ReformedChapin
Chapin = Guatemalan
I love when people use, pointless rethoric for arguements when they have zero evidence. I guess it makes their argument better some how.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think I like you
I love when people use, pointless rethoric for arguements when they have zero evidence. I guess it makes their argument better some how.You cannot ask for evidence, while at the same time putting your fingers in your ears, squishing your eyes tight and saying "Lalalalalalalala" at the top of your voice.
Or rather, you can, but you will neither see, hear nor understand.
Good luck with that.
(Antidote, if anyone cares, is to open your heart. All else will follow.)
You are correct that I don't believe scripture to be infallible, but that isn't a requirement of objectivity.Oh dear Lord. All you have argued here is subjective "evidence", it's clear that you don't even believe in the infallability of scripture, so how can that be objective.
I'm beginning to wonder if you do.Do you know what objective means?
Yeh, right. You make an assumption, someone points out that your assumption is unfounded, so that person's statement is self-evidently invalid. And you talk about objectivity.Didn't addres anything, so invalid statement.
What? You make no sense.All you have word of mouth
The Word of God is Christ.and again you haven't prenseted what is "God's word."
What are you on about?Is there some new canon that I need to know?
I think maybe you would need to define your terms first, but in any case see below.And no, all reliabel scientific datat shows that homosexual orientation doesn't exist. The best homo advocates can come up with is " a result of some biological presuposition." Show me one peer review article that shows homosexuality is an orientation.
I just said - Christ.What is God's word then?
Only to the satisfaction of people who disregard any evidence to the contrary, and accept anything presented as evidence. It is not possible to prove that the bible is any of: "the Word of God (TM)", "infallible", etc. Neither is it desirable - one should value the bible because one trusts in God, not the other way around.Oh please...the canon has been repeately been proven through history.
It wouldn't matter one iota if I had - and it would put me in some very good company. Come to think of it, I rather wish that were the case. But it isn't.Not to mention you have not proven any reliabel source of Christ of your own. You got Christ out of thin air.
Apparently the compilers of my dictionaries don't either.Nope, you just don't have common understanding of the various uses of the words.
Quite honestly, I can't be bothered because...1) I want to see the evidence for that, and biblically you're incorret.
... I don't see a lot of point in continuing a conversation with someone who insists on repeatedly bearing false witness against me.But then again your God comes out of thin air.
"It offers evidence that you can use the word the way I want so long as you already agree with my definition of the word". Yeh, right.2)Fits perfectly well if you understand the context of the word.
My comment should have had a question mark on the end. Unfortunately that got lost in typing. I was actually querying your comment that apparently indictated that whether Christ was lying or not was irrelevent. I know he wasn't lying - as I made clear elsewhere in the same post.lol. This made me laugh, if Christ lied then we don't have anything go on as Christain. We would all just believe in some random God.
That simply does not follow. God works through fallible things all the time - he works through fallible people, through a fallible creation, and a fallible church. He can, and does, also work (very effectively) through the fallible set of writings we call the bible.This is simple, either it has wholes or it doesn't. If it does, then there is no point in listening to it.
Another false claim. Please stop bearing false witness.You're taking the bible and the parts you like and using those and then the parts you don't like and saing their in valid.
I have.I suggest you look at the canonization of scripture.
I agree that God is the only person in a position to be perfectly objective, but I've no idea what inference you expect me to make from that in the context of this discussion.I would since the only being that could be objective is God.
The words of Christ aren't evidence? (Remembered the question mark that time, phew.)How about you stop with the here say and step up with some evidence.
1. You have blown your objectivity right there with that assumption.huh? Wow talk about hypocrital. My methodology is compromised of scripture first because that's the only realiable source of truth.
Everything is based on fallible knowledge. Everything. No exceptions. Even (by your own admission) any evidence that the scripture was infallible would be itself fallible. The only thing that is infallible is God. No me, not you, not scripture, and certainly not anybody's interpretation of scripture. In the end, your reason for scripture being is infallible is no more than "it is because I want it to be", which is hardly objective.Everything else is based on falliable knowledge, whether it's reason or experience which is what you are doing.
Again, this does not follow.Again, if part of is right, we have no christ.
No he is not. If the bible is 100% unreliable then we have a problem, but it doesn't need to be 100% infallible to be useful.Christ is based on the concept on the entire falliabel word of God.
No-one ever said life was easy. By testing its application in the same ways we have to test anything else. I would actually suggest that the author of the letter to Timothy was correct - that it's all useful for something, but one needs some thought, discretion and discernment to determine how to use different parts in different contexts. A claim of "it's infallible" doesn't help that, but rather gets in the way as one get's bogged down in the 'facts' and misses the chance for God to speak through it.How do we know certain parts are true about hima nd others are not?
I have Christ - that's all I need. (The bible is extremely useful, but I could survive without it if necessary.) You can call that "nothing" if you want, but I wouldn't.Any peice of "evidence" you claim is subjective. Unless you want to present another canon and your evidence for it you have nothing.
I'm sorry if you are having trouble following a coherent arguement that doesn't agree with your assumptions.OH please, talk about flase witness, not only do you have no evidence for none of your arguments all you do is make random statments.
I have not deliberately lied. If I have made a false statement please point it out and I will endevour to correct it.Even if you don't recognize your lies or admit to them, they are still there.
Actually it is, everything in a Christian world is subjective and fallen nature.You are correct that I don't believe scripture to be infallible, but that isn't a requirement of objectivity.
I do, do you need me to help you by posting the philosophical definition?I'm beginning to wonder if you do.
What are my assumptions then? And what persons? What are you talking about?Yeh, right. You make an assumption, someone points out that your assumption is unfounded, so that person's statement is self-evidently invalid. And you talk about objectivity.
ironicWhat? You make no sense.
Again, WHERE IS CHRIST? WHERE DOESYOUR CHRIST COME FROM? All you are saying the word of GOD IS CHRIST? HOW DO YOU PERCIEVE IT?The Word of God is Christ
Im thinking that about you.What are you on about?
Nope, you just need to understand words in context. It will help you with your hermantics.I think maybe you would need to define your terms first, but in any case see below.
I just said - Christ.
Prove it how? You mean by the scientific method? Duh. But its been assumed to be the infallible word of God since the early church fathers. Several events in history have been proven to be accurate such as Isaiah 40: 22 which states the earth is round.Only to the satisfaction of people who disregard any evidence to the contrary, and accept anything presented as evidence. It is not possible to prove that the bible is any of: "the Word of God (TM)", "infallible", etc. Neither is it desirable - one should value the bible because one trusts in God, not the other way around.
So where does this Christ come from? Did he come at night and tell you a little secret?
Get better dictionaries.Apparently the compilers of my dictionaries don't either.
So you have nothing, I thought so.Quite honestly, I can't be bothered because...
More useless garbage.... I don't see a lot of point in continuing a conversation with someone who insists on repeatedly bearing false witness against me.
False representation and more useless trash."It offers evidence that you can use the word the way I want so long as you already agree with my definition of the word". Yeh, right.
Uh, yeah right.My comment should have had a question mark on the end. Unfortunately that got lost in typing. I was actually querying your comment that apparently indictated that whether Christ was lying or not was irrelevent. I know he wasn't lying - as I made clear elsewhere in the same post.
Again, you have no understanding of historical Christianity or how the biblical God works. I suggest you take a theology course.That simply does not follow. God works through fallible things all the time - he works through fallible people, through a fallible creation, and a fallible church. He can, and does, also work (very effectively) through the fallible set of writings we call the bible.
IronicAnother false claim. Please stop bearing false witness.
yeah right.I have.
And the bible is Gods word..makes sense?I agree that God is the only person in a position to be perfectly objective, but I've no idea what inference you expect me to make from that in the context of this discussion.
Again, where did you get the Words of Christ? Did he come out of a genie bottle? Oh and if you got some words of Christ from the bible? How are they not infallible if the bible has flaws?The words of Christ aren't evidence? (Remembered the question mark that time, phew.)
1)[FONT="] You dont know what objectivity is[/FONT]1. You have blown your objectivity right there with that assumption.
2. GOD is the only reliable source of truth, not the bible.
3. Even if the bible were what you claim it to be, your interpretation is seriously flawed because you are disregarding the implications of Christ's statement that all the law and prophets follow from the Great Commandments. You appear to be trying to distract from that (vital) point by attacking me.
If its not we have no perception of God at all.Everything is based on fallible knowledge. Everything. No exceptions. Even (by your own admission) any evidence that the scripture was infallible would be itself fallible. The only thing that is infallible is God. No me, not you, not scripture, and certainly not anybody's interpretation of scripture. In the end, your reason for scripture being is infallible is no more than "it is because I want it to be", which is hardly objective.
Good time for the hermeneutics class.Again, this does not follow.
Who gets to choose whats reliable then? You?No he is not. If the bible is 100% unreliable then we have a problem, but it doesn't need to be 100% infallible to be useful.
And your evidence for this is what? Your emotions just great.No-one ever said life was easy. By testing its application in the same ways we have to test anything else. I would actually suggest that the author of the letter to Timothy was correct - that it's all useful for something, but one needs some thought, discretion and discernment to determine how to use different parts in different contexts. A claim of "it's infallible" doesn't help that, but rather gets in the way as one get's bogged down in the 'facts' and misses the chance for God to speak through it.
So if I make random statements and claim they are Christ, they are Christ? lolI have Christ - that's all I need. (The bible is extremely useful, but I could survive without it if necessary.) You can call that "nothing" if you want, but I wouldn't.
Ironic, wow two in a row.I'm sorry if you are having trouble following a coherent arguement that doesn't agree with your assumptions.
You have no understanding of scripture and you have lied worst of all making statements about Christ which are untrue.I have not deliberately lied. If I have made a false statement please point it out and I will endevour to correct it.
Listen to your own advice.[/FONT]In the meantime, please stop making false claims about my motives - by doing so you are bearing false witness.
I hope you know what irony isHumpf. My irony meter just exploded.
Actually it is, everything in a Christian world is subjective and fallen nature.
You can if you like - it might help you.I do, do you need me to help you by posting the philosophical definition?
What are my assumptions then?
I guess that was easier than clarifying.ironic
Everywhere, in the sacraments, at the right hand of the father,...Again, WHERE IS CHRIST?
From GodWHERE DOESYOUR CHRIST COME FROM?
Christ is the Word of God. You have a problem with this? Maybe the questions you are asking aren't the right ones for the information you want.All you are saying the word of GOD IS CHRIST?
God speaks through people, through the bible, through prayer, through his call and action in my life and others,... I've already answered this.HOW DO YOU PERCIEVE IT?
That's nice dear.Im thinking that about you.
No - if you want me to provide evidence, then you will need to define the terms so that I can provide evidence that actually answers your question. I'm not going to try and guess what your definitions are, given that you seem to be working to different defintions of several other important words.Nope, you just need to understand words in context. It will help you with your hermantics.
I'm sorry if God doesn't speak to you at all. Perhaps you need to stop talking and start listening.So where does this Christ come from? Did he come at night and tell you a little secret?
The OED will do me nicely, thankyou.Get better dictionaries.
Correct. I can find something, but currently it doesn't seem worth the effort.So you have nothing, I thought so.
A request that someone stop bearing false witness is not "useless garbage". It speaks volumes that you think it is.More useless garbage.
Explain why it is false representation. How is my paraphrase not an accurate reflection of what you said?False representation and more useless trash.
Believe it or not, it's true - as should be clear from a careful reading of the rest of the post in question.Uh, yeah right.
LOLAgain, you have no understanding of historical Christianity or how the biblical God works. I suggest you take a theology course.
The bible is not God's word. God's Word speaks through the bible.And the bible is Gods word..makes sense?
In the same way that they survive being transmitted through some fallible people - eg Mark, Matthew, John etc. God works his purposes succesfully through fallible things.Again, where did you get the Words of Christ? Did he come out of a genie bottle? Oh and if you got some words of Christ from the bible? How are they not infallible if the bible has flaws?
In the same way he has always worked - and the same way he is described as working in the bible - and (for that matter) the same way the bible itself came to be. If God could only work through the bible:2)The bible is Gods word, you havent demonstrated how else we can perceive God
What you actually mean is that my understanding does not agree with yours. Given that you keep avoiding dealing with the problems in your understanding (eg your repeated avoidance of dealing with Christ's statement that the law and the prophets) by trying to attack your assumptions about my methods and motives I suspect life would be better served by my just ignoring all further attacks and reminding you of the point until you deal with it. They are just a distraction.3)You have no understanding of the law, Christs statements or biblical history.
Why do you keep making these clearly untrue statements?If its not we have no perception of God at all.
Um, not it's not. The word used to condemn men lying with men in the OT is a word used to condemn ritual acts, not sexual acts.There are a lot of sins spoken of in the Bible. And most of them, we don't seem to care much about, let alone even talk about. This sin in particular is spoken of in almost the same breath as having sex with animals ...
Comparisons with beastiaity are simply absurd. One is capable of being a loving, consentual, monogomous, faithful, permanent and equal relationship in the same way as any hetrosexual marriage. The other is not - its purely a one-sided sexual act.nobody advocates beastiality. There is no Beastiality Pride parade, no beastiality symbols, no television shows trying to make beastiality seem cool.
The people who are trying to rank sin are those who are anti-homosexual.It's abhorant to us. Why? If all sins are equally abhorant to God, why are some sins in our eyes not as bad as others? Man's thing. Not God's.
Humpf. My irony meter just exploded.
The people who are trying to rank sin are those who are anti-homosexual.
Not so much anti-homosexual as we are anti-homosexuality. God Himself is anti-homosexuality. It is clearly evident when you just look at the sheer beauty of God's creation, everything, how wonderful and amazing it is. Then you look at how homosexuality destroys that picture, and how out of place it is. How distant it is from true beauty, I don't see how anyone can consider it approved by God.
Sorry? I fail to see how two men or two women loving and supporting each other destroys the beauty of creation.Not so much anti-homosexual as we are anti-homosexuality. God Himself is anti-homosexuality. It is clearly evident when you just look at the sheer beauty of God's creation, everything, how wonderful and amazing it is. Then you look at how homosexuality destroys that picture, and how out of place it is. How distant it is from true beauty, I don't see how anyone can consider it approved by God.
Sorry? I fail to see how two men or two women loving and supporting each other destroys the beauty of creation.
But it doesn't support creation either. God does do a lot of creating and not destroying. But can a gay couple create life? They can support life and help life, but they cannot create life with each other.Sorry? I fail to see how two men or two women loving and supporting each other destroys the beauty of creation.
I think I should explain myself more. I'm not saying people who can create life are better than everyone else. I'm not saying that heterosexual couples who cannot create life are not from God.ThirdDay: But it doesn't support creation either. God does do a lot of creating and not destroying. But can a gay couple create life? They can support life and help life, but they cannot create life with each other.
that doesn't make a whole lotta sense to me, because I'm friends with a married couple (who are in their 40's now) and they cannot have children. They wanted children, but they just cannot create life together. Would you say their relationship destroys the beauty of Creation?
The gay friends that I do have, they cannot create life with their SO, but they are raising the children they already have.
And at the same time this made me think again of a guy who murdered his child (at the daycare) because he didn't want to pay child support anymore. Please.. Being a heterosexual n having the ability to create life doesn't make us better than those who can't.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?