# Read this sermon....if you will



## jmharris23 (Jan 24, 2012)

I know this may seem like an odd place in the forum to put up a sermon, but I would love for those who frequent this area to read it and give me their thoughts

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-368/the-humbling-gospel


----------



## Four (Jan 24, 2012)

jeez dude, this is almost an hour long.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 24, 2012)

I didn't ask you to read it right now, or today, or in one sitting, or ever for that matter? 

Only if you are interested.....didn't mean to make you stress your brain


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2012)

Whatever your looking for, good ,bad, or otherwise can be found in the text. Same thing with your favorite songs.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Whatever your looking for, good ,bad, or otherwise can be found in the text. Same thing with your favorite songs.



I was hoping someone might reply more in line with a conversation about the actual sermon, but thanks for your input.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 24, 2012)

I just read it.
You guys should read it, at your leisure.  I garontee you'll have some comments to make.


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 25, 2012)

No, thanks.  I read through half and thats all I could take.  Up to were I got its the same stuff I have heard for years.    Again it did nothing but reaffirm my course.   And this is were it lost me.



> The word foolishness appears half a dozen times in the opening of this section. It’s so important. By the way, the Greek word for foolishness, you will recognize…it is the word moron, that is the word, actually the word, moron. It is stupid, it is pointless, it is brainless, moronic. It doesn’t suit human wisdom to say that there is one God, there is one way to God, and that way to God is through the God/Man, that Jesus Christ who was a crucified Jew, executed by the Romans, rejected by His people, put on a cross, etc., etc., and salvation comes by rejecting any good work of your own and recognizing your wretched sinfulness and embracing by faith the sacrifice of Christ in your place. That is contrary to human wisdom. The fallen mind says you’re good. And if you’re really good, you’re going to be okay. That’s human wisdom reason, fallen human reason dominated by pride.
> 
> The whole message of the cross is stupid and pointless, we don’t need to go over it, we’ve been going over it for the last three days. It doesn’t suit human reason to tell men that they are on their way to Edited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove Profanity, that they are unwilling and unable to do anything about it on their own. They don’t have the rational power or the moral power or the spiritual power to change their condition. They are impotent before God. That doesn’t suit human pride.
> 
> If that’s what the Bible says, and that’s why they don’t love the Bible, they don’t like the Bible. There are people who are indifferent to the Bible. And they will remain indifferent to the Bible unless they become hostile to the Bible because they actually hear what the Bible says. The whole idea of the gospel, the biblical gospel is unreasonable, it’s irrational, it’s foolish, it’s moronic.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 25, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> No, thanks.  I read through half and thats all I could take.  Up to were I got its the same stuff I have heard for years.    Again it did nothing but reaffirm my course.   And this is were it lost me.



If this is where it lost you, then you just proved the preacher's point for him didn't you?


----------



## Four (Jan 25, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> If this is where it lost you, then you just proved the preacher's point for him didn't you?



The Wookie defense!


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 25, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> If this is where it lost you, then you just proved the preacher's point for him didn't you?



No, I strongly disagree with his very erroneous assumptions.  Becuase that is all they are, assumptions, with no bases in fact, drawn from the very source that I dismiss. 

I was using lost by the way, not to represent any confusion I had, but interest.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 25, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> No, I strongly disagree with his very erroneous assumptions.  Becuase that is all they are, assumptions, with no bases in fact, drawn from the very source that I dismiss.
> 
> I was using lost by the way, not to represent any confusion I had, but interest.



I gotcha.....well you should have said that to begin with 

Of course that doesn't change the fact that I still think you are wrong and understand that you feel the same way about me.

Once again though, thanks at least for conversing with me about it.


----------



## Asath (Jan 25, 2012)

Okay, I’m game, but I’m having a hard time getting past the first paragraph.  

I read the whole thing, but it is filled entirely with sentences that refer only to themselves, seem to have no external referent, and certainly end up with no further explication in the development of the thesis.  As a whole, I understand what the fella is trying to say, but his method of explanation is that of a carnival barker more than that of a scholar.  For the most part he merely says, and does not in any way demonstrate.

