Something I have been thinking about.

Well, it appears that we cannot compel the mind of the other to accept proof as proof, BUT, I can most assuredly claim that I have another who is following in the footsteps of a Christian. Congratulations on becoming a follower of the teachings of a Christian.

 

LOL .. not really, just basing my arguments on the same logic and definitions you, as a christian, just happen to use as well or are you claiming to have invented this particular style?

Perhaps you can provide proof enough to compel my mind to accept your claim of "another who is following in the footsteps of a christian"

Perhaps you can provide proof enough to compel my mind to accept that you did or did not invent it.

To assume that the style of debating I am using comes from your teachings is rather arrogant and egotistical don't you think?

 

In the circle created as the PF, I am the first to have used this methodology consisting of the same parameters. So if you want to call that 'invented', then have at it. Even then, above you admit to "basing" your "arguments on the same logic and definitions you, as a christian, just happen to use as well,,," Therefore, you are following in my footsteps.

I don't need to... you did above in your admission of using what you refer to as 'same logic and definitions' which I use.

Don't need to prove that either considering that the notion of inventing is one that came from your head.

Not when you openly admit to it as you have above.

 

So you assume you are the only one .. hmm interesting.

The question asked was did you invent it or not, the above response neither addresses or is relevant to the question.

Basing something on the same thing you happen to use does not imply that you were/are the teacher, unless you invented the particular style .. how do you know that I have not used this style elsewhere and have now decided to adopt it here, in fact I could argue that you may have seen other posts by me on other places and as such you are in fact following in my footsteps and there is nothing you could say that would compel my mind to think otherwise .. in fact that is what must be the case, so how does it feel to know you are following in the footsteps of a non-christian?

Again that does not imply that I am following in your footsteps .. unless you invented the particular style, did you?

Hmm .. a question asked to seek information to better understand is evaded . .fair enough.

Please provide your proof to compel my mind to accept that I "openly admitted to it" when my truth is that you have copied my style from other places and as such you are, in fact, following in my non-christian footsteps.

 

Religious wars of the 1500's and 1600's, the role of government and religion. The fact that Absolutism rested upon faith in god. Spanish Conquistadors went for God. The fact that there wasn't really a widespread notion of religious tolerance.

You're right. Most of the people opposing slavery were Quakers.

- - - Updated - - -

Well explain, I want someone to destroy my logic about this.

- - - Updated - - -

Your welcome.

 

there really wasn't. at least there were very few 'out' atheists! given that up until the 1950's, you'd have been considered a sort of demon communist had you announced atheism, and not too long before that you could well have been jailed or killed for same, we can safely regard history as effectively atheist-free.

 

Did I say the 'only'? No! The 'only' is a misrepresentation of what I actually stated. Therefore you are being intellectually dishonest.

The answer given does directly answer the question. It places the question right back on you, as the inference toward some 'inventive' quality came from your mind.

How naive can you really be. Using that form of thinking, then no teacher in school can be accredited as being a teacher since they did not invent the methods or the material that they are teaching.

Because you said that you were using the same that I used. Not what someone else used.

Then you told a lie when you said that you were using that same thing that I used. Show me on this forum or any other forum where this same methodology has been used. You are making the inference that it might have come from some other source... so prove your inference to be true. ... else admit that all you are doing is harassing.

You are dog gone tooten it is fair enough considering that you cannot refute what was stated.

Follow the thread starting at the point wherein you engaged me in conversation.

 

We must remember that economics was Serfdom throughout Europe, for 1000 years.
The landowners traded their farms for the labor that grow everything people needed.
This slavery was a way of survival when no other way was available.

We have come to believe that slavery is just terrible, but we are all "rich" to think that way.

The "slaves" called untouchables in India, almost one billion in number, NEED the relationships they have with the land owners right now.
It is how they work to earn their livelihood.

 

I think you are right, in that most people come to God through the way they are raised, or else, some shocking personal situation or crisis.

Convincing a person about God, esp when he does not need one, is difficult.
It becomes futile when sexual prudence is a part necessary to the lessons.

But the idea that Truth is the son of the ever unfolding Reality and is identical to it makes sense.
We must all live in Reality, if we are sane.
The only way we can know Reality is by discovering what is True.

One thing we have found out is that we must adapt to the Reality .
This is a "second death" available to us, as Reality unfolds and we do not want to become extinct.
So, Truth is our savior in this, of course.

 

You don't know your history very well. We've actually elected Atheist Presidents back in the earlier days of our nation. This whole "Christian Nation" alternative history is a relatively modern myth with very little basis in fact. Our founding fathers were adherents of The Enlightenment. They weren't a bunch of fundamentalist Bible thumpers.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd just as soon be dead, if I have to give up sex.

 

The issue is not just about giving up on sex.
It is more about raising kids to believe they must marry if they are going to be sexual, and be prepared to take responsibility for kids that appear.

 

It is nothing more than an inference from your own comment, and of course unless you can produce proof enough to compel my mind to think otherwise then it is not proof of anything.

sorry, I see no proof enough to compel my mind to agree with you, and in the end that is all that is important.

sorry, I see no proof enough to compel my mind to agree with you, and in the end that is all that is important.

Not really - "just basing my arguments on the same logic and definitions you, as a christian, just happen to use as well ", was my comment which can easily be construed to mean that I am using the same logic, not that you taught it me or that I am following in your footsteps, and as stated it is my belief that you have "copied" this from somewhere else I may have posted.

sorry, I see no proof enough to compel my mind to agree with you, so unless you can provide proof enough to compel my mind that I am harassing or lying then my truth stands firm.

Please provide proof enough to compel my mind to agree with you that I cannot refute what was stated.

I have and find nothing that could compel my mind to accept what you consider to be true above what I know to be true.

 

I'm sorry but the history of the human population flies in the face of what you preach.

 

Even if we are to accept our founding fathers were sons of the enlightment, this would make them more deists than atheists. In reality though, most were Christian, namely Anglicans, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians. It wouldn't be accurate to call them "bible thumpers" but it also wouldn't be accurate to call them atheists either.

 

Modern day atheism has it's roots in the later stages of the Enlightenment leading up to the French Revolution. Let's not forget about existentialism either.

 

I think what you may be really saying is I don’t want someone taking the moral high ground and preaching down to me?



reva

 

Nor did I call them Atheists.

 

Isn't that a hint to you???

That the truth is/has been ignored and "the history of the human population" has gone against what I have been preaching,... sadly so???

 

Well, reading audience, as you can see in the highlighted text, there is another convert in the group. So advice to all of you non-theists out there. Be careful while visiting this forum, as your mode of thinking will be affected in a most drastic manner. Learning from the Christians and adopting some of their methods is better than using the scientific method.

 

I think I can safely say that Kranes most definitely did not mean that, explicitly or implicitly. There is no moral high ground to be had in the authoritarian dictates of a being that can't be demonstrated to actually exist.

 

Errm .. the history of humans goes back far longer than the current religions, 2,000 years is a very small drop in the ocean of human history.

 

Yes that is true.

Truth has been saving people from many kinds of problems since man appeared on earth.

In 32AD, Christ came as a personified ideal of the concept of truth.
Christ demonstrated how truth can cost you your life.

But Truth will always rise up again until people start accepting it.

 

So everything that came before JC doesn't really amount to much in your estimation?

and just where do you get this idea that JC is the "personified ideal of the concept of truth"?

 

I think CD was saying is that Jesus clarified truth when it comes to the big question of is there life after death and possibly hopefully that Jesus might mention teach or expand on the ‘admissions criteria’ if any to be granted or assume the mantel of life after death. So that Jesus to Christians is the last envoy of God, at least the fleshly tangible type, we consider his words the most accurate when it comes to truth, ie the details etc thereof the ultimate philosophical* question.


* By “the ultimate philosophical* question” I mean does self awareness go on after the death of the body?”


reva

 

Serfdom is similar to slavery, but not really the same thing. Serfdom is a contract between two people where they both support each other. The farmer with food and the lord with military protection. It's still bad but it's a bonding experience. Now that being said serfdom was different for different parts of Europe. For examples in Russia after they expelled the Mongolians, Russian serfs had more freedoms then western serfs. This of course changed over the next few hundred years but it's an important distinction. And as for the untouchables, according to India's constitution, there are provisions in there for taking care of them and breaking down the barriers between the different casts. The situation isn't slavery, but it's pretty close to slavery.