NationStates Jolt Archive

So saith the man that calleth himself a "graven idol?"

Ah, ad hominems. No better argument? He's not a Christian. Thus the joke. Your reply doesn't address his. At all. Your arguments evidence your desperation. I'm waiting to see an actual argument from you that addresses the one's made. Currently I've seen a shot at him and a claim that you don't like it because it's from Exodus. If Exodus doesn't apply to Catholics why do they include it in the Bible?

I also noticed that you once again dropped half a dozen arguments. But, hey, who needs arguments when you have ad hominems, right? Oh, how I long for someone who actually intends to make an argument that doesn't rely on fallacies. At least then we could have an interesting conversation. So far, there's just you.

So saith the man that calleth himself a "graven idol?"

Indeed. Hence the name.

First - I'm not a Christian, although I was raised one... and I'm not a Jew, although my ancestors were Jewish. Thus - I see no worries about using the term as a name.


Second - The Hebrew scripture makes it explicit that one should neither put another 'god' before Yahweh, nor bow the knee to any image of other (or false... which is different) gods.

To my way of thinking, Christianity IS a 'false idol'... because I don't think a triumvirate god can be reconciled with the Hebrew scripture. Thus - on one level, my name is a joke.


Third - My father was Catholic, and so I became acquainted with the ideas of saints and an intercessor Mary... and I think that adds yet another layer to the already-in-my-opinion irreconcilable multiplicity of 'gods' in Christianity.

Thus - on a second level, my name is a joke.


Fourth - the scripture forbids 'idols' and 'graven images'. But, I find it amusing to call myself 'serious' and 'lazy' (both of which can be true) in an amusing (to me) fashion, with a play on words.

Thus - on a third level, my name is a joke.


You'll note, since you commented on it, perhaps - that I name myself 'graven idol'... but I have no 'graven idols'. You might not see this as ironic.

Ha. WE make a reasoned argument and your response is the equivalent of "your momma". In fact, I would have a lot more respect if you'd have just said "your momma" and went the whole way. We don't get a reasoned argument, an admission that you've been outdebated here or even a funny comment. I mean, I know we've handed you your behind, but couldn't you at least make it funnier when you reply with the very strong response of "yeah, well, you may have a point, but just look at what you named your nation. *ahem* I don't have an actual comment on your name, funny, pertinent or otherwise, but I want people to look something other than the virtual beating I've been getting in this thread."

I have seen nowhere in the Bible the requirement that all good Christians troop into a poorly ventilated, ill-lit room with uncomfortable seats on a Sunday (or Saturday) morning and sit with people who would test the faith of even God, there to waste two hours listening to three off-key hymns and a homily delivered by an unlettered idiot. Keeping the Sabbath holy involves your individual attitude not conformity to someone elses rules.

Indeed - it is very clear... we shouldn't even MAKE images... much less kneel before them to do something as 'sactified' as prayer. And that's before you add the blasphemy of 'intercession'.
The whole idolatry thing is a bit weird. A well established aspect of religion in the modern world is that God is a very difficult thing for a person to be fully capable of perceiving. Nobody knows all of God, for to do so would be to stand as his equal. How, then, can humans be either recognising or worshipping anything other than a simplified construct of their own design, that is at best a pale immitation of whatever true God might hold physical reality?

If idolatry is truly a sin then no human will ever be clean, for even in their repentance they continue to commit it.

The whole idolatry thing is a bit weird. A well established aspect of religion in the modern world is that God is a very difficult thing for a person to be fully capable of perceiving. Nobody knows all of God, for to do so would be to stand as his equal. How, then, can humans be either recognising or worshipping anything other than a simplified construct of their own design, that is at best a pale immitation of whatever true God might hold physical reality?

If idolatry is truly a sin then no human will ever be clean, for even in their repentance they continue to commit it.

Well, the way I think about it... it is an error to assign ANY 'physical reality' to 'god'. If a concept like 'god' has any meaning, it seems unlikely it can ever be comprehended in any pure fashion, by our mundane senses and consciousness.

On the other hand, if 'god' can be perceived in any fashion, it must be because he/she/it/they chose(s) to be perceived in such fashion...

So - when one looks at the god of the Old Testament... he seems pretty explicit that there should be no images... to himself, nor any other rendition... he even gets pissed when people attempt to ascribe 'iconic' representations to his spirit self.

