You're thinking too hard. They are Yes or No questions. I didn't ask for explanations and explanations are not needed. If you don't want to answer, don't.
No, after all, we wouldn't want to think about our faith now would we? We wouldn't want to use our God-given intellect in order to attempt to come to Truth.
Zaac said:
Just reinforces the premise of the thread.
Have fun with your stereotypes.
Tissue said:
This sounds like a premise stemming from a fundamentalist understanding of the matter. It's actually for this exact reason that people are not willing to participate in the discussion.
Exactly. I will not answer the questions because I know that Zaac will not give me the chance to explain my answers (many of which he would probably like). But without explanation, an answer is useless. It is in the explanation that Truth is to be found.
Zaac said:
In other words, they are Yes or No answers with no need for liberal in betweens, ifs, or buts.
It isn't just the liberals who have in between answers. Is it ok to kill people? Most conservatives (and many liberals for that matter) would answer... "sometimes...?" The answer is not a yes or no, the answer is "well, usually no, but occasionally yes, in matters of war or defense etc." I am not saying that this is the wrong answer, but it is an in between answer.
But the more you talk , the more you make the point of the OP.
No, the more we talk, the closer we come to Truth. That is how Truth works, it doesn't just fall out of nowhere. Take the Bible for instance, it is a rather long collection of books trying to show what Truth is. It takes a while. Lot's of words.
Tissue said:
Then you presuppose your premise in asking the questions, marking this as a tainted discussion from the get-go.
Precisely. Zaac, the only reason that you think this is proving your point is because you aren't allowing for a differing of opinions. Of course you think that you are right, and you
should think that. But when you start saying taht everyone else is wrong without actually proving that they are but instead saying we are wrong simply because you disagree with us then the entire system of a forum like this one breaks down.
That doesn't read like a Yes or No.
His answer wasn't supposed to read like a Yes or No answer. That is the point.
Tissue said:
My propensity to encourage conversation so that we can all make baby steps toward the Truth reinforces the OP's proposition that liberal Christianity will destroy the world?
Baby steps are the key. Discovering Truth is a journey, one that takes a long time. I believe that I am right in my ways of thinking but I perfectly realize that someday I may realize that I am wrong. My fiance summed it up perfectly by saying something to the effect of... Hold your beliefs firmly but loosely. Know the arguments for and against them and believe your side is right and argue for that fact. But, if you are proven wrong, then admit it and change your position.
However, that entire idea is based off of the free exchange of ideas and knowlege. Zaac, perhaps you know more than I do. Perhaps my entire belief system is wrong, but the only way for us all to come closer to the Truth is by discussing our beliefs. Discussing them, not just summerizing them up in a 'yes' or a 'no'.