In paragraph one – “The doctrine of justification is outlined by the Apostle Paul as being attacked by those who have invented something called The New Perspective on Paul.”  What does that mean?  As a statement, it strikes one immediately as nonsensical.  Does this mean that Paul anticipated justification, outlined it, then was prescient enough to refute the New Perspective before it was ever developed?  Does it mean that Paul outlined the doctrine of justification?  It says that.  Then says that he outlined it as being attacked.  Is it asserted that Paul was aware of ‘those who have invented something called The New Perspective on Paul’ ?  It says that too.  This is one tough sentence to get past.

The next thing that stopped me cold was this statement – “But, first of all, let me just camp on that idea that if you’re a true Christian, you love the Bible.”  Now, not to be rude, but this is akin to saying something like, “If you are a true Democrat, you love welfare,” then going forwards to use that preface to build an argument that is based on a premise that is entirely emotional and political.  This is a logical fallacy of classic proportions, combining the fallacy of consenus gentium with the fallacy of the appeal to authority.  It is the cheapest rhetorical trick available, and puts the author in a position where his responsibility, now, is to demonstrate that his position is valid.

Unfortunately, the author does no such thing.

This part is all too true, but not specific to Christians:  “We get mediocrity because we want mediocrity. This culture craves mediocrity.”   But the conclusion drawn from that truth is once again specific, and indefensible – “Maybe it wasn’t quite so bad before the Enlightenment, but here we are all the way, you know, centuries past the Enlightenment and we are the inheritors of the worship of the human mind. We are deep into the age of reason. And the Bible just doesn’t have a place.”  

Now, wait a second – The Enlightenment being spoken of was the Protestant Enlightenment, in which all previous Christian thinking and doctrine was rejected, and Christianity fragmented into the many various sects that exist today, each with their own view of what it ALL means.  So this fella is asserting that it is now WORSE than it was before the Protestants revolted against their own religion, and formed their own factions within it?  And worse even than that, he asserts that here we are, centuries later, inheriting the worship ‘of the human mind’?   Would that be the same Human Mind that created this Enlightenment to begin with, and demanded such worship of the positions they, themselves took?

Read this entire paragraph--  Then read it again—“What do you mean you’re a spiritual person? The idea that by your mind and your intuition and your supposed senses you can catapult yourself into a true understanding of the biblical gospel, belief in that, and love for that is just not true. Go to verse 19. “It is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside. Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world, for since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God.” You can’t get to God through human wisdom. What seems reasonable, sensible, rational. “  

Really.  “. . . that by your mind, and your intuition and your supposed senses you can catapult yourself into a true understanding . . . “  

Sorry, but this seems to argue against the man’s point more strongly than it argues in favor.  If your mind, your intuition, and your senses cannot beget the understanding of your gospel, as written and interpreted by other people and force-fed to you from birth, then what exactly CAN cause you to understand such a thing?  This fella?  Simply because he forcefully asserts an understanding he just said in the previous paragraph that he also cannot have?  If you cannot get to know God through human wisdom, then what need have we of this fella’s opinion on the matter?  He just, for the fifth or sixth time, invalidated his own position, and negated his own authority to hold the bully-pulpit.  In effect, he just said – “I dunno, and neither do you, so you might as well believe what I tell you, since I’ll be filling in for the wise man that I’m telling you not to believe.”  Rather a poor way to gain credibility, that – claiming wisdom beyond the veil, then condemning those who claim such wisdom.  Just observing . . . 

It gets worse – “God did deal with the Assyrians, of course, later in Isaiah 37:36 by sending an angel who literally killed a hundred and eighty-five thousand of them. In other words, there’s a dimension in which God acts which is not available to men in their wisdom.”  In other words, there is a DIMENSION in which God acts which is not available to men . . . 

