« first day (455 days earlier)      last day (4186 days later) » 
12:00 - 20:0020:00 - 00:00

12:41 PM
@MonicaCellio "Are you suggesting that all interpretation is inherently doctrinal?" I wouldn't say that exactly, more like "all interpretation is informed and shaped by your framework". I'd also add that "your framework is altered and shaped by what you read and how you interpret it".
All this is true for both Biblical and non-Biblical texts and indeed all other inputs our brains receive. And yes, I don't think they is any way we can avoid that (nor would I consider doing so would be desirable if it were possible).
2
Q: What is "the hermeneutical circle"?

Jas 3.1This question mentions "the hermeneutical circle": I sometimes hear ... of hermeneutical "methods", such as the grammatico-historal approach, or literal-historical approach, or sensus plenior. ... But in the past, I've been more familiar with hermeneutics as a study of how we interpret the te...

Of course none of this means I don't believe in absolute truth: I hope it hasn't sounded like I am saying that. But when I read your answers, it helps me to understand them and to interpret them in the light of my own framework if I know a bit about you and your framework.
There are some people who have contributed whose answers I've not found at all helpful at first, but then once I've got to know them and their framework better I've honestly really benefited from the without moving towards their framework in my own beliefs an inch.
 
 
4 hours later…
4:23 PM
@JackDouglas I agree that framework informs how you read the text and vice-versa. But it also seems to me, and perhaps I'm deluding myself, that it's possible to be aware of one's lens and set it aside. For example, with that "dominion" question I don't want tne answer to be what I posted; it doesn't sit right in my framework. But, reading the text on its own merits, that's sure what it looks like. That doesn't mean it's the final answer for how I will live my life based on this text, of course.
Knowing about each others' frameworks is good; it helps us put things in context. I also think a Christian is capable of reading a tanakh text in a non-Jesus-centric way, and that a Jew is capable of reading gospels in their context, and an atheist is capable of taking God as a given in the context of a text, and...
 
@MonicaCellio You can try, but in so doing, you are not really setting aside you whole framework, merely deciding between competing parts of it. Thinking that setting aside your preconceptions is a 'good thing' is part of your framework imo.
 
Whether we do these things is different from whether we can. To me a better answer steps outside of frame and looks at the text qua text, even if it's uncomfortable. Some people will probably never be able to step outside their frames, but I think we can and we should try to.
 
@MonicaCellio There are frames within frames ;)
 
@JackDouglas I mean in the same way that a scientist in the lab should set aside his hypothesis and see what the experimental data shows. You can say that's just a frame, but it's the frame on which all science is based.
 
indeed, but a frame nonetheless
but I never say a frame is just a frame. Without a framework at all we'd be incapable of understanding or communication.
 
4:28 PM
@JackDouglas "The text has meaning" is a frame too, but without it this site makes no sense. There are frames like that and frames that are more chaotic.
 
@MonicaCellio very true
 
So ok, there are global frames like that; that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the frames that are not universally shared among participants. I think those ones are detrimental to answer quality and we should (a) try to set them aside or (b) be explicitly aware of them when we can't.
but (a) is better :-)
 
4:45 PM
@MonicaCellio I don't want to set myself up as 'judge over the frameworks' any more than we need to in order to have a functioning site
"answer quality" is not an absolute: your version of quality is different to mine
eg I really like some of Bob's contributions ;)
 
@JackDouglas naturally; you share some of his frameworks. :-) (Or that's what the hermeneutical circle says will happen, right?) I look forward to the day that he writes a "pure" answer to a Tanakh question so I can up-vote it, but I don't think he's inclined to do so.
 
@MonicaCellio You jest of course :) His framework is a really long way away from mine. I get the feeling he is more emotionally connected with the text than I, and I appreciate seeing that in action.
 
