Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Crous

That’s The Evolution Way.

Recommended Posts

Firstly, let me say that I apologize that I don’t have the time to give this the attention it deserves, as I just had rotator cuff surgery on Monday and am attempting to recover. My typing abilities are very limited right now, and the meds don’t help either. So I offer the following:

Ophiolite conveniently omitted the bulk of my reply in an attempt for him to only reply to the conclusion of my rebuttal, and hide totally from the evidences I provided for my rebuttal. He further attempts to accuse me of being “belligerent†and “dishonest†as a red herring instead of addressing the real issues. Then he attempts to promulgate his “touching a tender spot†and that I responded “belligerently†and “Dishonestly†in my conversation with him. That he is somehow, the only one attempting to honor the “ethos†of this forum.

 

And why? So that he doesn’t have to actually address my rebuttals of his misinformation.

I will supply the actual statements he replied to (in context) at the end of this post, and suggest that anyone interested to see what he is up to, go back and read through our conversation.

 

 

 

I totally disagree, your fruit betrays the extent of your Bible Studies.

70155[/snapback]

That is an interpretation. You are examining something you have not seen (the extent or otherwise of my Bible study) and attempting to deduce that extent from the effect it has had on my statements. That is certainly a valid approach: it is exactly what evolutionists do when they examine the fossil record and deduce the reality of evolution. Interpretations, of course, can be mistaken. You feel the interpretation of evolutionists is wrong. I feel your interpretation of my observations here is wrong. An impasse remains.

 

It is likely not your intention, but your recent posts seem belligerent and this I find quite unsettling. I am working hard at honouring the ethos of the forum - a place for honest civil dialogue on origins. Perhaps one or more of the statements I have made has touched a tender spot that has provoked a reaction. If so, I apologise. All I am seeking to do is to express and explain my thinking, so as to promote discussion and understanding, if not agreement. The latter two seem unlikely in this particular instance, so I think it best I discontinue this specific dialogue for the moment.

70284[/snapback]

Here’s what he omitted:

 

I agree… And therefore I submit your own words as part of this rebuttal (and I shall do so “most forcefullyâ€ÂÂ):

 

I would ask Ron that you not make assumptions as to how much time I have spent understanding what Jesus intended.

70065[/snapback]

You do not know the extent of my Bible studies, nor I of yours.

70065[/snapback]

I totally disagree, your fruit betrays the extent of your Bible Studies.Further:

 

In both of the above statements YOU imply that you have studied, and understand “what Jesus intendedâ€ÂÂ, and that I could'nt understand your extensive studies (yo really should do a better job explaining your intent). If that were the case, you would “understand†what Jesus intended when HE told us what his followers (Christians) are! But, your relativistic rant actually provides “fruit†that you clearly do not; as you are attempting to sell “conviction†as Christianity.

 

You further attempt to strengthen your “scholastic†credentials “most forcefully†in the following:

This carries the very clear implication that I have not taken the time to understand.

70079[/snapback]

Thus, based on what you have written, you have assumed I have not taken the time to understand.

70079[/snapback]

But, in all your "understanding" of the "intent" of Jesus, and your "forcefullness" you still fail to provide (using your “understanding†of “what Jesus intendedâ€ÂÂ) Jesus’s definition of a Christian is, when He clearly explained to us what a Christian is.

 

70155[/snapback]

That is an interpretation. You are examining something you have not seen (the extent or otherwise of my Bible study) and attempting to deduce that extent from the effect it has had on my statements. That is certainly a valid approach: it is exactly what evolutionists do when they examine the fossil record and deduce the reality of evolution. Interpretations, of course, can be mistaken. You feel the interpretation of evolutionists is wrong. I feel your interpretation of my observations here is wrong. An impasse remains.

 

It is likely not your intention, but your recent posts seem belligerent and this I find quite unsettling. I am working hard at honouring the ethos of the forum - a place for honest civil dialogue on origins. Perhaps one or more of the statements I have made has touched a tender spot that has provoked a reaction. If so, I apologise. All I am seeking to do is to express and explain my thinking, so as to promote discussion and understanding, if not agreement. The latter two seem unlikely in this particular instance, so I think it best I discontinue this specific dialogue for the moment.

70284[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, if this is not too far off topic, surely what is relevant about the Council of Nicea is which works were included and which excluded. It seems analagous to what we would know of World War II if we had chosen only the writings of Winston Churchill and William Shirer to reflect the 'meaning' of the conflict.

