S
Sniffles
Guest
Or when people are being pedantic to cover the void that is their mind.
Ahh...you mean act like a Philosophe.
Or when people are being pedantic to cover the void that is their mind.
It's actually the opposite my boy.The funny thing is.
If we (the believers) are wrong we lose nothing.
If however, you are wrong... you lose everything.
This is really a gross mischaracterization. Nobody interprets that verse as supporting greed... but, many christians in their pursuit of wealth simply ignore it.
Jesus was speaking on a personal level. The point of that verse is not that people must give up their possessions, but that they must give up anything they treasure more than God. For the rich young ruler that was his possessions. But, this is no new concept since the very first commandment is that "you may not have any other gods before me."
I won't deny that this is often the case. But, the source of this view is Abraham Kuyper who believed there was an organic unity between between special (the bible) and general (all other observable truth) revelation.
Kuyper once famously said: "Oh, no single piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: 'Mine!'
This was in opposition to Augustine and those that taught that there are two distinct worlds a kingdom of man and a kingdom of God. Kuyper has won out in contemporary evangelicalism and so Christians are constantly trying to find truth in the world that is in unity with the truth of their faith. It gives them a sense of wholeness when the world they live in matches up with the world they have faith in.
Out of interest what would be evangelical + more liberal?
I'm not saying that evangelicals can't be liberal I'm just curious what this means to you since both terms are very difficult to nail down.
Ahh...you mean act like a Philosophe.
My god, he uses italics. He must be smart.
Frankly, ontological arguments like Pascal's wager only work on and for idiots.
I still say this whole debate should be held in a Jello wrestling pit. I want to see some gelatin-covered combatants. Jello makes everything official.
You sure are good at repeating what your elder said. The issue is theologians only talk to theologians and people who can't wait to get their confirmation bias fed. Theology, ontology etc is at best comical.What can I say, I learned from French theologians.![]()
Indeed it is. And the denial of God's existence is perhaps the biggest delusion of all.
The funny thing is.
If we (the believers) are wrong we lose nothing.
If however, you are wrong... you lose everything.
This is rich from a cartoon bear whose only recourse is resorting to Argumentum ad lapidem.For the last time Peguy, what ever made you think that you had any talent at rational thought. You're barely able to construct a coherent argument.
and there's nothing wrong with Camus.
To quote french people, Sartre said that Hell is other people (l'enfer c'est les autres). *hums happily*
I bought this whole box of jellos at target and devoured them in the purest bear in winter fashion. I then proceeded to sort of go expire on the sofa.
and there's nothing wrong with Camus.
To quote french people, Sartre said that Hell is other people (l'enfer c'est les autres). *hums happily*
I'm actually refering to all the past situations when on the forum or especially on ventrilo you displayed a complete inability to think coherently.This is rich from a cartoon bear whose only recourse is resorting to Argumentum ad lapidem.
I'm actually refering to all the past situations when on the forum or especially on ventrilo you displayed a complete inability to think coherently.
The issue is theologians only talk to theologians and people who can't wait to get their confirmation bias fed. Theology, ontology etc is at best comical.
You know, if every interaction Sartre had was a negative one, he might have wanted to look at what the constant factor was...![]()
If there was any doubt before that you might have a less-than-open mind on the topic, you certainly dispelled it with that post. It leads me to believe that you've got your own confirmation bias to feed. Lemme guess... you only read atheists, right?
Such as?