@JackDouglas the challenge, as we've discussed before, is that people do vote for their frames, and we have rather an imbalance. So I think the dominion answer I pointed to is a bad answer because it's based on doctrine and not text, yet it has up-votes from people who share that doctrine. I'm not claiming that my answer is brilliant or especially vote-worthy, but it's closer to the text and I thought that's what we were doing here. (Please don't read this as whining; it's just a handy example.)
Fortunately we aren't swimming in up-voted blatant-doctrine answers, but it happens enough that I'd like to see us try to apply a little more rigor across the site. This isn't an opinion forum. (We aren't really "swimming" in answers of any sort, yet.)
 
@MonicaCellio It is a good example. People vote for lots of reasons and that is one of them but the beauty of SE is not that it is perfect, but rather that is stops us completely drowning in noise.
@MonicaCellio imo we will never agree on tighter rules. I think the ones we have are excellent because they are objective.
ie Qs start from the text, Answers have to try and answer the Q
that is an amazingly simple and easy to understand set of rules
I think it will be the making of the site and the community in the long term
 
If somebody posted "my opinion ix X" (period, no sources), people would vote it down -- except that in the area of doctrine, it appears to be the case that if people agree with the opinion, which to the poster and that reader is Truth, it gets voted up anyway.
As an analogy, look around on the meta sites, particularly MSO, and you'll see the flip, funny, non-answer answers getting up-voted just because they're amusing. We vote for answers that match our values; on MSO humor is a value, and here doctrine is. Not everybody all the time, but enough to matter.
 
4:58 PM
@MonicaCellio who knows why folk vote: I'm not consistent myself
I flatter myself that 'I agree' is not top of my voting criteria list though
 
So maybe it's tilting at windmills and the idea of balanced inter-religious discussion just can't work with a voting system; I don't know.
 
I like a concise, well communicated, reasoned answer I can understand, especially if I think it is helpful for the site's image
@MonicaCellio basically I think it is working
 
@JackDouglas nor mine, but I don't have the illusion that nobody ever votes based merely on the merits of the answer in a vacuum.
 
really really well!
@MonicaCellio of course you are right. But we can't reasonably hope to control the site to the degree that the voting would fit those 'merits'
without splintering into factions
 
When you ask about the housing arrangements, netiher the lion nor the lamb is really in a position to give an objective answer. You don't see the problem as much as I do and I maybe see more of it than I should, but it's enough that I sometimes wonder about my participation here. (Not trying to be all "doom!" here, but...)
 
5:04 PM
@MonicaCellio Actually I sympathise, and I'm sorry if constantly disagreeing with you gives the impression I don't. I just don't want the cure to be worse than the disease.
And I'm not alone in valuing your contributions:
 
@JackDouglas I don't think a "back it up" rule, meaning back it up from the text, would be inconsistent with other sites.
 
@MonicaCellio Some sites do that
Kind of like a wikipedia rule
 
@JackDouglas yeah, I know, and I'm not trying to whine. I haven't done the data-mining, but I wonder how my # of posts compares to others near the top there. Anyway, this isn't about me and rep; this is about the face the site presents.
 
@JackDouglas thanks; didn't think to look there.
 
5:08 PM
It is Bob who is facing real problems here :)
just kidding
 
@JackDouglas Bob is the poster child for doctrinal answers. (No offense Bob, and I'm not saying anything you and I haven't discussed here openly.)
 
@MonicaCellio I don't think that is true
he has method
it is just alien to mine
Mike is much more doctrine
in the sense you mean
 
He's explained that method as "Jesus is always the answer", plus the "method" involves a secret cypher that seems to be adaptable as needed.
2
@JackDouglas Yeah, could be -- he's newer so I haven't spent as long reading his posts compared to Bob's.
 
2
A: What are the strict set of rules followed by sensus plenior?

Bob JonesHow to interpret scripture using the rules of Sensus Plenior Self examination Jer 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it? Our assumptions about scripture and the rules we use to guide our interpretation effect the ultimate meaning that w...

 
Bob has been here a while, infuses doctrine in everything he posts, and is #10 in rep.
 
5:11 PM
@MonicaCellio or to put it another way he's answered more questions than Jon for 1/3 the rep :)
 
@JackDouglas :-) So he must be getting downvotes from people other than me, but his answers only go into negative values on the last of his 6 pages of answers.
 
downvotes are only -2: it's the lack of upvotes that really affects rep I think
 
5:35 PM
Upvotes (or their lack) count for way more, but it's also worth noting that even with answers as doctrinal as his, there probably aren't a lot of people downvoting.
 
@MonicaCellio As far as I can understand it, sensus plenior is pretty blatantly making things up as you go along, and doesn't even pretend to be actual serious scholarship.
 
@TRiG That's my impression too, but the only place I've encountered it is here so it's possible that Bob just isn't a very accurate representative.
 
@MonicaCellio If you want complete castles in the air, read almost any literalist Christian interpretation of the book of Revelation (or Daniel; often, the two are tied together, actually).
That said, much of the stuff in any religion I know anything about at all is pretty blatently made up. It's just that in the book-centrered Abrahamic religions, the contrast between the claims of scholarship and grounding of beliefs in scripture and the obvious fact that the beliefs actually aren't grounded in anything is a bit more amusing.
Whereas in earth-centric neopaganism, practitioners are usually happy to admit that it's all based on personal experience (even when it actually does come largely from books).
 
@TRiG Every religion probably has its folklore and some people can't tell the difference -- there are certainly some commonly-held impressions among Jews that aren't in the text but are from midrash. Labeling is important.
@TRiG I don't know much of anything about earth-centric neopaganism, but I had the impression that books weren't a big part of it. Interesting.
 
5:51 PM
@MonicaCellio Books are supposed to not be a big part of it. I know a few Wiccans online, and I get the impression that many people are first exposed to Wicca through books, and basically build their own theology from whatever book they originally got hold of. Or something like that.
 
so sad. splitting infinitives is not hermeneutics. parsing verbs is
 
Atheist Wicca is something which I'd love to learn more about.
@swasheck to boldly split infinitives no man had ever split before
 
@TRiG i see what you did there ;)
 
@swasheck What I did was quote The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, if you want to know.
 
@TRiG ah. didn't catch that ... i was too focused on the split infinitive
 
5:56 PM
@swasheck I tend to be a descriptive grammarian these days. I've grown out of prescriptivism (except for formal written English, where I can (and do) proofread).
 
@TRiG i tend to just want to match the style and expectations of the person in question.
 
@swasheck indeed. Is it even possible to split an infinitive in Greek? (I know it's not in Hebrew.)
 
@MonicaCellio nope
 
@swasheck Or Latin, or Old English.
 
well ... you can split an arthrous infinitive construction, but that's different
(not anarthrous) :)
 
6:03 PM
@TRiG really? Most of the Bible I find quite credible, especially from Gen 12 onwards. I admit I was surprised to find that when I first read it 10 years or so ago.
 
@JackDouglas I'm talking about beliefs which claim to be based on the Bible but actually aren't. Which is, actually, probably the majority of Chrisitian beliefs (starting with the Trinity).
 
@TRiG What exactly about the trinity? You could mean a lot of things here...
 
in The Upper Room, Dec 13 '12 at 21:17, by TRiG
The thing is, we know what the disputes of early Christianity were, because they're laid out in Paul's letters (whoever actually wrote the things) and the book of Acts. There were massive debates about circumcision, and about eating various kinds of foods. But the Shema was overturned with nary a whisper? I don't buy that.
in The Upper Room, Dec 13 '12 at 21:18, by TRiG
I mean, can you imagine Paul-the-theologian's writings on the Trinity? The way he'd trawl through the Hebrew Bible and find subtle hints and clues, and write them all up? He'd have been good at it. If he'd ever done it.
 
@TRiG By the way, I have an answer for that on C.SE. It's just taking a back seat to other things.
@TRiG This comment hit me hard, to be honest. (But in a good way. ;-)
 
@JonEricson Another example (as already mentioned): any interpretation at all of the book of Revelation. They're all utter nonsense, because that book doesn't make any sense.
 
6:09 PM
@TRiG Well, I disagree with that, of course. Most popular interpretations of the book get off on the wrong foot, however.
 
@JonEricson indeed
 
Context, genre, and purpose of the original work are of primary importance.
 
@JonEricson Well, if you start with the assumption that there were some interesting mushrooms on Patmos ....
 
@TRiG Heh!
 
@TRiG you need to start by recognizing the genre
and studying Zecheriah, Daniel and Isaiah
@TRiG what do you believe concerning the Trinity?
 
6:11 PM
@TRiG the reality is that there are so many things that may not be within the realm of human grasp. in that tension is the simplicity and complexity of the Christian faith
i'm not one to throw up my hands quickly and claim "mystery!"
 
@swasheck revelation was written to be understood imo
 
but the reality is that there are some things that may legitimately be beyond our comprehension
@JackDouglas certainly - but to what degree?
 
@swasheck to an ever increasing degree as you immerse yourself in it
and the rest of scripture
 
@JackDouglas ok. to what end?
 
@swasheck scripture first of all reveals God
 
6:14 PM
@JackDouglas Well, I was brought up Jehovah's Witness (non-Trinitarian Christian). I'm now an atheist, and certainly don't believe in the Trinitiy or any other form of deity. But I think the Bible is interesting as an intellectual exercise, and I think the teaching of the Trinity is not founded on the Bible.
 
@TRiG As a child we went to a Unitarian church—similar in some ways to Jehovah's Witnesses at least regarding the trinith
 
@JackDouglas and so what does John's Apocalypse reveal about God?
 
@TRiG John 10:33 is very interesting on this subject imo
@swasheck great question: I think we should always ask it as we read it :)
 
@TRiG i grew up in a cult. it was also a non-Trinitarian. it was also my biggest hurdle to Christianity. Jesus' claims (which @JackDouglas just referenced) are quite extraordinary. He was either a phenomenal hypocrite/blasphemer, or "God with us."
@JackDouglas so where i'm going is that i believe Revelation to first be a work of encouragement.
because God is in control, no matter what's going on before our eyes, or "behind the scenes."
 
@swasheck that's a whole Bible theme however
eg 1 Peter, Amos
 
6:23 PM
@swasheck A dilemma? Even Lewis gave three options.
 
@TRiG there are lots of options
 
@JackDouglas Indeed, which is why I'm not a fan of Lewis's trilemma.
 
but Lewis is right to say that if he made the claims reported, he was certainly not a 'good man'
 
(I'm not a fan of Lewis generally, actually.)
 
@TRiG sure. i was just representing the fork that i came to
@JackDouglas that's fair
@TRiG if people knew how close to their favorite pariah he came, they'd be up in arms
 
6:27 PM
@swasheck I want to connect with scripture (and God) on an emotional level—it is a long term desire of mine to read more by John
get to know him better
 
@JackDouglas to be honest, i probably need to connect on a more emotional/experiential level. that skepticism from my past is what's driven me to avoid those experiences.
 
@swasheck who's the pariah?
 
@JackDouglas rob bell
 
@swasheck emotion!=irrational
irrational emotion on the other hand...
 
@JackDouglas conceptually i know that. it's just a gut reaction ... but then i have to talk sense to myself :)
 
6:30 PM
@swasheck snap :)
the problem is that God is emotional—indeed he has powerful and apparently conflicting emotions
and so are you and I no matter how much we pretend ;)
 
@swasheck Well, my objection to Lewis is that he was a petty, bigoted, small-minded bully. The fact that he thought it possible that everyone would get out of Hell was a point in his favour, especially in contrast to the slathering delight of Jonathan Edwards. [Edited to fix broken link.]
 
@JackDouglas certainly. i have no objection to emotion/experience ... i just have an initial rush of skepticism when i hear about an emotion/experiential response (especially my own). like i said, then i know that i have to stop and think and realize that's ACTUALLY going on
 
@TRiG I haven't read much JE, but what I know I like. What do you dislike about him?
@swasheck "initial rush of skepticism" ha ha sounds like an emotional reaction :)
 
@JackDouglas indeed
@JackDouglas sinners in the hands of an angry god ... god hates you want and wants to send you to hell
 
@JackDouglas He seems to suggest that one of the delights of heaven is that you can enjoy the contrast between your position and the suffering of the damned. Which suggests a seriously icky morality. Not quite as bad as Tertullian (I think) who suggested that heaven had windows overlooking Hell so you could enjoy the view.
 
6:35 PM
@TRiG That criticism of Lewis is purile nonsense judging by the first page or so
@TRiG based on Isaiah
 
@TRiG fortunately Lewis, while smart, is not infallible. having said that, i agree with the blog post to which you've linked reads like an attempt to justify a position.
 
@JackDouglas Well, it's been said before that most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. I don't see that the Biblical god is much different to the rest of 'em, to be honest.
 
@TRiG I wouldn't judge you for that. However it seems fair to credit JE with being true to the Bible he believes in and attack his God instead.
rather than attacking JE
 
@JackDouglas I disagree. As I said earlier, I hang out online with Wiccans. And they've said, more than once, that if one of their gods asked them to sacrifice their firstborn, they'd tell zir to piss off and go find better gods to worship. I don't see why we shouldn't hold JE to the same standard.
Alternatively, there's always the Huck Finn option.
> The seeing of the calamities of others tends to heighten the sense of our own enjoyments.
Bleurgh.
> When the saints in glory, therefore, shall see the doleful state of the damned, how will this heighten their sense of the blessedness of their own state. . . When they shall see how miserable others of their fellow-creatures are. . . ; when they shall see the smoke of their torment,. . . and hear their dolorous shrieks and cries, and consider that they in the mean time are in the most blissful state, and shall surely be in it to all eternity; how they will rejoice!
No. I'm not a fan of Jonathan Edwards.
 
@TRiG are you a fan of justice?
 
6:43 PM
@JackDouglas Yes. I would also argue that the concept of Hell is extremely unjust (eternal damnation is unfair, of course), but that's not my main point here.
 
I don't think JE is talking about schadenfreude
 
@JackDouglas I do.
 
@TRiG me, I think salvation is unfair :)
 
@JackDouglas I think JE is making two distinct points there. 1. The saints will rejoice to see the torments of the damned because it is right. 2. The saints will rejoice to see the torments of the damned because, by contrast, it makes their own comfort more joyous.
The second of those is schanedreude, and obviously disgusting. The first is also troubling, because it suggests that you can alter your sympathies to conform to the dictates of authority.
 
@TRiG 2) relief
 
6:47 PM
@JackDouglas Survivour's guilt?
 
@TRiG no, 'I deserved that too'
not guilt
joy
and gratitude
I can't wait
 
@JackDouglas It's a very ugly religion.
 
I can certainly see how many think that
 
I've said before, if I believed in the Calvinist deity, I hope I'd have the courage and moral fortitude to spit in his face.
 
and I haven't embraced it because of it's beauty
@TRiG he might not let you ;)
 
6:50 PM
@JackDouglas Nah. He doesn't have a great respect for the principle of informed consent, does he, this god of yours? He's a bully, just like Lewis was to his creation.
 
he has free will
and he does not belong to me
 
Did you read the essay I linked to above which contrasted Jonathan Edwards and Huckleberry Finn?
 
@TRiG worried about pdf viruses
got an html link?
I don't claim to know him any better than you do, all I care about is this: did he raise Jesus? If not it is all just a load of hogwash and probably repulsive. If he did than I want to know everything there is to know about him.
 
@TRiG what about Arminius?
 
@swasheck Don't know enough about him.
 
6:57 PM
@TRiG emphasized the importance of human freewill in response to the gracious overtures of God
 
@swasheck An improvement, anyway.
 
@TRiG I've skimmed it. In short: we all have a 'common morality' instinct and we are safer/better to stick to that than go along with any particular ideology.
 
@JackDouglas Not quite.
 
I dispute the central premise
 
Rather, we should let our sympathies inform our principles.
 
7:00 PM
@TRiG could you please define how you're using "sympathies" for us?
 
@TRiG what sympathies have humankind across the ages and cultures in common?
every age and culture think what it is doing right now is morally right
eg I predict that one day in the far distant future, people will look back with shock that people in the 21st century sent their children to school
(disclaimer: I don't!)
 
@JackDouglas And that vegetarianism is still a minority position; and that we did nothing about climate change.
> On the highest possible estimate of the role one’s sympathies should have, one can still allow for principles as embodiments of one’s best feelings, one’s broadest and keenest sympathies. On that view, principles can help one across intervals when one’s feelings are at less than their best, i.e. through periods of misanthropy or meanness or self-centredness or depression or anger.
 
@TRiG I was a vegetarian until I became a Christian but I doubt saying that will make you like me more...
I think I will be again in the next life
 
@JackDouglas I keep trying to be a vegatarian and failing.
I do better when I cook for myself, but I eat out far too often. And the meat dishes are too tempting.
From that essay, which I really would strongly recommend you read in full, because its main point is more subtle than your skim suggested to you, I'd pluck out this as the central point: One can live by principles and yet have ultimate control over their content. And one way such control can be exercised is by checking of one’s principles in the light of one’s sympathies.
 
@TRiG my wife and I were in a Thai restaurant, her heavily pregnant, and the proprietor brought out this fabulous-looking beef dish and joyfully declared it was 'on the house'. Not sure what the moral of the story is but I glad to this day we didn't turn it down.
 
7:06 PM
@JackDouglas i love thai. no moral to that story, either.
 
@TRiG The human heart is deceitful above all things
 
We have immediate (specific to the situation) sympathies. Unreasoned. Automatic. Lead by emotion. We have (theoretically) more generalisable principles. Hewing automatically to one or the other is dangerous. When they disagree, stop and think.
 
I watch people, including myself, bend their conscience to fit their desires routinely
 
(Of course, in actual practise, most moral principles are shown to be post hoc rationalizations. But this is philosophy, not psychology.)
@JackDouglas And if Himmler had done that, the world would be a better place.
 
@TRiG ?
I'm sure he did
 
7:09 PM
@JackDouglas Read the essay ....
 
I'm sure he thought he was doing what is 'right'
 
> It can happen that a certain moral principle becomes untenable—meaning literally that one cannot hold it any longer—because it conflicts intolerably with the pity or revulsion or whatever that one feels when one sees what the principle leads to. One’s experience may play a large part here: experiences evoke feelings, and feelings force one to modify principles.
 
@TRiG ok, if you read 1 Corinthians 15 (again?)
 
> I accept every single item in my morality—that is inevitable—but I am sure that my morality could be improved, which is to say that it could undergo changes which I should be glad of once I had made them. So I must try to keep my morality open to revision, exposing it to whatever valid pressures there are—including pressures from my sympathies.
 
five hundred eyewitnesses! No wonder few disputed the resurrection at the time.
@TRiG I I I I I I
'I' is the problem, not the solution
 
7:16 PM
> Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.
Aye.
vs 35-41. Huh? What the flip is that supposed to mean?
 
@TRiG can you express your question in a more definite manner?
 
I must admit I can't see much logical progression of thought in that passage. It has the form of a logical argument, but it's actually quite disjointed.
@swasheck No. I read it, and my eyes glaze over. I have no idea what he's talking about.
 
@TRiG rhetorically, he's addressing a(n) (imaginary?) questioner. someone who is expressing disbelief as founded upon the belief that this life (and specifically this body) is all that exists.
 
@JackDouglas I has to be the starting point. We can't control anyone else's morality. (We can, perhaps, seek to persuade, but we have to get our own house in order first.)
@swasheck And his answer is ...?
 
@TRiG vv. 38-41 is the introduction to the answer. 42-49 is his answer.
 
7:26 PM
@swasheck vs42-49 makes sense. It's assertion without evidence, inserted without basis into the middle of what's supposed to be a logical argument, but it does make sense. I still don't get any meaning out of the previous paragraph.
 
@TRiG i think that your claim is based on your views on the previous paragraph. from an ANE argumentation perspective, he finding common ground with his objector and establishing a context for his answer.
 
done. my head hurts
not the content, but reading after programming all day is hard
I sympathise with much of the essay, but he does not consider the truth claims made by the protagonists. I believe Himmler was wrong and JE was right, but what matters is not what we believe but what is actually true
And if the God of the Bible exists, then he needs to be the starting point, not I
@TRiG a friend of mine reacted with astonishment recently when I told him I think much of the NT is actual eye-witness accounts (ie 'evidence', not leap-in-the-dark 'faith')
Claiming 500 witnesses (mostly still alive) in a public letter would be foolish indeed unless it were true
so much so that many resort to 'mass-hysteria' arguments
 
@JackDouglas I've seen bigger lies than that made today, daly, by the US religious right. And they get away with it.
 
@TRiG show me
 
@JackDouglas I keep meaning to write up all the links I've got into a collection.
 
7:39 PM
like 'man didn't really land on the moon'?
yes, people believe it. no, it doesn't stand up to much scrutiny
 
@TRiG that's conflating the adherents with the belief
 
in The Upper Room, Nov 2 '12 at 13:08, by TRiG
People tell lies. That happens.
in The Upper Room, Jul 12 '12 at 9:48, by TRiG
Oh, look, more lying bigots. Christians sure do lie a lot, don't they?
 
indeed they do
I approached the gospels from the assumption they were fictional
and was persuaded but what I perceive as the integrity of the authors
much to my surprise
integrity is a rare jewel indeed
"Let God be true though every one were a liar"
 
@JackDouglas ... tangent ... one of the most appealing things to me about Christianity was, and remains to be, its profound leveling effect. your line of thought is so different than i would have taken, but has been quite encouraging to me
 
@TRiG those are both the same link and address the same subjective issue
@swasheck thank you!
 
7:48 PM
@JackDouglas thank you
 
@JackDouglas They're not the same link.
And the first one is a link too.
Anyway. Here's more.
in The Upper Room, May 22 '12 at 18:55, by TRiG
Why conservatives do not verbally abuse those who verbally abuse us: "When he was reviled, he did not revile in return."
Follow link at top for context and my comments.
 
@TRiG you're right, I'm sorry
 
Ditto. Follow link to chat transcript for my (brief) comments and a further link.
 
what is NOM?
but is any of this easily refutable with actual evidence?
 
in The Upper Room, Jun 7 '12 at 18:11, by TRiG
So, is the entire RC hierarchy a bunch of no-good lying scumbags, or just most of them?
Context and link in chat transcript.
 
7:52 PM
you think people tell lies. I think people tell lies. the best lies are hard to disprove—Paul is a very poor liar if he is a liar
it seems to me you are attacking a straw man
 
in The Upper Room, May 14 '12 at 22:11, by TRiG
Another data-point for the question I never quite dare to ask on why Christians tell so many bare-faced lies.
in The Upper Room, Mar 3 '12 at 6:59, by El'endia Starman
@TRiG And non-Christians don't lie?
 
@TRiG > I feel pretty confident that if Uganda was making a moral decision about rounding up Christians to throw them in jail for the rest of their lives, Dykes would be singing a very different tune.
non sequitur
 
@swasheck Howso?
in The Upper Room, Sep 30 '11 at 19:21, by TRiG
So is Bryan Fischer, like Jerry Falwell, a "Chaucerian fraud"? Or does he actually believe that the Nazi party favoured gay people and that the US First Ammendment specifically protects Christianity?
in The Upper Room, Sep 16 '11 at 23:53, by TRiG
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,,2177870,00.html
More context and discussion in chat transcript.
 
@TRiG enough?
I've skimmed some of your links. They seem to be all 'viewpoint' pieces with an agenda—hardly dispassionate searching for the truth behind the lies.
And none are relevent to my original question
So please stop posting them in here
This room is not suddenly your personal spam collection
 
Christianity (religion, in general) and homosexuality are two completely different concepts. let me pause here and say that "killing all the gays" is equally appalling to me as it is to those who oppose(d) Dykes. having said that, sexual orientation is not the same concept as religious/ethical/moral framework
 
7:59 PM
@swasheck But similar enough that a meaningful comparison can be made. Apples and oranges, not apples and chipmunks.
 
12:00 - 20:0020:00 - 00:00

« first day (455 days earlier)      last day (4186 days later) »