I'm not Baptist. I am a preacher in the sense I proclaim the Good News. I do not pastor a church.He had me fooled too. Hell, I thought he was a baptist preacher.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm not Baptist. I am a preacher in the sense I proclaim the Good News. I do not pastor a church.He had me fooled too. Hell, I thought he was a baptist preacher.
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.Religion comes from two Latin terms: re-, meaning 'again,' and ligare meaning 'to bind' from which we get the word 'ligature.' So religion takes a person who is bound or trapped by life and circumstance and re-binds them with new shackles.
I'm a follower of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I was bound by sin and separated from God. Jesus Christ set me free from sin and dead religion, for whom the Son sets free is free indeed.
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.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
If Kennedy were alive today he wouldnt be a democrat.Kennedy was a Democrat, elite, Ivy League, liberal. (And the last great President we had). But are you sure you want to quote him?
I remember when I thought you were not a racist.He had me fooled too. Hell, I thought he was a baptist preacher.
Liar.I've also heard them attribute the holocaust as some sort of punishment for missing Christ as the Messiah.
That's bs STRAWMANIf Kennedy were alive today he wouldnt be a democrat.
He may be wrong but he did not make a straw man argument.That's bs STRAWMAN
He had me fooled too. Hell, I thought he was a baptist preacher.
Religion comes from two Latin terms: re-, meaning 'again,' and ligare meaning 'to bind' from which we get the word 'ligature.' So religion takes a person who is bound or trapped by life and circumstance and re-binds them with new shackles.
I'm a follower of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I was bound by sin and separated from God. Jesus Christ set me free from sin and dead religion, for whom the Son sets free is free indeed.
Let me lay out a few facts:
1. Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East and it's not close.
2. Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, a model for the rest of the region.
3. The Palestinians don't even recognize Israel's right to exist.
4. Clinton negotiated a peace agreement with the Palestinians and Israel where the PLO got 97% of what it wanted. Arafat walked away. Read below.
5. The current PLO refuses to meet with Israel.
6. The Arabs stated the 67 six day war and as a result, lost key territory. Don't start a war if you not willing to live with the consequences.
7. The Palestinians don't want peace otherwise they would have accepted Clinton's deal. They don't want to live beside a Jewish state. They want it all and this U.N. resolution will only make matters much, much worse.
We are a secular country. Yes, Evangelicals support Israel due to biblical proclamations. But our government is not bound by religion. They are bound by promises to our allies.
h
Let me lay out a few facts:
1. Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East and it's not close.
2. Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, a model for the rest of the region.
3. The Palestinians don't even recognize Israel's right to exist.
4. Clinton negotiated a peace agreement with the Palestinians and Israel where the PLO got 97% of what it wanted. Arafat walked away. Read below.
5. The current PLO refuses to meet with Israel.
6. The Arabs stated the 67 six day war and as a result, lost key territory. Don't start a war if you not willing to live with the consequences.
7. The Palestinians don't want peace otherwise they would have accepted Clinton's deal. They don't want to live beside a Jewish state. They want it all and this U.N. resolution will only make matters much, much worse.
We are a secular country. Yes, Evangelicals support Israel due to biblical proclamations. But our government is not bound by religion. They are bound by promises to our allies.
http://www.yashanet.com/anti-semitism/archives/042202c.htm
First: he says it all the time, I was just being a jerkHe may be wrong but he did not make a straw man argument.
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.You let them off the hook entirely too quickly. I would've let them chew on that for a couple days.
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.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.
It be nice if you meant that post. I respect your mind, but you polarize with your condescension.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.
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.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?
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.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)
You assume condescension because I know how to debate. You personalize. That issue is within you.It be nice if you meant that post. I respect your mind, but you polarize with your condescension.
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?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."
If I remember correctly, you stated that you volunteered for your church?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.
I don't think you make any attempt to be superior.....other than $&%#ing winning!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.
If I remember correctly, you stated that you volunteered for your church?
Really? So this is me being schooled in debate by youYou assume condescension because I know how to debate. You personalize. That issue is within 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.Religion is loosely defined as following a set of rules to make your god happy. That isn't Christianity.
Is Christianity not a religious doctorine?Religion is loosely defined as following a set of rules to make your god happy. That isn't Christianity.
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.
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.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.
That's not questioning specific tenets of a doctrine, its questioning the applicable guidelines for living.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.
Christianity is not monolithic.Is Christianity not a religious doctorine?
Really? So this is me being schooled in debate by you
You have a worldview. You have a theology, whether stated or unstated. But I accept you are not religious.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.
I only take personal attacks personally. Even then, most of it is thrown out due to the nature of the attacker.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.
The belief in Christ as the son of god is.Christianity is not monolithic.
In truth I was laughing because you continue to take everything personally.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.
No. That's false, at least in the sense that Jesus is the one and only Son.The belief in Christ as the son of god is.
As the wise Walter Sobchak once said ..."You're way out of your fvcking element here, Donnie"The belief in Christ as the son of god is.
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.But we're both Christians following the same God. Shouldn't there be just one doctrine if we fit your mold?
Ok, that Jesus is the son of god AND THE SAVIOR?No. That's false, at least in the sense that Jesus is the one and only Son.
No. There is with Christendom faiths that do not attribute deity to Jesus.Ok, that Jesus is the son of god AND THE SAVIOR?