LogFAQs > #959854236

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, Database 9 ( 09.28.2021-02-17-2022 ), DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Church is called EVIL for NOT allowing MASKLESS MAN Pray and caused a BRAWL!!!
SKARDAVNELNATE 11/09/21 9:47:50 PM #72:	adjl posted... You're the one claiming there's something deeper than face value. Burden of proof and whatnot. I don't even care about that. You asked me why I thought something and I explained my reasoning. Any aspect beyond that was entirely made up by you. adjl posted... If we're talking about passages that should influence behaviour, that's axiomatically limited to teachings. So now passages that aren't teachings don't have to be explained as to why they aren't relevant. But earlier you said this: "If you're not going to hold other passages to the same standard, you need to present justification for why those aren't relevant such that Christians aren't hypocritical for failing to follow them." The "other passages" you referred to were in regard to sacrificing a sheep and how altars are built. Neither of which are anything I would call a teaching. That only came up because you wanted to argue about taking "every letter of the Bible literally". Which I'm not even arguing in favor of. I picked those as an example of something that doesn't matter how it's interpreted. And the issue of relevancy came up because their own standards are relevant where as any arbitrary standard of my own would not be. So thank you for finally agreeing with me that this should have been obvious from the start. adjl posted... I'd call that part of a teaching, given that it ties into the whole "everybody hates this guy but Jesus thinks he's pretty cool" thing. Yes, that's why I brought it up. Would you like to say anything about that? adjl posted... Well, when I said that nobody takes the entire bible literally, you pretty explicitly said there are parts that they don't need to. That's textbook cherrypicking. According to wikipedia... Cherry picking - is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. The parts that I'm saying can be ignored are not related, or similar, or even contradict what I was saying earlier. Now if there was a passage that is related to the subject and contradicts my position go ahead and point that out. adjl posted... If you're interpreting it subjectively... Your position is a literalist one I think you contradicted yourself there. I interpret the story of Zacchaeus to have a meaning which applies to this discussion. I could go into more detail about my interpretation, how it's similar to the situation, and in what way the people were not following that example. I think all of those details are quite obvious. If I were being absolutely literal I would ignore the story of Zacchaeus because... a) What do I care if no one has invited them self to his house? b) I would think that it only applies to tax collectors. and c) because the guy was in a church instead of sitting in a tree. adjl posted... What you're arguing is not that they are not analogous They are not analogous because for the gunman the harm is obvious and intended. For the guy in the story harm has not been demonstrated. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB <cite>SKARDAVNELNATE posted [p:959854236] in Church is ... [t:79731933]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>You're the one claiming there's something deeper than face value. Burden of proof and whatnot.</quote>I don't even care about that. You asked me why I thought something and I explained my reasoning. Any aspect beyond that was entirely made up by you. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>If we're talking about passages that should influence behaviour, that's axiomatically limited to teachings.</quote>So now passages that aren't teachings don't have to be explained as to why they aren't relevant. But earlier you said this: "If you're not going to hold other passages to the same standard, you need to present justification for why those aren't relevant such that Christians aren't hypocritical for failing to follow them." The "other passages" you referred to were in regard to sacrificing a sheep and how altars are built. Neither of which are anything I would call a teaching. That only came up because you wanted to argue about taking "every letter of the Bible literally". Which I'm not even arguing in favor of. I picked those as an example of something that doesn't matter how it's interpreted. And the issue of relevancy came up because their own standards are relevant where as any arbitrary standard of my own would not be. So thank you for finally agreeing with me that this should have been obvious from the start. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>I'd call that part of a teaching, given that it ties into the whole "everybody hates this guy but Jesus thinks he's pretty cool" thing.</quote>Yes, that's why I brought it up. Would you like to say anything about that? adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Well, when I said that nobody takes the entire bible literally, you pretty explicitly said there are parts that they don't need to. That's textbook cherrypicking.</quote>According to wikipedia... Cherry picking - is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. The parts that I'm saying can be ignored are not related, or similar, or even contradict what I was saying earlier. Now if there was a passage that is related to the subject and contradicts my position go ahead and point that out. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>If you're interpreting it subjectively... Your position is a literalist one</quote>I think you contradicted yourself there. I interpret the story of Zacchaeus to have a meaning which applies to this discussion. I could go into more detail about my interpretation, how it's similar to the situation, and in what way the people were not following that example. I think all of those details are quite obvious. If I were being absolutely literal I would ignore the story of Zacchaeus because... a) What do I care if no one has invited them self to his house? b) I would think that it only applies to tax collectors. and c) because the guy was in a church instead of sitting in a tree. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>What you're arguing is not that they are not analogous</quote>They are not analogous because for the gunman the harm is obvious and intended. For the guy in the story harm has not been demonstrated. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1