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.
>>Considered bad form by whom? You?
I’ve heard so many jokes about referencing your own books and referencing your own web page, I have also seen people apologize for linking their own site. I have also (I think on this forum) seen Admin Moderators warn people about posting threads which link their sites as a way to boost hits. So, Yeah, It’s bad form.
>> the only way to score your little points…
Where is that blasted score card anyway? /Humor since you don’t seem to know when I’m joking
>> FARMS isn't credible for much of anything (except, of course, what FARMS says).
Farms had some research (I found it Via Google) that I thought was interesting. The research was that there are no writings they have been able to find where Joseph Smith ever mentioned Chiasms, or displayed any knowledge they were in the BOM. Your denunciation of their credibility is well, suspect at best.
So, since you say Farms is wrong about this, Do you have any proof that Joseph Smith Knew anything about Chiasm? (The fact that they appear in the Book of Mormon not withstanding)
You (collectively) want to say he was a bumbling buffoon on one hand but a crafty story teller; a man who took secrets to his grave while saying anything just to get attention.
Talk about lack of consistency!
>>>>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.
Re-read these two Paragraphs, anyone reading your post would have absolutely no idea what on earth you are talking about, and neither do I. I have tried to be cute and have fun with this, but it’s starting to get old.
>> Now you've gotten off on what a good debater you are.
>>Which is funny, considering you keep getting pwned.
A. It’s owned, B. by you? (Dreaming fictional pleasant dreams, isn’t that a sin for a puritan?)
>> 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.
You being accountable to someone would be nice, if I must be the one…, are you sure you can’t find anyone else? Hey, even puritans get married, have your wife look over your posts before you hit post, and leave me out of it (Irreverent humor alert)
>>Do you know THOSE passages?
No, because you did not give enough information, but being the diligent searcher of the scriptures that I am, I can guess.
I’ll get to the Biblical passages you did not quote at the end of this missive.
>> As if you were a competant judge of logic.
Actually, having had logic, critical thinking and Debate (4.0 average on those, Classical music brought me down some from there), yes, I feel competent to judge the logical merits of your arguments, what are your qualifications?
>> 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.
In my post #727 I said :
“In my opinion the only unimpeachable source is God. Having received a witness directly from God that the Book of Mormon is true, what do you expect me to do? I believe, that’s what I do. You are right about one thing. You will never change my beliefs by quoting some expert, you will never change my beliefs by interpreting some scripture, and you will never change my beliefs with logic because my faith is based on testimony, direct, continuing testimony. And that is something you are not involved in.”
You have misquoted me, interpreted my meanings with tortured understanding, and now want to insist that I am not a Christian because of it. This little quote from your prior post proves my condemnation of your tactics (not of you personally) to be justified.
>> Wouldn't my intellectual superior have better memory?
“The first step to honing your focus is to begin eliminating superfluous information from your brain and start entering it into your central database. This is emphasized by the popular story of Albert Einstein once being asked for his phone number and with him replying something along the lines of, “I don’t know, check your local phone book.” Whether this is a true story or not, it certainly hammers home the point of letting trivial things be remembered by something other than your brain.”
Your posts here are trivial to me. (Sorry, but it’s true)
>> Go ahead, tell me how much smarter you are.
I refuse to be goaded into bragging, but I do know my IQ score, and it’s high enough.
Now, back to your scriptural non quoting…
Confirm or Deny are you talking about 1st Corinthians 15: 11-33 (http://scriptures.lds.org/1_cor/15 )
11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put• down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
30 And why stand we in jepordy every hour?
31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.
32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.
33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.
Or did you mean 2nd Corinthians 13:1 (http://scriptures.lds.org/2_cor/13 )
1 THIS is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
These are the only place in Corinthians where the word “Witness” appears.
The post you are referring to (#741) said:
>> What did Paul tell the Corinthians? That he had received a "witness" (which actually
>>only amounted to a subjective feeling), or that there were actual witnesses, most of
>>them still alive at the time of his writing? But see, Paul really did believe in the
>>Resurrection, and since it was still recent, he expected to find eyewitnesses. And he
>>did. His own experience came last, even though he had experienced actual miracles
>>like being blinded and having his sight restored.
If I am supposed to find your scripture based on “Witness” you failed to communicate.
Paul never told the Corinthians “I have received a witness”, instead he testified, boldly I might add, of Jesus Christ’s divinity, suffering in the garden, crucifixion, and resurrection.
If you are trying to support the “we don’t need the book of Mormon” thrust that has been on this thread, then where is Corinthians 1.5 (since 2nd Corinthians is the third time Paul is writing to them)?
How about Baptism for the Dead? 1st Corinthians 15:29 (See above) when was the last time your church practiced that ordinance?
Now, back to your post…
>> There was no creative editing.
I the original author of the post being edited say there was. If you wish to avoid charges of creative editing of Rhetorical conversations, include the whole conversation. A recorded conversation (especially humorous ones) seldom have correct sentence structure “Yeah” for example, is not a complete sentence, but occurs often in conversations.
>>>>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.
I never would presume to judge you; the state of your soul was not mentioned by me. I did however evaluate your performance on this thread, and your seeming double standards.
>>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.
I have been referencing from http://www.NewAdvent.org for a really long time, much longer than this thread has existed, Many of Hippolytus’s works did not survive into the current day because they were written in Greek and the church went toward Latin. (A topic for another day I suppose). my comments about you being sloppy are because you refused to source your statements of fact from the very Bible you are now claiming to source from. Optimally, sources and statements should appear in the same post, so casual readers can also follow along and even reference links as they are interested.
This is so boring, can’t you argue points of logic, or scripture, or something other than call names and denigrate?
To return to one of my first comments to you, with witty repartee like this, a man could get a lot of sleep. Oh yeah, you WANT to be seen as a puritan, well they were pretty boring too.
Just asking what makes your Advent anymore crediable that FARMS or FAIR?
Just remember: next time you try citing somebody like Hippolytus, check with New Advent first.
Matter of fact I did check with Advent for I respect and I don't have these kinds of attitude because it from a Catholic site it must be suspect!
Now I find this interesting who is one to believe?
Work able links
Christian History Institute
http://chi.gospelcom.net/DAILYF/2002/08/daily-08-13-2002.shtml
St. Hippolytus of Rome
Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07360c.htm