Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
If the rapture really happens tomorrow . . .; AKA . . . the Good Bye Thread
Topic Started: May 20 2011, 01:21 PM (12,104 Views)
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Larry
May 26 2011, 10:25 AM
ivorythumper
May 26 2011, 10:21 AM
Srsly, Larry -- you can't even get this conversation correct about what I am writing to you here and now.

And I am supposed to trust your reading of Scripture when you can't even get TNCR correct? :lol2:
Odd, that's the exact same questions I was having about you.
But I have actually pointed out errors where you can't even get correct what I am writing. So at least my view has some objective validity to it. ;)
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Larry
May 26 2011, 10:22 AM
Quote:
 
it is completely implied by the language used.

Quote:
 
". Show me how "the whole household" can exclude the children, and I'll concede.


Show me how you can prove that the "whole household" didn't first accept Christ. Show me proof that these "whole households" being referred to had infants involved.
I don't need to show you that. Household itself implies family. Family implies children.
And Peter in Acts clearly extends the promises of baptism to the children (techna)

You would have to have some weird model that only people who didn't have children were baptized as households.

Apart from any explicit evidence either way, which is more probable: that the first Christians who were baptized as a whole household didn't have any children, or that the first Christians who were baptized as a whole household did have children?

Which way would you bet?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Which way would you bet?


I would bet that the way to solve the dilemma would be to do what we're supposed to do, and that would be to interpret it in context with all other scripture. When you do that, you find that your version doesn't fit.



Quote:
 
Actually your interpretation is legalistic. Mine is relational.


That's actually funny....... hahahahahahaha
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Larry
May 26 2011, 10:52 AM
Quote:
 
Which way would you bet?


I would bet that the way to solve the dilemma would be to do what we're supposed to do, and that would be to interpret it in context with all other scripture. When you do that, you find that your version doesn't fit.
So in the context of Acts 2:38, you would interpret it to mean that the promise of baptism does apply to the infants, and that therefore the "whole household" presumably did include infants?

So do I, for the record.

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Larry
May 26 2011, 10:52 AM


Quote:
 
Actually your interpretation is legalistic. Mine is relational.


That's actually funny....... hahahahahahaha
Kind of like the person laughing who didn't get the joke, huh? ;)
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Otherwise, you have to hold some weird model that only people who didn't have children were baptized as households. Seems improbable.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
May 26 2011, 08:34 AM
Thinking on what you said a little further Horace, it occurred to me that by necessity *everyone* who decides to believe in God is going to refer to the time when they didn't. Unless you think there are some people out there who were just born believing and didn't ever have a time when they didn't believe.

It's like a guy who drives Fords all his life, and then one day buys a Chevy and decides that he likes Chevys much more than he likes Fords. He's going to refer to a time "before Chevy".

I would say that the majority of religious people in the world today have never had much of a critical-thinking based issue with their faith. I come from a family of Christians and I went to church for 18 years. I'm aware that the path of critical thinking is simply never seriously taken, even for the purposes of refuting it.

Except in one case - when a critical thinker explains why they think it's all nonsense.

Then of course all of Christendom is eager to pretend that they've had all of those thoughts "just like you", but were saved by a Magic Experience.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
musicasacra
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Horace
May 26 2011, 11:21 AM
I would say that the majority of religious people in the world today have never had much of a critical-thinking based issue with their faith. I come from a family of Christians and I went to church for 18 years. I'm aware that the path of critical thinking is simply never seriously taken, even for the purposes of refuting it.

Except in one case - when a critical thinker explains why they think it's all nonsense.

Then of course all of Christendom is eager to pretend that they've had all of those thoughts "just like you", but were saved by a Magic Experience.
My experience is different. I think people follow faith and church with the family growing up, then off to college, etc. There may be some people who trod on in the family tradition without much thought, but I think many people reexamine, ask questions, delve deeper into what they grew up believing. And what faith they practice they've considered and embraced on their own. It's no longer what was mostly handed to them, but conscious and participatory in a new way.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
I'm aware that the path of critical thinking is simply never seriously taken, even for the purposes of refuting it.


I don't doubt that's the case with many in the faith. It isn't my experience, though, and it isn't what I try to instil in the members of my congregation through my sermons and my Adult Ed classes. To me, finding, understanding and living the faith is far more about asking questions than having answers doled out to you.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Kincaid
May 26 2011, 09:13 AM
I admit it hurts a bit to think that people you like and respect, and who probably like you and respect you in return, on this one issue quietly think you a whack job or a doddering fool.
Nothing whack job about it, it is fundamental to us that we have a propensity to believe what we want to believe and what our social group wants us to believe. Some people have a stronger propensity towards this than others.

