Disobedience has consequences.

Davian · May 26, 2015

oi_antz said:
Because you are accusing Him of being at fault.

You are misrepresenting my position. Do you know what ignostic means?

LostMarbels · May 26, 2015

Davian said:
If you were to follow those rules that Jesus allegedly laid down or endorsed, it would seem like you are trying differentiate between a silvery thing with gills that swims in the water, and a fish.

That's an easy one. You do not know the difference.

oi_antz · May 26, 2015

LostMarbels said:
I wasn't questioning what we call Christianity as in the word "Christianity". Why don't you get that?

Christianity is religion by definition. You are wrong according to the definition of the word, to say it isn't. I do get what you mean, but you should respect others who are right to use language according to it's proper definition. Someone said already, you don't have the right to give words meanings other than what they officially have. You just need to use the established meaning of words to convey your message.

Davian · May 26, 2015

LostMarbels said:
Because bananas don't spiders if sideways. I am 100% as on topic, and make about as much sense as your last post.

That follows, as I was not able to make sense of oi_antz's post. Should I be angry at Darth Vader for how he treats the princess?

Davian · May 26, 2015

oi_antz said:
Others care though. Language only works because there is a general agreement about what words describe. If you do not agree, then you are causing communication to fail. You should care about that, otherwise I don't know man, why do you bother even talking to anyone.. I think it might just be best to concede error until you can get an answer to that question.

oi_antz · May 26, 2015

Davian said:
You are misrepresenting my position. Do you know what ignostic means?

I do, but I don't care because it isn't relevant. You just like to argue, but I don't. You can stay on topic and we will establish the truth, or you can get ridiculous like this and I will tell you to find someone else. I am not obligated to speak with you, it is only a courtesy that I am.

Davian · May 26, 2015

LostMarbels said:
That's an easy one. You do not know the difference.

I am not asserting that there is a difference.

LostMarbels · May 26, 2015

oi_antz said:
Christianity is religion by definition. You are wrong according to the definition of the word, to say it isn't. I do get what you mean, but you should respect others who are right to use language according to it's proper definition. Someone said already, you don't have the right to give words meanings other than what they officially have. You just need to use the established meaning of words to convey your message.

And right over the head....... What happened? I already addressed this. You quoted the post. I do not know why your on a tangent.

I'm going to say what I believe. Offensive or not. I will do my best to explain it, but if asked I'm going to put it out there.

Davian · May 26, 2015

oi_antz said:
I do, but I don't care because it isn't relevant.

It is completely relevant. My actual theological position is completely at odds to your misrepresentation of it.

You just like to argue, but I don't. You can stay on topic and we will establish the truth, or you can get ridiculous like this and I will tell you to find someone else. I am not obligated to speak with you, it is only a courtesy that I am.

This applies directly to the OP: why would I consider obeying a character in a book?

GrimKingGrim · May 26, 2015

Davian said:
You are misrepresenting my position. Do you know what ignostic means?

It's a position I wish I could take but I'm so darn fascinated with mythology.

Seriously, that Helios guy? What a guy.
And Ares, a bit incesty but he's also a pretty interesting guy.
And Zeus? My goodness that man went after anything with legs.
Amphitrite? Best runaway bride ever.
Eshu? Loki better move over.

These stories are just too amazing not to be caught up in.

oi_antz · May 26, 2015

Davian said:
It is completely relevant. My actual theological position is completely at odds to your misrepresentation of it.

Then do you think you are helping Him or hindering Him?

Davian said:
This applies directly to the OP: why would I consider obeying a character in a book?

I answered that. You should pay attention.

oi_antz · May 26, 2015

LostMarbels said:
And right over the head....... What happened? I already addressed this. You quoted the post. I do not know why your on a tangent.

I'm going to say what I believe. Offensive or not. I will do my best to explain it, but if asked I'm going to put it out there.

You are misusing the word "religion" and I do not approve of it. It is distracting. You should comply with the rules of the language you are using:

Keep reminding God's people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

Last time I tell you about this, I have said it enough, and you are plainly going against everyone because we are all telling you to use words correctly. Confusing people give meaning to words that the words don't have. Don't be like them, just tell the truth plainly!

Davian · May 26, 2015

oi_antz said:
Then do you think you are helping Him or hindering Him?

Ignosticism, or igtheism is a theological position. If followed to its logical end it concludes that the entire question about God's existence is a non-question and that taking a yes, no or even ambivalent position is absurd. It is based on an expectation of strong critical rational analysis of any proposition including the existence of God.

As with any topic, and especially in the realm of the supernatural and woo, the subject of any debate should be coherently defined. If one offers a clear definition of an entity, then in order to take a position whether it exists or not the definition of the entity must be one in which its existence can be falsified (there is a rational and logical method by which we can test the existence of the subject as it has been defined). Few theists ever offer a clear definition of God. The few who do offer a definition almost never offer one in which the existence of that God could be tested. The rare falsifiable definition offered regarding God's existence is easily falsified. And so as with any subject (such as the existence of almost all supernatural entities) debate about the existence of God is, for the far majority of such conversations, pointless.[1][2][3]

Ignosticism goes one step further than agnosticism; while agnosticism states that "you can't really know either way" regarding the existenceor non-existence of God, ignosticism posits that "you haven't even agreed on what you're discussing" (see Concepts of God). The term was coined by Sherwin Wine, founder of the Society for Humanistic Judaism.[4]" - wiki

Him who?

I answered that.

Not in a manner to which I can coherently respond, given my theological position.

You should pay attention.

Was that necessary? Perhaps we need to take a break, if this is getting too personal for you.

Davian · May 26, 2015

GrimKingGrim said:
It's a position I wish I could take but I'm so darn fascinated with mythology.

Seriously, that Helios guy? What a guy.
And Ares, a bit incesty but he's also a pretty interesting guy.
And Zeus? My goodness that man went after anything with legs.
Amphitrite? Best runaway bride ever.
Eshu? Loki better move over.

These stories are just too amazing not to be caught up in.

Ignosticism in no way interferes with my ability to temporarily suspend disbelief to enjoy a good story, movie, etc. about gods, aliens, Bigfoot, or the paranormal.

It is just a well-structured description of my response to the relgionist-type gods.

oi_antz · May 26, 2015

Davian said:
Ignosticism, or igtheism is a theological position. If followed to its logical end it concludes that the entire question about God's existence is a non-question and that taking a yes, no or even ambivalent position is absurd. It is based on an expectation of strong critical rational analysis of any proposition including the existence of God.

As with any topic, and especially in the realm of the supernatural and woo, the subject of any debate should be coherently defined. If one offers a clear definition of an entity, then in order to take a position whether it exists or not the definition of the entity must be one in which its existence can be falsified (there is a rational and logical method by which we can test the existence of the subject as it has been defined). Few theists ever offer a clear definition of God. The few who do offer a definition almost never offer one in which the existence of that God could be tested. The rare falsifiable definition offered regarding God's existence is easily falsified. And so as with any subject (such as the existence of almost all supernatural entities) debate about the existence of God is, for the far majority of such conversations, pointless.[1][2][3]

Ignosticism goes one step further than agnosticism; while agnosticism states that "you can't really know either way" regarding the existenceor non-existence of God, ignosticism posits that "you haven't even agreed on what you're discussing" (see Concepts of God). The term was coined by Sherwin Wine, founder of the Society for Humanistic Judaism.[4]" - wiki

Him who?

Jesus Christ, the Word of God who became flesh and dwelled with us for a while. The only begotten son of God, full of mercy and grace. He came into the world, but the world did not recognise Him (that's you at this time), but for as many as did receive Him, He gave the right to be called children of God. (paraphrased, by memory of description given in book of John).

Davian said:
Not in a manner to which I can coherently respond, given my theological position.

Then I consider you to be insufficiently qualified to discuss these topics, and to form and express opinions such as the ones you have, in response to the meme I shared. To do so is to pull the leg of those who you have approached under the guise of good faith to discuss these matters seriously.

Davian said:
Was that necessary? Perhaps we need to take a break, if this is getting too personal for you.

It is getting wearisome, but I have that unexplained patience for you that surprises me. If I was given to my normal desires, I would have insulted you and continued to ignore your engagements a few pages back. I am forced to wonder why.

Davian · May 26, 2015

oi_antz said:
Jesus Christ, the Word of God who became flesh and dwelled with us for a while. The only begotten son of God, full of mercy and grace. He came into the world, but the world did not recognise Him (that's you at this time), but for as many as did receive Him, He gave the right to be called children of God. (paraphrased, by memory of description given in book of John).

...in order to take a position whether it exists or not the definition of the entity must be one in which its existence can be falsified...

Then I consider you to be insufficiently qualified to discuss these topics, and to form and express opinions such as the ones you have, in response to the meme I shared. To do so is to pull the leg of those who you have approached under the guise of good faith to discuss these matters seriously.

You can only play that card if this were the Exploring Christianity forum. Put it back.

It is getting wearisome, but I have that unexplained patience for you that surprises me. If I was given to my normal desires, I would have insulted you and continued to ignore your engagements a few pages back. I am forced to wonder why.

It is disappointing that you did allow yourself to misrepresent my statements, and make those personal attacks, hence my suggestion of a break, before the mods step in. I am here because it is fun and interesting. I do realize that you may take all of this seriously.

LostMarbels · May 26, 2015

oi_antz said:
Others care though. Language only works because there is a general agreement about what words describe. If you do not agree, then you are causing communication to fail. You should care about that, otherwise I don't know man, why do you bother even talking to anyone.. I think it might just be best to concede error until you can get an answer to that question.

Lets discuss this.

The word Christianity is not in the bible. Which means we would have to go to Christian which is in the bible:

Χριστιανός
Christianos
khris-tee-an-os'
From G5547; a Christian, that is, follower of Christ: - Christian.

Lets look at this. The bible never defines "Christianity". It defines "followers of Christ" as Christian.

This is how Christianity is defined as a religion:
Definition
A wide range of beliefs and practices is found across the world among those who call themselves Christian. Denominations and sects disagree on a common definition of "Christianity". For example, Timothy Beal notes the disparity of beliefs among those who identify as Christians in the United States as follows:

Although all of them have their historical roots in Christian theology and tradition, and although most would identify themselves as Christian, many would not identify others within the larger category as Christian. Most Baptists and Fundamentalists, for example, would not acknowledge Mormonism or Christian Science as Christian. In fact, the nearly 77 percent of Americans who self-identify as Christian are a diverse pluribus of Christianities that are far from any collective unity.[16]

So, we have gone from followers of Christ, to a diverse pluribus of Christianities. Different beliefs, Different God, Different Jesus, all of which read a different bible, and all of them are called "Christianity" by the worlds view because they all have a Jesus in it.

That is the difference between the religion of Christianity, and being a Christian as defined by the bible, A "follower of Christ."

That is also why identify myself as a follower of Jesus.

And not a Christian, because I do not believe in Christianity, I believe in Christ.

oi_antz · May 26, 2015

Davian said:
...in order to take a position whether it exists or not the definition of the entity must be one in which its existence can be falsified...

You can only play that card if this were the Exploring Christianity forum. Put it back.

It is disappointing that you did allow yourself to misrepresent my statements, and make those personal attacks, hence my suggestion of a break, before the mods step in. I am here because it is fun and interesting. I do realize that you may take all of this seriously.

I do take it all seriously, and you should not expect otherwise. The card actually belongs on the table.

GrimKingGrim · May 26, 2015

LostMarbels said:
Lets discuss this.
View attachment 158923

The word Christianity is not in the bible. Which means we would have to go to Christian which is in the bible:

Χριστιανός
Christianos
khris-tee-an-os'
From G5547; a Christian, that is, follower of Christ: - Christian.

Lets look at this. The bible never defines "Christianity". It defines "followers of Christ" as Christian.

This is how Christianity is defined as a religion:
Definition
A wide range of beliefs and practices is found across the world among those who call themselves Christian. Denominations and sects disagree on a common definition of "Christianity". For example, Timothy Beal notes the disparity of beliefs among those who identify as Christians in the United States as follows:

Although all of them have their historical roots in Christian theology and tradition, and although most would identify themselves as Christian, many would not identify others within the larger category as Christian. Most Baptists and Fundamentalists, for example, would not acknowledge Mormonism or Christian Science as Christian. In fact, the nearly 77 percent of Americans who self-identify as Christian are a diverse pluribus of Christianities that are far from any collective unity.[16]

So, we have gone from followers of Christ, to a diverse pluribus of Christianities. Different beliefs, Different God, Different Jesus, all of which read a different bible, and all of them are called "Christianity" by the worlds view because they all have a Jesus in it.

That is the difference between the religion of Christianity, and being a Christian as defined by the bible, A "follower of Christ."

That is also why identify myself as a follower of Jesus.

View attachment 158924
View attachment 158925

And not a Christian, because I do not believe in Christianity, I believe in Christ.

... ... ... Christian is a general and modern definition of those who follow Christ and is part of one of the three trinity religions of Abraham that is centered on the doctrine of Jesus Christ, son of God.

Christ; Christian.

Jesus Christ; Christian.

It at the time wasn't mentioned in the bible because the testaments were written at very different times so at the time it wasn't really following Christ, it was simply another religion and it was based on the Jewish war god, Yahweh.

Some time later there came a man who claimed to be the son of god and was apparently well versed in these writings and authors then wrote wild tales about the man who claimed to be Christ. This man who claimed to be Christ had a large following and those followers are what would be identified now as Christians.

You are Christian. You don't adhere to the dogma, fine. But make no mistake you are in the definition of Christian.

... ... ... Back to your regularly scheduled argument.

oi_antz · May 26, 2015

LostMarbels said:
Lets discuss this.
View attachment 158923

The word Christianity is not in the bible. Which means we would have to go to Christian which is in the bible:

Χριστιανός
Christianos
khris-tee-an-os'
From G5547; a Christian, that is, follower of Christ: - Christian.

Lets look at this. The bible never defines "Christianity". It defines "followers of Christ" as Christian.

This is how Christianity is defined as a religion:
Definition
A wide range of beliefs and practices is found across the world among those who call themselves Christian. Denominations and sects disagree on a common definition of "Christianity". For example, Timothy Beal notes the disparity of beliefs among those who identify as Christians in the United States as follows:

Although all of them have their historical roots in Christian theology and tradition, and although most would identify themselves as Christian, many would not identify others within the larger category as Christian. Most Baptists and Fundamentalists, for example, would not acknowledge Mormonism or Christian Science as Christian. In fact, the nearly 77 percent of Americans who self-identify as Christian are a diverse pluribus of Christianities that are far from any collective unity.[16]

So, we have gone from followers of Christ, to a diverse pluribus of Christianities. Different beliefs, Different God, Different Jesus, all of which read a different bible, and all of them are called "Christianity" by the worlds view because they all have a Jesus in it.

That is the difference between the religion of Christianity, and being a Christian as defined by the bible, A "follower of Christ."

That is also why identify myself as a follower of Jesus.

View attachment 158924
View attachment 158925

And not a Christian, because I do not believe in Christianity, I believe in Christ.

It's an interesting post. I have told you my position though. You should not get caught up with words, it is distracting. Just use the common meaning of words to convey your message and nobody will get distracted by it. If a word is commonly misunderstood like this one, avoid it. Use common expressions instead.

Disobedience has consequences.

fallible

All-Lives-Matter

Opposed to Untruth.

fallible

fallible

Opposed to Untruth.

fallible

All-Lives-Matter

fallible

The Thin Dead Line of sanity

Opposed to Untruth.

Opposed to Untruth.

fallible

fallible

Opposed to Untruth.

fallible

All-Lives-Matter

Opposed to Untruth.

The Thin Dead Line of sanity

Opposed to Untruth.

Similar threads