Senate Christianity Discussion Thread

womp-womp-wwwooooommmppppp

 

I think I hear a tender sigh somewhere...

 

Possibly that homeschooled is often somewhat oxymoronic because it frequently (but not necessarily) can lead to lapses in education.

 

Suit yourself, but "science" still didn't mean what it means now back in 1611. Novum Organum hadn't even been published yet.

 

So, I'm to understand that anything I write is incredible because I was homeschooled and I'm an old-school Christian? Whatever happened to freedom of religion and speech...

 

Freedom of speech does not give you the right to go unquestioned on your assertions.

 

neither freedom of religion nor freedom of speech guarantee we wont find your religion or your speech stupid, dawg. it just means you cant be put in prison for them

 

So, people aren't able to say things about you and your religion? Whatever happened to freedom of religion and speech...

 

Sigh...not what I meant by that. People shouldn't be bashed for ideals they cling to. One of my best friends is an atheist, we have interesting conversations and we respect where the other stands on religion. I guess my sin is naïveté.

 

No, not implying. Asking a question so I could state that you have absolutely been indoctrinated.

For the avoidance of doubt, let me define indoctrination as I am using it in this discussion:

"Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[1] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned"

(Source: Wikipeda)

Your arguments, which are rarely substantiated beyond a closed-knit community's self-referential backslapping, are inherited from other people and formed for you. Based on the limited range of your education, you likely have had no choice around questioning it. Whether you like it or not, you have been told what to believe and have dutifully believed it.

Hence my concern with your position/s to date.

 

You're not being bashed, and not for your ideals either. You are being questioned on clinging to a translation literally four hundred years old which declaims a concept which had not even been invented at the time. Nobody doubts that Erasmus et. al. did the best they knew how to do at the time with the text (well, tidying up the Latin aside). What can be doubted is the sufficiency of the translation given four hundred years' worth of new information that's come in and which has resulted in successive new translations. But again we are talking at cross-purposes: what I'm describing is a modernist, dare we say scientific, approach to translation, while your approach is pre-modernist. It is very difficult to see the other person's way of thinking on these two subjects, especially on the pre-modern side of the line.

 

My point is that what's being bashed, largely, is the statements you're putting forward. Many people would contend that views do not get to be respected simply because someone holds them, they must be defended to make the case WHY they should be respected. The issue with some of those claims isn't the stand on religion, but the stand on reality. (And that is not saying that any religious stance is in conflict with reality, but some are)

 

Posting to compliment Rogue Number Ten's liberal usage of the word "dawg." It is, as always, well-timed.

 

that there is a teen sex comedy waiting to happen...

 

Sorry, but no. I wasn't indoctrinated, if anything, I broke free from indoctrination from the school system. I once believed in evolution. My folks never forced their faith on me, I was given room to grow into my own relationship with Jesus. I believe what I believe because I spent time in research on my own, I prayed often, and I compared everything I learned with the Bible, which has more than proven itself reliable.

 

This is going to be a long afternoon.

 

So, it's pre-modernist to believe in a God capable of preserving His Word and ensuring we wouldn't need anything else? Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes that "there is no new thing under the sun," and I can see how true that is, in this time more than ever. We are so close to the same civilization that was destroyed by the flood four thousand years ago, and Jesus prophesied that the days of His return would be like the days of Noah.

 

yes. yes it is

 

Say that to my face Sumerian not online and see what happens.

 

Gilgamesh and Enkidu at Uruk...
Picard and Dathon at El-Adrel...

 

Alright, I'm game. First of all, if you 'believed' education, you did it wrong. The reason it's taught is not because we 'believe' it, but because we have a substantial body of evidence. But sure, let's test this. I'm going to ask a question, and we can compare science and the Bible? Since you said it's reliable.
How many legs does a grasshopper have?
Are bats mammals or birds?
In the following sentence about making a circular object, "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of X cubits did compass it round about." what number is X?

Let's do this critically, and here on some basic questions.

 

No. What you write is incredible because it lacks credibility.

 

The answer is, as always, JAAAAAAAAYZUS.

 

This is what I get for using X as a variable, isn't it?

 

Maybe Jeezers doesn't want to come back? Maybe he got lost?