|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Jamat, you self-righteous fuckwit
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Now that I have more time available to continue an experiment begun earlier on this thread, I see that there is almost certainly nothing to be gained by doing so.
Jamat, it appears you believe there's a difference between (1) an interpretation of Romans 1:20 and (2) stating what Romans 1:20 says.
quote:
Yes, I do. <etc. etc. SNIP>
So try the experiment I suggested. You've already given us your paraphrase of Romans 1:20.
Now give us your interpretation of it, for comparison purposes.
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Now that I have more time available to continue an experiment begun earlier on this thread, I see that there is almost certainly nothing to be gained by doing so.
Jamat, it appears you believe there's a difference between (1) an interpretation of Romans 1:20 and (2) stating what Romans 1:20 says.
quote:
Yes, I do. <etc. etc. SNIP>
So try the experiment I suggested. You've already given us your paraphrase of Romans 1:20.
Now give us your interpretation of it, for comparison purposes.
quote:
The verse states: NASB "For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes, his eternal nature and divine power have been clearly seen being understood by what has been made so that they are without excuse"
So, unpacking that, simply:
The world was created
It had a beginning
Humanity can see this
This knowledge leads to the acknowledgement of the God who created it.
Man has no excuse if he refuses this knowledge
Man will be held responsible for this knowledge.
You CAN of course reject these statements as palpably false as Karl LB has but what are your grounds for doing so ?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
How about addressing the grounds I gave when I raised the passage in question? Specifically, if God's existence were obvious to any who wanted to see it, why do so many people who long to believe in God, or believe more strongly, find it so hard to find reason to do so?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The verse states: NASB "For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes, his eternal nature and divine power have been clearly seen being understood by what has been made so that they are without excuse"
So, unpacking that, simply:
The world was created
It had a beginning
Humanity can see this
This knowledge leads to the acknowledgement of the God who created it.
Man has no excuse if he refuses this knowledge
Man will be held responsible for this knowledge.
You CAN of course reject these statements as palpably false as Karl LB has but what are your grounds for doing so ?
Your "simple unpacking" introduces the word "man" which doesn't exist in the verse. Neither does the word "humanity".
In other words, even your "simple" unpacking requires you to insert your ideas about what certain words actually in the verse mean.
Which would be fine, if you could actually grasp that this is what you're doing. But it's not fine because you are utterly unconscious of the fact that you are making these kinds of choices while announcing what "the Bible says".
You also don't seem particularly aware that saying "NASB" at the front of your quote demonstrates that you aren't quoting the Bible, you're quoting a particular translation of the Bible into a reasonably modern form of English. Which means you're already starting with someone else's choices about what the actual text meant, before inserting your own modifications into different English words.
Personally I don't know what Greek word(s) became "they" in the NASB and "man/humanity" in your version. But I sure as hell would want to check before declaring definitively that it's all so simple.
[ 16. July 2017, 23:37: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I question my own salvation. I was Catholic. There is no assurance of salvation. You don't know which side of the ledger you're on till you die. You better be careful of everyone starts agreeing with you. That is a bad sign ... Actually, this is misleading. To clarify, although I think one can have an inner subjective assurance of salvation, I do not think though that one's eternal state is defined by one decision. I am no Calvinist and think it is possible to fall away from faith and lose one's soul. As I understand Catholic teaching, there is no assurance of salvation or they would not need a state like purgatory which acknowledges human imperfection while retaining hope.
This disturbs me, profoundly, for a number of reasons, the first, I think, being, that I, unlike yourself, was not Catholic, still am not, and have in fact never set foot inside a Catholic church, other than Westminster Cathedral - and that was to go up the spire, and yet I am fairly sure that the doctrine of purgatory has nothing whatsoever to do with there being no assurance of salvation. Purgatory (if you believe in it), is FOR the saved. The only way out is up, and no-one stays there forever.
Also disturbing is the use of the analogy of a ledger, an instrument in which debit and credit are balanced one against another. Jamat, you can't build up heavenly credit to balance against the debits you'll inevitably accrue. If that sort of shizz worked, why Jesus? And if you acknowledge Jesus, and you still need to think in terms of ledgers, just put a ∞ on the credit side and be thankful. It's enough.
