[quote]confusion wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
I have never debated these things before. I have no practice. Of course I am doing my best to lrove my point using your own scriptures. Lets be real for a moment. Ok? If I use the book you live by,quoting things it tells you,please refute it with scripture. I also don’t lime being called a liar or some kind of phoney. Again,go back and read my posts. They get put in late and you boys are 2 pages ahead of me. Let me say also,although it should be clear by my posts,I am being respectful,and citing scripture and have gotten 1 scripture in rezponse. If a person without bias,read the new testament,what conclusion would they come to? The word of God says…what does it mean? Do the words not mean what they say? Why? No challenges on the 10 commandments thing? Confusion
[/quote]
Well, I can say I have never called you phony or a liar. I don’t think you are either, but I do see a lack of understanding why what you are doing is misdirected and wrong. Also, it is very annoying to me–although this is not your fault personally. This just happens to be the 5 billionth time I’ve had people attempt the same kind of argument style and it really wears on you after that many attempts at explanation of why it is incorrect.
It is good to practice debating things, practice only comes by doing and reading (and then applying by doing). I would warn you down the road to get a thick skin because it gets pretty sharp in this forum, but it is never personal. That said, your generally congenial attitude has been refreshing.[/quote]
thank you. I hope you find some of my arguments less annoying,I honestly mean that,and hope to show you some thoughts on your faith you may not have considered. Confusion. Ps. Please remember to look back. My posts are slow in showing up and are sometimes pages behind.
[/quote]
Well, it is the weekend and I am just getting ready to leave work, so I don’t know that I will respond for a while. Honestly SM’s critiques have been pretty well placed.
Look, you don’t go to a physicist and tell them what their equations or theories or hypotheses mean without reading a lot of commentary by other physicists who came up with the theories first do you? No, because they’d look at you like you were crazy. Same goes for biology, chemistry.
Same goes for philosophy. You don’t tell a philosophy prof “well I read Kierkegaard and he says this on page 112, so you must be wrong”. You don’t do that because 1) you will get academically bitch slapped even if the conversation is ONLY on Kierkegaard and whether or not this professor is an adequate follower of his philosophy. 2) you don’t do that because besides just reading the text on a surface level you have to analyze it. Then, after that, you look at the criticisms and commentaries on it by other philosophers. Maybe you agree with their commentaries and maybe you don’t but then at least you know what the consensus among educated philosophers is on the subject.
You also don’t do the same with zen buddhism or taoist buddhism, or hinduism do you? No, because there is a large pool of accumulated knowledge on the topic that has been accepted as the general school of thought. The general canon if you will. Even with physics and other fields in science this is true among people of competing perspectives (string theorist vs. multiverse advocate).
You are doing this same thing with the Bible verses. You have made claims. These claims have been critiqued based on simple context, which is indeed a valid form of critique, and with context to back it up. Furthermore the vast vast majority of the reliable and accepted canon of biblical commentaries affirms our position. But you are saying, “no, that is not acceptable because you need to quote a verse”. As sexmachine has said, now the burden of proof is in fact on you.