70338[/snapback]

I see that you are going to ignore my previous refutation of your attempt of the “Council of Nicaea†standard Bible scoffer argument (which is another misinterpretation/ misunderstanding/false tactic).

 

The following is something  I missed (because of your previous gross Biblical misinterpretations), and needed to correct:

As to your point 3.) you would have some difficulty convincing me that Biblical interpretations haven't been messed up since the Council of Nicea. I understand and respect that you have definite views on these matters. From where I sit these are views are opinions, not cold, hard facts. Thus the impasse remains.

70079[/snapback]

Further, the above is a gross misinterpretation promulgated by atheists, skeptics, liberal theologians, and other Bible Scoffers. And, unfortunately for the above, we DO NOT have to use any translations copied since the Council of “Nicaeaâ€ÂÂ; as we can totally set aside any and all translations, and concentrate on the verbatim quotes of the early church fathers (those within the first century and a half) and discover that we have the “ENTIRE†New Testament, save only eleven verses. Therefore we can throw out your entire objection and supposed impasse, because, from where you sit, you need to do a little more homework.

70157[/snapback]

Here’s a good link at this forum with plenty of actual facts to assist you in your “searchâ€ÂÂ:

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...topic=1957&st=0

 

Additionally, I would suggest you specify WHICH “Council of Nicaea†you are referring to, and which books you are attempting to insert into the Bible ( mainly because the Council of Nicaea didn't deal with NT books at all). But, before you even attempt to go there, I would further suggest you consider the following facts… Even BEFORE the "first†Council of Nicaea the following were in affect:

 

1- All of the current books of the New Testament were already recognized as both “scripture†and “cannonâ€ÂÂ.

 

2- We can totally set aside any and all translations, and concentrate on the verbatim quotes of the early church fathers (those within the first century and a half) and discover that we have the “ENTIRE†New Testament, save only eleven verses.

 

3- There are also numerous references AND New Testament quotes by Bible scoffers of the time (see Pliny the younger, Lucian, Celsus, Carius Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, etc…)

 

4 - A compilation of the following writers of antiquity quoted, wrote about and recognized the entire New Testament as scripture AND cannon – Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Ploycarp, Hermas, Papius, Irenaeus, Diognetus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen…

 

I could go on along this line, but this is enough irrefutable evidence for you to deal with right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....you would have some difficulty convincing me that Biblical interpretations haven't been messed up since the Council of Nicea.

 

See my brief chapter on Bible Transmission here:

 

http://www.bibleevidences.com/transmission.htm

 

Fred

70309[/snapback]

Seven (maybe eight) times out of ten, the Bible scoffer will come to forums like this with copied and pasted arguments from other atheist sites, with nefarious intent. They usually don’t even understand the gross mistakes built into the foundations of their argumentation, before they come here and attempt to pass them off. Usually, if they do a little research before posting the fallacious information, they would save themselves a lot of time and embarrassment.

 

On the other hand, when we get an honest seeker, they’ll usually see their mistake, learn from it and move on with civil conversation. But, the scoffer will usually attempt to continue their argument, and dig the hole deeper and deeper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s what he omitted:

Thank you for repeating those. I believe they make my point adequately. I am disappointed, but ready to accept that we are talking past each other. On the other hand your posts appear to be utterly committed to the notion that I am deceitful and ignorant. That is why I say repeatedly that we are at an impasse.

 

You say I have ignored points you have raised. Let's get back to one of the central points I raised initially: there are Christians who support abortion and their are atheists who oppose it. If you choose to deny either or both of these statements there truly is nowhere productive for this dialogue to go. You seem impelled to try to prove me wrong. I am impelled to try to come to an understanding of our differences. That seems impossible at present. Impasse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s what he omitted:

Thank you for repeating those. I believe they make my point adequately. I am disappointed, but ready to accept that we are talking past each other. On the other hand your posts appear to be utterly committed to the notion that I am deceitful and ignorant. That is why I say repeatedly that we are at an impasse.

 

You say I have ignored points you have raised. Let's get back to one of the central points I raised initially: there are Christians who support abortion and their are atheists who oppose it. If you choose to deny either or both of these statements there truly is nowhere productive for this dialogue to go. You seem impelled to try to prove me wrong. I am impelled to try to come to an understanding of our differences. That seems impossible at present. Impasse.

