Christianity Oasis Member Forum & Chat Room

What would you think of people who tell others that others' views or opinion dont count (or amounts to nothing) ?

2 : What are they implying by so doing ?



In Christ , our Lord
vahn

Don't know if my opinion counts or not

I would say we need to pray for them first, I then would try to show that if this world was only based on one person opinion.....wow what a world it would be

2 they are saying that only their OWN opinion is what is important and no one else's is

Take ones religion, I feel it is my duty to say this is what my God wants of me and to believe and how He wishes for me to live BUT if they have a different opinion and think mine is wrong it does not make them any less of a person than me or that I am better, it is my duty as a Christian to give my opinion and if they choose to follow and pick up the bible to see truth great but if not then I have done what was ask of me and I am to still love this person as a child of God

Some look at those who hate americans and say they hate them or wish they didn't exist but until recent years I never thought of this but most times they are brainwashed from a young age we as americans are BAD and even in our cultures here there are ones who still think closed minded as this and feel a certain race that is not of their own is bad or not as good, if we would STOP seeing the color of skin or where they were born and see them as a human being with feelings just as we have.....if every human would think this way...but sadly there is only one place this will ever happen and it ain't here.

BUT THIS IS JUST MY OPINION.....not that it matters......

I guess they are saying,not implying, that someones opinion means nothing. Every opinion means something. I think the facts of an opinion and the view itself should be addressed rather than the person. If you object to someones opinion then address the points of their opinion you disagree with and then offer why you came to those conclusions. I reckon the truth is better served when we address the truths and facts and the substance of a persons opinion rather than making it personal by attacking either their right to express an opinion or the value of giving that opinion.

and dats my opinion.....

Yes , indeed . Wile expressing one's different view of the same subject , does not change the subject , but downgrading the person with the view , just because it does not "match" , changes one's opinion about the person who is doing the shunning .

Though , the motivation behind my question was a bit different to that than what it is turning out to be ...(Hence is Holy Spirit) . Placing principle before personalities is what came to mind when I read upward's reply .

The four Gospels , called synoptic , because they all cover the same "subject" , and the same message . But , however , if we were to take a closer look , we begin to see the "differences" between them right ? , and not only that , we will also see that certain events were not included and others added , to the same message . Mark , Luke , Matthew and John , .... I wonder which one of those said to the other "Your opinion dont count , just because I dont see it the way you do" ?

If we were to present a statement to five separate persons , without telling them the context of which they are presented with , nor let one know there are four others being presented with the same statement . we will end up with five different views , and I am 90% positive that the chances of one person's view will "match" the other's being zero to none .
Now , if we were to do the same , but only this time let us add the context , reduces the chances to almost 60/40 if mot 30/70 of having a closer resemblence that all five are talking about the same thing .

Here's the whacker .... After presenting the statement to these five , and receiving their replies , tell them so and so was the one who made the statement ... we will get 100% of the same answer ... "Why didn't you tell me that before ? ... I wouldv've given you a different answer ! "

I got a little more on this , but I think there's a bit of a fog setteling in my kithchen and the microwave is backing up ... its beeping !!


In Christ , our Lord
vahn

Different yes..in conflict no. If the Gospel accounts matched up line for line the critic would cry" Collusion!" and claim the gsopels were no more than the work of conspirators. The Gospel accounts differ because they were written by different people writing to different audiences pointing to different aspects and highlights of the same witness. The apostles knew Jesus in time and space history they walked and talked with Him.

the Aposltes were eyewitnesses.they followed Jesus cause they knew Him. 2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Eacho of the writers were not writing to be chroniclers of events save maybe Dr. Luke the physcian and historian..but each had a point of view. And each had an audience they were addressing. Matthew addressing the Jews and detailing Christ Messianic credentials while Mark addressing the gentile greek audience..and Luke a more analitical look and John from a personal close up view...

The Historian FF Bruce once said of the Bible "For all that, the Bible is not simply an anthology; there is a unity which binds the whole together. An anthology is compiled by an anthologist, but no anthologist compiled the Bible. . "

There is harmony in the scriptures even though each book being written by different sets of authors..

I believe that because of the differences and view points expressed in the NT serve only to prove all the more the validity of their witness..well one of the many many reasons why the scriptures can be counted on..there are no conflicts contradictions or opposing thoughts teachings or expression shown in the Gospels. We can count on its acumlative authority and harmony with the OT.

Different yes..in conflict no.

Of course it would not suggest conflicting statement just because one sees something in a different light than the other , or even see things that another had either missed out on , or , the statement did not make a strong enough impact on them as to deem it important for them to pay attention to nor to mention . But , regardless , it does not minimize the validity of what being expressed .

Example of which I have is between Matthew and Luke . Both of them had recorded something that is not mentioned in any other place in the New Testiment , let alone the synoptic four .

One being along the lines of "Should we pay taxes" and/or "Whose image do you see on the coin ? " .
The second , "Eye for an eye" statement - (though it is under Mosaic Law , but only mentioned once in the Gospel , and that is by Luke) -

As Upward called him Dr. . Luke was a physician and under constant "pressure" of loosing just about anything he touched on another's physic right ? .... According to the Law , if one was to undertake the task of healing a physical defect -Note : In those days such "defects" were considered God's "wrath" , or "will" - If , in the process the individual happened to lose that specific body part , or even his life , then the physician was subjected to undergo the same fate -- he was "playing God man !!! " -- .
Quite naturally , Luke having to deal with all that on a daily basis , he would not at all be too concerned about whose image was on a petty coin or not right ? .

Well , Matthew faced the same thing as Luke . According to his standing . Being a former tax-collector -- with the possibility of others still seeing him as such even after his conversion--- By the goading of the Pharisees , ("Does your Master pay taxes") , he would quite naturally be preoccupied by such issues and someone's losing his tooth would be far beyond his concern .

What strikes most intrigueing is our Lord's reply to both of them . He completely shunned both statesment from the human point (Pharisaic) and went straight to the point , the Spiritual lack and the misguiding of the peoples pertaining Law of the religious leaders of the time .

Our Lord went way over their heads with the "implication" of the questions "asked" , (both by the Pharisees first , using His desciples as their mouth-piece )

For the first (Luke) , His answer was , "Turn the other cheek"... Hmmm . Isn't He saying (to the Pharisees) "YOU are the ones who are offended ! "

To the other (Matt) , again , he asked to be presented with a coin -- KNOWING all too well it would be a ROMAN coin and NOT a Temple coin (He drove the money exchangers , Temple tax money , for in those days , the Temple had its own currency , for any other currency was not "acceptible" and it had to be exchanged ) . The Temple coin STAYED in the Temple ... yes in the Pharisees posession to do as they wished with it . Oh , and by the way , the Temple coin had NO one's image on it .

Thus was my initial question , what would one think of the person who says that any other person's view amounts to nothing , just because it has no relevance to daily , HUMAN undertakings .

When a man gets cured of a certain ailment through prayer and Graceful Intervention of Holy Spirit pertaining to his personal concern , why is it that all other interventions are nullified .... How "SPECIAL" do those kind of people think they are ?


In Christ , our Lord
vahn