Lastly, "you'd better be careful if everyone starts agreeing with you. That is a bad sign." Wow. I really don't want to flame you here, it seems like you are dealing with a lot, but some alarming examples spring to mind when I think of those who derive succour and renewed resolution from the knowledge that the world, in general, does not agree with them. As a sampler: David Icke, Tyson Fury, Kim Jong-Un. No, I am NOT categorising you with these individuals. I AM urging you not to be weighing and sieving and ledgerising the tide-levels of your agreements and disagreements with other people, and/or other Christians, on the basis that they represent any sort of badge of honour.
Arohanui.
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Your "simple unpacking" introduces the word "man" which doesn't exist in the verse. Neither does the word "humanity".
In other words, even your "simple" unpacking requires you to insert your ideas about what certain words actually in the verse mean.
<snip>
I don't know what Greek word(s) became "they" in the NASB and "man/humanity" in your version. But I sure as hell would want to check before declaring definitively that it's all so simple.
The Greek word is αυτους. It means 'them'. The antecedent of 'them' is in verse 18, ανθρωπων 'of men'.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
When Catholics say something like 'there is no assurance of salvation' it means that,simply because one has been baptised,simply because one may go to church,that does not guarantee automatic eternal salvation.
Jesus assures us of salvation,if we listen to His word and make an effort to respond positively to His message.
The idea of the credit and debit ledger is not so silly. It is indeed Catholic teaching that one real acceptance of Jesus and His message with a wish to follow His teaching is indeed a Credit note which can cancel out all of the bad things which we have done (debit note)
In the past and even in the present some Christians imagine Heaven as a place where those who have been especially good have a place closer to the Divine Presence than those who have not been just as good. Limbo is a name which was given to the place for those who had not been so close to God and things divine on this earth. Purgatory was and is the name for the part of Heaven through which we come closer to that Divine Presence. The stories and ideas of fire and torture are descriptions suggested by words used in the Sacred Scriptures.
Nowadays we tend not to try to describe in human terms the bliss of Heaven,the sorrows of Purgatory or the despair of Hell.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
On one level, if we can be Purgatorial for a moment - in the sense of the discussion board of that name here - one could argue that the whole debit/credit thing is a very Western concept that has entered Protestantism from medieval Roman Catholicism and which doesn't quite have the same kind of resonance in the Christian East ...
Although one might argue that the controversies within Orthodoxy over the 'Heavenly Tollbooths' thing are a manifestation of the same kind of thought-patterns ...
I dunno ...
Whatever the case, returning to Hell, it strikes me that Jamat is just as uber-simplistic in his view of Roman Catholicism as he is in his approach to his uber-conservative Protestant evangelicalism.
He ought to have a job as a pedestrian crossing or a Belisha Beacon.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
I really don't want to flame you here,
He isn't being flamed. His is the equivalent of standing on a self-built pyre of petrol-soaked wood and kindling whilst throwing lit matches into the wind.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Jamat, you are either seriously cognitively impaired or you deliberately attempt to inflame. You appear to prefer to claim it is your subjects that are too "controversial", however others manage without being called to Hell. Whinge in Styx if you must, but you cannot seriously misunderstand the reason for the warnings.
[ 19. July 2017, 22:25: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The verse states: NASB "For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes, his eternal nature and divine power have been clearly seen being understood by what has been made so that they are without excuse"
So, unpacking that, simply:
The world was created
It had a beginning
Humanity can see this
This knowledge leads to the acknowledgement of the God who created it.
Man has no excuse if he refuses this knowledge
Man will be held responsible for this knowledge.
I'm fine with the first 5 statements as being representative of this verse, but the 6th is an interpretation you've put on it based on the surrounding verses and your preexisting theological views.
Having no excuse is a description of a situation that doesn't necessarily have a culpability element (though of course it can). Being held responsible definitely does have a strong picture of culpability that results in some punishing consequence.
For example... If I forget to buy pasta from the shops because I simply forgot, then I have no excuse - it was simply my error. It would be strange to then say 'you will be held responsible for not buying pasta.' There is no culpability at stake - it just means I won't be able to have pasta for dinner, which is a morally neutral consequence (a consequence that comes from 'being held responsible' is not morally neutral).
So, what you're doing is taking the fact that the surrounding verses talk about God's anger at people, and that it says that people 'have no excuse', and extrapolating that they will be held accountable for this wickedness and ignorance.
I would contend that in itself, this passage does not state whether or not people will be held accountable for these things. The specific phrase is that 'God gave them over'. It's going to take some Greek expertise to unpack what that means, but to me, it suggests 'letting them get on with it', rather than 'making sure they are held accountable'.
In particular, verse 32 says that people know they deserve death, but follow on to chapter 2, and Paul is making the point that despite the fact people deserve judgement, instead God gives "kindness, forbearance and patience" to lead people to repentance. I.e., people specifically aren't held responsible, even though they God is well within God's right to do so. Let me repeat that. It's fairly straightforward to argue that in this passage Paul is saying that "Man will not be held responsible for this knowledge." This is the very opposite of your simple unpacking.
Anyway. I'm sure this could be dissected further, but this is the point. You thought you were merely stating what the verse says, and for five-sixths of it, you pretty much were. But one-sixth there's space for a good argument that you were stating the opposite of what it might mean. And you don't realise that. This is what people have been trying to tell you. You are interpreting (as we all do), even when you don't realise it.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
For example... If I forget to buy pasta from the shops because I simply forgot, then I have no excuse - it was simply my error. It would be strange to then say 'you will be held responsible for not buying pasta.' There is no culpability at stake - it just means I won't be able to have pasta for dinner, which is a morally neutral consequence (a consequence that comes from 'being held responsible' is not morally neutral).
If you forgot to buy pasta, I'll hold you responsible by sending you out to get pasta, because the rest of us want pasta, you screwed up, and so you get to fix it.
If, on the other hand, you didn't buy pasta because the store didn't have any, then we're more likely to acquiesce to an alternative dinner.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I also didn't think the pasta example was very relevant, fwiw.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Yet another example where Actually Talking About The Thing is better than Yet Another Weird Analogy.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If you forgot to buy pasta, I'll hold you responsible by sending you out to get pasta, because the rest of us want pasta, you screwed up, and so you get to fix it.
Yeah, but...
I was talking as if I'm single and the pasta's just for me. All that happens is that I have to eat something else tonight and maybe buy some pasta tomorrow. And maybe it'd work out that I wouldn't have felt like eating pasta tonight anyhow, so it didn't matter.
My point is that saying 'I have no excuse' is not the equivalent of 'I should be held responsible for...' (which is Jamat's extrapolation). I can have no excuse for something without necessarily having to be held responsible for it. Sometimes it does happen that way (as it does in your description above), but it doesn't always follow.
Another example. A friend asks me if they can borrow my phone charger. I forget to bring it round to their house, but it turns out that they dropped their phone and broke it, so they don't need the charger after all.
I have no excuse for forgetting the phone charger, but how does my being 'held responsible' for forgetting it make any sense?
All I'm saying is 'no excuse' does not equal 'should be held accountable for'. I hoped that an example would help Jamat understand that - sorry if people thought it was shitty. But 'actually talking about the thing' doesn't seem to be getting through, so talking analogies might have helped...
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I was talking as if I'm single and the pasta's just for me. All that happens is that I have to eat something else tonight and maybe buy some pasta tomorrow. And maybe it'd work out that I wouldn't have felt like eating pasta tonight anyhow, so it didn't matter.
My point is that saying 'I have no excuse' is not the equivalent of 'I should be held responsible for...' (which is Jamat's extrapolation). I can have no excuse for something without necessarily having to be held responsible for it. Sometimes it does happen that way (as it does in your description above), but it doesn't always follow.
No. But I think we'd normally say that in terms of a moral or legal failing, ignorance isn't much of an excuse. If you're handling nuclear waste and you do something wrong, it's probably no mitigation to say that you forgot or don't remember being told.
It might be in some situations. But I think if we're talking about something as serious as this (presumably this is about one's eternal salvation, so hard to see how it could be more important), I'm inclined to believe it is more like handling nuclear waste and less like buying pasta.
quote:
Another example. A friend asks me if they can borrow my phone charger. I forget to bring it round to their house, but it turns out that they dropped their phone and broke it, so they don't need the charger after all.
