When You Talk To God, Is The Response From Him or Is It From You Talking To Yourself

[sumrndmdude]

Because they're my family? They exist? They don't claim to have ultimate power, knowledge, and/or presence. 

If god is merely a passive bystander then whats the point of recognizing it then? And why give you any information to start with in the first place? Why not all of it? At what point is there too little information or too much information to start with? 

I see that you got my point.

A passive bystander does not give you a road map.

I think you answered your own questions.

 

[futuremd]

Because they're my family? They exist? They don't claim to have ultimate power, knowledge, and/or presence. 

If god is merely a passive bystander then whats the point of recognizing it then? And why give you any information to start with in the first place? Why not all of it? At what point is there too little information or too much information to start with? 

I see that you got my point.

A passive bystander does not give you a road map.

I think you answered your own questions.

But you just said that you think god is the one that gives you SOME information to guide you through life. 

Those are not my thoughts. Those are yours. 

The only way this god of yours exists is if its a passive bystander. 

 

[sumrndmdude]

That strengthens my point.

How can you find fault in the faith of others when its THEIR faith? 

Are you the ultimate arbiter of what THEIR trust in the god they assume to exist, should be? 

If the their faith does not agree  with the doctrines of their religion (see def 2(a)). I think they are issues with their faith. Their faith may be quite different from what they claim to believe.

 

[sumrndmdude]

Because they're my family? They exist? They don't claim to have ultimate power, knowledge, and/or presence. 

If god is merely a passive bystander then whats the point of recognizing it then? And why give you any information to start with in the first place? Why not all of it? At what point is there too little information or too much information to start with? 

 

[futuremd]

That strengthens my point.

How can you find fault in the faith of others when its THEIR faith? 

Are you the ultimate arbiter of what THEIR trust in the god they assume to exist, should be? 

If the their faith does not agree  with the doctrines of their religion (see def 2(a)). I think they are issues with their faith. Their faith may be quite different from what they claim to believe.

The doctrines of religion vary incredibly, as you know...so how can you make proclamations on their faith? 

Remember, you can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't have any bearing on the reality, truth, or veracity of those claims. 

 

[futuremd]

Because they're my family? They exist? They don't claim to have ultimate power, knowledge, and/or presence. 

If god is merely a passive bystander then whats the point of recognizing it then? And why give you any information to start with in the first place? Why not all of it? At what point is there too little information or too much information to start with? 

I don't get your point. 

 

[sumrndmdude]

The doctrines of religion vary incredibly, as you know...so how can you make proclamations on their faith? 

Remember, you can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't have any bearing on the reality, truth, or veracity of those claims. 

So you see my point. I make proclamations on the doctrines that their faith is based on, if their faith does not agree with the doctrine, I can only assume that there is room/need for dialogue.

This too is true.

 

[sumrndmdude]

I don't get your point. 

are you the [color= rgb(255, 255, 255)]ultimate arbiter [/color]of what is enough/all information? Who should decide what enough information is.

 

[futuremd]

The doctrines of religion vary incredibly, as you know...so how can you make proclamations on their faith? 

Remember, you can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't have any bearing on the reality, truth, or veracity of those claims. 

So you see my point. I make proclamations on the doctrines that their faith is based on, if their faith does not agree with the doctrine, I can only assume that there is room/need for dialogue.

This too is true.

I do NOT see your point.

Which doctrine? And furthermore, how are you able to make claims on what their faith is?

Thats the thing. You claim to know their doctrine better than they do.

I don't argue theology. I argue the claims believers assert. 

I don't get your point. 

are you the ultimate arbiter of what is enough/all information? Who should decide what enough information is.

You said god gives you some information.

You claimed to know how much information god gives you, in the first place. Asserting that there is "some" means that you KNOW that there is a measurable amount of information there to begin with. 

I didn't. I'm evaluating your claim.

You made the assertion, not me.

 

[knightlovesqueen]

yo guys chill.

 

[futuremd]

yo guys chill.

its all good. 

just a little spar. 

 

[sumrndmdude]

1.I do NOT see your point.

2.Which doctrine? And furthermore, how are you able to make claims on what their faith is?

2.Thats the thing. You claim to know their doctrine better than they do.

3.I don't argue theology. I argue the claims believers assert. 

a.You said god gives you some information.

b. You claimed to know how much information god gives you, in the first place. Asserting that there is "some" means that you KNOW that there is a measurable amount of information there to begin with. 

c. I didn't. I'm evaluating your claim.

d. You made the assertion, not me.

1. Don't worry about it, you see my point!

2. I don't claim to know their doctrine better than anyone, their doctrine is'their doctrine'. If we can't discuss their doctrine then it's all guesswork. (as for faith see def. 2(a))

3. [color= rgb(255, 255, 255)]Are you the ultimate arbiter of what THEIR trust in the god they assume to exist, should be?[/color]

a. I saideople underestimate the concept of free will, I believe. But to your point some people have the attitude of 'Jesus take the wheel' and this philosophy does not necessarily agree with Jesus teachings themselves. [color= rgb(255, 255, 0)]Perhaps if they/we said "the god I believe in has given the road map" that would be a lot more reasonable and simpler to grasp.[/color]

b.you are the one who has been making claims about what is enough/some/little information,

c. Again, don't worry about it your response proved to me that you got my point.

d. i really haven't made any assertions on this point. Perhaps in the future I will, in the confines of this discussion I have put the it forward as a possibility for the sake of fostering discussion.

 

[futuremd]

1.I do NOT see your point.

2.Which doctrine? And furthermore, how are you able to make claims on what their faith is?

2.Thats the thing. You claim to know their doctrine better than they do.

3.I don't argue theology. I argue the claims believers assert. 

a.You said god gives you some information.

b. You claimed to know how much information god gives you, in the first place. Asserting that there is "some" means that you KNOW that there is a measurable amount of information there to begin with. 

c. I didn't. I'm evaluating your claim.

d. You made the assertion, not me.

1. Don't worry about it, you see my point!

I don't see your point and I refuse to acknowledge that I do unless I say that I do. 

2. I don't claim to know their doctrine better than anyone, their doctrine is'their doctrine'. If we can't discuss their doctrine then it's all guesswork. (as for faith see def. 2(a))

So you see the problem in asserting you find fault with their "faith"...which is why you can't just rely on assessing their faith, merely the claims they assert.

3. Are you the ultimate arbiter of what THEIR trust in the god they assume to exist, should be?

a. I saideople underestimate the concept of free will, I believe. But to your point some people have the attitude of 'Jesus take the wheel' and this philosophy does not necessarily agree with Jesus teachings themselves. Perhaps if they/we said "the god I believe in has given the road map" that would be a lot more reasonable and simpler to grasp.

This makes no sense.

b.you are the one who has been making claims about what is enough/some/little information,

That was you. You said that god gives you some amount of information. That was YOUR assertion.

c. Again, don't worry about it your response proved to me that you got my point.

I don't accept your conclusion as I don't understand what you're saying. You don't get to tell me what I understand and then assert that I understand it.

d. i really haven't made any assertions on this point. Perhaps in the future I will, in the confines of this discussion I have put the it forward as a possibility for the sake of fostering discussion.

More sophistry.

You asserted that IF they said god they believe in gave them a road map that it would make things easier...but that doesn't make sense either as you can't assert that as a more preferable situation because you have to define some quality of information in that "road map" in the first place.

You're making the proclamation that you'd prefer to discuss a situation in which there is some measurable degree of something a priori. 

 

[sumrndmdude]

I don't see your point and I refuse to acknowledge that I do unless I say that I do. 

You do, trust me.

So you see the problem in asserting you find fault with their "faith"...which is why you can't just rely on assessing their faith, merely the claims they assert.

I encourage you to reread my earlier responses. I was quite clear.

This makes no sense.

You initially understood what I was getting at so it does make sense. Now whether you agree with it is a separate issue.

That was you. You said that god gives you some amount of information. That was YOUR assertion.

Again I responded to poster A with an alternative (a hypothetical) and you insisted that it was an assertion...that sound like a 'your problem' kind of thing.

I don't accept your conclusion as I don't understand what you're saying. You don't get to tell me what I understand and then assert that I understand it.

Trust me! You understood it, I just don't have the patience to go over it again. I'll let you do that if you desire?

More sophistry.

if that's what helps you sleep at night

You asserted that IF they said god they believe in gave them a road map that it would make things easier...but that doesn't make sense either as you can't assert that as a more preferable situation because you have to define some quality of information in that "road map" in the first place.

You're making the proclamation that you'd prefer to discuss a situation in which there is some measurable degree of something a priori. 

i don't know about all ...^that^!

 

[futuremd]

Trust me! You understood it, I just don't have the patience to go over it again. I'll let you do that if you desire?

Explain

 

[|A-Man|]

FutureMD, you remind me of a philosophy teacher I had back in college circa 2003.
The entire class day in and day out was him challenging students to discredit him and prove he is wrong with some wild statements.
He would challenge folks to prove something exist.....like "Prove to me that Wendy's chilli you are eating is really chilli." And then proceed to rattle off theories and hypothetical situations on how you cannot prove that it is really chilli.

That's just epistemology. Is the table really there, describe the table, etc. Hope you got what he was doing by challenging you to ask those questions.

this is what you came up with????

You still seem to be incapable of looking up a simple phrase and using it correctly.

I'll help you out:

1.poster A asks whether future has always been atheist.
2.I half jokingly state that: 'Legend has it...' I conclude that comment by stating that the point probably does not matter.
3. Future replies, as he should, by questioning where I heard these things.
4. I tell him '"tales that old men tell...(a reference to legend)"
5. He proceeds to say I made these thing up in my imagination
6. I proceed to provide evidence of a longtime ('old men') NT user who told me the legend
7. Feel free to read the dictionary next time.

(this happened hours ago. Stop trying so hard man!)




I'd say so...mostly because you spoke so confidently before. Oh well.

You weren't told a legend. You're misusing the word and phrase. Even half jokingly you've failed in execution.

 

[futuremd]

Based on my understanding from previous threads (tell me if I'm wrong), sumrndmdude is the type of christian that has a complicated belief system rooted in the sense that he seems to escape out of most of the typical arguments for religion/theism by claiming to be ideologically unique in his views on belief. 

I find it...interesting...if not vaguely dishonest.

 

[sumrndmdude]

That's just epistemology. Is the table really there, describe the table, etc. Hope you got what he was doing by challenging you to ask those questions.
You still seem to be incapable of looking up a simple phrase and using it correctly.
You weren't told a legend. You're misusing the word and phrase. Even half jokingly you've failed in execution.

http://english.stackexchange.com/qu...nd-has-it-mean-a-legend-is-factually-accurate

The last bit that you crossed out was futureMD's response.

And please tell me how to use the phrase 'legend has it'????

 

[sumrndmdude]

Based on my understanding from previous threads (tell me if I'm wrong), sumrndmdude is the type of christian that has a complicated belief system rooted in the sense that he seems to escape out of most of the typical arguments for religion/theism by claiming to be ideologically unique in his views on belief. 

I find it...interesting...if not vaguely dishonest.

I don't try to escape anything, but I am flattered if you think I escape from your attempts at  traps.

But if you came away with the understanding that I have a unique (different) views on my christian beliefs, and that they are not the same as  every other baptist, catholic, etc; I can rest assured that you at least 'got my point'

 

[|A-Man|]

http://english.stackexchange.com/qu...nd-has-it-mean-a-legend-is-factually-accurate

The last bit that you crossed out was futureMD's response.

And please tell me how to use the phrase 'legend has it'????

You were told already. Go back and read it. Then go google how to use the phrase to double check just in case you didn't understand.

Like I said though, even half jokingly you failed in execution. That was shown by the mere fact that you even had to post the definition of legend to further explain that assumption you wanted to carry on as if it were a legend.

 

[futuremd]

Based on my understanding from previous threads (tell me if I'm wrong), sumrndmdude is the type of christian that has a complicated belief system rooted in the sense that he seems to escape out of most of the typical arguments for religion/theism by claiming to be ideologically unique in his views on belief. 

I find it...interesting...if not vaguely dishonest.

I don't try to escape anything, but I am flattered if you think I escape from your attempts at  traps.

But if you came away with the understanding that I have a unique (different) views on my christian beliefs, and that they are the same as  every other baptist, catholic, etc; I can rest assured that you at least 'got my point'

But you claimed to find fault with the FAITH of others while preserving your own as being viable and somewhat more consistent. 

 

[sumrndmdude]

You were told already. Go back and read it. Then go google how to use the phrase to double check just in case you didn't understand.
Like I said though, even half jokingly you failed in execution. That was shown by the mere fact that you even had to post the definition of legend to further explain that assumption you wanted to carry on as if it were a legend.

Actually I was not told already. The person who made the initial remark was misinformed and was trying to defend futureMD.

I would like to know exactly how I misused this phrase. Your explaining to me how it was misused will not only help me, but more importantly help 'you' to understand the variety of ways in which it can be used.

 

[|A-Man|]

Actually I was not told already. The person who made the initial remark was misinformed and was trying to defend futureMD.

I would like to know exactly how I misused this phrase. Your explaining to me how it was misused will not only help me, but more importantly help 'you' to understand the variety of ways in which it can be used.

Nah you were. It was definitely explained how it was misused. There was nothing to be misinformed about given your use of the phrase and what you used to support it being a legend. I didn't just happen to randomly quote that post or you can go ahead do what I just told you to do. You know how to use google don't you?

 

[sumrndmdude]

But you claimed to find fault with the FAITH of others while preserving your own as being viable and somewhat more consistent. 

Within this thread this is what I have stated:

So you see my point. I make proclamations on the doctrines that their faith is based on, if their faith does not agree with the doctrine, I can only assume that there is room/need for dialogue.

If your faith doesn't agree with the doctrine it's based on there is an inherent fault in your faith (definition 2(b)).  That is not an indictment on you as a person, or even your knowledge. You are free to do as you please when you are made aware of the disagreement on what you believe and the doctrines of the religion/faith you hold. At the least your faith is something different, that is not my finding fault that is the simple nature of things.

 

[futuremd]

But you claimed to find fault with the FAITH of others while preserving your own as being viable and somewhat more consistent. 

Within this thread this is what I have stated:

So you see my point. I make proclamations on the doctrines that their faith is based on, if their faith does not agree with the doctrine, I can only assume that there is room/need for dialogue.

You can't do that as you aren't in a position to assess their FAITH. 

I can assess what you believe, not how much you believe it.

If your faith doesn't agree with the doctrine it's based on there is an inherent fault in your faith.

You're claiming to know their faith better than they do in a doctrine that they have faith in. 

At the least your faith is something different, that is not my finding fault that is the simple nature of things.

There are different faiths but you don't get to qualify what their faith is for them.