Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obviously they can do whatever they want. But I'm saying I don't like it, and I will not do it because I'd rather obey Scripture.
You don't like what others do in the privacy of their own home even when it brings no harm to anyone? Why I wonder...
Either way, obviously we are all free to believe and do as we wish. If the idea is that we simply pronounce our personal beliefs and preferences along these lines in this thread, then what is there to discuss or learn? We all knew long before we came to this forum that "people are different" and will do as they please in these regards, and will not change their mind about anything as a general rule.
WHY are we so different in these regards? Believe so differently? This is what interests me anyway.
WHY would you rather "obey Scripture?" When/how did you come by that preference?
Is it contrary to Scripture to "live and let live?"
If so, I wonder if this would be a reason to question what you choose to obey...
Because the truth is important. If someone wants to say a prayer for the dead because they believe it does something or it just makes them feel good, that's up to them.
But if someone suggests i do it, initially because it it is supposed to be true and i say I don't believe it, then to say 'it will make you feel good' is not going to persuade me.
Everyone must decide for themselves, but 'it makes you feel good' is Not a validation of a practice.
This is going to get into the benefits of art or ballet and personal choice in art, but that's Too Much Information right now
You won't get too far arguing with me, because I think we agree about all this...
Maybe I should have simply written that we should not criticize others for what we ourselves also do, but to think this suggestion should be dismissed simply because the words used come from any particular Holy book clearly demonstrates the sort of limited "band width" people tend to allow themselves.
"Music to my ears" that the truth is important. Perhaps that message is the single most consistent in most of my comments in this thread, but we simply can't ignore the influence of what makes us feel good as also previously noted. Here again, the difference between much about religion vs science as also explained.
If we did simply keep our opinions, beliefs and actions to the privacy of our own homes without IMPOSING our ways on others, we would all better get along I think, and maybe there wouldn't even be any religion, but that's not the way of Man.
"If it makes you feel good" is validation to do whatever we wish if we are not imposing or harming anyone else by doing so. Sure it is a validation of practice! Just not to be confused with what is the truth and what is not. No argument! To pray to a lost loved one is fine if that's going to help with the pain, but the act of praying to a lost loved one is surely not any sort of proof the loved one hears those prayers, no different than prayers to God for that matter...
"Whatever gets you through the day" as some might say, where others are more inclined toward a different set of standards, depending on the goal at hand. Feeling better or establishing truth for example...
I'm not arguing with you as it were from opposite sides, as I know we are on the same side, but I'm putting some points to consider because I see some possible flaws in your argument and I want to see those patched up.
Seriously? You can't tell the difference between prayers for the dead (which doesn't seem all that different from being baptized for the dead, btw,1 Cor 15:29) and necromancy? No wonder you are so confused.
I'm not arguing with you as it were from opposite sides, as I know we are on the same side, but I'm putting some points to consider because I see some possible flaws in your argument and I want to see those patched up.
Which are? And/or did I patch those up? I am fully aware of the difference between personal feelings and actions vs what justifies what is the truth and what is not. Hopefully you did not "see possible flaws" about any of that, or do tell! Might be a flaw with respect to how you are reading or understanding my comments. Possible? If so, I am more than glad to clear up any further misunderstanding or "flaws" if any remain.
Maybe tomorrow since I've really got to be signing off now. Cheers!
I know you have a problem understanding concepts, so let me explain once again, very slowly. Here is what I said.
To help you in this, your fallacy I was referring to was the cüm hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, where you confused a trait with the cause. In your case, atheism, in my explanation, men wearing shoes.
Stalin not only wore shoes, he was a man, he had a nose, he had vowels in his name, and he was an atheist, right?
The same with Pol Pot and Mao, right? Are you with me so far? Good.
Now, it would be silly to say they did some bad things because they had a nose, or wore shoes, right?
You see, just because they wore shoes, it doesn't mean that is why they were bad men. Still with me?
And it is the same with them being atheists.
After all, why would Stalin kill or imprison his military leaders, just because he was an atheist? Or Pol Pot do the same with people who wore glasses?
Do you get the point yet?
Unless you feel noses and shoes constitute a worldview, your logic is silly.
Yeah, but what of the others who have spoken to God? How do we know Moses got it right and others didn't? How do we know it was God that caused Moses' troubles? Best I can understand from the reading the varied versions of this history, it was mostly other people and difficult desert conditions...
Youd have to inspect each instance seperately and decide, lumping it all into one pile is not discernable, i would question the motive in doing that.
We know Moses got it right by the results.
Israel exists today as an island of sanity in a sea of pure madness.
Well that's rich coming from a country that has been at war somewhere in the world for more than 90% of its existence!
...and if you want to talk about 'brutal murder', how about a country that dropped not one but two nuclear weapons on a country that was on the point of surrender - for no other reason than to see if they worked and to show the USSR what it had!
When it comes to brutality, the USA had better keep its mouth tightly closed.
That's right, they started it and we finished it.
They dropped 2 atom bombs because they didn't have 3. But 2 did the trick.
Unless you feel noses and shoes constitute a worldview, your logic is silly.
Someone does not understand metaphors.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but I'm putting some points to consider because I see some possible flaws in your argument and I want to see those patched up.