If one looks, then, at the Judaic model... one should be thinking of a god that cannot be perceived, except in the abstract... the patriarchs seem to perceive him only as a man, because that is all they CAN peceive him as. But, we are told over and over that he is NOT a man... so that image cannot suffice.

If, then - we must assume god only as something that cannot BE demonstrated in iconic or pictorial form... ANY effigy, image or idol must be flawed and inappropriate... but one could begin to 'repent' by envisioning 'no form'.

Well, the way I think about it... it is an error to assign ANY 'physical reality' to 'god'. If a concept like 'god' has any meaning, it seems unlikely it can ever be comprehended in any pure fashion, by our mundane senses and consciousness.

On the other hand, if 'god' can be perceived in any fashion, it must be because he/she/it/they chose(s) to be perceived in such fashion...

So - when one looks at the god of the Old Testament... he seems pretty explicit that there should be no images... to himself, nor any other rendition... he even gets pissed when people attempt to ascribe 'iconic' representations to his spirit self.

If one looks, then, at the Judaic model... one should be thinking of a god that cannot be perceived, except in the abstract... the patriarchs seem to perceive him only as a man, because that is all they CAN peceive him as. But, we are told over and over that he is NOT a man... so that image cannot suffice.

If, then - we must assume god only as something that cannot BE demonstrated in iconic or pictorial form... ANY effigy, image or idol must be flawed and inappropriate... but one could begin to 'repent' by envisioning 'no form'.
It's not even about sensory perception. The idea of 'form' is something that extends beyond the realm of the physical; it applies as much to an abstract collection of properties as it does to a real, solid construct or embodiment.

I assume you've heard about the "4-legged Duck" experiment that a lot has been made of this past week. It's a spectacular example of a fault with the ability to retain a link between a conceptual entity and an awareness of image and structure of this entity, and of the very important role the individual plays in the mapping of features to concepts.

Humans deal with conceptual entities by assigning to them various attributes and properties. For instance, the duck. Two webbed feet, flat bill, feathers, plump body, round head, wings and a little tuft for a tail. Donald Duck is a duck by virtue of satisfying enough of the necessary attributes to justify the assignment of such a concept to him. Never mind that he talks, wears a blue sailor's outfit and has a foul temper; these are additions. He fulfils the properties that we assign to the duck concept, and we therefore say that he has the form of a duck - albeit a virtual one rather than a physical one.

And this need not merely apply to image. Music has form. Smell has form. A blow to the face has form. Similarly, we know injustice when it is done. We know kindness, arrogance, fear and comradery when they cross our paths. These things, too, have a sense of form to them.

God is no exception to this. As a concept, we as humans must think of it in terms of its attributes. Yet if the properties of God cannot be understood by humans, what chance have we of ever creating a concept to match the nature of the thing? The best we can hope for is to gleam what we can about it and to let the form of the God we conceive be those features of him that we can understand. In the divination of something less than the full God, this is Idolatry in its plainest form.

(It is also no good trying to conceptualise a formless God, for its formlessness would in fact make up a part of the form we acknowledge in the concept. =S )

It's not even about sensory perception. The idea of 'form' is something that extends beyond the realm of the physical; it applies as much to an abstract collection of properties as it does to a real, solid construct or embodiment.

I assume you've heard about the "4-legged Duck" experiment that a lot has been made of this past week. It's a spectacular example of a fault with the ability to retain a link between a conceptual entity and an awareness of image and structure of this entity, and of the very important role the individual plays in the mapping of features to concepts.

Humans deal with conceptual entities by assigning to them various attributes and properties. For instance, the duck. Two webbed feet, flat bill, feathers, plump body, round head, wings and a little tuft for a tail. Donald Duck is a duck by virtue of satisfying enough of the necessary attributes to justify the assignment of such a concept to him. Never mind that he talks, wears a blue sailor's outfit and has a foul temper; these are additions. He fulfils the properties that we assign to the duck concept, and we therefore say that he has the form of a duck - albeit a virtual one rather than a physical one.

And this need not merely apply to image. Music has form. Smell has form. A blow to the face has form. Similarly, we know injustice when it is done. We know kindness, arrogance, fear and comradery when they cross our paths. These things, too, have a sense of form to them.

