Re: Parrothead, why the delete button to the "SA challenge"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommy22
Can I play mediator for a minute? As a Christian, I can see both sides here. I am often offended for the sake of Christ as people equate my beliefs to Santa Claus or assume I'm uneducated. It's very frustrating but I choose to ignore it. I certainly can't live my life based on the opinions of others.
Conversely, it's a fine line for Christians. We believe in a drawing of the Holy Spirit to bring one to God. Therefore, there's no arguing one into faith. It often hinders the gospel and can cause us to rely on human knowledge or inadvertantly, become a source of pride when we feel we've made a point that can't be adequately refuted.
Don't know if any of this helps for each to see the other side.... Here's the deal: when someone's belief system is questioned in a way that projects "I don't know why any human being of any intelligence whatsoever could believe such a fairy tale", it's like calling their child ugly. Seriously.
However, arguing it out and coming back with condescending remarks isn't Christlike and can't be justified in the case for Christ. In our anger, we do not sin. We choose our words carefully and we rely on the Holy Spirit to draw those to Himself. When it gets to the point of an argument, it's time to shake the dust from one's sandals and move forward. There's more work to be done.
You guys are more than free to keep going but it's going nowhere. No one is budging.
Mommy, I am not trying to evangelize, I am trying to set the record straight. And you are wrong about people budging. SA has moved on several points. She claims to be reasonable and with those types you have to show them reason. Besides, by my understanding, she is already a Christian. I can't help it these other people keep butting in with their editorial comments.
Re: Parrothead, why the delete button to the "SA challenge"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommy22
Why? It has been presented. What people do with it is up to them. Everyone finds out the result in the end. All you can do is put it out there. From then on, it's an issue of the heart. Christ is the discerner of hearts.
Because obviously we are not done. If we were, SA wouldn't have revived the thread.
And don't worry, I don't plan to spend all day here.
Re: Parrothead, why the delete button to the "SA challenge"?
Just a few words for SA:
Girl, when forced to think about what you believe, you make a lot more sense, which is the whole purpose of this exercise. I daresay that if you actually knew and understood what I believe (instead of ascribing your friend's holy roller beliefs to me) you would probably find we agree on more things than you know.
At that point, you would find the common ground you speak of.
As for the rest of you, I am not impressed with your bigoted, angry, and childish comments, so quit taking up bandwidth with it.
Catherine...I wouldn't have figured you fo a drinker either. LOL. Posted via Mobile Device
Ouch not a drinker. My husband and I go out and meet friends for fun evenings. He is always the designated driver since he does not drink much. It does not happen every W/E
Mommy - good perspective. The nature of faith is the assurance that the Word alone is sufficient. "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear" Matt 15:14. There is nothing man or woman can do to improve the Message except to open the spirits of seekers to the truth.
Possessing a prideful, arrogant, holier than thou attitude is unjustified and shuts the hearts of others. Such a believer is not a beacon so much as a fireworks show, interesting to observe but easy to dismiss. It seems to me that when the opportunity to be a beacon presents itself that one should not squander it by posturing. Posted via Mobile Device
Re: Parrothead, why the delete button to the "SA challenge"?
You again think too much of yourself, Parrot. I don't think there is one person who was trying to impress you, that is not the trust of this thread. Don't be so full of yourself. You accuse others of being bigoted and angry .... You are not ready for primetime. Go back and work more on your faith and come back with humility. Posted via Mobile Device
Re: Parrothead, why the delete button to the "SA challenge"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherine602
It seems to me that when the opportunity to be a beacon presents itself that one should not squander it by posturing.
"Beacons" without truth are more dangerous than bombs. Jim Jones, Usama bin Ladin, Charles Manson, Rev Sun Myung Moon, Scientology, the list is endless.
A friend of mine's son was abducted by his ex-wife, who had joined a cult. He never saw him again. Ignorant or intellectually lazy people will blame this on Christianity, God, or say that one man's cult is another man's religion.
Fortunately, some of us still believe the truth has value.
Re: Parrothead, why the delete button to the "SA challenge"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherine602
You again think too much of yourself, Parrot. I don't think there is one person who was trying to impress you, that is not the trust of this thread. Don't be so full of yourself. You accuse others of being bigoted and angry .... You are not ready for primetime. Go back and work more on your faith and come back with humility. Posted via Mobile Device
And you think too much of yourself, Catherine. If you can read Mike's post and not see bigotry then you are worse than he is.
Re: Parrothead, why the delete button to the "SA challenge"?
You didn't make a case. All I heard was someone whining because their sacred cows were gored. I still don't know where you stand. You've jumped all over the place trying to tell Parrothead how much you dislike him and his stand, yet you havn't proven where what he said is wrong.
Re: Parrothead, why the delete button to the "SA challenge"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizabella
You didn't make a case. All I heard was someone whining because their sacred cows were gored. I still don't know where you stand. You've jumped all over the place trying to tell Parrothead how much you dislike him and his stand, yet you havn't proven where what he said is wrong.
Where we supposed to say where he is wrong? I didn't come into this to say anyone was right or wrong. I wanted to know what he believed. I learned that much. But when I stated what I believed, I was shot down, told I was 'copping out' that I didn't know what I was talking about, etc. Fine. He can think what he wants.
Re: Parrothead, why the delete button to the "SA challenge"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizabella
You didn't make a case. All I heard was someone whining because their sacred cows were gored. I still don't know where you stand. You've jumped all over the place trying to tell Parrothead how much you dislike him and his stand, yet you havn't proven where what he said is wrong.
It's a lot easier to be right when you don't have to prove anything, Grizz. That's the beauty of moral relativism. You can tell everybody else how wrong they are without ever having taken a stand - you just shoot the messenger:
Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)
Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
Ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
Ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
Ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.
Examples:
(i) You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just a fat idiot. (ad hominem abusive)
(ii) We should discount what Steve Forbes says about cutting taxes because he stands to benefit from a lower tax rate. (ad hominem circumstantial)
(iii) We should disregard Fred's argument because he is just angry about the fact that defendant once cheated him out of $100. (ad hominem circumstantial)
(iv) You say I should give up alcohol, but you haven't been sober for more than a year yourself. (ad hominem tu quoque)
(v) You claim that Mr. Jones is innocent, but why should anyone listen to you? You are a Mormon after all. (ad hominem circumstantial)
Proof:
Identify the attack and show that the character or circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended.
Re: Parrothead, why the delete button to the "SA challenge"? 