70387[/snapback]

There are many points to be drawn from this:

 

Firstly – You made a “factual†claim, but you provided absolutely no “factual†evidence with which to support your claim (post 101) and I rebutted it in post 107. I further, in the same post, gave you the chance to provide the “facts†to support you assertions. You then proceeded (in post 108) to side-step the rebuttal all together by pulling your red herring of “my assumptions concerning your studies†instead of actually addressing the issue. And that issue is: What is the definition that Jesus himself attributed to what a Christian is.

 

Secondly – If someone calls themselves “Christianâ€ÂÂ, yet fail to meet the parameters set by Christ Himself, they are most likely (what Jesus Himself called) wolves in sheep’s clothing (or other pretenders).

 

Thirdly – I really don’t care what you r degree (or level) of studies in hermeneutics, eschatology, exegesis or eisegesis (etc…) are. If you are foundationally deficient, and that deficiency is pointed out, and yet you continue to travel down that road (via relativistic argumentation in your case), it will be exposed for what it is. But on the other hand, if you are willing to learn; that is a different story. And there are many here and elsewhere to assist you in that endeavor. So your attempted attack on my having to be right (and you wrong) is erroneous at best, because (as I clearly pointed out in point #3 of post #109), it doesn’t matter if you or I think we are right; what matters is that Jesus is the only one who holds the definition of a “Christianâ€ÂÂ.

 

Fourthly – Therefore “you and I†don’t have a difference of opinion… You have a difference of opinion with the “Definition of what Jesus set for a Christianâ€ÂÂ. So, the impasse is not between “you and Iâ€ÂÂ, it is between you and Jesus!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for repeating those. I believe they make my point adequately. I am disappointed, but ready to accept that we are talking past each other. On the other hand your posts appear to be utterly committed to the notion that I am deceitful and ignorant. That is why I say repeatedly that we are at an impasse.

 

You say I have ignored points you have raised. Let's get back to one of the central points I raised initially: there are Christians who support abortion and their are atheists who oppose it. If you choose to deny either or both of these statements there truly is nowhere productive for this dialogue to go. You seem impelled to try to prove me wrong. I am impelled to try to come to an understanding of our differences. That seems impossible at present. Impasse.

70387[/snapback]

“there are Christians who support abortionâ€ÂÂ

 

It is not men that decide who and what a Christian is. The Bible gives us this definition. Christian knowledge comes from the bible. (Religious knowledge) If these Christians you are talking of are true to the word of God (The Bible) they will find that there is no space for abortion. This Christian you talk does not have knowledge of the Bible or they are not Biblical Christians or they only claim to be Christians. I suggest before you carry on claiming that there are true Christians that support abortions, you should ask these Christians if supporting abortion is biblical correct. Ask them if they can quote a part of the Bible that allows abortion. If they / you cannot supply this, they / you have limited or no knowledge of the Bible.

 

“their are atheists who oppose itâ€ÂÂ

 

This is possible. Although I still need to meet this atheist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for repeating those. I believe they make my point adequately. I am disappointed, but ready to accept that we are talking past each other. On the other hand your posts appear to be utterly committed to the notion that I am deceitful and ignorant. That is why I say repeatedly that we are at an impasse.

 

You say I have ignored points you have raised. Let's get back to one of the central points I raised initially: there are Christians who support abortion and their are atheists who oppose it. If you choose to deny either or both of these statements there truly is nowhere productive for this dialogue to go. You seem impelled to try to prove me wrong. I am impelled to try to come to an understanding of our differences. That seems impossible at present. Impasse.

70387[/snapback]

“there are Christians who support abortionâ€ÂÂ

 

70393[/snapback]

Indeed... I think the more succinct question would be: "Is there anything within the 'ethos' of Jesus, which would show His support for abortion?" And this is sand in the ointment for the relativist. And it is why our friend cannot directly answer my direct rebuttal of his fallacious assertion, thus causing his impasse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and one last thing on your post #129…

Thank you for repeating those. I believe they make my point adequately.

70387[/snapback]

First, I am more than happy to point out where you err in your fallacious statements. But if you are delusional enough to think that any of my refutations actually made your point, you are either;

 

1- Not actually reading the posts.

 

2- Are really hurting because you simply cannot accept reality

 

3- You are nothing more than a time wasting troll.

