I'm not Baptist. I am a preacher in the sense I proclaim the Good News. I do not pastor a church.
I've always found it ironic that the religious wingnuts in this country.....
- Thread starter RichardPeterJohnson
- Start date
Ummm, ok, well I would argue that you are the "re" "bound" to the word of God. You are as free as the word of God allows you to be.
Maybe your speaking to your spirit being free? I think that's great, and I won't challenge that at all. I will say this though: you knew what I meant, and you didn't have to be such a snob about it
I don't think the problem was on the transmission end. I think the problem is on the reception end. You seem to personalize a lot of what is said. Now you seem to be taking your ques from RPJ who regularly likes to tell others what they believe.
You let them off the hook entirely too quickly. I would've let them chew on that for a couple days.
Yes, Evangelicals support Israel due to biblical proclamations.
Do you have reference to backup this statement? To my knowledge, I could be wrong, The first coming of Christ changed some things for many Old Testament beliefs.
First: he says it all the time, I was just being a jerk
Second: how do you know the intentions of his post?
Third: what other intention does a ridiculous post like that have? I say no, because of things like NASA and the peace corps....to what response?
Well, too often I try to win the argument. I thought about further set up but that wouldn't further the cause of the greater good.
I asked if you were religious, and you responded by posting the Latin roots to the word, as if my question wasn't clear. I think it's indicative of your personality on this board....you use facts to project superiority, even though the facts might distort the sentiment of the debate. You knew what I meant, yet you feel the need to belittle the question and misrepresent your position.
Are you religious? (From the modern definition: relating to or believing in a religion)
It be nice if you meant that post. I respect your mind, but you polarize with your condescension.
Intention has nothing to with type of argument. He did not make a straw man argument. But notice in your second point you ask how his intentions can be know then ascribe intentions to him in your third point.
You from the left and altkvb from the right formulate your arguments deductively rather than inductively. This is why it seems to make sense in your in head but you find yourselves defending inconsistencies on this board. I do appreciate that at times you seem to step and say, "Ok, I might be wrong."
In another post you ask how I can know someone else's motives then to attempt to ascribe motives to me here. Again I can only assume the issue is on your end. I make no attempt to be superior. If you feel inferior it's not because of me.
As I said I am not religious. I am spiritual. There is a difference even in the modern definition of terms. Religion is today about being bound to a certain cultus. I am not bound.
You assume condescension because I know how to debate. You personalize. That issue is within you.
Am I wrong in thinking that a "strawman" argument is an argument that begins with the illlusion of a argumentative stance that isn't actual, but only "bates" the opposition into a different argument?
Both my second and third parts were QUESTIONS. That means they were not statements....did they infer a thought on my part? As most questions do, but they none the less were QUESTIONS.
And I appreciate the attempt to help me communicate clearer (if that was what you are attempting, and I don't think it was). But this is a discussion board, not a debate team and I just type posts of responses and questions to try to engage in DISCUSSION about current topics. I am a moderate, but find myself running to the left because of the nationalist and anti-empathetic sentiment I see from the right (mostly on here). So, if my form doesn't meet your standards for proper argumentative criteria, just stop reading my posts and keep your high brow bs to yourself.
Otherwise, I'd love to discuss issues with someone that has intelligence and a different opinion than I do.....it's healthy.
I don't think you make any attempt to be superior.....other than $&%#ing winning!
Religion is loosely defined as following a set of rules to make your god happy. That isn't Christianity.
Really? So this is me being schooled in debate by you
if you relate to a specific religious doctorine, that is what I call being religious. I'm spiritual, and do not relate to any specific religious doctorine.
What if that doctrine is different from person to person? It might not be a sin for Cajun to consume alcohol. It might be for me.
Lol. You're wrong on the straw man argument. I was trying to help you. If you think this board isn't dominated by debate you haven't read much of it. If you choose to discuss issues with intelligent people who have a different opinion than you be prepared to feel inferior--not because you are unintelligent but because you take everything personally.
That's not questioning specific tenets of a doctrine, its questioning the applicable guidelines for living.
Not just me.
You have a worldview. You have a theology, whether stated or unstated. But I accept you are not religious.
I only take personal attacks personally. Even then, most of it is thrown out due to the nature of the attacker.
For example: someone just laughs at my understanding of a concept, and takes the time and effort to state that I'm wrong....but isn't interested in helping me understand their understanding of a concept.
But we're both Christians following the same God. Shouldn't there be just one doctrine if we fit your mold?
As the wise Walter Sobchak once said ..."You're way out of your fvcking element here, Donnie"
Don't try to box either of them in to you're understanding or classification of Christianity. You are talking at the 30kft level thinking you're at the 1000 ft level. Truly applying the classic libtard level of logic towards religion. That isn't to imply you're a tard. To provide an analogy, it would be like someone who just watched "Interstellar" trying to discuss astrophysics with Michio Kaku.
There is....Jesus is the son of God, the Bible is the word of God....interpretations of the doctorine vary (sometimes wildly). I use the word doctorine for Christianity because as compared to other religions, it is its own "group" or "church" in a "loose definition" (since we are allowed to use that bs terminology). Theres a difference in doctorine between Baptist and Methodist surely, but the difference between Islam and Buddhism are much greater. So, for the purposes of my simple question to Cajun.....religious was the term used to identify if he related to the tenets of a specific religion.
