Town Quixote's

[Town Heretic]

The "Catch Up Already" Gazette​

So pj opined...

yeh, you gotta be smart to love baseball - :rapture:

Unless you're a Cubs fan, of course.

Had a difference on the nature of the faithful as a rule...

But this doesn't really address the problem of Christians not rising above the egotism, selfishness, bigotry, and willful ignorance. When their religion should be engendering the exact opposite behavior in them.

The purpose of Christianity isn't to make you better, but to reconcile you to God. If you avail yourself of the relation that follows that then you'll find all sorts of growth and reward. If you don't, well, you're cheating yourself and maybe others by your example. How God handles that, in this life or the next, I leave to Him.

...but both (a couple of) non-believers and believers alike keep pointing out to you that they are having very different experiences with Christians than you seem to be having. And you keep dismissing them.

No, unless you take failing to accept an anecdote as the rule dismissing, which is the only rational thing to do. I've made the same point with my own observations more than once, though I've added the caveat that I would expect what I find to be more like the rule.

(what) should this be telling you?

That people largely aren't familiar with statistical models and analysis.

While chrys found a novel approach for paper cuts...

you might also be interested in this Who Wrote Don Quixote?

There are also books on space aliens. You should probably read one. lain:

There are books claiming Jesus didn't exist and the Catholic Church is the beast too. You're summer is going to fill up in a hurry. oly:

Had a word with anna on the nature of sin...

"The romance of doubt?"

Do you think people fall into sin because it's unappealing? They fall into it because it is powerfully attractive and it's powerfully attractive because it is often a distortion/perversion of a virtuous end or aim. It looks like good fruit. But it isn't.

Then Pure was back, amping up...

...But that mostly just ends up being religious gibberish: "reconcile us to God".

Gaelic sounds like gibberish if you don't know the language. It isn't though.

...denying their objections (actually reduces to not accepting a couple of people with different, negative exposure to Christians) is not addressing their objections.

You mischaracterize. I'm not denying their experiences only noting a different one informs my impression. Why are they and you allowed it and I'm not?

Which achieves nothing in terms of redressing their objections

Name the point or question you feel I failed to address and I'll happily attend it.

(he never did)

And chrys did his best to find a reason to object to apologetics...all of the sudden...

I would rather have their simple faith...

belief should be rational
...thomas proved faith is reasonable
augustine proved without faith there is no reason

So which is it? A simple faith doesn't need proof from complicated thinkers like Thomas and Augustine.

So zoo said...

...Someone here is predicting end times this year, another predicting it in a few years, and lots of people seem to believe it'll be in their lifetime. Most folks at least seems to say "soon." I certainly have never heard anyone say "oh, I think there's a long while before end times." lain: How long do you think it'll be before that last season gets underway? Are you looking forward to it?

Oh, but isn't that the beauty and fun of such proclamation's? You don't have to give specifics or have any basis in objective facts you just have to be gloomy and ominous. :chuckle:

But as 401(k)'s go...

And Pure was back...

...the decision is that we humans cannot logically lay claim to anything but relative certainty.

I think you confuse the term with that which can be empirically demonstrated. Websters has it,

Certain: not having any doubt about something: convinced or sure.​

That's the primary. I can be completely satisfied that God is without being delusional or a liar. So can you. What I can't be certain of, logically, is something else. That something else requires faith. I'll get to it in a moment.

So, the "pretense of certainty" that I am referring to, here, is the illogical and dishonest pretense that we can be, and are, absolutely certain (of anything).

That's a self defeating argument. You can't be sure/certain of it and if you can be then certainty is possible. And since you can't be sure there's even less reason to call those who are (certain) liars or deluded or egotistical than simple good manners.

(but he managed to do it if you follow the link. I didn't include most of it)

And indeed, it is in this pretense that the "devil will be found". And that devil's name is 'ego'.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess in advance you don't mean yours.

...To be uncertain is to be "unsure about all manner of things". So I don't understand how you think you can have certainty while remaining unsure about all manner of things.

To be unsure about all manner of things is not to be unsure about everything.

...The pretense of certitude is a delusion that denies our need for faith.

No. I can be certain of God without understanding all sorts of things relating to my walk or His full nature. Those things I take on faith.

Zoo made a point worth addressing...

...when Christian atrocity is brought up, Christians tend to distance themselves in any number of ways, usually coming down to "well, that wasn't a real Christian" or "well, I'm not that sort of Christian so it doesn't apply to me." We see it all the time here. But when Christians doing good is the issue, all of a sudden, the walls of division magically disappear and all sects of Christianity are one big happy family...

Well, that's not an inconsistency, it's simply that when Christians are about advancing the good you see Christianity as it was meant to be and when we don't you see adherents failing their charge.

And Pure?...

The problem with this definition is that you can also be completely certain that you are a flying monkey.

First, your problem is with a dictionary. lain: Second, sure. You can be certain and wrong. Happens all the time. You're doing a bang up job of it, by way of.

But your certitude will not make you a flying monkey. All it will make you is a liar, and a lunatic....And no matter how certain you are, of anything, you're still not going to be able to verify that certainty. Which again makes you a liar for proclaiming it.

No, Pure, it doesn't. A lie is a knowing misstatement of the truth. Missing a question on a math exam doesn't make you a liar. Misrepresenting the score you got on the exam later would..

Rex offered on Harris...

...I'm not disputing Harris's contempt, or advocating for it. But I also think you have to be a little bit discerning about when he's attempting to talk about you and when he's not.

Where I'd say it's fairly plain as is the reason for the distinction. Where he can't hang a thing particularly on Christianity he approaches his assault on theism via another route. Where he can or believes that he can he stays with the Body.

