[MobiusJedi]

Originally Posted by valis

a 'theory' in science is does not necessarily have the same connotation as a theory in ordinary parlance. A 'theory' in science describes a model for explaining observed actions. There is no hunch or gut feeling. This is why the theory of gravity or the theory of the big bang is equivalent to the theory of electrodynamics; they all provide a framework for what we see happening around us in the physical realm.

In fact, one could logically make the assumption that what we accept as fact is neither theory nor law; merely observation.

What we accept as fact and what actually is fact are by no means the same thing. Though an observation in everyday life may cause one to accept a number of things as fact, the observation does not make anything a fact. (The sky isn't colored blue, it only appears blue.) A scientific theory is an explanation, it doesn't provide the framework for what we observe, it explains the phenomenon according to the rules. It's more accurately a careful argument than a fact.

It's not about word choice; it's the medium in which those choices are made. 80% of our communications are non-verbal; that means we are only using 20% of our communicable skills. Hence the idea of semantics takes on a much larger role than it would do so in a face to face debate forum.

Great. What does non-verbal communication have to do with purely text-based communication? Inflection is lost unless we include it in bold and italics. Gestures, facial movements, and tone are all gone from this method of communication. Furthermore, what does non-verbal communication have to do with a logical argument in any medium? It's very much about word choice in an internet forum, there's little else to convey meaning.

Yes, you were. You were misquoting me, either deliberately or not, and that is putting words in my mouth that I did not say.

It's hard to misquote you when I copy and paste your words verbatim.

as you can see, your rebuttal (I don't think that's an entirely accurate observation) really doesn't have anything to do with the phrase of mine that you quoted (then you need to be more careful etc etc). That's all I meant. If you are going to quote mine someone, please be correct that you don't create a fallacious argument in doing so, in this case a red-herring fallacy. Quote my direct response with your direct response. Makes things a bit easier around here.

Quote mining? I don't see it. Look, your admonition to "be a bit more careful with your quotes and specify that this is not your stance, merely one that you've observed in the past." didn't even make sense in the context of the point it replied to in the first place.

agreed. It's on nobody to prove it, as it cannot be proven. You have not devalued my belief system, as you do not know what it is. For all you know, I could think that Leo Buscaglia is the godhead; neither you nor I have any evidence to disprove this fact.

If no one's belief system was being devalued, why include the idea? That seems non sequitur. Anyway, speaking of talking in circles, this "cannot be proven" argument is right back where you started.

a belief system is NOTHING more than an opinion. NOTHING more. An opinion is something that one holds by one-self's to be true and valid; nothing more, nothing less. That is all a belief system is, only with a bit more dressing on it. There is absolutely no way in heaven or on earth that you can logically prove that incorrect.

Prove what incorrect, your assessment of what a belief system is versus an opinion? However emphatically you put it, you haven't logically formed the conclusion here that a "belief system" is nothing more than an opinion. So no, I guess I can't logically prove or disprove anything here because there are no logical steps being taken. (Did I mention "belief system" is a vague term? The term hasn't been defined, so it remains vague.)

[valis]

Originally Posted by MobiusJedi

What we accept as fact and what actually is fact are by no means the same thing. Though an observation in everyday life may cause one to accept a number of things as fact, the observation does not make anything a fact. (The sky isn't colored blue, it only appears blue.) A scientific theory is an explanation, it doesn't provide the framework for what we observe, it explains the phenomenon according to the rules. It's more accurately a careful argument than a fact.

stop it, you're giving me a headache.

Go read up on Rayleigh scattering wrt 'why is the sky blue' before you decide to debate against the fact that it isn't.

Again, you are merely arguing semantics, and this is getting tedious.

Great. What does non-verbal communication have to do with purely text-based communication? Inflection is lost unless we include it in bold and italics. Gestures, facial movements, and tone are all gone from this method of communication. Furthermore, what does non-verbal communication have to do with a logical argument in any medium? It's very much about word choice in an internet forum, there's little else to convey meaning.

Again, semantics. You are giving my words back to me, nothing original in them. That is exactly what I said when I said that 'in this medium, we are losing 80% of our commucation skills'.

It's hard to misquote you when I copy and paste your words verbatim.

true enough, but it's rather easy when you quote one thing and reply to another.

Quote mining? I don't see it. Look, your admonition to "be a bit more careful with your quotes and specify that this is not your stance, merely one that you've observed in the past." didn't even make sense in the context of the point it replied to in the first place.

touch another nerve?

If no one's belief system was being devalued, why include the idea? That seems non sequitur. Anyway, speaking of talking in circles, this "cannot be proven" argument is right back where you started.

why are you arguing a point I agreed with you on?

Prove what incorrect, your assessment of what a belief system is versus an opinion? However emphatically you put it, you haven't logically formed the conclusion here that a "belief system" is nothing more than an opinion. So no, I guess I can't logically prove or disprove anything here because there are no logical steps being taken. (Did I mention "belief system" is a vague term? The term hasn't been defined, so it remains vague.)

a 'belief system' is another term for religion. That's one of it's base definitions.

[MobiusJedi]

Originally Posted by valis

then it seems that we are at an impasse with regards to societal mores and values.

If you resign to see it that way, I guess. I'd call it a disagreement of perspective. I understand yours (since I used to share the same perspective) but you don't understand mine. It's only an impasse if you choose.

again, it's pretty much covered in what I wrote, and followed up with in 'society part deux', although I'm not entirely certain that made it here. I do a lot of freelance writing.

That's quite the non-rebuttal.

Making a circular argument.

I was really just having a bit of fun at the expense of the change in terms mid-argument. I still don't see how I was talking in circles or making a circular argument.

correct it, please. It's full of fallacies and holes in logic. Cut to the chase. Say what you mean. Try not to hide it in monosyllabic words, where a simple phrase would do.

Monosyllabic words like "it" and "part"? I see no fallacies or holes in logic to correct. If the concept as a whole simply defies your perception of reality, colored by your view of society's pivotal role in everything we do, the concept will continue to do so no matter how many "holes" I fill.

Think I may have struck a nerve there.

No? I was going for computer voice or something.

I don't understand what you mean by syntax error with god having anything to do with society. If you mean I made a grammatical error, please point it out.

God has anything to do with society. You really don't see the grammatical problem with that statement? Let's rephrase the sentence with the different uses of anything and see if it makes sense.

God has in any way to do with society.
God has any extent to do with society.
God has any degree to do with society.

Yeah, none of those create a statement with any sort of understandable meaning.

I stated that absolute truth comes from within; nothing else can have any effect on it.

You did state that, but defining absolute truth this way is a contradiction of the term absolute. The Absolute is the concept of an unconditional reality which transcends limited, conditional, everyday existence. A truth from within is limited, conditional, and confined to everyday existence, and therefore cannot be called absolute.

why would truth found within be subjective? The teachings of thousands of buddhists (granted, not a religion) tell us to look within. Gnoticism tells us the same thing. Hell, pretty much any religion tells us that.

I don't know much about gnosticism or buddhism. It merely stands to reason that the veracity of truth found from within is limited to the body it is within. The simple fact of our disagreement contradicts the idea of any absolute truth coming from within a person.

My inner truth is not subjective; it's brutally raw and loathsomely honest. "look into the abyss; the abyss looks back."

Well it's good that you're honest with yourself, but absolute truth is universal truth. Inner truth is limited in its application and is the very definition of subjective. Look it up.

[MobiusJedi]

Originally Posted by valis

MobiusJedi and I do not see eye to eye on several factors, yet we continue to banter and debate and learn from it. A debate is something, ultimately, that should leave both ends better educated than when they came in.

Thank you. I enjoy our banter, and I agree entirely with your summary of debate.

[MobiusJedi]

Originally Posted by iltos

what a child soon learns is social expectation wrt selfishness, hitting, and the like....the fact that some people seek to weave those expectations into the fabric of their religious beliefs doesn't change the fact that -even considering variations of culture- some group in africa or papua new guinea share many of those same social expectations, without a clue about the fabric of religious beliefs that define childish behavior as sin.

Sin is a fact. Every human being has wronged another human being, and continues to do so. There is no exception.

[MobiusJedi]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Hi everyone.

I doubt I put those quotes in chronological order. sry


What seems to be left out of the discussion is the age of accountability.

If you are one of the Ash Tribe deep, DEEP, DEEP in the Amazon jungle (where my good friends the Howe's are doing Mission work) and you have not even heard a peep about the Gospel, then obviously your accountability to God only comes through what you know. Now, I believe that God makes Himself known to every human being over the time of their life, and there is an age of accountability that for some people is NEVER REACHED. The infant, for instance. Clearly that soul cannot be sent to Hell. There is no accountability there. Just as someone in the Amazon jungle may be 80 years old, and not accountable for their salvation.
So why bother them?

I wasn't going to get into the age of accountability because it's an extra-biblical concept. I'll accept the idea for an infant, perhaps even a young child, but not for any adult who happens to be removed from modern society. It's the accountability of people for their own actions that makes salvation necessary, and that is why the spreading of the gospel is such an urgent task.

The thief who died next to Christ went to Heaven. Jesus promised that he would. Yet that man did no works to earn that salvation. Christ did it all. I take GREAT comfort in that, because I have done far more to deserve damnation than I could ever do to deserve salvation. Anyone who tells you different is deceiving themself.

The thief on the cross was justified by faith.

[MobiusJedi]

Originally Posted by thingamajig

You mean that watered down southern coffee? Of course, I'd love to share a cup.

Yes, many Christians have chosen to take the bible as a "guide" and not the "word of god" but they've had to go against the teachings of the church to do it. You know I grew up and now live again in the bible belt. But, let's get the opinion of a few others,

Lan, Drabdr, Poochee, etc. Is the bible the word of god? If someone rejects the bible as being a word of god, would you still consider them a christian?

I don't fully comprehend how Christian doctrine can be established apart from the bible. I wouldn't go as far as saying that someone who doesn't believe in scripture as the inspired word of God isn't actually Christian, but their beliefs would be highly suspect. It's hard to correct or refute a brother or sister who doesn't accept the authority of scripture.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by MobiusJedi

I wasn't going to get into the age of accountability because it's an extra-biblical concept. I'll accept the idea for an infant, perhaps even a young child, but not for any adult who happens to be removed from modern society. It's the accountability of people for their own actions that makes salvation necessary, and that is why the spreading of the gospel is such an urgent task.

I'm a bit of latecomer in this one (welcome BTW) so forgive me if this has been covered before. Are you saying that the aboriginal in the bush who has never heard of the Christian God (unlikely as it may seem in this day and age) is accountable for his actions by the rule-set of Christian values (leaving aside his accountability by his own laws for the moment)? Or, in other words, that if word of the gospel doesn't reach him in time he's consigned to damnation?

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by MobiusJedi

I don't fully comprehend how Christian doctrine can be established apart from the bible. I wouldn't go as far as saying that someone who doesn't believe in scripture as the inspired word of God isn't actually Christian, but their beliefs would be highly suspect. It's hard to correct or refute a brother or sister who doesn't accept the authority of scripture.

OK, so the creation of the Nicene creed by popular vote (of people, thus men) and the subsequent suppression of other takes like Arianism (again by humans) makes the current edition the only one that's been inspired? Apart from various translations since, the offsplit of Protestantism from Rome and various branches of Protestantism having arisen since, despite their agreeing on the fundamentals.

[buffoon]

Where does Judaism and Islam stand in this?

[MobiusJedi]

Originally Posted by valis

stop it, you're giving me a headache.

Go read up on Rayleigh scattering wrt 'why is the sky blue' before you decide to debate against the fact that it isn't.

Alright fine, have it your way.

Again, you are merely arguing semantics, and this is getting tedious.

What did semantics ever do to you? Seriously, if we can't agree on terminology, how can we debate?

Again, semantics. You are giving my words back to me, nothing original in them. That is exactly what I said when I said that 'in this medium, we are losing 80% of our commucation skills'.

The difference isn't semantics. You use that fact to somehow back up your position that semantics don't apply to this discussion. I used the same facts to show that 1) communication skills in face-to-face environments are irrelevant to this environment and 2) semantics matter when an entire argument is made up of words, especially when dealing with concepts that aren't typically dealt with on an everyday basis.

true enough, but it's rather easy when you quote one thing and reply to another.

If I was replying to anything other than that blurb directly, it was only to maintain the context of the initial points which led to the one I quoted.

touch another nerve?

. . . You haven't found any of my buttons, and if you did touch a nerve, I would do my best to take it in stride. Now the issue at hand. Your reply that we've each quoted a few times didn't make sense, the context was somehow not readily available.

why are you arguing a point I agreed with you on?

You agreed with one of my statements, but took it in quite the opposite direction. Every word in that point past "agreed" doesn't agree with my point before it.

a 'belief system' is another term for religion. That's one of it's base definitions.

Good, now I know what you mean by belief system. Now I can tell you, faith is not religion, and faith is not a belief system. Religion is not an opinion, it's a set of rules and guidelines for living. Would one's opinions dictate how one lives? I think not.

[MobiusJedi]

Originally Posted by buffoon

I'm a bit of latecomer in this one (welcome BTW) so forgive me if this has been covered before. Are you saying that the aboriginal in the bush who has never heard of the Christian God (unlikely as it may seem in this day and age) is accountable for his actions by the rule-set of Christian values (leaving aside his accountability by his own laws for the moment)? Or, in other words, that if word of the gospel doesn't reach him in time he's consigned to damnation?

He's accountable to whatever laws apply in his own community, and whatever laws he has made for himself. I don't know how he would be judged. I wouldn't say anyone is consigned to damnation, that's not my call to make. Likewise, it's not anyone's call to make that a man is automatically pardoned from his sins by the fact that he hasn't heard the gospel. Scripture simply doesn't say that.

[MobiusJedi]

Originally Posted by buffoon

Where does Judaism and Islam stand in this?

Judaism demands a blood sacrifice for the atonement of sins, I believe.

[MobiusJedi]

Originally Posted by buffoon

OK, so the creation of the Nicene creed by popular vote (of people, thus men) and the subsequent suppression of other takes like Arianism (again by humans) makes the current edition the only one that's been inspired? Apart from various translations since, the offsplit of Protestantism from Rome and various branches of Protestantism having arisen since, despite their agreeing on the fundamentals.

Sorry, I shouldn't have said bible when I meant the texts in their original form, as written - and that is what I call scripture. I would assume the Christian church was truest to scripture before the divisions and false teachings came about that necessitated the Nicene Creed, but there have always been splinter groups. As you might be alluding to, we can't really be certain if and when a false Christianity became orthodox or if true Christianity has remained orthodox. What we Christians can do is see how any given teaching lines up with scripture and with the Holy Spirit. Arianism undermines Christ's divinity and oneness with God - both scriptural - making salvation unattainable, so naturally I agree with the church's judgment at that time to convene at Nicaea and refute these heretical teachings.

I also prefer the New King James version, which isn't exactly the current edition. Short of learning Hebrew and Greek, the best I can do is use commentaries and lexicons that go with each passage. If a full understanding of Christianity is the goal, it is essential to get as close to the root source as possible.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by MobiusJedi

Sin is a fact. Every human being has wronged another human being, and continues to do so. There is no exception.

sin is an interpretation of human behavior through the filter of christainty.....but you are right about human wronging each other....i'm sure that will continue for the foreseeable future.