“Whosoever”

Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
567
Likes
387
#21
Well... you don't seem to understand the words.

char·la·tan

/ˈSHärlədən,ˈSHärlətn/

noun

  1. a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill; a fraud.
I do know what the word means :rolleyes: , my post wasn't in response to that particular remark about the guy.

You used it as an opportunity for shameless self-promotion. Whether any of it is true is up to the reader.
Self-promotion of what? I just pointed out a hypocritical statement that is in major dissonance with the Christian behavior around here, that's all. :)
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
8,152
Likes
12,057
#22
I just pointed out a hypocritical statement that is in major dissonance with the Christian behavior around here, that's all. :)
A philosophical question for you then - IF faith in Jesus is the only way to restored relationship with the Father, does it show more love to take a firm (but polite) stance on that truth or to compromise and dilute it in favour of “getting along” with people?
 





Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
315
Likes
631
#23
I do know what the word means :rolleyes: , my post wasn't in response to that particular remark about the guy.



Self-promotion of what? I just pointed out a hypocritical statement that is in major dissonance with the Christian behavior around here, that's all. :)
And I pointed out why said perception of hypocrisy was incorrect. :)
 





Last edited:
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
567
Likes
387
#24
Your question would be more relevant on another thread but anyway:

A philosophical question for you then - IF faith in Jesus is the only way to restored relationship with the Father, does it show more love to take a firm (but polite) stance on that truth or to compromise and dilute it in favour of “getting along” with people?
In the ethical sense of the consideration of one's values versus the well-being of a varied community? in a very lot of kinds of situations it's more than inappropriate and often dangerous.

The tone and message of your question however is rather doctrinal, seeing how you do not have things set in place in your faith to determine what is crossing the line. Your faith is not one that takes into consideration related faiths, rather rejecting them not on the basis of their commonalities but rather than their differences. This is a major difference between Christianity and Islam, (as per relevance). We accept you as fellow believers (Ahl al-Kitab) and do not have any necessity to convert you at all (even in spite that many of us and people in general see you as strident idol worshipers), we understand the limits of proselytizing which we can determine from the religion itself. As I said, your faith does not have this kind of built in protection, which is one of many massive theological flaws because it makes your (interpretation of, through whatever denomination you follow or are inspired by) God very small and makes you too readily hostile and lacking in understanding of things that are not yourself. And alongside this, unlike you, intellectual discussion about such theological areas is highly stressed over the kind of emotional tantrums that Christianity is well known and easily demonstrative of. The sad part is that Jesus himself was not anything like most of you Christians.

Aside from all of that, your post itself is taking various assumptions (all of which depend on the idea that you actually are correct about the things you claim to believe) which are fine and dandy by themselves until it gets to the very point of which I alluded to in my first sentence, which is in regards to 'getting along'. If you're not able to 'get along' in spite of even diametrically opposed belief systems (which is not actually the case here, moreso one exclusivist faith against a faith that is far more wise towards these issues), there should always be some part of somebody that is still willing to make things right and learn from mistakes, and even sometimes gain admiration, even if one doesn't choose a new path as a result.

And I pointed out why said perception of hypocrisy was incorrect. :)
Not really, I know that there is a very wide range of doctrines and interpretations of Christianity, the list is far too extensive. However the extensiveness of that list does bring into question the validity of Protestantism's sects. When it comes to 'false prophets', 'disingenuously, 'corruptions and distortions' and 'whether or not what is being taught is biblical', the issue around each of these points is almost as extensive as the aforementioned.
My post which you quoted, if you didn't notice, referred also to the intersection between religious dialogue and the errors, which Dalit unintentionally demonstrated very well, being when a reflex such as 'they are not real [group]' is only applied to the group speaking but at the same time having the group deny that excuse on the part of other groups that they hold in contempt. It's very much a lesson in the fact that the world is bigger than you. Along with this there is this very plain and open misrepresentation of other group's beliefs in this place and I do find that the above point is infact one of these methods Christians use to sow discord, yet refuse to accept the same thing can in fact be applied to them.

