Did Christ DIE for EVERYONE?

[MENTION=7838]SpecialEdition[/MENTION]

Moreover it's a lot about this guy and the way he approached things. I could have this discussion comfortably with somebody like Flavus Aquila, Barnabas, or maybe even Lark to an extent, and not because I agree with them more (I don't necessarily agree) but because the way they approach things is different.
 
[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]

Sometimes it is our obligation to meet people where they are at and figure out why they say what they say and what their perspective is about. Clearly the OP is very passionate about the message. I don't really know why he chooses to communicate that way. I would rather give him the opportunity to calm down a bit and let his message be heard and see if there's some rational discourse that can happen rather than automatically trying to slay him because I don't like his delivery.

In this case, it's not about the message which a lot of people just automatically disregard because they don't like the way it was delivered. To me, that's stupid. We should be looking at what this person is trying to communicate rather than attacking the person themselves.
 
SpecialEdition said:
[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]

Sometimes it is our obligation to meet people where they are at and figure out why they say what they say and what their perspective is about. Clearly the OP is very passionate about the message. I don't really know why he chooses to communicate that way. I would rather give him the opportunity to calm down a bit and let his message be heard and see if there's some rational discourse that can happen rather than automatically trying to slay him because I don't like his delivery.

In this case, it's not about the message which a lot of people just automatically disregard because they don't like the way it was delivered. To me, that's stupid. We should be looking at what this person is trying to communicate rather than attacking the person themselves.
Click to expand...

No, I disregard it because of what the message is. Experience tells me there is no rational discourse about it.

The disregarding is done with emphasis and indignation because of the way it was delivered.

If he were nicer I still wouldn't agree with him. I'd just disagree more calmly.
 
sprinkles said:
No, I disregard it because of what the message is. Experience tells me there is no rational discourse about it.

The disregarding is done with emphasis and indignation because of the way it was delivered.

If he were nicer I still wouldn't agree with him. I'd just disagree more calmly.
Click to expand...

lol OK.
 
Biblical literalism is based upon a human medium and human created language and cognition, tradition could be as flawed but I think it is susceptible to adaptation and legit revisionism than biblical literalism is.

If you consider the story in the old testament of the tower of babel and the disappearence of singular language and understandings from human history its prescient in this discussion or others like it.

Its also arguable that scriptural literalism is based upon profound doubts and needs of reassurance resulting in rescrutinising primary sources (despite the fact that those primary sources were not so primary as it turned out during the phase of higher criticism and the archeological bible hunters).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top