Originally posted by Miyuki miingguii:The one that all Christians are currently seeing.
Which is also the one you are seeing, right?
Originally posted by Miyuki miingguii:Exposingchristianity.com
.
.
Originally posted by Miyuki miingguii:http://www.stupidlaws.com/its-illegal-to-carry-a-bible-or-to-talk-to-anyone-about-jesus-christ/
I expected something more credible. Please provide a government article or refer to actual law article. Else you are spreading falsehood.
Originally posted by Miyuki miingguii:Anyone knows a lawyer? We've gotta sue this guy for threatening the religious harmony n peace in singapore. He is portraying a bad image of Christianity and influencing people to b hostile towards Christians.
Originally posted by Miyuki miingguii:Anyone knows a lawyer? We've gotta sue this guy for threatening the religious harmony n peace in singapore. He is portraying a bad image of Christianity and influencing people to b hostile towards Christians.
Yes, let's sue the guy who posted exposingchristianity.com !
Originally posted by zulkifli mahmood:
Miyuki, its about choices here....we don't have to learn Christianity if we find it doesn't meet your desire....let it be....this is just a forum and we just listen what there is for more knowledge......
if it is just to listen, it should only be sharing... but if u look through the threads, it more of fingers pointing at who is right who is wrong... who wins hands down and who needs to prove something. Those are just for winning and arguments sake... not even healthy for discussion.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
if it is just to listen, it should only be sharing... but if u look through the threads, it more of fingers pointing at who is right who is wrong... who wins hands down and who needs to prove something. Those are just for winning and arguments sake... not even healthy for discussion.
I think you may be confused between discussions and debates. In discussions you mostly share opinions and talk about and around the topic, list pros and cons and research data and bounce off ideas etc. In debates you attempt to persuade the listeners using the tools of rhetoric i.e. you want to have the better argument but to do that you also need to back up claims with evidence or challenge the claims of the opponent.
It is in the nature of arguments that claims be supported and conclusions be sound. If you want your argument to be sound and not just valid then you also have to show that the premises are true or well supported by the evidence. It is unheard of that both sides can make claims and arguments but no one calls the other to back up the claims. Maybe you personally just do not like debating but prefer only discussion? I agree with you though that sometimes we can get carried away and end up being argumentative instead of making arguments. That's where the Mods should play their part to steer things back on track. Sad to say there are some who prefer to blow up the tracks and sometimes the trains as well.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:I think you may be confused between discussions and debates. In discussions you mostly share opinions and talk about and around the topic, list pros and cons and research data and bounce off ideas etc. In debates you attempt to persuade the listeners using the tools of rhetoric i.e. you want to have the better argument but to do that you also need to back up claims with evidence or challenge the claims of the opponent.
It is in the nature of arguments that claims be supported and conclusions be sound. If you want your argument to be sound and not just valid then you also have to show that the premises are true or well supported by the evidence. It is unheard of that both sides can make claims and arguments but no one calls the other to back up the claims. Maybe you personally just do not like debating but prefer only discussion? I agree with you though that sometimes we can get carried away and end up being argumentative instead of making arguments. That's where the Mods should play their part to steer things back on track. Sad to say there are some who prefer to blow up the tracks and sometimes the trains as well.
He spoke about listening... where in no way has i seen that evidently displayed here... you probably have a different understanding of listening... or probably selectively.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:I think you may be confused between discussions and debates. In discussions you mostly share opinions and talk about and around the topic, list pros and cons and research data and bounce off ideas etc. In debates you attempt to persuade the listeners using the tools of rhetoric i.e. you want to have the better argument but to do that you also need to back up claims with evidence or challenge the claims of the opponent.
It is in the nature of arguments that claims be supported and conclusions be sound. If you want your argument to be sound and not just valid then you also have to show that the premises are true or well supported by the evidence. It is unheard of that both sides can make claims and arguments but no one calls the other to back up the claims. Maybe you personally just do not like debating but prefer only discussion? I agree with you though that sometimes we can get carried away and end up being argumentative instead of making arguments. That's where the Mods should play their part to steer things back on track. Sad to say there are some who prefer to blow up the tracks and sometimes the trains as well.
oh yea im not confused about discussion and debates... but i tink we have different takes on it. Good debaters do not argue for the sake of arguing.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:He spoke about listening... where in no way has i seen that evidently displayed here... you probably have a different understanding of listening... or probably selectively.
I believe he meant that if you just want to listen for information then you just read and leave it. In a forum there will be participants and bystanders and lurkers. You decide what you role you want to be. As far as I am concerned I have interacted with my opponent's opinions, claims and arguments which would require at the very least that I have listened to them. But maybe you have a different understanding of listening, that it means accepting and agreeing. BTW, we all select and filter what we listen and read, it's human nature. Welcome to the world of worldviews!
Originally posted by BroInChrist:I believe he meant that if you just want to listen for information then you just read and leave it. In a forum there will be participants and bystanders and lurkers. You decide what you role you want to be. As far as I am concerned I have interacted with my opponent's opinions, claims and arguments which would require at the very least that I have listened to them. But maybe you have a different understanding of listening, that it means accepting and agreeing. BTW, we all select and filter what we listen and read, it's human nature. Welcome to the world of worldviews!
nope agree-ing is another issue... i believe u tag agreeing with accepting... but no for me it is 2 different entities... i can accept you have such a belief but i do not agree... but it seems that your take is... because i cannot agree with your believe i cannot accept you having such a belief... there' a fundimental difference here. I term it as respect.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:oh yea im not confused about discussion and debates... but i tink we have different takes on it. Good debaters do not argue for the sake of arguing.
What do you mean by argue for the sake of arguing? To me that refers to arguments that an individual will make despite the fact they don't believe the central premises of their own arguments. They have nothing to proclaim or defend, just want to be heard and seen.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
nope agree-ing is another issue... i believe u tag agreeing with accepting... but no for me it is 2 different entities... i can accept you have such a belief but i do not agree... but it seems that your take is... because i cannot agree with your believe i cannot accept you having such a belief... there' a fundimental difference here. I term it as respect.
Then you clearly failed to assess your opponent properly. I have always maintained that you can believe anything you want, but I can always point out that your beliefs may be wrong or flawed. And if I respect you I will point out why your beliefs are wrong. Not doing so is just being apathetic. Do not confuse apathy with respect. If your friend believe that allowing herself to be touched all over by a medium is going to remove bad luck are you going to respect her belief and accept that?
Moreover there will be instances where we should not accept people for having certain beliefs. I will not accept people who believe that there is nothing wrong with kidnapping children and selling them away. If I know of such people I will report them to the authorities. Or do you want to respect them for such?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Then you clearly failed to assess your opponent properly. I have always maintained that you can believe anything you want, but I can always point out that your beliefs may be wrong or flawed. And if I respect you I will point out why your beliefs are wrong. Not doing so is just being apathetic. Do not confuse apathy with respect. If your friend believe that allowing herself to be touched all over by a medium is going to remove bad luck are you going to respect her belief and accept that?
Moreover there will be instances where we should not accept people for having certain beliefs. I will not accept people who believe that there is nothing wrong with kidnapping children and selling them away. If I know of such people I will report them to the authorities. Or do you want to respect them for such?
no leh... from my assessment of the way u deal with atheist... you basically show no form of respect for them at all just because your belief clashes with theirs wad. Im not confused at all... but i believe that whenever you disagree with something another person said, u claim that person is confused. Henceforth my call is, do not get confused over you are right and others are wrong.
basically what i see is a you are all right others are all wrong kind of thing... so when someone else came in and mention about listening... how is that gonna click in here?
Anyway... enough said... we dont see each other eye to eye anyway.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
no leh... from my assessment of the way u deal with atheist... you basically show no form of respect for them at all just because your belief clashes with theirs wad. Im not confused at all... but i believe that whenever you disagree with something another person said, u claim that person is confused. Henceforth my call is, do not get confused over you are right and others are wrong.
That's a very serious allegation you make, that I show basically NO FORM of respect for atheists. You sure it is not the other way round where atheists are showing no respect for believers and their faith? When I say someone is confused I actually explain why I said that. You have confused disagreement with confusion.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:basically what i see is a you are all right others are all wrong kind of thing... so when someone else came in and mention about listening... how is that gonna click in here?
Anyway... enough said... we dont see each other eye to eye anyway.
Wrong. I believe that atheists are wrong about there being no God, and that makes the rest of their beliefs which flow from this belief just as wrong. I have many times said I am not infallible. The only reason why you get this impression is because I dwell mainly on the subject of the Christian faith which I believe is true. And it so happens that the atheists on this forum really entertain a lot of wrong ideas about Christianity which I know enough about to refute. But talk about cars and politics and other stuff I will be wrong on many things.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:oh yea im not confused about discussion and debates... but i tink we have different takes on it. Good debaters do not argue for the sake of arguing.
dun waste time arguing with a brick wall and deluded individual. what you receive in return are brick bats and nonsense. doesnt it dawned on you he always sprouted garbage and nonsense, not to mention incoherent and illogical?
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
dun waste time arguing with a brick wall and deluded individual. what you receive in return are brick bats and nonsense. doesnt it dawned on you he always sprouted garbage and nonsense, not to mention incoherent and illogical?
The usual scoffing and mocking, but when asked to support your allegations will give a lot of excuses. Haiz.....
.
Originally posted by Miyuki miingguii:Same goes for u. Got concrete prove that god exist? U see god before ar? No? Then ur argument is invalid.
If you tell me that you have the ability to see invisible things then I will tell you that I can see God. That's a valid argument for you. *roll eyes*
Please understand the subject matter first before saying things that reflect utter ignorance which just show that you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Basic Christian doctrine is that God is Spirit, invisible, i.e. no one has seen God. However, the invisible things of God can be seen in the visible things that are made. For example, the vastness and design of the universe speaks of the infinite power and intelligence of God.
.
Originally posted by Miyuki miingguii:I see.. So Christianity is all about an invisible man in the sky, who has a list of 10 specific things he don't want you to do and he'll torture you if you don't worship him. But he loves you. He love you, and he needs money.
Wrong again. Christianity is NOT about an invisible man in the sky, and the rest is just your caricatured view of Christianity which is NOT worth responding to. Try the real deal please. Or should I say you have no idea what true Christianity is?