible was written and inspired by man alone. That doesn't mean that there is no God, mind you. All I am saying is that the only tangible thing we have seems tremendously flawed in my view.

    EDIT: Edited for typos and clarity
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  7. #150
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfdog View Post
    I saw your prior reference and just did not mention it.
    It was long before that. Look at your old emails too. I stand behind my statement.
    EDIT: You wouldn't start including BeDuhn unless he appears in JW publications. I'll take that as BeDuhn is now in a publication as a quote. That's the way it seems to work. True or false?

  8. #151
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Dallas,Texas
    Posts
    4,956
    I have emails from you back to 3/05 and J. BeDuhn is not mentioned. Perhaps one got dumped, I don't know. I seriously don't recall you bringing up the name earlier than this thread.
    I usually check the references you provide.

    Those names and some others came from some research I was doing.

    There was a recent quote in the WT. But as far as "apparoved"; no such list. I could send you a copy of the quote if you like.

    So I'm not sure whether to answer true, false, or both.

  9. #152
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kenilworth NJ
    Posts
    947

    you are too stubborn to hear and you believe yourself to be a God - Just Kidding!!

    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Your reply to that will be something along the lines of "you are too stubborn to hear the message" or "you believe yourself to be a God" if history is any teacher in this regard. Those very statements demonstrate a *fundamental* lack of understanding with regards to the human condition, with all due respect. It is a flat out fact that human beings use very different thought processes to arrive at conclusions. This has been discussed throughout history in philosophy and science.

    Now, here's the thing. Isn't it obvious to you that others base their beliefs on these items using a somewhat lesser standard than I do? What works for you doesn't necessarily work for me. We see this phenomena demonstrated every single day. Yet, the bible expects all men to hold a single idea or ideal as a "universal truth". That is flat out impossible, my friend.

    For what is the bible asking us to do? To group in to cliques of people who can accept things on faith using a somewhat lessor standard than others. And if you are not in that group, well then, God may just destroy you with a flood or put you in to his version of a concentration camp; hell. Further, even the chosen will have all that is bad removed from them before entering "paradise"
    That is an eloquent defense to a point not made.

    I will make this point again, however:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread....39#post1660939
    post #515
    Blind ignorant faith is not required.

    Ok there were several points in your post that I want to get at, but I'm gonna try to do just one.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by scrogdog
    SO... if you agree that all men do not think alike, thus many of us just do not have the capability or are not "hard wired", if you will, to take things on blind faith, how is it that you and the bible expect that to be the case with regards to the divinity of Jesus?

    I believe that you are basing your argument with a false premise.

    Yes all men think differently (I asked a Russian Freind of mine for something cold to drink and he brought me vodka out of the freezer. Not too bad.)
    But no where in the bible or in true christianity are we expected to except things on blind faith.

    Note some of my previous posts:

    Quote: Originally Posted by numbawunfela
    Proverbs 27:17 By iron, iron itself is sharpened. So one man sharpens the face of another.
    But don't take my word for it. Be noble minded...
    Acts 17:11 Immediately by night the brothers sent both Paul and Silas out to Be∑roe′a, and these, upon arriving, went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thes∑sa∑lo∑ni′ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.
    Double check everything. (1 Thessalonians 5:21) Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by numbawunfela
    First off, real faith is not credulity. (Hebrews 11:1) 11 Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.
    Things we do not see are proved to be realities through examination. such as gravity, wind, etc. It is critically important to prove to oneself the inspiration of the scriptures.
    (Romans 12:1-2) 12 Consequently I entreat YOU by the compassions of God, brothers, to present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason. 2 And quit being fashioned after this system of things, but be transformed by making YOUR mind over, that YOU may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

    The bible encourages us to use our power of reason, to prove to ourselves, examine things carefully, to axamine all things. If we WERE expected to accept things on blind faith, credulity, then I coud then follow along with your line of thought.
    But we are not.
    In fact, based on the biblical definition of faith at Hebrews 11:1, 'blind faith' is itself, a misnomer.
    Hmmmm....smells like numbatwo to me.