Also, on the very last point of your post (about what is and isn't 'biblical'), it is very much a topic up for debate. Many of you are sola scriptura but you clearly don't follow all of your Bible in the first place, nor regard all of it's messages as primary. I already understand the apologetic reasons for this and I'm not here to judge you but the gradient between what is and isn't Biblical, as well as the question of whether *you* follow what is Biblical, or are merely inspired by aspects of it, is something very ambiguous.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
8,152
Likes
12,057
#25
Your question would be more relevant on another thread but anyway:



In the ethical sense of the consideration of one's values versus the well-being of a varied community? in a very lot of kinds of situations it's more than inappropriate and often dangerous.

The tone and message of your question however is rather doctrinal, seeing how you do not have things set in place in your faith to determine what is crossing the line. Your faith is not one that takes into consideration related faiths, rather rejecting them not on the basis of their commonalities but rather than their differences. This is a major difference between Christianity and Islam, (as per relevance). We accept you as fellow believers (Ahl al-Kitab) and do not have any necessity to convert you at all (even in spite that many of us and people in general see you as strident idol worshipers), we understand the limits of proselytizing which we can determine from the religion itself. As I said, your faith does not have this kind of built in protection, which is one of many massive theological flaws because it makes your (interpretation of, through whatever denomination you follow or are inspired by) God very small and makes you too readily hostile and lacking in understanding of things that are not yourself. And alongside this, unlike you, intellectual discussion about such theological areas is highly stressed over the kind of emotional tantrums that Christianity is well known and easily demonstrative of. The sad part is that Jesus himself was not anything like most of you Christians.

Aside from all of that, your post itself is taking various assumptions (all of which depend on the idea that you actually are correct about the things you claim to believe) which are fine and dandy by themselves until it gets to the very point of which I alluded to in my first sentence, which is in regards to 'getting along'. If you're not able to 'get along' in spite of even diametrically opposed belief systems (which is not actually the case here, moreso one exclusivist faith against a faith that is far more wise towards these issues), there should always be some part of somebody that is still willing to make things right and learn from mistakes, and even sometimes gain admiration, even if one doesn't choose a new path as a result.



Not really, I know that there is a very wide range of doctrines and interpretations of Christianity, the list is far too extensive. However the extensiveness of that list does bring into question the validity of Protestantism's sects. When it comes to 'false prophets', 'disingenuously, 'corruptions and distortions' and 'whether or not what is being taught is biblical', the issue around each of these points is almost as extensive as the aforementioned.
My post which you quoted, if you didn't notice, referred also to the intersection between religious dialogue and the errors, which Dalit unintentionally demonstrated very well, being when a reflex such as 'they are not real [group]' is only applied to the group speaking but at the same time having the group deny that excuse on the part of other groups that they hold in contempt. It's very much a lesson in the fact that the world is bigger than you. Along with this there is this very plain and open misrepresentation of other group's beliefs in this place and I do find that the above point is infact one of these methods Christians use to sow discord, yet refuse to accept the same thing can in fact be applied to them.

Also, on the very last point of your post (about what is and isn't 'biblical'), it is very much a topic up for debate. Many of you are sola scriptura but you clearly don't follow all of your Bible in the first place, nor regard all of it's messages as primary. I already understand the apologetic reasons for this and I'm not here to judge you but the gradient between what is and isn't Biblical, as well as the question of whether *you* follow what is Biblical, or are merely inspired by aspects of it, is something very ambiguous.
But @Infinityloop - this is not “niche, denominational Christianity”, simply true Christianity -

John 10:9-11 King James Version (KJV)

9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. 10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

https://www.vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/“i-am-the-door”.6294/#post-233520
 