God is no exception to this. As a concept, we as humans must think of it in terms of its attributes. Yet if the properties of God cannot be understood by humans, what chance have we of ever creating a concept to match the nature of the thing? The best we can hope for is to gleam what we can about it and to let the form of the God we conceive be those features of him that we can understand. In the divination of something less than the full God, this is Idolatry in its plainest form.

(It is also no good trying to conceptualise a formless God, for its formlessness would in fact make up a part of the form we acknowledge in the concept. =S )

I'm calling BS on this one. One can simply not assign form and not conceptualize God as being formless or having form, since we cannot know. You assume that in the absense of knowledge we MUST create it and I'm going to have to see proof that this is true.

I'm calling BS on this one. One can simply not assign form and not conceptualize got as being formless or having form, since we cannot know. You assume that in the absense of knowledge we MUST create it and I'm going to have to see proof that this is true.
Firstly, there is no such thing as a concept without form. If there were, it being without form would be an attribute of the concept, which denies its formlessness.

With that in mind, every concept must have form. QED.

For the other part, the absence of knowledge on something is by no means a denial or acceptance of that thing. However, we do not include the knowledge we lack in the form of the concept we establish. Until I realise that "quack" is the noise a duck makes, I will quite happily acknowledge that a feathered, billed, web-footed animal that moos is also a duck.

Now, in the grand scale of things, this doesn't seem like such a big deal. I might accidentally call a duck-shaped cow a duck. This becomes a huge issue, however, when we come to deal with the registration of identity and the notions of persona. Take this successful rock-star as an example. A musical and lyrical genius might be secretly indulging a serious drug addiction. However, the people see them as an artist of incredible talent and attend their every concert, buy their album and profess to adore their very existence, unaware of the secret shame that lies beneath the surface. They do not necessarily love the star themselves, as revelations a month later in the tabloids might reveal. Rather, they love the persona that has been created from the musician that they see and hear; an altogether different entity to the manic depressive crack fiend.

Ignorance implies neither negation nor affirmation. However, it does create a discrepency between that which we personally assign to the concept and that which the concept exists to represent. The God we establish in concept, and thus that which we worship, is limited by our ignorance, and cannot be a fair reflection of God itself. To call the two one and the same is a mistake.

Firstly, there is no such thing as a concept without form. If there were, it being without form would be an attribute of the concept, which denies its formlessness.

With that in mind, every concept must have form. QED.

I'll wait for an actual argument. I don't ascribe to the it must have form because I say all things must have form circular argumentation.

What form does I don't know have?


For the other part, the absence of knowledge on something is by no means a denial or acceptance of that thing. However, we do not include the knowledge we lack in the form of the concept we establish. Until I realise that "quack" is the noise a duck makes, I will quite happily acknowledge that a feathered, billed, web-footed animal that moos is also a duck.

Again, circular. What if I choose not to fill in the blanks. I don't know what God looks like for example so I choose not to picture him having any look or lack of look. I just don't formulate a guess or opinion on a subject I have no knowledge of. We aren't all pompous enough to declare things to be true because we want them to be. Nope. I this discussion there's just you, on that one.


Now, in the grand scale of things, this doesn't seem like such a big deal. I might accidentally call a duck-shaped cow a duck. This becomes a huge issue, however, when we come to deal with the registration of identity and the notions of persona. Take this successful rock-star as an example. A musical and lyrical genius might be secretly indulging a serious drug addiction. However, the people see them as an artist of incredible talent and attend their every concert, buy their album and profess to adore their very existence, unaware of the secret shame that lies beneath the surface. They do not necessarily love the star themselves, as revelations a month later in the tabloids might reveal. Rather, they love the persona that has been created from the musician that they see and hear; an altogether different entity to the manic depressive crack fiend.

Ignorance implies neither negation nor affirmation. However, it does create a discrepency between that which we personally assign to the concept and that which the concept exists to represent. The God we establish in concept, and thus that which we worship, is limited by our ignorance, and cannot be a fair reflection of God itself. To call the two one and the same is a mistake.

All the rest of this relies on your faulty assumptions at the beginning. You act as if the only two options for ascribing some trait to something is that it has the trait or doesn't. There is a third option, I don't know which trait it has and I choose not to guess. And you've not addressed that trait. You've suggested such a thing doesn't exist, but your proof for such a concept is "I declare it to be true", and I'm sorry, but I expect better.

