Thread: Hey I back home!!!

Originally Posted by pianorain

I went searching for the best thread ever and this one topped the list. Last I remembered it was about summer vacation. How it went from that to Queatrix casting a terrible light on Christians is a bit beyond me...it was like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

I'm not saying your searching methods lack skill, but...

Yeah...you noticed?

Originally Posted by Search Results

The following words are either very common, too long, or too short and were not included in your search: best, ever

Four letter words are too short?

pianorain, I'd like to sign you up for my inaugural class "how to search for posts by Govtcheez". It's only $50.

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

pianorain, I'd like to sign you up for my inaugural class "how to search for posts by Govtcheez". It's only $50.

Does that fee include relocation to Awesometown? It'd be one heck of a commute from here.

Originally Posted by pianorain

Does that fee include relocation to Awesometown? It'd be one heck of a commute from here.

It's a web based class.

Anyway, I am always amazed at how many people bring this Biblical story up with some intent to show that people should not condemn either what they see as a sin, or a person who has committed what they see as a sin.

I note that I did not do the former. My post was with response to a "holier than thou" attitude, i.e., to draw a line and say: see? That's a bigger sinner than me, and that fellow should be exiled (i.e., condemned), not only for what he has done (homosexual acts), but for what he is (a homosexual).

The crime was adultery and not prostitution, hence the woman was not described as a prostitute in the Biblical account.

You are right. I was recalling the context from memory. It makes no difference in the larger picture.

By the conclusion that some ascribe to this story, one might conclude that no sin should ever be punished or condemned. That is stupid.

I agree that to conclude that "no sin should ever be punished or condemned" is stupid.

The context was that the Pharisees and scribes in question already knew the judgment proscribed in the Mosaic Law and challenged Jesus over it as a trick question.

That is true. That also misses how Jesus turned it around and instead of condemning the woman, simply commanded her not to sin any more. This is something of a cliche, but it demonstrates the concept of "hate/condemn the sin, but love the sinner". Sometimes loving the sinner does indeed involve punishment for growth and training of discipline, but it never involves condemning him as a "bigger" sinner than oneself.

At no point did Jesus ever say adultery wasn't bad or say we could not object to it. In fact he told the woman to "go and sin no more", showing that he was, obviously, against all forms of sin. I think some are missing the point. If something is indeed a sin, it should be condemned.... should it not?

That is right. What you have missed, unfortunately, is that Queatrix did not just condemn the sin, but he condemned the sinner.

I won't start arguing about verses and silly things like that. Rather than go back and forth talking about what the bible does or does not say, I would like to address the base of the problem. Everything we hold to be true must be subjected to logic. If it weren't then society would clearly crumble. We couldn't communicate effectively which is an extremely important thing in the world because without the collective findings of scientists, humans wouldn't advance at all. People who believe that the bible is true have decided to forfeit their reasoning skills that separate the humans from lower forms of life.

Though some places and some stories have been confirmed with science it does not mean that since a couple cities have been found that entire bible is suddenly infallible. I can make up stories and with a bit of effort I could probably gather a following too. Obviously, I would just be messing with everyone but imagine that after I die, the followers perpetuate my teachings and carry them on into the future. It won't make them any more true than when I first wrote them down. Age adds some mysterious qualities to things that makes people more attracted to them.

Though, there isn't anything that would make the bible any more true than my stories.

Edit: I hope Qeautrix will realize eventually that he is being a tard. I had a spat with GovtCheez quite a long time ago and have since realized that I was at fault.

Originally Posted by cerin

People who believe that the bible is true have decided to forfeit their reasoning skills that separate the humans from lower forms of life.

You speak of reasoning, but display prejudice. Prejudice implies blindness, and blindness prohibits good reasoning, which is something you believe to have, I take it.

Would you do me the honor of attempting to sound less bigoted by trying, in a non-offensive way, to demonstrate what you think makes believers of the Bible inferior in intellect than to such a person as yourself?

Originally Posted by MacGyver

You speak of reasoning, but display prejudice. Prejudice implies blindness, and blindness prohibits good reasoning, which is something you believe to have, I take it.

I am more than open to the possibility of there being a god. It is also possible that the bible is true.

Prejudice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

I am not judging the situation without knowledge. If I am displaying prejudice then please point out the folly in my reasoning. I advocate neutrality but it is only reasonable to lean toward the standpoint that offers the most reasonable, logical, and tested evidence on the matter.

Originally Posted by MacGyver

Would you do me the honor of attempting to sound less bigoted by trying, in a non-offensive way, to demonstrate what you think makes believers of the Bible inferior in intellect than to such a person as yourself?

I didn't say that I had superior intellect to the believers in the bible. I just believe that they are not exploiting their intellect efficiently and am certainly not implying that they are stupid.

Originally Posted by cerin

I am more than open to the possibility of there being a god. It is also possible that the bible is true.

This is a contradiction in no uncertain terms. You say that those that believe the Bible have chosen to "forfeit their reasoning skills", and yet you say that it is possible that at the same time, the Bible is true. If this be the case, how can it be possible that people that have chosen to forsake reasoning are somehow holding to truth?

I think you greatly mistake the matter. If the Bible is true, then the fact it is believed by some cannot be attributed to randomness since the Bible itself speaks on this matter (and therefore would be truthfully speaking of it).

Originally Posted by cerin

Prejudice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

Taking this definition, your opinion was definitely unfavorable and was stated without any given reason that I could see. I also was of the belief that you would not be able to provide a solid reason for the statement of yours that I quoted, hence why I asked you for a response. I am satisfied that I was correct.

Originally Posted by cerin

I am not judging the situation without knowledge. If I am displaying prejudice then please point out the folly in my reasoning. I advocate neutrality but it is only reasonable to lean toward the standpoint that offers the most reasonable, logical, and tested evidence on the matter.

Your view of neutrality is skewed. If someone said that they liked using if and goto statements in C/C++ instead of for and while loops, and I stated that they willfully lacked reasoning in the matter, I would not think anyone to believe me to be behaving in a neutral sense. I would be counting them as ignorant and blind.

Originally Posted by cerin

I didn't say that I had superior intellect to the believers in the bible. I just believe that they are not exploiting their intellect efficiently and am certainly not implying that they are stupid.

However you wish to phrase it, I was simply asking for your line of reasoning that prompted you to make the statement I quoted, and led to this above quote.

Originally Posted by MacGyver

This is a contradiction in no uncertain terms. You say that those that believe the Bible have chosen to "forfeit their reasoning skills", and yet you say that it is possible that at the same time, the Bible is true. If this be the case, how can it be possible that people that have chosen to forsake reasoning are somehow holding to truth?

They have at least forfeit the reasoning for the time being because there isn't the proof to prove the bible true or not true. Based on the current proof reason only leads to a 'neutral' position.

Originally Posted by MacGyver

I think you greatly mistake the matter. If the Bible is true, then the fact it is believed by some cannot be attributed to randomness since the Bible itself speaks on this matter (and therefore would be truthfully speaking of it).

IF the bible is true, then the fact that is believed by some cannot be attributed to randomness. This is true. Never did I say it if it was true that the fact that some believe would be random.

Originally Posted by MacGyver

Taking this definition, your opinion was definitely unfavorable and was stated without any given reason that I could see. I also was of the belief that you would not be able to provide a solid reason for the statement of yours that I quoted, hence why I asked you for a response. I am satisfied that I was correct.

I will give you the honor and I gave the basis that there is not enough evidence for people to consider the bible to be true. Would you like me to cite a lack of proof?

Originally Posted by MacGyver

Your view of neutrality is skewed. If someone said that they liked using if and goto statements in C/C++ instead of for and while loops, and I stated that they willfully lacked reasoning in the matter, I would not think anyone to believe me to be behaving in a neutral sense. I would be counting them as ignorant and blind.

Maybe. If that's the case then I will phrase it in a different manner. I am attempting to persuade people to keep their options open rather than proclaiming something or other as the one and only truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8egDbULSlM

And we come full circle....I don't think there's must more positive to be added to this thread, so I'm closing it. If you'd like to continue discussion seriously, please PM me and I'll reopen.