You still haven't answered my question. You just rattle off crap that has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.

What point didn't I address?

I'll try to address it later though....I have to sign off for a while. Thanks.

We're done.

As usual you got high toned like you're the ultimate judge of everything.

The point I made was sublime. I doubt an atheist could get it but every theist on the board most likely did.

On doctrine Jesus is authoritative not the world....Nice little switcheroo you tried to pull though then cover your tracks with follow up wordy posts...

you may be done but that doesn't mean we can't still point out the endless parade of fail in your posts.

only because, as usual, your responses don't answer questions, show a profound disrespect for the English language, are condescending, illiterate, erroneous, you misrepresent people and ideas and, to top it off, are littered with non sequitors.

fwiw- my reaction to your posts seems fairly standard to how most people respond to you. Maybe there's a reason for that?

tee hee. I love when you get condescending to people and generalize especially right after complaining that others are getting high and mighty. Pretty standard splenda - hypocrite to the end.

The point you made wasn't sublime.. it was nonsensical and idiotic. I doubt you would get it but most of the people who are sane and aren't challenged to think rationally and can follow a conversation most likely would.

NO ONE WAS DISCUSSING DOCTRINE. That's the conversation that was taking place in your head but nowhere else. Further proof you have no reading comprehension whatsoever. It couldn't hurt for you to take some ESL classes or something.

Its scary that you talk about all the books you read... and yet you regularly demonstrate that you can't process what you read. I can only imagine how different what it is that you read and how it resides in your brain.

There was an episode of 'Pinky and the Brain' where you got to hear Pinky's internal dialog, so when Brain asks the inevitable 'Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering' question, Pinky's response seems perfectly logical, although completely inappropriate to actual conversation at hand.

I wish we could do this with Splendour. I think we're missing out on about 90% of the conversation.

I think it would be interesting to see. I agree that I have no doubt in her mind there must be some logical progression between what she reads and the eventual answer she types in her response. But there's no way one could figure out what's going on just by reading her posts. There's a unique logic processor in her mind that's adding information in between the lines of what she reads that no one else is privvy to.

My father sometimes does this: You run into him and you're not having a conversation. He starts with, "You're right.... argument/statement" When he says "you're right", its because he's begun the conversation with you in his head before you've actually contributed. In his mind, he has articulate what he thinks your point of view on something is. And he begins his response as if you've already commented on what he's talking about. I know he's often extrapolating what he thinks your position is based on previous conversations. And you can sometimes figure out where he's coming from. But its always disorienting and it takes a minute to process what the hell he's talking about.

I think this is kind of true for Splenda. There's a whole level of dialogue that happens in her head where the coversation make veer off onto a related topic in her mind. Perhaps this explains why so often her responses seem only tangentally related to what she's responding too.

I can't believe how much I just wrote on this.

sidenote: Love Pinky and the Brain. My oldest kid is 3 and 1/2. He's just getting old enough where he prefers story cartoons over things like Go Diego Go or Dora the Explorer. I'm looking forward to enjoying Pinky & The Brain with him. Parenthood has hidden advantages like license to enjoy old cartoons!

You're just being deliberately obtuse as usual. The thread isn't about me or the way I process things.

My point which totally went over your head was that when you use a worldly definition to define Jesus' Truth it isn't even doctrinally accurate by a believer's standards and if you're trying to define Christianity you are engaging in a doctrinal activity.

So your argument is totally off.

The Church is the Bride of Christ....that is a relational position.

Religion is just a word you use to describe other groups' practices. When you apply it to Christianity it is a misnomer.

The Jews of the OT were under a theocratic government until the arrival of Jesus during the Roman Empire period. So what was the distinguishing condition or difference between Jesus and the old system: the advent of the Holy Spirit into the world. It changed the religion substantially. It changed the religion so substantially that it was no longer a religion any more but spirituality. It even reduced the law down to 2 commandments from 613 mitzvots because things are simplified when you can avail yourself of the Holy Spirit and walk in it.

The typical religious hoi polloi argument that atheists think they are clever mounting "Oh which religion is right?" rests on this definition you pick up from the world and attempt to force on Christianity. But that's a misconception.

Christianity is the Truth because Jesus was the Way, the Truth and the Life.

When you have the truth why waste your time investigating other claims? If you do you can never learn about the way and the life because you just wasted the time you needed to acquire the way and the life barking up wrong trees.

To you reasonable/rational=obtuse.

Every thread you're in ecomes about how you process (or don't process) things.

Its about your inability to stay on topic or answer very simple questions without going off on endless tangents.

Nope. This is you blathering nonsense because you can't answer a simple question.

nope. Completely accurate. And I'm only one of dozens of people who regularly point out your inability to answer simple questions.

aah. Its your new comment that you read that you liked that you will now post repeatedly even though it has no bearing on the coversation. Splendour word vomit.

Wrong. Just because you want to redefine words doesn't make it correct. Christianity is a religion. Sorry. You're wrong again. Look at the definition (let me know if you have trouble understanding the words) and you'll see it fits your beliefs to a T.

more splendour word vomit. Who cares. Has nothing to do with the topic.

nope. The question is perfectly valid. The problem is asking the question to someone whose brain doesn't process things like normal people.

Zeus is the Truth because Zeus was the Way, the Truth and the Life. WHEEEEEE! Its easy to be like splenda. Doesn't require any thinking.

This is not an argument. This is an assertion based in cirular reasoning. Try again.

Classic ignorant statement and a non answer. I'll take that as further affirmation that you can't answer it. Thanks

I suggest you and kurto stay out of my threads then because neither one of you appear to have mastered the art of asking someone what they mean and or of asking them to re-state their answer.

You could take lessons from bunny who is pretty good at it but then he's a civilized guy and doesn't go off on posters at the drop of a hat.

I would agree Splendour that you fail to see the meanings of many words and how they don't just mean what you specify to them. I have done it in the past (e.g.I presumed atheist and agnostic were incompatable states); and bulit arguments from it.
If you have a separate understanding of a word, or a different one, you can't implant it into what others are understanding. When you talk of the difference between religion being a word to describe other words as the truth you are implanting your meaning to the questions kurto had, which completely altered the arguments as you then demonstrated (with some pretty faulty thinking, but kurto has gone over that.)

I think you should check out the following links for brief summaries of these things-
phenomenology is the study of experience and what I think you use to claim experiences of God.
Wittgenstein pretty much is a god of language
A bit of an introduction to knowledge

You always post links. These one's are pretty good. Also they are summaries not arguments so don't worry about that
I don't see how you can just ignore this splenda. Surely in your head you see yourself different to followers of Zeus. Can you actually explain your rational thought process?


From splenda-
Have you never been wrong before Splendour? Knowledge is a state independent of belief. It is impossible to know you know something without pride.
You can rationally believe something based on logic, and it might be the truth and you therefore know it, however your belief is not knowledge. By being closed minded you reject a greater understanding of your own belief and a greater organisation of belief in your mind. I'm sure you, or maybe some other Christians have said blind faith, just believing for believing, isn't the best way to be a Christian; and by closing your mind you do this

....

No you didn't. You gave a definition of what you interpret to be religion from your perpective, ignoring conventional meanings.
You say its the truth; other religions say it to be the truth
Your belief it is true is not knowledge as it is based on inference, emotion, and inductive reasoning
Religion is not truth, it is a faith-Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning, by establishing symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values (from wiki)
This is Christianity. It might in the end be the true religion, but that does not stop it being a religion. You can't just change the meanings of words to fit your arguments. Read the links to get this better.

By redifining words, and interpreting questions in ways by your new meanings as to the one's in actual dialogue you avoid the question, which is probably one of the many reasons everyone says you avoid the question.

That is completely different to what you said earlier-
But if you retract that and think the new one then it's pretty specific. But don't close your mind to what others say, even if you disagree. It is, by definition, closed mindedness.


Emotions are obvs very important, and most definitely count in reasons for action and assessment. However, these are personal reasons and not involved in the rationality of belief. You mostly avoided the point though; you need to stay open to rationality and emotions don't affect knowledge.
It is rational to state that because x makes me happy I should look to x

It is not rational to state that because i feel x (the love of God) i should believe y(the reality of the Christian God); as you imply you do with Christianity.

Use emotion where it is necessary yeah, but it does not change what you know.


Also; your being very vague as to why the emotions you feel with God demand Jesus. You've failed to recognise the circular reasoning you provided kurbo. I know links are bad, but read the one's i linked to you if your going to present your points like you do.

Sry. I'm taking a break.

I'm pretty much burnt on people wanting to debate me.

I'm all about the experience not the argument(s). I know the subjective is irrefutable but nobody wants to talk about that on here.

Oh well I guess the medium is too impersonal to convey reality and nobody wants to learn it on a message board anyway from someone they can't see.

Gl

I really don't think you understand what a debate is. I'm game for discussion, i'm game for "reality" but if during this discussion you just refuse to accept your own inconsistencies how can it ever be a discussion? A debate has a premise or something.
Also, you talk about experiences, did you read the link on experiences???
To understand an experience study it. Don't be biased. Open your mind.
The subjective might be irrefutable but an analysis is.

If you don't want to debate or discuss, and just want to chuck out your point of view, you are being closed minded and unclear.
I asked you to clarify, to make your point clear, so I can understand your conceptions etc., but you run away when it gets too deep and analytical.
That much is obvious just by reading this thread. Why can't you just engage in an way which other people can understand?

Is this another 'I'm done with RGT' post? I'll take the under on whatever the line is.

But in all sincerity, we're not arguing with you. At least not about the topic at hand. If you want to communicate in any medium with people you know disagree with you, you must first demonstrate that you are capable of communicating. You are not staying on point, and do not answer our questions. When we insist you answer the question, you become combative.

We have done nothing but require you to be honest and on topic. We ask the question: "Why is your faith in the Christian God the correct faith?" You debate it's not a religion. Fine. For the sake of expediency, I'll stipulate that your beliefs do not constitute a religion. So again I ask, "Why is your faith in the Christian God the correct faith?"

It's a simple question to understand, although I agree it may be difficult to answer.

Why is faith in the Christian God the correct faith?

Any reply that does not directly address this question is dishonest and disrespectful to those whom you seek to convince.

To add to me n BigPerm; have you ever seen an actual preacher, vicar etc., walk away from a discussion/teaching etc., because their only there to say their peace? How about a teacher? Who when the students ask to clarify, they say, I'm not here to debate BYE!

These people are bad communicators, and unsuccessful teachers.

After years of reading her posts, I'm pretty sure she's just incapable of doing so. It appears that her brain just won't let her stay focused on any one particular topic. I don't think I've ever seen her *not* meander off onto several tangents in any thread that she has wandered into or started.

I'll keep this brief because I thin le bouf has covered things nicely and in a nicer way then I would. But i did want to address something above. When splenda asks that big perm and I master the ark of asking someone what they mean she's somehow ignoring that ourselves and many, many others have spent years on this forum doing just that. I have written hundreds of posts trying to get her to clarify her positions and discuss them. The reason people get frustrated is that it's a fruitless pursuit; either she tangents into some unrelated tangent ignoring the intent of every question OR she gets defensive/martyr like and makes it about 'atheists vs theists' or 'men vs women' or 'logic vs emotions' or 'I have superior spirituality - you would never understand'.

People are constantly asking her to explain her answers or discuss them - it's her refusal or inability to answer the questions that leads to the problems. It's insane that would suggest we have to learn to ask her what she means when she's been adamantly refusing to do so in this very thread. (she still hasn't answered it!)

If i just mash the pot button in plo what does that make me?

No I never run away on here. I've been doing this stuff for years and I really don't care about the arguments. To me the experience is much more interesting. But we have a couple of dedicated agitators on here. Like in this thread. I'm clearly talking to Big Perm and its hard enough to stay on topic but along come the reprobates to interject and knock the topic off course.

I always try to treat the reprobates like they aren't reprobates because I think God has the final say on whether or not anyone is a reprobate and time is controlled by him yet these people are a problem. They are posters on here but they seem unable to give me the respect that they give some of the other posters when they debate/discuss and stay out of the thread.

I am not the topic of every thread like the reprobates try to make me but sometimes I am willing to be to clarify something in the discussion or to leverage knowledge I have gained from personal experience and observation.

I am really tired of being accused of being schizophrenic by a bunch of non-professionals when I'm clearly not. If I were I most likely couldn't post on here for 5 years.

What you are really seeing on here is "a failure to communicate."

An enlightened mind's way of thinking has very little in common with a reprobated one. It could be so little that everything I say goes over their head and they write it off as irrational because they don't have the experiences to be able to relate to what I am saying.

You can go back through many of my threads and pick up the titles of books I post about. I'm always most interested in identifying the experience of faith...a bit analytical of me....but the proof is in the experience. If I could give you an experience I would...but only God grants them...that's why faith is a walk of perseverace and patience...I hope you think about that ...ponder it and don't let the people that are failing hard through reprobation upset your ability to do that....

God bless.

Oh and by the way...I'm not a Calvinist but this forum has taught me the doctrine of Reprobation...I do believe reprobation can occur but I am a universalist and I don't believe in eternal damnation...Reprobation as I use the term means a determined failure to get out of your fallen nature.

Note the words "determined failure". Politic agendas always lead to determinations...I hope you can rethink things and not get swept along with the political tide. I'd much rather be a child of God than follow any political movement of mankind's and I'm a former political science major that has studied political movements.

Wall of text.

Question remains.

I'll try and go back and read the thread more patiently. But that could be late today as I have a mountain of personal errands. I always let this forum get me behind in my personal life because I regard atheists as my spiritual children and their needs are more important than my own but I will go back and re-read the thread.

God did send me here on a mission. I'm really only here for one reason but the devil keeps trying to knock me off course before atheists can make the connection.

No need to re-read the thread. The question hasn't changed.

Why is faith in the Christian God the correct faith?

Re-asking to Splendour. Curious as to what your response is.

This reinforces what I said earlier. When challenged, the objections are arguments aren't worthy of her... after all she's "an enlightened mind" and those who challenge her aren't just holding a difference of opinion... oh no, they're reprobates; immoral people. She doesn't need to make sense. Not when you're morally superior to everyone else like Splenda is. (She sounds so much like a humble Jesus, doesn't she?)

God is the judge on whose a reprobate and she's clearly called us reprobates... I guess more proof that Splendour is the word of God. I feel blessed.

Are you a professional? Is it your professional opinion that people with any mental problems are incapable of using the internet? Because I'm pretty sure you're wrong there. Psst- Schizophrenics can live a relatively normal life.

true

That's probably it. You're not only morally superior to everyone, your grasp of science, logic, english language, etc. are all superior to the vast majority of the forum that everything you say goes over almost everyone's head.

lotta words that have nothing to do with the questions that you've been avoiding through the whole thread.