  10. #153
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kenilworth NJ
    Posts
    947
    I sorta had in mind the disscussion would continue in the other thread, but since it is here I'll roll with that. You guys have been doing this longer than I have.

    NOTE: this is questioning your motives.

    A little philosopher bashing

    Quote Originally Posted by numbawunfela View Post
    Scrodog I hafta admit that I am a little biased toward philosophers. I had a freind who had a masters in philosophy. So I don't hate them catagorically, per se. However I have a few charicteristics in mind that I seem to find consistently in them.

    They tend to love the jorney as much or more so than the destination. I am all about results. I discuss so as to understand and then be able to know with confidence that i have considered it, and therefore am reasonably assured of the conclusions drawn, of course still being open to new views. Philosophers tend to be more interested in the excercise, the conclusion being either irrelevant or unimportant, since they never seem to want to reach one.

    What is accepted as correct or incorrect is based on whe quality of the arguments presented, not necessarily on the information conveyed. the ability to debate has no real bearing on what is factual in reality, but philosiphers in general love to be able to 'convince' someone that a rediculous conclusion is true, through resoning techniques or debate tactics. I will admit it is an entertaining exercise, and quite amusing, but not a basis for making life altering decisions.

    One discussion doesn't ever have a bearing on another. If I can prove that the bible was factual, for example, the philosopher does not see a reason to assign it any significance as an authority in a discussion about morality for example. the topic has changed, and the playing field has been re-leveled.

    Philosophers also love to be right, or at least, acheive a footing in an argument whereby successful opposition is impossible. this means that if it is onconvenient to admit an obvious fact since it may hinder your ability to manuver later, you will simply refuse to acknowledge such a fact. I hope your signature quote by vince lombardi is not an example of this.

    I have seen you decry the intolerance and narrowmindedness of many religious people, and rightly so. I am very religious, yet I hope i have proven myself an exception to the rule. I hope that you can also prove yourself an exception to my perceptions.
    Hmmmm....smells like numbatwo to me.

  11. #154
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,656
    Blind ignorant faith is not required.
    So you may say, but I admit I am scratching my head a bit here with regards to your reply. I'm not sure how "blind faith" and "a fundamental lack of understanding with regards to the human condition" are related.

    Yes all men think differently (I asked a Russian Freind of mine for something cold to drink and he brought me vodka out of the freezer. Not too bad.) But no where in the bible or in true christianity are we expected to except things on blind faith.

    Note some of my previous posts:

    Proverbs 27:17 By iron, iron itself is sharpened. So one man sharpens the face of another.

    But don't take my word for it. Be noble minded...

    Acts 17:11 Immediately by night the brothers sent both Paul and Silas out to Be·roe′a, and these, upon arriving, went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thes·sa·lo·ni′ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.

    Double check everything. (1 Thessalonians 5:21) Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.

    First off, real faith is not credulity. (Hebrews 11:1) 11 Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.

    Things we do not see are proved to be realities through examination. such as gravity, wind, etc. It is critically important to prove to oneself the inspiration of the scriptures.

    (Romans 12:1-2) 12 Consequently I entreat YOU by the compassions of God, brothers, to present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason. 2 And quit being fashioned after this system of things, but be transformed by making YOUR mind over, that YOU may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

    The bible encourages us to use our power of reason, to prove to ourselves, examine things carefully, to axamine all things. If we WERE expected to accept things on blind faith, credulity, then I coud then follow along with your line of thought.

    But we are not.

    In fact, based on the biblical definition of faith at Hebrews 11:1, 'blind faith' is itself, a misnomer.

    Basically the entire thread 'why I do not believe' is based on a false premise.
    I fail to see how this argument addresses any single contention that I have made. While it is true that I do believe that a belief in God is blind faith, that's not even close to my core point with regards to the human condition.

    Let's review;

    I spent the first four paragraphs of my post showing how people come to believe different things. Culminating with this;

    Now, here's the thing. Isn't it obvious to you that others base their beliefs on these items using a somewhat lesser standard than I do? What works for you doesn't necessarily work for me.
    So, now, your contention is that just because the bible says that the search for truth is pure, it is. Well, that even may be the case, but that does not all of a sudden mean that the bible recognizes that is it impossible for all men to hold the same idea or ideal as a universal fact or truth. I don't see how the two points connect actually, maybe you can help me out here.

    Next, I go on to point out that man has a history of forming in to groups of like-minded individuals and then looking down upon those who do not speak, think and act as they do. The bible itself does the very same thing. If you aren't "hard-wired" to accept things on faith, then you will not ascend and be seperated from the chosen. Uh... this is what men do. I consider this a huge failing of man... absolutely huge. How does what you wrote address this point at all? I just don't see it. To say that Christians have tried as hard as they can to remain true to certain things is all well and good, but that is meaningless to my point. Gods should be better then men. A god should be able to accept the diversity of HIS OWN CREATION.

    Then I move on to describe the attributes of what philosphy calls Utopians. To a one, all believe that the only path to Utopia or Paradise is to eliminate those elements that do not fit in to the ruleset created by those in power.

    Have you read 1984? Have you grasped its meaning and indeed its warning?

    This mindset is of men... not gods. To me, anyway. Again, I'm not sure how suggesting that the search by Christains has been "true" does anything to address the fundamental point that I've made. Fine, Christains do thier best. Does that mean that the bible does not describe an Orwellian scenario? Hardly.

    Finally, I end up at paradise itself. This is a condition unachievable by men. So, I examined how God would do it. Apparently, he would do it the same way as man, excising that which is "bad" or does not fit in. It is said that paradise will be free from sickness and sin. Well heck, will I even remember what it is like to be good or bad then? I will be incapable of sinning in paradise. Well, that would certainly mean that whatever exists in paradise will not be me. I can only view this sort of paradise as a sort of drooling myopia. Sorry.

    Again, I fail to see how the methods used by Christians, or whether they were flawed or not, has any bearing on my comments as to how paradise will be achieved by God.

    So, my post may have been based on a false premise, but you have not addressed the premise, that the bible is rife with the signature flaws of man. The actions of Christians have still resulted in the words I read. And the words describe a God with human failings and one who uses flawed human methods to achieve his goals.

    Now, this is all my opinion of course. You may feel free to disagree. But I think we sort of meandered down the wrong path here. Your answer might have been more appropriate if the discussion had swung towards science, for example, but does nothing to address the philosophy of the bible itself, regardless of how those words were arrived at.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  12. #155
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,656
    Scrodog I hafta admit that I am a little biased toward philosophers. I had a freind who had a masters in philosophy. So I don't hate them catagorically, per se. However I have a few charicteristics in mind that I seem to find consistently in them.

    They tend to love the jorney as much or more so than the destination. I am all about results. I discuss so as to understand and then be able to know with confidence that i have considered it, and therefore am reasonably assured of the conclusions drawn, of course still being open to new views. Philosophers tend to be more interested in the excercise, the conclusion being either irrelevant or unimportant, since they never seem to want to reach one.
    You in sales at all? I profile you as a pragmatic. I, on the other hand, would be catagorized as an analytical. You are correct, the journey is quite important. It is one thing to know WHAT you state as truth, another to understand WHY. I have freely admitted on these forums to being a student of the human condition, and that means trying to grasp the thought processes of individuals. If we concentrate on results alone, then we miss an important part of the human condition in my view.

    What is accepted as correct or incorrect is based on whe quality of the arguments presented, not necessarily on the information conveyed. the ability to debate has no real bearing on what is factual in reality, but philosiphers in general love to be able to 'convince' someone that a rediculous conclusion is true, through resoning techniques or debate tactics. I will admit it is an entertaining exercise, and quite amusing, but not a basis for making life altering decisions.
    Well, whether or not I actually do this will be your call to make. I can only say that none other than Bootlen said something like "Scrog isn't afraid of where the search for truth may lead him. He says his piece and lets the chips fall as they may". Or something close to that. Boot and I are allies in politics but not religion. It was one of the greatest compliments that I have ever recieved. However, as I said, that is his perception but may ultimately not become yours.

    One discussion doesn't ever have a bearing on another. If I can prove that the bible was factual, for example, the philosopher does not see a reason to assign it any significance as an authority in a discussion about morality for example. the topic has changed, and the playing field has been re-leveled.
    Well, maybe that's true and maybe I'm just some wordsmith who loves to push buttons. Again, that will be your decision to make.

    Philosophers also love to be right, or at least, acheive a footing in an argument whereby successful opposition is impossible. this means that if it is onconvenient to admit an obvious fact since it may hinder your ability to manuver later, you will simply refuse to acknowledge such a fact. I hope your signature quote by vince lombardi is not an example of this.
    Well, here I will disagree, although I will acknowledge that anything that we have can be misused... science, philosophy and religion. The purpose of philosophy, to me, is to encourage even MORE philosophy. It is in this way that the human condition is explored.

    I have seen you decry the intolerance and narrowmindedness of many religious people, and rightly so. I am very religious, yet I hope i have proven myself an exception to the rule. I hope that you can also prove yourself an exception to my perceptions.
    I hope so too.

    In any case, I did make the concious decision to restate my position here because it seems that I was not getting you to see what I was saying in the other topic. I think maybe that I still am not, but I am rooting for that to happen. And yes, I have already stated that you seem a reasonable sort, so it will be most interesting to see how someone who apparently thinks in a similar fashion to me reconciles certain things that I cannot.

    EDIT: I just thought of something else to say that may add to my intended clarification of purpose. Upon reflection, I now find the topic title "Why I Don't Believe" to be a poor choice of words. I think perhaps something along the lines of "Why I Will Not Follow" would be more in order. At this point I am not arguing the existence of God per se, I am saying that for God to hold the philosophies described in the bible doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you, Numba, categorically demonstrate to me that the bible is the work of God. Let's say I then become a believer in that I now believe this entity exists. I still would not follow. Spirituality is a lost concept on me even if God exists. To me, God should be showing us how to accept the diversity of his creation. You know, the brotherhood of man. So, how does PROMOTING the clique mindset and the human/Orwellian idea of Utopianism do that? Answer: it doesn't. That is one of the reasons that I can only conclude that the bible is the work of man. But if demonstrated otherwise, as I said, I'd change my mind. But, that would only make me draw new conclusions... such as that God is far from the perfect being that he says he is.

    As for my sig, I am in marketing. Attitude is everything in life. This is a discussion for another day, but it is hugely related to the human condition. Here's another of my favorite motivational tidbits given to us by a famous scholar and philosopher known as Wayne Gretzky;

    "You miss 100% of the shots that you never take".
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  13. #156
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfdog View Post
    I have emails from you back to 3/05 and J. BeDuhn is not mentioned. Perhaps one got dumped, I don't know. I seriously don't recall you bringing up the name earlier than this thread.
    I usually check the references you provide.

    Those names and some others came from some research I was doing.

    There was a recent quote in the WT. But as far as "apparoved"; no such list. I could send you a copy of the quote if you like.

    So I'm not sure whether to answer true, false, or both.
    Goodness. There was just stuff all over the net on the September 07 publication talking about this and now you are sidestepping. I say if the quote isn't in a JW publication, you don't use it and you probably (in the strongest sense) wouldn't read it. Therefore, unless BeDuhn is quoted in the JW literature, you don't bring it up. I'll bet you haven't read the book. True or False?

Page 12 of 61 FirstFirst ... 2567891011121314151617181922 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event