Evidences for the Book of Mormon [Hebraisms]
>> 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
DNA DNA DNA
See? Easy.
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.
Considered bad form by whom? You?
I guess you wish I were reduced to saying "I DID TOO know about it!" But I've got proof, so the only way to score your little points is complaining about my "form".
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. You brought up my blog again after I negatively mentioned FARMS. The idea, I guess, is that a blog is less credible than "scholars" -- except that's wrong. My blog is a highly credible source for what I said, because, well, it's me saying stuff. FARMS isn't credible for much of anything (except, of course, what FARMS says).
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.
At the time you'd only shown one, and it was a doozy: When it comes to evidence, you can treat Mormonism as "true" in the sense that it causes you certain emotions, but expect others to treat this as if you consider it true in the sense of corresponding to reality outside your head. Since then we've seen some more, as we'll get to.
>>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.
Now you're flipping it on its head. I have been crystal clear, at least to anyone who knows the Scriptures. Which, yet again, means you either don't know them, or you know and are grabbing anything you can to make points with to excuse your own incredible sloppiness.
>> 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.
Yes, it (your not knowing what passage I was citing) would say it all.
Now you've gotten off on what a good debater you are. Which is funny, considering you keep getting pwned.
There's only one passage it could possibly have been a reference to. DO YOU know which passage? I'm beginning to think you really don't.
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)
Accountability? You want me to be accountable to YOU, of all people? Try accepting some first. You have exposed as a complete ignoramus and what do we get? Endless self-justifying replies, boasting of your debating technique when everything else fails. I wouldn't be surprised if you finally sign off by saying your bosom told you you won.
Do you know THOSE passages?
A refusal in principle to be persuaded by (your) logic (which I find loose at best) has no bearing on contradictions.
As if you were a competant judge of logic.
You didn't say "(your) logic". You said logic. You'll go with your bosom even if it means a Christ who denies himself. That's faith in your own bosom, not Christ.
But nobody better point that out, because you say you believe in Jesus. Which makes putting Him below your subjective emotions okay, I guess.
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.
You are now the only one to claim to have a superior intellect.
Too bad you haven't got the goods to back it up.
>> 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)
Wouldn't my intellectual superior have better memory?
My first post was #618. I cited one verse and alluded to another. Neither of which had anything to do with your request, which was for a link. So I directed you back to my first comment. Which, not only did you not remember, you couldn't even be bothered to look up before you spouted off about it.
Go ahead, tell me how much smarter you are.
Creative editing = misleading – Me (please note you have accused me of this, and you are doing it here)
There was no creative editing. That was exactly the sentence you wrote. I can't help it if my intellectual superior can't write coherent English.
Well (Dusts off hands) my work here seems to be done.
Followed by two paragraphs of you sitting in judgement of me. No doubt based on your status as my intellectual superior.
Just remember: next time you try citing somebody like Hippolytus, check with New Advent first. Someone might show his intellectual inferiority by doing it for you. But if you forget, just accuse him of being sloppy for citing the Bible the way Jesus did.