₦airaland Forum

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=9356.msg1271486#msg1271486 date=1183840556]I was worse than an athiest (not because I didn't believe in the existence of God; but because even when truth was starring us in the face, we virulently disavowed the Bible). Thank God for Christ.[/quote]Exactly, I did a lot of arguing as well in my days as a Roman Catholic, but thank God for those classmates of mine that countered with the truth. And though their arguments may not have been sufficient to convince me, ultimately the conviction by the Holy Spirit of my questionable morality (i used to be a moralist) and their superior lifestyle dragged me to my knees. I hope we get more stories soon from these threads and our friends on the other side. Cheers all.

@davidylan,

davidylan:
I have no problems with your posts, i'm just a tad surprised at those who openly profess to be atheist and yet spend so much time struggling desperately to prove God doesnt exist, still go to church and read the bible! There's no point being hot and cold at the same time, just choose one and stick to it. Drop the bible and read shakespeare.

i actually agree with you, a stickler for balance that i am however i just wanted to balance things out. And we both know what happens to those who are 'neither hot nor cold' (Rev. 3;16) Cheers.

[quote author=@desodgi link=topic=61126.msg1271289#msg1271289 date=1183836236]People don't know that to be a preacher you have to be wealthy. Jesus Christ was so wealthy when he walked the face of this earth,that even when he died the roman soldiers had to cast lot to get his designer clothing. . . . . .Mhn am the best of my kind.[/quote]i'm tired of this 'Jesus was wealthy' bandwagon.

2Cor 8;9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich.
Matt 17;27, there was no money to pay the temple tax
Matt 8;20, he could not afford a hotel to make use of in his missionary work

Have you considered the possibility that the soldiers casting lots for his clothing  was a means of bringing about the fulfillment the prophecy in Ps 22;18?
Jesus' parents were not rich. Jesus was not rich. Even many of his disciples weren't. Have you forgotten 'silver or gold we do not have' (Acts 3;6)? I wonder where all his 'wealth' dissappeared to if even his own disciples, who had 'left everything to follow him' (Matt. 19;27), could not get any share of it.
And no, i didn't say it is against God's will for us to be rich, but the over-emphasis on wealth is, to say the least, disheartening. 1 Tim 6:5-11 and Matt. 6; 28-34 are still in the bible.

I just saw the other part of your statement that 'to be a preacher you have to be wealthy'. If that's what you think, then i must say its very sad.
Please do read the scriptures; was Paul wealthy?
1 Cor 4; 11-13 (the whole chapter is a must-read)
11To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. 12We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; 13when we are slandered, we answer kindly. Up to this moment we have become the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world.
How many preachers of today do you see that even come close to the humility and devotion shown by the men of God in the bible. Where does their pattern come from?
Barnabas used to be wealthy, what did he do, he gave it all away. (Acts. 4;36-37). There is NO statement in scripture that supports what you just said, and i'd really love for you to rethink that. cheers.

davidylan:
there's really no need for the long replies that end up achieving nothing.

they might not acheive anything with the questioner but they probably will with someone else who has 'issues' that they seek answers to and come across this thread. Every person should be given a benefit of the doubt. Its not wrong to have issues with christianity, one must confront and address his doubts and contradictions so that one can build conviction. When answers are provided for those questions however and one doggedly rejects, then such a one cannot be helped. Cheers.

Jude 22-23 NIV
"Be merciful to those who doubt;" Weymouth puts it this way; "Some, when they argue with you, you must endeavor to convince;"
23 "snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh."

@pilgrim
i hope they are willing to respond, rather than hide under the 'we are not supposed to discuss the grail message' banner.

what makes it so special is that she wins here on the 50th anniversary of Althea Gibson's first win here in 1957. Little did she know that that 50 years down the line, another black lady will win it for the 4th time.
marvellous.

game, set, match to venus williams,
6-4, 6-1
yippee!!

match point venus

first set venus, 6-4

Venus leads 4-3,
men this Bartoli girl is not a washover o! she's playing great tennis.

hi you guys,
i just have some contradictions that i think i should point out;

otuwe:
the intellect operates in the frontal brain while the intuition operates in the hind brain

AND

otuwe:
THE INTELLECT IS PHYSICAL AND IS BOUND TO THE EARTH, THE INTUITION IS SPIRITUAL AND PART OF MAN(SPIRIT).

