Which is why every Smithsonian scholar knows to check the BoM before heading out to Central America.
No, wait. Actually it's complete nonsense.
>>But no worry, FARMS & co. will produce any amount of special pleading…
Hey, you posted a link to your own BLOG and I took it, get real.
Back up. You asked if I'd heard of chiasms before reading your post (again putting yourself in the role of instructor). Not only had I, I'd pointed out a chiasm I'd come across (although I'm sure it's been noticed by others). (Plus I hadn't even bothered to read your post that mentioned chiasm.)
But no, my blog isn't a reliable source for what I said? Or were you not thinking again, and just threw out "your own BLOG" without considering context? Or perhaps you were hoping nobody else would remember?
Please list links to my “Inconsistencies” in this thread, thank you.
Again, context. Pulling a sentance out of context, and then changing the form of a word to plural (while putting quotes around it, no less), and then demanding I show inconsistencies, plural, when I said inconsistency, singular, and already explained it, is slippery and less than fully honest.
It seems you've given up anything close to real discussion and are trying to score some kind of win for your ego.
>>What did Paul tell the Corinthians?
First or Second book? Chapter? Oh come on, It’s not that hard to source the Bible! I am apparently supposed to be psychic enough to read from your mind. A link would be nice, a fully qualified quote necessary lest I assume and we don’t want to go there do we?
Here there are two possibilities. Either you're again grasping for anything at all to leverage points so you can salvage your pride. Or you really don't know, which would pretty much say it all, wouldn't it?
>>Then you don't really believe in Jesus, either.
“Now there you go again … R. Reagan 1980” -- From an earlier post of Quester’s I believe in Christ. ([long URL cut] ) See it’s not hard to source, try it, you‘ll like it!
Here again is that inconsistency thing. Since you reject logic, that's not that surprising.
Logic, you see, is based on non-contradiction. A thing cannot be both A and ~A at the same time and in the same respect. That's because all things hold together in Christ and in Him we live and move and have our being and He cannot deny Himself. (No, I'm not sourcing that. Be careful! There's pagan Greek influence in there!) A refusal in principle to be persuaded by logic means accepting contradictions, which means you believe in a Christ who can deny himself, which is no Christ at all.
Hey, I have no idea what it is you think I was supposed to know BECAUSE you have done nothing but call me names and blather about superiority of intellect (which is the only thing funny about your posts)
If you'd like a good place to start, try knowing what you're talking about.
And while you're working on that, how about a SOURCE for where I said anything about "superiority of intellect".
>> when a little searching on the internet
Links please…
You've outdone yourself. Hey, there's a straw! Clutch clutch clutch!
Try my first post.
Yes, Lured, no luring implies an evil intent.
"Incoherent sentences show incoherent thinking." --Me
Reading your posts I can only picture a stern octogenarian with a dour expression of disapproval. My mental image would make a real good Quaker poster child, if this is not you, you might want to change your posting style.
The only thing I don't like is that "Quaker" part. I'm more of a Puritan.
>> No, wait. Actually it's complete nonsense.
(Grin) Such an authoritative tone, it really is hard to prove a negative, it’s much easier to just state it.
>> Back up. You asked if I'd heard of chiasms before reading your post…
Yep and I said I’d just take your word for it. It is considered bad form to post links to your blog from discussion threads that was my point not that it was not an answer to my post. Remember, I also had trouble seeing the article you linked to, and said I’d take your word for it.
But no, my blog isn't a reliable source for what I said?
Not if it won’t come up on my browser (I cannot read a blank web page) besides that was not my point, you are putting words in my mouth. If you continue to do that, I’ll ask you to use sweeter words. /Humor
>> Again, context. Pulling a sentance out of context, and then changing the form of a
>>word to plural (while putting quotes around it, no less), and then demanding I show
>>inconsistencies, plural, when I said inconsistency, singular, and already explained it, is
>>slippery and less than fully honest.
You said I kept being inconsistent, I find no dishonesty in asking for you to show my “Inconsistencies”, I do note however you wander off worrying about whether or not I interpreted correctly instead of addressing the question.
>>Here there are two possibilities.
What a limited view you have, maybe I want you to ask a clear question before I try to answer it. You do appear to be very touchy, I have to be crystal clear, you can be sloppy.
>> which would pretty much say it all, wouldn't it?
No, it wouldn’t say anything at all, asking for clarification on a vague question is the mark of a good debater as it nails your opponent down to a specific scripture. Narrow points, precise speech = Good debating technique, broad strokes slipshod sourcing = bad technique.
>> Here again is that inconsistency thing. Since you reject logic, that's not that surprising.
So a link to MIDI and the sheet music for a song called “I believe in Christ” for a line saying “I believe in Christ” is not proof of inconsistencies; It was humor.
>>Logic, you see, is based on non-contradiction. A thing cannot be both A and ~A at the
>>same time and in the same respect. That's because all things hold together in Christ
>>and in Him we live and move and have our being and He cannot deny Himself. (No,
>>I'm not sourcing that. Be careful! There's pagan Greek influence in there!) A refusal in
>>principle to be persuaded by logic means accepting contradictions, which means you
>>believe in a Christ who can deny himself, which is no Christ at all.
A and ~A, All things hold together in Christ, Christ cannot deny himself, No sourcing (Hey why would we want to add any accountability now) A refusal in principle to be persuaded by (your) logic (which I find loose at best) has no bearing on contradictions.
Here is a piece of logic for you, courtesy of an Atheist I worked with:
“God cannot be all powerful because he cannot create a rock so big that he cannot lift it.”
He thought himself so clever for having thought of this, I thought him, well challenged. Logic is not always your friend; in quantum mechanics for example logic goes out the window.
>> If you'd like a good place to start, try knowing what you're talking about.
OK, I’m more than trying, we started down this path with you telling me what I believe, I think I am the foremost authority on what I believe, I can put up a quick web site and link to it if you want… (yes that was more humor)
>>And while you're working on that, how about a SOURCE for where I said anything
>>about "superiority of intellect".
You called ma an Ignoramus, several times. This implies that you are not, how shall I say this delicately, my intellectual equal (on this I would agree with you) and that your intellect is in the superior position (about which I would disagree). You never did use the words superior intellect, you merely implied them. I did not put the words in quotes you might note, nor did I preface them with >> like I do when quoting a post.
>> Try my first post.
Your first post I responded to was a list of scriptures with no commentary on your part. I saw nothing in need of reply because I read the scriptures (with my perspective) and saw nothing that I needed to respond to (We truly have come full circle here haven’t we)
My post had the following text:
>>>> I have never lured, taught those willing to learn? Yes, Lured, no luring implies an
>>>>evil intent. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lure ) As when I was
>>>>introduced to my father in law, “I assure you my intentions are entirely honorable.”
In your post you put:
>>>> Yes, Lured, no luring implies an evil intent.
>>"Incoherent sentences show incoherent thinking." –Me
Creative editing = misleading – Me (please note you have accused me of this, and you are doing it here)
I reconstructed a conversation asking rhetorical questions. It is extremely rude to interrupt when someone is asking rhetorical questions (Mission impossible three, adapted by me)
>>>>Reading your posts I can only picture a stern octogenarian with a dour expression of
>>>>disapproval. My mental image would make a real good Quaker poster child, if this
>>>>is not you, you might want to change your posting style.
>>The only thing I don't like is that "Quaker" part. I'm more of a Puritan.
Well, then I’m happy to of been of service in confirming your opinion that there is entirely too much levity in the world
Well (Dusts off hands) my work here seems to be done. Your circular logic lies exposed, you have been insulting, rude. You hold others to standards you are not willing to keep. You interpret my thoughts and feelings freely, even arguing about what I believe with me, the author of said belief.
You are a charlatan claiming to be Christ like, yet denying your Christianity by your very tone. Proud, cruel, mean spirited and unforgiving if this is what your Christ teaches, then you are correct, we do not worship the same God. My God is kind and merciful full of grace and truth. I sincerely hope you will read your Bible carefully and come closer to him who is mighty to save.
God speed
Amen. By the grace of God alone.
Very nice blog.
And that God-given center of every Puritan's home and heart...