Total posts: 905
-->
@ethang5
I don't think the meaning was changed.
But the Hebrew has a particular meaning as evidenced by the particular words chosen. To "translate" it into a different tense is to change that meaning and opt for another. This happens often in translation, following some set of external rules (linguistic/semantic, historical etc.) I'm just trying to identify the external agenda which drives this change in tense. It seems that something is invoked in the Greek, so the earlier Hebrew has to be translated away from its literal meaning to conform to the later, Greek idea.
Created:
-->
@Conway
In English, "Am" is more neutral in this regard than "will be", and at certain times they can be used interchangeably."I am going to church next Sunday" "I will be going to church next Sunday" - - They both mean the same exact thing."I am sorry" "You will be sorry" - - They have different meanings. - - One says that I am sorry, and the other conveys that you are not yet sorry, but you will be.
I would suggest that both "am" and "will be" are neutral indicators of time. To read in probability requires tone of voice or external, non-linguistic cues. I'm the absence of those, why choose one over the other?
Maybe we might have to consider that there's a level of nuance anticipated by English speakers when the future tense is used in their language that might not exist as such in the original language. One of my bibles actually translates this, "I am/will be what I am/will be".
But that nuance is a matter of human expectation driven by outside influences. The understanding of the phrase from the Hebrew actually hinges on the use of the future tense -- the explanation for the phrase from over 2000 years ago is summarized as " “I will be” with them in this predicament “what I will be” with them in their subjugation by other kingdoms. " To move this to the present tense is a move away from the nuance brought about by the specific use of the future tense.
Created:
-->
@Conway
But the Hebrew doesn't translate as "I am" so there is a choice being made in the translation to impose a different tense on the text. The Hebrew is "eh'yeh" which is a basic to-be verb form meaning "I will be". The future tense is built in to the verb form in the Hebrew.
Created:
-->
@Conway
"Assuming a tense within the constraints of time is thought to be the mark of an inferior translation, and "I am" does not invite the reader to construe according to a conventional wisdom regarding time constraints. "
I'm not sure I understand this. Why is the present tense not an indicator of time constraints while "I will be" is? If the latter might be seen as not indicating present identity, then the former makes no indication of future identity.
But regardless, you are starting with the connotation that is "understood" which puts the theological horse before the cart, letting the understanding (which must be developed elsewhere) drive the translation here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
There are two separate issues here:
1. the perception that the -YM ending of a noun inevitably indicates the plural in Hebrew (it doesn't any more than ending in -s means inevitably a plural in English...have you ever seen a singular scissor?)
1a. The belief that the -YM ending indicates inevitably a plural of the root noun -- Nachmanides disagrees, and understands the suffix to indicate a different plurality. He understands the structure of the word to be a singular meaning "master over all other forces" with the plural referring to the other forces which are inferior.
1b. The belief that a single word always means a single thing. "Elohim" in the bible sometimes refers to God and sometimes refers to other gods. It even refers to judges (human) or a singular judge. Because meaning in Hebrew is often clarified by grammar, it is useful to look at the verb or a corresponding adjective or pronoun to see its number. If the verb or adjective or pronoun is in the singular, then the noun (in this case, elohim) is a singular noun. In the 10 Statements, the people are told not to have "elohim acheirim" -- other [plural] gods.
2. The use of the plural in Genesis in the discussion of the creation of man. Some see this as an indication that God is speaking of himself in the plural, justifying various polytheistic interpretations. It is important to note first that the actual verbs used for the creation are in the singular. Some people look at the verbs in the discussion and consider them an example of the "royal we" and others see it as God including his angels in the plenary process even though he did not need to, which sets an example for how we should include others even when we don't have to. In the later pronouns declaring that man is "like us" the Hebrew words for the ways in which man is like God and the angels are technical and show aspects of how man is elevated above other creations and shares attributes with divine creatures.
In Hamlet, there is a similar discussion "What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! "
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Words get a variety of levels of meanings, some denotative and some connotative. Choosing one definition or meaning in one context and another in a different context could make sense if it could be defended as not arbitrary, grounded in some precedent or persuasive context. The choice then, for the KJV to use a different tense in this one verse, has to be somehow justified. As Tynesdale shows, it is not an historical context. As the Hebrew grammar indicates, it is not a linguistic context. The only explanation seems to be using the later Greek wording of a different text to justify going back and changing the meaning of the Hebrew so that it agrees with the later Greek.
Created:
Posted in:
Is it possible to subscribe to an organizational structure but not adopt every single position officially espoused by that organization or should one ssume that if someone "is" an X then that person implicitly is defined by and limited to the codified beliefs of X?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Sort of like this?
Created:
Posted in:
--> “God himself will kill tens of thousands if it pleases him”
Samuel 6:19
Samuel 6:19 actually reads (in my text) “And He smote of the people of Beth-shemesh, for they had gazed upon the Ark of the Lord, and He smote of the people seventy men, fifty thousand men, and the people mourned, for the Lord had struck a great blow upon the people”
There is discussion of the exact numbers but the bottom line is, the Philistines were punished by God for challenging him. What needs to be explained?
--> “Their little ones will be dashed to pieces before their eyes. Their houses will be looted, and their wives will be raped”.
Isaiah 13:19
Isaiah prophesies of the Medes’ and Persians’ conquering the Babylonians and the cruel and strange ways in which they will do it (as they are, ultimately, no better).
--> “See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”
Genesis 19:8
Lot is not a good guy, so he makes a horrible and offensive offer.
--> "Happy the one who takes and dashes Your little ones against the rock!"
Psalm 137:9
An oppressed people, taken as slaves into exile, their homes killed and families murdered, is forced to “sing” to amuse the captors, so they sing in their native tongue a song of revenge. I am often reminded of the Eddie Murphy stand up routine when describes the small child, angry at a parent, whimpering "I hope she gets hit by a truck and die." (here, starting at about 26 seconds https://youtu.be/GidRTfwR1Wg )
--> "And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have — from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves"
Leviticus 25:444-45
The institution of slavery existed (with myriad laws and controls) in biblical times.
--> "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him"
Leviticus 20:9
Respecting elders was of primary importance. If one breaks certain laws that are considered the bedrock of a society, and if (a big if) the justice system can prove to its satisfaction that what happened was enough to undermine the overall peace and security of the group, capital punishment was enforced.
--> "Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths"
2 Kings 2:23
Plenty to be said about this last one. Elisha knew through prophecy that these men (no, not children) were born via a particular sin, devoid of positive traits and were not destined to perform and positive acts, so they were deserving of the death penalty. And yet, Elisha was punished for this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
When you have something related to what I wrote to contribute (and when you master English) then I'll be able to respond to you. If you wish to keep killing English and saying nothing of significance, you will do so only for your own edification.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Thanks -- and you have given me much to think about. I'm (as I guess you can gather) still stumped why anyone would, knowing that the line has to be interpreted to make it fit an understanding) mistranslate it and then interpret the mistranslation, instead of just interpreting it as written, to the same end. Thanks again.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I understand -- I'm just wondering why, if the end result is interpretation, anyone would start by mistranslating the text (or if there is some parallel text which validates this particular translational choice).
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Sure, they all are -- but transparency in that interpretive mode is helpful. Saying how someone understands the statement allows one to turn that right back -- you had said in post #4, "It wouldn't be appropriate to translate the name as "will be", as God is eternal." And I might then say "I think that ______ understand "I will be that which I will be" to be a statement of eternally existing" so nothing is gained by mistranslating it.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
What about "I will be what I will be" would be different from "I am that I am"?
Good question. I have 2 answers:
1. Honesty -- keeping with a consistent translation and following rules not subject to a spot change. The word means "I will be" so to pick this one moment and change it to "I am" seems dishonest, or at least, a matter of interpretation, and not translation.
2. The idea of "will be" indicates an eternal presence, not a current status. God is saying he will always continue to be. This is a reassurance that no matter what happens, GOd will still be there. I'm not sure why this is replaced with a statement about the "right now." How can any mortal or limited being now what it will be into the infinite future? And yet we all know that we are what we are. I would much rather a promise of continued and future divinity.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I think Tynesdale did a good job with it, "Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you"
Created:
-->
@Mopac
So the choice to translate the word into the present tense was an interpretation to capture what the translator thought the text was pointing out even as it ran contrary to what the text said? (this also does beg the question why anyone who doesn't prefer the Sept in general would subscribe to an interpretation from the Sept over the Masoretic text, and why the KJV would do exactly that in this case)
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Understood -- but what are you translating from? The John text was in the Greek and its use of "eimi" makes "I am" sensible. But for the Exodus text, why use "I am"?
I just took a look at the Septuagint online -- it seems to have a very strange construction of Ex 3:14 -- it translates the first verb form as "I am" (though I still don't know why) and not the second verb form. I found this summary online:
In fact, the Septuagint (ancient Greek translations of the OT, widely used by early Jews and Christians) did not translate the second אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה in Exodus 3:14 as ἐγώ εἰμι, but rather as ὁ ὢν, “the one who is.”
So this just compounds my confusion. Why would the Septuagint use the phrase "I am"? (There seems to be some argument over whether what we have as the LXX is reliable anyway.)
Created:
I have seen the phrase used to point to God. I can't find a source/explanation for the phrase other than the KJV, but the KJV seems inconsistent in how it translates the corresponding Hebrew word (in Judges 6:16, as one example, it translates the same word "will be"). So what is the source for the decision to use "I am" in Ex 3:14? Is it in order to connect to the John 8:58 use of the word "eimi" in the Greek?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I note with all your comments (erroneous as they are) you don't actually address any of the points I have made. If, as the case appears, you are more fascinated with labeling and calling names and are unable to discuss points raised, then there seems no utility in trying to advance this conversation. Have a good day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
as I was commenting on the original post, it seemed unnecessary to review all other branches. Now that I have, I see that nothing in my statement has changed. Now, knowing that my position, that context is vital, is the same, did you have a comment about what I actually stated?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Lol. If a person was afraid of being found out a murderer, and left under that fear, it wasn't really voluntary. Plus your question had nothing to do with exile, so I said "... after his exile" there was no reason for me to specify the type of exile, and you think so shows you are anal.
If you think that that's what it shows then you will continue to celebrate inaccuracy of language.
Do you have any witnesses and any corroboration?
Of what?
I didn't say I corroborated anything.
I didn't claim that you did. I said you cannot. That could be taken either as a specific statement about you, or as a generic statement of the inability of anyone to corroborate that which he was not privy to personally.
Except in yourself. Typical.
I don't recall saying that, so your response, imputing it to me is inaccurate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
If you have any particular objection to what I wrote, then please explain your position. I was responding to the concept as introduced in the original post. Do you feel that there was anything in the intervening posts which undercuts anything I posited?
Created:
Posted in:
I haven't reviewed all the posts in this thread, but I believe that context is very important and that, too often, people snip a selection out of its context and try to impute meaning to it which would be clearly inappropriate were the text considered in its full context. What is important to note is that any text exists in a variety of contexts, all of which should be included in any discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I'm not sure what you think "burning" someone is. Based in how I used it growing up, it certainly isn't what you are doing. But since you play fast and loose with language (like conflating "exile" and "voluntary exile") then you will use it however you want.
In terms of corroboration, you are now claiming that someone who supposedly lived well after an event can corroborate that event because you equate him with the phrase "I am" (which, by the way, is not an actual statement God made). That is a statement of belief from within your context of belief. You insist that that makes it some sort of fact, but it doesn't. You cannot corroborate an event that happened 1000 years ago.
"Complex" being liberal code for contradictory.
No, "complex" meaning that I recognize inherent human bias in presenting a perception of fact.
And in my judgement, toasting you is a good, and highly enjoyable, use of my time.
OK, in the same way, I enjoy pointing out your errors. Cheers!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Being contrary for the sake of being contrary is not profitable Rosends. Make better use of your time.
My time is best used exploring precision in language. I see voluntary exile as distinct from an exile which is an expulsion. If you wish to conflate the two, that is your prerogative.
You projected your bias.
Moses is corroborated by billions and trusted by as many. But we will mark you as skeptical.
No, his experience is not corroborated by anyone, either as witnesses or those who can offer material support. It is believed by many. Belief is not corroboration.
History must be touch and go for you.
it is a very complex subject, yes.
Sure it does, your bias does not change reality. None-the-less, I don't really care what you do or don't believe. But thanks for sharing your doubt.
Your calling something bias doesn't change the reality of the writing process, but since I am not affected by your labels, I thank you for your unsolicited input, though I think you could find something better to do with your time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
He could not return. Exile seems proper.
Sure he could return -- no one forced him to leave and, in fact, he does return.
Seems to me then that if you were correct about his intent, he would have asked for a personal audience.
I assumed (possibly wrongly) that he was trying to find a way to have more widespread corroboration. If he had a personal audience in private then his reportage would be uncorroborated and as trustworthy as Moses'.
And? Or do you habitually disbelieve all authors? Or do you cherry pick which ones you will believe?
I have a natural leaning away from blanket belief of an author, yes. If an author claims that what he writes is non-fiction, then I might have a less jaundiced eye, but the biblical text has no clear author nor claim to literal accuracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Just before Moses reentered Egypt after his exile.
I'm not sure "exile" is the proper word. He fled voluntarily.
FLRW did not mention corroboration.
He mentioned the act's being done in a public and visible place. I assumed that this is becuase he wanted there to be corroboration.
The text is not anonymous, and ancient texts do not have "contemporary versions".
The text is anonymous (at least Exodus is...Deuteronomy sort of has a claimed author). And thank you -- I meant "contemporaneous."
And it was roundly ridiculed by atheists. Do you find Jim Baker more credible than Moses?
Nope. But at least one would be visible by others besides the person involved.
If it wasn't witnessed by more than one person or corroborated, how do you know about it?
The same way I know that Harry Potter ran through the column top get to Platform 9 and 3/4. A writer made a claim in print.
It is obvious to me that you'd be in the line to ridicule FLRW's so called valid evidence. And you're supposed to be a theist!
I absolutely would, but because I'm not looking for proof and I know that any claim of proof is doomed, including equally claims using the bible and using a TV show.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Note that God already spoke to the world through a burning bush, and most militant atheists ridiculed it.
When did that happen? I recall a story from an uncorroborated, anonymous and ancient text (of which we have no contemporary version) that God spoke to an individual through a burning bush. If there was another event, especially one witnessed by more than one person or corroborated, please let me know.
Created:
Posted in:
there is actually a medieval Jewish legend about how the name was changed, and IIRC, today is the anniversary of Simon Peter's death according to that legend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Interesting. So iyo Jesus's death could not be an atonement for all sin?
Not for ANY sin. But if one believed that his death was an acceptable sacrifice etc, it still could not cover all sin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
sacrifice as sin atonement appears to have been in the Bible from the beginning, and there is precedent for sin being transferred from one vessel to another. Jesus as the "Lamb of God" seems to be building upon these precedents of sacrifice.
I'm not sure that one can say that sacrifice as atonement was there from the beginning. No one uses sacrifice to deal with sin issues until the book of Exodus. Until then, sacrifices are about worship -- giving of the self and losing something in order to be brought closer. This realization of the relationship to the divine is the element necessary as part of an atonement process. The sinner acknowledges that there is a source of law and gives of himself to demonstrate his subservience to that power. His sin isn't transferred onto anything in a literal sense. Building on to the idea that anything that can be a sacrifice for the sake of atonement would include calling Jesus the "meal offering" of God because flour is used by the poorest instead of birds. And this would limit Jesus' atoning powers to only those sins which sacrifice is involved in atonement for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aletheakatharos
Mostly and honestly, because I don't know how not to. I was taught things during formative years and they make sense to me as a coherent whole, so they haven't been shaken loose and now, the confirmation bias is so strong that I don't know if they could be shaken loose. My belief is just who I am now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I believe that if you look in the bible, you will see both that individuals are held to account for their own sins, and that they can perform certain measures of atonement and earn forgiveness for certain sins by being willing to lose something -- that might be losing a measure of health (by receiving lashings), a measure of money (by paying a fine) or by losing physical goods, by the sacrificing of an animal or grain product. These sacrifices, these losses are a punishment in a sense, and also a reminder of subservience -- we give to God when we have acted against God (the Hebrew is "korban" which means "being brought closer" -- the act of giving of the self to God brings us closer to obedience and shows a contrite nature).