In fact I believe that I lack a certain genetic ability, rather than that I have an over-abundance of some genetic ability.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Copper
May 26 2011, 08:48 AM
Renauda
May 26 2011, 08:43 AM
So Coprolite, what's new in your world of paleology?

On rapture day I ascended into the heavens about a half dozen times and came back with my clothes on each time.

No big deal.
No wonder, I meant to write paleontology.


So did your butt hurt at the end of those trips.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nobody's Sock
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
so close to 30, whodathot?
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
kenny
May 26 2011, 09:47 AM
I respect everyone equally.
My views on religion apply only to me.
Why do people think . . . Oh Kenny's view is X therefor he thinks I'm an idiot?
That would be intolerance on my part, or assuming that I do not tolerate what I do not agree with.

For all I know all religions are true and atheism is true too as are the agnostics.
They can all be true simultaneously. :shrug:
It's a big universe.

I don't go for XYX, and you do.
What's wrong with being honest?
No problemo amigo, let's play some piano, or guitar or go swimming together.
I don't care if you are certain I'm going straight to Hell.
I can look past that.
You could be a wonderful person and still think that.

People don't have to be like me.
But why be sneaky and coy and lie?
Mature people can withstand the truth.
Since I respect all equally I feel free to be honest and be friends with people who vary.
Honesty and variation between people is not an insult.
It's beautiful.
Diversity is beautiful.

Now if someone wants to throw me in the garbage because I don't view things like they do that's sad.
I'm a good guy.
I have no idea if you're a good guy or not. That has nothing to do with anything.

I appreciate you finally being honest with me that you think I am a liar and a deceiver. I would rather know that you think me so, than have you as a false friend thinking that you respected me. I can deal with your views of me -- it is far better to know what you really think than not know.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
May 26 2011, 09:37 AM
Quote:
 

Really, Kenny? Wow. I am glad to finally learn what you really think of me.


People are not so simple. You can be friendly with people whilst thinking they aren't completely honest with themselves and hence with others about certain topics. Afterall most of us aren't intellectually honest about every topic (e.g. we present rationalisations as if they are our reasons for thinking something because we are emotionly tied to particular ideas).
No, people are not so simple. But I can sit down and talk in mutual respect with people with profound differences. Friendliness/ civility are one thing-- calling someone deceitful doesn't even rise to that -- but friendship is something else. We can have valid differing opinions about a lot of things -- we can even be absolutely factually wrong about a lot of things. To assume someone is lying and deceitful -- and to publicly say so -- is another issue all together.

If I think someone's character is so bereft of virtue that I would publicly say, not that I disagreed with them, but that they were actually deceitful, I would not have them as friends. And I certainly would not welcome them into my home again.

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Well that's fair enough but surely there is a difference between saying there's something about the way someone debates that's not quite honest and calling someone lying and deceitful.

The entire point scoring mentality that exists in most forum debates is not quite honest, nor is the way almost all debaters selectively ignore their opponents strongest points, nor is the moving of the goal posts during the debate, nor are a million other things about these kinds of debates (e.g. your opponent demanding that you tell him what Catholicism says about X _after_ he's already proclaimed it's wrong about X).

But none of these objections are in quite the same league as saying someone is lying and deceitful. Atleast not to my mind.
Edited by Moonbat, May 26 2011, 02:25 PM.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Nor to my mind, Moonbat.

But even in the way someone else debates (to use your example herein) I would not say my interlocutor was deceitful or dishonest, I would simply point out the obvious flaw in his argument. That is a different matter than attacking the integrity of someone's character.
Edited by ivorythumper, May 26 2011, 02:34 PM.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
But even in the way someone else debates (to use your example herein) I would not say my interlocutor was deceitful or dishonest, I would simply point out the obvious flaw in his argument


And you do it so condescendingly sweet and with such subtle mock flattery that your interlocuter becomes only too willing to bend over and grab his ankles and beg you for more.

We've seen it before. In fact your doing it right now with Kenny, Moonbat and, to a lesser extent, with Larry.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
ivorythumper
May 26 2011, 10:55 AM
Larry
May 26 2011, 10:52 AM
Quote:
 
Which way would you bet?


I would bet that the way to solve the dilemma would be to do what we're supposed to do, and that would be to interpret it in context with all other scripture. When you do that, you find that your version doesn't fit.
So in the context of Acts 2:38, you would interpret it to mean that the promise of baptism does apply to the infants, and that therefore the "whole household" presumably did include infants?

So do I, for the record.

See, this is why you can't understand scripture. You just make up stuff. I would NOT interpret that verse that way, because to do so makes it contradict other scripture, meaning your interpretation is wrong, and the verse doesn't say anything about infants being in these families.

The way I would interpret if would be that since there's nothing in the verse that says infants were involved, then the question of whether or not infants were involved is best answered by choosing the answer that allows the verse to read in harmony with the rest of scripture. At least, that's the correct way to do it. When you do that, you have no choice but to assume there were no infants involved.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Lar, I almost Google The Pokatwat Tribe in your sig line, till I got it. :tsktsk: :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
I don't need to show you that. Household itself implies family. Family implies children.
And Peter in Acts clearly extends the promises of baptism to the children (techna)


You're having to make some of the strangest leaps of logic to make things square with your theology..

No, "family" does not imply children. Is a man and wife who have never had any children any less a family than the man and wife who has? Does a man and his wife with one of their elderly parents living with them not qualify as a family? Since it doesn't fit with other scripture, is it possible you're not supposed to read such a narrow definition of family into things in that verse? As for Peter extending baptism to children, that in no way proves your claim that those children were infants. Is a 12 year old a child? Can a 12 year old be mature enough to CHOOSE to accept Christ on his own? Sure he could.


Quote:
 
Kind of like the person laughing who didn't get the joke, huh? ;)


Well, if you didn't get the joke, I'm sorry. I got the joke, that's why I laughed.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
No, people are not so simple. But I can sit down and talk in mutual respect with people with profound differences.


You couldn't prove that by this thread... in fact, the very reason I was so careful to spell it out as clearly as possible that I was not trying to ridicule anyone's religion, and that I did not want it to descend into personal attacks, and wanted it to stay a civil discussion about our different religious beliefs was because I already knew from observing you in the past that the instant anyone says anything that disagrees with the Roman Catholic Church you instantly jump into a combative and sarcastic mode.

Interesting comment Moonbat made about moving the goalposts, however. If people were to actually go back and notice some of the things you've argued they would see that you have moved the goalposts numerous times now.


Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Larry
May 26 2011, 07:02 PM
ivorythumper
May 26 2011, 10:55 AM
Larry
May 26 2011, 10:52 AM
Quote:
 
Which way would you bet?


I would bet that the way to solve the dilemma would be to do what we're supposed to do, and that would be to interpret it in context with all other scripture. When you do that, you find that your version doesn't fit.
So in the context of Acts 2:38, you would interpret it to mean that the promise of baptism does apply to the infants, and that therefore the "whole household" presumably did include infants?

So do I, for the record.

See, this is why you can't understand scripture. You just make up stuff. I would NOT interpret that verse that way, because to do so makes it contradict other scripture, meaning your interpretation is wrong, and the verse doesn't say anything about infants being in these families.

The way I would interpret if would be that since there's nothing in the verse that says infants were involved, then the question of whether or not infants were involved is best answered by choosing the answer that allows the verse to read in harmony with the rest of scripture. At least, that's the correct way to do it. When you do that, you have no choice but to assume there were no infants involved.

Larry -- you made up a whole group of first century Christian households without a single child. That is the only way your interpretation works, right?

You've also made up a first century Jewish culture where the religion of the parents did not determine the religion of the children. That is the only way your interpretation works, right?

You've also made up a whole couple of generations of Christians whose children were only baptized at some future point, even though we have absolutely no record of children of adult converts being later baptized. That is the only why your interpretation works, right?

None of these ideas stand up to the weight of reason or what we know about first century Jewish social life or any textual evidence. But still you must INSIST on them, right?

So you HAVE to believe that they were living in a massively improbable world -- without a single comment from Jesus or Peter or Paul like "hey, that whole 8th day circumcision business? Ignore that!!! You can't dedicate your children to God anymore!!!"

But what you are missing in all of these passages about "belief" and "repent" is that obviously Jesus and Peter and Paul would be talking to adults, and that is what an adult needs to do to become a Christian. Your mistake is thinking that Jesus can't make Christians out of infants and children through the faith of their parents and simple baptism into the community. That of course immediately allows all the verses to be read in complete harmony with one another -- and you don't have to make strange conjectures about who didn't have children in the first century.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry himself is #1 in Google ranking!


Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
kenny, do you have any intention at all of answering IT's question about what you mean by "Christian Gladiators"?
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
kai tois teknois = "for your children." It doesn't mean "for your children above a certain age," it means "for your children" - i.e., all of them.

Again, Larry, you are espousing a theology of believers-only baptism (credobaptism). As asked before, can you make a scriptural argument that shows that baptism is exclusively a sign of a believer's decision to repent and follow Jesus? And can you offer a scriptural argument that baptism excludes children of any age under the age of reason, whether infant or not? And as also asked before, what about your mentally disabled cousin - should he be baptized, or is it a purely symbolic act, through which God really does nothing, and which does God not want your cousin and and others like him to be part of? I keep asking these questions, and not seeing any answers - and I'm really looking.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply