Author Topic: Question for Christians  (Read 17947 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Christians
« Reply #280 on: October 02, 2012, 12:49:05 PM »
It's very easy (and actually makes grammatical sense in English) to just capitalize it. When it is not capitalized, I hear that as a belittling tone. I hear it as the speaker/poster saying, "Oh yes, I'll play by your terms, but no no no, I won't be capitalizing them. I'm above that (because I'm above you and your silly beliefs)."

You "hearing" things in my posts is a you problem, not a me problem.
That is true, which is why I was careful to use "I feel" statements and not finger-pointing statements.

When it comes to being respectful in a discussion, you should be aware of subtleties that might offend people. That's part of being a good person.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3770
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Question for Christians
« Reply #281 on: October 02, 2012, 03:58:21 PM »
I do try to be aware of doing or saying things that offend people.  But I also have make a judgement call on what I am saying/doing is legitimately and reasonably offensive to a person, or if it is just a person being over-sensitive or unreasonable.
I have personally judged this instance to be in the latter camp, and am quite surprised that it is even an issue for you...or anyone for that matter.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2012, 05:21:37 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26656
Re: Question for Christians
« Reply #282 on: October 02, 2012, 05:41:54 PM »
Regarding the "the proper noun spelling refers to the Christian god" argument, one should consider that "god" was "stolen" anyway from pagans who described their god with that word.
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline wolfandwolfandwolf

  • Gym Rat
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Gender: Male
  • Really Scrappy Player
Re: Question for Christians
« Reply #283 on: October 02, 2012, 05:55:25 PM »
I'm a Christian
You sir are the weirdest Christian ever.
Not really.  If you think that, then you probably have a fairly narrow and specific group of Christian reading material.
Seriously.  There are lots of people who think a lot of different things about the Bible and about Jesus/the Christian God.  In fact, I don't think anyone who's active in P/R that claims Christ has similar views to the next Christian.  It's actually really interesting - and while I'd disagree with a lot of folks who claim Jesus on this message board, it's definitely opened my eyes and caused me to see things differently in a lot of ways.  Very refreshing, coming from a guy living in the Bible-Belt.

Even though all of you are still effing wrong.  ;)

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4646
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Christians
« Reply #284 on: October 02, 2012, 05:57:11 PM »
I actually understand where H is coming from on this one.  If you're referencing a deity and calling it a god, that's one thing, but if you're specifically talking about the Christian deity known as God, that's more of a proper noun.  I think it makes simple grammatical sense to capitalize it, at least in the English language.  I don't really think it's anything to get worked up about, but I do capitalize it myself, just as I capitalize Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Osiris, and Vishnu.  They're names.  *shrug*

For clarification, I don't think it needs to be capitalized in cases like this:

Regarding the "the proper noun spelling refers to the Christian god" argument, one should consider that "god" was "stolen" anyway from pagans who described their god with that word.

There God is being referred to by description, not by name.
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Back for the Attack
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 41803
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: Question for Christians
« Reply #285 on: October 02, 2012, 06:25:49 PM »
I understand where both sides are coming from, but I don't think God cares either way.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8538
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: Question for Christians
« Reply #286 on: October 02, 2012, 06:37:53 PM »
I understand where both sides are coming from, but I don't think God cares either way.

Same here.  And I don't think anyone has the right to demand that others capitalize the word God.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3770
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Question for Christians
« Reply #287 on: October 02, 2012, 06:50:56 PM »
I am willing to compromise.



goD.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline yorost

  • Inactive
  • Posts: 7862
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Christians
« Reply #288 on: October 02, 2012, 06:53:15 PM »
goD that's stupid looking.

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Question for Christians
« Reply #289 on: October 02, 2012, 09:08:57 PM »
goD that's stupid looking.

H just shit his pants from offendedness.

Offline soundgarden

  • Posts: 912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Christians
« Reply #290 on: October 04, 2012, 11:18:43 AM »
JammminDude,

You claim science is mistaken to disregard the flood idea.  I think you are forgetting that immediately prior to the scientific revolution ALL scientists were men of god trying to discover "gods work."  It was believed, alongside theology, that the fields of science (and a lesser extent mathematics) were noble works under god. This remained mostly true throughout the actual scientific revolution and into the Enlightenment.

EVERYTHING in the bible went through the scientific inquiry because every scientist was looking for god's hand in nature; the spiritual connection, the "magica naturalis"  (spelling?)

Scientific knowledge today truly stands on the shoulders of religious Christians (and Muslims, i might add).

I am interested in a response to this from the religious folks of the board.  If anyone is at fault for "ignoring" biblical evidence then it is the religious folks themselves...

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8976
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: Question for Christians
« Reply #291 on: October 04, 2012, 11:24:08 AM »
I am not sure what point you are trying to get at, in order to respond

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8538
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: Question for Christians
« Reply #292 on: October 04, 2012, 11:38:05 AM »
Okay, I'll bite.

First off, I think that when it comes to Christianity, JD is often just flat out wrong.  That being said, digging back through the thread, I couldn't figure out exactly what you were responding to in your quoted post.  I kinda lost the thread of the argument he was making, other than his incorrect statement about original sin.  BUT, as far as your point standing on its own, I think it is largely true.  However, the various biblical texts continue to be vetted from a scientific perspective, and well as other perspectives.  And the pendulum has no swung far to the opposite direction from the time you mentioned in your post where "science" was shaped only through the lens of what the Bible (or, more accurately, the Catholic Church) said was so.  In other words, pre-scientific revolution, as we know, if a scientific discovery appeared to conflict with the Catholic Church's position on something, it was generally rejected out of hand without any further testing.

Nowadays, on the other hand, if discoveries conflict with the paradigms, assumptions, and discoveries the modern scientific community holds as true, they are often summarily rejected without any serious consideration, which is just as wrong.  And as I mentioned, scientific vetting of things on the Biblical texts continues today, even though attempting to, for example, test whether the earth is younger than popularly held, or whether a global flood could have occurred, etc., are simply rejected out of hand regardless of what the evidence shows.

If I understood your point, those are my initial thoughts.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline soundgarden

  • Posts: 912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for Christians
« Reply #293 on: October 04, 2012, 02:49:27 PM »
Okay, I'll bite.

First off, I think that when it comes to Christianity, JD is often just flat out wrong.  That being said, digging back through the thread, I couldn't figure out exactly what you were responding to in your quoted post.  I kinda lost the thread of the argument he was making, other than his incorrect statement about original sin.  BUT, as far as your point standing on its own, I think it is largely true.  However, the various biblical texts continue to be vetted from a scientific perspective, and well as other perspectives.  And the pendulum has no swung far to the opposite direction from the time you mentioned in your post where "science" was shaped only through the lens of what the Bible (or, more accurately, the Catholic Church) said was so.  In other words, pre-scientific revolution, as we know, if a scientific discovery appeared to conflict with the Catholic Church's position on something, it was generally rejected out of hand without any further testing.

Nowadays, on the other hand, if discoveries conflict with the paradigms, assumptions, and discoveries the modern scientific community holds as true, they are often summarily rejected without any serious consideration, which is just as wrong.  And as I mentioned, scientific vetting of things on the Biblical texts continues today, even though attempting to, for example, test whether the earth is younger than popularly held, or whether a global flood could have occurred, etc., are simply rejected out of hand regardless of what the evidence shows.

If I understood your point, those are my initial thoughts.

The bible (and all religious scripture) has proved itself time and time again not to be a reliable source of evidence (aside from reference dates and cultural insight).  Its why the paradigm you mention shifted away from the Bible over the centuries.  If it was, it would have, naturally, not lost its place because the original objective was to discover god in the world through the bible and nature. 

The only evidence today pushed by the right are faulty logic such as watchmaker or god of the gaps; they are just philosophical notions without any hard evidence; notions based on observations only similar to Aristotle observing that things fall down to the ground, therefore the center of the universe is below us somewhere....