One of the points I've heard him make often is that the moderates often provide cover for the extremists.

I noted that one somewhere. But as with so much with Harris he fails to consider an opposing perspective, that moderates may well be what stands between him and extremist behavior, may by their nature and activism restrain the worst uses and impulses of organized religion.

He also defines moderates absurdly and condescendingly as those who don't understand their own faith...which given how often he illustrates a want of particular grasp is a peculiar judgment.

Said hello to the new guy...

Hello all, just wanted to introduce myself. Pretty new to TOL, I made my account a while ago but haven't ever posted. But I look forward to being part of some interesting discussions.

That would be something to look forward to...lain: what?

...I look forward to meeting all of you.

I like an optimist. :thumb:

Then kmo shook it up with...

Three lucky male baboons were injected with Vasalgel and given unrestricted sexual access to 10 to 15 female baboons each. Despite the fact that they have been monkeying around for six months now, no female baboons have been impregnated.

:chuckle:

Is that how human trials will work too?

Dang, kmo, no. :nono: Beastiality is against the law.

lain:

Tomorrow? It lightens a bit...probably...unless kmo posts a lot. :think:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Soul of Brevity Gazette​

Debated SoM guy on the value of...

...Just because I admit I do not have all the answers does not mean we should not use our brains to try and figure things out.

Sounds good as far as it goes.

...My IQ is around 140.

Everyone's IQ is 140 on the internet. At least. This place is teeming with genius. Shake a tree and some nut falls out with a Mensa card. lain:

I have studied Comparative Religion and philosophy for 20 years.

I studied the harmonica for a summer. I was pretty good at it.

Minored in it in college.

That's a long time to get a minor. :think:

See...a quote by Richard Dawkins....

"The problem I have with religion is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not knowing."

Asking Dawkins about religion is like asking a Hindu about the best marinade. Of course religion, at least Christianity, does nothing of the sort. It has inspired generations of scientists who marveled at creation and studied the mechanisms relating to it.

While chrys was acting naturally in the nature thread...

with nature everything must die except rocks but they are not very interesting in nature we see order

You can see a pony in the clouds sometimes, faces in leaves and wood panels or light sockets. We see patterns, provide contexts that reflect what we're experiencing.

and that demands a designer common sense should tell you that

Common sense would tell you the earth is still and the sun moves around it.

Causality/contingency is a better answer for the necessity of God.

And Delmar's birthday thread examined the tangential difficulties of aging...

Man...you could get a tan from that thing.

Happy Birthday! Delmar

Butted in on a conversation about will...

i don't think that's how free will works...

you seem to be presuming that free will is not a part of nature

:think: Find me an animal that abstains from procreation given the impulse and opportunity and that conversation will have an interesting beginning.

And closed noting a problem with Sam Harris attempting a particular criticism...

...I addressed that peculiar notion, the idea that people would be moved by religious conviction to forgo condoms but not sufficiently moved to abstain from sexual activity outside of a moral union isn't a rational argument against religious principle, but is in fact a pretty good argument against half measures, morally speaking.

Tomorrow? More rain, apparently. Even the water is getting pruney around here. :rain:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Milk Carton Gazette​

So rainee started a wee thread about the fanless Baltimore game...

If it had been a Rays game no one would have noticed the difference. lain:.

Had a larger philosophical musing on Christian obligation to authority/law...

Should we be looking to mans law? When addressing Caesar, yes.Or Gods law/love? And how did Jesus set the example for us regarding mans laws ?

Jesus said to give Caesar his due and God what was due to God. Given he wasn't commanding people to forgo paying taxes, even though that taxation went into idol worship and crucifixions, any number of immoral pursuits in whole or part, I don't think we as Christians have much traction staging a tax mutiny or believing ourselves to be differently situated.

Side bar: American Idol has been cancelled. Apparently there was a pitch problem. lain:



Noticed a problem in CR's thinking on a couple of points...

Should the religious concept of marriage be redefined by governments to accommodate homosexuals?

It can't be. In fact, you don't even have to go to the state and seek its recognition of your union. Similarly, you don't ever have to step foot in a church or believe in God to have a marriage contract before the state.

Or, you can opt for both.

DISCRIMINATE People who are mentally impaired are not able to discriminate from right and wrong.

Sufficiently impaired, sure. But not agreeing with you or me or any religious context isn't a sign of mental impairment. If it was you'd be arguing that people aren't responsible for their sin and shouldn't then be subject to judgment for it.

While in the NFL thread...

Potential draft headlines:

Denver High on Ray Pick

Cleveland Still Cleveland

And Meshak...

BTW, you guys get involved with politics even though Jesus says we are not of the world.

He also said to give Caesar what was Caesar's. In this society that means voting, jury duty, etc.

You don't seem to understand this simple Jesus' word.

Maybe there were more words, supra.

On the draw the Prophet shooting in Texas...

If the bug light works to eradicate the bugs, it did it's job.

Is it our job to set up and eradicate human beings?

Don't be a bug and you won't get zapped.

Or, don't want to come to an unreasonable end then don't act unreasonably, to put it another way. Sure. But is it reasonable in the first instance, noble, charitable or even particularly Christian to set up a circumstance by which the greatest likelihood of moving someone to violence is in play?

Tin took a more personal turn...

...Do all protests need to be exemplar in their nature to get your seal of approval?

Do I have to agree with something to approve of it? Yes in the subjective sense and no in the objective. That is, I can approve of anyone peacefully exercising their right of free speech without thinking much of the method/manner, be it the above noted examples or a cross bobbing in urine, the Klan marching or Westboro protesting.

