I would of saved Jesus.Operation rescue Jesus from the cross.
It's no longer your truth eh?
Oops! Don't slip back into PC nonsense. First, you can't "grant" anyone the truth, and second, there is no your truth or my truth. I know these non-liberal ideas are scary for you, but trust me, you will be fine.
Liberals also love to pontificate on their thinking. No one cares Rosends, that's why no one asked you. Opinions are like you know what, everyone has one. Now, find someone who finds your personal thoughts fascinating, and bother them.
there were only four humans on the planet at the time
Wow!
I thought Ethang was joking when he said you were obsessed.
it never was a matter of "my truth"
You had said that you posted something which was "the" truth and I simply corrected you.
You don't like that correction because you see your version of the world as "the truth" but you are wrong.
If you want to refer to earlier parts of this dialogue, it is useful to note them in context -- I was conceding that you have a version of "truth" -- not that there are different truths.
I still don't understand how you tie the post modern idea of truths to a political position (or do you mean liberal in terms of some other set of values). You don't know how I vote and yet because I am tolerant of your erroneous position, and humor your calling it "truth" you want to guess at my various leanings. Weird.
It doesn't matter whether you find my thoughts fascinating...
("How "useful" that was to you is of no concern to me.")
If you find this to be a bother, then that is your problem, and if you are looking for a fight then you have looked in the wrong place.
All I'm doing is posting information on the truth and you are bothered that it makes clear that your version of things isn't the truth
Separate question -- if I could show, demonstrate or prove that something that you posted was objectively and provably false -- that your statement which you think of as being "the truth" is wrong, would it make you reconsider your truth claims and see that what you insist on as being "the truth" is really just your perception and understanding?
Oh I have, and more.
So if I don't believe in him I will die in sin or my inherited sin from thousands of years ago or both?
It doesn't state " King Jesus Christ" . You have added that.
Anyway , Can you clear up the question BEFORE YOU start claiming any more shite.
We maybe able to proceed with your argument then.
John 8:24 - I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. - King Jesus Christ. Read the whole chapter 8. It will help you greatly.So if I don't believe in him I will die in sin or my inherited sin from thousands of years ago or both? It doesn't state " King Jesus Christ" . You have added that.Lol. It doesn't state "John 8:24" either Einstein.
->@ethang5: John 8:24 - I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. - King Jesus Christ. "
Why you have posted that verse?
It doesn't prove anything at all.
You corrected me whenI said you had “your truth” - I didn't claim that I had "my truth."
I corrected you and you don’t likebeing told that...
“your truth” is not the same as “the truth.”
Yes, “your truth” asopposed to “the truth.” That makes you in error.
If you assert anerror is “the truth” then you must have invented a truth of your own. That’s aproblem you have.
...but in the fact that I said YOUhave a version, not I.
You want to hold it as something called “truth”then it is “your truth” but certainly not THE truth.
If you would prefer, I will just call your position "untruth" and not allow for an error in thinking on your part to help you craft a false world-view that you see as truth.
Trust me, you have noidea how I vote...
Because it doesn’t further dialogue. If you are OK with that, then fine.
You already did.
And ithas no impact on my mood. You simply aren’t important enough.
if I could show, demonstrate or prove that something that you posted was objectively and provably false -- that your statement which you think of as being "the truth" is wrong, would it make you reconsider your truth claims...
No, I wouldn’t have because it wouldn't serve the conversation, butI could.
My question still stands.
So you are botheredby someone who can prove that you are wrong? OK.
Sometimes a littleresearch can help you avoid being proven wrong.
Your choice. I guess your holdon “the truth” isn’t as firm as you would like it to be so you squeeze tighterand close your eyes.
Why you call me a “bothersomeKaren” escapes me.
Ah, so you responded to what you decided I “implicitly implied”not anything that I posted.
I can only go by what you posted. If you react by trying to bring in all sorts of other ideas (like politics) and you feel the need to impute an explicit statement when none exists, I can conclude your emotional content.
That should resolve the question.
Fine. I’ll stick with “your error which you confuse for the truth”
I haven’t said anything to indicate my vote and yet you have let your error construct a world-view.
You aren't that important.
What I “seem” to you has no impact on the truth. That’s your perception and your issue to deal with.