Last edited:
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
567
Likes
387
#26
But @Infinityloop - this is not “niche, denominational Christianity”, simply true Christianity
Thing is, there has never been set a standard to what is and isn't. If you're going for an 'anity' or 'ism' then you are inevitably ending up with some school of thought and the consequent irony of rejecting "the evil church", whichever one that may be, does not amount in itself to a 'true Christianity'. On top of that, every group and rebel rebelling against another group has thought themselves to be restoring the 'true Christianity' in some form of another. Lone Bible readers are really not an exception, nor is your's or most 'Christians' ideas about Christianity entirely Bible-alone informed or self-directed - neither do either guarantee a form of 'true Christianity'.
And in this thread my criticism is not about that itself, as I've explained. It is when this void of being able to suspend one's judgement to understand things that are often completely alien and unfamiliar, which has been the opposite of my experience from the Christians here so far, and in regards to the hypocrisy around this 'true [group]' part of this discussion.
Too many of these bad practices piled over each other does not make for a good atmosphere nor leaves any room for discussion.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
8,152
Likes
12,057
#27
Thing is, there has never been set a standard to what is and isn't. If you're going for an 'anity' or 'ism' then you are inevitably ending up with some school of thought and the consequent irony of rejecting "the evil church", whichever one that may be, does not amount in itself to a 'true Christianity'. On top of that, every group and rebel rebelling against another group has thought themselves to be restoring the 'true Christianity' in some form of another. Lone Bible readers are really not an exception, nor is your's or most 'Christians' ideas about Christianity entirely Bible-alone informed or self-directed - neither do either guarantee a form of 'true Christianity'.
And in this thread my criticism is not about that itself, as I've explained. It is when this void of being able to suspend one's judgement to understand things that are often completely alien and unfamiliar, which has been the opposite of my experience from the Christians here so far, in regards to the hypocrisy around this 'true [group]' part of this discussion.
Too many of these bad practices piled over each other does not make for a good atmosphere nor leaves any room for discussion.
Romans 9

30What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33As it is written:

“Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
 





Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
315
Likes
631
#28
Not really, I know that there is a very wide range of doctrines and interpretations of Christianity, the list is far too extensive. However the extensiveness of that list does bring into question the validity of Protestantism's sects. When it comes to 'false prophets', 'disingenuously, 'corruptions and distortions' and 'whether or not what is being taught is biblical', the issue around each of these points is almost as extensive as the aforementioned.
I beg to differ. I honestly do not care for labels or sects or cliques within Christianity beyond the thought that they only serve to cause more confusion where there should be none. I weigh up the "accuracy" of a belief against the most basic standard.

John 14:6
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

And in summation of the law:

Matthew 22:37-40
"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

By this simplification, ANYONE, regardless of background or education or literacy has access to salvation. There's no need for hundreds of hours poured into study and scrutiny -I say this not because I think seeking knowledge is bad. On the contrary, I think those who are able to should do so. But those two scriptures make God's grace accessible for everybody, including those without the resources or the capacity to eviscerate the truths hidden within deeper study. And I believe that if it is truth, then that will be the ultimate conclusion for those of us who are looking deeper anyway.

My post which you quoted, if you didn't notice, referred also to the intersection between religious dialogue and the errors, which Dalit unintentionally demonstrated very well, being when a reflex such as 'they are not real [group]' is only applied to the group speaking but at the same time having the group deny that excuse on the part of other groups that they hold in contempt. It's very much a lesson in the fact that the world is bigger than you. Along with this there is this very plain and open misrepresentation of other group's beliefs in this place and I do find that the above point is infact one of these methods Christians use to sow discord, yet refuse to accept the same thing can in fact be applied to them.
You see, the problem with this is that you make broad statements not just about the Christians on this forum, but Christians in general (unless I assume, they bend to your way of thinking). Your extrapolation was incorrect because the pastor in question is one who for decades has been preaching what is known as "prosperity gospel" -basically selling the gospel for a buck. Or a couple million. Many people had donated their last in hopes of receiving some kind of breakthrough while preachers like Hinn purchased mansions and sports cars and private jets. This is in direct contradiction with how Christians are supposed to live their lives. It's not a mere case of trying to invalidate one particular line of preaching because it makes Christians look bad. This is a very serious issue that goes beyond doctrinal pride. It has literally killed the faith of many people and made a farce of God's grace while making a god of materialism. Whether Hinn really repented or not is not my place to comment on but I believe that was the point of her post. I only responded to you because you seemed all too quick to take a shot at Christianity despite not being familiar with Benny Hinn or why @Dalit said what she did.