How can the intuition be part of man's spirit and part of his brain (physical body) at the same time?
Is the spirit a part of the body?
If the intuition which you say is part of the spirit operates with or in the hindbrain, does that not mean that it uses physical means to acheive the knowledge that it so attains?
If it uses physical means, then what is spiritual about it and what makes the knowlege so gained superior? Is it that just for the mere fact that you say it uses the hindbrain as against the forebrain then it is superior?
what makes the hindbrain better than the forebrain as a better means of acquiring 'accurate' information?

the other part of the contradiction stems from the use of the term hindbrain itself.
The hindbrain comprises the pons, the medulla oblongata and the cerrebellum. Are you talking about the same hindbrain we are aware of in neuroanatomy or do you have a different definition for / of the hindbrain? Do you know what the functions of these brain parts are? How do the tested scientific functions of these parts of the brain correlate with a spiritual function of 'knowing' things accurately?
Just a few of the many issues i have with this doctrine. cheers.

Venus wins 6-2, 6-4 to get to a 6th final in 8 years. Amazing record.
Great match to look forward to tomorrow.

KAG:
From what I've observed, the much mentioned fruits of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, long-suffering, etc) are almost impossible to fake and have to be, at the very least, a small part of the person's nature and can't help but be shown in the actions of the person possessing those characteristics. Yes, Christianity isn't necessarily about actions, but the actions - which are often difficult fake - can still be an indicator.

i agree and disagree with you here. I was actually going to go into that but didnt want too lenghty a writeup. However one correction: it's the fruit of the spirit, not the fruit[b]s[/b] (Gal. 5:22 "But the fruit of the Spirit is" it is singular and it also says IS, and believe me, its not a grammatical error. I wont really go into the meaning of that passage though.
That said, if you look at those qualities listed, you'd see they refer to the character (or nature) of a person. True, they can be reflected in actions and the bible actually teaches that they should result in actions. But the issue still is, good actions can stem from bad motives or from people with bad characters. A very ready example is giving; just look around at the many 'donors' we have all around. With many the motive is selfishness ie pride, vanity etc - which is 'normal' with men, but frowned at by God. And that was what Jesus tried to address in Matt. 6. You can try to read it. The emphasis in biblical christianity is on a changed heart and nature, rather than on what one does.
And, a lot of people can and do 'fake' christianity; its all about how you appear before men. However, God is not mocked (Gal.6;7).

It matters noot what the Bible teaches; what matters is what the study of phenomenons of that kind reveal.

Considering we are talking about christianity, and considering that the bible is held by christians as the reference book and final authority on issues regarding their faith, i am not surprised that we have to be arguing. If 'it matters not what the bible teaches' when talking about christianity, then when will it matter?
And what phenomena do you refer to? and from where do the so-called objects of study derive their convictions? what is the yardstick for the lifestyle practiced by those subjects (or objects) which you observed?
If we were talking about some other issue, it might not matter much. that is why i'm not likely to quote a bible verse with nferyn, but considering that we are discussing christianity, i'm surprised.

Those are all beliefs that have little foundation in reality. People - Christians - aren't changed because of the actions of any Gods or Spirits, they are most likely changed by the beliefs they adopt and hold strongly.

considering that you think the bible is inconsequential as regards christianity, i really can't be surprised. If you just said 'people', i wouldn't be so concerned although i wouldn't agree. But when you add 'christians' then i have to wonder.
what is your basis for determining what experiences christians have or go through? Do you have biblical arguements to contradict what i said? Oh, i forgot. The bible isn't important. How does the belief one 'holds strongly' produce a changed nature? If 'christians' aren't changed by 'any Gods or Spirits' then what makes them christian? why do we still call them christians? Are they lying when they say God is working in and with them? Are they lying if they say they have a relationship with God? If they are, why do we still call them 'christians'? Remember that they also believe that the christ (we name them after) is God.

But again, since I hold the scriptures important to christianity, let me justify my statement. Phil. 1:6, 2;13 (just 2 of very many scriptures that teach this)
"For of this I am confident, that He who has begun a good work within you will go on to perfect it in preparation for the day of Jesus Christ."
"for it is God who works in you both the willing and the working according to his good pleasure."

My point in all these stuff is just to show you one thing - you may have attended church, done all the activities, etc. but that didnt make you a christian, you have not met the christian God and that is why you can't understand all i've been trying to say. Now, i'm not trying to sound negative, i'm only trying to show you that in all your 'church' days, you never did encounter the reality within the church, or what 'christianity' is all about. That is not exclusive, in fact, its the experience of every true christian  you'd see here (I was in that position for up to 10 years for some others it may be more or fewer); the difference is only that they realized their need - they wanted to really know this God and not just bear the name 'christian' and they did something about it. That became their turning point. There has to be a turning point for one to become a christian. Being found in church or growing up therein and doing all the activities, or even having a good nature does not make you a christian. In your case as with many others, you've concluded that they must be lying just because you haven't touched the substance they are talking about. However, we are not lying. Its just like it is with normal friend-making; there will be a time when you didnt know the one and there will be a time when you become friends. Its possible you've been aware of the person all along, but because you hadn't met you weren't friends, its the same way with God. The only problem is; are you even interested in the possibility of there being a God, and in meeting him if He is? the answer to that will determine a lot of things.

I was reffering to the belief in Jesus as the messiah - that is the belief that makes one a Christian.

LOL, then evil the devil and his hordes will have been christians.
"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." (James 2;19)
Add this;
"Ha! Jesus the Nazarene, what have you to do with us? I know who you are--God's Holy One!" (Luke 4;34)

Even demons (i assume you also don't believe in that, but just to make a point please indulge me) believe that Jesus is the Messiah.
Your statement is not biblically correct and is flawed in many respects. Let me explain further, i'm not saying christians don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah. They do, but its much more complex than that.
First, the word used for 'believe' in the greek is much more broad and deeper than the english word which just connotes a mere mental accent. For an illustration consult the amplified bible and you'd see the difference. So ab initio, you have to understand what biblical faith means. I've addressed this issue many times on another thread.
Second, there is a difference between believing that Jesus is the Messiah and believing that Jesus is YOUR messiah. The latter has its implications, which is in the gospel message and which i can go into later. It is a personal message and has personal consequences. As regards this point, one has to understand what messiah means, and why one needs one. Someone in the latter case has already understood that he needs a messiah, and that understanding places a demand on that person to either accept and act on the said christ's finished work or reject it. Do you know what a Messiah means? Do you know why there needs to be a messiah? the term messiah is not just a title, it is also a responsibility. There is a work that the messiah had to accomplish on behalf of every individual. Do you know the work of the Messiah? Have you experienced that work in your life and reaped its benefits?
those are the real issues in christianity. Not just if one believes in Jesus as the messiah or not. Every nominal christian believes that Jesus is the messiah, but that's what they are; nominal christians. Genuine christians have experienced the work of the messiah in their lives and live in fellowship and relationship with the messiah every blessed day.

Not really.

I really have to disagree. Cheers.

That's not quite right: the bark of seals are similar and can be mistaken for the bark of some dog breeds. Remember, not all dogs bark alike and certainly not all breeds sound alke either.

i basically said that in my next statement. It only illustrates what my arguement was; pocessing certain shared characteristics does not confer on one a shared identity. the identity does not lie in the characteristic. That some seals will sound like some dogs doesn't make them dogs or vice versa. That somone goes to church or does good things etc does not confer on them the christian identity.
Of course, like most analogies, that's not a very accurate analogy like we concluded (because the latter talks about activities rather than attributes amongst other flaws) but it helps to illustrate the point. The real issues still remain; what makes one a christian, what is the definition of a christian? what is the identifying mark of a christian? perhaps you could provide answers to those questions.

A dog's bark?

i guess you should read my last post in the previous page. remember it was an analogy to illustrate a point.

I think they tie in well - abstractly, though - to the discussion.

I and nferyn reached a point of mutual understanding. Do read our rejoinders.

@nferyn,

Ok, but you're explanation doesn't add very much clarity yet. What realm and what being? How do you identify said realm and being?

sorry, i wasn't trying to explain; i was using an example to illustrate my next point - which i'd repeat; lack of common grounds (premises) to begin with, make such arguements very hard to engage. i'll think of something though.

I'm open to your arguments. I'm not planning on reading any books unless I know it's worth it

considering what i have to work with i'd come up with something soon. i argue with others on this subject easily but with them i don't have to start from the very scratch. hope you get my dilemma.

You mean that it is extremely subjective, or at best intersubjective?

No. I said its best taught by experience. in my opinion, its not really subjective because the notion i have is that every human being has a spirit (which is, for lack of a better term that you can relate to, etherealy corporal); they just aren't aware of it. Some of course are, and exploit it either positively or negatively.
I'd come up with some arguements that can work for you soon. cheers.

