It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by ButterCookie
I wonder which religion are you reffering to cuz most of the ones I know are big on helping people materially, physically and most of all spiritually.
Is it all, majority or just a few?
thx,
edmc2
So we can go on until hell freezes over, and we will not agree, except to disagree. So there, that's the end of that, to continue on serves no purpose.
Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by hawaii50th
So we can go on until hell freezes over, and we will not agree, except to disagree. So there, that's the end of that, to continue on serves no purpose.
If your only purpose in engaging non-Christians in debate is to convert them to your belief, then I would agree that continuing would not serve your aim. However, if the intent is to share you perspective and invite understanding, then perhaps some progress is evident.
I think the key lies in delivery of the message. Religions and those preaching their message are themselves undermining its sustainability by presenting their belief as an exclusive absolutist perspective which devalues and discounts the realizations and perceptions of all those unaligned to their particular way of thinking.
In a time where a huge variety of information pertaining to spiritual matters is readily available to everyone who has access to the internet or a good bookstore, seekers are free to study and compare from this vast storehouse of knowledge and assess for themselves what path most resonates with their state of mind. Those shouting the loudest that they posses the Truth may be ignored in favour of the humble voices offering love and deeper understanding of our mortal existence in this universe.
Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by hawaii50th
You wrote:
["In pain simple language, you don't agree with all that I have to say, you don't believe in what the bible has to say,"]
Correct on both points.
Quote: ["you don't believe in common sense"]
Far more than I believe in you or the bible (as above). But then 'common sense' is not a very precise concept, and can actually be anything from something as subjective as a 'faith' to co-sensus in a group. I strongly believe in the principle of objectivity though, but not as an absolute in any sense.
Quote: [" And I don't believe that science has all the answers,....."]
Neither do I.
Quote: ["......I don't believe that logic can be applied to everything thing,...."]
Neither do I.
Quote: [".....I don't believe that physics can answer all the equations and figure everything out."]
Neither do I.
These three 'neithers' in my comments relate to your use of the words 'all' and 'everything' in the quotes above.
Quote: ["You believe that man has the answers or can get the answers on his own,...."]
I'm agnostic on this, but with a lot of patience and optimism.
Quote: ["Man may be able to get some of the answers, but not the most important ones of all."]
How can you possibly know that?
Quote: ["So we can go on until hell freezes over,..."]
That could be fun.
Quote: ["and we will not agree, except to disagree...."]
So now you are 'agreeing' for both of us, and not only for yourself. I'm far from finished.
Quote: ["So there, that's the end of that, to continue on serves no purpose."]
Maybe it serves no purpose for you. I'm sure, it does for me. In any case you've been saying this quite a few times; and you have even advised edmc^2 follow this advice, which you don't follow yourself.
Soon I'll write a post explaining my world-view, alternative to the one you have presented. Sofar you've been to busy propagating your own to be interested in what other models could be like.
edit on 27-3-2011 by hawaii50th because: (no reason given)
In the name of Jesus Christ, begone Satan.
Originally posted by hawaii50th
reply to post by bogomil
post removed by staff.