 

Now, I don’t think you are stupid, ignorant or lacking in the cognitive skills with which to reason. That is why I asked simple enough Biblical questions, in order for you to provide evidence for your assertions, or realize that you were incorrect. This way you could save face by proving the Bible wrong, or admit that you simply misunderstood, and could now correct your assumptions. But the only thing you did was dance around my rebuttals with some non sequiturs and red herrings.

 

Secondly, what I might further suggest, is that you either;

 

1- Actually support your stance with facts.

 

2- Admit that you are simply attempting to promulgate your philosophical worldview.

 

3- Actually adhere to the “ethos†of this forum, and be an open and honest debater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many points to be drawn from this:

Firstly – You made a “factual†claim, but you provided absolutely no “factual†evidence with which to support your claim (post 101) and I rebutted it in post 107.

 

The claim I am making is that some Christians support abortion. This link provides the substantiation you were seeking from me.

http://pewforum.org/Abortion/Religious-Gro...n-Abortion.aspx

 

Your refutation of my claim (post 107) was this:

If you actually took the time to understand the definition Jesus himself attributed to what a Christian is (after all, He is the model), you would understand the ridiculousness of your statement above.

I understand with great clarity that individuals who have devoted much more time to the study of the Bible and of Christ and of his views on how we should conduct ourselves than I have, do not find an inconsistency between favouring abortion and being Christians. My understanding of what constitutes a Christian is irrelevant in that regard.

 

Now you correctly state elsewhere that it is God's place to declare who is or is not Christian. Yet you then ignore this and go ahead and state that those who approve of abortion cannot be Christian. You will have to explain that logic to me.

 

I see you're still having a problem with what "Jesus" said a Christian is... So here is my challenge (since you claim to be a Biblical scholar):

 

1- What did Jesus say a Christian is?

 

2 - How can you possibly (and honestly) claim to be a "Christian" and not be within the parameters that Jesus Himself set?

 

 

Here's your chance to step outside your relativistic mind set and submit to the truth and logic that you've heretofore ignored.

Jesus made no statements as to what a Christian is. As you well know the term was introduced at some point subsequent to his crucifixion. Are you conflating 'follower of Christ' with 'Christian'. I think so, but would like confirmation in order to avoid time wasted replyin to the wrong question.

 

How can you possibly (and honestly) be so absolutely, irrevocably certain that you have the correct interpretation of what Jesus set those parameters as?

And you further attempt to change the scriptures to mean what you want them to mean, thusly setting yourself above that of Jesus Himself.

I do not how often I have to say that this is not primarily about my views, but about the observed fact that some Christians approve of abortion. They do so because they find it consistent with their reading of the Bible. You disagree with them. Level your objections at them by all means.

 

 

Again, you make the mistake of thinking “conviction†= “truthâ€ÂÂ, where I clearly explained that it doesn’t matter what YOU or I, or ANYONE ELSE attempts to define as Christian; The only definition that matters is that given by Christ Himself. You can continue to run from that with your continual relativistic convolutions, or we can have a real conversation about the “truth†of the matter… And that is up to you. But if you continue along your current path, I’ll just continue to point out the fallacies and misinterpretations/misinformation you are promulgating.

And I shall continue to point out that you are claiming to have an ability to recognise the truth. To fully understand the intent of Christ's words. To do so better than those individuals who find it possible to approve abortion and find it consistent with their Christian faith.

 

I'm in a neutral position. I hear two camps, both claiming to be Christian's, both claiming to follow Christ's words, and both holding diametrically opposed views.

 

Seven (maybe eight) times out of ten, the Bible scoffer will come to forums like this with copied and pasted arguments from other atheist sites, with nefarious intent.

I have to assume this was directed at me Ron, since you wrote it in response to one of my posts. I can here declare with certainty, that all my arguments, regardless of their validity are wholly of my own making. I'm not even sure what an athiest site is! And, I'm not an atheist.

 

Thirdly – I really don’t care what you r degree (or level) of studies in hermeneutics, eschatology, exegesis or eisegesis (etc…) are. If you are foundationally deficient, and that deficiency is pointed out, and yet you continue to travel down that road (via relativistic argumentation in your case), it will be exposed for what it is. But on the other hand, if you are willing to learn; that is a different story

Ron, are you willing to learn? From me?

