Maybe because.... you don't profess to have sex with other men? :think:Justin (Wiccan) said:
What disgusts you the most about beanieboy?
- Thread starter Poly
- Start date
- Status
Carver said:
And if I am, and am capable of it, I would encourage you to do so, because I want to be more enlightened. Teachers of Buddhism often question their followers.
A student was once meditating. A teacher asked him what he was doing, and the student said, "I'm meditating to become enlightened." The teacher picked up a tile and began polishing it. Curious, the student said, "what are you doing?" The teacher said, "I'm polishing a tile to make it into a mirror."
The student understood.
That's what one should do for another, but I am happy to allow christian to help other christians.
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
On Fire, your comment may be relevant...I'll substitute my name.
Would you define for me what you mean by "incapable?"
On Fire said:
Would you define for me what you mean by "incapable?"
Carver
New member
I do wear glasses, but I'm not blind yet, thank you very much. Anyway, even the most hyper-Calvinist I've ever met still had to incorporate the doctrine of 'general grace.' That is to say, even atheists, or other 'disgusting,' as many of you like to style them, non-Christians can say things that are in line with Scripture and God's will. This is because (according to my hyper-Calvinist friend) God still can work through their rather puppet like existence to do His will, even though He intends to toss them in the fire a little bit later.
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
On Fire said:
Now I know where this doctrine comes from ... but let me ask you this. Let us say that, as a non-Christian, I argue that Christians should not commit adultery, and use the appropriate scriptures to make my argument, is my argument somehow invalid, because I lack that "deeper understanding?"
Authority. Hmmm.... On Fire, I'm just not sure that your Bible ever has anything to say about that. This assertion may be a man-made doctrine.
But lest we get too far into an argument, when I cite Scripture in a discussion with Christians, I do not claim any "authority." As Christians are to follow Scripture, I allow the Scriptures to stand on their own authority.
so your claiming personal revealation by God of the true meaning of the words?On Fire said:
what if the meaning revealed to another believer is not the same?
does that mean God is wrong?
or are you and the other believer just a couple of kooks argueing about what your imaginary freind told you?
taoist
New member
Justin (Wiccan) said:
Yeah, I'd noticed that as well and wondered why it didn't draw the standard response. It's actually one of the few rules I set for myself on this site, never to use bible quotations against christians, though I'm quite liberal with them in discussions with Pastor Bob taoist-brudder. Mostly, I've resisted temptation, compromising by using uncited paraphrases when no suitable alternative seemed appropriate. What seems to me to be the actual dividing line is your alignment with the pro-life community. For that, here, you'll be forgiven a host of sins, IMHO.
***
fool,
that dosen't make him a hypocrite
taoist,
I can't check you on that one, fool. Necessarily, adherents of a religious faith, especially those who fall into any kind of literal interpretationist school, feel a sense of propietarian loyalty to their holy scripture. Their use of it amongst themselves is meant to illustrate from a common base pre-agreed as infallible. To use it to correct the actions of a fellow believer is justified in that worldview, but when it's perceived as being used as a cudgel by one who doesn't respect its provenance, it's twisting the underlying assumptions used amongst believers in debate. And as such, can be properly perceived as hypocrisy.
From another point of view, however, it's quite possible to pick the portions of their holy text one feels communicate spiritual truths, and use them in debate, as I do from time to time. But even there, it's uncomfortable for true believers who can't accept that their holy book can be seen as only partially relevant.
Last edited:
allsmiles
New member
I understand the club aspect, but this idea of a "deeper understanding" is ludicrous to me. How can it possibly get any deeper? And what of interpretations of the meaning of books like the Revelation? Or Ezekiel? What good has this deeper understanding ever done christianity when all they have done is kill and fight each other for the past two thousand years?
I guess what I don't understand is how they've gotten away with this foolishness for so long when it's so obviously (from the outside looking in) BS.
I guess what I don't understand is how they've gotten away with this foolishness for so long when it's so obviously (from the outside looking in) BS.
- Status