|
Post by mollyohio on Jul 28, 2011 22:20:55 GMT -5
Real encouragement there folks. Boy I wish I could be YOU and not me. I agree- I think it's interesting that rather than try and support currito, you automatically try and undermine him/her by pointing out their recent backsliding. If you are actually concerned with currito's soul, shouldn't you be trying to realign currito with the values of the bible, rather than condemning his/her viewpoint because it a) contradicts yours b) could possibly be a symptom of aforementioned backsliding? Not a believer, just an observer, but I think that you're allowing yourself to be more concerned with agreement on your image than with the "salvation" of others...
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on May 11, 2011 12:42:53 GMT -5
Hello, I am wondering if anyone is planning to come to Ohio University this spring/early summer?
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on May 24, 2010 10:49:47 GMT -5
And in this one, nothing you said was supported by any fact or logic, just blind faith.
When I say the Bible is a 2,000 year old book I mean just that: it describes things that "happened" (either by disciples who would be considered the modern-day equivalent of cult followers, or much later passed through various translations and eventually compiled ignoring all the texts that "contradicted" the others), and NOTHING that happened in the Bible has happened in whole or in part since. The second coming hasn't happened, to which you would argue "yet", and God does not literally "talk" to people in any observable or measurable form. Unlike logic, it is not something that can be observed presently.
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on May 20, 2010 11:35:37 GMT -5
There seem to be many ways we can gain knowledge of things we have never seen. For example, my neighbor said his father had a bee farm in Kyrgystan. I can reasonably believe him even though I've never seen that country, his father, or even a bee farm. All I had to do was consider whether it was reasonable to believe him or not. Jesus said he had seen God. I also can consider whether it is reasonable to believe Jesus or not. First, how did you acquire that "information"? You HEARD the words through your neighbor. Still sensory information. Secondly, Jesus never wrote down a word, he spoke to people who spoke to people, and it was written down per THEIR interpretation. Perhaps THEIR minds were unreliable? Believing this is the equivalent of "my friend's second cousin's wife heard from a friend that..." But the basis of the math problems was acquired through the senses. How do you know what numbers are represented? Senses. Same with functions and everything else. Similarly, all of the stimulus and information used in a thought was acquired through the senses. Well, logic tells me that only belief in science provides a worldview (on top of the assumption) of striving towards certainty. Closing your eyes to all that is not supported by a 2,000 book is the opposite of certainty. So he allows unreliability, which completely contradicts your argument that the mind is reliable because God created it... Clearly whether or not God created it , it can be reliable or not. Argument solved. Again, the logic in my mind tells me that when I have consentual sex with my adult boyfriend, that's not selfish. That's a loving experience in which we hold each other as more important than ourselves. You see it as selfish of me because I'm encouraging another to sin with me. I'm a good person, and an often (not always) selfless person when it comes to nearly universal ideas of good, not silly rules from a "benevolent creator" who lets us have all these "vile affections" and then condemns us for them. I agree. We are not solely a product of our environment because we have the ability to make free choices.[/quote] But that still ends up in chemical imbalances leading to mental illnesses through no fault of the child's? Teach me the benevolent logic in that....
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on May 13, 2010 22:30:49 GMT -5
Why couldn't knowledge of God be acquired through the intellect rather than only through the senses? Is it unreasonable to accept intellectual evidence? memory, logic and thoughts are constructed from pre-gathered sensory information. Well, your entire argument is that if one assumes the mind is reliable, one must assume the existence of a reliable creator. Based on the fact that some minds are unreliable, does that mean that God is hit or miss? That he only created SOME of the minds? Or is it more likely that the reliability of a mind is based SOLELY on the surrounding elements (genetics, the way a child is raised during brain development), what you would refer to as sin, even though children in completely "sinful" environments can turn out productively, and children in what you would consider "good" environments turn out with unreliable minds.
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on May 12, 2010 17:53:35 GMT -5
My mind is reliable and the only possible belief which is logically consistent with this, is belief in God. I think it is reasonable to embrace the only belief that is logically consistent with faith in your mind. Do you disagree? I completely disagree. Firstly, because we already assumed that the mind is reliable. Because of that, I can rely on evidence, on things that I see, hear, feel, taste, smell, etc. God is not one of those things, thus my reasonable mind gives me no reason to assume he exists. Secondly, not everyone's mind is reliable. People do have mental disabilities and illnesses that prevent them from relying on their mind. Why did a God who only makes perfect and awesome things do this? Because no God designed their minds, nor my mind or yours. They came to be the way they are, reliable or not.
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on May 12, 2010 13:55:12 GMT -5
I'm bad at this whole quoting thing, so I'm going to just take issue with this "I don't think it's silly. If it is reasonable to assume the reliability of the mind, it seems equally reasonable to embrace the only belief which logically confirms this assumption. Do you disagree? "
I disagree because I don't think that belief in God "logically confirms" the assumption that the mind is reasonable.
What I mean by this is that is that all of your "evidence" that God exists you have received through your mind and senses, thus you FIRST have to assume that your mind is reliable, completely independent of God or anything else you see as "real". THEN and only then can you deduce that God, Satan, Jesus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, your cat, your toilet and whatever else exists or does not.
My argument says "everything I know (including God) is perceived through my mind, therefore I have to assume my mind is reliable"
Yours says "my mind is reliable, so that means that God created it, because I learned through things I have translated through my mind that God created everything" (extremely circular and self-justifying).
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on May 8, 2010 15:30:57 GMT -5
... no response? I'm not trying to be catty, I'm just curious.
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on May 7, 2010 22:32:53 GMT -5
AWESOME
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on May 4, 2010 16:02:03 GMT -5
Jed's not so bad once you get him one-on-one. Honestly, the only open air preacher I've had a serious issue with after talking to them one-on-one is Cope.
Cope... well let's just say he doesn't necessarily even have the support of his fellow preachers a lot of the time...
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on May 1, 2010 19:08:31 GMT -5
Things are good, I like a lot of your points on the board. In general when I say that my mind is not necessarily reliable I typically mean that I believe its possible (though improbable) that the brain in a vat theory (or a similar scenario) is possible.
If you ever get a chance to meet Brother Micah, I recommend you do. Although he does do the typical calling people out who walk by thing, if you talk to he or his wife when they are not the one preaching, they're more patient in explaining their message/ their theories behind it.
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on Apr 30, 2010 11:10:43 GMT -5
You're assuming that the only way that your mind can be trusted is if God made it, I don't believe that's true. Why not? That's a silly question. Put it this way: you would not be able to perceive or understand any of the "evidence" that has lead you to believe in the God you do; the Bible, "miracles", "intelligent design" , whatever, if your mind was not reliable. So first and foremost, you have to assume your mind is reliable before you can deduce any sort of God. Think about it this way: perhaps you are actually just a brain in a vat. Everything you "experience" is actually just an impulse orchestrated by scientists and you really don't have a body, you are not free to move about, etc. How do you "know" that its not true? because your mind, your experiences, what senses you are able to derive information from, are assumed to be reliable BEFORE you were ever introduced to religion.
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on Apr 25, 2010 19:40:49 GMT -5
I'm using the world moral here to basically describe what most societies would consider moral, acceptable behavior. I understand that its impossible to have a moral absolute if you're approaching morality from this standpoint. I generally do right as I see right by me. Now, when I ask you all if you find me moral in relation to a "Christian" rapist, you may use your viewpoint of moral or not, that's fine.
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on Apr 23, 2010 21:46:45 GMT -5
"If a loving and intelligent creator did not design your mind then how can you trust it when it tells you that you are an agnostic? Maybe it's just a glitch that you should ignore."" Secondly, "If a loving and intelligent creator did not design your mind then how can you trust it when it tells you that you are an agnostic? " Well, if a loving and intelligent creator did not design my loving and intelligent creator, how can I believe he who created me to be loving and intelligent? What I meant by that is that his argument suggests that you can't trust anything that was not created by a loving and intelligent creator, which means that I cannot trust God because he has "always existed" and was not created by a loving and intelligent creator--- basically that benjoseph's entire argument there is bogus.
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on Apr 21, 2010 16:41:19 GMT -5
The ones who made me are my mother and my father, and I honor them just fine, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on Apr 19, 2010 23:35:48 GMT -5
Asking if I smoke marijuana because I expressed your circular reasoning is insulting and irrelevant. I absolutely do not smoke marijuana, and that was completely out of place and rude.
Beyond that, if you would like to continue this discussion, I invite you to personal message me or begin a discussion on an appropriate section of the forums because we are debating in an area that is to be used for witnessing and preaching.
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on Apr 19, 2010 14:21:49 GMT -5
I thought agnostics fail to acknowledge God. Based on that, "moral agnostics" seems like an oxymoron. By suppressing gratitude toward God you hurt God, you hurt the Lord Jesus, you hurt the Holy Spirit, you hurt any of God's creatures that are aware of your disregard for God, on judgment day everyone will be hurt to hear you confess to God about your ingratitude, and you hurt yourself both in this life and after the judgment. If a loving and intelligent creator did not design your mind then how can you trust it when it tells you that you are an agnostic? Maybe it's just a glitch that you should ignore. What does it matter if you don't love Jesus? If someone died for me and I disregarded them, refusing to honor them with my whole life, but flattered myself by saying I lived a good lifestyle, how could I have any respect for myself? To answer your first idea, seeing as I do not necessarily believe in God, or see Jesus as necessarily the son of God, I do not believe I am hurting anyone. Moreover, I think that if God created me solely for me to express him gratitude and obey him at all times, that God is a bigger narcissist than myself, or the archangel Satan. Secondly, "If a loving and intelligent creator did not design your mind then how can you trust it when it tells you that you are an agnostic? " Well, if a loving and intelligent creator did not design my loving and intelligent creator, how can I believe he who created me to be loving and intelligent? No one can completely trust their own mind. Otherwise, I apologize for making this a theological discussion when it was meant to be a response to a particular circumstance.
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on Apr 19, 2010 0:15:18 GMT -5
Tuesday January 19th 2010, University of North Carolina at Greensboro: Greensboro, NCJust before he left he stated a Christian can rape a female and not lose their salvation. I suppose it's that school of thought that leads me to be confused with moral agnostics being considered less likely to be saved than less moral "Christians". Please note-- this isn't in reference to your beliefs, just in general. I do "sin" in the view of the Ten Commandments, however I do not do anything that hurts anyone else (which I know the most of you disagree with because my sin is contributing to the sin of others however, I do not see it that way). I suppose you see both myself and the rapist "Christian" as hellbound, though I do hope that you find me closer to an ideal lifestyle.
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on Apr 17, 2010 20:07:47 GMT -5
Jesse, do you plan on returning to Ohio University at all? I met you in 2007 with Brother Micah, and I was one of the more vocal hecklers at the time. By now, however, Brother Micah, Sister Elizabeth and I are more than civil, dare I say friends, despite our differing views. It would be nice to see you again.
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on Apr 14, 2010 15:10:59 GMT -5
that I respect you people. Although I think it is detrimental to your message when you call people out to gather a crowd (before they get argumentative), I'm currently watching a documentary on the Westboro Baptist Church and I'm pleased to say you are nothing like them. I am glad that you preach a message of love (even extremely conditional love) rather than that of utter hate. I am glad that you use appropriate language. I enjoy discussing things with most of you. Have a nice day
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on Apr 14, 2010 15:00:28 GMT -5
Hi everybody, I just wanted to let you know that I'm back on the message boards. I apparently lost my account through inactivity, but I just re-registered. This is mostly directed at Brother Micah and Sister Elizabeth, since I know them the best.
Will anyone be returning to Ohio University this spring?
|
|