No religion.

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by jayleew, Nov 19, 2012.

  1. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,001
    I've neither called you names or denigrated you, and I've explained why I think your explanation is incorrect.

    I don't see a correlation between your links and my explanation, so if there is one, can you explain it, or please give
    a simpler, leymanic explanation so we can move on from this place.

    Thanks in advance
    jan.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Wow. Just wow.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Yes you did. Twice.


    That's not the point you were making. You were saying that belief in his name is the important part, I was simply pointing out what that actually meant.


    It can be, sure.


    Obviously. But you said belief or unbelief was "acting as if..." and I'm showing you that acting as if is not necessarily belief. It could be, as you say, a big fat lie.


    An opinion, or a conviction.

    You just gave an example of it: "I'm sure you could eat pooh with a smile on your face, but it doesn't mean you enjoy it. "

    There could be many reasons for that. Fear of persecution is one. But that's not the point, obviously. The point is that you made the contention that one could not believe without demonstrating said belief. I have shown you how erroneous this is. Actually, you showed yourself with the poo-eating analogy.

    That's not what you just said. You just said that some people innately understand, and others don't. The bible doesn't make this distinction, obviously, but we're talking about your idiotic theory.

    That is hysterical coming from you. HOwever, I am aware that the bible does not differentiate between innate belief and chosen belief. It says we all must make the choice of our own volition. And it also says that God created this condition, so it cannot be by our own volition that we are condemned. We did not create the gambit, and those who reject Jesus are not therefore accepting damnation.

    It went right over your head, didn't it?

    I keep forgetting to aim low in these exchanges with you.

    So in other words, it was all bullshit and wholly unimportant to the discussion. Got it. I figured as much.

    So when you watch a Superman movie, you really believe he can fly?

    Are you so gullible that you believe what you're seeing is real? At what point do you think the screen is a window?


    You're right. I honestly didn't think you were actually saying people really believe Superman can fly. I had no idea.

    My distortion? This from a guy advocating two different kinds of beliefs?

    Adorable.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,001
    Balerion,



    you stated...



    ...in response to....



    Now do you see?




    That's not what I was saying at all.


    The name given by the prophet, was the real name and purpose of Jesus' advent. God WAS with him, and to not believe that ''God is with him'', despite speaking the word of God, means they didn't recognise God....

    According to Strongs Concordance.... God is light because light has the extremely delicate, subtle, pure, brilliant quality
    b) of truth and its knowledge, together with the spiritual purity associated with it


    I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
    Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father:
    if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.


    I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins

    I suggest you read the link I gave to wynn.


    I said, if one doesn't believe in God (sub-consciously), then one acts as though God doesn't exist.
    If one who doesn't believe in God acts as though God exists, then one does it from their own personal sense of what God should/could/must be. IOW they use their
    own understanding to draw conclusions. Again, this is demonstrated in the dialogue between Jesus and the jews in the link I gave to wynn. Check it out.


    But what are these based on?


    Faith would be present in this scenario if you thought there was a possibility that the pooh could kill, or seriously harm you, but still going ahead with it regardless, in the hope that you wont be harmed.



    That means one lacks faith.


    a


    As usual, you haven't really thought about it.



    also...





    I mean.... is it really?

    No you're not.


    Where does it say we ''must make the choice of our own volition''?
    And where does it say that ''God created this condition''?



    There is no gambit, and according to any scripture, we have created our condition.



    You're just a big kid at heart, aren't you?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    While I'm watching it, yes.e




    Who said anything about believing it to be real?
    I said I believe it for the sake of the movie.

    A defence lawyer in order to defend his/her client effectively has to believe their client in some form or other. It doesn't follow that they believe
    their client outside of their professional relationship.


    jan.
     
  8. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Okay, so you're saying not believing that Superman can really fly prevents one from "seeing the point" of the movie. You're wrong either way.

    By the way, what is this point that I'm missing in not believing Superman can fly?

    That's not what I was saying at all.


    No, it wasn't his "real" name. If it was his real name, then he would have been named Immanuel when he was born. Review what I said about names and titles in my last post.



    Light is neither delicate nor subtle, and I have no idea what's "pure" about it. It can be brilliant, but not always. The reason God is called "light" was because light has always been analogous with goodness, whereas darkness is the opposite.

    It can also mean knowledge, but the purity argument is fallacious.

    I don't know what this has to do with the price of rice. I know what the scripture says, and I agree that Jesus attempts to put the onus on the "sinner" for his fate. But it's Jesus who condemns them. They don't condemn themselves.

    You didn't. You said "So if one doesn't believe that God is with us, then one acts as though God doesn't exist. This action is what condemns us." You didn't bring up this imaginary second kind of belief, and you never said that acts done by people who do not believe innately are the only acts you're referring to. I'm not even sure what you're driving at with this whole two types of belief nonsense.

    If you're talking about the link to John 8, that's not what is demonstrated at all. Those people were following the law as it was written. Jesus contradicts it by saying that only those who are without sin can carry out the punishment. And if you're only going to go by this new idiotic definition of belief, we're not going to get anywhere.


    Any number of things. It could be first-hand experience, it could be hearsay, it could be based on anything.

    So? It's not faith in God, which is the whole point. You can believe in, or lack belief in, something and still act in a contradictory manner. Faith and belief are not acts. That's the point. One can show their faith through acts, but they can have it without acts.

    Not at all. For many, fear is an overwhelming emotion.

    Oh, I have. I just don't subscribe to your absurd apologetics.


    You don't seem to have much of a grasp of the English language. You take things literally when you shouldn't, or hold words used in that ancient context to their modern context. He didn't mean "you should have known it was me without prompting," he meant "You should have believed me." If an innate belief was all that was required, there would have been no need for his miracles, or all the hoops he jumped through to make sure he was fulfilling the prophecies. He did all that so people would believe. You're trying to say that he did all that for nothing. I suggest you brush up on your English, and then on your bible.

    Oh for sure. The irony of you accusing me of "hacking" scripture is laugh out loud funny.


    Yes I am, for the reasons posted above.


    One of many verses:

    James 4:7-8
    "Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded."

    If it was not a choice, then there would be no need to proposition us to submit to God and resist the devil. It would be innate. There would be no need for scripture, for any of it. Everyone would just know.

    God created everything, did he not? He is all-powerful, no? Then how can it be suggested that the condition for salvation or damnation is anything other than his creation?


    Where does it say we created the condition?

    That's insane. And I don't believe you. There's no way you believe the guy you see on screen is actually capable of flight, not even for the two hours it takes for the flim to play out. No way in hell.

    Now you're not making sense. You either believe it's real or you don't. There's no "believing it for the sake of the movie." What the hell does that even mean, anyway?

    Again, this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And no, a defense lawyer does not need to believe in their client's innocence to effectively defend them. Hell, maybe you really do believe Superman can fly...Jeez!
     

Share This Page