All about the children?

SemperFiDawg said:

Eureka!!!! I've just had an epiphany. You hit the nail on the head Bullet. We all know that unbelievers are spiritually blind as evidenced by you needing a million or so dots to understand what's patently self-evident to believers. What you reeeeeeally need is spiritual Braille for the spiritually blind. Something that acts as a physical, tactile, dot-bridge that can also speak to the blind's spirit in a way that is understandable to even the blindest of the blind. in short, what you need is a Bible.

Click to expand...

I cannot see what you are unable to show. That is not blindness. It is reality.

Being that I have a Bible, and have had Bibles my entire life, and have read those Bibles and am familiar with the contents....what is your new excuse?

When I read the Fox News article Wed. morning I saw a guy who tried to buy some advertising for $100. It didn't work so he came up with an idea to get a bunch of other people to buy the advertising for him — that worked.

Having now looked at (scanned) this thread, I didn't notice anything about the advertising, which I thought was the keystone of the story.

What did I miss?

SemperFiDawg said:

Eureka!!!! I've just had an epiphany. You hit the nail on the head Bullet. We all know that unbelievers are spiritually blind as evidenced by you needing a million or so dots to understand what's patently self-evident to believers. What you reeeeeeally need is spiritual Braille for the spiritually blind. Something that acts as a physical, tactile, dot-bridge that can also speak to the blind's spirit in a way that is understandable to even the blindest of the blind. in short, what you need is a Bible.

Click to expand...

I've got and read a Bible as well. I forgot, are you in the "You can understand if you try just right" or "You can't understand unless God lets you" camp?

Miguel Cervantes said:

Bad decision based on how bad they needed the money? or how easily they made a decision without compromising their beliefs?

I don't want to lump Atheism in with Progressive Liberalism, where they think if you don't believe like they do then something is wrong with you. You know, peace, love and freedom, as long as you do it their way.

Quite dichotomous when considering that is the anchor most Atheist hold over Christians of earlier years heads, and accuse them of. I'm sure there are a good many Christians in modern day even that still drag that timber around, but for the most part they are a dying breed.

Good thing the charity didn't own a bakery.

Click to expand...

Anyone can think whatever they want. They don't even need good reasons. If you want to get people to agree with the way you think you have to compel them with good reasons.

If acting on one's beliefs causes harm then those beliefs should be very heavily scrutinized.

Miguel Cervantes said:

Bad decision based on how bad they needed the money? or how easily they made a decision without compromising their beliefs?

I don't want to lump Atheism in with Progressive Liberalism, where they think if you don't believe like they do then something is wrong with you. You know, peace, love and freedom, as long as you do it their way.

Quite dichotomous when considering that is the anchor most Atheist hold over Christians of earlier years heads, and accuse them of. I'm sure there are a good many Christians in modern day even that still drag that timber around, but for the most part they are a dying breed.

Good thing the charity didn't own a bakery.

Click to expand...

It does not take much reading in these threads to find evidence that many believers also fit your definition of Progressive Liberalism.

ambush80 said:

Anyone can think whatever they want. They don't even need good reasons. If you want to get people to agree with the way you think you have to compel them with good reasons.

If acting on one's beliefs causes harm then those beliefs should be very heavily scrutinized.

Click to expand...

Apparently in today's Politically Correct environment, harm is a highly subjective term.

Miguel Cervantes said:

Apparently in today's Politically Correct environment, harm is a highly subjective term.

Click to expand...

That nonsense is gonna dry up and blow away like the Tea Party.

I've talked with some young men, my nephew in high school and some college students that I occasionally employ and they recognize that the attempted indoctrination in high school is losing traction among their peers.

Some very vocal and visible college professors are champions of Classical Liberalism and are pushing back hard against Marxist notions like compelled speech, safe spaces, trigger warnings, identity politics and silencing of opposing view points.

Look up Jonathan Haidt and his Heterodox Academy

http://heterodoxacademy.org/

Susanna Hoff Sommers and Janice Fiamengo, both huge critics of modern Feminism, and Jordan peterson, who gives the most thoughtful discussion of the merits of Christianity I've ever heard:



Here's him again. Look at that suit!! He looks like an injured NBA player!:



But look into his beef with Canadian Bill C-16. He's a BOSS.

ambush80 said:

I've got and read a Bible as well. I forgot, are you in the "You can understand if you try just right" or "You can't understand unless God lets you" camp?

Click to expand...

Understand and Accept are two totally separate concepts. I don't think anyone here (well, maybe One who appears to suffer from flight of ideas) has any problem understanding the Bible from a comprehension standpoint. The blindness I referred to is in regards to the acceptance aspect. I tend to lean more toward free-will as evidenced by what I have observed of unbelievers. So I guess in short, it's a self-imposed spiritual blindness. That concept doesn't appear in your analysis of choices, which either makes it lacking or a straw man. Wouldn't you agree?

SemperFiDawg said:

Understand and Accept are two totally separate concepts. I don't think anyone here (well, maybe One who appears to suffer from flight of ideas) has any problem understanding the Bible from a comprehension standpoint. The blindness I referred to is in regards to the acceptance aspect. I tend to lean more toward free-will as evidenced by what I have observed of unbelievers. So I guess in short, it's a self-imposed spiritual blindness. That concept doesn't appear in your analysis of choices, which either makes it lacking or a straw man. Wouldn't you agree?

Click to expand...

I would not agree because they are indeed two different concepts. The way that you 'understand' the Bible leads you to believe in free will. Someone else's 'understanding' leads them to believe in predestination. One could 'accept' either notion without any consideration or investigation. Does your definition of Spiritual Blindness apply to you as well? Could it not be said that you are Spiritually Blind to the notion of a different God than yours or even the notion of no God?

Upon further reflection I recognize the error in my investigation of 'understanding' the Bible. So which is it? Is it so easy a child can understand it or is it beyond our comprehension?