LogFAQs > #896519867

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Conservative politics topic 2: The sacred TRUTH Trumps all lies
StealThisSheen 02/21/18 6:38:50 PM #321:	Mr Lasastryke posted... StealThisSheen posted... I'm not the one going around telling people what they can and can't believe. You are. cite the post where i say that people can't believe something. Well, for one, you tried to tell Moogle that he couldn't believe "Jesus is God" if he wasn't following oneness pentecostalism. You tried to say "Jesus is God" couldn't be said of the Trinity. I'm gonna lay my argument out, here, because we're not getting anywhere. If you believe the whole thing is hogwash, then by all means, believe it's hogwash. I won't stop you, I won't argue. However, if you're going to use a quote from the Bible to try to support an argument, then you are opening your argument to be criticized based on the context surrounding the quote. The context surrounding the sword quote highly suggests that it shouldn't be taken literally, and since you were the one to use the quote as part of your argument in the first place, trying to say "Well, the context shouldn't be considered because X and Y" is unfair. You opened the can of worms. Likewise, since somebody used the "Turn the other cheek" quote, you have the right to present context that suggests it shouldn't be taken literally, if you believe the context does so. I'm not arguing that you can't believe Jesus overall was more aggressive. What I'm saying is that if you're going to use that quote as evidence, then I'm going to disagree with your argument based on the context since you opened the book. What you tend to do is tell people that believing certain quotes or passages is "non-sensical" based on the fact that there's no 100% definite way to know for sure what is and isn't to be taken literally, and then when they argue their logic, whether it's with context, other passages, etc., you usually go "Nope, that's nonsense. You don't know that." That's an unfair way to argue, because instead of presenting any evidence or context as to why their interpretation is wrong, you're simply using their lack of tangible facts to discredit them for apparently no real reason, when the whole thing is based on belief to begin with. --- Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! <cite>StealThisSheen posted [p:896519867] in Conservati... [t:76313985]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mr Lasastryke posted...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote>I'm not the one going around telling people what they can and can't believe. You are.</quote> cite the post where i say that people can't believe something.</quote> Well, for one, you tried to tell Moogle that he couldn't believe "Jesus is God" if he wasn't following oneness pentecostalism. You tried to say "Jesus is God" couldn't be said of the Trinity. I'm gonna lay my argument out, here, because we're not getting anywhere. If you believe the whole thing is hogwash, then by all means, believe it's hogwash. I won't stop you, I won't argue. However, if you're going to use a quote from the Bible to try to support an argument, then you are opening your argument to be criticized based on the context surrounding the quote. The context surrounding the sword quote highly suggests that it shouldn't be taken literally, and since you were the one to use the quote as part of your argument in the first place, trying to say "Well, the context shouldn't be considered because X and Y" is unfair. You opened the can of worms. Likewise, since somebody used the "Turn the other cheek" quote, you have the right to present context that suggests it shouldn't be taken literally, if you believe the context does so. I'm not arguing that you can't believe Jesus overall was more aggressive. What I'm saying is that if you're going to use that quote as evidence, then I'm going to disagree with your argument based on the context since you opened the book. What you tend to do is tell people that believing certain quotes or passages is "non-sensical" based on the fact that there's no 100% definite way to know for sure what is and isn't to be taken literally, and then when they argue their logic, whether it's with context, other passages, etc., you usually go "Nope, that's nonsense. You don't know that." That's an unfair way to argue, because instead of presenting any evidence or context as to why their interpretation is wrong, you're simply using their lack of tangible facts to discredit them for apparently no real reason, when the whole thing is based on belief to begin with. --- Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1