What part of dealing with whatever life throws your way and doing your best is it that confuses you?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
He's doing the best he can with what he's got WG.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
|
What part of dealing with whatever life throws your way and doing your best is it that confuses you?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
He's doing the best he can with what he's got WG.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Two questions on post 71. My two answers on post 72.Quote:
What two questions on which post#?
Putdown, veiled threat, acccusations -- very Christian of you....
Let's get back to the salvation topic on this board.
You don't want to answer questions. That's fine. Just drop it.
I understand it fine. It does not answer any of the 3 questions, but that's fine as well. I really don't know what it is with you two that you evade answering questions, but like I said, that's fine. Just drop it.Quote:
What part of dealing with whatever life throws your way and doing your best is it that confuses you?
Good question. Please post an answer if you get one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
That's a good question? "How so?" Well...OK.
Wait. I keep forgetting that Athos is blind to me. Perhaps his spy will report this.
"How so?" was my wondering how I had been evasive, according to you. I had answered your question. That's evasive? -- what? because I didn't give the "correct" answer JL wanted?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
This is a sarcastic rejoinder from Jlisenbe when I referred to the Religious Wars in Christianity as an example of innocents killing innocents both sides claiming the approval of the Christian God. The full answer/discussion can be found in post #55 in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I have much more to say in reply to that post but it is long enough that my reply is truncated, so I will do it in small steps. In the meantime, I will give Jl's comments on Shinto so anyone reading can get a sense of his thought process.
The boxed-in quotes are all word-for-word from Jlisenbe.
Quote:
So you are genuinely asking me to believe that a man would present the Shinto religion as evidence supporting a position when all the while he doesn't believe it? That's pretty preposterous.
Quote:
So you believe the Shinto religion, but do not accept what the Bible says? Well, at least you have made your choice. And if the Shinto religion is the best "evidence" you have, then plenty of evidence absolutely does not abound. I find that when someone assures me that, "Plenty of evidence abounds," and then offers up some weak as water explanation like the Shinto religion, then they basically have nothing.
Quote:
He stated above that the Shinto religion was evidence sufficient to support his previously stated theory. Wouldn't that suggest that he believes it?
Quote:
You plainly stated that the Shinto religion was "evidence" in your beliefs about man. Now perhaps you are going to tell us that you have no belief in your own evidence. That strikes me as foolish beyond belief, but then it's not my statement to defend. Perhaps you can explain why any person would present as evidence materiel he doesn't believe to be true.
Quote:
Well...that makes a lot of sense. Shinto is my evidence, but I don't believe it is true. OK then. Gotcha.
Here's my position on Shinto, which Jlisenbe seems incapable of grasping. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN SHINTO. I used that Japanese religion to give an example of some who believe natural objects are inhabited by spirits. Such a belief goes back into history. For reasons that I cannot understand, Jlisenbe keeps insisting that I BELIEVE in Shinto.
Read his reasons why, which I have included in this post. If someone can explain this simple concept to Jlisenbe, I will be forever grateful. Thank you.
For the rest of his post#55, I will soon be replying to that as time and space allow. But sooner rather than later.
There's at least one...Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
What jlisenbe is getting at is the nature of truth. When you talk of my truth or your truth, when you say what works for an individual is not objective truth. It is subjective [fill in the blank].
Discovering requires objective observation followed by subjective interpretation, then we may all observe the same object, while potentially coming to different conclusions of its nature. It is asserted here that because of the subjective interpretation we each hold a different truth, while jlisenbe asserts that truth is objective.
In order for there to be any discussion of the nature of Christianity, we must first establish what is the objective nature of it, then we may debate the subjective interpretations of it.
If we cannot agree on the objective basis therein, we can not begin to debate those subjective conclusions drawn from said object.
The object in question must certainly be the bible, as it is the original story of Christianity.
If there are any other sources, bring them in and it may be an object worth devoting the subjective conclusions of the bible to test their veracity.
Example:
Source A = "Quoted Text,"
Source B = "Quoted Text,"
Interpretation, do they agree/disagree, what is truth? One, Both, Neither.
Simply stating, my belief is true sways none. There can be no discussion following an unsubstantiated charge of a subjective nature, only I agree or disagree. The why no longer exists, it is final in that it is what you believe and that is all that matters. I.e. you create your own god.
It may be worthwhile discussing the nature of truth. Can there even be objectivity? If you believe yes, then you must find the objects to mold your belief to, or if you believe no, then you have no basis in believing anything and fall into skeptics' territory where none of the universe can be substantiated. There would be no discussion to be had.
jlisenbe, correct me if I'm wrong, is simply trying to establish a baseline objective fact that may be debated. That words are written on a page is fact, their place in history can be debated, and their assertions can be debated, they can be shown objectively and then debated objectively, whereby we can all draw our own subjective conclusions.
Your original question is not a question of Christianity at all. It is really questioning the truth of the bible. If the bible says X, then why does it say Y.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
First of all, you presume that the bible is in error. Your beliefs seem to align with the sciences we have today, the psychological nature of man, the history of religions as a whole, I'm sure you have other's not discussed here, nevertheless you hold these in higher value than that of the bible.
You guys talk of discernment as a process of reasoning, there, I'm afraid you have made a grave mistake in your definition. Discernment is the process of judging one from another, discriminating ideas one from another, and placing them in a hierarchy of validity. You cannot equate reason with judgement, logic with wisdom. You sound like the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers of Acts 17, “What does this babbler wish to say?”
The proper answer to these questions is theological, and specifically from Christian theology. jlisenbe is trying to establish the baseline for Christian theology, the bible itself. You must at least pretend that the bible is true to enter into its theology, much like you pretend a proof is true, and regard the original contention on the same basis as the validity of the proof, once followed to its own conclusions.
Bluntly, I think you don't want an answer to this question, it would be better for you to think salvation is mysterious, rather than have to analyze and discern the statements in the bible, which it itself asserts as truth.
A proof of inconsistencies in the bible would also be detrimental to your logic. You would then have to abandon the need for salvation.
There is no other body of religious text that asserts the things the bible does, that we are sinful persons, and that we are separated from God because of our sins, because of our own personal choices. We are responsible for our sins and must pay the penalties that they demand. The only way that God can allow us to be saved from this damnation, being a righteous and perfect God, is through Christ. Christ is the perfect sacrifice, only his blood, in the history of mankind, is pure. Only pure blood can offer to pay for another person's penalty where blood is demanded.
To accept his sacrifice you must accept the divinity of Christ and the miracle of the resurrection, accept your nature as flawed, yourself as deserving of hell, and then repent. Proclaim these things and turn away from your sin. Look to do only what is right; at that you will fail, but then Christ will walk with you, picking you up along the way, encouraging you and training you in righteousness.
This is the nature of salvation, and if you really wanted to get into it further, it would be a theological discussion.
Your long reply has many points of dispute.Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
HOWEVER, Athos (me) is NOT the originator of the statement. If you had read carefully, you would know that it comes from Dwashbur. I will let him answer your lengthy diatribe if he so desires.
To the Ghost named Athos:(joke)Quote:
I used that Japanese religion to give an example of some who believe natural objects are inhabited by spirits.
Nope. Not true. The shadowy figure named Athos used the Shinto religion as EVIDENCE (your word) of something you considered to be true about the nature of man. "Plenty of evidence abounds. See the Japanese religion called Shinto. That's evidence." (Post 34) Now you want to change your wording to "example" and then suggest that I didn't grasp the meaning, and profess as well that you don't believe in Shintoism. Fine. You offered as evidence (you claimed there was PLENTY of evidence) that which you now claim not to believe. That's an obviously ridiculous claim since that which a person claims to be untrue cannot be introduced as affirmative evidence. I have no doubt that you don't believe in Shintoism. It was your eagerness to use it as evidence that was poor judgment. A little honesty on your part would be nice.
As to the rest of this, I'm not going to have a silly discussion spread around on several threads which has to take place in the third person. The place to have this conversation is here. If you want to discuss it, then man up and do so. If you want to keep working through your network of "spies" and make comments all over the board, then do that with someone else. I have to constantly recheck your former posts since you change your tune as the thread goes along. That can be clearly seen above by your changing "evidence" to "example". If we're in multiple threads then that's too much. It's utter foolishness that I don't have time for. Your replies can be interesting and I do profit from reading them, but a measure of reason would be good.
Info, good statement. We cannot all have our own little gods. We cannot all have our own, personal truths about God. Taken to it's logical conclusion, it ends up being about the same as suggesting there is no god at all.Quote:
There can be no discussion following an unsubstantiated charge of a subjective nature, only I agree or disagree. The why no longer exists, it is final in that it is what you believe and that is all that matters. I.e. you create your own god.
Here's the real difficulty people have with the Bible. The Bible makes statements that many people (including me) find offensive or disagreeable. The Bible says, for instance, that sex outside of marriage is wrong. People don't like that, so they begin to "soften" what it says by appealing to back-alley translations of words, or by appealing to cultural shifts, or by making claims that the Bible is not reliable or that it is merely subjective. Why? It's largely because they don't like what it says. And yet those same people will eagerly agree in areas where the Bible happens to say something they agree with. It's like buying a "Make Your Own God" kit in Walmart.
That is so true. We need to reconcile ourselves with the truth, oftentimes this is painful. This drives people from the light they so desperately need, and the pain often justifies their rational.
So very true. That's why it's important for people to learn that God's love and wisdom are very great. He does not merely have a different way;He has a better way.Quote:
That is so true. We need to reconcile ourselves with the truth, oftentimes this is painful. This drives people from the light they so desperately need,
But we do. How many religions are there? How many denominations are there in Christianity? Which "truth" is the true one?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The major denominations of Christianity are irrelevant to the doctrines of the Bible. If you examine the text, you will find truth. It starts with accepting Christ for who He is and repenting of your sins to Him.Quote:
Originally Posted by wondergirl
As far as other religions go, you will have to examine them and see how much truth they contain.
Being religious is not without it's work. Proclaiming a certain religion and largely ignoring it is simply a form of hypocrisy where you lie to yourself.
No, we don't. We have personal convictions about God, but God is who He is. Your thoughts or mine do not affect the truth of who God is. I might become personally convinced that you are a retired truck driver rather than a retired librarian. In that case I would simply be wrong. Our personal convictions do not equate to truth. We are all entitled to our own convictions, but we are not entitled to our own personal truth.Quote:
But we do. How many religions are there? How many denominations are there in Christianity? Which "truth" is the true one?
Your final question is a great one. Have you settled on an answer?
Was there really a garden called Eden where lived the first man named Adam and the first woman named Eve -- or is that an allegory? Was there really a worldwide flood -- or is that an allegory? Was Jonah really swallowed by a great fish and was spit out after three days -- or is that an allegory? Should the Book of Revelation be read with a preterist understanding -- or a futurist understanding?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Which "truth" is the true one?
You are mixing apples and oranges. You are arguing about the reliability of the Bible. I am arguing for the truth of God. Not the same argument. God is how He is no matter what you or I believe about Him. So no matter what a person believes about Eden, Noah, or Jonah, it does not affect the truth about God Himself.
But even in interpreting the Bible, there is still only one truth. I believe Adam and Eve existed. You seem not to. Well, we cannot both be correct. That's what I mean when I say you are not entitled to your own, personal version of the truth concerning God or the truth concerning the Bible.
Now lest you misunderstand, I do believe the Bible is God's Word and God is who the Bible says He is, but those two subjects can still be argued separately.
Your question changes nothing. You seem to be saying that you don't know which truth is the true one. OK. That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that a "true one" does exist.Quote:
Which "truth" is the true one?
This is my favorite part, discussing the texts of the bible and testing them against reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by wondergirl
Just know, 2000+ years of Greek thought asserts scientific "truth" that is ever changing, the bible has remained unchanged in its assertions.
Although the statement was not mine, the post seems directed at me. So I will answer it, not to steal Dwashbur's thunder, but simply to explain my thoughts. I will first do Infojunkie, leaving others for a later post since this is getting too jumbled.
It was questioning the nature of worship or the worship of God or the nature of salvation. The Bible had not entered into the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
I made no such presumption. Please, let's not get off to a bad start with you putting words in my mouth.Quote:
First of all, you presume that the bible is in error.
Mostly, yes. How could it be otherwise? Do you not align with those things?Quote:
Your beliefs seem to align with the sciences we have today, the psychological nature of man, the history of religions as a whole,
Not necessarily, but maybe you could give an example. Also, please, putting words in my mouth is not nice.Quote:
you hold these in higher value than that of the bible.
Yes, it is a process of reasoning. Isn't all human thought a process of reasoning?Quote:
You guys talk of discernment as a process of reasoning,
Your definition is a process of reasoning.Quote:
I'm afraid you have made a grave mistake in your definition. Discernment is the process of judging one from another, discriminating ideas one from another, and placing them in a hierarchy of validity.
Judgement and wisdom are the fruits of reason - not the same thing or equal to.Quote:
You cannot equate reason with judgement, logic with wisdom.
Now you're getting nasty. Why is this a characteristic of Bible believers?Quote:
You sound like the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers of Acts 17, “What does this babbler wish to say?”
If you're referring to my two questions above (mountain worshipers), I'm afraid you've made a grave error. Theology, the study Of God, is fine to use, but you can't eliminate anthropology among other disciplines. When you claim only Christian theology is applicable, now you're getting into proselytizing which depends more on faith than on reason.Quote:
The proper answer to these questions is theological, and specifically from Christian theology.
Yes, I'm only too aware of Jlisenbe's Bible position. He's never been reticent about showing it.Quote:
jlisenbe is trying to establish the baseline for Christian theology, the bible itself.
Your second grave error. It is not necessary to pretend the Bible is true to enter into its theology.Quote:
You must at least pretend that the bible is true to enter into its theology,
I have no idea what this sentence means. Can you rephrase it?Quote:
much like you pretend a proof is true, and regard the original contention on the same basis as the validity of the proof, once followed to its own conclusions.
Bluntly, that's one way of getting out of answering it.Quote:
Bluntly, I think you don't want an answer to this question
The remainder of your post, quoted below, is simply your preaching for your religion. You may do that all you want, but this topic and thread is not about promoting your religion. It is about the post which attracted you enough for you to reply, but you have found a reply beyond your capacities. That's obvious when you go off into "The Bible told me so" as an argument.
Quote:
, it would be better for you to think salvation is mysterious, rather than have to analyze and discern the statements in the bible, which it itself asserts as truth.
A proof of inconsistencies in the bible would also be detrimental to your logic. You would then have to abandon the need for salvation.
There is no other body of religious text that asserts the things the bible does, that we are sinful persons, and that we are separated from God because of our sins, because of our own personal choices. We are responsible for our sins and must pay the penalties that they demand. The only way that God can allow us to be saved from this damnation, being a righteous and perfect God, is through Christ. Christ is the perfect sacrifice, only his blood, in the history of mankind, is pure. Only pure blood can offer to pay for another person's penalty where blood is demanded.
To accept his sacrifice you must accept the divinity of Christ and the miracle of the resurrection, accept your nature as flawed, yourself as deserving of hell, and then repent. Proclaim these things and turn away from your sin. Look to do only what is right; at that you will fail, but then Christ will walk with you, picking you up along the way, encouraging you and training you in righteousness.
This is the nature of salvation, and if you really wanted to get into it further, it would be a theological discussion.
A necessary predicate for establishing belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I don't get the joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Jlisenbe - I'm going to try one last time. Why you cannot understand is truly beyond me and anyone else who reads these Shinto comments. You even wrote the true statement above!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
The shadowy figure named Athos used the Shinto religion as EVIDENCE (your word) of something you considered to be true about the nature of man.
SHINTO-IS-EVIDENCE-OF-THE-NATURE-OF-MAN. Full stop. Period. The evidence consists in primitive man attributing spirits in natural objects - like a tree or a big rock or the ocean or the sky. The belief continues to this day in the traditional Japanese religion called Shinto. How you get from this that I am a "Shinto-ist" boggles the mind.
I note you're slightly backtracking, so maybe there's hope for you yet.
As I clearly noted, I had to spread them around because the site would not post them all at once. Whoever organized them into a coherent series of posts has my gratitude. No one else has had trouble reading them. I suspect this is just another excuse for you to not reply when it does not suit you. Whenever you come up with charging members with "evasions", we all know you're just avoiding replying.Quote:
I'm not going to have a silly discussion spread around on several threads
When you can, I suggest you present your case as best you can. Bible believing is a legitimate approach but when it degenerates into nastiness, the approach is not well-served.
I will try to be more reasonable.Quote:
Your replies can be interesting and I do profit from reading them, but a measure of reason would be good.
I re-read this part of your post and I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The threads are getting far too muddled - partly my fault trying to fit in a too-long reply resulting in that 6-part fiasco.
So I will keep you and your posts active and not block them anymore. I hope the two of us can keep the nastiness out.
Anyway, "MAN THE GUNS"!!
I am NOT entitled to my own personal version of the truth concerning God and the Bible -- the truth as I understand it? Then whose version am I supposed to believe? Your version? Ah, I bet that's the real God's-truth version! You think you believe correctly and I don't?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Again, whose "true one" am I supposed to believe? Yours? And that is what?Quote:
Your question changes nothing. You seem to be saying that you don't know which truth is the true one. OK. That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that a "true one" does exist.
No, it's not. The beliefs of Shintoism are evidence of nothing more that the beliefs of Shintoism, and that's especially true when you profess from the other side of your mouth that you don't even believe their beliefs. Even worse, you seem to think that since Shintoism professes a belief in spirits existing in material objects, then that must surely prove that primitive man also believed that. But primitive men, if there was such a thing, were not adherents of Shintoism since it only dates back to about 500 B.C. So if your best evidence of your description of the nature of man is to refer to a philosophy that you don't even agree with, then you are bankrupt from an evidence point of view.Quote:
SHINTO-IS-EVIDENCE-OF-THE-NATURE-OF-MAN. Full stop. Period. The evidence consists in primitive man attributing spirits in natural objects - like a tree or a big rock or the ocean or the sky. The belief continues to this day in the traditional Japanese religion called Shinto. How you get from this that I am a "Shinto-ist" boggles the mind.
Happy days are here again.Quote:
So I will keep you and your posts active and not block them anymore.
Agreed.Quote:
I hope the two of us can keep the nastiness out.
You can believe anything you want. You cannot assume it is true, and certainly you cannot expect others to assume so, just because you believe it. The same is true for me. That is why I frequently ask people here for evidence, and why I don't ask for examples, or simply quaint stories of what others believe.Quote:
I am NOT entitled to my own personal version of the truth concerning God and the Bible -- the truth as I understand it?
I have never, ever, on a single occasion suggested you believe something simply because I do. If you are suggesting I have, then you are being blatantly dishonest.Quote:
Then whose version am I supposed to believe? Your version? Ah, I bet that's the real God's-truth version! You think you believe correctly and I don't?
Chiming in here -- have you studied Shinto beliefs? Some are actually quite similar to those of Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
So what?
If I want to introduce something as evidence, it needs to be true. "Your honor, I am introducing Shinto beliefs as evidence." "OK. Are these beliefs true?" "Your honor, I have no idea if they are true or not." "And you think you can introduce THAT as evidence? What law school did you graduate from?"
Someone needs to study the nature of evidence. And to say, "Oh, have you studied Shintoism??? Some of it is similar to whatever," is useless. That carries not one ounce of weight. The only thing that matters is that my evidence is true and I can demonstrate it is true. Otherwise, it is useless. Athos introduced the idea, so it would be his job to demonstrate that his evidence is true and therefore of some use.
If you believe the nature of evidence is otherwise, please give me an explanation of your belief and an example demonstrating your explanation.
Wow! This is your take on avoiding nastiness?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yes, that is my contention. We know from ancient religions that natural objects were worshiped. It is hardly a stretch to project that belief further back.Quote:
Even worse, you seem to think that since Shintoism professes a belief in spirits existing in material objects, then that must surely prove that primitive man also believed that.
Of course, there was such a thing. The fossil record is at least 4 million years ago. The earliest humans, compared to modern times, were clearly primitive. Here is another area where I simply cannot grasp what you are driving at by denying mankind in its primitive state.Quote:
But primitive men, if there was such a thing,
I never said primitive man was a Shinto believer. I used Shinto to indicate the age-old belief in nature spirits is still with us today in that religion.Quote:
(primitive man) were not adherents of Shintoism since it only dates back to about 500 B.C.
The USSR was a communist country. I don't believe in Communism. Does that mean my evidence for the USSR being Communist is "bankrupt".Quote:
So if your best evidence of your description of the nature of man is to refer to a philosophy that you don't even agree with, then you are bankrupt from an evidence point of view.
I hope you mean these comments. Maybe your first comment above was simply a hangover from times past.Quote:
Happy days are here again.
Agreed.
You are welcome to your contentions. That does not amount to anything even approaching evidence. You have no idea what ancient man believed. No one does.Quote:
Yes, that is my contention. We know from ancient religions that natural objects were worshiped. It is hardly a stretch to project that belief further back.
No, you tried to used Shintoism as evidence for this. "The first worshiper is the man “coming out of the ooze” and he sees this magnificent mountain (or anything else impressive to the primitive mind) and, like the later worshiper, he attributes certain qualities to it." Now if you think it might indicate that possibility, then fine, but it is certainly nothing even approaching reliable evidence that it happened.Quote:
I used Shinto to indicate the age-old belief in nature spirits is still with us today in that religion.
Oh? Describe that 4 million year record. Be specific about the fossils.Quote:
Of course, there was such a thing. The fossil record is at least 4 million years ago.
You're confused. You say you have evidence that the USSR is communist. If you do, and it's true, then that qualifies as evidence. It is a completely different matter to say you don't believe in communism. Your belief/non-belief in communism is not being presented as evidence for anything, so those are two totally separate issues because the question is not whether or not you believe in communism, but whether or not your evidence that the USSR was communist is demonstrably true. Only then does it rise above a "contention" and become evidence.Quote:
The USSR was a communist country. I don't believe in Communism. Does that mean my evidence for the USSR being Communist is "bankrupt".
You are reading my posts. Fine. It is not a major issue with me.Quote:
Happy days are here again.
Yes, my contention is based on various disciplines - anthropology and history being two. Contentions based on these disciplines do approach evidence. Then there's circumstantial evidence which I assume you would deny. When you wake up in the morning and see snow on the ground, that is circumstantial evidence that it snowed during the night. Do you accept that?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yes, I do have an idea of what ancient man believed. Ancient man left records that described his beliefs. That includes the Sumerians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Hebrews, and many others.Quote:
You have no idea what ancient man believed. No one does.
I'm beginning to see your difficulty concerning evidence. You want the past to be proved by an actual object. Much of the past can be surmised by the means I mentioned above. I can't show you a body of a human that lived in Slovakia one thousand years ago, but I'm positive a human did live in Slovakia one thousand years ago. I assume you would deny my statement unless I provided the body. If you tell me you love your children, should I not believe you for lack of evidence?Quote:
No, you tried to used Shintoism as evidence for this. "The first worshiper is the man “coming out of the ooze” and he sees this magnificent mountain (or anything else impressive to the primitive mind) and, like the later worshiper, he attributes certain qualities to it." Now if you think it might indicate that possibility, then fine, but it is certainly nothing even approaching reliable evidence that it happened.
Be glad to:Quote:
Describe that 4 million year record. Be specific about the fossils.
Australopithecines have been found in savannah environments; they probably developed their diet to include scavenged meat. Analyses of Australopithecus africanus lower vertebrae suggests that these bones changed in females to support bipedalism even during pregnancy.
Kenyanthropus platyops, a possible ancestor of Homo, emerges from the Australopithecus. Stone tools are deliberately constructed.[32]
Early Homo appears in East Africa, speciating from australopithecine ancestors. Sophisticated stone tools mark the beginning of the Lower Paleolithic Homo erectus derives from early Homo or late Australopithecus.
Homo erectus derives from early Homo or late Australopithecus. it is also known to have coexisted with H. erectus for almost half a million years
H. erectus is the first known species to develop control of fire
There's much more to be had from an easy trip to Wikipedia or one of dozens of other sites.
Well, there's no doubt that one of us surely is. Confused.Quote:
You're confused.
I used the same reasoning you did re Shinto. If my USSR example is wrong, then so is your Shinto example. You are way too deep in the weeds.Quote:
You say you have evidence that the USSR is communist. If you do, and it's true, then that qualifies as evidence. It is a completely different matter to say you don't believe in communism. Your belief/non-belief in communism is not being presented as evidence for anything, so those are two totally separate issues because the question is not whether or not you believe in communism, but whether or not your evidence that the USSR was communist is demonstrably true.
It seemed that it was, but no problem.Quote:
You are reading my posts. Fine. It is not a major issue with me.
Infojunkie - A reminder of your post that hasn't been answered yet.
Quote:
If we deny the authority of scripture concerning salvation, or any other spiritual thing for that matter, then we create a subjective version of Christianity.
If we start with the subjective version of Christianity, then how can we have an objective argument concerning the nature of Christianity?
If we are not speaking on Christianity, but of salvation of a different nature, then define your terms so we can consider those things.
It's good to define terms. Let's start with subjective and objective.
Subjective - based on opinion, belief, emotions personal judgement.
Objective - based on analysis, fact-based, measurable and observable.
Scripture, Christianity and other like systems, are clearly subjective.
To answer your question of how can we have an objective argument concerning the nature of Christianity, we can't.
Once again you have changed terms. Ancient man is not the same as primitive man. Primitive man was the topic. You have no idea what they believed. I have made no comment on ancient man. Obviously we know much of what they believed since we have some record of that, and those written records are EVIDENCE.
It might if you had presented any of that information. You have not, so it does not. The only "evidence" you presented was the Shinto religion, and that, as I pointed out, was evidence of nothing. You might as well suggest that you know that primitive man played sports and use the Major Leagues as "evidence".Quote:
Yes, my contention is based on various disciplines - anthropology and history being two. Contentions based on these disciplines do approach evidence.
No one has mentioned bodies or objects but you. You have presented conjecture but not evidence. You are presenting the three species below as examples of primitive man. Not you nor anyone else knows what those species believed, or even if they were capable of that type of religious belief which they were likely not capable of.
Primitive, yes. Man, no. Clearly an ape-like creature.Quote:
When it says it's a possible ancestor of homo, that clearly tells you it is not man.Quote:
And again, primitive yes, but man no.Quote:
So you have no genuine fossil evidence of a 4 million year old primitive man. And please don't try and tell me that you or anyone else knows that these ape like creatures engaged in the worship of mountains or anything else.
You didn't, and sadly you cannot see that. The only case your example tried to make was that the USSR was communist. I agreed that a person could present evidence for that. You also mentioned you did not agree with communism, but that was not being presented as evidence of anything, and neither was communism itself being presented as evidence, so your comparison fell flat since any belief or unbelief you might have had concerning communism made no difference as to whether or not the USSR was a communist system. It was two completely different positions.Quote:
I used the same reasoning you did re Shinto. If my USSR example is wrong, then so is your Shinto example. You are way too deep in the weeds.
BTW, even if you believed in Shintoism, you could not possibly use it as any real evidence of the beliefs of primitive man, a species you say existed about 4 million years prior to that religion. One would have had no impact at all on the other.
Quoting scriptures written by ancient man to promote his new religion isn't all that compelling of evidence, and who needs evidence to have FAITH? The very premise of salvation in my opinion is a bit overblown and the notion it's the exclusive domain of one religion is hard to believe since they all make that claim in one form or another.
I guess it just ain't enough to be a good human, imperfect and flawed and do your best to follow the path of good orderly direction, naw I have to do it your way or be damned? That's more a testament to YOU (Not you personally, but any rabid true believer selling their truth fervently.), than to ME!
I can accept and respect anyone's conviction without an argument or conflict so can I get the same? If not then carry on, I will just say a prayer and hope for the best for you.
Without an argument? That is hardly what anyone on this board does.
I never suggest that anyone do it my way. You are mistaken in that.
A good human imperfect and flawed? Which way is it? That’s like saying a person is a good law-breaker.
Just a gentle chide to your dismissal of the views of others while defending your own my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I am human flawed and imperfect, but endeavor to be a good human. Is that better? What law have I broken? Maybe a better analogy is in order.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You claimed that anyone who did not believe the way you believe was to spend eternity in hell being continuously tortured.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Do you no longer believe that?
I missed this the first time around. I don't know what the third person reference is supposed to mean, but the rest is simply JL doing his usual avoidance when he can't reply to comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The reader is advised to go to my posts numbered 1-6 at the Nature of Salvation. It's all there for anyone interested to see and understand.
Never, ever claimed that. Show me where I did.Quote:
You claimed that anyone who did not believe the way you believe was to spend eternity in hell being continuously tortured.
Never have believed it. Believing the way I believe is not at all important. Now believing what the Bible says??? THAT'S important.Quote:
Do you no longer believe that?
I will be happy to explain to you what third person means. When you have to refer to someone by their name, such as referring to me as JLisenbe in your posts, then you are using third person.Quote:
I missed this the first time around. I don't know what the third person reference is supposed to mean, but the rest is simply JL doing his usual avoidance when he can't reply to comments.
You want it done your way. I suppose you started a new thread so you could check and see if I posted. After all, you had me blocked. Whatever the reason is, I'm discussing the topic here along with other people. Join in if you want to. Or not. Your choice.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:30 PM. |