But again, this is only to earn atonement for certain types of sins, and it requires very specific sacrifices -- part of the process is following directions.
Created:
Posted in:
Proving your claim would do that Einstein.
Proving would lead to one dimension of understanding. I'm looking for additional ones.
Was that one voodoo?
No, that was simply your opinion which you confuse with truth.
And as a tooolerant liberal, any differing viewpoint must be cuddled, no matter how absurd.
So the "liberal" cuddles all different viewpoints but insists that everyone else is wrong (" to force me to "see it your way"", the liberal "you must agree with me because I'm right game".)?
So its prediction? You said it wasn't prophesy. Good to know.
I said that you have a different definition of prophecy from mine if you equate prophecy and prediction. I also said that I am interested in learning about you so that I can get a sense of how you will act.
Notice that I haven't demanded or insisted you do anything. Remember it only works if our behaviors are reciprocal.
Nor have I. I have pointed out what you refuse to do, and you have pointed out what I refuse to do. I never demanded or insisted that you do anything -- I asked you a question.
Lol. You think I should review and rethink my position because you think I'm wrong.
No, I suggest you might want to. If you don't, and you have said you don't, then that is what it is. And I know you are wrong.
But aren't able to show I am wrong.
Sure I am. You just can't imagine that you are wrong so you claim that I can't prove it. That is a lack of imagination on your part, leading to a false conclusion.
Then why should I review and rethink my position? Because you say so?
No, you should only if you feel that it might reveal to you an error. If you don't think it will, then don't review anything. The post is out there for all to see.
Yes. I decided. See?
Yes. So you made religion a part of the discussion.
I have low tolerance for disingenuous smarm. You were asking me to concede because you were unable to prove me wrong.
Concede what? I asked for an understanding of your position and you tied it to a religious position, so I asked if you identify with that religion.
I remain unconcerned about the tangential things you "conclude".
I don't recall asking if you were concerned about it.
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 haven't begged for anything. I asked you to explore a possibility and discuss a potential situation. You don't want to.
I insist that I need not entertain the hypothetical because you have not yet shown the error. Period.
If I showed it, it wouldn't be hypothetical. Duh.
Yet you want me to believe you will show me wrong at some future point.
I don't care what you believe. If I can get you to discuss how you will react in the hypothetical case, then I will show that you are wrong so we can compare how you actually react to what you had claimed would be your reaction. Without the former, there is no potential for the latter.
Wear you down? Am I forcing you to reply? Did I make you anal?
No, nor are you wearing me down, but if that is your goal then that is what it is. How would that make someone "anal"?
Oh no great teacher! Wherever will get knowledge if you walk away?
I don't know, but that isn't my concern.
Remember you said you were bored at the beginning of this exchange.
yes, and you were a distraction from that boredom. When you become as boring, then you are no longer a distraction worth the attention.
I will ask questions here, for anyone to think about. You will either answer them or you will not and everyone can see how you react. If you choose not to answer and engage in topical and fruitful dialogue then I won't respond and you can put another notch in your belt, or do whatever it is you do when someone decides you are no longer worth the effort.
1. Are you a Christian?
2. Is your worldview a comprehensive and cohesive one entirely "restricted to the truth" across the board?
3. How do you think you would react if you were shown that a claim made is shown to be wrong? -- would that make you reconsider your idea of that worldview, or would you find a way to excuse a single situation and insist that the rest is still that coherent whole?
If you insist that there is no way that you can be wrong when you make a claim so the hypothetical is impossible therefore the consequence need not be entertained then i will learn something also.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No. You just have access to facts that othersdon't,t and that makes them wrong even when all you do is "know".
Facts aren't wrong. People who make claims in the absence of facts are wrong.
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.
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.
Don't be so shy. You listed your special access to facts as evidence of my error.
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."
But yet you list my not answering your questions as evidence you are right.
No, your refusing to answer is only evidence that you refuse to answer.
Lol!! So you refuse to "prove me wrong" until I admit I am wrong? You aren't just petty and lying, you're ludicrous!
No, until you engage in a discussion of how being wrong will affect you.
"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.
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.
Someone disagreeing with me doesn't make me wrong. That is just yet more loony liberal tolerance dogma.
Nor does it make you right. Same dogma.
Why? Because you think I'm wrong? I speak purposely. I need no review.
OK.
All BEFORE you have shown any error? I will not enable your liberal confusion.
It is more fruitful to predict BEFORE something happens, yes.
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.
That is also your choice. Have fun.
So that you would see that you are incapable of understanding my position. Focus Rosends.
you told me to review instead of explaining the answer to my question, so that I would see that I'm incapable of understanding?
Sooner or later you will comprehend that I don't have to do what you want.
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.
I think I'll wait until you prove I am wrong BEFORE I concede genius. I'm stubborn that way.
So, when given the opportunity to review and rethink a position and claim, you will refuse. I'm learning interesting things about you.
I decide. Not you. Sooner or later you will comprehend that you aren't the boss.
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.
My views are never immaterial. But if you ask something and then take my reply to be immaterial.... eh.
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.
I'm waiting for you to concede you were wrong BEFORE I correct you. Ha!
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.
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 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.
I'm waiting for the actual.
If that is your position, and I will not be presenting it until I can anticipate a reaction, you have a long wait.
Yet you want me to believe you will show me wrong at some future point.
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.
You can move on at anytime you want. I will respond, or not respond, when I want.
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
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.
Except I didn't claim you were important. You are a way to kill time.
I quoted you properly.
Simply insisting it doesn't make it so.
No. You say its reality simply if you think it. I am really not too bothered by your loopy thinking.
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.
I have access to facts you don't too. I've corrected you each time you flew in the face of my facts.
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."
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.
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.
"...you are wrong because I can confirm that you are wrong..."All before you actually prove me wrong. Lol Bravo!
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.
What's your proof that I made a factually incorrect claim? Remember now, you've denied its your thinking or magic or voodoo.
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.
Your failure to present it doesn't help you prof.
I'm not looking for help. Your failure to address my question doesn't lead to any new understanding on your part.
Are you predicting what I will do? Or are you asking a question?
Neither -- that would explain why I spoke in the past tense, and had no question mark at the end of my statement.
I've already answered you prof.
You have replied, but haven't addressed my question in an answer.
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??
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)
They are wrong because they are wrong. Remember your comment?
I remember yours, about making a claim with no proof.
Lol! In the main time should I take you on faith?
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.
Did I say anything about a religious identity?
No, I did, specifically asking if you are a Christian, and you suggested that I review the exchanges.
I'm saying you aren't capable of understanding where I stand. Was that not simple?
Simple-minded, maybe. Certainly not an answer to a direct question.
Lol. I should have assumed I was wrong BEFORE you proved I was wrong. >>sniker!!<<
Remember, I haven't proven anything yet. You still have time to review and realize (but no, not assume).
My affiliation is off topic. You have not answered my questions too. I didn't bother you because we both know why you dodged.
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.
Why would I say that when you have asserted that...
So my restatement was wrong? Please correct it so I can understand your position.
1. You have no need to prove me wrong
Why do you think I have any need like that?
2. Can simply think my error into existence
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.
3. I am wrong because I'm wrong
Well, that is correct. If you said 2+2=5 you would be wrong, simply because you would be wrong.
You've asked and I've answered you.
No, you have only insisted that you can't be wrong, and not confronted the hypothetical.
Are you growing a need to show me wrong?
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Your continued repliesto an unimportant person because you're bored makes you seem petty. Focus Rosends.
Again, you tie boredom to pettiness. That’s not how words work, but have fun with it.
I'll step out of your way here prof and allow you to enlighten us with your razor sharp logic.
You can insist that tigers don’t exist. That doesn’t make them not exist. I’ll use other examples if this proves too difficult for you.
You can insist that tigers don’t exist. That doesn’t make them not exist. I’ll use other examples if this proves too difficult for you.
You admitted you have not proven that I did that. D'oh!
Yes, but that doesn’t mean you didn’t do it.
I quoted you Rosends.
Yes, improperly. I showed how. You seem to have excised that from your response.
Yes, improperly. I showed how. You seem to have excised that from your response.
Which is why you don't think you need to prove me wrong. Just your thinking it makes it real.
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.
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.
You could say, prove me wrong, instead of only asserting it. I pointed out your sloppy thinking and of course you didn't like what it implied.
Yes, I could – but as I have said, before that, I want to see if we can anticipate how you will react.
Yes, I could – but as I have said, before that, I want to see if we can anticipate how you will react.
Which is exactly why you have not yet proven me wrong. But that don't stop you from pretending it is already a reality will it liberal?
Are you saying that something will become a reality only when I prove it to you?
Are you saying that something will become a reality only when I prove it to you?
Lol, then his do you know I'm wrong?
Because I have access to a fact you don’t, yet you made a factual claim which flies in the face of this fact.
You must be killer at debates.
I do pretty well, yes. That is a good observation.
I do pretty well, yes. That is a good observation.
Access to a fact Idon't? I was being prophetic when I called you ye old keeper of truth wasn't I?
You and I must understand “prophecy” differently then.
You and I must understand “prophecy” differently then.
You claim I am wrong though you admit you have not proven it, does that not show you believe I am wrong because you think it? I quoted your statement Rosends. Perhaps you should be more careful in your statements.
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, 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.
And of course, you need not prove that I made a factually incorrect claim. Just your saying so is proof.
No, just saying it is not proof. You must not be killer at debates.
No, just saying it is not proof. You must not be killer at debates.
But to my credit, I did avoid your proving it false. That is something!
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.
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.
When it is proven to me with logic instead of simple declarations sure.
Great. But (and this isn’t the point I will prove) when confronted with the statement that other peopledefine “the bible” differently, you decided not that there might be more than one definition, but that everyone else is wrong.
Great. But (and this isn’t the point I will prove) when confronted with the statement that other peopledefine “the bible” differently, you decided not that there might be more than one definition, but that everyone else is wrong.
I said I was restricted to the truth. Don't worry if you don't understand it.
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?
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?
Sloppy thinking. Others may have positions different from mine but not in contradiction. They would not be wrong. And dome could share my position, they also would not be wrong.
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?
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?
Only liberals do it by just thinking it so. I use logic.
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.
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.
And you know its wrong how?
In time, padawan.
In time, padawan.
Look over our exchanges Rosends, you aren't capable of understanding where I stand. You are far too corrupted with liberal illogic like "personal truth" and conflating your opinion with fact.
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?
Sorry. I was waiting for you to prove me wrong. My bad.
Yes, your bad.
Yes, your bad.
I have answered your questions. That is how you convinced yourself I was wrong.
No, you haven’t. Note how above, I asked a pointed question about your religious affiliation and you only responded -- you didn’t answer.
No, you haven’t. Note how above, I asked a pointed question about your religious affiliation and you only responded -- you didn’t answer.
Tautology. If my view of the world is restricted to the truth, thdn one claim that I make cannot be shown to not be the truth. You might as well ask me if God could beshown not to exist.
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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I was the one who told you that Rosends.
Yes, and I’m showing you how your words apply to your position.
I think it makes you petty.
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.
Emotional or not, your little tit-for-tat silliness doesn't work if our behaviors are not reciprocal.
And your response doesn’t work if you ignore what was actually said.
You must be very, very bored. But I'm here for you.
I am, so I appreciate that you keep trying.
Lol! This is turning out to be a masterclass in liberal PCthink! Your "advice" was about how I did not avoid what does not exist! Wish I could pin this thread.
Your insistence that something does not exist doesn’t stop it from existing. You did not avoid what DOES exist but that you, because you didn’t take steps, are unaware of. If you had written 2+2=5 because you didn’t do research into addition, then you would be wrong and still not know that 2+2=4.
But it is hilarious that you think I did not avoid what you did not do. Funny.
You did not avoid what YOU did. It is unfortunate that you refuse to see this.
Shall we add "liar" to petty?
Only if you want to misunderstand another word. Taking two separate statements of mine and pretending that they are pointing to the exact same referent is intellectually dishonest.
If you have not avoided being wrong, then you are wrong.However, your being wrong does not hinge on my proving you are wrong.
Your restatement of my position was “I can prove you wrong, so though I haven't, you have the"ability" to be proven wrong, so you're 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.
Lol. You only have to think it huh?
No, your being wrong has nothing to do with what anyone thinks.
Uh-huh. Do they ever not avoid what you don't do?
In this situation, you did not avoid something which I don’t do.
Exactly. For the liberal, their claims stand even when they can't prove them. We are agreeing Rosends.
I don’t know about this “liberal” fiction you keep clinging to.A claim can be right even when it isn’t proven. And the opposite claim is wrong whether or not it is proven.
Yes. In fact, you've amended it now to show that I am wrong simply because you think it. That is classic loony liberal logic.
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.
You didn't have to comment. You only need to think it.Remember?
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.
How did I not avoid what you didn't do?
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.
It must be liberating to not be held down like that.
Can you accept that your worldview might not always be reflective of the truth? Or are you claiming that you are always right?
You can "focus" on anything you like. I'd love to see you focus on that proof that makes me wrong that you admit you have not yet offered. That would be amazing.
You aren’t quite ready yet, but you are getting there.
Everyone holding on to an untruth IS wrong. You think a large number of people being wrong mitigates their error?
So if everyone holds on to something which you say is an untruth(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.
According to liberals, yes.
Well, and you.
Right. I fail just by you claiming to be able to prove me wrong.
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?
A wholly consistent and interlaced truth is what Christianity is.
Fantastic! Are you Christian? If not, this statement doesn’t help me understand where you stand.
This is silly given your comment, "Exactly – I have no need to prove them [your claims] Did you suddenly develop a need to prove your claims? And since you've already proven me wrong simply by thinking I am wrong, why do you need to "show me"? Haven't I "not avoided" your phantom proof already?
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.
There ya go. When you think you're right, you ARE right. Classic liberal think. So I already have NOT avoided the error you think I have! You have dreamed my error into reality! Sorry, your reality.
You are responding to a comment in which I said the opposite.
But, but, haven't I already not been able to avoid your proving me wrong? I love confronting actual reality,not so much the "reality" between the ears of liberals.
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 will play your liberal game with you.
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Your PC thinking is what makes you a liberal, no matter what you call yourself.
Your mistaken labeling doesn’t create reality.
Ah. OK. My importance rises with your boredom. Lol.
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 will notice that, unlike you, I have not said you are unimportant. Your little tit-for-tat silliness doesn't work if the our behaviors are not reciprocal.
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.
You had not yet proven me wrong.
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.
Lol. Liberal think. "I can prove you wrong, so though Ihaven't, you have the "ability" to be proven wrong, so you're wrong.
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.
OK genius. Do people often avoid what you don't do?
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.
Not prove them obviously.
Exactly – I have no need to prove them.
And of course, being liberal, just you pointing out meant that you were right.
No (ignoring the attempted “liberal” label), my pointing it out means that you are no more right simply because you insist it.
My comments "smacks", your comments actually said everyone else was wrong. But liberals are always right. Right?
Actually, my comment was that your claim to be “restricted tothe truth” is wrong. It is your insistence that you are always right because youare restricted to the truth which is in error. I didn’t comment on everyone else.
And you have the fact that I have not avoided what doesn'texist.
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.
I am grateful you were here to tell us what the truth was.
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 notpart of The Bible” are you saying I am wrong? Are you saying that the canon oftexts 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".
Right. I fail just by you claiming to beable to prove me wrong. Imagine how much more my belief would have failed if you had actually proven me wrong instead of only claiming to have the abilityto!
I’m just waiting for you to answer a question about theunderlying 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 shownto 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 holdon “truth” then so be it.
You are a liberal after all. That you think you're right, makes you right. Right?
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
I'm too busy living for others to ask them to live for me. I'm hoping that they are doing the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It only makes you appear petty.
If pointing out your inaccuracy is what you call petty then, ok.
(Why do liberals think they can speak reality into being?)
Yes, answer why you think that repeatedly calling me a "liberal" somehow makes it real.
Is your claim that I'm not that important yet you keep responding also just my perception?
No. Just a function of my boredom. By your logic, though, I must be important to you as you keep responding.
Then you advice on how I could have avoided being proven wrong was a little premature was it not Rosends?
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.
If I have not avoided being wrong, you don't need to prove me wrong now do you?
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.
Your pettiness is now morphing into making you look stupid.
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I canonly go by whatyou posted Rosends. I was the one who corrected you that it wasnever a matterof "your truth" or "my truth". Please don'ttry to pretendnow that you didn't come up with that liberal subjective gem.
Unless the "your truth" you referred to meant"all truth", then you implicitly implied, "my truth" too.
Unless the "your truth" you referred to meant"all truth", then you implicitly implied, "my truth" too.
Ah, so you responded to what you decided I “implicitly implied”not anything that I posted. Thanks for the clarification.
Yourperception of what I liked or disliked is immaterial. It neither validates yourargument or invalidates mine. It only makes you appear petty.
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.
I wasthe one who told you that. There is no "your truth". Therefore itcannot be " the truth". Please don't try to pretend now that youdidn't come up with that liberal subjective gem.
You told me that I shouldn’t consign your erroneous statement to a position of “your truth” so I will just call it “your error which you see as truth but because you are in error, it is not truth”. That should resolve the question.
Icouldn't care less for what you wish to call my position. You don't think myposition is the truth. You've incessantly told us. We get it. Regardless, thereis no personal truth. Truth is objective.
Fine. I’ll stick with “your error which you confuse for the truth”
OKRosends. My knowing how you vote is much harder than you knowing my falseworld-view that I see as truth.
True. I haven’t said anything to indicate my vote and yet you have let your error construct a world-view.
Lol!You seem to be trying pretty hard for that "unimportant" thing.
What I “seem” to you has no impact on the truth. That’s your perception and your issue to deal with.
If youcould do that, you would have done so already.
Again, an assertion without proof. I could but I am trying to understand how you think you will respond before I do.
Becauseyou cut out my reply. I'm not important enough right?
Because your reply did not answer the question. What does that have to do with your idea of your importance?
Lol. Inyour mind, you've already proven I am wronghaven't you?
Well, actually, I haven’t proven it, but I have the proof. You made an error and I want to know how you will deal when that error is pointed out. I’m not talking about your opinion about what texts are in the bible. I know what texts are in the bible – that might be called an opinion on your part even though you call it “truth” but that's what I would say to your claim also. I’m not even talking about my voting record,which I know and you don’t, so you can’t call your statement “truth”. I’m talking about another statement you have made which is wrong. Is your position a unified truth that will suffer if one element is shown to be wrong, or can you accept that your view of things might not be “the truth” in one area and would that allow you to reconsider your vision of what is "truth" in other areas?
buthere you say you still proved me wrong (somehow) and that I could have avoidedbeing proven wrong! Did you use magic?
Where did I say I “still proved [you] wrong”? I said you could have avoided being wrong.
Thebothersome part or the Karen part? Lol. Don't bother answering. Its rhetorical.
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I can only go by whatyou posted Rosends. I was the one who corrected you that it was never a matterof "your truth" or "my truth". Please don't try to pretendnow that you didn't come up with that liberal subjective gem.
You corrected me whenI said you had “your truth” - I didn't claim that I had "my truth." You insisted that there is only one truth and yourposition was consistent with that one truth. I corrected you and you don’t likebeing told that “your truth” is not the same as “the truth.” The posts arestill all there for everyone to see.
By telling me it was"my truth". You can't run away from your old comments Rosends. I cancite it if you'd like.
Yes, “your truth” asopposed to “the truth.” That makes you in error.
You flatter yourselfthinking I didn't "like" something you said. All I did was point outto you that truth didn't come in flavors of mine and yours. That remains trueno matter how angry you'd like to imagine I am.
If you assert anerror is “the truth” then you must have invented a truth of your own. That’s aproblem you have.
Uh huh. "Aversion of truth" being different than, "different truths"?Sorry. There are no "versions of truths". That is the same PC liberalnonsense as, "your truth" and "my truth". You keep harpingthat I am wrong. I don't care. But right or wrong, there are still not "versions of truths".
No, the distinctionisn’t between “a version” and anything else, but in the fact that I said YOUhave a version, not I. Your presentation of “the truth” is only yourunderstanding and not “the truth.” 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.
The "post modernidea of truths". Lol. I do know how you vote Rosends. But liberal is notonly political. And thank you for being " tolerant" of my position.Lord knows you don't want to deny me my rights by saying what you think.
Trust me, you have noidea how I vote and if you keep tying “liberal” to voting patterns theninjecting some other unnamed notion of “liberal” into the conversation isuseless. But have fun with that.
Yet you keep harpingthat you didn't find my comment "useful".
Because it doesn’tfurther dialogue. If you are OK with that, then fine.
If I told you I wasbothered would it make you happy Rosends?
You already did. And ithas no impact on my mood. You simply aren’t important enough.
If you could do that,you would have done so already.
