Any bible scholars out there?

Can a christian deny the old testament?

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#201  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 1:51 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

I think we are in basic agreement.

Ironic that on a site with 'rational' and 'skepticism' in the masthead there'd be folks browbeating someone else about who is and isn't christian based on dogmas their particular sect (meaning only the sect they are familiar with and not that they are now or ever were 'believers') happens to hold, and vaguely citing the bible as their 'proof text'.

Who exactly was arguing there is such a thing as a True Christian?


Perhaps the bolded bit you quoted above escaped your notice. :cheers:

It did not. I missed theropod's post. Thanks for quoting it.


Is this the reason you and I can't seem to communicate? You missed something?
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#202  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 1:51 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:Well, one thing is certain... we all have opinions.

Yes, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that there is any sort of equal value in those opinions.

Everyone has an asshole but, some assholes need a clean more than others.

I think the point of that idiom is that opinions ARE equal... they are ALL meaningless!

Not really. Many times opinions are based on liking/disliking certain things.
For example: I don't like cake because it's made with milk.
But if your opinion is based on an incorrect understanding of the facts, or even on personal ignorance, your opinion is not equal to those that are not.

PensivePenny wrote: Some, might be interesting, some might be mundane, but they're opinions precisely because there is no empirical evidence to support them.

Hence why: "I feel Fallible is abusing me." Is not just an opinion. It's something that can be empirically verified.

PensivePenny wrote:
Sendraks wrote:I really don't understand the compulsion to break down line by tedious line someone expressing their opinion and how they feel about how others are treating them.

Yes, yes, this is not a new "complaint." There are plenty of justifications as to why a person would want to break down a post into various sub points and deal with them in turn.

Much in the same way that responding with a single block of text is justified, largely as a ploy for avoiding dealing with specific points raised by your interlocutors.

LOL... my point wasn't complaining about the method of responding. My complaint was that something relatively insignificant and unimportant (an opinion) didn't warrant the scrutiny of a nuclear lab./quote]
So your point was once again based on a fanastical interpetation of what actually transpired.
There was no scrutiny worthy of a nuclear lab, there was a simple response to a flawed opinion.
You might not find that worthwile, that does not mean others don't. And since I already explained that to you repeated confusion about why people would do that, is rather strange.

PensivePenny wrote:


And this matters, why?

Only to express my inability to understand the motives of those who've done a line by line breakdown of some stupid opinion they may disagree with.

An inability that is weird in the light of explanations already offered.

PensivePenny wrote: Some people here don't need trolls to get worked up. It only takes a sentence or two, if that sentence or two is an opinion.

Since no-one has expressed being worked up in any sense, in this thread, this is yet another non-sequitur.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30942
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#203  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 1:53 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Who exactly was arguing there is such a thing as a True Christian?


Perhaps the bolded bit you quoted above escaped your notice. :cheers:

It did not. I missed theropod's post. Thanks for quoting it.


Is this the reason you and I can't seem to communicate? You missed something?

:sigh:
You were the one who unilaterally declared we are unable to communicate.
I repeatedly pointed out how we can have a rational discussion:
Adress what the other actually posts, without trying to psycho-analyse them.
By adressing requests for clarification, not dismissing them out of hand.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30942
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#204  Postby John Platko » Apr 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Fallible wrote:Please tell me there isn't still someone here who believes Platko to be posting in good faith. It's only the sheer quantity of drivel he's put out which might prevent them from disabusing themselves of this notion by reading his own words on this forum. True, he's continuing to tell lies about what he's done and how other people responded to that in this very thread, but at this stage in his posting career it would take days if not weeks of dedicated reading back through the endless chains of chicanery and goalpost shifting to begin to unravel it all.


I've been rather consistent. No goalpost shifting. :nono: And I've backed up what I said in the beginning with an actual demonstration. All those who whined and worse when I presented how ideas evolve were nowhere to be found when I rolled up my sleeves and did the heavy lifting of demonstrating those ideas. :no: And I think it's obvious why. :roll:


Let me just say for Penny's sake that the claims he has recently made here are outright lies,


Give one example of an actual lie I just told. I think we both know why you won't be able to.


and as with much of his piffle, relies solely on his own idiosyncratic redefinition of words which most people understand to mean very different things.


That's easy to say - not so easy to back up.


That's just the tip of the trolling iceberg though. Pretty much everything he says is disingenuous, unwarrantedly condescending bollocks.


And yet PensivePenny and I had a perfectly reasonable discussion. Can you actually point to something that was: disingenuous, or unwarrantedly condescending in our discussion?

Have you considered the benefits of using a discussion methodology similar to PensivePenny rather than you're current :scratch: heuristic?


If that's really what you're looking for, I suppose that's your prerogative. It just seems rather sad to me that someone will politely entertain this guy's dishonest shit all day long while simultaneously rudely dismissing another member who in my experience always posts in good faith.


Now that there is funny. :lol: I'm thinking that's not exactly going to help your argument with PensivePenny. :nono:
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#205  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 2:05 pm

Sendraks wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
I think the point of that idiom is that opinions ARE equal... they are ALL meaningless! Some, might be interesting, some might be mundane, but they're opinions precisely because there is no empirical evidence to support them. The only "value" opinions may have are to the individual who owns it. If I'm wrong, can you suggest an example of one opinion that is better than another one?


There is a world of difference between an opinion held on facts vs an opinion not held on facts. To suggest there is any sort of equivalent "meaningless" between the two, is nonsense of the highest order. Certainly it is not a rational thing to do but, it is a regular occurrence on these forums that certain people will attempt to handwave away the comments of others as "just an opinion."

Dammit Sendrak! If you keep this up, we may just agree on something! ;)

I think semantics get in the way here a lot. There are at least a half dozen accepted dictionary definitions of the word. I realize it doesn't help when people want to redefine things that AREN'T in the dictionary, but while clarification is in order, argument, isn't. The definition I've been employing here is 1 and 2 below. I think you may be using #3?

From dictionary.com

1.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2.
a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3.
the formal expression of a professional judgment:
to ask for a second medical opinion.



PensivePenny wrote:I
LOL... my point wasn't complaining about the method of responding. My complaint was that something relatively insignificant and unimportant (an opinion) didn't warrant the scrutiny of a nuclear lab.

You don't get to decide if that is the case.

If you mean I don't get to decide how people respond to me, you're right! Again we agree! But YOU don't get to decide whether I like it or not or whether I choose to engage this person or that or whether I think it's a rational thing to do.

PensivePenny wrote: Only to express my inability to understand the motives of those who've done a line by line breakdown of some stupid opinion they may disagree with.

Again, I would point out that your not understanding is simply a matter or choice, rather than ability. The reasons as to why people dissect posts in this matter are all too obvious and perfectly rational, for anyone prepared to make the effort to understand.

But, I can see the of hiding behind an appeal to incredulity rather than make the effort.


Understanding is a choice? I didn't realize. Here I thought I didn't understand quantum physics is because I don't have the reference points required from which to build upon. Communication is far from objective.

Sure, I could be "appealing to incredulity" if I were formally DEBATING. Since this thread is a casual conversation about a mythical book, perhaps I'm simply perplexed. I'm not appealing to anyone. My world isn't going to change one iota regardless of how many people here agree or disagree with me. :dunno: YMMV
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#206  Postby John Platko » Apr 25, 2017 2:07 pm

Alan B wrote:Oh dear! Prayer v meditation!
Is there a word in Aramaic (I presume that this was the language that Jesus spoke & wrote) for meditate as opposed to pray? If there isn’t, then his use of the word ‘pray’ could also mean ‘meditate’.
There are two basic meanings for ‘to meditate’:
1. To empty the mind of thoughts as a religious or spiritual exercise.
2. To engage in deep or serious reflection about a subject matter.
If there is no word for ‘meditate’ as in definition ‘1’, then Jesus would use the word ‘pray’, thereby setting the scene for generations to come since subsequent translators couldn’t discern the difference. If there is a word in Aramaic implying definition ‘2’, it would not have been used in the context of ‘to pray’.
I would suggest that it is possible that the concept of ‘to meditate’ – definition ‘1’ – may not have been recognised as a discrete activity as we do today (in the ‘Eastern religious’ sense).
To argue that some ‘learned body’ has stated that ‘to pray’ is the same as ‘to meditate’ is an ‘Argument from Authority’ and exposes the misconceptions forced upon us by religions and their interpretation of ‘to pray’.


There's nothing wrong with argument from authority if that authority has the appropriate expertise for the subject at hand. We rely on expert opinions all the time. We all can't be experts in ancient languages, etc. etc..
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#207  Postby Sendraks » Apr 25, 2017 2:07 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Since no-one has expressed being worked up in any sense, in this thread, this is yet another non-sequitur.


No, it is simply another unhealthy manifestation of projecting emotions onto others that Penny should stop, as indeed should anyone engaged in this behaviour.

Of course, I'm being generous here and entertaining the notion that in Penny's case, such projection is being done in all innocence. There are certainly individuals who will engage in this behaviour in a dishonest effort to undermine the arguments of others by making spurious claims about the emotions of their interlocutors. It is a classic way of denying people agency.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#208  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 2:14 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

Perhaps the bolded bit you quoted above escaped your notice. :cheers:

It did not. I missed theropod's post. Thanks for quoting it.


Is this the reason you and I can't seem to communicate? You missed something?

:sigh:
You were the one who unilaterally declared we are unable to communicate.
I repeatedly pointed out how we can have a rational discussion:
Adress what the other actually posts, without trying to psycho-analyse them.
By adressing requests for clarification, not dismissing them out of hand.


You're right! I recognized we were unable to communicate. If I had recognized where the miscommunication began at the time, I would have attempted to clarify. I didn't know where the problem was. I also got the perception (personal perception, doesn't always reflect reality) you were more interested in finding someone to disagree with and fight and targeting picayune elements of my posts rather than the main point. Right or wrong, it is what I perceived. I chose to simply part ways without placing blame. Sometimes things just don't 'gel,' just like I said when I chose to not engage.

It appears that wasn't acceptable to you. Don't take things so personally. I wasn't dismissing you out of hand... just recognizing the probability that we would likely never be able to communicate.
Last edited by PensivePenny on Apr 25, 2017 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#209  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 2:15 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Since no-one has expressed being worked up in any sense, in this thread, this is yet another non-sequitur.


No, it is simply another unhealthy manifestation of projecting emotions onto others that Penny should stop, as indeed should anyone engaged in this behaviour. Of course, I'm being generous here and entertaining the notion that in Penny's case, such projection is being done in all innocence.

So was I, hence why I catagorised it as a non-sequitur and not an intentional misrepresentation.

Sendraks wrote:There are certainly individuals who will engage in this behaviour in a dishonest effort to undermine the arguments of others by making spurious claims about the emotions of their interlocutors. It is a classic way of denying people agency.

:nod:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30942
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#210  Postby proudfootz » Apr 25, 2017 2:19 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Since no-one has expressed being worked up in any sense, in this thread, this is yet another non-sequitur.


No, it is simply another unhealthy manifestation of projecting emotions onto others that Penny should stop, as indeed should anyone engaged in this behaviour.

Of course, I'm being generous here and entertaining the notion that in Penny's case, such projection is being done in all innocence. There are certainly individuals who will engage in this behaviour in a dishonest effort to undermine the arguments of others by making spurious claims about the emotions of their interlocutors. It is a classic way of denying people agency.


It's a good thing there's no such persons in this thread, or on this site. The FUA guarantees it! :thumbup:

Since no one has expressed being dishonest, this is a non sequitur and perhaps should be abandoned.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10968

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#211  Postby Sendraks » Apr 25, 2017 2:19 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Dammit Sendrak! If you keep this up, we may just agree on something! ;)


That would be the intent of getting into a discussion in the first place.

PensivePenny wrote:I think semantics get in the way here a lot. There are at least a half dozen accepted dictionary definitions of the word. I realize it doesn't help when people want to redefine things that AREN'T in the dictionary, but while clarification is in order, argument, isn't. The definition I've been employing here is 1 and 2 below. I think you may be using #3?


No, I'm using all three, as the word opinion applies to all three definitions. The trick is to recognising which opinions fall into 1 and 2 and which fall into 3. And even then, opinions held on 1 or 2, can still be held on basis in fact without being sufficient to reach certainty. The difference is how much fact one employs for those opinions and the way in which those opinions are framed.

There is no god vs there is a god.
Both equally on shaky ground. Neither can be evidenced and both equally meaningless.

I've no reason to believe in god vs there is a god.
Here, the former opinion can be backed up by evidence whereas the latter is still meaningless.

PensivePenny wrote:IIf you mean I don't get to decide how people respond to me, you're right!

I meant that you don't get to decide whether something warrants that sort of clinical response or not. Clearly if someone responds in that way, they thought it was warranted. Who are you to say how they should post? This is basically just tone policing.

PensivePenny wrote:But YOU don't get to decide whether I like it or not or whether I choose to engage this person or that or whether I think it's a rational thing to do.

Which is different from posting value judgements about whether someone should have responded to you in a particular way.

PensivePenny wrote:
Understanding is a choice? I didn't realize. Here I thought I didn't understand quantum physics is because I don't have the reference points required from which to build upon. Communication is far from objective.

Ah, so you're just going to dishonestly lump everything you don't understand into the same big old basket and use that as an excuse?

PensivePenny wrote: Sure, I could be "appealing to incredulity" if I were formally DEBATING. Since this thread is a casual conversation about a mythical book, perhaps I'm simply perplexed. I'm not appealing to anyone. My world isn't going to change one iota regardless of how many people here agree or disagree with me. :dunno: YMMV


Whether you are formally debating or not is irrelevant as to determining whether you are employing fallacies or not. One would hope that anyone participating in discussions on a forum called "rational scepticism" would seek avoid the use of such fallacies wherever possible and, where the do employ such fallacies, welcome that being pointed out and seek to avoid doing such in future.

Basically your excuse here can be interpreted as "I'm not formally debating, therefore I don't have to think rationally."
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#212  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 2:20 pm

You messed up the quote tags there.

PensivePenny wrote:
You're right! I recognized we were unable to communicate.

False, you asserted we were.
I have been disagreeing with that from the get go.
I think we are capable of communicating.

PensivePenny wrote: If I had recognized where the miscommunication began at the time, I would have attempted to clarify. I didn't know where the problem was. I also got the perception (personal perception, doesn't always reflect reality) you were more interested in finding someone to disagree with and fight and targeting picayune elements of my posts rather than the main point. Right or wrong, it is what I perceived. I chose to simply part ways without placing blame. Sometimes things just don't 'gel,' just like I said when I chose to not engage.

Except that, even after I repeatedly made my position clear and explained how we could have a productive discussion, you kept dismissing me out of hand and responding with increasingly personalised comments.

PensivePenny wrote:It appears that wasn't acceptable to you. Don't take things so personally.

Stop projecting things on me.
The only thing I've taken personally, are your repeated insinuations and outright accusations about my personality and mental state. Which is perfectly rational, as they are personalised remarks.


PensivePenny wrote: I wasn't dismissing you out of hand... just recognizing the probability that we would likely never be able to communicate.

But you have no rational basis to make that determination. This is (on of) the first times we've interacted with each other.
More-over, it was you who refused to continue the discussion. I was perfectly willing to re-explain my postion and arguments.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30942
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#213  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 2:21 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Since no-one has expressed being worked up in any sense, in this thread, this is yet another non-sequitur.


No, it is simply another unhealthy manifestation of projecting emotions onto others that Penny should stop, as indeed should anyone engaged in this behaviour.

Of course, I'm being generous here and entertaining the notion that in Penny's case, such projection is being done in all innocence. There are certainly individuals who will engage in this behaviour in a dishonest effort to undermine the arguments of others by making spurious claims about the emotions of their interlocutors. It is a classic way of denying people agency.


It's a good thing there's no such persons in this thread, or on this site. The FUA guarantees it! :thumbup:

Since no one has expressed being dishonest, this is a non sequitur and perhaps should be abandoned.

Since people have been acting dishonest, it is not a non-sequitur and should not be abandoned.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30942
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#214  Postby proudfootz » Apr 25, 2017 2:21 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
It did not. I missed theropod's post. Thanks for quoting it.


Is this the reason you and I can't seem to communicate? You missed something?

:sigh:
You were the one who unilaterally declared we are unable to communicate.
I repeatedly pointed out how we can have a rational discussion:
Adress what the other actually posts, without trying to psycho-analyse them.
By adressing requests for clarification, not dismissing them out of hand.


You're right! I recognized we were unable to communicate. If I had recognized where the miscommunication began at the time, I would have attempted to clarify. I didn't know where the problem was. I also got the perception (personal perception, doesn't always reflect reality) you were more interested in finding someone to disagree with and fight and targeting picayune elements of my posts rather than the main point. Right or wrong, it is what I perceived. I chose to simply part ways without placing blame. Sometimes things just don't 'gel,' just like I said when I chose to not engage.

It appears that wasn't acceptable to you. Don't take things so personally. I wasn't dismissing you out of hand... just recognizing the probability that we would likely never be able to communicate.


It can be problematic when someone jumps into a conversation without the necessary grounding in what the issues are and having the wherewithal to come to an understanding why you might have worded you posts as you did.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10968

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#215  Postby proudfootz » Apr 25, 2017 2:23 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Since no-one has expressed being worked up in any sense, in this thread, this is yet another non-sequitur.


No, it is simply another unhealthy manifestation of projecting emotions onto others that Penny should stop, as indeed should anyone engaged in this behaviour.

Of course, I'm being generous here and entertaining the notion that in Penny's case, such projection is being done in all innocence. There are certainly individuals who will engage in this behaviour in a dishonest effort to undermine the arguments of others by making spurious claims about the emotions of their interlocutors. It is a classic way of denying people agency.


It's a good thing there's no such persons in this thread, or on this site. The FUA guarantees it! :thumbup:

Since no one has expressed being dishonest, this is a non sequitur and perhaps should be abandoned.

Since people have been acting dishonest, it is not a non-sequitur and should not be abandoned.


Now that these mysterious unnamed people have been put on notice, I'm sure they'll bugger off and let this thread go back on topic.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10968

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#216  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 2:24 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Sendraks wrote:

No, it is simply another unhealthy manifestation of projecting emotions onto others that Penny should stop, as indeed should anyone engaged in this behaviour.

Of course, I'm being generous here and entertaining the notion that in Penny's case, such projection is being done in all innocence. There are certainly individuals who will engage in this behaviour in a dishonest effort to undermine the arguments of others by making spurious claims about the emotions of their interlocutors. It is a classic way of denying people agency.


It's a good thing there's no such persons in this thread, or on this site. The FUA guarantees it! :thumbup:

Since no one has expressed being dishonest, this is a non sequitur and perhaps should be abandoned.

Since people have been acting dishonest, it is not a non-sequitur and should not be abandoned.


Now that these mysterious unnamed people have been put on notice, I'm sure they'll bugger off and let this thread go back on topic.

They are neither mysterious nor unnamed.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30942
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#217  Postby proudfootz » Apr 25, 2017 2:27 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

It's a good thing there's no such persons in this thread, or on this site. The FUA guarantees it! :thumbup:

Since no one has expressed being dishonest, this is a non sequitur and perhaps should be abandoned.

Since people have been acting dishonest, it is not a non-sequitur and should not be abandoned.


Now that these mysterious unnamed people have been put on notice, I'm sure they'll bugger off and let this thread go back on topic.

They are neither mysterious nor unnamed.


Well, they've probably buggered off by now, so the thread can get back on topic instead of claims and counterclaims based on perceptions of personalities.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10968

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#218  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 2:30 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Since people have been acting dishonest, it is not a non-sequitur and should not be abandoned.


Now that these mysterious unnamed people have been put on notice, I'm sure they'll bugger off and let this thread go back on topic.

They are neither mysterious nor unnamed.


Well, they've probably buggered off by now, so the thread can get back on topic instead of claims and counterclaims based on perceptions of personalities.

That's been something I've been asking for since this derail started.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30942
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#219  Postby proudfootz » Apr 25, 2017 2:35 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

Now that these mysterious unnamed people have been put on notice, I'm sure they'll bugger off and let this thread go back on topic.

They are neither mysterious nor unnamed.


Well, they've probably buggered off by now, so the thread can get back on topic instead of claims and counterclaims based on perceptions of personalities.

That's been something I've been asking for since this derail started.


So, going back to page 1 - what do you make of the claim of therapod's that this one dogma about Original Sin is necessary to be a True Christian and that christians who do not adhere to that particular minutia are not christians?
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10968

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#220  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 2:38 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Since no-one has expressed being worked up in any sense, in this thread, this is yet another non-sequitur.


No, it is simply another unhealthy manifestation of projecting emotions onto others that Penny should stop, as indeed should anyone engaged in this behaviour.

Of course, I'm being generous here and entertaining the notion that in Penny's case, such projection is being done in all innocence. There are certainly individuals who will engage in this behaviour in a dishonest effort to undermine the arguments of others by making spurious claims about the emotions of their interlocutors. It is a classic way of denying people agency.


I appreciate the benefit of the doubt. But, consider that maybe I'm not projecting. Consider that on a forum, with nothing but text as a clue, no facial expressions, no hand gestures, etc, words can be misconstrued. I accept that. I also accept that maybe NO-one is getting worked up. I could very much be wrong... but the last several pages would suggest otherwise purely by the volume of posts about minutiae.

I started a thread in a theology forum. Naturally, any members are welcome to post where and what they like. My personal motivation to participate in this thread is for the reasons stated in the OP. The only explanation my brain could conceive as to why anyone would continually post in a thread, once it got off the rails, is that they are "worked up." That's a general term that can be used to describe a whole variety of emotions. If that's wrong, then okay. I apologize. But I have to ask how anyone here can be so certain that the other members AREN'T worked up? I am not certain they are, but some probably are. Seems rational to me based on what's been posted. :dunno:

ETA: Underlined above, I mean to say that I can imagine the only thing that would motivate ME to engage in such a manner would be if I WERE emotional. I tend to leave threads under such circumstances. The only reason I haven't left this one is because I'm the one who started it (unfortunately). I am really feeling no emotion but perplexity. If I were "projecting" anything it would be THAT! :yes: But, that is not what I'm sensing. Again, most likely I am sensing wrong. It's a forum of text. :)
Last edited by PensivePenny on Apr 25, 2017 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest