Posted by Jeff Downs on July 08, 2002 at 06:20:48:
In Reply to: It's like the Wings vs the Thrashers... posted by MH on June 29, 2002 at 12:30:13:
> > Problem is, when he hit it, the nail took a turn for the worst and broke in half.
> Please explain this statement of yours. It is rather vague.
Not sure why this was vague. I was commenting on the first line in your previous post in which
you stated "Jimmers, you hit the nail on the head." You were implying that he was correct in his
assessment.
> > > Jeff, there's a fine line between being a Christian and becoming a Jesus Freak.
> 1. Christians follow the golden rule 'do unto others...'.
Now that is an interesting/modern idea of what Christianity is. Don't know where you would get
such a definition, except by your own imagination (One point taken away - Reason: Making up
definition as you go along, which have no historical basis, let alone biblical basis. As I
mentioned in an earlier post and you seem to know this (since you know the Bible somewhat),
that this is not the core of Christianity. Most people think it is so and most people are mistaken.
Please, as they use to say "Show me in scripture" where you would get such an idea.
Remember, you are not just showing me how Christians should live, but you seem to be defining
Christianity, because then you move on to define...
>Jeses Freaks try to ram their POV (that's point of view) and beliefs down your throat by stating 'you are wrong' in response to any comment which does not fit into their 'perfect' interpretation of the Bible.
Well, by now you are minus 1 since I took a point away above and here you lose a point. The
concept you mention here is interest. Again, you are just making things up as you go along because your definition
has no biblical/historical bases what so ever. Did not this term come or describe the Jesus Movement in the 70's and it certainly
did not signify what you are making up as a definition. (BTW: I'm going to drop your point
system from my post. This is not golf - the more you're under the better. And you my friend are
so far under in this post of yours that if it were golf, you would be a pro).
Back to the concept you're espousing: "ram their POV...and beliefs down your throat by stating
'you are wrong' in response to any comment which does not fit into their 'perfect' interpretation
of the Bible."
You should know, no one is nor can be neutral in a position. You are telling me I'm wrong (you
have even devised a point system - maybe this comes from your Catholic background)? You
yourself are trying to explain where I'm wrong (shoving it down my throat according to your
words). If you want to discuss interpretation principles and rules fine. But, it seems that you
wouldn't have a clue. I tell you what, you look up the word Hermeneutics and then will discuss
the issue.
> 2. Ummm... unless you really have NO idea what you are talking about, ANY conversation about Christianity, by nature, HAS to revolve around Jesus. Hence the term, CHRISTianity. [Score: MH 2, JD 0]
Of course you are correct about Christianity. But, I don't seem to remember that this was really
the conversation. What I have been trying to show is that some people are not thinking
through their positions (this started between me and Jenny). You have misunderstanding the
nature of the conversation.
> If I am making up my own religion, then so be it. Again, most of my beliefs arise from Catholicism BUT others arise from either common sense and/or other religions. You can apply this same argument to politics. If you are a true conservative Republican who will ONLY listen to Republican ideas and who will ONLY vote Republican, you are IMHO a complete idiot because you are not looking at the whole picture. [Score: MH 2, JD 0 due to the subjectiveness of this issue.]
You did "hit the nail on the head." This is how most cults begin. They pick and chose from
other religions or reject parts of Christianity that "They don't care for." Now, I will start quoting
the Bible because it fits real nice with your way of thinking:
"For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they
became futile in their speculations., and their foolish hearts were darkened. Profession
themselves to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of hte incorruptible God for
an image in the form of corruptible man." (Rom. 1:21-23)
This certainly applies to what you have done. Knowing who the true God is (because he has
made himself clearly known), but in turn (suppressing), making up your own religion in the form
of corruptible man. This is part of the darkness of the human heart.
> > Thanks for you opinion. Now, can it be put to the test and withstand scrutiny. I doubt it!
> What the heck does this statement mean? I basically said that I would rather profess that I am a sinner and know that God already knows this truth than profess that I know exactly what the Bible says and what the writers (and in turn, God) meant. The latter could actually be constrewn as blasphemy, which in turn goes against Commandment #1. [Score: MH 3, JD 0 - dude, you're getting blown out here]
I was referring to your statement about picking a choosing from other religions. And can that
part of your world-view be put to the test. Can you give an account for why you believe what
you believe and can it stand the test of scrutiny? I'm telling that it can't. Picking and choosing
from other religions and having a coherent world-view doesn't work. Now, if you don't want to
be coherent, that is fine.
> > Again, very interesting, I never quoted the Bible. So, you are at least, not talking about me here. It is interesting that most people who have a "form of religion" like to (mis)quote the verse, you shall not judge. You must not trust a lot of people.
> *Shaking my head* Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. I give you...
> Exhibit A:We need to as Jude 3 says, "Content for the faith, once for all delievered to the saints." [Score: MH 4, JD 0]
I'll have to give you this one, I guess. Even though this post you refer to was not necessarily
part of the conversation we're having now.
> > Sorry you paint with such broad brushes.
> Isn't this what religion is truly all about? If you nitpick the intricacies of a religion, you have an answer to all questions regarding that religion. But by understanding the broad scope of the religion, you have an answer to any situation that life throws at you. Thanks for noticing that I subscribe to ideal number 2. [No points awarded due to subjectiveness of question]
Subjective answer also. And I would say, no, you are totally wrong in your assesment.
> 1. In any debate, you have two sides. Each side presents a differing point of view. Therefore, each side has an 'opponent'. Any debate you get into, whether you like it or not, you have an opponent. [Score: MH 5, JD 0]
Ok, I'll concede to your point. Just don't want people to get the impression by the words you've
used that somehow just because we disagree or I disagree with someone that they are my
enemy. This relates back to Jimmers topic of one of his posts "Can't We All Just Get Along."
Of course we can. Doesn't mean were going to agree on everything. And doesn't mean that
people can not have even heated debates. But, at the end of the day, I'm not going to be
swinging. I'll put out my hand and give thanks for a great conversation. Its those who can not
put out there hand for a shake, that really are the ones that can not get along with others they
disagree with.
> 2. Usually, the debate is decided by which side presents clear and logical thoughts. A lot of the thoughts you have presented, both herewithin and in other posts, are vague. Other thoughts make no logical sense. I could do the linking of your other posts here for concrete evidence but anyone who has gotten this far into this 'debate' probably already realizes this. [Score: MH 6, JD 0]
I wish you would. It certainly is not proper to accuse someone of something (as you have done
above) without showing the evidence. You can accuse me of vagueness and that is fine,
although I showed you in the first sentence of this post were this was not correct. But to make
an accusation that "Other thoughts make no logical sense", I think you need to show some
evidence. I say the same thing about your posts, and have giving you reasons why.
> > Sound like the issues are being clouded by MH.
> Sounds like someone just got their theological butt whooped here.
If that is the way YOU perceive things fine, the evidence (posts) on the board will stand.
In Christ,
Jeff Downs