I could but I am trying to understand how you think you will respond before I do.
My question still stands.
Because your reply did not answer the question.
What does that have to do with your idea of your importance?
Well, actually, I haven’t proven it, but I have the proof.
I said you could have avoided being wrong.
Sad that you insist that your response is rhetorical.
If you can't explain then admit you can't...
- if you could have, you would have already.
I'm asking for clarification. Both parts.
It only makes you appear petty.
(Why do liberals think they can speak reality into being?)
Is your claim that I'm not that important yet you keep responding also just my perception?
Then you advice on how I could have avoided being proven wrong was a little premature was it not Rosends?
If I have not avoided being wrong, you don't need to prove me wrong now do you?
Your pettiness is now morphing into making you look stupid.
If pointing out your inaccuracy is what you call petty then, ok.
Yes, answer why you think that repeatedly calling me a "liberal" somehow makes it real.
No. Just a function of my boredom.
By your logic, though, I must be important to you as you keep responding.
How is it premature?
Had you done the research, you wouldn't have made the error and then you wouldn't have been able to be proven wrong.
And since I am able to prove you wrong, advice about what you could have done to avoid my having this ability is not premature.
That's pretzel logic.
If you have not avoided it then you are wrong.
I might not NEED to prove it, but I am able to.
I don't need to do much of anything in terms of your mistakes.
One thing I choose to do is to point out when you make them.
You mean by my quoting your words? Got it.
The fact is, you are wrong on many levels. I started this by pointing out that a statement you made was mired in your own subjective position and you insisted that it wasn't.
You made a claim which you said comes from "My answer was restricted to the truth." But it wasn't.
It was restricted to an understanding that you have about the definition of a word/concept that not all agree with. When you assert that you are "restricted to the truth" then you say that anyone else's understanding of the term is not "the truth" and that is also wrong.
That smacks of your statement, "That everyone must agree with your thinking or else they are "bad/mistaken/evil". That the only proof needed for someone to be wrong is for you to think they are wrong."
So far, the only proof you have for what you initially claimed is that claim.
And the only proof you have about other claims you have made is your perception and assumptions which you mistake the "the truth."
And since it is easy to prove at least one of those other claims as wrong, the underlying and blanket belief in your access to "the truth" fails.
So keep dancing if you must, avoiding if you like, and calling names if it works for you.
If you need me to explain more, just let me know. Understanding how people mistake their versions of the world for the world is an important step you must make.
Your mistaken labeling doesn’t create reality.
No, that doesn’t change your importance. Why would you think it would?
I’m bored, so I respond. You think that makes you more important?
You did suggest that your responses would elicit an emotional response from me (“ would it make you happy”).
I simply said that you aren’t important enough to do that.
If you take from that a more general statement that you are unimportant (a word you introduced in post 71) then that's for you to deal with.
How is it premature?
That’s true, but that doesn’t make my advice for how you could have avoided being wrong premature.
Whether or not I prove it to you doesn’t change that you are wrong and you could have avoided that.
This is where you get tripped up. There is no “SO you’re wrong”
–your being wrong is irrelevant of anything I type. You don’t suddenly become wrong when someone proves it to your face, or can prove it.
People avoid many things. Some of those things are things I do, and some are things I don’t do.
People should do things to avoid being wrong. For example, had you done any measure of looking on the internet (before you made certain assumptions) you wouldn’t have posted an error.
Exactly – I have no need to prove them.
No...
(ignoring the attempted “liberal” label), my pointing it out means that you are no more right simply because you insist it.
Actually, my comment was that your claim to be “restricted to the truth” is wrong.
It is your insistence that you are always right because you are restricted to the truth which is in error. I didn’t comment on everyone else.
No, what you have not avoided...
...and are therefore wrong about has nothing to do with your initial claim about what constitutes biblical citation, but about something else which certainly does exist.
I'm just curious who much you see your worldview ("restricted to the truth") as a unified whole.
How about this -- for a moment, I'll focus on your initial claim (in post 17, supported by your citations in post 19)
If I say to you “Romans, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts are not part of The Bible” are you saying I am wrong?Are you saying that the canon of texts that I happen to buy in my local store, that calls itself The Bible is wrong? If the only “true” definition of “bible” is the one you hold on to, then you are saying that everyone else is wrong.
But liberals are always right. Right?
This isn’t even where you are wrong - this is just where you confuse your opinion with "the truth".
I’m just waiting for you to answer a question about the underlying notion of your “truth” – do you see your statements which are "restricted to the truth" as a representing a wholly consistent and interlaced truth?
I’m asking about what you would do if part is shown to be wrong. Once you let me know how you think you will handle being shown to be wrong, then I will show you. If you have no interest in discussing your hold on “truth” then so be it.
Generally, no. However when you make a claim which I can prove, then I know I’m right.
If you really don’t want to confront how you will reconcile your insistence that you are “restricted to the truth” even though a statement you made was wrong then that’s fine.
I can stop playing whenever you want.
Yes, and I’m showing you how your words apply to your position.
So your definition of pettiness involves someone’s being bored? OK.
That's not really part of the definition though. Your thinking it is doesn't make it so.
And your response doesn’t work if you ignore what was actually said.
I am, so I appreciate that you keep trying.
Your insistence that something does not exist doesn’t stop it from existing.
You did not avoid what YOU did. It is unfortunate that you refuse to see this.
Only if you want to misunderstand another word.
If you have not avoided being wrong, then you are wrong. However, your being wrong does not hinge on my proving you are wrong.
In that sentence, the “SO” which you inserted and to which I responded indicated causality between what I can do and your status as wrong. This is an erroneous claim.
In this other statement of mine that you reposted, “If you have not avoided it then you are wrong." The relationship is between your action and your status as wrong,nothing to do with what I can do.
No, your being wrong has nothing to do with what anyone thinks.
In this situation, you did not avoid something which I don’t do.
A claim can be right even when it isn’t proven. And the opposite claim is wrong whether or not it is proven.
Then you haven’t been reading. You are wrong because you are wrong.
The fact that I have access to a fact that you don’t simply clues me into your being wrong while you still think you are right.
So when you impute a statement to me which I didn’t say but you think that I think it, that is intellectually honest? Another “implicitly implied” case, I guess.
Finally, a direct question. Simply put, you made a factually incorrect claim which I did not (and would not) ever make.
You could have avoided making that claim. You did not avoid it, and I did not do it.
Can you accept that your worldview might not always be reflective of the truth?
Or are you claiming that you are always right?
You aren’t quite ready yet, but you are getting there.
So if everyone holds on to something which you say is an untruthfulness...
(because your position is “restricted to the truth”) then everyone is wrong. Therefore, your position is the only one that is right because, by definition,your position is the truth.
Then you are the one insisting that you are always right and are the “liberal”. If your idea of what “the bible” is is the only one that is restricted to the truth, then anyone who understands “the bible” as referring to anything else is wrong.
But liberals are always right. Right?
Well, and you.
No, you fail in your claim in the moment you make it if it is wrong.
Why do you insist on thinking that what I do can affect the truth status of your claim?
Fantastic! Are you Christian? If not, this statement doesn’t help me understand where you stand.
I still have no need and I haven’t proven anything by thinking.
I’m willing to prove your claim wrong but would first like to consider how you will react.
You are responding to a comment in which I said the opposite.
If you read what I wrote, you will see that I said that you were able to avoid being wrong, but you didn’t take steps to be wrong.
I’m not sure what a “liberal game” is, nor do I know where someone gets formal training in writing posts in online forums (training that would include misunderstanding words, misstating positions and refusing to answer questions). But if you want to engage (more than you have, in saying that anyone who holds that “the bible” refers to a canon different from the one you consider “the bible” is wrong) then simply answer my question:
If your view of the world is restricted to the truth, and one claim that you made can be shown not to be the truth, will you then reconsider all or any of your other assumptions, or will you find a way to excuse a single error?
If the latter, that you can admit you are wrong, but insist that your error is confined and singular, then I learn something about you. If the former, that you admit that if you made an error in assumptions in one case, then you might have made it in other cases, then I learn something else.
Again, you tie boredom to pettiness. That’s not how words work, but have fun with it.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean you didn’t do it.
Yes, improperly. I showed how.
No, I don’t need to because there is no imperative incumbent on me to. My thinking has no bearing on whether or not something exists.
Yes, I could – but as I have said, before that, I want to see if we can anticipate how you will react.
Are you saying that something will become a reality only when I prove it to you?
Because I have access to a fact you don’t, yet you made a factual claim which flies in the face of this fact.
I do pretty well, yes. That is a good observation.
You and I must understand “prophecy” differently then.
No, that shows I know you are wrong because I con confirm that you are wrong. Meanwhile, you insist you are right simply because you think it.
No, just saying it is not proof.
You must not be killer at debates.
No, actually, I have consciously avoided it.
You are the one claiming that my proof doesn’t exist because you haven’t seen it. But that doesn’t make reality.
Great. But (and this isn’t the point I will prove) when confronted with the statement that other people define “the bible” differently, you decided not that there might be more than one definition, but that everyone else is wrong.
Fine. You are restricted to the truth. And if one statement that you made can be shown to be an untruth, how would you react?
So if I point to people who say “the book of Acts is not in the bible” is that a contradiction?
Are they wrong because they don’t agree with you and you are restricted to the truth?
You have yet to use logic, and you have just admitted that you hold the same position as “liberals”with the only difference being the method by which you got to the position.
In time, padawan.
Are you saying that in our exchanges, you have declared your religious identity?
Or are you sayingthat by citing certain books you have implicitly aligned yourself with a group and not with any other that might also see the books as canonical?
I asked a straightforward question. You didn’t answer. Why?
Yes, your bad.
No, you haven’t. Note how above, I asked a pointed question about your religious affiliation and you only responded -- you didn’t answer.
OK, I think we are getting somewhere – by this assertion, you are insisting that any claim you make can not be shown to be not the truth.
So, hypothetically, how would you react when I show you that a statement you made is untrue?
I tie continuing to respond when bored to a person you claim is important to pettiness. And I can do that. Liberals cannot stand not having control.
I quoted you properly.
No. You say its reality simply if you think it. I am really not too bothered by your loopy thinking.
I have access to facts you don't too. I've corrected you each time you flew in the face of my facts.
Lol. Your opponent lays out an intricate argument and you simply think he's wrong because you have "access" to a fact he doesn't and poof! You're right! Its a wonder you only do pretty well.
"...you are wrong because I can confirm that you are wrong..."All before you actually prove me wrong. Lol Bravo!
What's your proof that I made a factually incorrect claim? Remember now, you've denied its your thinking or magic or voodoo.
Your failure to present it doesn't help you prof.
Are you predicting what I will do? Or are you asking a question?
I've already answered you prof.
Why would that be a contradiction? A contradicton of what? If I point to people who say the Earth is flat is that a contradiction? You think someone disagreeing with me makes me wrong??
They are wrong because they are wrong. Remember your comment?
Lol! In the main time should I take you on faith?
Did I say anything about a religious identity?
I'm saying you aren't capable of understanding where I stand. Was that not simple?
Lol. I should have assumed I was wrong BEFORE you proved I was wrong. >>sniker!!<<
My affiliation is off topic. You have not answered my questions too. I didn't bother you because we both know why you dodged.
Why would I say that when you have asserted that...
1. You have no need to prove me wrong
2. Can simply think my error into existence
3. I am wrong because I'm wrong
You've asked and I've answered you.
Are you growing a need to show me wrong?
Except I didn't claim you were important. You are a way to kill time.
Simply insisting it doesn't make it so.
I never said it was reality simply if I think it. You are misquoting me again. It is reality because it is reality. I know it but my knowing it doesn't make it reality.
That's nice. So what? I never claimed to have all the facts, nor did I claim that the things that I know are "restricted to the truth."
No, my opponent lays out understanding and an assembly selected facts to build an argument and I either present a refutation of the facts claimed, or an alternative affirmative argument.
In this case, though, since you haven't laid out facts about the bible, simply a claim that certain books are in it, there is no proof, so nothing to disprove. The fact that I know is unrelated to that.
A half quote...very nice. What I said "I know you are wrong because I con confirm that you are wrong" and yes, I know this before I prove it to you because I have facts you don't.
That's a fair question,...
...but one which I have refused to answer...
...until I can piece together a guess as to how you will respond, once you see that your "restricted to the truth" worldview has an error in it.
You just have to address that head on, and I can show you your mistake.
I'm not looking for help.
Your failure to address my question doesn't lead to any new understanding on your part.
Neither -- that would explain why I spoke in the past tense, and had no question mark at the end of my statement.
You have replied, but haven't addressed my question in an answer.
A contradiction to your statement that the book of Acts IS in the bible. Do you see that there are two valid opinions, or that there is your statement and anyone else who disagrees is wrong? (note the question mark)
I remember yours, about making a claim with no proof.
Nope. You can either review what you have said and research it, ...
...or help me understand how you will react when you are shown the error.
Or, you can ignore all of this because you don't care.
No,...
I did, specifically asking if you are a Christian, and you suggested that I review the exchanges.
Simple-minded, maybe.
Certainly not an answer to a direct question.
Remember, I haven't proven anything yet.
You still have time to review and realize (but no, not assume).
No, your religious affiliation is on topic.
I asked about your view of books of the bible and then about your view of the world and its being restricted to the truth. You answered my question about YOUR world view by writing, "A wholly consistent and interlaced truth is what Christianity is". That is eaither reflective of you or immaterial. I'm just asking which is the case.
So my restatement was wrong? Please correct it so I can understand your position.
Why do you think I have any need like that?
I have never said that. You keep setting this up as a strawman so you can knock it down, but since it isn't my position, that is wasted effort on your part.
Well, that is correct. If you said 2+2=5 you would be wrong, simply because you would be wrong.
No, you have only insisted that you can't be wrong, and not confronted the hypothetical.
No, not really.
If you want to, feel free to say, "Rosends, I'm not interested in what you think I have said that is untrue."
That would be great. I would move on, knowing what I know, and you would move on, content in what you think you know, none the wiser.
I await your decision.
Nowhere will we find a single reference where Jesus admits to his inner circle of coming to specifically do die for their sins. There are a few verses that could be crowbarred into suggesting that he did as much, such as John 3:16, but it will be a struggle to squeeze these words into the mouth of Jesus and sins are not even mentioned, only belief.
The bible seems to suggest we alone are responsible. Deuteronomy11:16 “ take heed of yourself”.
Genesis4; 9 “Where is Abel your brother?”He said, “I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?“Am I my brother's keeper?”Is this to say that I am not responsible for anyone but myself, my actions and my own behaviour?
The bible seems to suggest we alone are responsible. Deuteronomy11:16 “ take heed of yourself”.Deut 11:16 merely appears to be a caution against worshipping other gods than Yahweh.
Genesis4; 9 “Where is Abel your brother?”He said, “I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?“Am I my brother's keeper?”Is this to say that I am not responsible for anyone but myself, my actions and my own behaviour?"What am I, his babysitter? Why are you asking me? I wasn't even there. What is this, the Spanish Inquisition? Fuck off." -- CainI think that is the extent of the meaning of this passage. But that's just me.
Luke 24:46-47 .....................
No. You just have access to facts that othersdon't,t and that makes them wrong even when all you do is "know".
Lol. Your opponent lays out an intricate argument and you simply think he's wrong because you have "access" to a fact he doesn't and poof! You're right! Its a wonder you only do pretty well.
Don't be so shy. You listed your special access to facts as evidence of my error.
But yet you list my not answering your questions as evidence you are right.
Lol!! So you refuse to "prove me wrong" until I admit I am wrong? You aren't just petty and lying, you're ludicrous!
"Address" to you means I concede. Lol, I think I'll require you to prove your claim instead of conceding I'm wrong before you've proven your claim. Remember, I'm restricted by logic too.
Someone disagreeing with me doesn't make me wrong. That is just yet more loony liberal tolerance dogma.
Why? Because you think I'm wrong? I speak purposely. I need no review.
All BEFORE you have shown any error? I will not enable your liberal confusion.
Those aren't my only choices. I think I will toss and ridicule you for your ridiculous anal attempts at logic. Life is too short to waste all this fun.
So that you would see that you are incapable of understanding my position. Focus Rosends.
Sooner or later you will comprehend that I don't have to do what you want.
I think I'll wait until you prove I am wrong BEFORE I concede genius. I'm stubborn that way.
I decide. Not you. Sooner or later you will comprehend that you aren't the boss.
My views are never immaterial. But if you ask something and then take my reply to be immaterial.... eh.
I'm waiting for you to concede you were wrong BEFORE I correct you. Ha!
You admit you have not proven me wrong, but insist I am wrong. When asked how you know I'm wrong, you say you won't say so yet, but insist I am wrong. You even are asking me to concede an error, all while admitting you haven't proven anything yet. Look again Rosends, that " strawman" is flesh and blood.
I'm waiting for the actual.
Yet you want me to believe you will show me wrong at some future point.
You can move on at anytime you want. I will respond, or not respond, when I want.
Facts aren't wrong. People who make claims in the absence of facts are wrong.
In a formal debate, I have no interest in learning how my opponent will cope with learning he is wrong. Therefore, I simply prove my side (or directly refute the claims). This is not a formal debate and I'm curious about how you will cope.
Yes, but not about the books of the bible.
There you have only posited your opinion and because there are differences of opinion, your position accurately represents your belief system. To you, that makes everyone else wrong because you equate your beliefs with "truth."
No, your refusing to answer is only evidence that you refuse to answer.
No, until you engage in a discussion of how being wrong will affect you.
Well, that's not what "address" means but I'll skip that part.
If you don't want to discuss the hypothetical then that's fine. I know your opinion about the books of the bible and I know your error in another matter. You don't want to explore the possible implications? OK.
Nor does it make you right. Same dogma.
OK.
It is more fruitful to predict BEFORE something happens, yes.
That is also your choice. Have fun.
you told me to review instead of explaining the answer to my question, so that I would see that I'm incapable of understanding?
I do understand that, as you should understand that I don't have to do what you want.
If you don't want to answer a direct question, or don't want to help me understand how you will react in a given situation, then don't.
So, when given the opportunity to review and rethink a position and claim, you will refuse. I'm learning interesting things about you.
But you did decide by inserting Christianity into your response.
This isn't about being the "boss" but about my asking for clarification of something you wrote.
So then your making a statement about Christianity after I ask about your interlaced worldview is relevant? OK, I will therefore conclude that you are a Christian.
Of course, if I am wrong and you are not a Christian, I will happily concede that my assumption was in error -- it was limited to the statements you made.
I'm not asking you to concede an error. I know you made an error. I'm asking you to entertain how you will react when I present that error.
You then insist that you need not entertain the hypothetical because I have not yet shown the error, therefore it doesn't exist -- that my thinking it is the only reason I am mentioning it. As that is not the case, you are establishing a false position to argue with.
If that is your position, and I will not be presenting it until I can anticipate a reaction, you have a long wait.
I don't care what you believe or not, nor do I have a "want" in that regard. I am just curious about what will happen if I show you your error.
And your responses will dictate the course of the conversation.
If you want to move forward in one direction, just answer what I asked.
If you want to move in a different direction, feel free to continue whatever it is you think you are doing.
If your goal is to wear me down by evasion, then so be it.
I will choose to walk away because you have shown no interest in learning.
Instead of engaging in a thought experiment with me, you will continue to rehash the same statements and will then become boring to me and I will walk away.
You set the goal and I will respond accordingly.
Proving your claim would do that Einstein.
Was that one voodoo?
And as a tooolerant liberal, any differing viewpoint must be cuddled, no matter how absurd.
So its prediction? You said it wasn't prophesy. Good to know.
Notice that I haven't demanded or insisted you do anything. Remember it only works if our behaviors are reciprocal.
Lol. You think I should review and rethink my position because you think I'm wrong.
But aren't able to show I am wrong.
Then why should I review and rethink my position? Because you say so?
Yes. I decided. See?
I have low tolerance for disingenuous smarm. You were asking me to concede because you were unable to prove me wrong.
I remain unconcerned about the tangential things you "conclude".
The quickest and most efficient way to do that is to prove I am wrong. Stop begging, I am not going to fall for your trick.
I insist that I need not entertain the hypothetical because you have not yet shown the error. Period.
Yet you want me to believe you will show me wrong at some future point.
Wear you down? Am I forcing you to reply? Did I make you anal?
Oh no great teacher! Wherever will get knowledge if you walk away?
Remember you said you were bored at the beginning of this exchange.