Also, on the very last point of your post (about what is and isn't 'biblical'), it is very much a topic up for debate. Many of you are sola scriptura but you clearly don't follow all of your Bible in the first place, nor regard all of it's messages as primary. I already understand the apologetic reasons for this and I'm not here to judge you but the gradient between what is and isn't Biblical, as well as the question of whether *you* follow what is Biblical, or are merely inspired by aspects of it, is something very ambiguous.
With all due respect @Infinityloop, you don't really know anyone here outside of this forum do you? You have no idea how we live our lives and the minimal contact you've had with a handful of Christians on this forum so far is in no way a strong enough case to make the sort of statements you just did.
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
567
Likes
387
#29
I beg to differ. I honestly do not care for labels or sects or cliques within Christianity beyond the thought that they only serve to cause more confusion where there should be none. I weigh up the "accuracy" of a belief against the most basic standard.
Remember that you said:
I'm pretty sure Dalit was referring to false prophets and people using the label of Christianity disingenuously. Its not that there are versions that should and should not be seen but rather that there are purposeful and sometimes accidental corruptions and distortions that many people will take to be the truth without studying the bible to determine whether or not what is being taught is biblical.

John 14:6
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

And in summation of the law:

Matthew 22:37-40
"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
I don't think you appeciate the ambiguity of Jesus' sayings. You quote this assuming that everyone reading will have vaguely the same interpretation of his words, which flies in the face of what we've already spoken about here.

(also, side note to remember that Jesus, or the original writer of Matthew itself, is referencing Deuteronomy 6:4-6, about YHWH)

By this simplification, ANYONE, regardless of background or education or literacy has access to salvation. There's no need for hundreds of hours poured into study and scrutiny -I say this not because I think seeking knowledge is bad. On the contrary, I think those who are able to should do so. But those two scriptures make God's grace accessible for everybody, including those without the resources or the capacity to eviscerate the truths hidden within deeper study. And I believe that if it is truth, then that will be the ultimate conclusion for those of us who are looking deeper anyway.
This itself is very much a Protestant view of things. I don't agree with you (and when it comes to even the NT itself, it's quite an oversimplification of even that) but it's your view, and I respect it for that. Just don't let this view get in the way of understanding other religions, whether it be the other two Abrahamic religions or other completely separate traditions.

You see, the problem with this is that you make broad statements not just about the Christians on this forum, but Christians in general (unless I assume, they bend to your way of thinking). Your extrapolation was incorrect because the pastor in question is one who for decades has been preaching what is known as "prosperity gospel" -basically selling the gospel for a buck. Or a couple million. Many people had donated their last in hopes of receiving some kind of breakthrough while preachers like Hinn purchased mansions and sports cars and private jets. This is in direct contradiction with how Christians are supposed to live their lives. It's not a mere case of trying to invalidate one particular line of preaching because it makes Christians look bad. This is a very serious issue that goes beyond doctrinal pride. It has literally killed the faith of many people and made a farce of God's grace while making a god of materialism. Whether Hinn really repented or not is not my place to comment on but I believe that was the point of her post. I only responded to you because you seemed all too quick to take a shot at Christianity despite not being familiar with Benny Hinn or why Dalit said what she did.
Yes, I understand your frustration towards that. That kind of behavior is very abhorred by our religion.
However, you are still not keeping consistent here though with what you have been saying about what constitutes 'true' and 'false' which is actually very hard to determine if you know your Biblical history, when you apply your contentions to other things within more widely accepted forms of Christianity.

With all due respect @Infinityloop, you don't really know anyone here outside of this forum do you?
I mention sola scriptura there because several of you have either directly or indirectly implied this, and it in itself is one of the most iconic responses to the Church in Christianity.
As for the rest of your comment, no I wasn't born yesterday.
 





Last edited:

Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
315
Likes
631
#30
Remember that you said:
I'm pretty sure Dalit was referring to false prophets and people using the label of Christianity disingenuously. Its not that there are versions that should and should not be seen but rather that there are purposeful and sometimes accidental corruptions and distortions that many people will take to be the truth without studying the bible to determine whether or not what is being taught is biblical.
Yes I did. And I stick by it. Whether sects are built on incorrect doctrine or purposeful twisting of scripture, the process for rooting out whether they are true or not is the same. I don't see what you mean by bringing it up?

I don't think you appeciate the ambiguity of Jesus' sayings. You quote this assuming that everyone reading will have vaguely the same interpretation of his words, which flies in the face of what we've already spoken about here.

(also, side note to remember that Jesus, or the original writer of Matthew itself, is referencing Deuteronomy 6:4-6, about YHWH)
So can you explain the ambiguity? If the words of Jesus are wrapped in these ambiguities and symbolism and double meanings . . . Then how do you expect someone who is illiterate for example to understand it? What hope is there for people who do not have the intellectual capacity to try and decipher it? Wouldn't that make seeking God an exclusive religion? How would you explain that to the average uneducated person on the street in a way they could understand? Are you sure you're not overcomplicating what boils down to a simple message that should, if God is fair and truly just, be available to everyone and not just those with enough time and resources on their hands to study His word in detail?


This itself is very much a Protestant view of things. I don't agree with you (and when it comes to even the NT itself, it's quite an oversimplification of even that) but it's your view, and I respect it for that. Just don't let this view get in the way of understanding other religions, whether it be the other two Abrahamic religions or other completely separate traditions.
I'll assume you don't mean to sound condescending. I have my beliefs and reasons for believing what I do, and when asked I'll share my opinion. What I won't do is either allow my chosen path to inflate my ego and cause arrogance in my interactions with other people, or force my views on anyone, regardless of how content and sure I am in them. I don't think I've been disrespectful to anyone here or irl because of their religion and I don't intend on starting.

Yes, I understand your frustration towards that. That kind of behavior is very abhorred by our religion.
However, you are still not keeping consistent here though with what you have been saying about what constitutes 'true' and 'false' which is actually very hard to determine if you know your Biblical history, when you apply your contentions to other things within more widely accepted forms of Christianity.
How am I being inconsistent? I can say that prosperity gospel is incorrect because they contradict Jesus's teachings on money and accumulating material wealth, never mind that it's a gospel that essentially plays God by tying His blessings to how much someone is able to give. A great emphasis is put on clothing and feeding the disenfranchised. That's the sort of work that should be taught and the people I mentioned earlier who are able to dig into scripture for themselves can see that, there's no confusion on materialism. I'm currently studying my biblical history and while I'm by no means an expert and while there are still many areas in which I'm still researching, I have to say that I find the popular narrative of the bible being some shoddily put-together and self-contradictory mess quite amusing.

I mention sola scriptura there because several of you have either directly or indirectly implied this.
As for the rest of your comment, no I wasn't born yesterday.
I note the "several of you" as opposed to "all". I'm sorry if you've been disappointed by the general Christian behaviour on this forum but that doesn't grant you permission to comment on the spiritual lives of Christians in general.
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
567
Likes
387
#31
Yes I did. And I stick by it. Whether sects are built on incorrect doctrine or purposeful twisting of scripture, the process for rooting out whether they are true or not is the same. I don't see what you mean by bringing it up?
Because even attempting to take a position on this kind of things is built up on a lot of assumptions, quite frankly, from naivety. And alongside this there is the two sided grave of: Doctrine and Canonization. Both of which, aside from vast differences between schools of thought within Christianity, popularized as they are - do not make this a subject for fair evaluation, especially that the expense of others.

So can you explain the ambiguity?
When reading a passage you bring a set of assumptions on various levels. Some statements are more obvious in meaning than others and often (in the case of Christianity) meanings are deliberately reversed. You have to realize that the set of assumptions you bring to the text, even though you think they are self-evident, may very well not be.

I have my beliefs and reasons for believing what I do, and when asked I'll share my opinion. What I won't do is either allow my chosen path to inflate my ego and cause arrogance in my interactions with other people, or force my views on anyone, regardless of how content and sure I am in them. I don't think I've been disrespectful to anyone here or irl because of their religion and I don't intend on starting.
This comment here did make me happy to read and I very strongly share your sentiment. If more people acted like that, the world would be a better place.

How am I being inconsistent? I can say that prosperity gospel is incorrect because they contradict Jesus's teachings on money and accumulating material wealth, never mind that it's a gospel that essentially plays God by tying His blessings to how much someone is able to give. A great emphasis is put on clothing and feeding the disenfranchised. That's the sort of work that should be taught and the people I mentioned earlier who are able to dig into scripture for themselves can see that, there's no confusion on materialism. I'm currently studying my biblical history and while I'm by no means an expert and while there are still many areas in which I'm still researching, I have to say that I find the popular narrative of the bible being some shoddily put-together and self-contradictory mess quite amusing.
Because it's not only about what you are condemning but what you are inevitably not condemning.