 

Ron,

i have responded piecemeal to portions of a variety of your posts. I am not avoiding any of your questions, but have singled out points I felt important to answer now. Repeat, or direct me to any you still would wish an answer to. I'll try not to allow such a lengthy gap in response next time.

O.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many points to be drawn from this:

Firstly – You made a “factual†claim, but you provided absolutely no “factual†evidence with which to support your claim (post 101) and I rebutted it in post 107.

 

The claim I am making is that some Christians support abortion. This link provides the substantiation you were seeking from me.

http://pewforum.org/Abortion/Religious-Gro...n-Abortion.aspx

72002[/snapback]

The claim I am making is that simply because someone ‘claims’ to be Christian, this doesn’t in fact make them Christian. And I am making this claim based on the facts the definition of “Christian/followers of Christ†as outlined by Jesus himself AND the New Testament. You base your opinion upon the assumption that anyone who simply calls themselves “Christianâ€ÂÂ, is what they claim.

 

Christianity, according to the New Testament, and most importantly Jesus, is a commitment and relationship, not lip service. Further, the New Testament, and Jesus Himself, are quite adamant against, and speaks in numerous passages in the opposition of “wolves in sheep’s clothingâ€ÂÂ, “judge them by their fruit†etc…

 

And most importantly, it doesn’t matter what a “self-sanctioning body†or a “pope†etcetera… decides on a Biblical subject, because; in order for you (or anyone else) to make such a claim (i.e. it’s perfectly okay to take an unborn child’s life as a follower of Christ), you need to show how such a thing comports with the life, ministry and teachings of Jesus Himself. Therefore, if you can show Jesus (or somewhere in the New Testament) where it shows it perfectly okay to take the innocent life of the unborn, then you might have a leg to stand on in this debate. Otherwise you are simply assuming once again.

 

 

Your refutation of my claim (post 107) was this:

If you actually took the time to understand the definition Jesus himself attributed to what a Christian is (after all, He is the model), you would understand the ridiculousness of your statement above.

I understand with great clarity that individuals who have devoted much more time to the study of the Bible and of Christ and of his views on how we should conduct ourselves than I have, do not find an inconsistency between favouring abortion and being Christians. My understanding of what constitutes a Christian is irrelevant in that regard.

72002[/snapback]

Studying a subject does not equate to a relationship and commitment to the author of the subject; it simply shows (at best) that someone is diligent in their studies. Especially if said scholar does not display the fruit of the commitment, as Jesus and the New Testament provide as evidence (Matthew 7: 15-20, Acts 20:28-31). And it doesn’t much matter what your understanding or “clarity†is, especially if you are superimposing your “understanding†over, above, and up against (as opposed to, or the opposite of) that of said author. In other words, your opinion (and that of others) on the life, teachings, and ministry of Jesus, means absolutely nothing if it is not consistent with (or does not comport with) said life, philosophy, and ministry. Therefore, your opinion on what constitutes a Christian, AND how a Christian should act when it comes to the action of abortion, are BOTH irrelevant, if you cannot come to grips the teachings of the originator of Christianity.

 

 

 

Now you correctly state elsewhere that it is God's place to declare who is or is not Christian. Yet you then ignore this and go ahead and state that those who approve of abortion cannot be Christian. You will have to explain that logic to me.

 

I see you're still having a problem with what "Jesus" said a Christian is... So here is my challenge (since you claim to be a Biblical scholar):

 

1- What did Jesus say a Christian is?

 

2 - How can you possibly (and honestly) claim to be a "Christian" and not be within the parameters that Jesus Himself set?

Here's your chance to step outside your relativistic mind set and submit to the truth and logic that you've heretofore ignored.

Jesus made no statements as to what a Christian is. As you well know the term was introduced at some point subsequent to his crucifixion. Are you conflating 'follower of Christ' with 'Christian'. I think so, but would like confirmation in order to avoid time wasted replyin to the wrong question.

72002[/snapback]

The above statement is as illogical, and as equivocal, as saying that dinosaurs didn’t exist before the 1800’s simply because the WORD dinosaur didn’t exist before the 1800’s. Your argument totally fails on that statement alone, because of your dalliance with prevarication on the subject, AND this further proves that you have no grip on the understanding of a Christian whatsoever.

 

The word “Christian†appears in the Bible in three verses, (Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16). Acts 11:26 itself states that the "disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."… This means that “Christians†are just another definition for "disciplesâ€ÂÂ, and who then were these "disciples†(John 8:30-32)? Does this somehow mean the "disciples†weren’t “Christiansâ€ÂÂ? No! Because the word “Christian†is derived from the Word “Christ†and the “ian†in the end denotes “followers ofâ€ÂÂ. So what can we learn from this?

The disciples (i.e. followers of Christ) were also called Christians.

These disciples/Christians dedicated the rest of their lives (literally) to the teachings, precepts, philosophy, words and life of Jesus Christ.

Further, ALL Christians throughout history then are supposed to be like the "disciples†of Jesus. And who were these "disciples†of Jesus? Peter, John, James (the greater), James (the lesser) etc…

 

I hate to further burst your bubble, but the New Testament “conflated†the definitions 'follower of Christ' with 'Christian'. Therefore your analogy further fails, because “I†did not “conflate follower of Christ with Christianâ€ÂÂ, I simply pointed out the obviousness of the fact.

 

Now, how do you suppose these “Disciples/Christians†would react to the taking of an unborn child’s life? Well, in Matthew 5:21-23, Jesus let us know what He thought about both murder AND simply being “angry with a brother or sisterâ€ÂÂ. He equated them as the same thing (or HE, Himself “conflated themâ€ÂÂ)! So, taking an innocent life is not “Christ-like†in any way. Therefore your hypothesis fails once again.

 

 

As I pointed out above: The titles “Follower of Christ†and “Christian†are synonymous! The fact that you don’t even understand this (the simplest of facts) provides evidence that you either don’t understand the basics of Christianity, or that you are intentionally equivocating on the terms.

 

::MOD HAT ON:: If the latter is the case, and you further attempt to come back and argue from your equivocation, you will be gone… You have been warned! ::MOD HAT OFF::

 

I would suggest that you do a little more research into the definition of a Christian (i.e. “based on or relating to a belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Messiah, and acceptance of his teachings, contained in the Gospels†, OR “ One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus†OR “One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus†etc…

 

ETYMOLOGY:

Middle English Cristen, from Old English cristen, from Latin Chrstinus, from Chrstus, Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you possibly (and honestly) be so absolutely, irrevocably certain that you have the correct interpretation of what Jesus set those parameters as?

72002[/snapback]

Because Jesus Himself set the parameters of the definition of a Christian (John 14: 15, Luke 9:23, John 8:12, John 12:25-26, John 12:44, Mat 12:45-50, Mat 22: 37-40, Mark 16:15-19, Luke 9:62, Luke 11:28 *This list is not all inclusive) , as testified by multiple eyewitnesses, and transcribed by some of said eyewitnesses. So, unless you have contemporaneous evidence to refute said eyewitnesses, anything you utter against their testimonies is nothing but presupposition and assumption.

 

Further, I do scholarly work and studies into the linguistics, historicity and archeological evidences (etc…) that support said “interpretation of what Jesus set those parameters asâ€ÂÂ.

 

Therefore your analogy further fails.

 

And you further attempt to change the scriptures to mean what you want them to mean, thusly setting yourself above that of Jesus Himself.

I do not how often I have to say that this is not primarily about my views, but about the observed fact that some Christians approve of abortion. They do so because they find it consistent with their reading of the Bible. You disagree with them. Level your objections at them by all means.

72002[/snapback]

 

Once again, you assume (without evidence) that there are “Christians†who approve of abortion. Further, you totally ignore the Biblical evidence that Jesus Christ set the parameters for the definition of His disciples/Christians/followers. Therefore I can level my objections at you, because YOU are ignoring the evidences to support your assertions. Also, since neither you nor they can provide Biblical evidence to support your assertions, you are both incorrect. Therefore your analogy further fails.

 

 

 

 

Again, you make the mistake of thinking “conviction†= “truthâ€ÂÂ, where I clearly explained that it doesn’t matter what YOU or I, or ANYONE ELSE attempts to define as Christian; The only definition that matters is that given by Christ Himself. You can continue to run from that with your continual relativistic convolutions, or we can have a real conversation about the “truth†of the matter… And that is up to you. But if you continue along your current path, I’ll just continue to point out the fallacies and misinterpretations/misinformation you are promulgating.

And I shall continue to point out that you are claiming to have an ability to recognise the truth. To fully understand the intent of Christ's words. To do so better than those individuals who find it possible to approve abortion and find it consistent with their Christian faith.

72002[/snapback]

To make an assertion as if it were factual, it is up to the poster of said assertion to provide evidence for said assertion. If said poster of the assertion is claiming to pull the assertion form another, it is still their responsibility to check the sources to find the validity of said claim.

 

As I have pointed out the fallacious nature of your claim by using actual facts, is your responsibility to either: Check the evidences and accept the validity, or provide evidence that invalidates the evidence I’ve provided. If you cannot provide factual refutation to the “facts†that I provided, the honorable thing for you to do is accept the weakness of your argument; there-again, if you can provide factual refutation (not mere opinion) for my rebuttal of your assertion, then I will freely accept that I was incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in a neutral position. I hear two camps, both claiming to be Christian's, both claiming to follow Christ's words, and both holding diametrically opposed views.

72002[/snapback]

The above is what is known as the “pretended neutrality fallacyâ€ÂÂ. It is a fallacy mainly because you are attempting to use fallacious information as facts to support your argument. It is further fallacious, because, contrary to the facts I have provided, you continue to zealously attempt your argument; even resorting to equivocation and prevarication in your rebuttal.

Therefor your arguments failes.

 

 

 

Seven (maybe eight) times out of ten, the Bible scoffer will come to forums like this with copied and pasted arguments from other atheist sites, with nefarious intent.

I have to assume this was directed at me Ron, since you wrote it in response to one of my posts. I can here declare with certainty, that all my arguments, regardless of their validity are wholly of my own making. I'm not even sure what an athiest site is! And, I'm not an atheist.

72002[/snapback]

First, it doesn’t matter if you are an atheist, as many Bible scoffers are agnostics, skeptics and even liberal biblical theologians.

 

Second, it doesn’t have to be directs at you to be a fact.

 

 

 

 

Thirdly – I really don’t care what your degree (or level) of studies in hermeneutics, eschatology, exegesis or eisegesis (etc…) are. If you are foundationally deficient, and that deficiency is pointed out, and yet you continue to travel down that road (via relativistic argumentation in your case), it will be exposed for what it is. But on the other hand, if you are willing to learn; that is a different story

Ron, are you willing to learn? From me?

72002[/snapback]

I have already learned quite a bit from you, and not in this post alone. Further, I learn from people of all walks of life; be they atheists, theists, agnostics, and liberal theologians (etc…). But I would suggest to you, that if you want me to learn from you in that manner you suggest, I would suggest you try actual facts, and not assumptions and presuppositions, as they are easily dismantled.

 

 

Ron,

i have responded piecemeal to  portions of a variety of your posts. I am not avoiding any of your questions, but have singled out points I felt important to answer now. Repeat, or direct me to any you still would wish an answer to. I'll try not to allow such a lengthy gap in response next time.

72002[/snapback]

When you equivocate, dodge facts and continue to argue from an opinion based stance, then you are indeed “avoiding my questionsâ€ÂÂ. Further, you haven’t answered any of my questions due to said tactics. The gap of time makes no difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron, it sounds like what you're saying is grounded strongly in the principle of "Sola Scriptura". I believe there is substantial debate within the Christian community, at least between Catholics and Protestants as to whether this principle is Biblical or not.

 

If it isn't biblical, wouldn't it be reasonable to look at sources in addition to the NT to determine what qualifies as Christian or not? And, if it IS a biblically sound principle, do you have evidence to support that position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron, it sounds like what you're saying is grounded strongly in the principle of "Sola Scriptura".

72071[/snapback]

First and foremost, it’s founded firmly in correcting misinterpretations and misrepresentations. What we are discussing here is the “exegesisâ€ÂÂ, eisegesis, and hermeneutics of the literature. And what we have to ask ourselves is; “What did Jesus say a Christian isâ€ÂÂ? And, as I pointed out over and over, being a “Christian†is all about JESUS, not what modern atheists, agnostics, liberal theologians or anyone else attempts to redefine a Christian as. Jesus set the parameters of what a Christian is.

 

While "Sola Scriptura", “Sola Fideâ€ÂÂ, “Sola gratiaâ€ÂÂ, “Soli Deo gloria†and “Solus Christus†are all summarizations of the Reformers' basic theological beliefs, none of these are indicative of (or descriptive of) what I am talking about. If you get down to the basic argument (or the crux of the matter, no pun intended), this is more about turning away the relativistic interlopers, and retaining the meaning.

 

I believe there is substantial debate within the Christian community, at least between Catholics and Protestants as to whether this principle is Biblical or not.

72071[/snapback]

Once again, it doesn’t matter what anyone else says, what matters is what Jesus said. As Jesus is the focus, the Author, the Architect (etcetera…) not the Christian community, the Catholics, the Protestants, the Agnostics, or the Atheists. Interpolations are Interpolations…

 

 

If it isn't biblical, wouldn't it be reasonable to look at sources in addition to the NT to determine what qualifies as Christian or not?

72071[/snapback]

No… If it isn’t Biblical, then it is NON-Biblical, or extra-Biblical, and is nothing more than mere opinion and supposition.

 

And, if it IS a biblically sound principle, do you have evidence to support that position?

72071[/snapback]

Absolutely! Did you not read posts 135 through 137? And that was just skimming the surface. Further, as I pointed out, if the “evidence†indicates that Jesus set the parameters of what a Christian is, and anyone wants to go outside those parameters, they (the interlopers) have no argument of substance.

 

So, my question then becomes: Do you have contemporaneous evidence to defeat that position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron,

1. I asked whether or not you were conflating "Christian" and "follower of Christ".

2. I did not indicate implicitly or explictly that such a conflation was wrong or undesirable.

3. I simply asked for clarification of your intent, so that I did not pursue a pointless line of discussion over the meaning of terms.

4. As a reward for seeking clarification you put your mod hat on!

 

Your interpretation of all of this is based upon your belief that Christ was the son of God, etc.

My interpretation is based on the notion he was a historical figure and altogether human.

This creates two irreconcilable viewpoints.

I trust you will not claim my withdrawal from this discussion as evidence of some kind of victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron,

1. I asked whether or not you were conflating "Christian" and "follower of Christ".

 

No, you made an assertion (in your post #134) by attempting to tie a fallacious and intentional misrepresentation to your “Christian” tag in your failed effort to answer my question “What did Jesus say a Christian is?”

 

Your statement: “Jesus made no statements as to what a Christian is. As you well know the term was introduced at some point subsequent to his crucifixion. Are you conflating 'follower of Christ' with 'Christian'. I think so, but would like confirmation in order to avoid time wasted replyin to the wrong question.” is as wholly illogical as saying dinosaurs didn't exist prior to the seventeen hundreds, because the word "dinosaur" didn't exist prior to that time. You do realize that, do you not?

 

Therefore the above is a totally fallacious misrepresentation, as I pointed out in my reply to you (Post #135)

 

And yet you continue to run from it.

 

2. I did not indicate implicitly or explictly that such a conflation was wrong or undesirable.

 

Your original misrepresentation shows otherwise.

 

3. I simply asked for clarification of your intent, so that I did not pursue a pointless line of discussion over the meaning of terms.

 

Post # 135 and # 136 prove otherwise. And you have failed to adequately address them.

 

4. As a reward for seeking clarification you put your mod hat on!

 

The only time the ::Mod Hat:: is inserted, is when forum rules are being violated. SO, now my question becomes, are you complaining about the forum moderating here?

 

At this point, you need to fully explain your statement #4!

 

Your interpretation of all of this is based upon your belief that Christ was the son of God, etc.

My interpretation is based on the notion he was a historical figure and altogether human.

This creates two irreconcilable viewpoints.

I trust you will not claim my withdrawal from this discussion as evidence of some kind of victory.

 

1- ALL of my statements are based solely upon the evidence adduced.

2- The historical Jesus IS well founded by a plethora of contemporanious documentation, and documentation in the succeeding two hundred years. Further, His "HISTORICAL" actions (Life, ministry, miracles, death, burial and ressurection) are well ducumented by actual eyewitnesses.

3-You, on the other hand, are basing your statements upon your worldview and mere opinion. As evidenced by your statements, attempts to twist the evidences, and lack of evidence to back up your statements and assertions.

 

Conclusion: Mine is NOT an intrepretation, but a literal assement of the facts. Yours, again, IS an interpretation based upon your beliefs (worldview that bumps up against the facts, and cannot accept them), and because you don't like the facts, you can do nothing more than posit presuppositions and 'a priori' opinions against them.

 

Further, this is not about “victory”, but about the evidences that we have to support our assertions. Further, I don’t claim to be right, I claim that the Biblical standard is correct, and has yet to be proven wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms