How to destroy a thread

[El Predicador]

Originally Posted by noeticknight

The moral of the (Paul examples) was simply this: He was able to correctly distinguish truth from tradition.

With that said, I disagree with your assertion that assuming the stance of disagreement will “inevitably” label you as a divisive individual. It is true that everything cannot be inclusive, specifically with regards to morality issues, or there would be no cohesive force left to distinguish truth from untruth. Working from this viewpoint, we can make this more understandable by observing the laws of nature. We cannot naturally inhabit space (without advanced technology), because we are limited by gravity, extremely cold temperatures, the presence solar wind, lack of oxygen, distance, etc. So is it valid to adopt a contentious disposition because mankind is naturally restricted by these limitations? Shouldn’t we be able to do anything we want? Well, no, not necessarily. On the other hand, it is ridiculous to assume we should remain ignorant and stifled in our human existence, without ever exploring our surroundings. The more honorable attitude would cause us to objectively understand our surroundings and the forces that be, so that we can better function accordingly.

So if your “liberals” are the ones wanting no limits, and the “conservatives” are saying we should never jump higher than two feet off the Earth, which group deserves our utmost consideration? I say it is the third group who has worked through the truths of our environment and understands our human limitations and liberties. It is the voices of those unheard because they have been muted by our own lack of knowledge. Exlpaining these limitations in and of itself, is not being "divisive", but their revelations ought to be consistent with truth.

Interesting exercise in stream of consciousness posting.


Care to restate, summarize or translate?

In ATTEMPTING to cipher it seems you are addressing the cons as actually being contentious.

In MY post I was merely pointing out why they are perceived that way.

Using your example, if there is a faction, once again RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, who believe jumping more than two feet off the ground will send you to hell. And a more “liberal” faction believes you can jump as high as ten feet. The con’s two feet jumping will be within the libs understanding of salvation therefore they can still fellowship with them since the cons, although in disagreement, are still saved. However, the libs jumping three or more will be condoning a message sending people to hell and therefore cannot be fellowshipped or supported by the cons.

When the cons withhold that fellowship they will be the ones perceived as being divisive.

Summary for the slow: (lol)

Whether or not you agree with or understand the “standard” being held as salvational, the one holding that standard cannot support those who do not feel that way, and will therefore be viewed as judgmental and divisive by those not believing that “standard” as being salvational