I note the "several of you" as opposed to "all". I'm sorry if you've been disappointed by the general Christian behaviour on this forum but that doesn't grant you permission to comment on the spiritual lives of Christians in general.
I really don't think this forum contains the first self-professing Christians, nor the first humans to exist. Christian behavior is what it is, but when a person actually walks and talks by the wisdom of Jesus I am impressed. When I encounter hostility, bigotry, slander, self-righteousness and the whole nine yards to anti-discussion, I will in fact speak up.
Comes down to whether you are actually an ethical person or not an ethical person.

For the tone of your response to that quote, what exactly does this have to the initial point of question (from the initial post 24):
Also, on the very last point of your post (about what is and isn't 'biblical'), it is very much a topic up for debate. Many of you are sola scriptura but you clearly don't follow all of your Bible in the first place, nor regard all of it's messages as primary. I already understand the apologetic reasons for this and I'm not here to judge you but the gradient between what is and isn't Biblical, as well as the question of whether *you* follow what is Biblical, or are merely inspired by aspects of it, is something very ambiguous.
?
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
8,152
Likes
12,057
#32
...Christian behavior is what it is, when a person walks and talks by the wisdom of Jesus I am impressed.
Matthew 10?

Christ Brings Division

34“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ 37He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,810
Likes
6,408
#35
At this point you would have to do a lot of work to convince me that replying to you at all is worth my time. You certainly have the nerve after all this time.
You have a lot of time to make sweeping statements, therefore you have a lot of time to back up your claims.....

You said this:
...you clearly don't follow all of your Bible in the first place
Evidence please.
...nor regard all of it's messages as primary.
Evidence please.

P.S. Of course I have nerve. Christians need to be strong in their faith to spend time on this particular forum.
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
567
Likes
387
#36
You have a lot of time to make sweeping statements, therefore you have a lot of time to back up your claims.....
Yes, I've already tired of chasing you around asking for you to back up your statements and intellectually justify your prejudices. You're kidding yourself if you expect me to do double-time for somebody like you.

You asking me this now is squaring a circle, your trial period has expired and you did not succeed in motivating me to invest further time in your posts or replies. You can reverse what you've done but at the moment, you've practically soiled any chance of further discussion. It just happens that you choose this thread to be an even more massive hypocrite than you've already been so far.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,810
Likes
6,408
#37
Yes, I've already tired of chasing you around asking for you to back up your statements and intellectually justify your prejudices. Your kidding yourself if you expect me to do double-time for somebody like you.
I translated your response for you.

1568334656996.png
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
567
Likes
387
#38
Of course I have nerve. Christians need to be strong in their faith to spend time on this particular forum.
Yes, the nerve to ask me what you do everything to avoid doing when I engage you to do so. I don't consider you a serious or even a religious poster in all honesty, you're anything but either. You deny conversation, there is not much room that you have created for us to discuss anything. As I said, you've failed your trial period and do not provide me any such reason to reply to anything you say. You could have provided intellectual conversation days ago and we would not be having this stall.

And I honestly do not care if you misread, misquote and give an irrelevant reply to this post as well, like any other time you've done so to me.
 





Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
315
Likes
631
#39
Because even attempting to take a position on this kind of things is built up on a lot of assumptions, quite frankly, from naivety. And alongside this there is the two sided grave of: Doctrine and Canonization. Both of which, aside from vast differences between schools of thought within Christianity, popularized as they are - do not make this a subject for fair evaluation, especially that the expense of others.
Honestly, I'm just sticking to reading God's word and trying to grow in my relationship with Him. That's where my focus is. Study into the different interpretations or schools of thought form part of things I look into, yes, but they don't undermine my faith or call it into question. Again to believe that there is all this red tape around a relationship with the Creator is to pretty much exclude those who cannot surpass the initial "naivety". What hope does the average Joe have in God outside of the assumptions of the text head on?

When reading a passage you bring a set of assumptions on various levels. Some statements are more obvious in meaning than others and often (in the case of Christianity) meanings are deliberately reversed. You have to realize that the set of assumptions you bring to the text, even though you think they are self-evident, may very well not be.
Outside of the bias of your own religious leanings, I have to ask why you say the meanings in Christianity are reversed? Can you offer me something concrete? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely curious. And you still haven't answered my question as to why God would layer such meaning thus making it incomprehensible to many people. Why would he choose to implement a plan of salvation that requires even some amount of skill to decipher when the very people who need it most are most unlikely to possess it?

Because it's not only about what you are condemning but what you are inevitably not condemning.
What I was condemning in this scenario was a doctrine that not only moved directly against the very words of Jesus on this issue but that caused many to reject faith in God.

I really don't think this forum contains the first self-professing Christians, nor the first humans to exist. Christian behavior is what it is, but when a person actually walks and talks by the wisdom of Jesus I am impressed. When I encounter hostility, bigotry, slander, self-righteousness and the whole nine yards to anti-discussion, I will in fact speak up.
Comes down to whether you are actually an ethical person or not an ethical person.
See but does this forum contain all self-professing Christians. I'll put it to you this way - the majority of Muslims I've come into contact with have not been the nicest people. I have a family member married into a Muslim family so I don't have to make up experiences on this front. In fact, most have been exceptionally arrogant and bigoted in their own right and did not follow the conditions of their own faith. So much so in fact, that there is a word for them in my parents' native language that denotes a "watered-down" muslim. I haven't let that affect my opinion of Islam or its followers in future interactions though because I choose to recognise a tree by it's fruit, as Jesus said (as opposed to a tree claiming to be an apple tree but flowering oranges for example). I'm not saying what I'm saying to be cheeky or to "even the playing field". I'm just pointing out that while I'm fully aware of the common way in which many Christians live counter to their own doctrine, this is hardly an exclusive thing. I hate hypocrisy especially when it comes to this topic because that was one of the things that put a huge stumbling block in my faith. It took God's grace for me to realise that I should not let the movements of men prevent me from pursuing Him. There is nothing about Christian hypocrisy and poor representation you can tell me that I don't know or haven't personally experienced. That's why my relationship is with God and not a sect or church or label.

For the tone of your response to that quote, what exactly does this have to the initial point of question (from the initial post 24):
Also, on the very last point of your post (about what is and isn't 'biblical'), it is very much a topic up for debate. Many of you are sola scriptura but you clearly don't follow all of your Bible in the first place, nor regard all of it's messages as primary. I already understand the apologetic reasons for this and I'm not here to judge you but the gradient between what is and isn't Biblical, as well as the question of whether *you* follow what is Biblical, or are merely inspired by aspects of it, is something very ambiguous.
?
Many of you are sola scriptura but you clearly don't follow all of your Bible in the first place, nor regard all of it's messages as primary.
^^^ This is what my response had to do with it. Yours was based on the assumption that you know many of us and how we choose to follow our bible.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,810
Likes
6,408
#40
Yes, the nerve to ask me what you do everything to avoid doing when I engage you to do so. I don't consider you a serious or even a religious poster in all honesty, you're anything but either. You deny conversation, there is not much room that you have created for us to discuss anything.

And I honestly do not care if you misread, misquote and give an irrelevant reply to this post as well, like any other time you've done so to me.
I asked you reasonable questions above. You made sweeping statements about Christians and then refused to defend what you said.

REPEAT : you said this:
Many of you are sola scriptura but you clearly don't follow all of your Bible in the first place, nor regard all of it's messages as primary.
Why are running away from defending your OWN claim? Is it really that hard for you to explain?
It is one single sentence. You have a multitude of words to offer when it suits you....

Why should any readers take what you type seriously if you are incapable of defending your own words when cornered?
As I said, you've failed your trial period and do not provide me any such reason to reply to anything you say. You could have provided intellectual conversation days ago and we would not be having this stall.
"Failed your trial period":
How long have has your username been on this forum again?
What gives you the idea that you have the right to declare who has failed and who has not?

Intellectual conversation does not automatically mean the person will agree with your position. From this latest entry it sounds like what you really want is the following scene.

1568335962458.png