Is there such a thing as a Christian?

Pointing out the context in which something is written is being nitpicky????

PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

This is how I see it and always have;

Hypothetical situation to illustrate;
You are auguring some point of contention with a fool

26:4
Fool: Yeah well your momma sucks donkey ass!
You: Yeah only after your momma sucked his dick!
That is an example of answering a fool according to his folly (in the same manner) and being like unto him.

26:5
Fool: Yeah well your momma sucks donkey ass!
You: That is an immature response to my question and has nothing to do with the facts. Can we get back to the facts?

That is an example of answering a fool according to his folly (the content and manner of his response) and showing that manner to be foolish.

I admit the first half of each verse/statement appears contradictory, which they are if that is all that is considered, but the second half of each modifies the first to arrive at a different meaning.

One reason The Bible can appear contradictory is we have it all broken down into chapter and verse which serves to break up the flow of thought and intent of the writer. We naturally read them as being separate statements rather than as a whole thought or communication.
Remove all the chapter and verse separations as they were originally written and it takes on a different nuance of meaning and flow.

 

I disagree that your first example is what they are saying. It seems to me that they are saying if you argue with a fool, you are bringing yourself down to their level. That instead of pointing out their folly, you should point out the righteous path.

And the second is clearly saying that they aren't going to know they are a fool unless you tell them.

 

then you agree they aren't actually contraditory:cheers2:

 

No? How the hell did you get that idea?

 

I am here because I don't understand the bible.

Quoting it doesn't really help me understand whether or not it is correct.

Faith has no basis. If it had basis it would be knowledge.

A testable hypothesis does not require faith because it explains
a fact or observation.

I have never read an explanation as to why god must exist, and living like
its the truth is not suspending judgement.

It does not take faith to know there is a trajectory of a flying object.

All equations have answers, and they get the answers they deserve.

I am working on it.

Edit: on 2nd thought, you are exactly where i want you
in the A&A forum

But I want you here for the right reasons.(Because you understand)

 

It is a stand alone statement regardless if it is from the bible. If your faith does not bear fruit then choose again.

Knowledge is, being shared. Faith is not knowledge but can lead to it.

I can assure you that the hadron collider is very expensive. There is much faith in science to provide answers to questions we haven't even thought of yet.

So. I never proposed that kind of belief, only a little willingness to have the truth appear.

There is an element of faith required to invest in hypothesis.

So.

Working on what, having me "disappear"

 

You did read what I wrote didn't you. We are saying the same thing.
And you agree they are not contradictory because according to your own understanding of the verses, they convey different messages, but those messages are not contradictory, they are different.

 

Finally he admits it!
Then if you do not understand it, where do you get the justification for your berating those who believe it based on their understanding it?

And please don't be so ignorant as to say that because you don't understand it nobody else can.

 

No, my own interpretations were indeed contradictory. One says not to tell a fool they are a fool, the other says you should tell a fool they are a fool. I don't see how it could be any more clear..

 

Are you saying someone cant know pain without communicating it?

Science does not provide answers it recognizes them.

An equation is the same thing on both sides.

What are you talking about, probability?

Is it faith or is it reason? explain...

Admits that my understanding of the bible is that it is non sense?

I get it from their understanding, just like you and
everyone else when you criticize racists and sexists.

I recognize the differences.

You know enough about racism to know that it is completely baseless don't
you? You don't need to read the alabama highschool dropout manifesto to realize that.
Have you considered that racist conviction is baseless (and frowned upon)
because the justification for it is not logical? Doesn't it feel good to
know that you are smart enough to not be a racist?

Saying that would be ridiculous.

There are millions of naturalist who think a lot of the bible is nonsense. In fact
the word describes a state of mind that demands it.

There are even more people who don't understand it and think they do.

You say you understand the bible because you genuinely think you understand it,
but if that were the case, it could be communicated, right?

I'm not so sure about that anymore. Which doesn't say much for my desire
to know why you believe (which i also think i understand, until its explained
otherwise)

 

Pain is communication. The body is a communication device.

When we say science we mean scientific method referring to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. Recognition is a cognitive function of the mind, not of science.

An interesting response to my statement. How does it relate?

What is the probability do you think?

Faith has reason to exist.

 

extension

 

thedope:

They?? What can possibly be squandered if knowledge is being shared?


Heeh:

Can we all agree at least then that the desire for truth is communicable!?


thedope:

As long as we give it one. Understanding, as the fruit of reason, has room for 'acts' of faith, because of love.

 

They, are heeh2, intelligence and power of persuasion. Intelligence is the ability to think and learn facts and skills and apply them. In this instance
Heeh2 is not applying themselves toward learning any fact. They may be trying to inform opinion with argumentative skill, but the more one cries wolf the less apt people are going to listen to you in the future. He is using his power of persuasion to try and uphold baseless observations. If the facts contravene the narrative then the power of persuasion is squandered. Heeh2 does not agree that knowledge is, being shared.
Heeh2 does not agree that some measure of faith is essential to apply the abstract mind.

There is reason for faith by virtue of the abstract nature of mind and there is reason for me to stir the pot in this instance, as you say, for love? Heeh2 is valuable to me.

 

As he has explained in the past, I think Heeh is just trying to understand what everyone is talking about! : ) I don't think he wants you to disappear, thedope.

'Reason' for faith is too rich for me! I have to rely on trust! : D

I don't suspend my judgement as I don't suspend my love.

 

Reviso:

Can you here fill me in with a few synonyms?

 

I had that impression for a moment. He may have forgotten.

What he wants varies.

Is it negative associations with the word, faith? I rely on trust for the fact that mistrust has at it's disposal a limited number of responses to the world, suspicion at best to viciousness at worst.

Love is without condition, judgment establishes conditions. con="with" dicere="to speak", condition=to speak with.

 

No. I find I can make my meaning clearer with the expression trust.

We always differ on this note. : ) How is love without condition? The etymology of the word 'condition' is one thing,
and what it has been made to mean, another.

 

Love is our condition. What we can aim for is its shared realization in consciousness.