FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: falcon9 on November 14, 2012, 12:17:48 am
-
Sorry not to get back with you on this sooner. Life interfered.
No need to apologize; reply as you can or wish, (presumably, life intereferes for everyone).
I think I do make a conscious choice to hold what you regard as an irrational belief. If people are self-aware enough, they can choose to how they want to behave or react in a given situation. If they aren't self-aware, then they will react in a knee jerk fashion.
'Oddly', if some are making the conscious decision to intentionally hold a superstitious belief for which there is no objective substantiating evidence, then they are choosing to be irrational, (since such a choice doesn't fall under the definition parameters of a "rational" choice). That's fine, as far as making a decision for/against rational logic and people are relatively-free to make such a choice. Pardon the implicit conclusion based upon the previous premise; which would be that a conscious choice to be irrational is unlikely to be a contributing aspect of self-awareness.
Yes, some part of it experiential. A number of things have happened in my life that are convincing to me. Trust me, I looked hard for rational explanations. Sometimes I even found them. But enough of these things occurred that went beyond mere coincidence or serendipity.
Actually, you are contending that such vague, (and subjective), expereiences are being interpreted as going "beyond mere coincidence or serendipity", (note that under the burden of proof obligation for making that initial claim, I could await supporting evidence or, move on after countering that such an assertion remains unsubstantiated and basing one unsubstantiation upon another is a logical fallacy).
I think at some point, either on this thread or another debate thread, another poster actually listed some experiences that she had that were sufficient proof for her at least of the existence or God or a supreme being. For her, those were truth, at least spiritual truth. Neither you or I had those experiences so neither of us can really address the validity or truth of them for another individual.
Those would be considered as unsubstantiated hearsay, would they not? The validity or veracity of 'testimony' can be subjected to examination by reason/logic in that, if any logical internal inconsistancies, (or lies), mutually-exclusive assertions or, obscuring vagueness are revealed by that 'testimony', the witnesses' veracity falls into question/doubt.
I am curious as to where intuition fits into your framework if it does at all. In other words, do you ever follow a "hunch" or a "gut feeling" that may not necessarily have a rational basis in deciding your actions?
No, since such "hunches", "gut feelings" or "intuitions" turn out to be cues not noticed consciously but, processed subconsciously, (and since the conscious mind isn't nominally aware of the underlying logical processing, it interprets the 'sudden' conclusion as an intuitive gut feeling hunch). There is significant hard evidence in support of such a contention and I'd be glad to provide it, (unless others look it up before then), in exchange for your supporting non-ambiguous evidence in regards to 'spiritual experientialism'.
If you can remember any of the old threads, I'd like to browse them sometime even if they are locked to further comment.
Ack; well, using the search feature and typing in such parameters as "religious belief burden of proof blind faith", etc. yields interesting results, (I wouldn't want to pick only the threads/post where religious adherents' contentions are refuted by non-religious logic, nor would it be equitable to present only those posts where religious adherents are evangelizing unopposed). That said, maybe I can find an 'even' cross-section.
[/quote]
-
I think some Christians think that whats for most Americans is not for them and at same time think they are so precious of the lords word they will never do wrong. When in reality most Christians are hypocrites and God is not their main worship.
-
When in reality most Christians are hypocrites and God is not their main worship
I'll go further to say most Xtians aren't even Xtians by the original standards. The religion today is pretty different than what it was thousands of years ago.
-
When in reality most Christians are hypocrites and God is not their main worship
I'll go further to say most Xtians aren't even Xtians by the original standards. The religion today is pretty different than what it was thousands of years ago.
I will go as far as to say that the days of today are not what our forefathers thought there would be so many hypocrites today.
-
I think some Christians think that whats for most Americans is not for them and at same time think they are so precious of the lords word they will never do wrong. When in reality most Christians are hypocrites and God is not their main worship.
Sadly, I have to agree with you on that point. Some of my family members have joined fundamental churches in recent years. It's really difficult to be around their holier than thou attitude at times. It's also pretty depressing to see people self-identify as Christians and then spew pure venom at people who disagree with their views.
-
I think some Christians think that whats for most Americans is not for them and at same time think they are so precious of the lords word they will never do wrong. When in reality most Christians are hypocrites and God is not their main worship.
Sadly, I have to agree with you on that point. Some of my family members have joined fundamental churches in recent years. It's really difficult to be around their holier than thou attitude at times. It's also pretty depressing to see people self-identify as Christians and then spew pure venom at people who disagree with their views.
Unfortunately, it happens on both sides of the fence. A little acceptance can go a long way with kindness when both sides understand that both sides have their own personal choices and views, and that it's okay to believe or disbelieve, according to each individual's choice.
-
I think some Christians think that whats for most Americans is not for them and at same time think they are so precious of the lords word they will never do wrong. When in reality most Christians are hypocrites and God is not their main worship.
Sadly, I have to agree with you on that point. Some of my family members have joined fundamental churches in recent years. It's really difficult to be around their holier than thou attitude at times. It's also pretty depressing to see people self-identify as Christians and then spew pure venom at people who disagree with their views.
Unfortunately, it happens on both sides of the fence. A little acceptance can go a long way with kindness when both sides understand that both sides have their own personal choices and views, and that it's okay to believe or disbelieve, according to each individual's choice.
Theoretically, my family and I should be on the same side of the fence given that we all self-identify as Christians. However, Christians constantly argue among themselves about the "correct" way to worship and to believe. If it weren't for the folks on here who simply point out the irrationality of all religious beliefs or ask for proof that isn't simply a Biblical quote, you'd see much more infighting among alleged Christians here. Trust me, my refusal to accept the Bible as the literal word of God, while still believing in a Supreme Being as put me on the outside with them. Despite Biblical injunctions to to contrary ;D
-
I think some Christians think that whats for most Americans is not for them and at same time think they are so precious of the lords word they will never do wrong. When in reality most Christians are hypocrites and God is not their main worship.
Sadly, I have to agree with you on that point. Some of my family members have joined fundamental churches in recent years. It's really difficult to be around their holier than thou attitude at times. It's also pretty depressing to see people self-identify as Christians and then spew pure venom at people who disagree with their views.
Unfortunately, it happens on both sides of the fence. A little acceptance can go a long way with kindness when both sides understand that both sides have their own personal choices and views, and that it's okay to believe or disbelieve, according to each individual's choice.
[sarcasm] Exactly. We shouldn't be debating because we need to realize that everyone has their own opinions. There is not such thing as a wrong opinion, and we should not make any attempts at uncovering the truth. Because frankly, if we start to actually argue we could offend someone. And not offending someone is way more important that trying to understand the truth. [/sarcasm]
-
I think some Christians think that whats for most Americans is not for them and at same time think they are so precious of the lords word they will never do wrong. When in reality most Christians are hypocrites and God is not their main worship.
Sadly, I have to agree with you on that point. Some of my family members have joined fundamental churches in recent years. It's really difficult to be around their holier than thou attitude at times. It's also pretty depressing to see people self-identify as Christians and then spew pure venom at people who disagree with their views.
Unfortunately, it happens on both sides of the fence. A little acceptance can go a long way with kindness when both sides understand that both sides have their own personal choices and views, and that it's okay to believe or disbelieve, according to each individual's choice.
[sarcasm] Exactly. We shouldn't be debating because we need to realize that everyone has their own opinions. There is not such thing as a wrong opinion, and we should not make any attempts at uncovering the truth. Because frankly, if we start to actually argue we could offend someone. And not offending someone is way more important that trying to understand the truth. [/sarcasm]
Discussing and debating is fine - I have no issues with that. I do have issues when it becomes so heated and mean that there is no listening to either side, which means nothing provided is accepted nor listened to. There's a difference. Add sarcasm in, and others know the sarcastic ones have no interest in debating as much as they do agitating.
-
I think some Christians think that whats for most Americans is not for them and at same time think they are so precious of the lords word they will never do wrong. When in reality most Christians are hypocrites and God is not their main worship.
Sadly, I have to agree with you on that point. Some of my family members have joined fundamental churches in recent years. It's really difficult to be around their holier than thou attitude at times. It's also pretty depressing to see people self-identify as Christians and then spew pure venom at people who disagree with their views.
Unfortunately, it happens on both sides of the fence. A little acceptance can go a long way with kindness when both sides understand that both sides have their own personal choices and views, and that it's okay to believe or disbelieve, according to each individual's choice.
[sarcasm] Exactly. We shouldn't be debating because we need to realize that everyone has their own opinions. There is not such thing as a wrong opinion, and we should not make any attempts at uncovering the truth. Because frankly, if we start to actually argue we could offend someone. And not offending someone is way more important that trying to understand the truth. [/sarcasm]
Discussing and debating is fine - I have no issues with that. I do have issues when it becomes so heated and mean that there is no listening to either side, which means nothing provided is accepted nor listened to. There's a difference. Add sarcasm in, and others know the sarcastic ones have no interest in debating as much as they do agitating.
People debate issues that they feel strongly about so it's pretty unrealistic to think that conversations won't get heated at some point. As far as sarcasm, I think that comes into play when people take nonsensical stances such as trying to justify slavery or incest because the Bible advocates it in multiple verses. How can you claim to truly believe "Love thy neighbor", but claim there are ever any circumstances in which it's acceptable or justifiable to "own" another human being? I see just as much anger and sarcasm on the other side when they can't explain their way out of these untenable positions.
-
I think some Christians think that whats for most Americans is not for them and at same time think they are so precious of the lords word they will never do wrong. When in reality most Christians are hypocrites and God is not their main worship.
Sadly, I have to agree with you on that point. Some of my family members have joined fundamental churches in recent years. It's really difficult to be around their holier than thou attitude at times. It's also pretty depressing to see people self-identify as Christians and then spew pure venom at people who disagree with their views.
Unfortunately, it happens on both sides of the fence. A little acceptance can go a long way with kindness when both sides understand that both sides have their own personal choices and views, and that it's okay to believe or disbelieve, according to each individual's choice.
[sarcasm] Exactly. We shouldn't be debating because we need to realize that everyone has their own opinions. There is not such thing as a wrong opinion, and we should not make any attempts at uncovering the truth. Because frankly, if we start to actually argue we could offend someone. And not offending someone is way more important that trying to understand the truth. [/sarcasm]
Discussing and debating is fine - I have no issues with that. I do have issues when it becomes so heated and mean [/b that there is no listening to either side, which means nothing provided is accepted nor listened to. There's a difference. Add sarcasm in, and others know the sarcastic ones have no interest in debating as much as they do agitating.
I think sarcasm is appropriate, when you are suggesting we should use the "offensiveness" of someone's post to justify censoring and ignoring them simply because they have an opinion that's not yours. There is no objective way to measure meanness. I find religion and its beliefs to be extremely offensive to human intellect as a whole, but I don't whine about it. I simply debate and disagree with it, and occasionally ridicule it because, at least to me, religion is ridiculous.
The fact alone that I am debating at all should be enough evidence that I actually care about your opinion, and I wish to discuss your beliefs in comparison to mine.
-
I think some Christians think that whats for most Americans is not for them and at same time think they are so precious of the lords word they will never do wrong. When in reality most Christians are hypocrites and God is not their main worship.
Sadly, I have to agree with you on that point. Some of my family members have joined fundamental churches in recent years. It's really difficult to be around their holier than thou attitude at times. It's also pretty depressing to see people self-identify as Christians and then spew pure venom at people who disagree with their views.
Unfortunately, it happens on both sides of the fence. A little acceptance can go a long way with kindness when both sides understand that both sides have their own personal choices and views, and that it's okay to believe or disbelieve, according to each individual's choice.
[sarcasm] Exactly. We shouldn't be debating because we need to realize that everyone has their own opinions. There is not such thing as a wrong opinion, and we should not make any attempts at uncovering the truth. Because frankly, if we start to actually argue we could offend someone. And not offending someone is way more important that trying to understand the truth. [/sarcasm]
Discussing and debating is fine - I have no issues with that. I do have issues when it becomes so heated and mean that there is no listening to either side, which means nothing provided is accepted nor listened to. There's a difference. Add sarcasm in, and others know the sarcastic ones have no interest in debating as much as they do agitating.
People debate issues that they feel strongly about so it's pretty unrealistic to think that conversations won't get heated at some point. As far as sarcasm, I think that comes into play when people take nonsensical stances such as trying to justify slavery or incest because the Bible advocates it in multiple verses. How can you claim to truly believe "Love thy neighbor", but claim there are ever any circumstances in which it's acceptable or justifiable to "own" another human being? I see just as much anger and sarcasm on the other side when they can't explain their way out of these untenable positions.
The thing is, no matter how often those issues are explained, and how certain things changed after the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ, it always comes back to the same old remarks like you just made. Some choose not to accept God, Christ, the Bible, so of course those same some are not going to accept explanations for the issues you mentioned. It's interesting how some disbelieve, yet are so adamant about only showing what they consider God's "evil" side. If they disbelieve, then to them there is no God and it means there is no evil to discuss and blame God for.
Also, you slightly twisted the meaning of my words. I totally agree issues and debates will get sparked. I have an issue where it gets so ugly and mean, that name calling enters, and there is total chaos and nonsense, including no one getting anywhere but extremely angry. There's a difference between that and just being sparked and heated.
-
I think some Christians think that whats for most Americans is not for them and at same time think they are so precious of the lords word they will never do wrong. When in reality most Christians are hypocrites and God is not their main worship.
Sadly, I have to agree with you on that point. Some of my family members have joined fundamental churches in recent years. It's really difficult to be around their holier than thou attitude at times. It's also pretty depressing to see people self-identify as Christians and then spew pure venom at people who disagree with their views.
Unfortunately, it happens on both sides of the fence. A little acceptance can go a long way with kindness when both sides understand that both sides have their own personal choices and views, and that it's okay to believe or disbelieve, according to each individual's choice.
[sarcasm] Exactly. We shouldn't be debating because we need to realize that everyone has their own opinions. There is not such thing as a wrong opinion, and we should not make any attempts at uncovering the truth. Because frankly, if we start to actually argue we could offend someone. And not offending someone is way more important that trying to understand the truth. [/sarcasm]
Discussing and debating is fine - I have no issues with that. I do have issues when it becomes so heated and mean [/b that there is no listening to either side, which means nothing provided is accepted nor listened to. There's a difference. Add sarcasm in, and others know the sarcastic ones have no interest in debating as much as they do agitating.
I think sarcasm is appropriate, when you are suggesting we should use the "offensiveness" of someone's post to justify censoring and ignoring them simply because they have an opinion that's not yours. There is no objective way to measure meanness. I find religion and its beliefs to be extremely offensive to human intellect as a whole, but I don't whine about it. I simply debate and disagree with it, and occasionally ridicule it because, at least to me, religion is ridiculous.
The fact alone that I am debating at all should be enough evidence that I actually care about your opinion, and I wish to discuss your beliefs in comparison to mine.
Many people disagree about what "whining" means, also. Sarcasm is not always necessary when others are being sincere with what they are saying, believing, and/or meaning. Debating and discussing are one thing, but sarcasm, when used just to agitate or make someone look like an idiot, only makes the sarcastic one look like someone who isn't wanting to genuinely discuss the issue or topic.
I don't expect everyone to believe as I do, nor should anyone expect others to believe as they do. However, there are some who really do think their way is the only way, period, and get angry when people disagree. Those are the ones who have an issue with accepting that not everyone believes the same, and there's just no debating, discussing, nor arguing with them about it - it's a waste of time and effort.
-
I wonder sometimes if people who call Christians hypocritical and mean realize that many of the "self-described" Christians are not really Christians. I think some of these people are really NOT Christian. They just want to use the title to prove they are better than most other people. Their actions prove the opposite.
-
I wonder sometimes if people who call Christians hypocritical and mean realize that many of the "self-described" Christians are not really Christians. I think some of these people are really NOT Christian. They just want to use the title to prove they are better than most other people. Their actions prove the opposite.
That's why I used the term "self-identified", although "self-described' works just as well :).
If someone is going to start name calling, implying that other people will burn for eternity, or threaten violence because they don't believe what you do, they aren't acting the way a Christian should according to the Bible, which many of the self-identified Christians claim to think is the literal word of God. Of course, the Bible is full of contradictory statements. That is why I cannot regard it as the literal word of God as an esoteric Christian. I cannot imagine a supreme being advocating slavery, incest, mass genocide, war, and oppression as the human beings who wrote the Bible claim. It's just a rationalization for a lot of dark impulses that originate with humans and NOT a literal devil.
If they think that the people who oppose them are being being mean, hateful, or rude, then why not save yourself a lot of mental anguish and avoid the Debate and Discuss sub-forum? I'm tired of the same people playing the martyr over and over. It's "oh so awful" yet I see the same people in the fray over and over. Why? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. You aren't converting anyone. You aren't offering up any real objective evidence of God to people who want to debate or discuss it (sorry, self-referencing Bible verses don't count). Unless you are a bona fide masochist, I'm not sure they do keep popping up. Unless, as loulilee points out, they just want to prove that they are better than most other people.
-
I wonder sometimes if people who call Christians hypocritical and mean realize that many of the "self-described" Christians are not really Christians. I think some of these people are really NOT Christian. They just want to use the title to prove they are better than most other people. Their actions prove the opposite.
Good points, for sure...
-
I think some Christians think that whats for most Americans is not for them and at same time think they are so precious of the lords word they will never do wrong. When in reality most Christians are hypocrites and God is not their main worship.
Sadly, I have to agree with you on that point. Some of my family members have joined fundamental churches in recent years. It's really difficult to be around their holier than thou attitude at times. It's also pretty depressing to see people self-identify as Christians and then spew pure venom at people who disagree with their views.
Unfortunately, it happens on both sides of the fence. A little acceptance can go a long way with kindness when both sides understand that both sides have their own personal choices and views, and that it's okay to believe or disbelieve, according to each individual's choice.
[sarcasm] Exactly. We shouldn't be debating because we need to realize that everyone has their own opinions. There is not such thing as a wrong opinion, and we should not make any attempts at uncovering the truth. Because frankly, if we start to actually argue we could offend someone. And not offending someone is way more important that trying to understand the truth. [/sarcasm]
Discussing and debating is fine - I have no issues with that. I do have issues when it becomes so heated and mean [/b that there is no listening to either side, which means nothing provided is accepted nor listened to. There's a difference. Add sarcasm in, and others know the sarcastic ones have no interest in debating as much as they do agitating.
I think sarcasm is appropriate, when you are suggesting we should use the "offensiveness" of someone's post to justify censoring and ignoring them simply because they have an opinion that's not yours. There is no objective way to measure meanness. I find religion and its beliefs to be extremely offensive to human intellect as a whole, but I don't whine about it. I simply debate and disagree with it, and occasionally ridicule it because, at least to me, religion is ridiculous.
The fact alone that I am debating at all should be enough evidence that I actually care about your opinion, and I wish to discuss your beliefs in comparison to mine.
Many people disagree about what "whining" means, also. Sarcasm is not always necessary when others are being sincere with what they are saying, believing, and/or meaning. Debating and discussing are one thing, but sarcasm, when used just to agitate or make someone look like an idiot, only makes the sarcastic one look like someone who isn't wanting to genuinely discuss the issue or topic.
I don't expect everyone to believe as I do, nor should anyone expect others to believe as they do. However, there are some who really do think their way is the only way, period, and get angry when people disagree. Those are the ones who have an issue with accepting that not everyone believes the same, and there's just no debating, discussing, nor arguing with them about it - it's a waste of time and effort.
Of course whining is also subjective, but I also have never suggested that those who whine shouldn't post, either. Are you also suggesting that I should only be sarcastic when other people are being sarcastic?
As for the second bolded statement, well of course people think that their opinions are right. Everyone should think that their opinions are right. The entire point of debating is trying to figure out whose opinion is actually right, and is actually based on reality and which opinions are wrong. Just because you can't convince other people that your opinion is the right one doesn't mean that it's useless to debate against them. The point of debate isn't just to convince someone that your way is the right way, its about reflecting to try and determine the one that best fits reality. Its a form of personal growth, in which you not only question other people's beliefs but yours as well. If someone else is so affirmed in their beliefs that they didn't even reconsider them, then that's fine. Its what you take from that debate that was important, not how convincing you where to the other person.
-
"Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance."
~ Robert Quillen ~
"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress."
~ Joseph Joubert ~
"God ceases to be God only for those who can admit the possibility of His non-existence, and that conception is in itself the most severe punishment they can suffer."
~ Giacomo Casanova ~
-
"Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance."
Religion is based upon the ignorance of reality (when one values mythology as reality), so any discussion about reality and religion automatically becomes ignorant from the side that values ignorance. I might be wrong, but I assume you still believe the bible is inerrant or infallible even though I demonstrated it is numerous times.
The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress
And yet religious people still believe in ancient mythology and (usually) refuse to broaden their perspective. That is not progress. That is ignorance.
God ceases to be God only for those who can admit the possibility of His non-existence, and that conception is in itself the most severe punishment they can suffer.
This account does not take into consideration the other potential gods from other religions so, again, argument from ignorance/false dichotomy.
-
"Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance."
~ Robert Quillen ~
"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress."
~ Joseph Joubert ~
"God ceases to be God only for those who can admit the possibility of His non-existence, and that conception is in itself the most severe punishment they can suffer."
~ Giacomo Casanova ~
The first quote totally wrong. Everything we do in the debate and discuss forum IS an argument. There is nothing bad about arguments, and blaming arguments themselves for acts of violence or anger is like blaming nuclear disasters on physics.
The second quote is actually true. In fact, its pretty much what I stated in my last post.
The last quote is 100% wrong on almost all facets. It assumes reality is what people make it out to be, and that's just not the case. The very definition of reality is that it is, regardless of what we believe. Are you suggesting, assuming that there is a god, that simply because an athiest doesn't believe in god that they wont be affected by the existence of that god?
-
"Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance."
~ Robert Quillen ~
"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress."
~ Joseph Joubert ~
"God ceases to be God only for those who can admit the possibility of His non-existence, and that conception is in itself the most severe punishment they can suffer."
~ Giacomo Casanova ~
The first quote totally wrong. Everything we do in the debate and discuss forum IS an argument. There is nothing bad about arguments, and blaming arguments themselves for acts of violence or anger is like blaming nuclear disasters on physics.
The second quote is actually true. In fact, its pretty much what I stated in my last post.
The last quote is 100% wrong on almost all facets. It assumes reality is what people make it out to be, and that's just not the case. The very definition of reality is that it is, regardless of what we believe. Are you suggesting, assuming that there is a god, that simply because an athiest doesn't believe in god that they wont be affected by the existence of that god?
i bet u dont understand the bible at all...lol there is a reason they say"devils advocate" u know
-
i bet u dont understand the bible at all...lol there is a reason they say"devils advocate" u know
"Don't agree with me? YOU ARE FROM THE DEVIL!"
I urge you to realize most people that regard your beliefs as dangerous and illogical probably know much more about the bible than you do. Then again, why be intelligent when you can blame anything you don't agree with on a mythology's antagonist?
-
"Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance."
~ Robert Quillen ~
"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress."
~ Joseph Joubert ~
"God ceases to be God only for those who can admit the possibility of His non-existence, and that conception is in itself the most severe punishment they can suffer."
~ Giacomo Casanova ~
The first quote totally wrong. Everything we do in the debate and discuss forum IS an argument. There is nothing bad about arguments, and blaming arguments themselves for acts of violence or anger is like blaming nuclear disasters on physics.
The second quote is actually true. In fact, its pretty much what I stated in my last post.
The last quote is 100% wrong on almost all facets. It assumes reality is what people make it out to be, and that's just not the case. The very definition of reality is that it is, regardless of what we believe. Are you suggesting, assuming that there is a god, that simply because an athiest doesn't believe in god that they wont be affected by the existence of that god?
i bet u dont understand the bible at all...lol there is a reason they say"devils advocate" u know
Well, since you seem to be an expert at the origins of the term, lets analyze it shall we?
"During the canonization process of the Roman Catholic Church, the Promoter of the Faith (Latin: promotor fidei), popularly known as the Devil's advocate (Latin: advocatus diaboli), was a canon lawyer appointed by Church authorities to argue against the canonization of a candidate. 1"
So, essentially, the Devil's advocate was a holy man. This role they take was necessary, to keep any fraudulent miracles from assigning saintliness on someone undeserving of said title. I believe these people where very well fluent in the bible, and probably knew a great deal about it in order to actually do what they where assigned to do. A devil's advocate is some one, against their greater intentions, who looks past their own prejudice to contemplate an opposing viewpoint out of necessity.
Now, this doesn't describe me very well since I just flat out argue against your viewpoint.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate1