Questions for Jgnat (page 10)

Shining One

You are the 'joke' pole. You obviously jumped to the wrong conclusion. I was answering Alan's USE of Job, not the content of Job! He made an analogy that was out of context and does not apply to the question of apologetics. I will not be intimidated by others by their misuse of rhetoric and ridicule.
Rex

Shining One

Answer my charges, Gnat. You deny the doctinal statement of your alleged church. By denying scripture that you don't agree with, you deny the very foundation of the Christ you say you worship. You are a charlatan, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Answer the charges

Answer the charges

Answer the charges

I wonder if you will before we reach 100 posts on this thread?

Rex

jgnat

Shining One can spell.

Shining One

For Narkisos,
I was wrong on Karl Barth. I apologize for 'jumping the gun' on this one. You are correct about his theological stance.
Rex

Narkissos

Rex,

Thanks for the admission.

I re-read your post to see if I had missed any theological or epistemological justification of Christian apologetics and found none -- unless it is hidden somewhere in the paragraph which I already questioned:

Christianity can indeed be defended (and is) on rational grounds. It is not a ‘either/or’ proposition. (The issue of faith is separate to a point. Faith, like logic and reasoning ability is transcendent.)
I'm not sure what you mean here. It may be right or wrong. Let's see if you can elaborate.

Just to put things a bit clearer on my side: I think there are actually two opposite trends in Christianity.

One is admittedly irrational, or even anti-rational; at the very least paradoxical: faith is about the impossible. Only the unbelievable, in a way, is worthy of belief -- credo quia absurdum. Such a kind of faith is felt as a mystery, a grace, the action of the Holy Spirit. This, I feel, is the dominant trend in the New Testament (especially Paul and John) and in further Christian mysticism.

The other trend (already visible in the last layers of the NT, especially in Acts) is not satisfied with this view of faith. It attempts to make the Christian faith intellectually respectable. Not proven perhaps, but believable.

diamondblue1974

Terry your argument was well reasoned and thought out...I have read this thread with interest and it always staggers me how emotional people can get when they talk of their beliefs...its no bad things but sometimes emotions do spiral out of control...

Jgnat I always enjoy reading your threads and to some extent I concur with your stance (although I suppose I am an Agnostic if a label must be attached); your stance seems balanced and well thought out; you could be right...you could be wrong as could anyone but at least you dont accept blindly which anyone reasonable would agree is dangerous.

My only criticism is of the following:

‘Glasgow is the capital of Scotland’ is factual.

Its Edinburgh...just to set the record straight lol

Seriously though...great to see you on fine form Jgnat.

DB74

Shining One

Hi Diamondblue,

Here are most recent questions to Jgnat: You deny the doctinal statement of your alleged church. By denying scripture that you don't agree with, you deny the very foundation of the Christ you say you worship. It is my contention that she cannot be a Christian on one hand and deny scripture she doesn't agree with on the other. It is inconsistent and dishonest. How is that emotional? Jgnat sidesteps the questions by saying she believes the 'law of love' and in Jesus Himself but doesn't 'worship a book'. With all of these supporters of logic around you think they would be howling at the inconsistency. The fact is that they themselves are just as inconsistent. Their reasonable logic ends at the point where they would be forced to admit the possibility of being accountable to God.
Rex

defd

Rex

I am so happy to see you here. I am glad you are challenging the ones who Make big claims but cannot back them up. Ones who go around in circles in thier talk. Keep at it and expose the haughty.

jgnat

Here are my questions I am waiting for OSO/Rex to answer. We have to settle our foundation first.

A. This argument is done until we agree on definitions. Three that come to mind are "fact", "infallible", and "inerrant". Use all three in a sentence with "bible". You may use three separate sentences.

B. By the way, to be fair, what church do you belong to?

Once you answer these I will go back and cover yours. Though yours read more like accusations. I am not interested in attacking character, only ideas. By the way, I have stuck to a single idea, “The bible must not be worshipped as a god”. I have not covered my thoughts on original sin, where we go when we die, and many others. So don’t put words in my mouth. Your attack is more scattershot than sniper. Scattershot results in unintended casualties. I am so happy to see defd supporting "Shining One". With patience and many and posts, perhaps clarity will be reached, the poseur will be exposed, and the honest seeker after truth also.

defd

Rex

you will soon see that you will not get ANYWHERE with Jgnat. Just read the thread I started about for those who believe the bible to be true........ She totally back off because she backed herself in a corner and couldnt get out. All she had to do is admit that she was mistaken and wrong and things would have been cool. Proverbs 16:18 says; "Pride is before a crash, and a haughty spirit before stumbling."

Questions for Jgnat

Share this