email received on 15 Oct 2010
First, I don't talk about studied topics, I just write analytically.
I see factors when speaking:
* on average someone does not hear.
* on average someone does not analyze.
* on average to determine personal and non-analytical concepts
* on average to irritate.
* on average do not examine piece by piece. among others
I sent the subject links. If the Lord has a clear and thorough demonstration, using the Bible if you are only a non-Adventist Christian.
Or in the case of an Adventist Christian, use the Bible and the EGW testimonies.
The analysis must be logical, not personal positions.
In other words, if something was changed today, it must be demonstrated in the scriptures that it was changed, and not ratify by personal views.
A logical analysis is not only rational, rational is what we can understand, logic and the analytical system of a given concept or position based on a specific source. If the source is the Bible and (or) EGW testimonies, we will work on the subject. But if the source is determined with someone's personal position, then you don't get anywhere and the matter is not resolved.
using the rules of arithmetic 2 + 2 = 4
This is logical.
2 + 2 = 22
This is rational, but it is not the rules of arithmetic.
It seems that both are similar but are extremely different. Because if 2 + 2 = 4 you cannot leave this concept, you will soon reach a point in common.
But if 2 + 2 = 22, then it is someone's personal idea, because the correct one would be 20 + 2 = 22 or 2 + 20 = 22.
If 2 + 2 = 22, then by the same principle 2 + 2 = 202, or 2 + 2 = 2.2 or 2 + 2 = 2020000, and so on, one cannot reach a common point soon.
If your analysis is based on a logical scripture usage system, please send me your analysis. But if your analysis is only rational, as we see, you cannot arrive at a common concept, just for taste. One likes that 2 + 2 = 22, the other 2 + 2 = 2,2 and so on and so it is not possible by taste to reach a point in common, because the taste depends on the inner universe of the individual and is not strictly based on exterior concepts.
On the political contest system, when watching, see that it is totally against Christian principles, causing divisions and wars, whether in any aspect, Catholics, Evangelicals and others. Anything that generates anger does not come from God. The act of condemning and being angry with the other destabilizes any biblical foundation, and this is the function of political dispute, generating divisions, formulating parties and separating people, it has always been like that and remains, here or anywhere in the world, formation of parties when the word of God is clear about parties.
No matter who the evil will bring about the determined end, some think that Eve eating the fruit did not do anything so bad, as Cain killing Abel, but forgets that if she had not eaten the fruit, Cain would not have killed Abel. It doesn't matter if we think that one thing is too bad and another is too bad, the bad generates the same denominator.
If you flip a coin you can face it, if you play it again you can face it, but when I play hundreds of times I will see that the probability of heads or tails is 50%. The same is found in history, after sin enters man, the end is already drawn, in the period determined for an end. Therefore, the Christian should not be part of parties or seek to determine a less worse, because we really do not know what a bad action can generate or not, sometimes what may seem like something very bad, can lead to a revolt and generate something better than that if it hadn't happened. And sometimes not. We cannot change that the probability of making heads and tails on an uncorrected currency is 50%, it is already drawn after I built an uncorrected currency.
For the Christian there is only one point, to love God above all things and the neighbor as himself. You have not left, you have nothing but the simple love of each other. As we cannot change the end of things, because they all move towards a prophecy, and neither did Jesus Christ get involved in taking something that was right for him, and that his disciples wanted it to be the reign of Israel, we too must help the sufferers, widows, orphans in their afflictions and separate themselves from the bad.
There are no good among politicians, they sooner or later form an alliance for profit, this is a historical fact and a brief overview of partisan history we find such things. God's word is different from politics as light is from darkness, God's word is not partisan but unified. It does not determine that we should destroy the evil, but that we should only trust that God will destroy it, we should rather love our enemies and hope that if this is God's plan, they will be converted and repented.
This is the Christian's job, not to be part of parties, but to determine the bad everywhere, and I say political campaigns from anyone, this is very, very far from being praiseworthy through the scriptures.
I await your answers based on the scriptures in the logical concept as the study exposed in the links sent.
email received on October 18, 2010
I'm not going to get into an argument with you, because I know well that it won't take anything, as you said 2 + 2 should be 4 for everyone, but in many situations you tried to show that it isn't, and you know it very well.
When you show willingness to assume that you are wrong on some subject, we will be able to talk, because since I met you I never heard you say that you were wrong to believe in something, because this shows the humility of each individual, that is, in recognizing that you are flawed like any other, but humble enough to be more attached to God so that he can be guided in some more precise way.
I will not answer any other e-mails you send me regarding this matter, but I am willing to talk in person, as long as you are susceptible to changes of opinion when proven in the Holy Scriptures.
Again I wish you a good day.
Notably you mentioned that I said "you said 2 + 2 yourself should be 4 for everyone, but you in several situations tried to show that it is not", see 2 + 2 is equal to 4, but if you do not use the correct medium do not it's 4, that is 4 for everyone who is correct, but it's different for everyone who doesn't want to follow the rules. In other words, it is correct not to break the commandments, but there are many people who do and say that they are correct, well that does not justify that they are correct, that is, 2 + 2 is 4, but if someone says it is 22, it does not mean that this correct, it just means that he makes up an excuse to circumvent the rules.
For someone to be mistaken, it is necessary for someone to show that there is this error, see for example, on average everyone goes through basic education, middle and higher education, and in all of them there is evidence, and if you persist in the error you will never pass to the next stage.
Now if I am what you say "I never heard you say you were wrong to believe in something", then I always got 10 or never left elementary school, now that I remember I already passed several times in the most competitive entrance exam in Brazil, and Of course, sometimes I have to review the entrance exam questions when I make mistakes, but to be wrong, you must prove the right.
At USP, my professors always said, you are only wrong when your mistake is proven, otherwise you are potentially right. Now at USP I also made mistakes in the tests, but for me to know that I made the mistake, I have to see what is correct.
Soon its analysis is unfounded, since it does not demonstrate where the error is. Accuse someone of the described below:
"I never heard you say that you were wrong to believe in something, because that shows the humility of each individual, that is, in recognizing that you are flawed like any other, but humble enough to be more attached to God to be able to be guided in some way. most accurate way "
It can only be valid if it proves a situation in which an individual is wrong and who does not accept that he is wrong, but for that it is necessary to prove the error of the individual who made a mistake and then see if that individual does not accept the undeniable proof of his mistake. Accusing for the simple act of accusing does not generate a solution, but the problem persists.
When we really want to analyze a concept, the rules are the production of written analytical material, this is currently the best working rule for analyzing positions and analysis, be it a theologian, a doctor, an engineer, or any other area of study. Several aspects that are flaws in a personal conversation are delimited in textual monographs. Now if I know that the best way to analyze a subject is through a detailed and written analysis on a specific topic, why should I use a conversation that the individual often refers to in the conversation that did not say this or did not say that.
In a written part it no longer happens, the person has to be responsible for what he said, it demonstrates the responsible characteristic of his positions and opinions. I have suffered too much from talking and then saying that I said something I didn't say right away, the writing is documentary.
Take for example. With a written document I can analyze it like this, you wrote:
"I will not answer any other e-mails you send me regarding this subject", then you can analyze what is "regarding this subject", in which 2 + 2 = 4, either as a matter of policy or in relation to both. In a conversation, it is difficult to pick up pieces and analyze the subject in detail.
Right when you quote "recognize that you are flawed like any other", well if I don't recognize that then either I am perfect in everything or I am always wrong in everything.
But imagine what my teacher always analyzes, that he makes mistakes in evolved mathematical calculations, but he no longer makes mistakes in simple calculations, because for him such calculations are simple, in the view of a primary school child, that teacher is perfect, but in the eyes of teachers of the same standard he is normal.
So a professor at USP may seem perfect to someone in elementary school, and he may think he has never seen the professor make a mistake and that is not why he defines that the professor is not humble, because he does not make mistakes because he is at a higher level. This does not mean that he does not make a mistake, but that his mistake is in something more complicated.
Remember to demonstrate that someone is wrong you need proof, not just to say, you are wrong. Saying you are wrong is not proof.
In other words, when you quote:
"as long as you are susceptible to changes of opinion when proven in the Holy Scriptures".
You must prove which change of opinion is proven by the Holy Scriptures, I did not change it after that to determine that I do not change. If such proof is not shown it is just an unfounded accusation.
1. The first quote unreasonably contradicts the second. The word legislative includes the position of senator, as well as that of deputy and councilor. Such political functions or posts end the legislative exercise, the act of legislating, of making laws. EGW says there is nothing wrong with occupying these positions. this is what he says in the first quote, literally contradicting the second.
Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores
Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!
Political parties, legislating, legislation, profession, work