Mulled in A Momentary Life...

:think: If you come to a point in life where you have difficulty thinking of something important to you that you got wrong, chances are you're doing it again.

Differed with a rook on the nature of the Body (among others)...

I'm sure there are a few others like yourself who do not care for eternal bonuses... but c'mon... most people praise the lord only because they buy the myth of an eternal reward, and many religions take advantage of this.

The problem with suggesting people become Christians to attain heaven is that it runs afoul of the same problem inherent in suggesting that atheists should fear the judgment they'd have to believe in to believe they need to escape.

Everyone is motivated by self interest on some level. Why do you study anything? Because there is something in it that we value and valuing a thing, it's pursuit is self serving, satisfying a desire.

Noticed a problem with chrys' "kill the Dem Party/Look what Republicans have done about abortion" declarative...

it was a republican controlled congress that passed it
it was a republican president who signed it
it was republican judges who allowed it

Nice dodge. And more than a few Democrats supported it. In fact, without Democratic help it wouldn't have happened.

Let me underscore that: without the help of Democrats, who you uniformly label baby killers, that bill would never have happened.

Which underscores the point you'll never address...: most people aren't Democrats because of an issue, but because of a range of issues. Trying to destroy a party that represents, philosophically, nearly half the electorate is a fool's errand, while moving the issue is anything but.

Set out inconvenient facts for aCW and chrys to chew on...

...Then we can agree that those who support the Democratic Party (as seen in their long history of supporting abortion in their platform) are pro abortion?

No. We can agree that more often than not democrats support the right of a woman to have an abortion if she so chooses, within the constraints of the law. And we should agree that there are a good many democrats who oppose the party plank. Some of them even vote on the House and Senate floors, as is objectively established in the voting record anyone who wants can look up.

And while attempting to defend McCain's position...

...If abortion were allowed only in the case of incest or rape, of the 1.2 million surgical abortions per year in the US, how many abortions would there be?

12,000.

How many abortions are okay? One? Fifteen? A million? And is it more moral if you only kill twelve people as opposed to a hundred? Are you? Is your party?

Tomorrow? Work to be done.

 

[Town Heretic]

The Monday-Tuesday Gazette​

Differed with kiwi's reliance on the law to justify abortion...

It is not murder. Nothing you say will make it so. God has given to the governments of the world the authority to make laws; under those laws, in most countries, abortion especially for rape is not murder.

So by your reasoning Germany's genocidal streak, being instituted in law, was something Christians should not think of as murder? Should they have resisted the state or facilitated the program?

Eeset made a peculiarly wrong declaration about scripture...

...Somewhere, lost in time, some person declared the Bible to be the Word of God.

Lost in time? No, a great many of Paul's writings remain. Like this one:

"6 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16​

The Bible is collected scripture, so it follows.

Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your point of view, sustaining that concept in today's world is untenable. Therein lies the problem.

It's only unfortunate that you believe that. The truth is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

So then...

Given by inspiration is a far cry from "word of".

No, it isn't. The closer translation is "God breathed". Paul is saying scripture is as if breathed from God standing before you. It is the word of God given to men. You may not believe it, but Paul did.

At that point....the maestro died.

Text only Jonah would love, I suppose, discourse et and digested.

Tomorrow? Let's hope today is still around. :noid:

 

[kiwimacahau]

Actually, when those words were written they referred solely to the OT as the New did not exist until the mid first century.

 

[kiwimacahau]

Further, if you cannot tell the difference between abortion and genocide then nothing I say will help.

 

[Town Heretic]

Actually, when those words were written they referred solely to the OT as the New did not exist until the mid first century.

That notion of yours has been answered in the particular thread, though not by me. We can take that and the other bit there if you're interested in discourse on the points.

 

[Psalmist]

oly:

My daily reader Town Quixote's

:cheers: :salute: opcorn:​

 

[Town Heretic]

The Gazette​

Trad decided to play the peasants are revolting card again...

The average Joe [was that a pun on your part? "Joe Dredd"?] is not qualified to rule.

Almost always and says you, a fellow who likely would never have been afforded the opportunity for the education that affords him the vantage point from which to condescend but for a revolution sustained and accomplished at the hands of average men.

Or to borrow from a certain Bailey, this rabble you're talking about... they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this world. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die without treating their lives as though they were a contemptible inconvenience to you?

...You'll accuse me of speaking absurdly by appealing to a comic book system, but I just as easily could cite the Republic. The principle is basically the same. :idunno:

And a rape and consensual sex are essentially the same, from one perspective. But the differences are rather important.

Jumped into the prediction thread...

without knowing much.. Who do u think would b best president?

:think: Well, if I didn't know much I suppose I'd vote for Sarah Palin, or maybe Donald Trump.

Answered Granite in the latest abortion thread...

If you remove any opportunity to think on her own or make an independent decision, you are implicitly devaluing the mother.

Or you're simply valuing something else more. Just so, my right to personal autonomy is less valuable than the right of my neighbor to survive it should I consider lobbing handgrenades a reasonable pastime.

All rights aren't equal and every right runs into some abridgment, but with life that usually equals an egregious exercise of our liberty to the horrific end of ending another's ability to exercise any. No infant in the history of the world has ever crossed that threshold, though many meet the same end as those adults who have.

Said hello to the new/old guy/girl...

I'm not really "new", just haven't been here fer a while.

True of some of our best members...and some of them kept posting. :think:

Tackled a familiar complaint about faith and where and why it should/shouldn't vest....

It's obvious that many people are walking away from religion because of "Christian dialogue" like this thread, and because of people like GM, aCW, sod and serpentdove.

Smacks of the "sanctity of marriage" being reduced by homosexuals. I've never found it reasonable, as reasons go. I'm surprised anyone does. What other people choose to do with grace impacts how I should value it?

Take a look around here at TOL and ask yourselves whether it makes religion seem appealing or repulsive.

It's not supposed to. Christ is why Christianity is appealing or the focus is a bit off center.

Odd to me how many folks are obviously unable to recognize the answer to that question.

I don't care if every racist under the sun believes in democracy, or Christ or the multiplication tables. It doesn't taint any of them or particularly surprise me that people use nearly anything to feel superior or offer insult and act like privileged children, from religion to its absence, in one form or another.

Meanwhile chair was up to his latest, this time alleging bribery as inducement to conversion in a mission school...

many here find it difficult to believe that the story in the OP is true. I made it up, or the Nepalese guy didn't understand or whatever.

...Those within the Body should understand relation isn't the product of magic words, but of contrition and a genuine seeking after and recognition of Christ. So the exercise would be pointless, unless the person offering it was mostly concerned with the education and the rest was a wink, which would be saddening in another way. And it's reasonable to think a person might be told that if they're Christian additional aid is available and misapprehend the intent.

Pretending that this doesn't exist won't make it go away.

Assuming it exists, let alone expanding it into a general estimation of a rule of conduct, won't make it so either, no matter how much it suits your aim and estimation.

Began a conversation (of sorts) with aik about what Christianity is and isn't...

...I would like to see Christianity get away from worshiping Christ and start following Jesus.

I not only don't believe that's an either/or, I'd say they're inseparable notions.

Took exception to the familiar sound in new userskin...

Not sure why anyone being homosexual should concern those of us who are not.

Should we be concerned about someone lying in a ditch and in need of medical assistance? I mean it isn't us, so...

What effect does it have on society?

Arguable, but the individual impact is sufficient for concern and outreach.

Shouldn't we be much more concerned about adultery?

Is concern something that has to be divvied up?

Do you think maybe the best defense of marriage is to stop adultry?

No, it's to teach us to regard God and to properly love one another.

I know I'm a bit late in this discussion, however, remember this: this [the Bible] is not evidence. This is the claim.

Because if it's written on an internet poster it has to be logical and true. lain:

Actually the Bible is a collection of writings over a fairly large period of time and from many differing writers. It is in itself evidence, though evidence isn't proof.

Noted one solution to an ongoing...

well I can't respect that

Sounds like a new thread. lain:

You'd save a lot of time and the effort of those not familiar with your technique if you'd simply begin with a copy/paste "What I believe and do about it politically" followed by, "If you differ with this in any way:" followed by the above.

Made a point of clarification...

..."People suffering from low self-esteem are more likely to post their relationship status on Facebook, a new study has found. A report from Brunel University, published Friday, found that the popular Facebook “relationship status” feature was used by individuals with low self-esteem to generate attention to distract from their own feelings.

And also by married people who don't want to hear, "Why didn't you mention you're married?"

Tomorrow? Eighty, eighty-five percent whatnots. lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

Gazette Extra​

Race Final :singer:


Sorry about the delay. It was a thunderous rally in the home stretch, with a game Stripe unable to overtake GT, who made the wire a length ahead (17). Stripe took second by a larger margin (16) some five lengths ahead of PJ, who managed to pull ahead of the neck and neck with Angel and GM, with gen org fading down the stretch.

May flowers are a garland around the neck and nag of Stripe. Congrats! :first:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Hump Day Gazette​

So Horn was asking...

How can anyone be so stupid as to equate homosexuality with murder ? Unbelievable . Or bestiality , pedophilia, necrophilia, incest etc .?
Two gays having consensual sex in private harms no one .

The connection is sin and a perversion of natural order, so there is similarity in those particulars, but it's sensationalist rhetoric and in my experience it's often used to illustrate the declarant's repulsion and to taint by association. I don't think it's productive or necessary in objection. As to harm, it's primarily spiritual.

Being gay is NOT a "choice".

...Bisexuals would take exception to you.

However, being an anti-gay bigot is definitely a choice . And a despicable one .

Having a moral objection doesn't make you despicable. And when you think this way you only take on the appearance of the thing you despise.

While quip speculated that the general, if slight, decline in active church membership is related to...

More than likely, the collective cause is terrorism,

lain:

groups such as Westboro,

Which is to Christianity what Two Broke Girls is to American Playhouse.

...People tire of the churches dogmatic persistence in promoting inflexible ignorance.

How inflexible of you. Or maybe you just don't understand the family you aren't a part of and are confusing a drunk uncle with the whole.

Differed with Granite, contextually...

A decent human being doesn't want someone who isn't hurting anybody to change just to suit their own twisted sense of morality

But that's the contextual crux of the difference. To a Christian willful sin is a moral form of suicide. There's harm being done. That it's willful, even consensual is no more mitigating than it is with an addict.

That's not love.

It depends on the heart of the person advancing it. If the point is to control, judge and condemn, no. If the point is to save and advance the good, yes.

...Suggestion: Get your own sprawling, messy house in order before presuming to tell anyone what kind of damage you think they're doing to their life.

Why should we have a standard in place that you wouldn't think of applying to any other group outside of the religious? People are messy. What I've suggested and will continue to suggest is that we simplify the Christian approach, preach salvation and relation, love God and our neighbor, see how that works out compared to the dogma wars and schisms.

I can't imagine it would do worse.

Clarified the point with DR...

...At some point the love of God has got to be translated into new ways of living which exclude things like being a thief, indulging in unnatural desires or being unfaithful to your spouse and include things like self-discipline and self-sacrifice.

I haven't suggested anything contrary to your notion. Saying we should concentrate on the salvific advances a simple, straight forward narrative less concerned with the sort of dogmatic in fighting we've allowed, wine or grape, dance or not, Saturday or Sunday, and on and on.

How is one saved? Meet that, meet the person of Christ, advance that flag and love your neighbor. We do that and the church will grow. Else it's business as dwindling business.

The early church didn't lack standards. But the narrative was simple, hadn't been convoluted by well intentioned intellectuals and those interested in self empowerment.

Before Granite was back with...

...You're the ones presuming to tell us how we should live.

Did you only just tell me and mine how to? Stop doing anything until we do something else you think we should do?

Maybe you should apply your own standards to your own lives before lecturing the rest of we unwashed heathens.

Or maybe we should advance a standard that all men can aspire to, though all men will fail as they make the attempt. And so grace.

...If you think Christianity actually simplifies the human condition you're completely gone.:wave2:

...I think Christianity explains the human condition and that grace and love are simple. Men are complicated. We have to be to justify the evil we do, to contort it until it resembles the good and a semblance of the justifiable.

And...

...There are some extremely unpleasant repercussions involved for not getting with the program. As a system, Christianity does not merely ask nicely (if it bothers with the niceties at all).

All sorts of truth is similarly situated. But Christianity isn't established to harm or damn men, but to save them.

Your conviction doesn't entitle you to push your own version of Amway on the rest of us,

My conviction leads me to tell you about it. Push? You mean by advancing it the way you do any idea you find admirable or true?

...The difference being I'm not presuming to claim to have ultimate truth or access to it, and you guys do.

You can't presume to have a thing your own context negates, so there's no real virtue there. Beyond that, you're advancing a negative as truth and one that judges every truth that stands against it, rather forcibly, so what's that?

It is if you're being hacked to death in Rwanda or starving in Dachau. Yep, he loves you, all right. Loves you with all his heart. Honest.

And from a cross we nailed him to. Absolutely.

Then...

This version of Christianity seems pretty superficial.

Could be. And it could be that the problem is in your understanding of it. Or, maybe superficial isn't really a word that can be applied at this point.

I wrote: What Christ endured, great suffering, he endured as we do, singularly.

...I can't tell if you honestly don't realize how that belittles and minimizes suffering in the here and now or if you actually don't care or if you simply see no difference.

I reject your premise. Demonstrate how it minimizes anyone's suffering to note that Christ suffered and understands it?

...That marks about the second time in this latest round you've said "I reject what you think" in so many words. I consider this discussion closed.

So Granite, who fundamentally rejects my context for life, took his marbles and went home because I disagreed (and challenged on the point) with his...seriously, he did that...


Began what looked a lot like a conversation on faith/works with GT...

...You are not going to get out of obeying to be saved.

I was speaking to the larger notion of works based salvation, of contingent salvation.

There are many husbands who say they love their wife, yet they are in a single's bar.

Right. They don't love their wives. The real point of my illustration was to underscore that those who love God will evidence it because they love God. They don't need a commandment, only encouragement to do it. It's inevitable, as is our failure to always do a good job of it.

There are many people who call themselves "Christian" because they believe, yet they live not knowing God, and it is because they do not obey.

I'll let Christ decide who loves Him. I'm mostly concerned with people robbing themselves of joy in their walk.

Noted a problem with archd's logic...

I have yet to find any people who fully follow God's Word.

...if you include yourself then you can't make the statement to begin with since you wouldn't be in a position to know if the next guy is doing it right or not.

Are you telling me you have the whole truth?

Of course not, but I'm not telling everyone else that they're not doing it right either. I'll argue a point I'm fairly sure of, or I'll at least let my understanding known and leave the difference for God to sort out...I've read, met and known people whose walks inspire me to imitation and hope, though I'm doing the best I can. No, the only truth I rest on is the reality of God and the person of Christ, in his work and what that means to me and the world. The rest is a work in progress for me.

Tomorrow? GT spins like a washing machine and nobody gets a pony. lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Friday Night Gazette​

Ran into the unsually suspect...

there are few things as odiously presumptuous as

"I'm saved no matter what sin I commit"

No, there's at least one thing worse: "I am saved if I am good enough."

While things got dicey in the MIA Truthsmacker thread...

I miss Cattyfan

That's who always springs to mind for me.

And kmo, of course...he could really bring an interesting post in the day. lain:

:sozo2:

:noid:

Sometimes I swear it's almost like he's still here...or mostly. lain:

Kind of like that Town House fella?

Town House? Yeah, this place really took a toll on him. lain: :chew:

Then GT said...

You cannot love God and your neighbor if you are not obeying.

Loving God with everything that you are and your neighbor as yourself is obedience to God.

Love is even the stronger term. It's love that moves a man to obedience to God's purpose. It's love that moved Christ to the cross.

Before taking a stab at rewriting the dictionary...

...Obedience is love.

No. It can be an act of love. It can also be an act of fear or honor or respect. Love is love, not obedience.

Tell me, do you love your neighbor?

I'm working on it. Some days more and better than others. Mostly yes. Of course it's easier to love in the general. The particular can be daunting. But as I love God and it is His desire for me, I continue in the effort.

So naturally...

I'm having difficulty with the concept of two people each insisting that he/she is right and the other is wrong when the topic is loving others. :mock:irony

Knowing your limitations is important...and where you're concerned listing them could prove exhausting.

Outside of that, GT mistook love for obedience and now appears determined to lecture me on it anyway, one way or another. It's an interesting time to be alive.

Had a word with chrys...

why is it the ones who give meshak the most trouble are the ones who say they are saved?

Why does the world seem more black than white to a child in Harlem?

Or two...

you are relying on your interpretation of what paul wrote
and
that is risky business

Not really. There's nothing the works guy is going to do that I'm not going to do. We're just motivated differently. That's why I always say you don't have to ask if a guy is in love. Just watch him with the girl. You'll know.

What, you think God is going to say, "Wait, you didn't do it because I ordered you to or because you were afraid you'd miss out, you were just trying to find what pleases me and make it your own pleasure? Sorry, you can't come in."

Or...

how do you know that?

How do we know anything?

In the NBA thread...

It's amazing how good Steph Curry is for a 15 year old

:think: What's the over/under that his kid will be bigger than he is at the podium before the series closes out?

Before talking up the new guy...

Hello everyone. I know this isn’t the place for introductions, but before I comment I’d just like to give a little background so you know some about me. I am not, as my name seems to make people assume, a backwoods southern boy.

You've never even been to the South, have you... lain:

In short, God created women with the natural and life-saving, albeit unconscious, ability to remove from her body a failed and dangerous attempt to create a human being. This is how God created her, this is unarguably her right.

You made a rather enormous leap. Had God desired to grant a woman the right to abort or he'd have given them the ability to consciously control the outcome. And that's before we get to His law in regard to murder.

Tomorrow? I remember how to be funny...or die trying.

 

[Town Heretic]

relocated.

 

[Eeset]

Is it time to close this thread?

 

[Town Heretic]

Is it time to close this thread?

You guys having fun?

But to answer, no, only if you're going to start the one sentence trollings. Else, the larger efforts remain what they always were.

 

[Eeset]

You guys having fun?

But to answer, no, only if you're going to start the one sentence trollings. Else, the larger efforts remain what they always were.

Aww shucks.

 

[Town Heretic]

Okay, it's summer, so the Gazettes won't be as plentiful. It took until now for me to approach a hundred posts from the last one. Summer...anyway, to continue:

The Occasional Gazette​

So GT said...

You are bearing false witness against me, for I always say we are to obey to be saved, and even after being saved.

lain:



Meanwhile, OI was in the process of taking his approach south (but not South)...

...Did you read what I said or did you do the usual forum trolling for key words looking to create an argument of nothing?

I never use the search function and I never fashion an argument out of nothing, though I frequently fashion one against [it].

Or are you trying to simply distract from the point?

By answering directly on it? That would be one of the worst distractions ever, don't you think?

Then Horn actually said...

...I make no bones about it . I am pro-choice...because the alternative , government-ordered compulsory childbirth for pregnant women is always disastrous to society and never prevents abortion .

That's an easy one to defeat. Look at the numbers of abortions following Roe. No objective study would suggest those numbers would have or even could have happened without legalizing the procedure, though many abortions undoubtedly occurred even so.

Making a thing illegal never solves the problem, but it impacts it, beyond question. And one life saved is of inestimable value.

...Trying to stop abortion by making it illegal is like trying to stop a forest fire by poruing gasoline on it

No, trying to negatively impact abortion while making it easier to obtain would be that very thing.

Carried on with quip by paring terms to the bone...

...The point is: You condone act X under conditions Y yet, comdemn act X under conditions Z.

It's not a problem. By way of, I condone killing (X) under conditions that justify it (Y) and I condemn killing (X) under those that don't (Z).

So you have a right to defend your life by committing a justifiable homicide but not the right to murder, though both are taking life.

Began winding down with Peace as other fires were sparking...

...the mother of my first crush actually was happily married at 17. For them it worked out great to go along with that first romance, and they were both loyal and tenderhearted, two essentials.

Like I've said, I'm sure it happens, three out of ten times. Horrible gamble for a young life and worse for the kids that may come.

...You say "most" like you get anything better than a dicy gamble 5 years or a decade later.

At twenty five you're happy sixty six percent of the time. That's more than twice as likely as twenty and under, where only 31% are happy. Doubling your odds of happiness and more than tripling your chance of avoiding a broken home isn't dicy. Dicy is gambling your happiness younger, understanding the one sided and negative nature of those odds.

It would have been a tragedy if I had missed the first 5-7 years of my marriage.

It could have easily have been a tragedy anyway. And mostly it tends to be. You're better off waiting. That's just the plain truth.

Then OI pointed a spectral finger...which one it was I leave to you... :shocked:

Wrong. It is always worth using the correct technical term, for, in a debate proper, the meaning of words is especially important.

If the popular usage of abortion is a medical procedure and the argument pertains to that medical procedure then the point of language is satisfied. Nothing is meaningfully accomplished by altering the usage since no one is arguing over natural, spontaneous abortions.

Anyone with any proper training in hermeneutics, religious studies, or theology general can tell you that it is absolutely essential that proper word usage must be maintained.

I'm a lawyer. I understand the value of precision. Here you've yet to produce a virtue or impact of altering popular perception on the point.

...I am not an advocate of abortion. No one, technically and accurately speaking can be.

Then you haven't really said anything, but you've said it a lot.

The problem here is...Without understanding the distinction between the two it is impossible to logically counter his argument.

No one is confused about the difference between spontaneous, natural abortion and a medical procedure, Luca included. Or if they are they have more serious issues to wrestle with than vocabulary.

...God designed women with the natural and lifesaving ability to abort an already failed attempt at developing a human life does not mean that he supports all those other types of things that have all been neatly and mistakenly-dishonestly wrapped under the term “abortion.”

You could make the "life saving" rebuttal without any of the rest.

Then Peace went...

...The Bible and our biology actually points in the other direction.

Biology makes it less likely that you'll be using the part of the brain that's designed by God for good judgment and more likely to heavily rely on the impulse control deficient part of the brain that is embroiled in the more purely emotional response to experience.

...The numbers and science don't point to universal failure.

No one said otherwise. But if I told you that you could take this vaccine and thirty percent of the time it would make you a better person in the long haul and help you find a happier existence, but that seventy percent of the time you'd get cancer I doubt you'd be frantically rolling up your sleeve. Because they're horrible odds.

Worse, other people will suffer along with you, most of the time.

If the numbers and science say most 8 year olds can't swim, do you keep good swimmers out of the water just because they are under 8 or do you just accommodate them like you would an older child who can also swim?

In this case, eight year olds have underdeveloped arms and they can't be good swimmers, only lucky floaters. If seventy percent of eight year olds who attempted to swim drowned would you say the important thing is that thirty percent didn't? lain:

Reiterated with aik...

Stop worshiping Christ and start following Jesus.

If he isn't worthy of our worship then he isn't worth following. Rather, start doing both with our whole hearts and watch the world change around us.

While a "new" guy entered almost singularly to...

Hey rexlunae.....I'm pretty sure Town Heretic told Obadiah Irving he is a lawyer.

I did.

In fact, that was kind of the whole point, now wasn't it?

No, the point was to respond to a bit of superior and assumptive posturing on Irv's part:

...Anyone with any proper training in hermeneutics, religious studies, or theology general can tell you that it is absolutely essential that proper word usage must be maintained.

I'm a lawyer. I understand the value of precision. Here you've yet to produce a virtue or impact of altering popular perception on the point.

Maybe they might have some understanding of the proper methods by which theological research is accomplished, instead of just a pocket full of “yahoo answers” worthy one-liners...So, I will be as mono-syllabic as possible.

.....This was Heretic's whole comeback, which, by the way, was a logical fallacy because it is a false authority.

No, it wasn't (either). Supra.

I’d say it’s a good indication that one is grasping at straws when one starts using logical fallacies.

I'd say when you start leveling charges you haven't supported or support without solid foundation in reason it's a good indication your dog in this fight is bias blinkered, or you're not so new around here and/or you're a sock puppet.

Again, Town Herectic’s vocation as lawyer was not a passing detail. It was a one-sentence argument.

It wasn't passing and it was one sentence? lain: Pick a position, won't you.

But challenging an actual argument (what Irving was doing) isn’t attacking character.

It’s not hard to tell a sophist…
When two lawyers meet it is a different matter entirely. Lawyers often have no interest in the truth; the truth tends to interfere with good lawyerly work.

Your reading skills or your person are seriously suspect at this point.

But what part is that? You never actually said. Of course we already know the answer; it’s the part of self-interest (win the case). After all, if lawyers were really so committed to truth as you attempted to imply, then no criminal would ever hire one…..

So you don't know any more about the process that Irv did. Two peas in a pod...or at a PC? Good to know. The point of the law is to serve justice. The process by which that's accomplished involves specific roles and obligations. When everyone does what they're supposed to the result is a just conclusion/holding...

Continued to see OI's bones through that skin of his...

..."75 to 90 percent of American lawyers are incompetent, dishonest - or both."

While I'm not interested in your attempt to make most of this about your obvious problem with the profession, an anecdote, from any source, is only useful to illustrate a point established else. So be it a sarcastic comment by Burger or the belief of Ben Franklin, it doesn't follow that anything beyond opinion (if that) is established.

In any event, you're not honestly relating what Burger said, or you're not thorough with vetting source material. You omitted "trial" as a descriptive before lawyers. He was taking a shot at the people who contended before his bar, not the profession he and every sitting judge belong to.

...“Doctors still retain a high degree of public confidence because they are perceived as healers. Should lawyers not be healers? Healers, not warriors? Healers, not procurers? Healers, not hired guns?”

The last time I checked doctors were paid ably enough. ..When half the people who experience the courts must necessarily leave without gaining what they thought they should have and/or were entitled to it's no real surprise that the profession is popularly disparaged.

What would be the popular opinion of doctors if half their patients died?

Lawyers are not trained to fight for truth; they are all to often trained to, as the distinguished Peter Brimelow says, “to get as much money as possible out of you.”

And we have noted biologists who will tell you Christianity is complete nonsense. So otherwise learned men can have opinions that are, in the final analysis, indistinguishable from the opinion of an idiot, as you're ably illustrating at present on this particular.

...P.S. Classy move threatening new members with the ban hammer because they disagree with you. WWJD?

To begin with, he'd be honest, which you aren't being. What I offered someone in the process of running with an easy, unfounded accusation was the chance to put her money where her gob was. If you lack conviction on a point that goes to veracity you need to be called on the hypocrisy and be held to a knowing and truthful accounting. And given I was subject to the same penalty for failing the challenge, your characterization can't even be considered a reasonable mistake.

Tomorrow? Something more light hearted, I hope. But you know news... oly:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Off-time Gazette​

And now for a different sort of race report...

It's a curious thing when we live in a world where a man can announce that he's female and be celebrated as courageous and a woman can so heavily identify with a minority race as to desire to project it upon herself and she's a villain.

What's really different about the two?

Mulled it over with Rusha...

Of course he was born a man. The surgery only changed his appearance. Unless you can show me where he lied about having surgery, there is no lie.

The lie would be found in transforming his body into the appearance of a thing he isn't. If you didn't know him what would you think approaching him? What narrative is he selling?

And there you have it. Lies aren't always singularly what we say. They can be the creation of a misleading impression. If a person pretends to virtue but lives a private life of vice, same thing. It's a lie.

And...

It'll be interesting to see how she attempts to bounce back from this. Credibility seems completely shot at this point.

Do you think they'll black list her? lain: And if they do would it be a moral victory?

Over in the marriage thread...

...Faith is not a powerless abstract.

Agreed. It should be a profound and transformative experience. It shouldn't be confused with perfect understanding though.

Faith does alter the mechanism you speak of, which you assume is the causation to your correlations with bad choices.

Show me a single study that evidences faith in God causes the prefrontal cortex to grow at a different rate than it does in the heathen...

The only calculator for love you need is God.

God gave you the calculator in your head. It's designed to function beautifully, but by seasons. A child's mind is well suited for trust and a developing understanding of love. It isn't suited for making serious, life altering and long decisions, by design.

While back in the Abandoning thread Pure continued to be the worst relativist ever...

That's just absolutist nonsense.

You literally can't say that and hold your own position. lain:

There is no such thing as "unadulterated faith".

Supra.

There is only blind arrogance masquerading as "unadulterated faith".

Supra.

And Cherub was spinning into infinity in the God Created Christ thread...

I hit you guys with a shovel full of truth and you tell me it never happened. That would be laughable if it was not so sad.

No one has to hit me with a shovel before I can see the truth. :mmph:

Well, at least we can agree you're shoveling as hard as you can. lain: Sometimes that's all a body can do...let me know if you hit a pony at any point.

I kid because I love...and you could use a stop and a laugh, I think.

Then Pure said...

...the human condition precludes the possibility [of possessing absolute truth],

Your equation here is one sided. But the larger point isn't, involving as it does, God (or, imperfection or not, if God desires you to know a thing how could you resist it?).

"Points of truth" are not beyond us. The whole truth, however, is

What constitutes a "whole truth"? The single consideration of God's existence? Justice? Mercy? The authority of Christ? Or, to put it another way, "whole truths" tend to be made up of a great many points of truth you only just said we can possess, potentially.

Elsewhere, repchk was busy conflating a general disinterest with...

no response

thought so

people run from the truth (more often than not)

They also run from forest fires. lain:

While OI continued the odd practice of using logical fallacy in an attempt to suggest a lawyer's training wasn't aimed at the truth...

...Burger, Ben Franklin, Abbe Smith, etc… Experts in local, regional, and international laws or in law general… People who spent their entire lives around lawyers and people associated with the law profession. Not expert opinions. Mere anecdotes,

...Jefferson possessed one of the finest minds of our founding fathers and didn't believe in the divinity of Christ. Lincoln was a racist by our standards today. Should we honor racist thinking because otherwise great men held it? Should we rip the miracles out of our Bibles because Jefferson did?

Of course not.

“According to the American Bar Association, 1,046 lawyers were disbarred nationally in 2011, or about 0.08%

The national figure for lawyers in that year came to 7 in 10,000. A far cry from the anecdotal impression of Burger, who you leaned on earlier. Any idea how many doctors were subject to censure that year as a percentage? Closer to 3 in 1000.

... I believe that you’ll find the rate of academic dishonesty is significantly lower than dishonesty among attorneys…

I think you're being revisionist, but to run with it you can think the moon is made of Velveeta but until you demonstrate it all you're actually setting out is your bias.

Met Pure on faith and knowledge...

...We don't and can't know the whole of what it.

You don't have to encompass all truth to believe in truth or to possess a measure of it.

...I don't have to know the truth of God to know that you don't know the truth of God, either.

You do if you're rational. If you aren't rational then you can say "I don't know math but those figures you're scribbling can't be it."

...I also know that faith isn't pretending to know what we don't and can't know. Faith is trusting in the truth (of God) in spite of our not knowing.

You can't trust a thing you don't believe can be communicated. It's simpler than that. I experienced and experience God and am satisfied as to His existence and nature (as it relates to me and my fellows), which is confirmed in scripture. My faith is in His understanding and ways, which are necessarily greater than my own. And it functions in reliance and trust. Faith is standing on the promises of God and that doesn't come from an ambiguous foundation.

I wrote: You don't have to encompass all truth to believe in truth or to possess a measure of it.

...Possessing a "measure of it" is BS.

To be kinder than you seem capable at present and more courteous than you seem inclined to be: fleshing out my earlier, I can understand long division and be hopelessly clueless with trigonometry. So I posses a measure of the larger truth held by mathematics without encompassing mathematics entire or even mostly.

...Your obsession with this sophistry is giving you away.

This sort of thing usually indicates that the objection is emotional and not truly rational.

Why not let it go, and just be honest?

Supra. Or, I have been at every point.

Admit that God is a mystery beyond your ken, but that you choose to believe in Him, anyway, because it makes you a better man and helps you live a better life.

Every Christian who is familiar with scripture understands that God's ways and thoughts are beyond our encompassing. We meet and understand Him as He meets and gives us understanding. For further insight into what I mean go back to my math example above.

Why don't you just have faith, and forget about having to be right?

Said the fellow so hostile to the idea of being wrong or absent something important that he insults anyone who thinks otherwise and contradicts his own context to do it.

Tomorrow? A rainee day doesn't end the game and Golden State has their rings resized... lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

Observation Corner :cattyfan:

Ted Cruz...for those who still want Pat Buchanan, but without all the warmth. lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

Gazette coming at some point...

Observation Corner for Wednesday: keeping the confederate flag in play is on par with keeping a trophy for being runner up on your mantel or displaying a memento of the last time you got your tail handed to you in a fight.

lain: If it was a runner up pennant for a National Championship alumni would rip it down or fire the administration that allowed it.