Protestantism

» redback - footnote

In response to footnote posted by redback:

Pink...in an ealier exchange with Brian, you state:

"So, I think it is important for us to dissect such ideas so that no person that isn't well enough equipped intellectually ever gets sucked in."

This may be "a subjunctive - a statement contrary to fact, a wish, a mandative statement" of yours, right?

In any event, one such idea you referred to was the claim the Bible is the Revealed Word of God (RWoG).

My ponderings:

What satisfactory evidence of RWoG could ever exist or be available to me. Having faith in RWoG as a fact doesn't make it a fact. If it's a fact, it simply means one's faith is justified, doesn't it? I reckon the shops'll be there when I go up later so I have faith in getting my groceries. Without that faith, I'd stay home...after all, it's raining.

And what particular 'fact' is referred to? Every verse in every version of the Bible? That RWOG is only confined to an (ancient) Bible? That RWOG must be interpreted in only one way for all people currently on Earth? That Earth was created (some evidence of it exists) ...or man will go to Hell or 'redemption' unless he does X?
---------------------
For me, we can explore all the variations of these statements and end up in a flaky discussion on 'faith' per se or silly circular semantics. OR we examine the reasonings behind the claims and come to our own conclusions. In that sense, 'faith' is the end result - the conclusion.

And faith is a negative as well as positive concept eg full disbelief in RWoG.

And we can play silly buggers over 'facts' generally. Like my shopping above or the claim there really is a United States of America...with Brian on his laptop etc.

But for this topic, I came for the information on the sola scriptura and related doctrines.

-- posted by redback

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» redback - silly semantic footnotes

In response to footnote posted by pink101:

I stated there were 3 regulars here. I'm well aware of the possibility of thousands 'there' because that's what the revealed word of suite101 claimed. Possibly falsely.

When will your "new" media be old? False advertising?

Brian:

I can attest, from the Suite page view info I have access to, that many (not all) of these discussion threads are read by a lot of people - a couple hundred hits or more (unique) each month in some cases.

Maybe 'here' means 'over there' for you...and whatever the quality of a hit for you, who cares as long as you're hit?

-- posted by redback

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Buttered On Both Sides

In response to silly semantic footnotes posted by redback:
.
You seem to do a good job of keeping your bread buttered on both sides.
.
It's almost admirable.
.
I've never been able to do that.
.

.
Brian seems to be a regular even though he spreads his butter too thin and on more than two sides. heh heh heh (Is he an over achiever?)
.
He does have responsibilities to Suite101 to monitor every thread at his site in case anyone didn't know that.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» redback - BATTERED On Both Sides

In response to Buttered On Both Sides posted by pink101:

Who knows what your "butter" comment meant...but it never actually happens in my place or my mind.

"He does have responsibilities to Suite101 to monitor every thread at his site in case anyone didn't know that."

I'm sure you had a mysterious purpose for including that comment. ABC

-- posted by redback

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Buttered On Both Sides

In response to BATTERED On Both Sides posted by redback:
.
You seem to have ulterior motives. Want to talk about that?
.

.
I wrote, "[Brian] does have responsibilities to Suite101 to monitor every thread at his site in case anyone didn't know that."
.
And, you responded with, I'm sure you had a mysterious purpose for including that comment.
.
I only meant that he was a "regular" as you say and that it makes four of us.
.
You can make of it whatever you like.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» redback - Buttered On Both Sides

In response to Buttered On Both Sides posted by pink101:

You have added "make believe" to your eclectic mix...and I played along. So, you missed my ABC and smilie?

"You seem to have ulterior motives. Want to talk about that?"

Dear Pinky! ABC You now want to isolate one word 'regular' for dissection from my original post? You now agree with me...despite your conflicting earlier post...there are very few who are regulars here? You now understand my posts sufficient to believe them of ulterior purpose?

And you don't wonder why I'm confused with you?

I'm currently making believe you're really Brian...and I understand you better! TIC ABC

For the record, here's the full quote you and Brian so "carefully" dissected out of context. I appreciate '3' and 'regular' are far easier concepts to tackle but to do so really stuffs up what I was saying. "You do see that?" to coin a phrase?

"In reality, there's only 3 regulars here now..all trying to discuss things with each other. None of us exhorting the values of Protestantism...in any real way...except for any residual value in questioning."

If Brian believes he fits the described group...tis confusing but it's up to him. If Brian thinks he's in regular discussion with me...it's up to him. But for me, while he is here frequently and I read all his posts and articles...tis not the same thing IMO.

Yours in conspiracies. TIC

-- posted by redback

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - A Cookoo Nest

In response to Buttered On Both Sides posted by redback:
.
Somehow this place reminds me of a cookoo nest.
.

.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Degrees of Regularity

In response to Buttered On Both Sides posted by redback:

I suppose there are DEGREES of regularity. Some are more regular than others.

Wow. I realize I'm opening myself up for some humor and wisecracks on that one. Unintended double meanings.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Degrees of Regularity

In response to Degrees of Regularity posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Don't feel bad.
.
Did you ever hear the Woody Woodpecker Song?
.
http://woodpeckersfromspace.ytmnd.com/
.
I have learned to laugh at myself.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» redback - Degrees of Regularity

In response to Degrees of Regularity posted by BrianTubbs:

OK...slowly now...let's now totally re-focus...on...'regularity'. A 5-syllable word over here but how many syllables would your President use and would he use the term in context?

Crikey...I was hoping you guys would either want to dissect the word 'dissect' or try to respond to some of the substantive issues. But I have no faith you would want to do either.

Pink: A brilliant movie - 'One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest'. Some people laughed through it while I thought it predominantly sad. highly recommended if you haven't seen it. But tis a pity we mainly discuss the how of our dialogue, rather than the topic itself.

It is not beyond my ken that thousands of people "here" within this topic, may be hanging on my every word for the immeasurable joy it may bring them. Please note no further discussion will be entered into by me on what has now become a Yank-wank.

RIP topic.

ABC

-- posted by redback

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds