Does Neutrality exist?

[chrispalasz]

On the thread: "How do we know God is the good guy?" -
Tigerlilly wrote:

God is the enemy of Satan, yet we only have one point of view, and I doubt we know the true nature of went on from a neutral persepective.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 1579#11579

I propose that neutrality does not exist. I think that anyone claiming to hold a "neutral" perspective on something is living a bias. The concept of "neutral" comes from a simple lack of understanding and lack of knowledge. We can only consider ourselves neutral if we don't have the facts... So, let's debate this issue.

Here's the question:
Does neutrality exist? Please support your stance.

[seen da light]

I think that a biblical church is the correct demnomination.
So most likely a charasmatic modern church who only go after what god says and are guided by prayer as opposed to human planning.
A denomination that follows the word of God down to the letter.
a biblical church...

[BeHereNow]

If you don't know the names of any "true" Christian church, just say so.

[seen da light]

any church, whether it be of any denomination, that if compared to the biblical model,is similar or exactly the same,with no traditions added to it.
that is a true denomination.
Denominations shouldn't exist, but it has been worldly traditions added to churches that have caused people to break away from it.because they have seen that it isn't the biblical. If you wish to argue this further, lets do it by private messages or on a more suitable subject post.here we should be arguing neutrality , not what church denomination is the correct one(the biblical model)

God bless

[c2u]

Well I believe it is extremely dangerous to not be a Christian... which is to defy God.

So basically, what you are saying is that anyone who is not a Christian is defying god. I beg to differ, anyone who does not follow Christianity isn't defying god they are, in there own way, following god. If there is one thing that most religions have in common with Christianity and that is believing that there is a god. Many religions have their own way of following god and just because they don't use your way of adhering to god, doesn't mean that they defying god!

I respect the fact that it is your opinion! And this is mine!

And I beg to differ. Black and White works for God.

What do mean by black and white?
How does it work for god?

god bless

[seen da light]

Just a note to c2u, this is the second time that I can't even tell who you are answering.either rebut the one above or specify who you are answering.by the way, the topic is neutrality,not is christianity correct.please stick to the topic.I will answer you anyway though
c2u said

So basically, what you are saying is that anyone who is not a Christian is defying god. I beg to differ, anyone who does not follow Christianity isn't defying god they are, in there own way, following god. If there is one thing that most religions have in common with Christianity and that is believing that there is a god. Many religions have their own way of following god and just because they don't use your way of adhering to god, doesn't mean that they defying god!

Any one who doesn't follow Christ, is separated from God by sin.There isn't any other way.Jesus said he is "the way the truth and the life" not that he is "a truth a way and a life"
there is no way to the father except through the son(Jesus).which leaves the question, what God are you serving?(and are you going to get to him)

so basically, they are defying God.

where are you quoting from?you must remember the context before you pose such a question.double check and if you are still confused, post the thing in context (or atleast say who it is)

[c2u]

Sorry about my last post reply. I have forgotten who I have quoted!
I quoted greenlights writing

well I believe it is extremely dangerous to not be a Christian... which is to defy God.

and the other one about the black and white is from greenlights writings swell. Im sorry!

[seen da light]

Black and White works for God.

please note, this is not racially biased as I think that you are thinking.

What the black and white means is that its either good or bad-no shades of grey in between.Its either a sin or it isn't...

God bless

[BeHereNow]

seen da light If you wish to argue this further, lets do it by private messages or on a more suitable subject post.here we should be arguing neutrality , not what church denomination is the correct one(the biblical model)

Okay. Here it is.

[BeHereNow]

This "neutral" at discussion is simply another word for objective.

Tigerlilly says: "God is the enemy of Satan, yet we only have one point of view, and I doubt we know the true nature of (what) went on from a neutral persepective." Also "We never hear the story from Satan's point of view or the point of view of other Angels."

I will take Tigerllillys position as my own, as I understand it. Not to say that Tigerlilly and I are of one mind, but I can see the truth that is written.

And on the other side of the fence, greenlight311 totally misses the point, as indicated: " The concept of "neutral" comes from a simple lack of understanding and lack of knowledge. We can only consider ourselves neutral if we don't have the facts."

Neutrality, as used here, occurs with complete or equal knowledge and understanding, or total ignorance.
If I am totally ignorant, I may say that I can not make an informed decision, so I am therefore neutral. If I know nothing of either side, I may rightly stay in the middle, or neutral.
As soon as I know even a little of one side (but not the other), I have lost neutrality.
In order to regain a neutral position, I need at least equal knowledge of the other side. I cannot make an informed decision, if I know one side, but not the other.

The more we know, the better or stronger our choice will be.

If we know "all that we are capable of knowing", or "all there is to know", about an issue, we can make a truly objective decision, which may be neutral.

Of course with total knowledge, we may favor one side or the other, and not be neutral. But we are not required, to favor one side or the other, on all or any issues. Among friends and family, I often see both sides, but fail to favor one side or the other.
He wants to go to the ball game, she want to go to the flower show. Where do I think they should go? Its up to them, Im neutral. You tell me I have to go along wherever they decide, Im still neutral, as I have as much interest in sports as flowers.
If I know about flower shows, but know nothing about sports, of course I will choose one or the other. If I like flowers shows I will choose it, if I hate flower shows, I will take my chances with sports. If I know only one side or the other, I can not be neutral.

With knowledge and understanding come objectivity, and with objectivity comes neutrality.

Concerning the biblical account of good and evil, there is only one side presented. We would call this a very subjective presentation. With only this one side presented, we can not be neutral, or objective.

Tigerlilly says (paraphrased): of course the bible bad-mouths satan, god is the enemy of satan, who would think he would say good things about satan. Maybe if we know satans side of the story, we might be on his side.
How can this not be true?

The playground bully forces himself on his class mates, and convinces them to name him president of the class, even though his opponent never gets to speak. The bully promises them wonderful things in years to come if they just follow him. His henchmen keep his opponent out of sight and sound, so no one knows what might have been. The classmates are grateful for what they have, never knowing anything better. If the opponent is revealed to them, they may actually prefer the loser, and wish they had resisted the bully.

We can not objectively choose the biblical god, if we are not equally knowledgeable about other choices.
This choice may be between biblical god, and biblical satan.
It may be between biblical god and secular humanism.

Christians may choose god over satan, but they do so without knowing the other side (except by the propaganda of god). Tigerlilly says if they truly know the other side, the decision might not be so easy. Knowing both sides gives the opportunity for neutrality.

Of course we make may choices which are not objective, and are quite content.
We do not need to be objective to choose god over satan.

seen da light back to the topic-can anyone be truely neutral?
Never.A person, no matter how illiterate on the matter always has an opinion on something.they have either been in that situation, seen that situation or heard of it and have their own view on the matter.debators especially are extreemely opinionated.How else do you debate unless you are coming from somewhere?
Any one who claims neutrality in essence is lying.tThat in itself is not being neutral.Truely neutral is a eutopean idea brought forth by people who wish to comfort themselves into believing that they are neutral thus better then the arguing parties.No one is truely neutral nor will anyone ever be.

There is no neutrality about anything, ever???
Hogwash
Which child do I love best? Im neutral. If you doubt me on that, you are a fool.
Do I like groundhog day, or possum day better? Im neutral. You think I really have a favorite?
Do I like Brittney Spears, or Ashley Simpson better? Im neutral.
Which disco song do I like best? Theyre all trash, Im neutral.
Do I prefer poison oak, or poison ivy? Im neutral.
Do I prefer cantaloupe or honeydew melon? I have no preference! Ill eat what is put in front of me. Im neutral. Call me a liar if you will, I just do not have a preference.
Do I like red bricks, or yellow bricks better? It just depends. Without knowing more, Im neutral.
Which one of my ten pairs of black socks do I prefer? I'm neutral.

There are all kinds of informed decisions we make where we have no real preference.
We experience neutrality every day.

[c2u]

Yes and no!

quote: beherenow. Neutrality, as used here, occurs with complete or equal knowledge and understanding, or total ignorance.
If I am totally ignorant, I may say that I can not make an informed decision, so I am therefore neutral. If I know nothing of either side, I may rightly stay in the middle, or neutral.
As soon as I know even a little of one side (but not the other), I have lost neutrality.
In order to regain a neutral position, I need at least equal knowledge of the other side. I cannot make an informed decision, if I know one side, but not the other.

Yes, I agree, someone can be neutral in some of their decisions that they make. They can make these neutral decisions by knowing both sides of whatever they are deciding about. They make their decisions not based on what they feel but on what they know and once they know both sides, they can a make a neutral decisions or agreement in whatever they are doing. When they make these decisions they wont be lying, seen the light!

But I must disagree as well. I know for a fact that someone, who doesn't let their views and emotions get in their way of making a decisions or agreement, can make a neutral decisions or agreement. For some people this maybe possible, however, for some people neutrality is an impossible thing to do.

It is impossible for some people because some people can't put their views and feelings on a certain topic or decisions aside. It is very difficult.
even for me ,sometimes , I can't help but base some of my decisions on what I feel or my views on a certain topic or a certain decisions that I make . It is sometimes due to the fact of what my morals are and in what I believe in and I know this happens to many people. Even to some that can be neutral.

It happens because we, as humans, have feelings (egg. hate, love, etc) and even views that cloud our minds. It is a basic fact. Some of us can control these feelings for the better. Some can control their feelings and their views, so that they can make a neutral decision but some can not do this!

I do not fully I agree with either seen the light or herebenow fully!

That's my opinion!