A DIMENSION.  Really?  Got anything to back up that assertion?  This God can act in an entirely different DIMENSION, and still pop into OURS  and KILL a hundred and eighty-five thousand men on a whim?  Is this fella sure he wants to use a completely fictitious example like that?  Of course he is.  He goes on to repeat himself –‘  “Where’s the wise men? Bring them on. Where’s the scribe?” That would be the expert. “Where’s the debater of this age? Hasn’t God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” Get all the fools together, all the philosophers, all the educators, all the theorists, all the theologians.” ‘  

Okay.  Which of those does he consider himself to be?  A philosopher?  An educator?  A theorist?  A theologian?  Is he outside of the disciplines he so blithely condemns? What qualifies his knowing distance? 

This becomes the problem of the Preacher, regardless of which stripe of dogma is being preached – they become so attached to their beliefs that they fail to notice that they, themselves, are the very victims they claim superiority over.  What is it that makes their own belief so unique, so transcendent, and so clearly true that all the rest of humanity has missed the boat?  Only one thing – their own belief in it.  They will stand, unashamed,  and scream nineteen to the dozen that it is themselves, and themselves alone that understand, and the rest of the planet is lost if they do not knuckle down and obey them.  Unfortunately, just about every street-corner, office building, union, knitting club, barber shop, and legislature is filled entirely with like-minded bullies who would have the entire world think as they do, and thus be a better place . . . 

“Thank You for the faithful men who have been placed in leadership here . . . “  Well, now, that was easy.  Having placed himself as the leader . . .   Self-congratulations seems like the only reasonable way to conclude such a lecture . . .


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2012)

asath said:


> okay, i’m game, but i’m having a hard time getting past the first paragraph.
> 
> I read the whole thing, but it is filled entirely with sentences that refer only to themselves, seem to have no external referent, and certainly end up with no further explication in the development of the thesis.  As a whole, i understand what the fella is trying to say, but his method of explanation is that of a carnival barker more than that of a scholar.  For the most part he merely says, and does not in any way demonstrate.
> 
> ...



b r a v o


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 26, 2012)

Asath said:


> they, themselves took?
> 
> Read this entire paragraph--  Then read it again—“What do you mean you’re a spiritual person? The idea that by your mind and your intuition and your supposed senses you can catapult yourself into a true understanding of the biblical gospel, belief in that, and love for that is just not true. Go to verse 19. “It is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside. Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world, for since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God.” You can’t get to God through human wisdom. What seems reasonable, sensible, rational. “
> 
> ...




I've always had it explained to me that one must use an organ of the body other than the brain to understand God's message.  This organ is undefined and unvalidated.  Apparently it doesn't work until you believe it exists.


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 26, 2012)

Thank you again Asath.  They are just going to use the old tired, "you don't believe in jesus so you can't understand it" argument. That one always cracks me up.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 26, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Thank you again Asath.  They are just going to use the old tired, "you don't believe in jesus so you can't understand it" argument. That one always cracks me up.



Just asking an honest question here. Why does this "crack you up"? I mean I understand that you don't believe. To some degree I understand why you don't believe. 

What I don't understand is the "hostility" (not the best choice of words here) toward those who do believe. 

I believe the bible to be true. The bible says that if you don't believe in Jesus, you won't understand it. Therefore my argument to you is valid to me, just as your argument for unbelief is valid to you. 

In no way do I ridicule your argument and in some ways as I have already expressed, I see the validity of them. 

It seems to me that while you have no place in your life for it, you might at least be open enough to spiritual things that you could "see my side" from my viewpoint as I see yours from your viewpoint. 

I believe that God has done something in me that He has clearly not done in you, as to the why of that, I can only provide guesses. 

But I will not be hostile to your viewpoint nor ridicule you for it so why do I sense the hostility from your side?


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 26, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Just asking an honest question here. Why does this "crack you up"? I mean I understand that you don't believe. To some degree I understand why you don't believe.
> 
> What I don't understand is the "hostility" (not the best choice of words here) toward those who do believe.
> 
> ...



My hostility arises out aggravation.  I enjoy conversation, but cannot stand when someone claims sole arbitrator of truth. If find it assaulting to intelligent conversation, when one claims to know the unkowable, to have validated the unverifiable, and claims I cannot possibly know just becuase I don't have access to the inaccesible.  

I see it as a cop out, an easy escape from the tough questions.  It is much easier to tell us we can't understand then to take on those questions.  It is an arrogant position to take. One that goes against logic and reason by denounceing their very use. You cannot use logic, and understanding, and you cannot know, unless you already know.  

It might has well be said (and this is the point that I lost interest) that humans are better off dumb and unthinking. 

That is beyond ridiculous.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 26, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> My hostility arises out aggravation.  I enjoy conversation, but cannot stand when someone claims sole arbitrator of truth. If find it assaulting to intelligent conversation, when one claims to know the unkowable, to have validated the unverifiable, and claims I cannot possibly know just becuase I don't have access to the inaccesible.
> 
> I see it as a cop out, an easy escape from the tough questions.  It is much easier to tell us we can't understand then to take those on questions.  It is an arrogant position to take. One that goes against logic and reason by denounceing their very use. You cannot use logic, and understanding, and you cannot know, unless you already know.
> 
> ...



I'll say this, and I will try not to aggravate you any more .


You say it is beyond ridiculous. I say it is beyond ridiculous to you. You talk about arrogance. Who are you to make the claim that my belief in spiritual things is ridiculous. 

In reality you take no different position than I do. 

You think it is arrogant for me to say I have the truth and you do not. 

I think it is arrogant for you to believe that you are so smart that anything that doesn't make complete sense in your mind or is not completely verifiable by scientific method must absolutely hold no water. 

Spiritual things are spiritual things and just by defintion cannot be held to the same requirement as physical things. Just because you do not believe in them, does not make them false. 

Before you say it, I understand that you feel the same way, that just because I believe them, does not make them true. 

My point is, I respect your viewpoint. Why can you not respect mine?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 26, 2012)

It would seem that...

We are men of conviction.   lol


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 26, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> I'll say this, and I will try not to aggravate you any more .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 26, 2012)

The only thing I took as an attack was your use of the phrase "beyond ridiculous" even at that I am not offended and didn't mean to come across as such. Sorry for that misunderstanding. 

Also just for clarity, I do not expect you to acknowledge what I hold as truth. As previously stated I respect your opinions and your unbelief ( if I understand you correctly your unbelief in the God of the bible, not necessarily in a God of some sort?) 

I am not trying to convert you. I don't believe I can do that, nor do I believe I can convince you. 

The only thing I hoped for in this was conversation and I have enjoyed it. Thanks


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 26, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> The only thing I took as an attack was your use of the phrase "beyond ridiculous" even at that I am not offended and didn't mean to come across as such. Sorry for that misunderstanding.
> 
> Also just for clarity, I do not expect you to acknowledge what I hold as truth. As previously stated I respect your opinions and your unbelief ( if I understand you correctly your unbelief in the God of the bible, not necessarily in a God of some sort?  I am open to all possibilities. Just the god of the bible I find very unattractive, and highly unlikely.)
> 
> I am not trying to convert you. I don't believe I can do that, nor do I believe I can convince you.



Ah but you are, esle why would you be here? Why the two posts, one with a sermon for unbelievers, and the other a prayer request for unbelievers?  You either seek to talk down to us, or hope to inspire us to seek more.  I can see no other motivations.  The latter does not offend me, the former does.  The latter allows for conversation and the former leads to hostility. 

I have no issues with conversation, or at attemps at my conversion. Some might, just not me. I will engage you, and yes however unlikely my conversion is, the conversation that usually takes place can be enlightling if not entertaining. 

My conversion is not impossible.  I have changed my mind alot in my life about many different thing.  I do not do it lightly, but tend to dwell on things for a long time.  My mind does not shut off, which is both a good and bad thing. But it makes my conversion very difficult (probably impossible). I will analyze and question everything, it is my nature.  If I find the answers and conclusions unsatisfactory, which I always have, I will dismiss them and keep looking, which is what I am doing.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 26, 2012)

lol      it does feel like we are the invaders here.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 26, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Ah but you are, esle why would you be here? Why the two posts, one with a sermon for unbelievers, and the other a prayer request for unbelievers?  You either seek to talk down to us, or hope to inspire us to seek more.  I can see no other motivations.  The latter does not offend me, the former does.  The latter allows for conversation and the former leads to hostility.
> 
> I have no issues with conversation, or at attemps at my conversion. Some might, just not me. I will engage you, and yes however unlikely my conversion is, the conversation that usually takes place can be enlightling if not entertaining.
> 
> My conversion is not impossible.  I have changed my mind alot in my life about many different thing.  I do not do it lightly, but tend to dwell on things for a long time.  My mind does not shut off, which is both a good and bad thing. But it makes my conversion very difficult (probably impossible). I will analyze and question everything, it is my nature.  If I find the answers and conclusions unsatisfactory, which I always have, I will dismiss them and keep looking, which is what I am doing.



You misunderstand my friend. I did not say I was not here to inspire you to seek more, but that is not the same as seeking to convert you or convince you, for I believe that only God can do that. I do seek to provoke thoughts of a spiritual nature. 

If I in any way through this conversation inspire some thought toward spiritual things then I have done what I set out to do. But i will say again, converting or convincing is not my goal. 

I certainly believe that your conversion is not impossible or I wouldn't do what I do both here and in "real life."


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> My conversion is not impossible.  I have changed my mind alot in my life about many different thing.  I do not do it lightly, but tend to dwell on things for a long time.  My mind does not shut off, which is both a good and bad thing. But it makes my conversion very difficult (probably impossible). I will analyze and question everything, it is my nature.  If I find the answers and conclusions unsatisfactory, which I always have, I will dismiss them and keep looking, which is what I am doing.



There is a good chance you have a brother in Pennsylvania.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 26, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol      it does feel like we are the invaders here.



We are


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 26, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> You misunderstand my friend. I did not say I was not here to inspire you to seek more, but that is not the same as seeking to convert you or convince you, for I believe that only God can do that. I do seek to provoke thoughts of a spiritual nature.
> 
> If I in any way through this conversation inspire some thought toward spiritual things then I have done what I set out to do. But i will say again, converting or convincing is not my goal.
> 
> I certainly believe that your conversion is not impossible or I wouldn't do what I do both here and in "real life."




Your inspirition is mostly unnecessary.  I feel compelled, as if it were my duty to seek all the answers. I know how impossible this feat is, but it would be a failure of thought not too pursue them.


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> There is a good chance you have a brother in Pennsylvania.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 26, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Your inspirition is mostly unnecessary.  I feel compelled, as if it were my duty to seek all the answers. I know how impossible this feat is, but it would be a failure of thought not too pursue them.



You feel compelled, as it were your duty to seek all the answers. 

I feel compelled, as it were my duty to share the answers I have found.

We both think the other "unenlightened"  

So it goes


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 26, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> You feel compelled, as it were your duty to seek all the answers.
> 
> I feel compelled, as it were my duty to share the answers I have found.



I understand. But your answers only leave me with more questions.




> We both think the other "unenlightened"
> 
> So it goes



Not the term I would use but one that will probably suffice.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 26, 2012)

I remain highly suspect of anything that claims exclusivity over everything.


----------



## Asath (Jan 29, 2012)

“What I don't understand is the "hostility" (not the best choice of words here) toward those who do believe.”

Please do not misunderstand me.  I cannot speak for others, and have, myself, seen the hostility expressed from both sides of the debate.  For my own part I am merely a student – I read both sides, give them fair hearing, and respond with critical thinking.  A long lifetime of study, and as open-minded a contemplation of both religious thought and non-religious thought as I have been able to muster has led me to my current position.  I was raised as a believer, and now find that I can no longer defend that posture.  

I do find a hostility within myself towards religious zealots, who continue to author atrocities in the name of their belief, but I find in my discussions with my peers that even the believers among them condemn these same zealots, even if they are members of the same sect, so I see no conflict among us there.  

“Spiritual things are spiritual things and just by defintion cannot be held to the same requirement as physical things. Just because you do not believe in them, does not make them false.”  Up to a point this is valid, but only on the level of belief.  A belief cannot be false, to the believer, if for no other reason than that it is unverifiable by its nature.  Facts, on the other hand, are not beliefs, because they are verifiable, and must be verified to be held as true.  Believing, in and of itself, does no harm, mostly.  If thousands, or millions, wish to interrupt their day, take a prayer rug out of their backpack, kneel on it facing east, and bow to Mecca and their beliefs once or twice a day, then that is their own truth.  I have no business in it.  It does not affect me, or mine, a whit.  This is entirely between them and themselves.  Religious rituals, and thoughts, are necessarily individual and should remain so.  

If religious thought were merely that – a private exchange between a person and their privately held personal truths – then there would be no point of conflict at all.  But, unfortunately, both history and current affairs give the lie to that thought and that possibility.  The actuality is much more aggressive, and is impossible to ignore.  Each and every religious faction, often wildly opposed in ideology (i.e. ‘belief,’ as opposed to ‘fact’), is in open conflict with not only each other but with all others, including the hard sciences, and seek the upper hand through everything from extensive legislative initiatives to outright terrorism.  The ‘peaceful’ members of all of these various congregations cannot claim individual innocence while also ponying up the money every week that supports such campaigns.  Silent, monetary support is tacit acknowledgment of agreement.  There is no retreat from that.  Once one’s religious ideology quits actively seeking expansion and dominance, one can then claim a silent, inner, ‘spiritual’ basis.  Until then, all such claims seem to the outside observer to ring false.

 A God, were there such a being, would not and could not, by the very definitions lent to this invention, tolerate the ‘truth’ of what religions (authored one and all in His name) have actually become.  For some or most of the ‘believers’ on the street – your garden-variety, moral, day-to-day church-goer – their belief is simply held as a narrative constant and a touchstone of their individuality.   For the leaders and fringe elements of these same religions that these simple folk end up financially and ‘spiritually’ supporting,  the stakes are much higher, and the obvious and endlessly intrusive and militant campaigning against all opposing thought is the end result.  

This sort of historical and genuine belligerence, when extended to nations, ends in a simple ultimatum from the rest of the world – police yourselves, or suffer as a group the retaliations that perhaps only your nutball leaders deserve.  It is not unreasonable for us to hold religions to the same standard.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2012)




----------



## TheBishop (Jan 30, 2012)

Asath said:


> “What I don't understand is the "hostility" (not the best choice of words here) toward those who do believe.”
> 
> Please do not misunderstand me.  I cannot speak for others, and have, myself, seen the hostility expressed from both sides of the debate.  For my own part I am merely a student – I read both sides, give them fair hearing, and respond with critical thinking.  A long lifetime of study, and as open-minded a contemplation of both religious thought and non-religious thought as I have been able to muster has led me to my current position.  I was raised as a believer, and now find that I can no longer defend that posture.
> 
> ...



I wish they had an emoticon with a smiley dude hitn't a homerun, it would be so appropriate for this one. Thanks again Asath.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


>





TheBishop said:


> I wish they had an emoticon with a smiley dude hitn't a homerun, it would be so appropriate for this one. Thanks again Asath.



Geez, you two sure love ya'll some Asath don't ya? Everytime the guy posts ya'll seem to drool all over him.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Geez, you two sure love ya'll some Asath don't ya? Everytime the guy posts ya'll seem to drool all over him.




Says the guy wearing the bib!
I have no problem giving credit where credit is due. But since your keeping count you have us both beat in the emoticon department while you piggy back your favorite posters.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> says the guy wearing the bib!
> I have no problem giving credit where credit is due. But since your keeping count you have us both beat in the emoticon department while you piggy back your favorite posters.



huh??


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> huh??



uh-huh!


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Says the guy wearing the bib!
> I have no problem giving credit where credit is due. But since your keeping count you have us both beat in the emoticon department while you piggy back your favorite posters.



Again I need that homerun emoticon!


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Geez, you two sure love ya'll some Asath don't ya? Everytime the guy posts ya'll seem to drool all over him.



I like reading well thought out, logical, thought provoking posts. When I do, I like to give credit to the author. It does so happen that Asath, is able to do that on a consistent basis, so he deserves the credit we give him.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 31, 2012)

I actually appreciate Asath's thoughts myself. Again, I realize that hostility was not the best choice of words. Other than one particular member who posts in here I have never felt like anyone was being hostile toward me or my beliefs. 

I think part of the problem though in these conversations is that both sides are so far away from the other. One side is faith-based, the other fact-based, and those things are very far apart. 

I also think that the true Christian faith, and religion often get confused. There are a lot of people who have done a lot of harm in the name of Christ and I will not dispute nor avoid that fact. 

For those of of us who truly follow Christ and His teachings though, we would be the first to admit that those people were wrong and out of line.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 31, 2012)

Non believers must realize Jesus commands us to tell others. Christians should also realize this when Jehovah Witness' & Mormons come around and be patient with them and listen to their witnessing.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 31, 2012)

Patient, maybe, but why should you listen to them? To help them feel that they did a good job?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 31, 2012)

To show empathy, They are commanded to witness. That's why the atheist listen patiently to us on their forum.


----------



## Asath (Feb 4, 2012)

And why, if I may ask, does the Christian, also commanded to tolerance, not listen quite so patiently on their own forums?


----------



## Nitram4891 (Feb 8, 2012)

Asath said:


> And why, if I may ask, does the Christian, also commanded to tolerance, not listen quite so patiently on their own forums?





A percentage of all humans are hypocrites.


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 8, 2012)

Nitram4891 said:


> A percentage of all humans are hypocrites.


 
100% of them, observationaly speaking. Self included.

Faith based folks as well as non-faith based folks miss the mark on their own "world view" all the time. Both camps would be lying to say otherwise.

Sometimes non-faith based folks frequently take the bible as a law-based book to put bible believing Christians down.  I guess that is where they believe their own freedom to accuse us (as the devil does also) makes for a greater sence of personal satisfaction, as they may believe they have "relief" from the law of what they may call "self-righteousness". 

A believer posses no righteousness of his/her own...

Philippians 3:8-9
8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, 
9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith

Without Christ, all you have is rules and law, which no one under their own power, can keep. Self included.

2 Corinthians 3:5-8
5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 
6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 

I no longer live out the Christian life by law that puts me under condemnation. In the freedom of living in Christ, there is no condemnation, and that's the great news, _to both world views_.  

Romans 5:10
For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

1 Corinthians 15:56-57
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
57 but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Romans 8:2
"The law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus makes men free of the law of sin and death."


----------



## Asath (Feb 8, 2012)

You can readily see, now, why some of us have problems with the more oddly evangelistic believers.  Even as we speak of the separation between faith and fact, and attempt in this conversation to also separate the militant zealots from the peaceful believers, seeking all the while to find a common ground and a sort of intellectual â€˜détente,â€™ we once again find ourselves assaulted by Bible verses.  

Sir, if you wish to spew verses at us, in this forum, as though they hold validity simply by having been written, then you must certainly realize that you will be asked to defend them.  Who, specifically, wrote each of the verses quoted above?  And when?  No cheating.

If history is to be of any use to us whatsoever, it would go without saying that even the most cursory review turns up gods hiding behind every rock and incendiary shrubbery. Weâ€™ve got everything from sun-gods to fertility gods to gods of thunder and odd misshapen little frog and froglet gods for you anthropomorphists in the audience. Weâ€™ve got goddesses of all shapes, sizes and persuasions to mollify the feminists; and weâ€™ve got no small number of gruesome critters dressed up as major and minor deities to satisfy the bestiality crowd; heck, weâ€™ve even got shape and sex-changing masqueraders to satisfy those with mesomorphic inclinations. Weâ€™ve got short, fat, meek, bald-headed little gods and gigantic hairy things with prodigious appendages, enormous teeth, and incredible body odor; we got cute diaphanous naked little things that kiss the earth and fire amorous projectiles living right next-door to short-tempered pouty little brats with a penchant for diverting rivers and blowing the tops off perfectly good mountains; we got good-looking priapic presences and ponderous multi-headed things with venomous hairstyles; weâ€™ve got flagellators, fornicators, florid fly-by-nights, fog-like Fomorians, foraminated wraiths; Falstaffian familiars, fickle-minded Fatimids, and fatuous flying lizards . . .  and that's just the F's, don't even get me started on the S's. Step right up, pick a god any god, weâ€™ve got â€˜em all.

Point is, if you wish to assert YOUR God as the only ONE, then youâ€™ll have to stand in line.  Please take a number, and have a seat, we can only process these claims, with our limited staff, in order of their presentation . . . 

Seriously, though, claiming a written verse as evidence of the veracity of that same verse is a bit like reciting the â€˜Big Macâ€™ jingle to prove how good the sandwich is  . . . nothing is demonstrated, except that SOMEBODY wrote that verse, sometime or another.  Okay.  We understand THAT it was written. 

Our questions, consistently are these â€“ Who wrote it?  And Why?  And When?  Even with those answers, if they could be provided (which they cannot), you can demonstrate little more than that Aesop actually wrote Aesopâ€™s Fairy Tales.  Your verse, in other words, has no meaning except in the context of those who already believe, and has no place in this particular discussion.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 9, 2012)

Asath said:


> You can readily see, now, why some of us have problems with the more oddly evangelistic believers.  Even as we speak of the separation between faith and fact, and attempt in this conversation to also separate the militant zealots from the peaceful believers, seeking all the while to find a common ground and a sort of intellectual ‘détente,’ we once again find ourselves assaulted by Bible verses.
> 
> Sir, if you wish to spew verses at us, in this forum, as though they hold validity simply by having been written, then you must certainly realize that you will be asked to defend them.  Who, specifically, wrote each of the verses quoted above?  And when?  No cheating.
> 
> ...



Are you sure you aren't Diogenes? Maybe he had a twin?


----------



## Asath (Feb 11, 2012)

Have you something to add to the thread, sir, or merely the endless casting of aspersions?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Are you sure you aren't Diogenes? Maybe he had a twin?





ted_BSR said:


> Lamer still. Your arguements have turned to pointless jabs. If you choose to discuss, then I will. I have no interest in entertaining your dribble.



Wrong thread but when calling me out make sure to yell your name too while you work on your crossover.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 11, 2012)

Asath said:


> Have you something to add to the thread, sir, or merely the endless casting of aspersions?



You must at least remeber Diogenes if you call it an aspersion. (but I thought you would have liked him?)

I withdraw my accusation as it is purely based on conjecture.

I will post no more about it.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Wrong thread but when calling me out make sure to yell your name too while you work on your crossover.



How is it you get to say whatever you like about anybody, and I am "calling you out"?

Dribble on this thread or that one, it is only dribble.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> How is it you get to say whatever you like about anybody, and I am "calling you out"?
> 
> Dribble on this thread or that one, it is only dribble.



Ted if I don't dribble I'll get called for traveling. 

I don't say whatever I like, in fact I try very hard to hold back. You were calling me lame for giving hoorays or kudos to someone that replied to you....who and what and when I don't know. If I made a post saying "take that Ted!!" I apologize, but I don't think I did that at all. If I replied, "good post" to someone it was because what was said in their post made sense, not because it was directed at one person or another.


----------



## CAL (Feb 11, 2012)

Bro.Harris,

God's word says to plant a seed and I think you were successful in your attempt. Otherwise,there wouldn't have been so much negative reply.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Ted if I don't dribble I'll get called for traveling.
> 
> I don't say whatever I like, in fact I try very hard to hold back. You were calling me lame for giving hoorays or kudos to someone that replied to you....who and what and when I don't know. If I made a post saying "take that Ted!!" I apologize, but I don't think I did that at all. If I replied, "good post" to someone it was because what was said in their post made sense, not because it was directed at one person or another.



Fair enough BH. I have taken a few days off to cool my jets. I think I can continue in a civil manner now!


----------