English1:
You are not alone in this. I've known people who go to church and belong to a religion even though they have no belief in God. They do it as they like belonging to that community and want their children to go to the church school etc. I don't think there is a word for it. You are following the lifestyle not the religion.

Hypocrite perhaps?
Social Christian?
Lifestyle Christian?

- have you looked at the unitarian church? That sounds like it would suit you as it is a church, yet it accepts people of all sorts of faiths, and even those without faiths, who are interested in the issues of how to live a good life etc.

what is the purpose of a church? I mean a so-called christian church, because i know there are all sorts of churches. If it is to lead people to a relationship with God and to serve as an avenue for people with a relationship with Him to share their faith and values, then what purpose does a unitarian church with no principles nor convictions serve? what is the purpose of a church that does not stand for anything? what is that church acheiving in terms of leading people to lives pleasing to God.
and what is the goal of one who decides to go to such a church? Is it to cultivate a relationship with Him? to fellowship? or just to socialize and have fun? Do this people you refer to even want to know this God? or they have concluded ab initio and would rather go to a place where light is not shown to them?

there is nothing unexpected here though (2Tim. 4:3-4);
For a time is coming when people will not tolerate wholesome instruction. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

that time of course is evidently in our face. "Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness." (2Tim 2:19)

nferyn:
I am yet to see the first cogent explanation of what spirit or spirituality is (apart from self-referential (things of the spirit are spiritualy discerned) and/or circular arguments).

That's an enormous task to ask one to do; i have an analogy in my head but i wont use it because it might not be very apt. But just to illustrate how hard it is i'd just make a reference to Lafile's post and yours.

Things of the Spirit are spiritually discerned.

(apart from self-referential (things of the spirit are spiritualy discerned)

First, his statement is not self-referential; you'd notice that the first reference is S[/b]pirit (with a capital S) and the second reference begins with a small s ([b]s[/b]piritually). Spirit and spirit aren't referring to the same concepts. Spirit refers to a [b]being, spirit refers to a realm. He made two references, but because you're not aware of either, you assume its self-referential. (Of course, i'm not blaming you for that mistake)

So, you see, from the very inception its tough to get along an argument or discussion about the spirit or the Spirit; there needs be common grounds to begin with - and the shared grounds for such discussions (between an atheist and a christian) are at best minimal. I have many books that address the subject, but i doubt they'd be helpful to you at this point - except of course some grounds from which to discuss and reason are created;  then we can make incursions into such debates (but then i wonder who would make the concessions, lol)
Furthermore, there's a huge experiential side to the whole debate and the best way to usually 'teach' one about something like that is to lead them into a personal experience themself. Like you would agree with me, there are many things that are easier 'taught' by being experienced. Once experienced, its like the difference between night and day.
Let me know what your thoughts are on what i said. Cheers.

I bet you can find dogs that can make sounds that fall within the range of seals and vice versa. Characteristics do not translate into essences and essences are only a translation of our mental predispositions, you can only look at these questions inductively and from sufficiently large datasets. Anyway, the argument from analogy using barking isn't sound.

Yes, but all of those capacities are not sharply delimited. As I mentioned before, there's an overlap between the distribution of possible seal and dog barks. Just as a sidenote, in Dutch, we call seals 'zeehonden' (sea dogs) because of their similar barking sounds.

i agree and i did expect you to say that; i guess i should have made a clearcut pre-emptory statement in that regard though, lol. However, that was why i said in my statement that 'within the realm of normalcy'. In any given situation, much more so in biology, there'd always be outliers. However, since it was beside the point i was trying to make,
perhaps its not a very apt analogy; but the point still stands.

OK, I get your point of view, but is there a sharp distinction that allows you to classify all nominally Christian people as either tru or false Christians?

Yes, there's a sharp distinction experientially (on the part of the object), I as an observer however may not always be able to make an accurate judgement as regards classification, but 90% of the time one can. At least, for example, to a high degree on this forum i can make a judgement based on what and how a person makes posts (it could be that simple ).

@lafile,
thanks for jumpstarting the discussion - sorry i barged in and continued without permission, lol.
Just like you said, i guess i couldn't pull it off with the 'understanding' part.

KAG:

To be called a christian any kind at all depends on what God has made you to be in your spirit.

I disagree in part. While, I agree Christianity isn't just about actions - even though I've heard it's "by their fruits you shall know them" - I disagree that it has anything to do with God making anything in the spirit - it's, in my opinion, linked with what beliefs you hold.

First, 'fruit' in a biblical sense isn't necessarily about actions but about the person ie the nature. That is a common misconception; the reference is in Matt. 7;15-20. verse 15 buttresses this;
"they come to you in sheep's clothing (actions, outward appearance) but inwardly (nature, heart) they are ferocious wolves"
that implies that they would definitely act right and appear outwardly right; but the only way to know them is by discernment (which is a spiritual attribute) as that is the only way of knowing the nature of a person. That was what Jesus was trying to address in that verse. I can go into more detail as regards the use of the word fruit in the biblical context. However, you've already stated that christianity is not necessarily about actions.

As regards the second part of your statement, i totally disagree. that is your own opinion on the subject and not what the bible teaches.
that is the whole essence of the gospel. a very detailed account of the work of God in a believer had been described (prophesised) much earlier in the book of Ezeikel 36;25-27.
“Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 “Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances."
three major issues are addressed in that scripture, the sprinkling with clean water (the word of God - Eph. 5;26), the rebirth and renewal of the believer's spirit (Titus. 3;5), and the deposit of the Spirit of God into the believer's spirit (2Cor.5;5).
we are recreated in our spirits by God at the point of becoming a christian and if that change of nature (ie removal of a heart of stone to be replaced by a heart of flesh) hasn't been or isn't done, one cannot be a christian (in the biblical sense of the word). That is why 2Cor.5;17 (Darby) says;
"So if any one be in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold all things have become new"
Furthermore, this is what Jesus tried to address when speaking to Nicodemus in John 3;5-6;
"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
the work of God in our spirits is what constitutes the new birth or the new creation. that is the whole basis of the gospel and it is consistent with and built upon throughout the scriptures. i could mention many other verses to illustrate it.

Thirdly, as regards the christian life being the result of the beliefs one holds, again the point has to be addressed as to what faith is. I've already done that elsewhere. The vehicle of faith is the means by which the work of God is carried out - they are not mutually exclusive. The beliefs a christian holds about petty issues is inconsequential (Romans 14) as long as the principle of faith is not violated (verse 23).

Would you also say an agnostic Christian is confused? Unsure? Maybe, but I don't know if confused would be a right descriptor.

I don't agree with this term 'agnostic christian'. Methinks it is self-contradictory. the reason one is a christian is because he is sure of God and what he has done (and is doing) in his life. (Heb. 11;6). That is not to say that true christians do not doubt God sometimes; however what is to be clarified is that sometimes they do not feel his presence, but they never doubt his person. The case of Job is a clearcut case. And that again brings up the issue - if you are not sure of God, you aren't a christian (in the biblical sense) John 10;14;
"“I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me,"
If one doesn't know him, then one is not of his. And you can't know someone in the biblical sense without being sure of the person.
I'd say you are confused as to what being a christian is and how to become one.
Cheers.

nferyn:
I wasn't talking about existentialism, but rather about essentialism. As a biologist (and especially as one of the very rare creationist variety), you should know what I'm talking about.

Oops, my bad! Sorry i misread you. Wonder why i did that.

you're using essentialist philosophical constructs to separate true from false christianity based on so called innate differences that separate the two. That's the kind of intellectual folly that regularly leads to authoritarianism and a dictatorial mindset. There is a very large grey zone in almost everything.

Didnt expect this stuff (ie the digression) to go this far but let me indulge. Let me disregard your statement stemming from a misunderstanding of or disagreement with my viewpoints as implying intellectual folly on my part. i've said before now that i didnt put my first response in the right order; ie by placing my third statement in between the second and the fourth. But let's revisit this whole thing.

the initial poster said this

Do you call an animal a Dog because it barks or does the animal bark because its a Dog?

i wouldnt have phrased it that way but this way;
'does the dog bark because it is a dog or is it a dog because it barks?'
in which case your response about seals also barking would be inconsequential; the greater point still being - does the seal's barking make it a seal or does it bark as a result of being a seal. And if you want to be fair to it, within the realm of normalcy, the type of sound produced by a seal is different from that produced by the dog; their vocal cords have different properties so by 'nature' they can't make the same type of sound. But again, that's beside the point i'm trying to make.

the real point i'm trying to address is 'what defines an object?'
I said;

the observed characteristic is a product of the nature of the object.

when i said 'imitation does not bring about a change of nature' what i was trying to address is that; the characteristic does not define the object. Is that essentialism? i sit on the fence as regards essentialism. First i don't agree with the definition of 'essence'. when i said 'nature' of the object, i meant it in terms of a capacity to produce a certain outcome, which, in the case of animals will be their anatomical/physiologic nature.  I don't necessarily mean that all objects of a particular nature will or must act in a certain way, and by my very point i don't agree that the characteristic is the means of definition. So i don't think it is essentialist.
My point is, the characteristic does not define the object, the object is defined in itself, irrespective of whatever characteristic stems from it. By the way the object is constructed, it has the capacity to act in certain ways, and is precluded from producing certain other traits.

So coming back to original post before the digression; the fact that KAG does all those things she did does (or did) not make her a christian. Although you think it is wrong; there is an intrinsic difference between a true christian and a 'false' christian. the term 'christian' is a broad appelation that doesn't take into cognizance the need for a change in nature that is essential to being a true christian, but rather relies on certain characteristics; going to church, saying your prayers etc as the means of definition. maybe i should use a different term; those traits didnt make her a disciple. However, I'd address KAG's issues in my next post.

@pilgrim,
welcome back; i've missed your balanced insights on these threads.

what is amazing is that so many people accuse every other person of a viewpoint different than theirs as being ignorant.
Little wonder though because we humans are always 'wise in our own eyes'.

It has been extensively discussed on this forum that Jesus was NOT European, neither were the europeans the inventors nor the pioneers of the gospel message. the europeans were just fortunate to have heard the gospel earlier and brought it to Africa (and not just Africa but other places as well); the reverse takes place now and many Africans take the message of the gospel to Europe and pastor european congregations.
the same trend ie christianity, takes place in Asia (eg south Korea) and south America. so go ahead and accuse them of worshipping the 'slavemaster's invention' as well.
there are africans that are buddists. they were not colonized by chinese. being chinese is not synonymous with being a buddist, approx 10% of chinese are christians (catholics and protestants included). they were not colonized by europeans.
So much for your enlightenment if you can't research nor acknowlege basic facts.

KAG:
Actually, imitation can bring about a change in nature.

i disagree; at least in the case in reference.

KAG:
And strangely enough, my nature was changed: I became, so to speak, a new person. Would that count?

good for you, although i doubt it was the kind of change in nature i'm referring to.

I disagree. The type of bark a dog makes can often depend on its breed and can vary wildly - with that in mind it would be wrong to think a seal's bark is necessarily different from the bark of dogs. Furthermore, seals aren't imitating the bark of dogs, they are making their own sounds which just happens to be similar to that of a dog and because dogs are the more familiar animals with barks to humans we make the comparism and labelling in respect to dogs.

again, i made a statement in reference to what nferyn said; the two statements aren't linked. ie i'm not saying a seal is imitating a dog. Sorry for the confusion.
i still maintain however that a seal's bark is distinct and different from a dog's bark. like you said, one can assume we call the sounds they make barks just because we see it being similar to that of a dog, but i dont believe one would misplace one for the other.
the bark varies depending on the size, age, etc of the dog. But that doesn't negate what i said; that's why i qualified my statement by saying 'a dog's bark'. i'm trying to drive home a more important point.
Anyways, these are trivialities.

nferyn:
Yuck, I hate essentialism with a vengeance The bane of European philosophy

I'm not an existentialist, neither do i subscribe to its teachings. i was only trying to re-state or paraphrase what someone earlier said.

It's a false dichotomy, the problem of the excluded middle. You can also call it the 'no true Scotsman' phalacy or framing bias, whatever floats your boat. Anyway, the analogy is flawed.

My statement about a seal's bark was only in response to what you said about seals also barking. it is not in relation with the next statement i made about dog's barking ie i wasn't saying a seal is trying to imitate a dog.

Coming to my statement, even though people make this kind of flaw in certain cases, i really don't think it applies here. there are many 'either/or' statements that can be validly made. i made two broad generalizations; i didnt go into specifics so i don't think the flaw you mentioned applies. If it does, then perhaps you could give other possible alternatives - i believe they'll fall under either bracket. Remember i said a dog's bark.

methinks his point was; the observed characteristic is a product of the nature of the object. Imitation does not bring about a change in nature.
True christianity is about a change in nature.
A seal's bark is different from a dog's bark.
when you hear a dog's bark, its either a real dog is barking or someone is imitating it; the problem (with christianity) usually lies in the latter.

just a few scriptures;

Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. But we all, looking on the glory of the Lord, with unveiled face, are transformed according to the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Lord the Spirit. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

(Gal. 6;15, 2Cor 5;17, Col 3;16-17, Col 3;9-10, 2Co 3;18, Col 3;3-4) Make your inferences.

generalization is such a noble virtue

denex:
I corinthians 7:36

But if any man thinks that he is behaving improperly towards his virgin, if she is part the flower of her youth, and thus it must be, let him do as he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry.

Now, thou must note that it does not say let them marry then they can do as they wish. It says let them do as they wish. Let them marry.

What this shows me is that as long as they are certain they are going to get married, and they know they can't control themselves anymore, they should run things then when the time comes, they get married. Nothing spoil.

Sir, you are making a wrong inference on that scripture; there are two common renditions of that scripture, neither of which supports the notion you advocated up there.
the first is that of a father and his virgin daughter; and that is the rendition with a bunch of translations; NASB, GWT, ERV, WEY. If that is the case, then your inference holds no water. Let me quote that rendition in context;
1Cor.7;36-38 (NASB);
But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry. 37 But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. 38 So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better
Like i said, if this rendition is the right one, then your argument about premarital sex using this scripture is baseless. Unless of course, you choose to argue that the bible does advocate men sleeping with their daughters.

However the other rendition is that it refers to a man and his espoused virgin and that is the rendition you misinterpreted.
First let me quote that in context;
Again 1Cor7;36-38 (NIV)
36If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.
    In verses 32 to 35 just preceding the above quotation, Paul was arguing for being single and not marrying, citing that the single person is more devoted to the Lord and his affairs;
I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
From those verses, his arguments are clearly about the benefits of staying unmarried. However, in verse 35, he clarifies, stating that his goal is 'not to restrict anyone'. Some people held on to this notion, and they were getting well on in age and they didn't like that, so he advises in verse 36; 'let them do as they want, let them get married.' And that is exactly what he meant; let them get married just like they want to, it is not a sin to get married. He is NOT in any way saying "let them have sex", for many reasons;
#1, he was not talking about sex at all in that context
#2, he should have phrased it 'let him do as he wants, he is not sinning, let them sleep with each other' (or any other way you want to put it).
#3, the lady will not continue to be a virgin if they go ahead to have sex, so why would he then say in verse 38 "he who marries the virgin does right"? If he was talking about sex, then the lady in question would have ceased to be a virgin and he couldn't then say "he who marries the virgin does right".
#4 worse, he also says in verse 38 "he who does not marry her does even better". Had he been referring to sex in verse 36 that would have meant Paul was saying it is better to sleep with the one you are engaged to and then not marry her than to not sleep with her and then marry her. that is definitely not the case.
#5, the issue of extra-marital sex had been addressed much earlier in the chapter in verse 9 and elsewhere and Paul's stand on that is very clear;
"But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." If you cannot control yourself sexually, then marry. he didn't say, then get engaged.

the key to understanding verse 36 lies in understanding verse 38 and the context of the chapter. The bible is explicitly clear on the subject; all extra-marital sex - either pre or post - is sin. For those who don't live by the bible's standards, no wahala. But for those who claim to live by the standards of the bible, then 1Cor. 6;18 applies;
"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."
Cheers.

@Kag,
LOL, did you have a sex change? or you've been deceiving us all along?
or is it that the confusion of faith has become a confusion of gender?

@Kuns,
arguing with someone like you is a complete waste of time.

Romans 3;5-8 (NIV)
"5But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" 8Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved"

Can you even read at all? Someone might argue, someone might say 'so, so and so'. That doesn't mean I am saying so and so. I'm only quoting what someone might argue. English.

As regards your second post

Paul openly admits in 1 Corinthians 2:3, “and I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.”

It is clear that Paul is talking about himself and admitting that he was a homosexual

Did you bother to read your own argument not to talk of thinking about it;
Paul; 'i was with you in weakness, fear and much trembling'
Kuns; 'weakness + fear + trembling = homosexual'
therefore, Paul = homosexual.

Can you see the folly you have just displayed on this thread? I am sure everyone has felt weak, has been in trembling and has been in fear at one or more points in their lives. why not go right ahead and say that everyone, including you, is a homosexual.
Pity.

I really don't think i would consider your statements worthy of a response unless you try to read and think about your own posts before you make them next time. Cheers.