Identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs

[William]

As I have been pondering more implicitly about the question of nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs - particularly for the purpose of being able to identify arguments which are a waste of time even attempting to debate, and those which are not - I have come up with a short list of common - mainly Christian based ones - which I thought I would throw out there to see what others think.

Feel free to add other nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs you think should be on this list as well.


My picks
1: The GOD of the OT is 'The one and only true GOD'.
2: Jesus was the promised Messiah
3: Jesus was a messenger of the OT GOD.
4: The bible is the 'inerrant word of GOD'

I have thought of others, but since they can be subsets of these 4 main ones, see little point in listing them.


Q: What can definitely be considered nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs?

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 30 by mrhagerty]


Moderator Warning

Please stick to addressing debate topics rather than debating people and what they should or should not do. If another person is breaking rules of the forum, please report it rather than addressing them directly (especially insulting and commanding).

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[showme]

[Replying to post 1 by William]

Jesus saves!

The meaning of Yeshua/Joshua is YHWY saves. And the trinity is a pagan ideology, which was instituted at the Council of Nicaea, which was convened by the "beast with two horns like a lamb", the emperor Constantine. The trinity, and the cross image, is part of the mark of the beast, and the "Christian" community in general, wears that mark. Those who are "deceived" by that "beast", include "those who dwell on the earth (Revelation 13:14). "Faith based beliefs" is a misnomer. Faith is rooted in an action. A belief is a state of mind. "Faith without works is useless" (James 2:20). Yeshua is the right arm of God (Psalm 118:16-22). Messiah means "anointed one". All judges, kings, prophets, and high priest of Israel are "anointed". Elijah was the messenger of God (Malachi 4:8) who apparently failed to "restore" "the hearts of the children to their fathers". Yeshua was the prophet promised to Moses, in whom the people of Israel should listen too. Apparently "few" have heeded, and the "many" are on the "broad" "path" to "destruction" (Matthew 7:13) (Matthew 7:24-27).

[dio9]

As I have been pondering more implicitly about the question of nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs - particularly for the purpose of being able to identify arguments which are a waste of time even attempting to debate, and those which are not - I have come up with a short list of common - mainly Christian based ones - which I thought I would throw out there to see what others think.

Feel free to add other nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs you think should be on this list as well.


My picks
1: The GOD of the OT is 'The one and only true GOD'.
2: Jesus was the promised Messiah
3: Jesus was a messenger of the OT GOD.
4: The bible is the 'inerrant word of GOD'

I have thought of others, but since they can be subsets of these 4 main ones, see little point in listing them.


Q: What can definitely be considered nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs?

1. God id not limited by one religion's holy scripture.
2.It was definitely a messianic age .Jesus would have been successful if he hadn't been betrayed. Don't think it was God's will for him to be crucified.
3. Yes Jesus taught the values of OT God.
4. A great deal of the bible records human folly. What's not to be inerrant? Power corrupts and our hope is that good will over evil..

Are faith based beliefs worth keeping? Some are , others are just dumb., keep the good ones.

[shnarkle]

As I have been pondering more implicitly about the question of nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs - particularly for the purpose of being able to identify arguments which are a waste of time even attempting to debate, and those which are not - I have come up with a short list of common - mainly Christian based ones - which I thought I would throw out there to see what others think.

Feel free to add other nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs you think should be on this list as well.


My picks
1: The GOD of the OT is 'The one and only true GOD'.
2: Jesus was the promised Messiah
3: Jesus was a messenger of the OT GOD.
4: The bible is the 'inerrant word of GOD'

I have thought of others, but since they can be subsets of these 4 main ones, see little point in listing them.


Q: What can definitely be considered nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs?

This isn't my faith based belief, but certainly is for most. Some may view these as a joke, but this is exactly what I have seen repeatedly professed for the last 4 decades.

These are the top 10:

1.All things are possible with God except keeping his commandments.

2.God's covenant with Israel is no longer valid becuase they couldn't keep it, but the new covenant is valid because it can't be kept.

3. Laws that can't be kept in one' s heart require them to be written down, and subsequently broken due to the fact that what can't be kept in one's heart, can't be kept when writtten down. Writing them down makes this plain to those who can't tell that they're sinning.

4. Faith allows one to keep God's commandments, but is in itself imperfect, therefore it is of no use in keeping God's commandments.

5.Christ's sacrifice not only allows us to sin, but to redefine sin as condoned rather than prohibited.

6. The law pointed to Christ, but when Christ arrived, the law is no longer necessary. So we don't have to offer sacrifices to cover our sins. They are covered and allow us to sin with impunity for as long as we live.

