If the OT is folklore, does that matter for Christianity?

[Ella Parr]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I'm sorry if I annoyed you

Thank you. I appreciate your saying that. It's OK. I'm over it. Besides, I shoulder my share of the responsibility. So, it is done.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

but the point is, that telegraphing the case for human morality to someone who believes in God -given morality can run into a calculated resistance.

Ya think? Duh. The opposite is true, too.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

My 'trap' was to get you to say yourself that we apply human morality to the Bible - we don't get it from there.

Why would I ever say that or believe that considering that I believe in God? That's not logical. No more logical than if I were to think that you would concede your perspective as long as you do not believe in God.

It doesn't change the fact that it was your intention was "to change my mind". That mindset eliminates discussion and propels us into debate or argument or war. What is the point of that? We each have an opinion. Neither of us is questioning our own beliefs and, therefore, searching for guidance from another. I am not opposed to listening to your (or anyone else's) opinion/perspective/ideas/beliefs, but a few words from a stranger is not going to change my mind, your mind, or anyone else's. It is a total waste of time, energy, and effort. Exchanging ideas can be interesting and enlightening. Going to war to try and beat each other to death with opinion doesn't have even one redeeming quality. There is never a winner in a war of opinions. Most people consider their respective opinions as "truth". Absolute truth is very hard to come by in this world. Many more things are "theory" instead of "provable fact".

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

In fact, since I realized what the counter could be I dropped the time bomb and used the Marty - Mad Dog explanation.

Sorry, I have not re-visited the original Back to the Future since some time in the 80s and I don't know that I ever saw the others. It/they is/are not part of my cultural reference banks. So, truly, it was a reference that I only vaguely recognized. Other than the stated words, they really don't hold a message for me. Sorry.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

The other discussions were not trying to lead you round by the nose or into traps - if there were any looming, I showed them to you. It really was peeling the onion down to to core of the matter - Morality = God.

Ok.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

As it is, the questions I asked about whether Jesus/Christianity represented a better Vehicle for spiritual development than other religions or not is still not clear.

I'm sorry. I think I answered that, I know, once and possibly several times . I answered with my opinion to you to the best of my ability. I don't know what else I can say.

Out of curiosity, why is this important to you? As a matter of fact, why is any of this important to you?

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Finally, it isn't about 'Who won', but whether we learned anything. If you get over your ire, I hope you stick around.

I would like to think so.

Ella

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes you did post on the question of the role of Jesus in 'bringing us on' the Gentiles including all non -Jews. It still left a lot of questions and raised new ones, but any further discussion will have to wait - perhaps.

If you are unpersuaded by my argument that's fine. I said I thought you were ok as you are, and I mean that.I do think that I have at least shown that a non -god rationale for morality has been shown to be a valid one.

[Ella Parr]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Yes you did post on the question of the role of Jesus in 'bringing us on' the Gentiles including all non -Jews. It still left a lot of questions and raised new ones, but any further discussion will have to wait - perhaps.

I don't have a problem with discussion. Discussion is the exchange of ideas. There isn't only one side. There isn't a "right" or a "wrong" side. Your beliefs/ideas/opinions/viewpoints/etc. are as good and as valid as my own. I am not interested in participating in "my Atheism can beat your Christianity" or any other debate or war over your side vs my side.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

If you are unpersuaded by my argument that's fine.

Were you "persuaded" by my argument? Of course not. As long as your mindset is to "persuade" me, then there is no need to converse.

That is why I asked why this was important to you. You have to decide what your motivation is. If it is to discuss, fine, but if it is to persuade me to change my mind or to play a game of "gotcha" with me, then we are both wasting our time.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I said I thought you were ok as you are, and I mean that.

Then why the games? I present my view and you present yours. There is no right or wrong in discussion. If I am ok the way I am, then accept me and my opinions as my opinions.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I do think that I have at least shown that a non -god rationale for morality has been shown to be a valid one.

Whatever you say is your opinion/vantage point is valid. It is valid on its face because it is your view/opinion/perspective. You did a fine job presenting your opinion. It's the idea that, in the end, one opinion has to win while the other opinion has to lose that is the problem.

You have to decide "why" you want to discuss this with me. If you want to "discuss" then I expect us both to follow the standards of discussion. If you want to debate, persuade, argue etc. then you need to state that, too. Then those standards apply. The choice is yours. Either way, the standards (rules) are in place and should be followed by those participating.

Ella