I don't care what you've seen. You've decided (as the self-appointed evaluator of the thread) that proving my point is "bad form". Of course, just saying I knew would be "unsourced", so in our intellectually superior evaluator's impartial judgement, any answer gives him a win.
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)
Context, again. I brought FARMS up on my own as an example of special pleading. I didn't say anything at all about the article you're talking about. So "you say Farms is wrong about this" is just wrong. Which is it, sloppy or a lie?
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.
Or maybe it's just you.
No, because you did not give enough information, but being the diligent searcher of the scriptures that I am, I can guess.
You should've just stoppped at "no", as we shall see.
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?
I had all those too, plus I care about logic, while you, by your own admission, don't.
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.
No, it just shows that it's over your head.
For the benefit of the peanut gallery:
By "a witness directly from God" you mean the famous "burning bosom" right? Or was it some other equally subjective personal experience? Either way, you trust it over logic, which necessarily means you trust your subjective experience even if it makes Christ deny Himself.
Your posts here are trivial to me. (Sorry, but it’s true)
Trust me, a few days after we stop I won't remember much of this at all. But if you can't muster up enough short-term memory to keep track of the flow of conversation, you need to give up having a conversation.
Confirm or Deny are you talking about 1st Corinthians 15: 11-33 (http://scriptures.lds.org/1_cor/15 )
Wow.
Again, WOW.
You really haven't read the passage. Probably you just skip over to the part about "those who are baptized for the dead". Diligent searcher!
But since you want everything spelled out in painful detail, my original post about the passage:
What did Paul tell the Corinthians? That he had recieved 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.
So the passage I'm talking about includes a discussion of witnesses, a mention of the fact that most were still alive, and putting his own experience last. Now, for those out there who really are diligent searchers of Scripture, which passage might that have been?
That's right: earlier in that same chapter. But you didn't suggest 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, you suggested 1 Corinthians 15:11-33, neatly missing the passage!
You really blundered this one. Just think, you could have just said "1 Corinthians" and gone for the baptism for the dead bit just as easily. But no! You just had to add verse references, and now you're exposed for a buffoon.
And just so you don't accuse me of dodging the question, I Deny it.
instead he testified, boldly I might add, of Jesus Christ’s divinity, suffering in the garden, crucifixion, and resurrection.
No, he didn't.
Are you sloppy, or a liar?
I the original author of the post being edited say there was.
I don't care what you say.
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.
Except it wasn't a recorded conversation, it was your failure to write coherently.
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.
Oh? And didn't you say his works were lost because the "heretics won", until I demonstrated that actually his major work denouncing heretics survived?
I guess your own posts are also trivial to you. That, or you'll throw out anything at all and get angry at whoever calls you on it.
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.
Maybe I was hoping you'd expose yourself, yet again, as an ignoramus. Which you've now done.
Well Hello there!:)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1622778/posts?page=774#774
>> I don't care what you've seen. You've decided (as the self-appointed evaluator of the
>>thread) that proving my point is "bad form". Of course, just saying I knew would be
>>"unsourced", so in our intellectually superior evaluator's impartial judgement, any
>>answer gives him a win.
Whatever…
>> Or maybe it's just you.
Yep, it’s me.
>> You should've just stoppped at "no", as we shall see.
You should have just stopped period.
>> had all those too, plus I care about logic, while you, by your own admission, don't.
Me too, me too! I’m rubber and your Glue, whatever…
>>>> 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.
>> No, it just shows that it's over your head.
So, according to you, my own posts are over my head, I can make arguments that I don’t understand, and therefore need you to reinterpret them down to my level?
What a ludicrous argument, I love it!
>> By "a witness directly from God" you mean the famous "burning bosom" right?
>>Or was it some other equally subjective personal experience? Either way, you trust it
>>over logic, which necessarily means you trust your subjective experience even if it
>>makes Christ deny Himself.
I never told you what my witness was, and I don’t plan to it’s personal and too sacred for me to share with you. But it was very specific, not just a feeling, there is no mistake on my part.
>> Trust me, a few days after we stop I won't remember much of this at all. But if you
>>can't muster up enough short-term memory to keep track of the flow of conversation,
>>you need to give up having a conversation.
I’m ready when you are, no, I’m more ready than you are. You are a boring person to argue with.
>> So the passage I'm talking about includes a discussion of witnesses, a mention of the
>>fact that most were still alive, and putting his own experience last. Now, for those out
>>there who really are diligent searchers of Scripture, which passage might that have
>>been?
>> That's right: earlier in that same chapter. But you didn't suggest 1 Corinthians
>>5:1-11, you suggested 1 Corinthians 15:11-33, neatly missing the passage!
Neatly missing the passage, (Grin), and you think it was an accident, (Bigger Grin) You said you didn’t need to source, I said you should so no one would get the passage you were referring to wrong, you said if I knew the scriptures I would know the passage, I said you should post sources so you could debate tighter arguments. You said and why should I be accountable to you, I said you should be accountable to someone (and suggested your wife, if you’ve got one) I also stated that by not sourcing you could jump to any scripture in the area and say it was your source. Do you really think I went to the right chapter and missed the first 11 verses? “Witness” which was my supposed latching point only occurs twice in all of Corinthians. (It took me a while to figure out what to use to make this plausible) It does not appear here until the 15th verse, so why did I start with 11? If I were a gambling man I’d love to play poker with you! I set you up, I gave you a miss so close you should have seen that I was parodying you, and at the same time I prove my point that by not sourcing you are “Cheating”. No source = no position, you would have been thrown out of every high school debating class in the nation for acting the way you do here. Yet, you get on a high horse and say “me too” or “So you say” depending on the comments leveled against you. As I said, a good debater will always ask for a reference, which I did. You flatly refused because you do not seem to be able to play on a level playing field. So, I did the only thing I could, I tricked you.
>> You really blundered this one. Just think, you could have just said "1 Corinthians" and
>>gone for the baptism for the dead bit just as easily. But no! You just had to add verse
>>references, and now you're exposed for a buffoon.
Yep. I thought about doing just that, but you would continue to refuse to source your scriptures in the future, and this was fun. (I know you puritans don’t like humor, TOUGH!)
>>And just so you don't accuse me of dodging the question, I Deny it.
“I can neither confirm nor deny…”
I didn’t really care about the answer, I wanted the response I have elicited here, the gloating, the premature dancing on my grave, all of it, beautiful!
“Good etiquette dictates that the dancing on the grave not commence until the funeral is over.” -- Emily Post
The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated – Mark Twain ( http://today.java.net/cs/user/view/cs_msg/7200 )
>>>>instead he testified, boldly I might add, of Jesus Christ’s divinity, suffering in the
>>>>garden, crucifixion, and resurrection.
>>No, he didn't.
He most certainly testified of Jesus Christ’s divinity, If you are saved, then he testified of the Atonement which happened in the garden, if he testified of the Resurrection, then he testified of Christ giving up his life for you on the cross that he might take it again after three days thus breaking the bands of death.
>>Are you sloppy, or a liar?
Are you stupid or just gullible? (GRIN) I love these when did you stop beating your wife questions.
>>>>I the original author of the post being edited say there was.
>>I don't care what you say.
You obviously don’t care what you say either. I however do care what I say. You keep misquoting me, so I keep correcting the record (which long ago started sounding broken)
>>>>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.
>>Except it wasn't a recorded conversation, it was your failure to write coherently.
Have you ever written a “Rhetorical conversation” for humor? What am I thinking, a puritan writing humor? Sorry for asking, I understand why you don’t get this now.
>>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.
>>Oh? And didn't you say his works were lost because the "heretics won", until I
>>demonstrated that actually his major work denouncing heretics survived?
Straight from the New Advent Website, with links of course (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07360c.htm )
“Hippolytus was the most important theologian and the most prolific religious writer of the Roman Church in the pre-Constantinian era. Nevertheless the fate of his copious literary remains has been unfortunate. Most of his works have been lost or are known only through scattered fragments, while much has survived only in old translations into Oriental and Slavic languages; other writings are freely interpolated. The fact that the author wrote in Greek made it inevitable that later, when that language was no longer understood in Rome, the Romans lost interest in his writings”
I said most of his works were lost, yes. New Advent states that in this passage. I opined that if the Heretics won they would not work hard to translate his works into “Modern language and thus impugn themselves.
>>I guess your own posts are also trivial to you. That, or you'll throw out anything at all
>>and get angry at whoever calls you on it.
Not angry, annoyed when you try to twist what I have said, or take it out of context. The annoyance is not pride but that others might actually believe I said what you have slaughtered.
>>>>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.
>>Maybe I was hoping you'd expose yourself, yet again, as an ignoramus.
>>Which you've now done.
Yep, I’m exposed alright (Smile)