Misconceptions of Christianity 2

ephrem · July 28, 2010, 5:21pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …dude, you’re justifying abusive behaviour, and you’re still wondering why i’d reject your lifepreserver? By that same token you could justify any kind of behaviour. You do realise that, don’t you?

[/quote]No, I don’t realize that. My “token” is the Word of God and I will never attempt to justify any behavior not called for by Him. Why are you offended? I’m a self deluded, possibly insane intellectual antique who claims to hear the voice of a God you vehemently deny exists. So… who cares what I say? No unbeliever here, including you has offended me even once. Have you noticed that?[/quote]

…sorry, what should i have noticed? That you weren’t, or that you were, offended even once?

…you act in concordance with your beliefs, and your beliefs come from the bible. You believe so strongly that those words are the words of your god, and thus are absolute truth to you. So what if that word of god commands you to kill an abortion doctor? Or stone your wife for adultery? I’m not offended, but i do think you’re able to act in a way that’s damaging to your surroundings and justify that act by pointing at the bible. Am i wrong in thinking that?

ephrem · July 28, 2010, 5:23pm

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Hohoo, ephrem. you certainly know it, but one can’t have an open discourse with a believer, because thay are never really interested in your opinions, opinions are just obstacles to be cleared away so you can see the light. Believers are dishonest and you are only a potential point on the scoreboard. Halleluja. When you are right you can’t be wrong.[/quote]

…there are as many different kinds of believers as there are people, and they can all teach me something about the human condition. That is my motivation…

ephrem · July 28, 2010, 5:26pm

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…let’s determin that shall we? I was talking about:

[emphasis mine]

“Meta-ethical relativism is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people.”

…you on the other hand was talking about [i assume]:

“Normative relativism is the prescriptive or normative position that as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.”

…i agree with the first definition, not the second…[/quote]

Do you really think this gets you out of the moral relativist trap? Ummmm…no, it doesn’t. It just merely complicates your position a little and makes you feel like you’ve got a well-thought out, more sophisticated “philosophy” than straight moral relativism… But moral relativism - either flavor - is incoherent.
[/quote]

…so by all means, let’s not discuss the definitions and why we feel that way. The definition of moral relativism i agree with is clear enough. If you want to discuss that, fine, otherwise just let it rest…

Cortes · July 28, 2010, 6:10pm

Eph went over his stance on moral relativism in great detail on whatever thread it was that was started by Mak about Richard Dawkins trying to get the Pope imprisoned (“Arrest the Pope,” I think it was). He was quite shockingly honest in embracing the idea and acknowledging where the philosophy logically leads.

Hey Eph. I’m sitting this one out, hope you’ll forgive me, as you seem to have your hands full anyway. But I have been genuinely enjoying this thread from its inception, and I do hope that it continues.

Cortes · July 28, 2010, 5:54pm

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

Ephrem, my good man - that cartoon has it all wrong. It’s the “grey area” that’s (superficially) comforting. [/quote]

…how exactly?
[/quote]

Because “grey” demands nothing of you & tells you (usually in cloying language…now let’s cue Sesame Street music) that you’re okay just as you are; it flatters you endlessly that you’re not controlled by rigid conventions or rules; and yet, because you have no timeless truth by which to assess and judge (re: actually think) you drift along with the zeigeist of the times, dutifully responding to what you’re told to believe, all the while imagining that you’re a “free spirit,” which is exactly what you aren’t.

To step into a world of black & white is to confront reality as it is. Actually, to complete the metaphor, it is to confront the color grey as it is. What do you think grey is composed of but black & white?

Only the truth is ultimately comforting. [/quote]

…what you described here is how you perceive moral relativism, not my perception of it. Please keep that in mind…[/quote]

I see the sickness is deep - Ephrem, do you even believe that we’re able to identify what moral relativism is? Or is that relative to each person too?

[/quote]

…let’s determin that shall we? I was talking about:

[emphasis mine]

“Meta-ethical relativism is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people.”

…you on the other hand was talking about [i assume]:

“Normative relativism is the prescriptive or normative position that as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.”

…i agree with the first definition, not the second…[/quote]

Wow… you really are going to go for it again, aren’t you?

ephrem · July 28, 2010, 5:57pm

…hey Cortes; just a slow day at work. Catch ya later!

cueball · July 28, 2010, 6:02pm

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…how can it not? Seriously, i’m not allowed to be offended by a condescending remark because his beliefs are not mine, but because he believes what he’s saying i can’t be honest because of how it may be perceived?

…forget it, he’s not asking for, and not getting, special treatment from me…
[/quote]

Why do you feel his remark was condescending? If anything, his remark is in the light of wanting to turn you in the right direction. Care to explain in which light your remark was made?

Edit: Sorry Tirib if I’m speaking to much for you.[/quote]

…[condescending]i’m dreadfully sorry cueball, i really am, but if you lack the intelligence that i have, which can be yours if only you’d do what i believe is intelligent, you’re destined to dwell in your selfmade ignorance and blindness[/condescending]…

…i was honest when i said that i’d rather take the anchor instead of his lifepreserver, nothing more…[/quote]

I’m sorry you feel that way, but fair enough.

dmaddox · July 28, 2010, 6:11pm

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…i was honest when i said that i’d rather take the anchor instead of his lifepreserver, nothing more…[/quote]

Personally I would swim after you with the lifepreserver even after you took ahold of the anchor. I think any True Christian that cares for humans would do the same. It is your choice to accept Jesus.

We Christians know what it is like to be on both sides of the fence in this discussion. I agree 100% that what we beleive is Subjective Truth, right now in the eyes of the world, but this Subjective Truth will one day become Objective Truth when Jesus Returns.

I agree with Tirib for some reason God has put you on our heart and mind. I can not tell you why, but I pray for you daily.

kaaleppi · July 28, 2010, 6:27pm

It was just a pointy remark without any ill will towards anybody, just making one lurker known. I have been reading this thread all along and do not want to try to derail it.

cueball · July 28, 2010, 6:36pm

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
It was just a pointy remark without any ill will towards anybody, just making one lurker known. I have been reading this thread all along and do not want to try to derail it. [/quote]

“Believers are dishonest :)”

Then this should be taken purely as a joke, yes?

kaaleppi · July 28, 2010, 6:48pm

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
It was just a pointy remark without any ill will towards anybody, just making one lurker known. I have been reading this thread all along and do not want to try to derail it. [/quote]

“Believers are dishonest :)”

Then this should be taken purely as a joke, yes?[/quote]

No, rather as something to maybe generate a thought and an own answer. One can be dishonest in so many ways towards others and oneself, that I think we all are, in varying degrees, dishonest.

ephrem · July 28, 2010, 7:05pm

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…i was honest when i said that i’d rather take the anchor instead of his lifepreserver, nothing more…[/quote]

Personally I would swim after you with the lifepreserver even after you took ahold of the anchor. I think any True Christian that cares for humans would do the same. It is your choice to accept Jesus.

We Christians know what it is like to be on both sides of the fence in this discussion. I agree 100% that what we beleive is Subjective Truth, right now in the eyes of the world, but this Subjective Truth will one day become Objective Truth when Jesus Returns.

I agree with Tirib for some reason God has put you on our heart and mind. I can not tell you why, but I pray for you daily. [/quote]

…that’s unnecessary and pointless D, but nevertheless a nice thing to do (:

haney1 · July 28, 2010, 7:10pm

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…i was honest when i said that i’d rather take the anchor instead of his lifepreserver, nothing more…[/quote]

Personally I would swim after you with the lifepreserver even after you took ahold of the anchor. I think any True Christian that cares for humans would do the same. It is your choice to accept Jesus.

We Christians know what it is like to be on both sides of the fence in this discussion. I agree 100% that what we beleive is Subjective Truth, right now in the eyes of the world, but this Subjective Truth will one day become Objective Truth when Jesus Returns.

I agree with Tirib for some reason God has put you on our heart and mind. I can not tell you why, but I pray for you daily. [/quote]

…that’s unnecessary and pointless D, but nevertheless a nice thing to do (:
[/quote]

I have to second Cortes on this thread. Ephrem your openness and should I say tone in these last few threads has been enjoyable to read. Tends to remind me of many exchanges I had with pookie. Always challenging, entertaining, and very polite.

Brother_Chris · July 28, 2010, 7:19pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …what are you saying here: that you realize that your remarks may be perceived as offensive but that you can’t take responsibility for them because it’s god’s love that’s behind those remarks?[/quote]In short, yes. Jesus Christ is called a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense (1 Peter 2:8) where Peter is quoting the OT prophet Isaiah. He WILL be offensive to the prideful, self sufficient, self perceived autonomous sinner. (1 Cor. 1 again) There is however a major difference between being pridefully offensive in an attempt to get the opponents goat and letting the truth of the gospel do it’s offending.

I pray constantly while in these conversations to be preserved in His grace because God has given me a gift of wordsmanship which left to myself I can easily use to rip people to shreds in an abominable display of pride and self righteousness. Even then I still find myself slipping into it. I still have my old nature and am no better than you are in myself.

The problem with much of the modern church (at large) is she proclaims the name of Jesus, but is content to see her fellow men perish in hell rather than piss them off by telling them the truth. Or she’s become so much like they are nobody can tell the difference if there even is one at all in too many cases. I have said to you before that I am not trying to offend you, but if I am to be faithful to Him like he has been to me offenses WILL occur.[/quote]

That’s my problem, people call me a jerk all the time. Not like I want to be a jerk.

Tiribulus · July 28, 2010, 7:20pm

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …dude, you’re justifying abusive behaviour, and you’re still wondering why i’d reject your lifepreserver? By that same token you could justify any kind of behaviour. You do realise that, don’t you?

[/quote]No, I don’t realize that. My “token” is the Word of God and I will never attempt to justify any behavior not called for by Him. Why are you offended? I’m a self deluded, possibly insane intellectual antique who claims to hear the voice of a God you vehemently deny exists. So… who cares what I say? No unbeliever here, including you has offended me even once. Have you noticed that?[/quote]

…sorry, what should i have noticed? That you weren’t, or that you were, offended even once?

…you act in concordance with your beliefs, and your beliefs come from the bible. You believe so strongly that those words are the words of your god, and thus are absolute truth to you. So what if that word of god commands you to kill an abortion doctor? Or stone your wife for adultery? I’m not offended, but i do think you’re able to act in a way that’s damaging to your surroundings and justify that act by pointing at the bible. Am i wrong in thinking that?[/quote]Yes, you are wrong in thinking that. The bible forbids me from taking justice into my own hands like that and the theocratic levitical law is not binding on the invisible church. That is the consensus of Christians, catholic or protestant, the world over. Abortion clinic violence (which is a redundancy) and capital punishment for moral crimes (which there will be at the judgment anyway) are renounced and condemned by all, but an infinitesimal fraction of heretical nutcases that are also renounced and condemned.

You have this all upside down man. the bible brings civilization and order, it doesn’t destroy it.

Also if you have elsewhere gone into your views of moral relativism I will look there if so directed. I know how exasperating it is when you’ve typed a few dozen posts on something and then another thread starts and somebody who didn’t see it now wants you to do it all over again.

ephrem · July 28, 2010, 7:22pm

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…i was honest when i said that i’d rather take the anchor instead of his lifepreserver, nothing more…[/quote]

Personally I would swim after you with the lifepreserver even after you took ahold of the anchor. I think any True Christian that cares for humans would do the same. It is your choice to accept Jesus.

We Christians know what it is like to be on both sides of the fence in this discussion. I agree 100% that what we beleive is Subjective Truth, right now in the eyes of the world, but this Subjective Truth will one day become Objective Truth when Jesus Returns.

I agree with Tirib for some reason God has put you on our heart and mind. I can not tell you why, but I pray for you daily. [/quote]

…that’s unnecessary and pointless D, but nevertheless a nice thing to do (:
[/quote]

I have to second Cortes on this thread. Ephrem your openness and should I say tone in these last few threads has been enjoyable to read. Tends to remind me of many exchanges I had with pookie. Always challenging, entertaining, and very polite.[/quote]

…thank you, i consider that a compliment (:

Brother_Chris · July 28, 2010, 7:26pm

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Hohoo, ephrem. you certainly know it, but one can’t have an open discourse with a believer, because thay are never really interested in your opinions, opinions are just obstacles to be cleared away so you can see the light. Believers are dishonest and you are only a potential point on the scoreboard. Halleluja. When you are right you can’t be wrong.[/quote]

I do not think we are attempting to evangelize in here, I think this is a debate. Keep it to that and stop with the ad hominem.

ephrem · July 28, 2010, 7:28pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …dude, you’re justifying abusive behaviour, and you’re still wondering why i’d reject your lifepreserver? By that same token you could justify any kind of behaviour. You do realise that, don’t you?

[/quote]No, I don’t realize that. My “token” is the Word of God and I will never attempt to justify any behavior not called for by Him. Why are you offended? I’m a self deluded, possibly insane intellectual antique who claims to hear the voice of a God you vehemently deny exists. So… who cares what I say? No unbeliever here, including you has offended me even once. Have you noticed that?[/quote]

…sorry, what should i have noticed? That you weren’t, or that you were, offended even once?

…you act in concordance with your beliefs, and your beliefs come from the bible. You believe so strongly that those words are the words of your god, and thus are absolute truth to you. So what if that word of god commands you to kill an abortion doctor? Or stone your wife for adultery? I’m not offended, but i do think you’re able to act in a way that’s damaging to your surroundings and justify that act by pointing at the bible. Am i wrong in thinking that?[/quote]

Yes, you are wrong in thinking that. The bible forbids me from taking justice into my own hands like that and the theocratic levitical law is not binding on the invisible church. That is the consensus of Christians, catholic or protestant, the world over. Abortion clinic violence (which is a redundancy) and capital punishment for moral crimes (which there will be at the judgment anyway) are renounced and condemned by all, but an infinitesimal fraction of heretical nutcases that are also renounced and condemned.

You have this all upside down man. the bible brings civilization and order, it doesn’t destroy it.

Also if you have elsewhere gone into your views of moral relativism I will look there if so directed. I know how exasperating it is when you’ve typed a few dozen posts on something and then another thread starts and somebody who didn’t see it now wants you to do it all over again.[/quote]

…that’s good to know Tiribulus; that you’re not a nutcase (:

…this thread: Forums - T Nation - The World's Trusted Community for Elite Fitness was a good one. Great discussion with Cortes, and a good learning experience. The wiki-definition i posted earlier does reflect my opinion pretty accurately, though…

Brother_Chris · July 28, 2010, 7:43pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
invisible church
[/quote]

Just so everyone knows the Catholic Church does not recognize an invisible church, as the Church is something different than what we considered the Mystical Body of Christ.

Tiribulus · July 28, 2010, 7:58pm