Do believers really believe?

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Why, because we don't focus and we enjoy being told what we want to hear.

I think it's bigger than that. I think we maintain the discourse out of fear.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

you embrace an incomplete definition because it lets you be sloppy. Go ahead but you continue to have needless debates and disagreements because you will talk past another and nothing will be accomplished.

Your assumption that something must be accomplished only underlies the boxed-in nature of the fortress in which you have placed yourself. This isn't a court of law, no one will walk away with judgement for or against -- as winner or loser! My sloppiness as you call it is freedom, or a good example of the exercise of agency you so often site in contest with others. Your demands for precision is a form of denial. You are unwilling to step beyond the gate and engage the world -- you expect the world to find a way into your carefully crafted confines.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

I see that. But why do Persons B get to set the rules? Why does all discussion need to be confined to a realm acceptable to Persons B? This is the religion forum and I would think that any discussion of gaining "knowledge" would not exclude a religious component.

Sure the semantics are different. But is it any less relevant?

Exactly.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

I see that. But why do Persons B get to set the rules? Why does all discussion need to be confined to a realm acceptable to Persons B? This is the religion forum and I would think that any discussion of gaining "knowledge" would not exclude a religious component.

Sure the semantics are different. But is it any less relevant?

Person A came along when the rules were already set.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I doubt that anyone was suggesting that A need remain silent to begin with. I think it was suggested that A need not continue to defend himself if he's comfortable with his faith, unless he just enjoys the argument.

If A remains silent there is no argument and perhaps that signifies to B that he has rightful claim to authority. Authority that he did not earn, but merely assumed, uncontested.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Person A came along when the rules were already set.

Where and by whom were said rules set?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Person A came along when the rules were already set.

This is an incredibly ironic statement. Wowzers, do you realize you have assumed the role of Tex in this discussion?

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I doubt that anyone was suggesting that A need remain silent to begin with. I think it was suggested that A need not continue to defend himself if he's comfortable with his faith, unless he just enjoys the argument.

Well I guess if we applied that rule to every thread, this place would pass by the wayside.

I think it odd that an attempt is being made to put limits on what can be considered when talking about what constitutes knowledge in the religion forum, as if for something to be considered it must fit in this neat little box (and those proposing the box are non-believers).

But I suppose in the end you are right, it is wasted time and effort. It's become kind of like discussing politics.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by tooblue

This is an incredibly ironic statement. Wowzers, do you realize you have assumed the role of Tex in this discussion?

Are you admitting he's kicking your butt?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Where and by whom were said rules set?

If you had studied epistemology, you would not ask that question.