Zixar
-
Posts
3,408 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Posts posted by Zixar
-
-
Count us out, too...
-
Abigail: Funny, I didn't get that at all. I thought you were just playing a rhetorical devil's advocate. I've got no problems with your line of questioning if you wish to continue.
It's just a little busy here this afternoon...
;)--> -
Oakspear: I'm no stranger to sarcasm. I just don't have anything left to say to you.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Abigail:Questions 1 - 4
"Consistently? For all within the religion? Is there then a formula under which it consistently works? Do those outside the religion or formula also have prayers answered?"
Answers 1 - 4
"1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Yes.
4) No."
In other words, prayer does work consistently for all within the religion and there is a proper forumula one must use when they pray. However, those outside of Christianity or those who do not use the proper formula will not consistenly have their prayers answered.
Yes, that is what I believe.
Anyone care to bite on this? I am curious 1) what is the proper formula? 2) Have any Christians ever used the proper formula and NOT had their prayer answered? 3) Has anyone of a religion outside of Christianity ever consistently had their prayers answered?
Honestly, Zix, if there is a proper formula I would love to learn it, because while I have certainly had a large number of prayers answered, there are still those which remain unanswered. BTW, how is it that I, whom an no longer Christian, can still have prayers answered? How is it my prayers were answered even before I ever became a Christian?
I'm not trying to be flip, dismissive, or insulting with this answer, but I don't know of anyone here who would understand the reasoning behind it if I gave it. As evidenced by previous discussions of similar topics, math just makes some folks' heads hurt, and analogies just make their eyes cross.
So that just leaves me with this: Yes, there's a formula, but we cannot comprehend the true extent of it since we're confined to nature. We may know some of the constants and variables, but it's impossible to know them all given our inherent limitations.
Next Group:
"How does one model what one has never seen? Trial and error? How does when know when one has erred if one has ever seen the accurate example?"
Answers:
"5) How were the electron, air, and the far side of the Sun modelled without ever being seen?
6) No.
7) Irrelevant, since accurate examples abound."
Honestly, I have no idea, never studied it. I imagine the effects of electrons and air are seen. Likewise one can see the "near side of the sun". So, we model after the effects?
For things we cannot sense otherwise, yes. It's all we can do. Regardless of the pictures in the elementary school science books, electrons probably are not little yellow balls with black minus signs painted on them. But they could be, for all we'll ever know about them. They are smaller than a wavelength of a photon of visible light, so we will never, ever be able to "see" an electron.
Doesn't make them imaginary or mythological constructs, though.
If it is not modelling by trial and error, then what is it? I mean from in the beginning - obviously you have a written standard to model after, but what about those who came before the written standard?
Oral tradition, bolstered by subsequent occasional direct experiences.
Could you give me a couple of accurate examples?
In the Bible, we have many, many examples, Moses, Joshua...Jesus himself.
Next group:
""Wherever Christianity gained a true foothold, it usually supplanted the local beliefs, and that cannot be dismissed with exaggerated blanket claims of Christian atrocities. No one was ever convinced to truly believe at swordpoint."
Can't it? No, perhaps the parents weren't convined to believe at swordpoint, but what about the children and grandchildren who then grew up without the option of knowing any other doctrine?"
Answers:
"8) No.
9) The descendants still had free will. "
I disagree with number 8. You would be amazed at what the human mind can do in an attempt to fight for survival and sanity.
One can be coerced to CONFESS something, but one cannot be coerced to BELIEVE something. There is always the choice not to believe.
And again I disagree with number 9. Free will? irrelevant examples omitted
Yes, one always has the free will to change one's mind, change one's believing. Don't confuse free will with freedom of action. Religion was outlawed in the former Soviet Union, but despite 70 years of Communist oppression, Russian Christianity was not extinguished. It survived, bolshevism didn't.
-
Abigail: Sorry for being so abrupt, I was involved in another squabble elsewhere at the time I answered you and I'm afraid it spilled over here. That's entirely my fault, and I apologize for being so rude.
I'll try to give more thoughtful answers to your current questions, but I'm running out of time at the moment.
Apologies,
Zix
-
quote:
Long Gone: Thank you! It's about time somebody finally got what I was saying. If you actually still believe in Christ, you're a fool for rejecting him. If you truly don't any more, then the question is moot--might as well renounce The Smurfs and Santa Claus in the same sentence, a la George.
Originally posted by Long Gone:That last sentence of my previous post is the "disconnect," as I see it.
If we non-Christians believed that the God and the Jesus Christ of the Bible actually existed, in the here and now, but were not Christians, then we would be fools, who would sacrifice possible eternal life and all sorts of blessings, because we were mad at God, Christ, or God's purported representatives, or were rebellious children unwilling to subject ourselves to Christ's and God's authority.
I swear, I think that many Christians can't understand or accept honest disbelief that their God and Christ exist, which leads them to the latter conclusions, even if they avoid saying them.
-
I don't see why you feel you must resort to such pedantic questions, but the answers are:
1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Yes.
4) No.
5) How were the electron, air, and the far side of the Sun modelled without ever being seen?
6) No.
7) Irrelevant, since accurate examples abound.
8) No.
9) The descendants still had free will.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Abigail:"With God, it's hard to design a repeatable experiment, though that's what every religion tries to be"
Why? Why does religion feel such a strong need to design repeatable experiments? So we can promise a guaranteed effect from a specific cause? Why the need to be able to "KNOW" the outcome?
You're kidding, right? Religion is fundamentally an attempt to explain and interact with the supernatural. Unfortunately, it's usually skewed in its presentation to benefit its priests more than its flock.
"save that it has seemed to work as advertised for the better part of 2,000+ years"
What has worked and how?
God answers prayer.
"it does have the benefit of being internally consistent enough to act as a reasonable model for an invisible God, and that's why it has outlived most of the various mythologies. "
How is it internally consistent? Seems there are many inconsistencies and disagreements within Christianity.
That the Bible could be written over such a long period of time by so many authors and have so few internal disagreements makes it stand out. The Quran was supposedly written by just one man, and he contradicts himself frequently in it.
how does it act as a reasonable model for God? What is it modelling?
Are you being purposefully dense? It's modelling the behavior of a supernatural entity with the natural universe.
What mythologies has it outlived? There are many "religions" which are alive and well today that pre-date Christianity.
Greek, Roman, Norse, Celtic, take your pick. While there might be pockets of lingering belief in them, none are even close to their numbers at the height of their ascendency. Wherever Christianity gained a true foothold, it usually supplanted the local beliefs, and that cannot be dismissed with exaggerated blanket claims of Christian atrocities. No one was ever convinced to truly believe at swordpoint.
"If there were no perceived results at all, Christianity would have faded into mythology like Zeus and Apollo have"
Have Apollo and Zeus faded? Or have they simply changed names and rituals?
If they've 'changed names and rituals' they're hardly still around. But if you truly believe that, I'll sell you George Washington's hatchet. It's had six new handles and three new heads, but it's still "George Washington's Hatchet!"
-->
-
lindy: You said "For me personally, (Let me be clear in that) the legitamacy of that faith, is directly proportionate to what we know about the nature of the invisible thing/ concept in which it lies. " The problem with that is when we are dealing with things beyond our perception we don't ever really "know" what we're dealing with. In physics, the realm of the subatomic particles does not behave like the larger, more tangible realms. All we can really do is observe the initiators and products of various invisible particle interactions--it's a "black box" problem. If we dump apples, sugar, flour, and butter into a black box and a hot apple pie comes out the other side we're really just guessing at what's going on inside the box. There are several theories, each with their pros and cons, like there's a baker and an oven in the box and he's making the pie like anyone else would. Or, there's a very tiny bazaar in the box, in which certain food items are taken as trade goods for the apple pie vendor. Or, there's some elves in a hollow tree with magic wands who produce the apple pie out of nothing and then sell the input ingredients in Elf-Land to make money. All sorts of ideas come to mind, both exotic and mundane, but the truth is that if you can never see inside the black box, you never really know how the process works. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle sets limits on the amount of information we can gain in the subatomic world. If Heisenberg is correct, then there are things we simply cannot know. It doesn't stop us from working with what we've got, speculating on what's inside the box. Suppose the experimenter substituted cherries for apples to see what he'd get. In some of those cases above, he'd get a cherry pie, in others, he'd still get an apple pie. Whatever comes out of the box, someone's pet theory is going to get shot down.
Things on the other end of the spectrum are just as inscrutable, if not moreso, than the subatomic. Is there anything outside the Universe? What is it expanding into, if anything? We can come up with some very elaborate reasons for why things happen on those grand scales, but since we can't just reach out and touch the end of the Universe, we're still just guessing again. And again, that doesn't stop us from speculating, theorizing, trying to come up with a seamless, unbroken explanation for the Universe.
With God, it's hard to design a repeatable experiment, though that's what every religion tries to be. It would normally be of no more consequence that your Smurf speculation, save that it has seemed to work as advertised for the better part of 2,000+ years. The evidence is all anecdotal, but it's enough to start working with. Despite all the mud slung at Christianity, it does have the benefit of being internally consistent enough to act as a reasonable model for an invisible God, and that's why it has outlived most of the various mythologies. In that sense, religion is a lot like particle physics--a bunch of theories of wildly-varying validity being slowly pared away over the years until we have something that works--mostly. Quantum mechanics still has some huge gaps to overcome (gravity, for one) but it has had enough success to keep going down that path. We know the obstacles, the trick is in modifying the theory to account for them as best as possible. Same way with apparent Bible contradictions.
If there were no perceived results at all, Christianity would have faded into mythology like Zeus and Apollo have. But there's something there, hard to define though it may be, apparently working for a lot of people, even if we don't fully understand it.
-
quote:
Yes. That is NOT what I'm saying, that's what you are mistakenly inferring and ascribing to me in your ignorance.
Originally posted by Oakspear:_Just for clarity, I am quoting Zixar, who is quoting me in several places. If there are regular _and_ bold type in quotes, the regular is mine and the bold is Zixar's_
quote:
_Here's my "imaginary" script:
Personal attacks? Who called whom a liar?_NO ONE. That's a sheer fabrication on your part, and that's why it's impossible to discuss this with you rationally. You aren't arguing what I said, you're arguing with what you wish I had said, and you sure do squawk whenever I deviate from your imaginary script.
quote:
(bold type in Zixar's quote added by me)
Originally posted by Zixar:It's a simple, straightforward question, yet it always draws a bunch of armchair lawyering, for some reason. Always with the qualifications and rationalizations..._but at least Bramble was honest about it._ Thanks.
The implication of _that_ statement is that others (myself, Lindy, et al) were _not_ honest, i.e., lying. Are you telling me that's _not_ what you're saying?
See that bit right before the bit you bolded? Here, I'll make it easy for you:
"Always with the qualifications and rationalizations..."
See, that's not what normal people call a "lie". I never called you or anyone else a liar, and I never even implied such, despite the inference you immediately leapt to. I'm sure you feel quite justified and sincere when you spout your evasive drivel. But that's just it--evading the question when you've already demonstrated it had a very simple and straightforward answer isn't necessarily lying, but it is being dishonest. That's what I said, that's what I implied.
You just got it wrong. Deal with it. I'm tired of putting up with your mischaracterizations and straw men.
-
Priceless...
:D--> -
quote:
Originally posted by Abigail:Then the same goes to my anamchara
:)-->. What's an 'anamchara'? Dictionary.com doesn't list it.
Regardless of who said it first, I still find the term offensive.
I'm sorry if it offended you, but I don't see the harm in it.
Additionally, lawyers are not supposed to "bend the letter of the law" (though I know there are those who do). Lawyers are suppose to present their case according to the letter and _spirit_ to the best of their ability so that the judge or jury can make the best decision possible with the ultimate goal of fairness and justice prevailing. I am thankful I have not had to work for any attorneys thus far which have left me feeling over all jaded towards the legal system.
I think you're being a bit too idealistic in your assessment of the legal profession, but you're entitled to your opinion.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Abigail:Zix,
"Believing what Jesus taught is nice, but it doesn't bear directly on the question of his lordship"
So, if I understand you correctly according to your definition of Christianity, one must believe Jesus is Lord (and then we could argue as to the various definitions of the term Lord, but I'm assuming based on the rest of your post you understand it to mean at least something very similar to what we were taught in TWI) in order to be considered a Christian? And if one does not believe Jesus is lord one has rejected him?
Almost there, but not quite. If the person has heard enough to believe and chooses not to, or once believed and now does not, those are rejections.
Under those terms and conditions, I flat out deny being a Christian and reject Jesus as lord and do so with no hestitaion but great conviction.
Now was that so hard?
"You know what Christianity entails, or should at least have a good idea since you were once in TWI (even with all its flaws). "
Well, I was holding out hope that at least SOME who consider themselves Christian, understand Christianity as being something very different from what we were taught in TWI. (I still am, despite your own apparent opinions to the contrary).
I suppose it depends on how much qualifies as "very different". Despite many doctrinal differences, Christianity under TWI isn't radically different than it is under Catholicism or any other Protestant sect.
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there any record in the New Testament in which it was okay to quit believing and return to a former religion?"
Correct me if _I_am wrong, but even within the scope of Christianity, there are a number of different interpretations of what the NT means and how it is to be applied in ones life. And I am NOT returning to a former relgion. I come from a Jewish family but was never raised to be a religious Jew. I am simply exploring, growing, learning, continuing in the quest I have been on since I was a child.
If you didn't believe, then did believe, then didn't again, that's a kind of return to a former religion, isn't it?
Look, I'm not saying you're an evil person or that you did anything wrong by choosing to reject Christ. "Let every man be fully persuaded," the Bible says. I'm just saying that it's disngenuous to stay on the fence. Claiming to be only a little bit Christian is like being only a little bit pregnant.
Additionally, I don't read the Bible literally or entirely as THE WORD OF GOD, nor do I limit myself simply to what the Bible says or what other men claim it all means. THAT was one of my HUGE mistakes in TWI, a lesson I have learned and do not wish to repeat.
A choice you're perfectly entitled to make.
"you were convinced at one point, and then you said "no more". "
At the point in my life when I was "convinced" I had a very different understanding of it all, via a TWI which ceased to exist some five years before I actually left them. I stayed the additional five years for reasons which are far to lengthy and off topic to go into here.
All right, you don't have to divulge that, but are you sure it isn't a case of what Def59 was talking about? Throwing away Christianity because of bad experiences with poor examples(TWI)?
-
Abigail: Believing what Jesus taught is nice, but it doesn't bear directly on the question of his lordship. I might believe that "with great power comes great responsibility", but that doesn't mean I'm ambiguous over whether Spider-Man exists or not. I might like the trains to run on time, but that doesn't mean I'm a Mussolini fascist, either. Buddha might have said some things I'd agree with, but my rejection of him doesn't have anything bearing on the validity of what he said.
You know what Christianity entails, or should at least have a good idea since you were once in TWI (even with all its flaws). Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there any record in the New Testament in which it was okay to quit believing and return to a former religion?
The point is that it's not like you never believed in Christ. (Unless, of course, your entire time in TWI you were lying to everyone about it. I have no way of knowing if you were sincere back then.) The arguments you and Oak keep putting forth are only relevant to agnostics who never were Christians. It's not like you're waiting to be convinced, you were convinced at one point, and then you said "no more". That's not even a very subtle distinction.
As for the negative connotation of "lawyering", that was Oakspear's characterization of the term. Lawyers are supposed to bend the letter of the law as far as they can to perform a requested function. Describing similar tactics outside of the legal profession as "lawyering" is descriptive, but not necessarily derogatory.
-
George: You and I track on 13 out of 15 (4&9, obviously) so 86% isn't too bad, is it?
-
quote:
I don't see why this is so difficult to grasp. Just as the seemingly-impossible teleporting electron is a convenient guess that makes the math work, the seemingly-invisible Supreme Being is just as convenient an explanation for the Universe. It's the convenience in the simplifying assumptions in both cases that lies entirely in the realm of FAITH. Faith is not confined to religious matters, that's all I'm saying.
Originally posted by lindyhopper:Zix, I never would have thought that you would post something that I would intentionaly say.
quote:
Likewise, postulating the existence of a higher, supernatural being makes certain questions more conveniently answered
You think of it in a positive way, I think of it as not so positive.
As the Church Lady would say, "How conveeeeenient."
:)-->
-
quote:
Originally posted by Oakspear:Zixar:
Personal attacks on you are _never_ a waste of time.
:D-->Is that really the way you want this to go?
Ya know, I think this is another of those discussions where differing assumptions and definitions are getting in the way of dialog.
Your position is that you have two choices: one is accepting Christ. The other is rejecting him. You lump indecision, uncertainty, and hybrid views of what accepting Christ is as rejection. I can understand why you believe as you do. It seems like the "whoever is not with us is against us" stance. I understand it, but I don't agree with it.
Don't tell me what my position is. You've demonstrated time and time again that you have no clue what my position is, so if you just have to make up one of your own anyway, don't ascribe it to me.
My position is that indecision, uncertainty, etc are _not_ the same as rejection. It does not appear that you understand why I believe as I do, nor does it appear that you care to.
Look, genius, if you WERE once a Christian, and now AREN'T, no amount of self-delusion will alter the fact that you REJECTED it.
Personal attacks? Who called whom a liar?
NO ONE. That's a sheer fabrication on your part, and that's why it's impossible to discuss this with you rationally. You aren't arguing what I said, you're arguing with what you wish I had said, and you sure do squawk whenever I deviate from your imaginary script.
Whose remarks were described as "lawyering", and "pontificating"? Don't get on your high horse about personal attacks unless your innocent of them yourself.
Well, if flexibly-defining such things as "rejection" and "liar" aren't "lawyering", then I don't know what is. But, let me guess. You have a brand new definition of "lawyering" that you just made up, right?
And regarding the car wreck. I don't think about it that often. For the most part I put it behind me. When you first started bringing up "deathbed" conversions, frankly, it slipped my mind. When I did remember the incident, I decided to post it.
What would I do in the future. I don't know. I have not accepted Christ, nor have I rejected him.
Sorry, that only works if one was never a Christian. Since you were once in TWI, you once professed a belief in Christ. This "kinda-sorta" hedging is dishonest. If you don't believe in Christ any more, fine. No one's saying it isn't your right to reject Christ if you don't believe any more. If I had to guess, I'd say that this whole rigmarole stems from some fear of yours that if you did renounce Christ publicly, I'd do or say something unpleasant to you. Or perhaps another guess would be an uncomfortable recollection of Matthew 10:33 "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.", as in, you don't want to be a Christian any more, but you don't want to burn that bridge, either. Now, if that guess is correct, can't you see why that's dishonest?
If death knocks on my door tomorrow, I can't tell you today what I would do. That's the gray area for _me_ Zixar, whether you believe it or accept it or understand it or not.
That's fine, but don't take your indecisions out on me. If you have uncertainty issues, they're entirely inside your own head, and certainly none of my fault.
-
Oakspear: Well, since you had a relevant example, why did you waste so much time with personal attacks on me instead of just answering the question in the first place? "No, I wouldn't, because I already had a similar opportunity in a car wreck and didn't turn back to Jesus." No gray area to that answer, is there?
lindyhopper: The relevance of the teleporting electron example is that in order to construct a theoretical model of electron orbit transfer, the scientists are postulating an otherwise-impossible trait--teleportation--in order to make the model match current observations. Likewise, postulating the existence of a higher, supernatural being makes certain questions more conveniently answered, even though we cannot measure its behaviors, parameters, or even existence directly.
That does NOT mean that God can be proven via a process of natural deduction, and I have never said otherwise. Even Godel's Ontological Theorem makes a certain axiomatic assumption which is experimentally indefinite. It does mean, however, that by definition, natural deduction cannot disprove God either, since the definition of supernature precludes an encompassing natural explanation. Since nature is but a subset of any existing supernature, we have insufficient ability to define anything but natural phenomena in natural terms.
-
This is more a symptom of problems happening at the other end, or along the path, rather than on your PC itself. If the server you're trying to reach is congested or if the network segment it shares is experiencing high volume, your request has to wait.
This would be especially true of search-intensive, or heavy-processing sites like a map site.
Here's a quick way to tell by tracing the route. Go to Start/Run... and type in "cmd" (without the quotes). This will open up a command window (DOS box). Type in "tracert gscafe.com" (again without the quotes) and hit Enter. It will start showing a list of all the different "hops" between different computers that your request is taking to get to gscafe.com. It will list the time in milliseconds it takes the data to travel from one hop to the next. If the time is shown as "
When you're done playing around with tracert, just type "exit" and hit enter to close the command window.
-
Oakspear: Wow, that was certainly dramatic. Feel better?
-->The atheists usually have no problem saying "Nope, not even on my deathbed."
The believers have no problem saying "Of course, I'd turn to God."
There is no gray area at all to the question. In the end, one either would, or one would not. Agnosticism doesn't really offer another answer, no matter how one might pontificate and procrastinate, because in the end the person will still have chosen one way or the other, period.
-
quote:
Originally posted by lindyhopper:continued...
quote:
It's the fallacy of arrogance, that one's own experiences or senses are somehow inviolate. I cannot prove God exists any more than I can prove that electrons really do teleport between orbits, but I have no problem believing either of them. I realize that there are things that are beyond my ability to experience or define to an absolute certainty. To do otherwise is to force reality to fit into one's own narrow framework, and that's simply arrogant.
You mean like how you try to force reality as we all know it into your little narrow framework?
What framework would THAT be? You have completely failed to comprehend my position and instead concocted some convenient fundamentalist stereotype to attack. That's a straw man.
Your right that is arrogant. How about how you don't consider all the other possible explanations of what you think is God working in your life. (statement based on experiences you've posted here, only.)
That's a complete fabrication. It seems your memory is as faulty as your comprehension skills.
You base your belief on the Bible and your experiences, then claim our beliefs are childish, arrogant,and self-centered. Yours are no different. I question it and try to understand it but I am not threatened by that. Why are you?
More delusion. I'm not threatened by it in the slightest. Why do you feel you have to make this an emotional argument instead of a rational one?
Your teleporting electron story, while it makes you seem well read and scientific, is an inaccuate discription of the agnostic or even aetheist view. The fact that the electron makes an invisible jump from one orbit to another is not in question.
Oh, really? Ever seen an electron? Actually seen one move? How did electrons move before quantum mechanics arrived?
The question is whether Scotty beamed it over or not. God is not a natural fact like a jumping electron is. God is an unverifieable claim for why things happen or have happened a certain way.
You don't know the difference between a "natural fact" and a "current theoretical model". Scientists could come up with a new explanation tomorrow and your jumping-electron "natural fact" would get tossed into the laughingstock bin along with N-rays and cold fusion. Consequently, Christ could come back tomorrow and your certainty over God not being a "fact" would be just as ill-conceived.
-
Simon: Good question. According to Wierwille's definition, they would fall under "apeitheia". According to yours, they don't. Interesting. I'll have to mull that one over some more.
Abigail: Oh, I certainly don't claim to be an expert, or even adequately knowledgeable about Judaica. Sounds like it might be worth looking into, though.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Abigail:"Abigail: Interesting point if you're Jewish. Hadn't really considered that one before."
Interesting how?
In that it's the same God. In a sense, it's asking God to be treated according to the Law instead of the New Covenant. I don't see why He wouldn't accede, but I haven't given it extensive thought.
"They want God to be "all-caring" and "all-loving", but they want him to toss being "all-just" when they screw up. Pretty "conveeeenient", as the Church Lady would say."
Well that is sort of the God TWI promised us isn't it? At least when we first signed that little green card?
Pretty much, yes.
I don't think agnostics want god to be a wish-fulfilling Genie anymore so than the rest of us do. They are just looking at things from a different place than those who are convinced there is a God are looking from.
It may not be an all-encompassing agnostic belief, but an awful lot of arguments against God take some form of "If there's a God, why doesn't He miracle up a sandwich for the starving kids in Bangladesh? Since they're still starving, there is no God, QED." What that really boils down to is "unless God does things MY way, I'm not going to believe in Him."
I'll give you an example from another perspective. In physics, current theories say that when electrons move between orbits in an atom, they do so without crossing the intervening space. They simply disappear from orbit 1 and reappear in orbit 2 instantaneously. Now, suppose there were a quantum skeptic who didn't want to believe in this seeming impossibility. He says, "Quantum tunneling? Humbug! I can't move from one place to another without passing through some intervening space, and nothing I can see ever has either. Therefore, I don't care what some quantum nut over at Burning Bush Labs says, electrons cannot teleport. It's just a fanciful explanation for something he can't see either. There's got to be some other 'rational' explanation for it. Until I see something teleport myself, I'm not going to believe in it. I don't care how it makes the numbers work, if I can't see it with my own eyes, I won't believe it."
It's the fallacy of arrogance, that one's own experiences or senses are somehow inviolate. I cannot prove God exists any more than I can prove that electrons really do teleport between orbits, but I have no problem believing either of them. I realize that there are things that are beyond my ability to experience or define to an absolute certainty. To do otherwise is to force reality to fit into one's own narrow framework, and that's simply arrogant.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Oakspear:quote:
to _you_ it's a simple question, to me, it's simplistic.
Originally posted by Zixar:It's a simple, straightforward question,
In what way? Since everyone here (that I know of) once took the PFAL class and stated publicly "I love the Lord Jesus Christ" in session 12, it's a simple matter of reaffirming or recanting your previous statement. Trying to qualify it with some personal definition of agnosticism is just evading the question.
quote:
Well I'm presented with a false dilemma like yours I generally don't fall for it. Why should I (or any of the other non-Christians) be required to fit our beliefs into your little box?
yet it always draws a bunch of armchair lawyering, for some reason. Always with the qualifications and rationalizations...
Nobody's requiring you to do anything, Oak. There's no false dilemma, for reasons stated above. If one never believed in Christ to begin with, the point is moot. But since this is an ex-Way discussion board, a previous belief in Christ is a fair assumption.
quote:
Yes Bramble was honest. So am I, so is Lindy, so is Abigail. It just doesn't fit into your limited understanding.
but at least Bramble was honest about it. Thanks.
Temper, temper. There's no need to get personal.
quote:
If I ever turn to Christ it will because I sincerely believe, because I have been convinced to _my_ satisfaction, not because I'm trying to hedge my bets.
How about if I alter it to be a hypothetical?...Would you turn back to Christ on your deathbed in case you might have been wrong in your earlier rejection?
Does the fact that you once believed enter into that decision?
quote:
Is that why you're a Christian, Zixar? Because you have nothing to lose? Wow! What a great testimony.
If not, what would you really have to lose under the circumstances?
-->Maybe I'll decide to become a Christian someday. Maybe something about it will click and I'll be "glory bound" - but it sure won't be because of arrogant, closed-minded, pseudo-intellectual, smug, Xians like yourself Zixar.
Ad hominem. If you're so unsure of your position that you have to resort to personal attacks, then you might want to reexamine it.
Microsoft Partners Program
in Computer Questions
Posted
Except that in the Terms & Conditions on academic software licenses, utilizing an academic version for any type of commercial use violates the license. So, you may get a cheap copy of Adobe Creative Suite, but you can't sell anything you make, nor even use it for business purposes of any sort.
Of course, if you don't care about such things, that's up to you. It's not like they can monitor what is done with every single copy, but if it ever did come down to a court battle, you'd lose.