Anything Forums

halvertroy wrote: you speak for yourself, reaper.

And could you explain what you mean by this? It comes off as pretty hostile.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:53112

Reaper wrote:

halvertroy wrote: you speak for yourself, reaper.

And could you explain what you mean by this? It comes off as pretty hostile.

You come off as somewhat hostile, or at least dismissive here, which is what he responded to:

Reaper wrote:

halvertroy wrote: exactly. i believe in the bible just as much as the next christian,

That's not saying much.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:53113

Reaper wrote:

halvertroy wrote: you speak for yourself, reaper.

And could you explain what you mean by this? It comes off as pretty hostile.

It doesn't come across as hostile at all. In fact, as Stasi pointed out, your comment seemed somewhat hostile (even though I know it wasn't meant that way). He said he believes in the Bible as much as the next Christian. Since the next Christian may not actually believe the Bible, you told him that he wasn't saying much about his own belief in the Bible. You may have meant the comment to be directed against those Christians who do not believe the Bible, but it sounded as if you didn't think much about his own belief in the Bible, and He just said that you should speak for yourself. It was just in the wording, and nobody actually meant anything disparaging.

I think Halvertroy is being too nice to the rest of us. He says things like:
"my bad. i could have been more clear."
"ok. you got me on that one."
"ok. you have a good argument"
"if what i say and how others respond is not in accordance to what this thread is about, then i apologize."
"i see what you say, and i now see some fallacies in my past replies."
"poor analogy of my part, though."
I'm not used to people being so reasonable.





Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:53118

Haha, reasonable? I must admit, without any hostility towards the guy, I was getting a little frustrated by the end of our exchange. What I was looking to do was get sort of a rise out of him... first on the semantics and then on the overal topic of faith.

In any case Halvertroy, don't be so submissive in here! For as abrasive or cold as I can come off at times, especially on certain topics, I'm really NOT out to hurt anyone's feelings, and even though I may strongly disagree with someone on something, and may argue strongly in opposition to them, I never make it personal against them. Life is too short and hard to go out of the way to be a dick. That said, I also often don't like to sanitize or pretty up what I say in here. I have to be painfully diplomatic and 'political' in my main line of work and really don't like to take that mentality home with me.... So, respond to my points with whatever vigor you feel you ought to and I promise I won't run and cry on my pillow.

***edit: holy crap, I must've been tired when I first wrote this, leaving out at least one important word added in caps....

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:53122

you guys flatter me...

and my previous comment, "you speak for yourself," totally wasn't meant as a personal attack. because i really thought reaper was stereotyping christians in general.

but my point has been defended enough.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:53132

Stasi wrote:


What I'm trying to get at is the question - why should I or anyone else believe that the Christian religion is true, and the others out there are false?

I'm not trying to have you accept Christian religion. My efforts support 'faith' all faiths. believeing Man landing on the moon is 'faith' and not 'fact'. It only becomes fact when you see the evidence yourself. Faith extends well beyond religeon. We have 'faith' in legal systems, evidence. We believe most people in jail are actualy 'guilty'. We believe under privilaged people are there because of their own choices.

Wether we like it or not we adopt a 'believe' structure to aid us, or help us cope with life, loose, grief, joy, happyness. It is impossible to apply logic to emotion, and faith and believe aid in this. We are logical people, we are also emotional, In every aspect of life.
for example purchasing a 'car' - logically it can be constructed a car is a method of trasport which suits our needs, but no one purchases a 'car' for only transportation methods, if that was true we would only need one type of vehicle manufactured

either way faith, belief exist - wether it is a Dr. who proscibes a placibeau, or believe in Jesus that has heeled. It still has 'heeled' which goes againts all science and logic. Faith heeling supports that our 'believe' determines outcome in nearly everything, wether backed by science or logic or not.

btw - virgin births need no special medical proceedures, it happens naturally and in nearly everycase it is female. science only has established that it is possible (naturally) to concieve a male child. google human parthenogenesis

The six-month study convinced the investigators that human parthenogenesis was physiologically possible and had actually occurred in some of the women studied [3].

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:53370

scherzo wrote:

Stasi wrote:


What I'm trying to get at is the question - why should I or anyone else believe that the Christian religion is true, and the others out there are false?

I'm not trying to have you accept Christian religion. My efforts support 'faith' all faiths. believeing Man landing on the moon is 'faith' and not 'fact'. It only becomes fact when you see the evidence yourself. Faith extends well beyond religeon. We have 'faith' in legal systems, evidence. We believe most people in jail are actualy 'guilty'. We believe under privilaged people are there because of their own choices.

Wether we like it or not we adopt a 'believe' structure to aid us, or help us cope with life, loose, grief, joy, happyness. It is impossible to apply logic to emotion, and faith and believe aid in this. We are logical people, we are also emotional, In every aspect of life.
for example purchasing a 'car' - logically it can be constructed a car is a method of trasport which suits our needs, but no one purchases a 'car' for only transportation methods, if that was true we would only need one type of vehicle manufactured

either way faith, belief exist - wether it is a Dr. who proscibes a placibeau, or believe in Jesus that has heeled. It still has 'heeled' which goes againts all science and logic. Faith heeling supports that our 'believe' determines outcome in nearly everything, wether backed by science or logic or not.

btw - virgin births need no special medical proceedures, it happens naturally and in nearly everycase it is female. science only has established that it is possible (naturally) to concieve a male child. google human parthenogenesis

The six-month study convinced the investigators that human parthenogenesis was physiologically possible and had actually occurred in some of the women studied [3].

Firstly, I think you're missing my point. If a particular belief system in a divine being IS true, then there must be something about it that lends it more credibility than the other various belief systems out there. What I am asking is, what is it that makes Christianity True, and therefore desirable above all other religions (or non-religions) that can be articulated to someone who doesn't follow any particular faith?

Now for the various points in your post:

I'm not trying to have you accept Christian religion. My efforts support 'faith' all faiths. believeing Man landing on the moon is 'faith' and not 'fact'. It only becomes fact when you see the evidence yourself. Faith extends well beyond religeon. We have 'faith' in legal systems, evidence. We believe most people in jail are actualy 'guilty'. We believe under privilaged people are there because of their own choices.

As I mentioned earlier, your various analogies are fallacies. The fundamental difference between the belief that man landed on the moon and the belief in Christianity (or any religion for that matter) is that there is physical evidence, a full explanation on all technical levels as to how it was accomplished, from start to finish, and it is provable. There is no physical evidence of Christianity's truth. There is no full explanation of how the 'system' or religion as a whole works (and no, something with so many different interpretations, scientific impossibilities, and vagueness as what the Bible has doesn't qualify). And, of course, the existence of God is not provable. I'll say now that I am not trying to disprove the existence of any God being(s) since there is no need to disprove that which has never been proven.

True, much of what we believe in the secular world is similar to the type of belief of the religious world, though there is more reason to believe in the 'secular' world versus the religous one, as the one has more tangible evidence than the other.

Wether we like it or not we adopt a 'believe' structure to aid us, or help us cope with life, loose, grief, joy, happyness. It is impossible to apply logic to emotion, and faith and believe aid in this. We are logical people, we are also emotional, In every aspect of life.
for example purchasing a 'car' - logically it can be constructed a car is a method of trasport which suits our needs, but no one purchases a 'car' for only transportation methods, if that was true we would only need one type of vehicle manufactured

I never said that a person should only believe that which follows logical rules, etc. I never suggested that emotion is necessarily useless or 'bad'. And I never suggested that people should always make the most utilitarian choices they're confronted with. I understand that we're not automatons. What did I say that inspired you write this paragraph?

either way faith, belief exist - wether it is a Dr. who proscibes a placibeau, or believe in Jesus that has heeled. It still has 'heeled' which goes againts all science and logic. Faith heeling supports that our 'believe' determines outcome in nearly everything, wether backed by science or logic or not.

Actually, there are lots of folks who believed one thing and got another. To say that faith healing supports that our belief in something determines the 'outcome in nearly everything' is ignorant. People all over the world believe all kinds of things. That doesn't mean that what they believe happens (certainly no in 'nearly everything'), and it doesn't make their belief 'true'. Truth exists independent of what a person believes or perceives. I don't cease to exist if everyone forgets that I do. And yes, when a tree falls and nobody is there to hear it, it does make a sound. The 'art' of faith healing has existed for millennia, yet why is it that people now, with science-based medicine, versus religious-based medicine live longer lives and fewer diseases ravage through the populations where this science-based medicine is practiced most? I mean hell, just look at the Christian Science folks. Yeah, faith heals.

btw - virgin births need no special medical proceedures, it happens naturally and in nearly everycase it is female. science only has established that it is possible (naturally) to concieve a male child. google human parthenogenesis

I googled exactly what you said to and the results hardly support what you're trying to say here. In fact, nothing that I found supports your mistaken notion that 'science only [recently?] has established that it is possible (naturally) to concieve a male child.' In fact, the way parthenogenesis works is the female egg is essentially 'tricked' somehow into thinking it's fertilized, maintaining the same chromosomes the mother, and thus potential offspring would necessarily be female.

http://www.genomeatlantic.ca/glossary.php?alpha=P

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:53394

Blah blah blah, I didn't read the link. Stasi, does "thus potential offspring would necessarily be female." mean it would most likely be a female child? I'm thinking it does, but I read it wrong the first time and now I have lost all meaning it has.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:53468

Reaper wrote: Blah blah blah, I didn't read the link.  Stasi, does "thus potential offspring would necessarily be female." mean it would most likely be a female child?  I'm thinking it does, but I read it wrong the first time and now I have lost all meaning it has.

The link just takes you to the 'P' section of a glossary on various genomic terms, but yes, Reaper, that's what I'm saying. Here is the entry for parthenogenesis so you can see it and not just take my word for it:

Parthenogenesis
The development of an organism from an unfertilized egg. This process is relatively common in plants, but less so among animals. Some species of insects can produce large numbers of individuals which are diploid. Some species of lizards can also produce diploid progeny. Since a female parent is, in essence, cloning herself, parthenogenesis always produces only female offspring. Since no recombination of genetic material between parents occurs, genetic variation within populations that use parthenogenesis is limited. However, this process can result in quick repopulation of a devastated area in a short period of time especially if the population has been thinned such that mating encounters between males and females are rare.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:53473

Alright, thanks.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:53496

Nirgal wrote: I was thinking last night about a lot of stuff that I saw and read recently. Catholicism and gays, Islam vs Christianity and the paralels between the faiths, New Age and Hinduism...even Paganism. There are so many faiths out there, some good and some so totally evil that I don't even want to think about them (well, that is acording to MY definition on evil). Where did it all come from? How can we be sure which is correct and which is not? Does it really matter, one way or the other? No, DON'T answer these questions! They are just a prelude to get you thinking. Right. NOW we can get to the real question:

What faith do you follow, and why. How did you end up with the faith you have? If you don't have faith, why not?

Let me tell you right from the outset that I'm a non-denominational Christian, and the reasons are myriad, from personal rebelion to questions of philosophy. I enjoy discussions and few more so that religious ones. I love to get the points of view of people in different countries, different faiths, different social equality and so on.

Another point that I feel I should tell you is that my approach to a discussion is adversarial. Chances are I will offend you at some point. DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY! It is a fringe effect of my native language. It tends to be very direct and it shos even when I switch to english.

Oh, and feel free to wander off topic. I feel a thread that stayes on topic dies a quick death. Discuss any point about spirituality you wish. It's all good! 

PLlease don't take it personally either......I'm Baptist.....Born-Again....many years ago (I'm retired w/husband/son)....If it were not for my faith and wonderful family.....I would not be here today.....we lost our daughter on April 13, 1996.......real heart quencher.......just where would be without the Lord......and then we lost our wonderful parents.....mine....my father, last Feb 2nd...and my precious Mother.....June 22nd....05......and his Mother ... Aug....03........we miss those wonderful people.....very much.....(especially since today is my Dad's Homegoing to Jesus.....but you know what....not that we are better than anybody; we are not......just saved.....our family who has gone before us is also saved....so we know we will see them one day....its just the missing....and thats hard....Bonnie (Italiano)


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:54410

Not better than anybody? Apparently you're going to experience true peace and paradise where others will not. Sounds like you're better than somebody.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:54434

that somebody is prolly Stasi!

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:54443

Whether speaking secularly or religiously, I think the notion that all people have the same value is silly. Some people are completely worthless, others contribute a lot. But when a religious person says that they're chosen above many others in the world, and in the same breath says that they're not better than anyone else, that's called doublespeak.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:54457

Stasi wrote: Whether speaking secularly or religiously, I think the notion that all people have the same value is silly.  Some people are completely worthless, others contribute a lot.  But when a religious person says that they're chosen above many others in the world, and in the same breath says that they're not better than anyone else, that's called doublespeak.

She never used the word "chosen." Italiano simply made an expression of her faith, and you decided to put words in her mouth and accuse her of doublespeak. Now, she may very well believe she has been chosen from the foundation of the earth (she just never said it), but the same is true for anyone else who puts their faith in Christ as their Savior. (So go ahead and accuse me of double speak, but let's give the newby a little room to simply share without jumping on her for non-existant doublespeak. )

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:54541

Bookworm wrote:

Stasi wrote: Whether speaking secularly or religiously, I think the notion that all people have the same value is silly.  Some people are completely worthless, others contribute a lot.  But when a religious person says that they're chosen above many others in the world, and in the same breath says that they're not better than anyone else, that's called doublespeak.

She never used the word "chosen." Italiano simply made an expression of her faith, and you decided to put words in her mouth and accuse her of doublespeak. Now, she may very well believe she has been chosen from the foundation of the earth (she just never said it), but the same is true for anyone else who puts their faith in Christ as their Savior. (So go ahead and accuse me of double speak, but let's give the newby a little room to simply share without jumping on her for non-existant doublespeak. )

Actually, whether or not I said 'chosen' (I'll admit, it *might* not be a good word to use here, but that's a deeper discussion), my original point stands, and it is still doublespeak.

In saying:

but you know what....not that we are better than anybody; we are not......just saved.....our family who has gone before us is also saved....so we know we will see them one day....its just the missing....and thats hard....

the implication is that despite the fact that they are saved, they are no better than those who aren't. That is the doublespeak I speak of. How can a person claim to be saved, and therefore exalted in the eyes of the Lord, and the recipient of his greatest reward, and be no better than those who will spend eternity in Hell for not achieving the same salvation?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:54546

well even though we are saved that doesnt make us any better than anyone else, we still lie and sin and everything. we're all rotten.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:54580

Christians aren't better than anyone. And we never say we are. Just because we believe we are saved doesn't mean we think we're better than everyone else.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:54581

Clueless wrote: well even though we are saved that doesnt make us any better than anyone else, we still lie and sin and everything. we're all rotten.

Being saved doesn't make you any more 'perfect' than anyone else, but you will be rewarded for your faith where others will not. You will achieve a higher ultimate position with God than those who aren't saved. How does that NOT make you better than the unsaved?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:54589

so just because we believe in god automatically makes us better than people who dont? i dont think im any better than unsaved people. yes i believe that those who dont believe in god will go to hell, but i dont look down on unsaved people because of it. they are entitled to their opinion.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:54601

Clueless wrote: so just because we believe in god automatically makes us better than people who dont? i dont think im any better than unsaved people. yes i believe that those who dont believe in god will go to hell, but i dont look down on unsaved people because of it. they are entitled to their opinion.

They are entitled to an inferior opinion that will lead to their total and eternal damnation. How can you say you're no better than them?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:54605

well im pretty sure they dont think their opinion is inferior, and i dont feel like im any better than any of those people, but if you say i am then w/e.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:54608

So you believe that their opinion will lead them to damnation, right? If it is true that their opinion will lead to their damnation, then their opinion is inferior, regardless what they think of it themselves. And while you may not feel that you are better than those people, your being saved makes you better than them. That isn't to say that you should be arrogant about it, but don't be condescending and say that the Saved are no better than the damned.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:54609

Well, perhaps we'd better look at the concept of "better." Person A is a sinner. Person B is a sinner. In God's eyes, they are both bad. Neither is better as a person than the other. Person A accepts God's free gift of salvation. Person B rejects it. Both are still sinners. Neither still is better as a person than the other. It's just that person A has the umbrella of Christ's righteousness covering them. This umbrella does not make them, as a person, better than the other person. Person A has a better end result in the future, but as a person, person A is still no better than person B because they both still sin.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:54648

Bookworm wrote: Well, perhaps we'd better look at the concept of "better." Person A is a sinner. Person B is a sinner. In God's eyes, they are both bad. Neither is better as a person than the other. Person A accepts God's free gift of salvation. Person B rejects it. Both are still sinners. Neither still is better as a person than the other. It's just that person A has the umbrella of Christ's righteousness covering them. This umbrella does not make them, as a person, better than the other person. Person A has a better end result in the future, but as a person, person A is still no better than person B because they both still sin.

A marksman who hits the bullseye time after time wins the competition because he is better at shooting than the others.

A speaker who gets larger and larger audiences than another speaker on the same topic does so because they are a better speaker.

The entrepreneur who enters a particular industry who does significantly better than another who enters the same industry at the same time because s/he is a better entrepreneur.

The individual who, despite everything out there in the world to sway them from Christ in the course of their life, continues to accept Him as their Savior, whereas another person rejects Him, for whatever reason, has done so because they are 'better' where it counts, in having faith, trusting in the Lord, and so on. Therefore they have achieved that in life which is far more precious than any riches, fame, or power, they've achieved eternal salvation.



How could God love all people equally, in just, merciful fashion? Where is the evidence to support it, based on Christian doctrine?

How could a just, loving, merciful God damn for all eternity the whole lot of people in the world who heard of Christianity, but never learned much about it and never found any cause to accept it in favor of their own religion?

And not all people who've lived on this earth since Christ's death have had a fair chance to accept Him as their Savior. How can God, being a merciful, loving father of all humanity, love someone born into a strong Christian household who ultimately achieves salvation the same as he loves the otherwise good individual born into a family who never even heard of Christ? The one is Saved, with no practically handicaps applied. The other is hopelessly damned to Hell where they will endlessly suffer, and for what, because they never even heard of Jesus.

That is unjust and unmerciful. The only explanation is that God cares more about one group than the other.

*edit = I was never suggesting that a 'saved' individual was better in every way than an unsaved individual. However, they are better in the only way that ultimately matters. You can say so and so may be better businessmen, but their riches will only take them so far. If unsaved, they go to the same Hell as everyone else who's unsaved. Therefore, the manner in which a 'saved' person is better supercedes other skills they may lack in, in relation to others.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2505, old post ID:54649