Hey, I've grown up in a Christian home and have been under the influence of Christianity all my life, but I didn't accept Christ until a year ago.

I'm involved majorly in travel softball for 4 years now, before that I played wreck softball. Being involved in a travel softball association that plays almost every weekend means that I can't get to church a lot. To make up for that, I read my Bible a lot. Check and see if your church has any extra services during the week that you could attend.

I remember when my parents went to a Christian church that didn't teach the whole truth, instead, only telling people what they want to hear. Needless to say, they left that church and we now attend Grace Community Church where John Macarthur preaches. God has blessed me indeed to be able to go to a church where an amazing pastor preaches!

If you want to listen to some of his sermons, go to www.oneplace.com/ministries/Grace_to_you/

Hope this helps!

The first five pages of this thread stank so bad I couldn't bear to read the rest, so I just skipped it and hit reply.

Christ: "Wherever there are two or more together in a covenant with god, I will be there"

God: "I'm everywhere."

Personally I think Christ doesn't care if you have a pray-buddy, as long as you're not Fred Phelps. Pray alone, pray in public, pray wherever you want, or don't pray at all. Doing it out loud is unnecessary because god can hear your thoughts, and going further than that, he knows what you're going to think before you think it. He knows. It's okay. Calm down. We don't need anymore songs telling god that his name is blessed, and he is the holy one, and that you hold him 'on high' - he fucking knows. Now can we stop making shitty music in his name? Thank you.


You're obviously not a Christian.

I'll wait for an actual argument. I don't ascribe to the it must have form because I say all things must have form circular argumentation.
It's called proof by contradiction. When it can be demonstrated that there is no possible counterexample, the premise has been proven correct. It's a common and well established method of proof for this sort of thing, as many here would attest to.

Again, circular. What if I choose not to fill in the blanks. I don't know what God looks like for example so I choose not to picture him having any look or lack of look. I just don't formulate a guess or opinion on a subject I have no knowledge of. We aren't all pompous enough to declare things to be true because we want them to be. Nope. I this discussion there's just you, on that one.

All the rest of this relies on your faulty assumptions at the beginning. You act as if the only two options for ascribing some trait to something is that it has the trait or doesn't. There is a third option, I don't know which trait it has and I choose not to guess. And you've not addressed that trait. You've suggested such a thing doesn't exist, but your proof for such a concept is "I declare it to be true", and I'm sorry, but I expect better.
I'm sorry if I've caused offence to you in some way, but I'm not sure where I've ever given anything other than my perspective or what I've done to deserve this aggression. Could you let me know so I can try to correct it for the future?

On your query, if you choose not to fill in the blanks or cannot fill in the blanks, your concept is missing pieces of information and its form will reflect that. That, and its repercussions, was the point of my last post, though I did provide an analogy and example in the process which might have confused things somewhat.

It's not even about sensory perception. The idea of 'form' is something that extends beyond the realm of the physical; it applies as much to an abstract collection of properties as it does to a real, solid construct or embodiment.

I assume you've heard about the "4-legged Duck" experiment that a lot has been made of this past week. It's a spectacular example of a fault with the ability to retain a link between a conceptual entity and an awareness of image and structure of this entity, and of the very important role the individual plays in the mapping of features to concepts.

Humans deal with conceptual entities by assigning to them various attributes and properties. For instance, the duck. Two webbed feet, flat bill, feathers, plump body, round head, wings and a little tuft for a tail. Donald Duck is a duck by virtue of satisfying enough of the necessary attributes to justify the assignment of such a concept to him. Never mind that he talks, wears a blue sailor's outfit and has a foul temper; these are additions. He fulfils the properties that we assign to the duck concept, and we therefore say that he has the form of a duck - albeit a virtual one rather than a physical one.

And this need not merely apply to image. Music has form. Smell has form. A blow to the face has form. Similarly, we know injustice when it is done. We know kindness, arrogance, fear and comradery when they cross our paths. These things, too, have a sense of form to them.

God is no exception to this. As a concept, we as humans must think of it in terms of its attributes. Yet if the properties of God cannot be understood by humans, what chance have we of ever creating a concept to match the nature of the thing? The best we can hope for is to gleam what we can about it and to let the form of the God we conceive be those features of him that we can understand. In the divination of something less than the full God, this is Idolatry in its plainest form.

(It is also no good trying to conceptualise a formless God, for its formlessness would in fact make up a part of the form we acknowledge in the concept. =S )

I just have to point out a couple of things...

1) "Extends beyond the physical" or no... it was you that introduced 'physical', if you care to look back. I didn't add that constraint.

2) Donald Duck is recognisable as 'a duck' because he is anthropomorphic. If you made a totally formless shape and gave it a bill and webbed feet and a sailor pattern colour scheme, it would not be AS recognisable. But, we make special exception for 'people-shaped' things... which is - of course - why almost all gods are just that shape.

3) Music has form. Smell has form. What about 'nothing'? Or' 'vacuum'? Sometimes - things are defined by their lack of qualities, not by the qualities they have. Sure - you can say the 'property' of vacuum is defined by the space it fails to fill... but that isn't true... the BOUNDARY of 'vacuum' is defined by it's environment... it is not an aspect of the concept 'vacuum' itself.

4) So - what about if our god is considered to be like a vacuum? Or, like 'nothing'? Or - maybe, even like 'everything'? Or 'infinity'? All of those things draw us into an interesting space in terms of concept... we can't really conceive of any of them in any terms.

5) "Yet if the properties of God cannot be understood by humans, what chance have we of ever creating a concept to match the nature of the thing?"... Answer? We can't.... and that is kind of the point. I don't see why 'god' would NEED to be constrained by what humans can comprehend... or how we really think we could get our heads around the concept of a god... as far as I can tell, it is the very inconceivability of a god that makes it more than a person.

Indeed - when I have talked to Jewsih friends/relatives... one of the concepts that has been suggested, is that Torah tells us the name of God... in it's entirety... that means every word, every symbol, every interaction of characters in Torah is significant... and the name it 'spells' is the absolute description of God. If we could ever comprehend that 'name', we would understand what it is that is 'god'.

It is also reckoned that we would have to BE god, to fully understand that 'name' - which kind of implies that conception of 'god' is not considered realistic for mortal man.

It's called proof by contradiction. When it can be demonstrated that there is no possible counterexample, the premise has been proven correct. It's a common and well established method of proof for this sort of thing, as many here would attest to.

Except you didn't. Proof by contradiction requires actual proof. You did no such thing. Certainly you have a better argument than "I proved it".

I gave a counter example. I know it has this trait. I know it doesn't have this trait. I don't know if it has this trait. The latter has no form.

Come on, I know you can do better than fallacies.


I'm sorry if I've caused offence to you in some way, but I'm not sure where I've ever given anything other than my perspective or what I've done to deserve this aggression. Could you let me know so I can try to correct it for the future?

Aggression? I just want a better argument. I argue with vigor. Always. I enjoy it. If I'm going to put up a weak argument there's no point in posting. You're argument was circular and weak and you posted it to counter someone else's. It's not aggressive to point that out. It's called debate. Feel free to engage. You might be surprised to find this out, but THIS is a debate forum. You learn something new every day. And yes, it's pompous to say that something is true simply because you've declared it. And the behavior explains why you think your argument is correct (because you assume everyone is equally unable to accept a lack of knowledge as just that).


On your query, if you choose not to fill in the blanks or cannot fill in the blanks, your concept is missing pieces of information and its form will reflect that. That, and its repercussions, was the point of my last post, though I did provide an analogy and example in the process which might have confused things somewhat.

You don't get it. You're still arguing in circles. You declare that saying I don't know is a form, but that doesn't make it true. My concept is missing peices, no doubt, but those missing pieces are not me assigning form no matter how much you wish really hard that it is.

Now do you have any proof to offer or just declarations. Because this started with you declaring GnI wrong using equivocation (since you were initially talking about the physical form of God and so was he). Then when called on your BS theory that declares pepole to be blasphemous, your proof amounts to "I say it is". Again, this is a debate forum. I expect better.

Grave suggested to me that I was being harsh which wasn't my intention. I'm not angry. I just argue with vigor. If I appear harsh to anyone, I apologize. I kind of look at debate like a game. There are rules. There are opponents. There are temporary allies and temporary foes. And I enjoy the game as well as what it teaches us. I tend to play hard. But I don't intend for it to a personal issue.

I kind of look at debate like a game. There are rules. There are opponents.

Generally speaking, you are far too focussed on winning your 'game' and defeating your 'opponents' than coming to any understanding of what said 'opponents' might actually be saying.

If that is not your intent, it is certainly the impression that you leave. I deliberately avoid being in a topic with you even when I fully agree with you because of this. Perhaps though, you're changing that behaviour now since you are making a post like this, that would be welcomed.

Generally speaking, you are far too focussed on winning your 'game' and defeating your 'opponents' than coming to any understanding of what said 'opponents' might actually be saying.

If that is not your intent, it is certainly the impression that you leave. I deliberately avoid being in a topic with you even when I fully agree with you because of this. Perhaps though, you're changing that behaviour now since you are making a post like this, that would be welcomed.

Now, you see... I kind of wish you hadn't said this... because Jocabia HAS admitted he is playing hardball... but you are blurring the issue.

I have been involved in a couple of threads where both yourself and Jocabia have also been debating... and, to my way of thinking, you have dropped arguments, and refused to concede debunked points, among other things.

You appear to be writing off Jocabia calling you on this... as part of your perceived 'behaviour profile' for Jocabia.Sometimes - when people say your argument is crap... it might just be because it is.. not because they feel feisty.

Now, you see... I kind of wish you hadn't said this... because Jocabia HAS admitted he is playing hardball... but you are blurring the issue.

I have been involved in a couple of threads where both yourself and Jocabia have also been debating... and, to my way of thinking, you have dropped arguments, and refused to concede debunked points, among other things.

You appear to be writing off Jocabia calling you on this... as part of your perceived 'behaviour profile' for Jocabia.Sometimes - when people say your argument is crap... it might just be because it is.. not because they feel feisty.

A:"You hit me. That was mean."
B:"We're playing football."
A:"But, you hit me. That's illegal."
B:"It was within the rules of football."
A:"But I didn't like it. You're bigger than me and it hurt."
B:"You wanted to play football."
A:"But I wanted to win. I thought since you're so much bigger and faster, that you'd let me win."

A is playing the wrong game with the wrong people if he thinks I'm going to let him run by without tackling him just because getting tackled makes him feel bad.

Now, you see... I kind of wish you hadn't said this... because Jocabia HAS admitted he is playing hardball... but you are blurring the issue.


I said it because I'm no longer the only one saying it.
Several posters have recently commented on it and he's admitting that even you have called him on his behaviour.
I'm not blurring anything, I'm stating my opinion on it. Yours may differ, that's to be expected.


I have been involved in a couple of threads where both yourself and Jocabia have also been debating... and, to my way of thinking, you have dropped arguments, and refused to concede debunked points, among other things.


Of course it's to your way of thinking, you were arguing the opposing side each time. The first time we argue on the same side of an issue and you notice me doing that, drop me a line and I'll seriously consider whether you might be onto something.
If I consider a point irrelevant to an issue I'll "drop" it, the volume of text gets overwhelming otherwise. If I simply disagree on an issue I won't be 'conceding it to have been debunked'.
I've found you to be significantly less than unbiased on this issue in the past, so, while I will certainly listen and entertain what you have to say, I'll take it with a healthy grain or two of salt.


You appear to be writing off Jocabia calling you on this... as part of your perceived 'behaviour profile' for Jocabia.Sometimes - when people say your argument is crap... it might just be because it is.. not because they feel feisty.

I was writing Jocabia off, of everything entirely and had no intention of ever responding to his posts again. Not for calling my argument crap but for his entire demeanor here and highly competitive yet unsportsmanlike conduct in debate. I troll entirely different kinds of forums to engage in ego warfare.
Then he left this forum and it was a non-issue. His return was not something I welcomed, but then, if he can at least tone down and focus on something other than 'winning', perhaps I'll engage him again, otherwise, I'll continue with my previous trend of entirely ignoring him.

Here's an analogy with how many Catholics pray: when someone is driving and they see a red light, they stop (usually). The light itself has absolutely nothing to do with that. It is something that makes people think "stop". When many Catholics pray, they will use statues or pictures to keep reminding themselves of that saint or of God. Images are not used to make the prayer more powerful, but rather to compensate for human weakness. It is easier to pray with an image than without one. If you think about it, no one knows what Mary or many other saints look like; so people are not even really praying to an image of Mary, they're praying to a symbol of her. As to those that believe Catholics worship Mary, here's the Oxford American definition of worship: "the feeling or expression of reverence or adoration for a deity" Mary is not a deity, so that does not fit. She is venerated because she made possible the redemption of the human race. For this reason she is considered the Mother of the Church. Because of her unwavering devotion to God, she is also a model for mankind. However, she is not part of the Trinity, and thus cannot be considered a deity.
As for the original question: I think the definition of "Christian" is a bit loose. If you don't go to a certain denomination's church, I would not consider you part of that denomination, because to fully understand and practice a religion you must continuously gather with your fellow practitioners to worship and learn about your faith. But, anyone can make up their own denomination. I think you could still call yourself a Christian if you didn't attend church, but you couldn't consider yourself a Baptist, or a Catholic, or any denomination where you are supposed to attend church.

*snip*

Ha. Amusing. I'm not being unsportsmanlike. You keep complaining and have always complained that I'm competitive. In a debate forum. In debate, it's actually necessary to mention the quality of the argument and if it contains lies, inconsistencies or is not based on evidence, one must point that out as well.

Now, see, what I haven't done is show up in a thread to tell people that I don't read their posts because they're big meanies. See, that would be unsportmanlike. Using the standard tools of debate to debunk the position of a mal-intentioned poster is part of the game. The only one complaining about how the game is played and entering a thread just to complain about a person (not their argument, but the person) is you.

But then it's not like you'd debate me on the issue. You'd rather just preach your message and run off.

Here's an analogy with how many Catholics pray: when someone is driving and they see a red light, they stop (usually). The light itself has absolutely nothing to do with that. It is something that makes people think "stop". When many Catholics pray, they will use statues or pictures to keep reminding themselves of that saint or of God. Images are not used to make the prayer more powerful, but rather to compensate for human weakness. It is easier to pray with an image than without one. If you think about it, no one knows what Mary or many other saints look like; so people are not even really praying to an image of Mary, they're praying to a symbol of her. As to those that believe Catholics worship Mary, here's the Oxford American definition of worship: "the feeling or expression of reverence or adoration for a deity" Mary is not a deity, so that does not fit. She is venerated because she made possible the redemption of the human race. For this reason she is considered the Mother of the Church. Because of her unwavering devotion to God, she is also a model for mankind. However, she is not part of the Trinity, and thus cannot be considered a deity.
As for the original question: I think the definition of "Christian" is a bit loose. If you don't go to a certain denomination's church, I would not consider you part of that denomination, because to fully understand and practice a religion you must continuously gather with your fellow practitioners to worship and learn about your faith. But, anyone can make up their own denomination. I think you could still call yourself a Christian if you didn't attend church, but you couldn't consider yourself a Baptist, or a Catholic, or any denomination where you are supposed to attend church.

Hmmmm.... if you're correct, you'd think God would know that, yet He warned us not to do so.

I said it because I'm no longer the only one saying it.
Several posters have recently commented on it and he's admitting that even you have called him on his behaviour.



I've found you to be significantly less than unbiased on this issue in the past...


I see.

If someone agrees with Jocabia, it is because they are 'biased'... while, if someone agrees with you, it is evidence you are in the right?


I was writing Jocabia off, of everything entirely and had no intention of ever responding to his posts again. Not for calling my argument crap but for his entire demeanor here and highly competitive yet unsportsmanlike conduct in debate. I troll entirely different kinds of forums to engage in ego warfare.
Then he left this forum and it was a non-issue. His return was not something I welcomed, but then, if he can at least tone down and focus on something other than 'winning', perhaps I'll engage him again, otherwise, I'll continue with my previous trend of entirely ignoring him.

Funny thing is... I've made something of a 'peace' with Jocabia... but, when he and I first debated, we were almost always arguing opposite sides.

The reason it is funny, to me, is that I never ran into anything LIKE the conflicts you seem to find. Perhaps I am just almost saintlike in my diplomacy?

I see.

If someone agrees with Jocabia, it is because they are 'biased'... while, if someone agrees with you, it is evidence you are in the right?



Funny thing is... I've made something of a 'peace' with Jocabia... but, when he and I first debated, we were almost always arguing opposite sides.

The reason it is funny, to me, is that I never ran into anything LIKE the conflicts you seem to find. Perhaps I am just almost saintlike in my diplomacy?

BIAS!!! The fact that you and I don't always agree cannot be weighed in like a logical argument. You disagree with SE so you must be biased. Don't you know anything?

Meanwhile, is it wrong to be amused with this level of obsession? I'm a virtual entity on an online forum and these people chase me around in a way that would be quite frightening were this the real world.

SE, get up from the keyboard once in a while and take a breath. This is an online game with a debate forum. I debate on it. It's not personal. If I think you're wrong, here for example, I'll simply say so and I'll say why.. That's not unsportsmanlike. That's debate. And then you'll attack me personally, something that is against the rules of debate, as shown here, and everyone is happy.

Here's an analogy with how many Catholics pray: when someone is driving and they see a red light, they stop (usually). The light itself has absolutely nothing to do with that. It is something that makes people think "stop". When many Catholics pray, they will use statues or pictures to keep reminding themselves of that saint or of God. Images are not used to make the prayer more powerful, but rather to compensate for human weakness. It is easier to pray with an image than without one. If you think about it, no one knows what Mary or many other saints look like; so people are not even really praying to an image of Mary, they're praying to a symbol of her. As to those that believe Catholics worship Mary, here's the Oxford American definition of worship: "the feeling or expression of reverence or adoration for a deity" Mary is not a deity, so that does not fit. She is venerated because she made possible the redemption of the human race. For this reason she is considered the Mother of the Church. Because of her unwavering devotion to God, she is also a model for mankind. However, she is not part of the Trinity, and thus cannot be considered a deity.


but Mary didn't make redemption possible for the human race, God did, Jesus did, not Mary.

Everything for the glory of God, not for yourself. Worshiping (sorry venerating) a person because of what God did through them is wrong, we are to worship God and God alone.

What does the Bible or Jesus say about not going to church.

I know you are still a Christian, but does that make you a bad/lazy/uncomitted etc.. Christian for not going to church?

What if you don't agree with the interpretation and guidliens of any of the Churches in your area? And you want to follow him your own way?

Personally I would think that Christians should not follow the church but follow Christ.

If i was to become a Christian, thats probably how I would live.
Ok, i haven't bothered to read the rest of this thread, i'm too lazy :p
Also note i am not a die hard evangalist, i take a fairly liberal interpretation

A) the Third Commandment is "keep holy the Sabbath"
B) most priests and religion teachers will tell you that if you can go to church, you should. If you can but dont, technically that's disobeying the third commandment, a sin. If for example a friend is sick, though, then you're excused.
C) I often disagree with my pastor, but he's the kind of guy who thinks that women are supposed to stay at home all day, that mass should still be in latin, and that Vatican II should not exist...(I am actually a guy, btw, but the fact that he seems to think of women as a lesser life form bugs me...) But basically, as long as it doesnt say somewhere in church teachings or the bible otherwise, Christianity is open to your interpretation. i.e. I can't exactly go around calling myself christian if i proclaim that Lucifer is more powerful and loving than God, but I can say that Jesus may have had siblings.

If you dont understand or disagree with something i said, my e-mail is jamcinerney810@yahoo.com. I'll do my best to explain or defend it.

C) I often disagree with my pastor, but he's the kind of guy who thinks that women are supposed to stay at home all day, that mass should still be in latin, and that Vatican II should not exist...(I am actually a guy, btw, but the fact that he seems to think of women as a lesser life form bugs me...)
so........women who stay home are less than bugs?
:eek:

I see.

If someone agrees with Jocabia, it is because they are 'biased'... while, if someone agrees with you, it is evidence you are in the right?


Nope, absolutely not.
I have agreed with Jocabia myself on many issues that I have seen him comment on and even the ones I have disagreed on, I don't see a significant chasm between our positions.

There are some people that if I discovered they agreed with me, I would seriously recheck why I'm "on that side".
It's not about who agrees with whom.


Funny thing is... I've made something of a 'peace' with Jocabia... but, when he and I first debated, we were almost always arguing opposite sides.

The reason it is funny, to me, is that I never ran into anything LIKE the conflicts you seem to find. Perhaps I am just almost saintlike in my diplomacy?

Perhaps, or more likely, you have both changed over time.
I seem to recall you stating before that you have softened considerably while Jocabia has ramped up his aggresive style, but then that would be prior to my presence here so I can only guess based on what you said.

so........women who stay home are less than bugs?
:eek:

???
if you want to be pedantic, substitute the word "annoys"