Defending a religious person...

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Well every time I utter a word that has anything to do with the subject-matter you claim it mis-defined.

These are out of bounds:

Religion
God
God Concept
Believe
Super Human
Sense
Supernatural

Want to bet if we discussed anything else regarding your religion that you would continue on this tract?

Which terms regarding religion have I gotten right?

You can add faith to this list as well. I asked him for a definition, and he replied with a battery starting a car analogy.

 

[variant]

You can add faith to this list as well. I asked him for a definition, and he replied with a battery starting a car analogy.

That was just a quick scan, I am fairly sure this is the usual mode of argument for the poster.

That and a lot of projection.

 

[seeking Christ]

Well every time I utter a word that has anything to do with the subject-matter you claim it mis-defined.

These are out of bounds:

Religion
God
God Concept
Believe
Super Human
Sense
Supernatural

Want to bet if we discussed anything else regarding your religion that you would continue on this tract?

Which terms regarding religion have I gotten right?

I fail to see any difference in the way "sense" is used, nor do I remember that even coming up. Look, if you're going to ask about things that are holy, there's going to have to be some way of conveying that information to you. You can't sincerely ask and simultaneously destroy any possible way of doing that.

 

[seeking Christ]

Seeking Christ, its poor form on a debating forum to not respond to a question

"Poor form" he says? Look at the way folks here are behaving

No, I'm not about to address something that sensitive in present company.

 

[seeking Christ]

You can add faith to this list as well.

Quite right; I would put that one at the top of the list, as having the widest divergence between secular and sacred usage / meaning.

 

[variant]

I fail to see any difference in the way "sense" is used, nor do I remember that even coming up. Look, if you're going to ask about things that are holy, there's going to have to be some way of conveying that information to you. You can't sincerely ask and simultaneously destroy any possible way of doing that.

You think things can make sense that you can't express in words.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sense

Applicable meanings:

a. An intuitive or acquired perception or ability to estimate: a sense of diplomatic timing.
b. A capacity to appreciate or understand: a keen sense of humor.

d. Recognition or perception either through the senses or through the intellect; consciousness: has no sense of shame.

a. Natural understanding or intelligence, especially in practical matters: The boy had sense and knew just what to do when he got lost.
b. The normal ability to think or reason soundly. Often used in the plural: Have you taken leave of your senses?
c. Something sound or reasonable: There's no sense in waiting three hours.

5.
a. A meaning that is conveyed, as in speech or writing; signification: The sense of the novel is the inevitability of human tragedy.


Feel free to use usual terms or clearly define them when you don't want to.

I can only conclude your question was never sincere in the first place, and all you are interested in is collecting confirmation bias. Sorry, can't help ya there; you are free to continue feeding your prejudices at will.

Why don't you think my question was sincere?

Have I been told what your religion teaches happens to those without faith or not?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I fail to see any difference in the way "sense" is used, nor do I remember that even coming up. Look, if you're going to ask about things that are holy, there's going to have to be some way of conveying that information to you. You can't sincerely ask and simultaneously destroy any possible way of doing that.

I can only conclude your question was never sincere in the first place, and all you are interested in is collecting confirmation bias. Sorry, can't help ya there; you are free to continue feeding your prejudices at will.

This equivocation amounts to, "if you don't see it the way I do, you'll never see it the way I do." This line of reasoning betrays your ability and your lack of confidence to explain things in a real, communicative way. To just hand wave away something you don't agree with and claim 'we could never understand it anyways' only serves to deceive your own mind.







oh, btw, welcome back razer.

Where's the Phil Stubbs av?

 

[seeking Christ]

Have I been told what your religion teaches happens to those without faith or not?

Yes, the very first time, as best as can be known. Your immediate response was to conclude not to speak to me any more, and that would've been infinitely preferable to your tirade since then. Again I point out to you that rather than go around in circles you simply read the original response, with your prejudice lenses removed. There may be some things that need clarification, explanation or whatever. That's reasonable. Your conduct since then has not been, and I have been extraordinarily patient with you.

 

[variant]

Yes, the very first time, as best as can be known. Your immediate response was to conclude not to speak to me any more, and that would've been infinitely preferable to your tirade since then. Again I point out to you that rather than go around in circles you simply read the original response, with your prejudice lenses removed. There may be some things that need clarification, explanation or whatever. That's reasonable. Your conduct since then has not been, and I have been extraordinarily patient with you.

So, what happens to them according to your religion?

This information or even opinion seems to be missing from your posts...

It's almost as if..

Oh right, you didn't answer the question.

If I had taken my own advice since then I would have missed the whole wheel of equivocation fun we have been having.

 

[seeking Christ]

This equivocation amounts to, "if you don't see it the way I do, you'll never see it the way I do."

No it doesn't. It faces the fact that there needs to be common ground, head on.

This line of reasoning betrays your ability and your lack of confidence to explain things in a real, communicative way. To just hand wave away something you don't agree with and claim 'we could never understand it anyways'

Ya except I never said that. What I have consistently said is that there is a language to learn in the attempt to convey any of these things, and the two of you combined have come up with a very short list of those terms. Maybe 10? I guarantee you if I were asking difficult questions of either of you in your specialized field there would be a LOT more terms for me to learn, and if I refused to do so the way Variant has been doing here you wouldn't be so patient with me.

 

[seeking Christ]

np

 

[variant]

No it doesn't. It faces the fact that there needs to be common ground, head on.

Meaning you can't discuss things with people who disagree.

That's what he said.

 

[variant]

How 'bout you dig up the post, quote it here, and make a sincere effort at addressing it? Follow up questions are allowed, you know. Obviously I would be the first to admit if something in it that seems simple to me eludes your understanding and needs further explanation. I just didn't see anything like that; not being a mind reader, you'll have to ask me.

You could always do that yourself if you think it is so obvious. Or repeat yourself once.

It's not like either of us has had to repeat ourselves.

 

[variant]

Ya except I never said that. What I have consistently said is that there is a language to learn in the attempt to convey any of these things, and the two of you combined have come up with a very short list of those terms. Maybe 10? I guarantee you if I were asking difficult questions of either of you in your specialized field there would be a LOT more terms for me to learn, and if I refused to do so the way Variant has been doing here you wouldn't be so patient with me.

You're a field specialist now? Interesting.

I know what those words mean, you're the one that says I don't.

Who else recognizes your expertise on this issue? I'd like to see some documentation.

Which theological institutions recognize your abilities to redefine common words?

 

[seeking Christ]

You know the common usage just fine, its how they pertain to what you're asking about that is foreign to you.

 

[variant]

You know the common usage just fine, its how they pertain to what you're asking about that is foreign to you. You don't have to like my explanation or me, but hounding me like this while ignoring what I say and simultaneously pretending I won't answer is ... well I don't have a word for it but its wrong.

And where can I find proper definitions? Some sort of on-line resource?

Or will all this become magically clear to me once I have accepted whatever you say as truth?

As for the rest of the post I snipped this from? Now you could say I won't address it and you would be honest; it doesn't merit a response. Actually that's true from your first response to my original answer to your question, and I shouldn't have engaged you further.

My bad.

Well I still get the distinct feeling that you didn't inform me at all of any of the subject matter that my question covered.

Perhaps someone else will be so kind as to inform me what I am missing here and how your explanation made perfect sense in light of the proper linguistic interpretation of your religion.

 

[variant]

I've got nothing to prove to you or anyone else

That seems to be an odd interpretation of your actions.

 

[Verv]

A lot of time atheists like to tell Christians what they believe in an amateur attempt to be able to "invalidate" our religion through strawman tactics.

I'd just stop paying attention to it.

In a debate people must be allowed to have some liberty in terminology because the fact of the matter is that even official dictionaries recognize the diversity in usage of words.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

"Poor form" he says? Look at the way folks here are behaving

No, I'm not about to address something that sensitive in present company.

Then we will leave it there. That said I would suggest you did mention something sensitive in the present company of all those that read this thread and the sensitive statement about 'seeing' a demon. By not responding I have no way of knowing what you are referring too, to offer any of my own understanding, and in the interests of bringing all to God I see this as an issue. Sometimes we have to step out and lay ourselves bare, open to ridicule and yes actually be wrong, or just admit that we 'just don't know' but to ballet dance around questions as you do is of no gain. You are being ridiculed because of your reluctance to commit to anything solid in regards an answer.

 

[variant]

A lot of time atheists like to tell Christians what they believe in an amateur attempt to be able to "invalidate" our religion through strawman tactics.

I'd just stop paying attention to it.

What if they simply won't say what they believe?

In a debate people must be allowed to have some liberty in terminology because the fact of the matter is that even official dictionaries recognize the diversity in usage of words.

In a debate if you are going to use non-standard definitions for terms you should alert the other person.

SC's insisted on non-standard English when I used it often (at which point he should give me the liberty to use common terms if I so choose) specifically for obfuscation it seems to me.

The argument is that I do not understand the words and that he did, and that he couldn't simply be expected to explain them to me.

Here are some of the most blatant examples:

Have you ever seen the Kingdom of God? How then can I be expected to make anything clear?

What I may drive at any specific time I allude to the Creator is nothing at all like what you refer to as a "God concept." Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

These sort of exchanges are more than just asking for some liberty in terminology, he is essentially asking me to completely adopt his view of things without explaining it.