Jump to content
Banner by ~ Ice Princess Silky

Christian bronies: meet, greet, and mingle!


Zach TheDane

Recommended Posts

(edited)

Not a Christian but...

 

Perhaps you can hide the candy and still try to pull the same trick. Personally I think this is a very clever and hilarious way to get them to realize the lesson.

 

interesting...we always do the candy at the halfway point.  If I have it hidden and don't hand it out at the normal time, I could still get the reaction I expect to happen, but handing the candy out at the end actually mirrors the story even better.  

 

has the side benefit of not just appearing randomly mean to prove a point

Edited by weesh
  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

interesting...we always do the candy at the halfway point.  If I have it hidden and don't hand it out at the normal time, I could still get the reaction I expect to happen, but handing the candy out at the end actually mirrors the story even better.     has the side benefit of not just appearing randomly mean to prove a point

 

I like the sound of this. If you could work a promised land (with promised cake or suchlike) into it that would be really impressive. A pity Easter is past, as that would have been the best way of doing that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

welp, that was underwhelming.

Did not phase the kids at all.  Not a single complaint.

I wonder if this is just randomly the week where they "got it", or if they were actually listening to the story, and knew it would be silly?

either way, well done kids.

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

personally, I find faith to be the leap between what you can know, to what you can't know.

 

there are evidences that a god exists, but they are not wholly satisfying.  not 100%.  faith is what takes your attitude from "i'm pretty sure a god exists" to "a god exists".  

 

I kinda like RidetheLightning's definition, with one clarification: evidence can lead you to your position of faith.  for instance, believing in something just because someone tells you it is true without evidence at all sounds more like naivete than faith.  but coming to a conclusion because it is the most likely scenario to describe how things have happened, and then taking that possibility as fact would qualify for me.    

  • Brohoof 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

personally, I find faith to be the leap between what you can know, to what you can't know.

 

there are evidences that a god exists, but they are not wholly satisfying.  not 100%.  faith is what takes your attitude from "i'm pretty sure a god exists" to "a god exists".  

 

I kinda like RidetheLightning's definition, with one clarification: evidence can lead you to your position of faith.  for instance, believing in something just because someone tells you it is true without evidence at all sounds more like naivete than faith.  but coming to a conclusion because it is the most likely scenario to describe how things have happened, and then taking that possibility as fact would qualify for me.    

 

Be careful with that definition, taking the leap from things are probably true to therefore that thing is true in this context is dangerously close to a logical fallacy called an appeal to probability.  Just because you have demonstrated something to be remotely possible has nothing to do whether it is actually true.  It is the nature of the logical fallacy that it does not  necessarily follow that because something is likely to be true that it therefore is.   It is likely that tomorrow will be sunny, therefore tommorow will be sunny.  Not false but also not true, more is needed.

 

Personally I see faith from the secular definition more often then I do from something a bit more hand wavy.  In a religious sense you could cite Hebrews 11:1.  Though I find that definition a bit wooey.  I also have though about as the position confidence or belief in [insert god, event, holy book here] as the sense of confidence that one gets that x exists or is true in a vacuum.  It is a position that is held at its base without outside support but that does not necessarily mean such support does not exist or is just currently unknown.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be careful with that definition, taking the leap from things are probably true to therefore that thing is true in this context is dangerously close to a logical fallacy called an appeal to probability.  Just because you have demonstrated something to be remotely possible has nothing to do whether it is actually true.  It is the nature of the logical fallacy that it does not  necessarily follow that because something is likely to be true that it therefore is.   It is likely that tomorrow will be sunny, therefore tommorow will be sunny.  Not false but also not true, more is needed.

 

i agree.

the fallacy is in trying to prove that it is true because it is probably true.

the faith is the difference between being able to prove and believing it to be true.  

 

the "proof", that I use for this faith may not hold water to a secular audience, but it is ironclad to me because I experienced it.

I don't expect a non-christian to believe that I talked to God, but such conversations are compelling to me!

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree.

the fallacy is in trying to prove that it is true because it is probably true.

the faith is the difference between being able to prove and believing it to be true.

 

the "proof", that I use for this faith may not hold water to a secular audience, but it is ironclad to me because I experienced it.

I don't expect a non-christian to believe that I talked to God, but such conversations are compelling to me!

And I am a very secular audience and you are right the faith idea doesnt hold a lot of water to me. Such personal experience is necessarily first person and regardless of their nature, can't possibly be justifiable for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Hey guys, let me ask you this, what do you all think defines faith?

 

I guess a more general, secular definition would be: The belief that something is true. Usually something that has some promise in that it is actually true, based on actively observed or gathered information.

 

A more religious definition: The belief that something is true, regardless of how true it is. Based on passively observed or gathered information; the more the information, the stronger the thing is assumed or actually is true (I suppose similar to wishful thinking? I had a better definition, but my browser reset and I can't remember it)

 

Essentially, a big game of probability and statistics, where secular view doesn't take as big chances as the religious view does.

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, in part I agree and disagree with all of you.  At the core of it, faith is believing something that you can not prove.. you yourself might have evidence, but it's not empirical, it's personal. 

 

As the actual word, faith has two definitions

  1. Complete trust of confidence in someone or something
  2. Strong belief in God or the doctrines of religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather then truth..
  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)
Be careful with that definition, taking the leap from things are probably true to therefore that thing is true in this context is dangerously close to a logical fallacy called an appeal to probability.

 

Sort of. Believing what seems most likely is quite reasonable when you have to make a decision based on incomplete evidence - much of a person's daily routine, and even quite major decisions, is usually done like this. The key is the jump from belief to proof - and that depends on what you classify as proof. In mathematics, one must prove something absolutely for the given conditions - the square root of 2 is irrational because it has been shown to be so by mathematical proof and will be so for all of time (in the given system and with the stated definitions etc.) whereas in court, it is a case of 'proof beyond all reasonable doubt.'

 

Of course the risk to be aware of with this approach is confirmation bias, which is (one of the reasons) why when using the scientific method one puts one's research and methodology up for peer review. The absence of consensus indicates that there is no proof (at least, not yet) and so it becomes / remains a matter of belief, which is when one needs to make one's mind up on what one believes - and believing what seems most likely (although sometimes subjective when the matter cannot be determined by probability or statistics) is a reasonable choice to make. But as you say, it should not be considered 'proof.'

 

 

 

the "proof", that I use for this faith may not hold water to a secular audience, but it is ironclad to me because I experienced it.
 

 

And here we get to the fun that 'proof beyond all reasonable doubt' for one is anecdotal evidence for another.

Edited by Once In A Blue Moon
  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 At the core of it, faith is believing something that you can not prove.. you yourself might have evidence, but it's not empirical, it's personal. 

Wouldn't personal evidence be enough to prove to yourself that you have faith in something probable though? As far as empirical evidence, there's the Bible, works of Saints, tradition, etc. In the Catholic Church(granted, only one of the many religious sects, different ones believe differently), the Bible is considered as being correct. Doctors of the church, and various scholars have gone in depth in proving the accuracy of the Bible. I guess in the end you could say, "What you get out of the Bible is personal evidence, but the Bible itself is empirical evidence" (or at least to a Catholic).

 

 

 

Based on passively observed or gathered information

I should make note that I wasn't sure how to better word passively gathered or observed information. Some people have encounters with God "first-hand" information. Others have traditions, stories(saints, etc), and the Bible from which they have gathered or observed "second-hand" information.

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope I'm not stealing the topic, but I wanted to ask you to look at something that I posted earlier in reply to somebody on YouTube. I was curious if you thought I could use some pointers on how I handled the situation.

 

 

I'm going to be quite flat with you. You're capitalizing your statements and saying things with an uppity attitude that is self-glorifying. "THE PASSAGE READS THAT WE KEEP THE SABBATH" It does not, and if you actually read anything that I wrote, you'd understand how. Honestly, the way you replied shows me you didn't give any thought to what I said. You are indeed being self-righteous and rude. I'm done trying to help you in this matter because you've shown that you don't really care about finding the truth so much as you want to look smart. Don't quote me, don't reply to me. I will not respond to you anymore because you aren't offering anything that is profitable. Again, I'll be honest with you: You are not speaking out of love and you have placed a stumbling block in front of me that has grieved me. If you are concerned with the well-being of your brother, then I hope that this will be an eye-opener for you. I'll be praying for you. Romans 14:13-19

I don't know. Got anything to say that you think should be pointed out? Maybe advice to handle things better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope I'm not stealing the topic, but I wanted to ask you to look at something that I posted earlier in reply to somebody on YouTube. I was curious if you thought I could use some pointers on how I handled the situation.

I don't know. Got anything to say that you think should be pointed out? Maybe advice to handle things better?

 

when discussing any sensitive topics, you've got to be above reproach in your tone (which is hard in writing), or things go south.

use logic, and soft words as possible.  Its betterto say, "X suggests Y", then to say "Y is clearly the only possible answer".

 

also, many people will respond without tact or respect no matter what you say.

just ignore such people and don't engage, because they aren't there to listen, they are there to monologue at you.

 

if you ever find yourself typing in caps, or in exasperation, its probably time to step back.  or if you feel compelled to get in the last word or insult them, then it is no longer worth your time and effort.  

 

be aware that disrespect is seen very easily, implied even easier, and can trash your conversation.  for instance, if you start a sentence with "what?!"  you are already saying something akin to "you are stupid".

 

the red flags in your post include "upity attitude", "self glorifying", "if you actually read anything..you'd understand", "you didn't give any thought", "you are being slef-righteous and rude", "you do'nt really care", "you want to look smart", etc.

 

you were clearly already done with the conversation, and were responding with an exasperation that is well and truly familiar to me.  It seems like you are 5-8 replies in with this person already.  the way you have a civil conversation is for your first response to be dripping with respect and openness.  you've got to acknowledge the arguments you think are good.

 

for instance, I recently had a 30+ reply conversation about politics with someone that I very much disagreed with.  nearly every reply topped 1000 words.  I had to proofread every post I sent and edit out things that could be interpreted as hurtful, and I made sure that I said something kind in each post.  even when the person I was talking to get exhasperated, I worked hard to maintain control of myself.

 

keeping respect is something that takes practice and intentionality.  

  • Brohoof 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I stepped into a conversation that had more than 100 total replies. That post was the third thing that I posted... The caps were a ctrl+v of his post. The person I had replied to was (and I'm not even exaggerating) making claims about certain passages that were not true at all. He claimed things that there literally existed no evidence to suggest what he was saying was true.

I'll be honest, I probably shouldn't have posted anything to begin with considering it's Youtube and the fact it had been going on for so long beforehand anyways.

I'll be honest, I wasn't trying to insult him with what I was saying, or try to get the last word. I felt hurt and ignored. My intention was to point out what he had been doing that I found wrong, not to be the right one, but for the truth to be on the table (not having the truth associated with me, but rather have the truth associated with itself).

This is what I had first posted:

 

 

 
Okay, I'm not going to bother reading everything in this conversation (sorry, but it would take too long), so I'm just going to see if I can contribute with the following verses:
John 
-24
Romans 

Romans 14:5-6
Colossians 
-17
Galatians 5:4
Ephesians 2:8-9
Let's take a look at them one at a time.
The first obviously spells out to us that matters of worship are not something of the flesh, but of the spirit. It should go without saying that worshiping on a certain day is irrelevant.
The second illustrates the fact that we are not required to keep Mosaic law because we are saved by grace.
The third shows us that how sacred a day is is merely a matter of the conviction of the individual and that no matter what day one considers sacred, it is good because they see it as sacred for the sake of worshiping God.
In the fourth, we are told that we are not to be judged with regards to a Sabbath day, and obviously this would extend to mean that we are not to be the ones judging either. I don't know how it can be any clearer than this, to be honest. Look at the link below to see several different translations:
http://biblehub.com/colossians/2-16.htm
All of these translations clearly spell it out: do not judge about matters concerning the celebration of a Sabbath day. People say that "fulfill" did not mean "change", but if you're trying to use this to justify Saturday you ought to observe every Mosaic law. The Mosaic law included things such as prohibition of bestiality. That wasn't in the Commandments, yet we still follow it. Also, I must ask why there is this insistence that the Sabbath is moral and not ceremonial. Its very nature is ceremonial and celebratory, and nowhere in the Bible does it specifically get called out as a moral law. The assumption that it is has no grounds other than it is in the TC, and that holds no grounds because it is an opinionated assumption. Consider this: for us who are saved under Christ, how does morality change from one day to the next?
Now the fifth one. Again, I'm not sure how things could be more clear. Trying to be justified by the Law is useless. Why is it useless? Because trying to justify yourself negates the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Only God can take away sins, not your good deeds and Sabbath-keeping. Worshiping on a specific day will not save you.
The last one clearly shows us that there is no work that can be done that will save us, that salvation is entirely based on God's grace, which we receive by confessing our sins and wholeheartedly trusting in Christ's saving power.

Let me reiterate this: Sabbath rest is a work of the flesh and has no saving power. Only Christ's blood can save. When you start inserting "and"s into the mix, you are not showing faith in Christ, but rather in your own ability.

Just to give you some background, this is what he replied:

 

 

you should have read the thread - every one of your suppositions were destroyed. You simply rehashed what was already explained. Your last statement "Sabbath rest is a work of the flesh" is found NOWHERE in scripture - in fact Paul wrote:
"Therefore there remaineth a Sabbath rest for the people of God" - HB 4
You are in error.

Fragment of what I replied:

 

Can you please take a step back for a moment? You're turning this into a quarrel and an "I'm right and you're wrong" sort of thing. You did nothing to explain how I was wrong. Tell me, how did I misinterpret? And by what means do you think you need to call my faith in Christ alone a superstition? Do you not care for the hurtful things you say, or are you more concerned with looking like the wise one?

~~

Why is it you feel so inclined to be hostile? Stop with this attitude of yours and just listen. What are you trying to tell me? That I will not inherit because I do not observe the Sabbath on a specific day? While I am saved by God's grace, the specific day on which I rest will keep me from God's kingdom? This is not the old cov, the need to continue observing a specific activity is not going to save me any more than observing the sacrificial laws. I am saved by God's blood alone, not my ability to rest on a specific day on the calendar. Please. I have given you the courtesy of looking at the Scriptures you have sited fully prepared to reject any notion that I previously had. Please give me the same courtesy.

I wasn't sure what to say, really. I felt the need to address the way he was talking to everybody else in the conversation. I don't know, I thought that my first post was respectful. I always go at things from a neutral perspective, and my teacher keeps telling me that I end up sounding rude. I ask things like "Do you know what x means?" because I legitimately believe that the person's previous statement implies that they do not and I am trying to establish whether or not they do so that I can move forward. I don't know how else to go about things, I thought you were supposed to ask questions to get answers. Yet, I realize that everything I say has the danger of sounding snide. This frustrates me. I'm not trying to justify myself or any of the comments I made, I'm legitimately telling you my way of thinking to establish a common ground to move forward. (I'm sorry if this gets a bit long, but this is really starting to make me cry. And I'm not trying to get sympathy from you, I just want to be honest and frank with you.)

When I said he was being "self-glorifying" I told him that because that's what I noticed in all of his posts. I don't know about any of you, but I seriously hate it when I have an attitude about something and nobody addresses it or calls me out. I'm trying to better myself, and I prefer it if people realize that if they let me continue to, say, be snide or inconsiderate that I have the potential to hurt somebody else. I don't know how to rebuke without seeming unkind. I'm never saying things to insult people. When I said "I'm done trying to help you in this matter because you've shown that you don't really care about finding the truth so much as you want to look smart" I meant that in a basic manner and quite literally. No extra feelings. I wasn't intending to insult him or cop an attitude or show him up or humiliate him or act as though I deserved something from him. I just meant it simply as I said it. "I'm done trying to help you" I didn't think that continuing the conversation would have yielded any good results. "you've shown that you don't really care about finding the truth so much as you want to look smart" He showed that he was more concerned with asserting himself forward than the scriptures. I didn't say that with any thought of "And I on the other hand" or any comparison between the two of us; I was talking to him about him, not myself.
I know this is going to sound really childish, but when I said "you didn't give any thought to what I said" I felt a little hurt. I wasn't trying to make it seem like my word was law or somehow better than his, I was trying to communicate that he was more focused on his own agenda than actually considering something that somebody else was trying to say. And to reiterate, I considered what he said, so I'm not telling him to do something that I didn't do myself (though I didn't read all of his last few comments because I kept seeing certain keywords).

I don't know what to say, really. I didn't think any of his arguments were good because they all came out with such heat. Now I'm wondering if I did the same. I don't want to be rude here.

Thank you for your response, weesh. Sorry if I missed the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its tough to jump into a conversation midstream.  especially if you aren't willing to get caught up on it.  

 

he was rude, but it is not surprising that he was exasperated by the time you got there.

 

that's a long time to to debate.

 

I'd have left after the first time it was made clear that people were rude and unwelcoming, and I woudln't ahve even said goodbye.  

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've also been talking to a lot of Muslims on youtube as well, as I've been trying to understand their point of view.
The first 4-5 of them that engaged me were very respectful and helpful, and I had some neat conversations.  But the most recent one got a really nasty reply.  The person was not interested in discussion, being polite, or understanding the perspective of others.  I typed out a long angry reply...deleted it...and then said goodbye.  even with lots of practice, the skill of not getting drawn into an angry discourse is very challenging.

 

--- 

 

But I've learned a ton, and though some of you guys might be interested in what I've discovered.  

(but keep in mind, I'm a new student of it, and might be mistaken, or have misinterpreted what I heard)

 

I'd always wondered about what Muslims thought about Jesus, and why.  I couldn't understand why it was so radically different than our image of Jesus.  It was baffling to me that we could be in agreement on so many things, but for all of these major items to be different.  I thought that if I could find verses that they agreed with that would point the way to Christ, they might engage me on those points.

 

The most interesting thing I learned about the beliefs of Islam was that the measuring stick by which they judge all writings about history is the Quran.  Basically, non-Quranic writings fall into three categories
1) Confirmed by the Quran: believe it as truth
2) Contradicted by the Quran: reject it as false
3) Unaddressed by the Quran: neither believe it nor disbelieve it.

 

They apply this standard to the bible, as well as to their collection of Hadiths.  Some of the Hadiths used by radical Muslims fall into the 2nd or 3rd category, and a mainstream muslim would not give them much weight.

 

Thus, if I could show that a verse implied that Jesus was divine, then they would know to reject that verse, since it was in contradiction with the Quran.  

 

When you pull out such a verse, a Muslim might take that as evidence of the bible's corruption!  

 

---

 

One of the other things that I'd always wondered about was "why do Muslims consider Muhammad greater than Jesus, when both faiths agree that Jesus was without sin?"

Well, the totally surprising to me answer was that ALL of the people they consider to be prophets, from Adam to Moses to King David to Jesus to Muhammad were without sin, making Jesus not at all unique on that front.  So the biblical accounts of sin in Moses, David, Solomon, etc are considered to be false.  They do not believe that David killed Uriah, or committed adultery with Bathsheba.  They do not believe that Solomon had 700 wives either.  This makes it much easier to see why the Muslim perspective of Jesus and Muhammad.  

 

---

 

Hopefully some of that was new and interesting to you. We could all use a little perspective sometimes.

  • Brohoof 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@@weesh,

 

I kind of knew most of that already from my own research but nice to see you do some investigations of your own. It is good that we seek to understand other faiths so that we can appeal to the commonality of having faith in something. Of course it helps that, accounting for different interpretations, Muslims and Christians do pray to the same God. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi! I'm a Christian brony.  :squee:  I'm just kind of popping into say hello, I exist, and I'd like to make friends. I totally understand if this thread is more for theological discussions, as I've seen a lot of them on here while scrolling through. Anyhoo. It's nice knowing there are more Christian bronies out there.

  • Brohoof 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi! I'm a Christian brony.  :squee:  I'm just kind of popping into say hello, I exist, and I'd like to make friends. I totally understand if this thread is more for theological discussions, as I've seen a lot of them on here while scrolling through. Anyhoo. It's nice knowing there are more Christian bronies out there.

 

Oh no it's not. "Meet and greet" is in the title it just so happens that such discussion kind of becomes a thing when you have frequent visitors to this particular thread. Welcome.

  • Brohoof 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi! I'm a Christian brony.  :squee:  I'm just kind of popping into say hello, I exist, and I'd like to make friends. I totally understand if this thread is more for theological discussions, as I've seen a lot of them on here while scrolling through. Anyhoo. It's nice knowing there are more Christian bronies out there.

Welcome, TarnishedMoonlight! I hope you enjoy your time here.   

 

 

 

Oh no it's not. "Meet and greet" is in the title it just so happens that such discussion kind of becomes a thing when you have frequent visitors to this particular thread. Welcome.

+1

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Join the herd!

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...