7.Any law that can be fulfilled as a means to a closer relationship with God is no longer valid as Christ is the only way. Therefore any and all laws are done away with as they all draw us closer to God.

8. Our free will effectivly negates God's omnipotence. God cannot make anyone do anything.

9. God's Spirit can restrain Satan, and effectively prevent him from exercising his free will.

10. Contradictions are a perfectly acceptable tenet of the faith.

[William]

[Replying to post 33 by dio9]

Are faith based beliefs worth keeping? Some are , others are just dumb., keep the good ones.

The thread is specific to identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs. (NNFBB's)

[Replying to post 34 by shnarkle]

This isn't my faith based belief, but certainly is for most.

The thread is specific to identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs. (NNFBB's)

[shnarkle]

This isn't my faith based belief, but certainly is for most.

The thread is specific to identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs. (NNFBB's)

Yes, I got that. These are definitely nonnegotiable to those who profess them. I have spent decades asking for clarification on them, as well as debating them with the inevitable conclusion that they are clearly nonnegotiable.

[William]

[Replying to post 30 by mrhagerty]

Inevitably once both camps agree together on what is NNFBB and what is on the common list only those who are ignorant of this or otherwise willing to ignore, will waste their time arguing with one another.

You're one of them.

I was until - as I wrote - "It is simply years of experience and deducing that in all cases where debate involves certain subjects, (such as those listed) those subjects have been consistently seen to be nonnegotiable."
Once the penny dropped and I understood the dynamic, I was able to understand where my time would simply be wasted attempting to negotiate the nonnegotiable.

Look at the thread titles in this forum. They reek of faith-based non-negotiable implications that will of necessity call for debating. And YOU participate in them - then have the audacity to claim you're putting forward this thread is to avoid wasting time in them.

Ordinarily the process involved with making claims such as the above, in a debate setting, is for the claimant to provide quotes and links etc where the claim can be substantiated. Until this is done, such comments can be treated as hearsay and ignored as irrelevant to the argument.

I'm here because I disagree that faith-based topics are nonnegotiable.

Well and good, but this thread topic isn't about faith-based beliefs which ARE negotiable. It is about identifying those which are not.

My list of picks which are commonly seen to be NNFBB's are;

1: The GOD of the OT is 'The one and only true GOD'.
2: Jesus was the promised Messiah
3: Jesus was a messenger of the OT GOD.
4: The bible is the 'inerrant word of GOD'

There will be exceptions to the norms of course, but so far no one claiming to be a 'Christian' - including yourself - has made any argument that anything on the above list is - actually - negotiable.

I mean, its simply nave to think that there could be some topics coming out of the nonnegotiable debate that would make the prospect of debate even interesting.

And I guess thats why this whole attempt seems so incredulous.

Or, the above is a simply conclusion based upon mere assumption. People are people and it may be discovered over time that understanding the age old useless dynamics of pointless argument - those who do - will gravitate to more convivial modes of interaction - perhaps even deep and meaningful

Oh. You mean topics like "Do Christians look better in green ties or blue ties?"

I am not sure why you think all Christians are somehow left to the mundane once their NNFBB's are identified as "that which is not up for debate'.

That's a safe topic. NOOOO proselytizing possible there.

Proselytizing NNFBB's doesn't belong in a debate setting. Why you are unable or otherwise unwilling to accept that, I can only guess. Identifying what does not belong helps individuals to focus on what remains - which of course must be subjects which are open to negotiation.

I personally have no problem with anyone proselytizing whatever they want in regard to what they believe and do not believe. My focus is on determining what is and what isn't up for negotiation.
Someone might say "I believe such and such" and I might respond with "but here are the holes I have identified in your beliefs" and they - more often than not - will ignore my observations and simply carry on proselytizing those beliefs. I can then ascertain that I am dealing with someone who is not interested in examining the holes I have identified in their beliefs and only wants to proselytize those beliefs AT me. Any further debate on the subject is pointless at that stage, as all I am doing is offering them further opportunity to proselytize. They have effectively shown me that their faith-based beliefs are not up for debate.

Or, "Should Christians Buy Nice Houses or Poor Ones."

Because those are the ones that are left after you win your argument about NNFBB.

If my argument 'wins' anything it will largely go unnoticed until it is popular, in that individuals will accept my argument as not only logical and thus relevant, but also helpful and efficient.

A good analogy might be the following.

The Water = the individual who has identified NNFBB's and no longer participates in any argument with such.

The Rocks = Those who use debate forums as an opportunity for them to witness their NNFBB's.

The "Win" = the individual who has accepted the argument and realizes it is better to be The Water in relation to The Rocks.

In that, this is quite the mature response to make in relation to NNFBB's.

Oh. You mean topics like "Do Christians look better in green ties or blue ties?"

...

Or, "Should Christians Buy Nice Houses or Poor Ones."

...

Explain how we would "gravitate to more convivial modes of interaction" with those subjects.

Those examples ready need no explanation. The mundane is that easy to agree with.

For example, I would do this.

ME: Dear LORD...Do Christians look better in green ties or blue ties?

Dear LORD: "Ummm...I prefer the sparkly ones...what do you think?"

ME: "I don't know...it does not seem to matter. Perhaps it is the individuals choice?
Should Christians Buy Nice Houses or Poor Ones?

Dear LORD: Perhaps it is the individuals choice?

ME: "But didn't you say people who follow you should reject the mundane?"

Dear LORD: Perhaps I did. Perhaps I didn't. Perhaps it is the individuals decision to make?

ME: Riiiiiiight! So how do I go about recognizing the what is true and what is not?

Dear LORD: Is that a trick question? You find out what is your truth and what is another's truth and then you set about attempting to merge those truths together to make that truth bigger...and if they cannot merge, your question remains unanswered.

ME: Wheew! That'll take one hell of a campfire!

Dear LORD: You're telling me!!

... in an atmosphere reminiscent of gathering around a campfire as 'friendlies' - as members of a family which are not gathered for the purpose of judgmentalism, subtle put-downs, 'winning' through one-upmanship etc ad nauseam.

This is the most naive and puerile statement I've read in a decade or more.

Expression of attitude such as the above will have to be cast into the campfire as they make great fuel. One cannot join the circle until that is done. Call it a 'down-payment' if you will.

You really have the idea that Christians and atheists can sit around the fire and sing Kumbayah?

Seriously? I expect that those ones will still be occupied in wasting that aspect of their life-time "debating" NNFBB's and simply wouldn't enjoy a good campfire and great company, preferring each other and the egocentric loop-feeds they create together and subsist upon.

It won't be "Christians and atheists" sitting around the campfire being all nice and pleasant with each other. The problem with your argument is that - like so many atheists - you think the world ONLY consist of "Theists OR Atheists" but the reality may well be that most of us are agnostic and that 'theism and atheism' are really just subsets of Agnosticism. All the agnostics gather around the campfire singing all sorts of songs together. It won't happen overnight, which is not to say that it won't happen.

Is it that you see this as possible if Christians could just abandon their polarizing precepts that draw the hard lines that separate people?

Christians are free to throw their wall-building, barrier-setting, hard-line-drawings into the campfire should any care to join the circle. Or their NNFBB's will keep being ignored except by actual atheists who also enjoy building defenses.

Is that the golden mountain you see ahead?

A golden mountain is no different from a golden calf if it is idolized as a GOD.

However, if it is something one might think a genuine GOD would have one do...gather in a circle around a campfire and be all friendly with one another...I hear-tell there are worse things supposed GODs have come up with to focus our attentions upon. If the focus of one's intentions is to build defenses around said intentions, that is what one's focus will be and what one will continue to support in relation to ones proselytizing.

[center]*Throws another log on the fire, picks up guitar and begins to tune it.*[/center]

[William]

[Replying to post 36 by shnarkle]

The thread is specific to identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs. (NNFBB's)

Yes, I got that. These are definitely nonnegotiable to those who profess them. I have spent decades asking for clarification on them, as well as debating them with the inevitable conclusion that they are clearly nonnegotiable.

Q: In having identified them as NNFBB's, do you now refrain from involving yourself in trying to convince those who have them, not to have them? That is part of the purpose of the process of identifying NNFBB's. Saving - even - decades of life time rather than wasting it.

Q: Are you able to see that it is most likely that the list you provided is less collectively agreed upon in relation to the list I provided, and in that, it is only necessary to identify the NNFBB's I listed (The main trunk of the tree, as it were) in order to ascertain that there is no further point in interaction with the believer to the point where you then find out the particulars where each separate and branch out from that tree-trunk?

[dio9]

[Replying to William]

The creeds are nonnegotiable .

[showme]

[Replying to William]

The creeds are nonnegotiable .

Apparently the first creed, the Nicene Creed, was instituted under the direction of the Pontifex Maximus, the Roman Emperor Constantine, who was the "beast with two horns like a lamb", who was to "deceive" those who "dwell on the earth" (Revelation 13:11-14).