No, I wouldn’t have because it wouldn't serve the conversation, butI could. My question still stands. If I can prove that you are wrong in onething you insist is truth then will you reconsider the claim to objective truthof your entire world view? Can you stand being wrong or will you dig in and insistthat you are right? And “seeing it my way” is immaterial. This isn’t a matterof opinion.
Now here is what I saidto you in my last post. Find someone who finds your personal thoughtsfascinating, and bother them. If you missed it, I meant that I did NOT findyour personal thoughts fascinating, AND that you were being a bothersome Karen.(redundancy deliberate)
So you are botheredby someone who can prove that you are wrong? OK. Thanks. 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. I’m just stating the truth and you find that a bother, Iguess.
You corrected me whenI said you had “your truth” - I didn't claim that I had "my truth." You insisted that there is only one truth and yourposition was consistent with that one truth. I corrected you and you don’t likebeing told that “your truth” is not the same as “the truth.” The posts arestill all there for everyone to see.
By telling me it was"my truth". You can't run away from your old comments Rosends. I cancite it if you'd like.
Yes, “your truth” asopposed to “the truth.” That makes you in error.
You flatter yourselfthinking I didn't "like" something you said. All I did was point outto you that truth didn't come in flavors of mine and yours. That remains trueno matter how angry you'd like to imagine I am.
If you assert anerror is “the truth” then you must have invented a truth of your own. That’s aproblem you have.
Uh huh. "Aversion of truth" being different than, "different truths"?Sorry. There are no "versions of truths". That is the same PC liberalnonsense as, "your truth" and "my truth". You keep harpingthat I am wrong. I don't care. But right or wrong, there are still not "versions of truths".
No, the distinctionisn’t between “a version” and anything else, but in the fact that I said YOUhave a version, not I. Your presentation of “the truth” is only yourunderstanding and not “the truth.” 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.
The "post modernidea of truths". Lol. I do know how you vote Rosends. But liberal is notonly political. And thank you for being " tolerant" of my position.Lord knows you don't want to deny me my rights by saying what you think.
Trust me, you have noidea how I vote and if you keep tying “liberal” to voting patterns theninjecting some other unnamed notion of “liberal” into the conversation isuseless. But have fun with that.
Yet you keep harpingthat you didn't find my comment "useful".
Because it doesn’tfurther dialogue. If you are OK with that, then fine.
If I told you I wasbothered would it make you happy Rosends?
You already did. And ithas no impact on my mood. You simply aren’t important enough.
If you could do that,you would have done so already.
No, I wouldn’t have because it wouldn't serve the conversation, butI could. My question still stands. If I can prove that you are wrong in onething you insist is truth then will you reconsider the claim to objective truthof your entire world view? Can you stand being wrong or will you dig in and insistthat you are right? And “seeing it my way” is immaterial. This isn’t a matterof opinion.
Now here is what I saidto you in my last post. Find someone who finds your personal thoughtsfascinating, and bother them. If you missed it, I meant that I did NOT findyour personal thoughts fascinating, AND that you were being a bothersome Karen.(redundancy deliberate)
So you are botheredby someone who can prove that you are wrong? OK. Thanks. 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. I’m just stating the truth and you find that a bother, Iguess.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It's no longer your truth eh?
it never was a matter of "my truth" -- In post 30, I accepted that you live under the false notion which you consider "your truth" and I pointed out that this was your error. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You seem fixated on politics instead of on the fact that what I speak of is the truth. It does not depend on you, and the truth does not comport with your particular version of it. It simply is and according to that truth, you are wrong.
Just as a side note, I am willing to grant you "your truth" because those false notions are so firmly ingrained in you that you mistake them for something transcendent. They aren't, but that's the foundation upon which you work so I wouldn't want to take that away from you until you are ready. And you aren't -- I can tell by how you cling to your errors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Remember now, your "truth".
No, the truth. What you keep insisting is "truth" is an error. I know because I said so and I said so because I know. I'm glad that you feel comfortable embracing your untruth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
My merry band has been keeping the truth alive for a while now and we aren't dwindling, even in the face of many insisting that they have access to some erroneous notion of "truth."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm not sure if you know who or what I am. You see what I wrote, and what I wrote was intentionally a mess of logical fallacies which was designed to point out the same fallacies in another person's position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I understand your position, and could take an equal and opposite position:
when I asked for a quote from the bible, you failed to provide one, and that'as the truth because the text you worked from is not the bible and I know that because the position I have is the truth. Additionally, when you state your position, that's not the truth and I won't play the game of validating your position by coddlilng untruths as if they are valid when my position is the truth and yours doesn't accord with that.
If you don't see that as a denial of your position then that's fine, I guess. There is no offense intended; I'm just pointing out how your entire system is one big mass of errors and won't temper telling the truth by allowing untruths to go uncorrected. Fortunately, you don't need the validation of the truth because you are comfortable embracing your untruth. Again, that's not meant to be a negative statement, just one of fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
As far as I know, Jesus was a Jew and certainly not a Christian in any sense of the word .Does the Jewish faith hold anywhere that Jesus the Jew came to earth to suffer an horrific execution that will some how "take away the sins world "?From what I can make from this thread alone is that Christians are a cowardly spinless bunch that would stand by and watch anyone but themselves suffer a horrific execution and die an agonising and torturous death for something they had done?
Judaism doesn't really think about Jesus at all. That if he existed, he might have been Jewish is irrelevant to Judaism. Vicarious atonement through a human is not part of Jewish thought.
Created: