CKnapp said "Zix, did I wake up this morning in the former Soviet Union?
Zix, I have the right guaranteed by the Contstitution of The United States regarding freedom of speech! I have the absolute right to express my "bigotry", if that's what you want to call it, just as much as you have the right to speak defensively of the bible."
Um, your right to comment wasn't questioned. The content was commented on. Just like I will: What you said was boorish and in poor taste.
The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.
The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.
The practice or tenets of a bigot.
the intolerance and prejudice of a bigot.
------------------------------------------------
Yes, thank you for deleting that post. -->
seems as though there IS some bigotry going on here.
I think the bull**** comment would have better been left unsaid, but what I really want to address is something Raf said several days ago.
quote:Originally posted by Raf:
quote:Originally posted by The Girl From Oz:
Well, Raf, I'm glad to see that you don't think that Refiner is trying to get people to reject Christ. Because if people were thinking that of him they would be most mistaken.
Actually, yes he is. To quote Judge Judy (pre-TV), don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. He says it's logical to reject Christ. So if you accept him, you're not logical. Fine, that's his opinion and he's entitled. And maybe he didn't explicitly ask anyone to adopt his belief, but he doesn't have to. Not when he names the thread "Why I reject Christ" and states that it's logical to do so.
That’s not a fair interpretation of what Refiner wrote. He explained his conclusion that the OT God is not worthy of worship. Then he said, “This logically, in my mind, [emphasis mine] extended over to an unwillingness to accept Jesus…” In no way does that suggest that it is illogical for someone who thinks that the OT God is worthy of worship to accept Christ. In other words, Refiner did not suggest that your acceptance of Christ is illogical.
If someone thinks that the OT God is not worthy of worship, then it would be illogical for that person to accept Christ, because that acceptance would entail worshipping that God.
If someone thinks that the OT God is worthy of worship, then it would not be illogical for that person to accept Christ, but neither would it necessarily be logical. Jews think that the OT God is worthy of worship but do not accept Jesus as Christ.
Evan may not appreciate my endorsement, but he exhibits what I have called, in Plotinus’ words, a “reasonable faith.” By that, I don’t mean one that can be supported by logic, but rather, one that is not refuted by logic. Why? The main reason is that it is not based on logic, particularly not on trying to draw logical conclusions from a supposedly infallible, “magical self-interpreting Bible.” It’s a bit of a paradox that what makes such faith “reasonable” is that it is not based on reason. If it were, it wouldn't be faith.
Thanks for posting that. I see what you're saying. I disagree, but explaining why would require the extension of an argument I'm no longer interested in having. I'll leave it this way: I appreciate your point, but stand by my comment.
"Evan may not appreciate my endorsement, but he exhibits what I have called, in Plotinus' words, a 'reasonable faith.' By that, I don't mean one that can be supported by logic, but rather, one that is not refuted by logic. Why? The main reason is that it is not based on logic, particularly not on trying to draw logical conclusions from a supposedly infallible, 'magical self-interpreting Bible.' It's a bit of a paradox that what makes such faith 'reasonable' is that it is not based on reason. If it were, it wouldn't be faith."
*****
Long Gone,
Care to try demonstrating that faith, if it is informed by biblical exegesis and hermeneutics -- under the presupposed authority, inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture -- is subject to logical refutation?
CKnapp said "Zix, did I wake up this morning in the former Soviet Union?
Zix, I have the right guaranteed by the Contstitution of The United States regarding freedom of speech! I have the absolute right to express my "bigotry", if that's what you want to call it, just as much as you have the right to speak defensively of the bible."
Um, your right to comment wasn't questioned. The content was commented on. Just like I will: What you said was boorish and in poor taste.
Evan, I said NOTHING that was worthty of being call boorish. If I did then prove it!
Chuck, I find that highly offensive. You don't have to believe it, but I'll thank you to keep your bigotry to yourself.
Zix, just what do you find highly offensive???? I have said nothing to give you reason to make that statement. Please refer to the statement in question, otherwise consider yourself one who fabricates false charges against me.
So...rather than continuing the name calling and arguing about users...
What reason should there be for me to believe in gods, Jesus, or the bible? There is nothing compelling about any of those to me, so I don't see why I should believe in it. Since it is a duty of Christians to try to convert people, what reason would you all that are Christians give to others who you try to convert?
I don't know what you were trying to get at,but maybe we should break this down so all the kids can play.
Starting with LongGone (great post by the way)
(Bold added by me)
quote: ...a 'reasonable faith.' By that, I don't mean one that canbe supported by logic, but rather, one that is notrefuted by logic. Why? The main reason is that it is not based on logic,
Now looking at your post and cutting out the fluff...
(the reason I say fluff is that regardless of the lengths people go thru to explain or the science and knowledge used to interperet the Bible and the reasoning and logic that it may take to do so, it is still under the presupposition of its authority, being inspired by God and therefore inerrantly perfect.....which is in and of itself FAITH) .....
quote: Care to try demonstrating that faith......is subject to logical refutation?
If we refer back to LongGone's post we see that he said this 'reasonable faith' is "not refuted by logic". So then we should assume his answer to your challenge would be...
quote: It is not my purpose to refute anyone’s faith.
because he does not think it is infact subject to refutation.
Then your next post also confuses me....
quote: Long Gone,
I didn't think you would care to try.
...as if he could try but it would be futile and thus proving some point you were making?
It is all a little strange to me. Care to clarify?
What I don’t care to do is to counter your attempts to entrap me with distortions. If one accepts certain presumptions as axioms, then any conclusions that logically arise from those axioms are as sound as the axioms themselves. I know that and have never suggested otherwise.
I did not represent the notion of “a supposedly infallible ‘magical self-interpreting Bible’” to be an axiom. I think you know that, but you have suggested otherwise.
Long Gone's post might have been sloppily worded (which would be quite uncharacteristic for Long Gone), but, as it is written, his post implies that if faith is informed by attempts "to draw logical conclusions" from the Bible under an assumption of its infallibility (I prefer the word inerrancy), faith enters a realm where it is refuted by logic.
I thought you were intentionally distorting my meaning. Your reply to Lindy leads me to believe that it was a simple misunderstanding. I was lax in my wording because I was merely trying to convey the gist of what Evan has said in other places. I wasn't attempting to state something on which to base an argument.
In my last post on this thread, I said Chuck's advice to leave this site & go to Raf's was a good idea. I haven't been here for a while & was unaware of the extent of the crossfire going on here concerning the quality of gs.
I just wanted to say that I was posting my remarks about what was happening on this thread at the time I posted. I can see where my remarks could easily have been taken as another volley in the war of dissent concerning gs.
That's not what I meant & I apologize to anyone who took it that way & to Paw.
I don't know where to post this, but this seems as good a place as any (I've chosen two threads: mods, please forgive the cross-posting).
I set up the LES message board as a place Christians can go to with the presumption that the other posters are Christian and/or expressing Christian principles. It was never intended to be an "either/or" proposition. I do not ask or expect anyone to leave Greasespot in order to come to the LES board. Individual decisions to do one or the other are just that, individual decisions.
My individual decision is to be active on both boards.
This thread has been a fantastic read. I was especially impressed with the dialouge when it stayed on topic but was equally interested when it got off topic.
In line with the topic of the thread, my take is this: God is the same God in both the NT and the OT (forget obout the Gnostic stuff). In the OT, God needed to protect that Red Thread; you should have gotten that from a near dated post on the "Red Thread".
Oh, I realize this forum thread is over 11 years old but what an eye opener to the knowledge of folks who posted on it, some of whom are still posting to this day. That's what I am doing, going through the Doctrinal Forum, starting from the oldest. I have the highest respect for so many of you - that's why I exhorted so many of you to adjust the GSC mission statement towards the docrinal arena.
Hey, some of you such as WordWolf and Raf, after reading through the old posts, I have an even greater respect.
Regarding this thread, it was incorrect, IMHO, to resort to name calling and getting so far off topic by side bars attacking each other even though there were periodic posts to get back on topic that were disregarded.
I know this thread is 11 years old but a non-XTWI poster was provided more grace than I - maybe because I offended but if you got the time to read the extensive thread, you will see that the adversarial poster was provided more grace than I, maybe cause you were all younger in those days and more acceptable of critisism or just plain more tolerant. Just a few examples of things I was chastised for: shortening a posters handle (pretty much the norm then), getting off thread theme (in this thread, that was the norm), attacking a poster (let me count the ways). The posts went to verboten stuff like politics, attacking other religions (JW) and racism/bigotry.
Well, all in all for you who were around then, if you revisit that forum thread, it will be a trip down memory lane and you will see how much you changed and stayed the same.
So, before any of you dis me again, you had best read your history.
God Bless and Love to you all, this is a fantastic site for learning.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
35
37
34
22
Popular Days
Jul 1
77
Jun 29
67
Jun 30
65
Jul 2
31
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 35 posts
Raf 37 posts
Refiner 34 posts
lindyhopper 22 posts
Popular Days
Jul 1 2004
77 posts
Jun 29 2004
67 posts
Jun 30 2004
65 posts
Jul 2 2004
31 posts
Popular Posts
George Aar
Why I personally reject the Bible is simply because it's the easiest case to make. Rather than spend endless hours trying to develop a plausible spin to explain why an all-knowing, all-powerful, omni
Raf
The last post on this thread was eleven years ago. Suffice it to say, MY position has changed since then.
waysider
Not only have we changed in those 11 years, the internet, in general, has changed. Social media has changed. On-line behaviors have changed. And, best of all, TWI has changed. It's shriveled up and be
TheEvan
CKnapp said "Zix, did I wake up this morning in the former Soviet Union?
Zix, I have the right guaranteed by the Contstitution of The United States regarding freedom of speech! I have the absolute right to express my "bigotry", if that's what you want to call it, just as much as you have the right to speak defensively of the bible."
Um, your right to comment wasn't questioned. The content was commented on. Just like I will: What you said was boorish and in poor taste.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
To whichever moderator finally deleted that post, thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
For you dictionary.com fans.....
-->
big·ot·ry -
The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.
The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.
The practice or tenets of a bigot.
the intolerance and prejudice of a bigot.
------------------------------------------------
Yes, thank you for deleting that post.
-->
seems as though there IS some bigotry going on here.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I think the bull**** comment would have better been left unsaid, but what I really want to address is something Raf said several days ago.
That’s not a fair interpretation of what Refiner wrote. He explained his conclusion that the OT God is not worthy of worship. Then he said, “This logically, in my mind, [emphasis mine] extended over to an unwillingness to accept Jesus…” In no way does that suggest that it is illogical for someone who thinks that the OT God is worthy of worship to accept Christ. In other words, Refiner did not suggest that your acceptance of Christ is illogical.If someone thinks that the OT God is not worthy of worship, then it would be illogical for that person to accept Christ, because that acceptance would entail worshipping that God.
If someone thinks that the OT God is worthy of worship, then it would not be illogical for that person to accept Christ, but neither would it necessarily be logical. Jews think that the OT God is worthy of worship but do not accept Jesus as Christ.
Evan may not appreciate my endorsement, but he exhibits what I have called, in Plotinus’ words, a “reasonable faith.” By that, I don’t mean one that can be supported by logic, but rather, one that is not refuted by logic. Why? The main reason is that it is not based on logic, particularly not on trying to draw logical conclusions from a supposedly infallible, “magical self-interpreting Bible.” It’s a bit of a paradox that what makes such faith “reasonable” is that it is not based on reason. If it were, it wouldn't be faith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Long Gone,
Thanks for posting that. I see what you're saying. I disagree, but explaining why would require the extension of an argument I'm no longer interested in having. I'll leave it this way: I appreciate your point, but stand by my comment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Long Gone wrote,
"Evan may not appreciate my endorsement, but he exhibits what I have called, in Plotinus' words, a 'reasonable faith.' By that, I don't mean one that can be supported by logic, but rather, one that is not refuted by logic. Why? The main reason is that it is not based on logic, particularly not on trying to draw logical conclusions from a supposedly infallible, 'magical self-interpreting Bible.' It's a bit of a paradox that what makes such faith 'reasonable' is that it is not based on reason. If it were, it wouldn't be faith."
*****
Long Gone,
Care to try demonstrating that faith, if it is informed by biblical exegesis and hermeneutics -- under the presupposed authority, inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture -- is subject to logical refutation?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Cynic... what language was that?
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CKnapp3
Evan, I said NOTHING that was worthty of being call boorish. If I did then prove it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CKnapp3
Zix, just what do you find highly offensive???? I have said nothing to give you reason to make that statement. Please refer to the statement in question, otherwise consider yourself one who fabricates false charges against me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
So...rather than continuing the name calling and arguing about users...
What reason should there be for me to believe in gods, Jesus, or the bible? There is nothing compelling about any of those to me, so I don't see why I should believe in it. Since it is a duty of Christians to try to convert people, what reason would you all that are Christians give to others who you try to convert?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Cynic,
It is not my purpose to refute anyone’s faith.
By “supposedly infallible,” I did not mean a presumption of infallibility as an axiom, which your challenge presumes. Let’s just leave it there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Long Gone,
I didn't think you would care to try.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Cute, Chuck. Real cute.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CKnapp3
Well Zix, you did call me a bigot without a just cause.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Cynic,
Curious.
I don't know what you were trying to get at,but maybe we should break this down so all the kids can play.
Starting with LongGone (great post by the way)
(Bold added by me)
Now looking at your post and cutting out the fluff...
(the reason I say fluff is that regardless of the lengths people go thru to explain or the science and knowledge used to interperet the Bible and the reasoning and logic that it may take to do so, it is still under the presupposition of its authority, being inspired by God and therefore inerrantly perfect.....which is in and of itself FAITH) .....
If we refer back to LongGone's post we see that he said this 'reasonable faith' is "not refuted by logic". So then we should assume his answer to your challenge would be...
because he does not think it is infact subject to refutation.Then your next post also confuses me....
...as if he could try but it would be futile and thus proving some point you were making?
It is all a little strange to me. Care to clarify?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Cynic,
What I don’t care to do is to counter your attempts to entrap me with distortions. If one accepts certain presumptions as axioms, then any conclusions that logically arise from those axioms are as sound as the axioms themselves. I know that and have never suggested otherwise.
I did not represent the notion of “a supposedly infallible ‘magical self-interpreting Bible’” to be an axiom. I think you know that, but you have suggested otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Lindy,
Long Gone's post might have been sloppily worded (which would be quite uncharacteristic for Long Gone), but, as it is written, his post implies that if faith is informed by attempts "to draw logical conclusions" from the Bible under an assumption of its infallibility (I prefer the word inerrancy), faith enters a realm where it is refuted by logic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Cynic,
I thought you were intentionally distorting my meaning. Your reply to Lindy leads me to believe that it was a simple misunderstanding. I was lax in my wording because I was merely trying to convey the gist of what Evan has said in other places. I wasn't attempting to state something on which to base an argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Say three "Defeat Hillarys" and swill two Budweisers, my son.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I guess I was sort of ignoring the half of a sentence that didn't quite fit in that paragraph, while you were focusing on it.
Been guilty of that myself at times.
OK, we can all play nice again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
In my last post on this thread, I said Chuck's advice to leave this site & go to Raf's was a good idea. I haven't been here for a while & was unaware of the extent of the crossfire going on here concerning the quality of gs.
I just wanted to say that I was posting my remarks about what was happening on this thread at the time I posted. I can see where my remarks could easily have been taken as another volley in the war of dissent concerning gs.
That's not what I meant & I apologize to anyone who took it that way & to Paw.
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't know where to post this, but this seems as good a place as any (I've chosen two threads: mods, please forgive the cross-posting).
I set up the LES message board as a place Christians can go to with the presumption that the other posters are Christian and/or expressing Christian principles. It was never intended to be an "either/or" proposition. I do not ask or expect anyone to leave Greasespot in order to come to the LES board. Individual decisions to do one or the other are just that, individual decisions.
My individual decision is to be active on both boards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
This thread has been a fantastic read. I was especially impressed with the dialouge when it stayed on topic but was equally interested when it got off topic.
In line with the topic of the thread, my take is this: God is the same God in both the NT and the OT (forget obout the Gnostic stuff). In the OT, God needed to protect that Red Thread; you should have gotten that from a near dated post on the "Red Thread".
Oh, I realize this forum thread is over 11 years old but what an eye opener to the knowledge of folks who posted on it, some of whom are still posting to this day. That's what I am doing, going through the Doctrinal Forum, starting from the oldest. I have the highest respect for so many of you - that's why I exhorted so many of you to adjust the GSC mission statement towards the docrinal arena.
Hey, some of you such as WordWolf and Raf, after reading through the old posts, I have an even greater respect.
Regarding this thread, it was incorrect, IMHO, to resort to name calling and getting so far off topic by side bars attacking each other even though there were periodic posts to get back on topic that were disregarded.
I know this thread is 11 years old but a non-XTWI poster was provided more grace than I - maybe because I offended but if you got the time to read the extensive thread, you will see that the adversarial poster was provided more grace than I, maybe cause you were all younger in those days and more acceptable of critisism or just plain more tolerant. Just a few examples of things I was chastised for: shortening a posters handle (pretty much the norm then), getting off thread theme (in this thread, that was the norm), attacking a poster (let me count the ways). The posts went to verboten stuff like politics, attacking other religions (JW) and racism/bigotry.
Well, all in all for you who were around then, if you revisit that forum thread, it will be a trip down memory lane and you will see how much you changed and stayed the same.
So, before any of you dis me again, you had best read your history.
God Bless and Love to you all, this is a fantastic site for learning.
MRAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The last post on this thread was eleven years ago.
Suffice it to say, MY position has changed since then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.