I have no excuse for forgetting the phone charger, but how does my being 'held responsible' for forgetting it make any sense?
Again, this is only relevant if the thing we're talking about is of an importance equivalent to losing a charger. I don't see why it would be.
quote:
All I'm saying is 'no excuse' does not equal 'should be held accountable for'. I hoped that an example would help Jamat understand that - sorry if people thought it was shitty. But 'actually talking about the thing' doesn't seem to be getting through, so talking analogies might have helped...
I honestly don't think it is helping at all to compare something which - I guess - we all consider to be very important with things that we'd all agree are of very little importance.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It might be in some situations. But I think if we're talking about something as serious as this (presumably this is about one's eternal salvation, so hard to see how it could be more important), I'm inclined to believe it is more like handling nuclear waste and less like buying pasta.
Yeah, yeah. Cool. Whatevs. This is all great.
But the point is, you're making assessments and weighing up what you think the thrust of the scripture is. You're concluding and deciding things based on how you read the passage and what it talks about. So you think salvation's more important than buying pasta. Great. You're INTERPRETING!
So is Jamat.
The difference (I would guess) is that you'd readily admit you're interpreting. So far, Jamat hasn't.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
(presumably this is about one's eternal salvation, so hard to see how it could be more important)
As an aside, this too is brimming with interpretation. What is salvation? What does it mean to be 'saved'? What is eternity? How does the concept of eternity appear in the bible? What does it mean in our cultures? On that, how should we translate 'aionion' to communicate this? Is this passage actually talking about one's eternal salvation, or is it talking about something else? Is it an individual commentary, or a corporate one? Why is salvation (assuming it's what the passage is talking about) the most important thing? Is there anything more important?
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
If you ask my daughter, yeah. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Yeah, yeah. Cool. Whatevs. This is all great.
But the point is, you're making assessments and weighing up what you think the thrust of the scripture is. You're concluding and deciding things based on how you read the passage and what it talks about. So you think salvation's more important than buying pasta. Great. You're INTERPRETING!
I'm not sure that's really much of an interpretative leap. I think it is fairly clear from the context that salvation is more important than foodstuffs.
I'd agree it's an interpretation, but it is a fairly obvious one that everyone is likely to agree is self-evident.
It's an interpretation that any words on any bit of paper mean something rather than just being random collections of words that mean nothing. Mostly we accept that as self-evident, don't we? Otherwise if we have to stop and state what we're interpreting every time then the conversation becomes rather tedious.
"I'm interpreting that you want to discuss these issues rather than are just coping down random phrases you've seen in some textbook. I'm also interpreting that you want me to respond by writing things down rather than via semaphore and farting.."
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
How very rare. Conflating two different shipmates for similar offences.
Fuck. Same bulging eyes and bright tufts of hair, but still.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'd agree it's an interpretation, but it is a fairly obvious one that everyone is likely to agree is self-evident.
Woooah, the interpretative leap I was talking about was from:
"Man has no excuse if he refuses this knowledge"
to
"Man will be held responsible for this knowledge."
I don't think it's self-evident that everyone would agree on this extrapolation/interpretation.
Despite having no excuse, I personally don't think that man will be held responsible for that knowledge (or lack of it). To chuck in some alternative scriptures to back that up:
From later in Romans: "What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy."
From Lamentations: "Because of the LORD'S great love we are not consumed, for his compassions never fail."
From Psalms: "The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love... he does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities."
Again, Paul in Timothy: "I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience."
Look, my point is quite simple - sorry if you've got bogged down in pasta. Whether or not you agree with me (that's not the point), Jamat's 6-line paraphrase was an interpretation, not just a re-iteration of the verse. And where the interpretation was most evident was in his line "Man will be held responsible for this knowledge". It's not in the verse. It's not in the passage. It's his own theology, and it's open to debate, and to alternative interpretation.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Another example. A friend asks me if they can borrow my phone charger. I forget to bring it round to their house, but it turns out that they dropped their phone and broke it, so they don't need the charger after all.
I have no excuse for forgetting the phone charger, but how does my being 'held responsible' for forgetting it make any sense?
At the risk of prolonging this noodly noodling:
If you commit to doing something (buying pasta, bringing a phone charger, whatever) and then forget to do it, you are responsible for your failure.
Now, it might well be that we decide that we can eat something else instead, and do without the pasta. It might happen that someone else has a spare phone charger we can use, or that the phone was broken, or there's a power cut, or some other thing happens that means that actually, we don't need the phone charger after all.
This doesn't in any sense change your responsibility for not bringing it - it just changes the consequences. It's the same story with your pasta. If you decide to eat something else, you have a workaround that minimizes the consequences of your pasta acquisition failure. You still forgot the pasta. You're still responsible for its absence. It's just that the consequences are small, which means the pasta wasn't very important.
Or perhaps the pasta was very important, but through the grace of your fellow diners, your lapse is forgiven, and everyone eats bread and butter.
But you're still responsible for forgetting the pasta, and you should use the experience to help you remember the pasta next time.
[ 20. July 2017, 14:14: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Hmm, sorry, Leorning, no. Being responsible for something is not the same as being HELD responsible for something, which is the wording Jamat chose.
If 'having no excuse' and 'being held responsible' are equivalent, why did Jamat feel the need to include both in his paraphrase?
If there turns out to be no negative consequence, or if people decide to forgive/let it go, then even if you were responsible for something, then they are choosing not to HOLD you responsible. Honestly, I think this distinction is pretty clear.
I'll try to be clearer. I think we have no excuse before God. I think we are responsible for our failings before him. However, I don't think God holds us responsible for those failings. She lets them slide. That's the difference. Jamat evidently thinks God does hold us responsible, and so do many others. He's entitled to his interpretation. I'm less bothered about the disagreement than the denial that it is interpretation.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Look, my point is quite simple - sorry if you've got bogged down in pasta. Whether or not you agree with me (that's not the point), Jamat's 6-line paraphrase was an interpretation, not just a re-iteration of the verse. And where the interpretation was most evident was in his line "Man will be held responsible for this knowledge". It's not in the verse. It's not in the passage. It's his own theology, and it's open to debate, and to alternative interpretation.
You seem to be making rather a meal out of this. What would be the point of saying "you are responsible for this!" then next say "but hey, don't worry about it"?
Yes, it's an interpretation. Jamat thinks it is the obvious reading, I think it is a fair reading, you think it is wrong. That's why we're all here discussing it.
I think you've got a fundamental problem with discussion if you think it is important to shout "wait! that's an interpretation!" when someone says something you don't agree with.
Why do that? Pointless.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
<<Facepalm>>
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think you've got a fundamental problem with discussion if you think it is important to shout "wait! that's an interpretation!" when someone says something you don't agree with.
Look, the reason I'm posting here is because Jamat threw down the following gauntlet:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Mousethief: If the question is, "Is my interpretation of this verse correct?" the verse itself is not outside information.
It is not unless you can prove the paraphrase is contrary to and different from the meaning of the original..which it is not.
When challenged, he was even courteous enough to provide his six-line paraphrase and ask how it differed from the text itself. The only person who attempted to actually challenge this was Orfeo. For all the bluster, the rest of you didn't respond and no-one else actually engaged.
Scroll to the top of this damn page, and read it again.
The only reason I'm bothering to shout 'wait, it's an interpretation' is because Jamat has denied that it is. I wouldn't have bothered if he'd admit that he's interpreting too. That's what this whole thread is about. That's his modus operandi.
If you didn't grasp that from my first post then you've been missing the point of why bothered to pick up the keyboard in the first place. I suggest you use your scroll button, re-read at least this page and try again. In particular, open up your bible at Romans 1:21 and compare it to:
"The world was created
It had a beginning
Humanity can see this
This knowledge leads to the acknowledgement of the God who created it.
Man has no excuse if he refuses this knowledge
Man will be held responsible for this knowledge."
The fact that no-one else actually challenged Jamat on this was the whole reason I delurked and bothered to post.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It might be in some situations. But I think if we're talking about something as serious as this (presumably this is about one's eternal salvation, so hard to see how it could be more important), I'm inclined to believe it is more like handling nuclear waste and less like buying pasta.
Yeah, yeah. Cool. Whatevs. This is all great.
But the point is, you're making assessments and weighing up what you think the thrust of the scripture is. You're concluding and deciding things based on how you read the passage and what it talks about. So you think salvation's more important than buying pasta. Great. You're INTERPRETING!
So is Jamat.
The difference (I would guess) is that you'd readily admit you're interpreting. So far, Jamat hasn't.
Well, no shit. Is this stating the obvious day? It seems to come earlier every year.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, it's obvious to everyone else, but not so obvious, apparently, to Jamat, which is why Goperryrevs has tried to be helpful and attempted to point it out to him.
Fat lot of good it'll do but it seems a well-intentioned gesture and undeserving of scorn.
As Goperryrevs says, the reason Jamat is here in Hell in the first place is down to his modus operandi which seems to consist of eliding the interpretive element and presenting things to be incontrovertible simply because he holds them to be.
Or have I missed something?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, it's obvious to everyone else, but not so obvious, apparently, to Jamat, which is why Goperryrevs has tried to be helpful and attempted to point it out to him.
Fat lot of good it'll do but it seems a well-intentioned gesture and undeserving of scorn.
As Goperryrevs says, the reason Jamat is here in Hell in the first place is down to his modus operandi which seems to consist of eliding the interpretive element and presenting things to be incontrovertible simply because he holds them to be.
Or have I missed something?
Not by my lights. I think cheesy and Dark Knight are clearly not paying attention to what's going on in this thread. It's inane to say "X is obvious why did you say it?" in response to something said to a person who is denying X. Sorry, DK. Time to knock off the stupid juice again.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Bless. But I like the taste.
Clearly I am missing something. It read like gropey-very was explaining to Cheezle stuff everyone here but Jamat knows and has been saying.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That's not how I read it Dark & Stormy Knight. Go-Very-Softly-On-The-Revs was addressing JammedHead's inability to process ideas nobody else here has any difficulty with rather than spelling out the bleedin' obvious to mr cheesy-wotsit ...
Whether this will make a blind bit of difference to Jam-Nut remains to be seen. I rather suspect otherwise.
So I will continue the trope of inventing Dickensian style surnames for recent contributors as such a pointless exercise is no more pointless than trying to talk some sense to Jammed-Mud.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Consider: if I stage-whisper something to you in the hearing of person Y, it may be not because I think you don't know it, but because I hope Y might hear me.
We're all trying to clue-bat Jamhead into self-awareness, just in our own ways.
[ 21. July 2017, 15:35: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Consider: if I stage-whisper something to you in the hearing of person Y, it may be not because I think you don't know it, but because I hope Y might hear me.
Quite. These are public forums. If I'd wanted to just talk to Jamat then I would have PM'd him.*
As for my engagement to Mr Cheesy, even though I thought his responses were strangely missing the point, my choice was to either ignore him, or engage. I chose to engage.
The thing is, there are plenty of people on this thread who are happy to tell Jamat he's a dick. Whoopie for them - I understand their frustration.
However, there was a very clear challenge from him: prove that his specific paraphrase was an interpretation and that it didn't materially differ from the original text. Three or four days went by without anyone actually doing so clearly. Honestly, I was disappointed. It's easy to turn up and slag Jamat off, but only Orfeo challenged it in any way, and moo kind of shot that down.
My feeling was that Jamat probably felt vindicated and that he'd 'won'. It was clear to me that his paraphrase was an interpretation, and if no-one else was going to bother to point out why, then I might as well. I only tend to post when I feel I have something to say that no-one else is. I read a lot more than I write.
ISTM that all this passed Mr Cheesy by and he didn't stop to re-read and understand what was happening, but went into snipe mode. (Despite the fact that he's sometimes incredibly insightful, I would say he does that kind of thing rather too often). Mousethief and Gamaliel, I appreciate your saying that it was clear to you why I bothered posting.
And yeah, I'd appreciate it if Jamat could reply. If he'd be willing to amend his paraphrase to the first five points and admit he was actually interpreting after all when it came to the sixth, that'd be amazing. It'd be a big step for him.
*Like I said, I read more than I post, and I know there are plenty of others, who probably think like Jamat but wouldn't dare post as they know they'd probably get the roasting he has.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
As for my engagement to Mr Cheesy,
Congratulations. ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
As for my engagement to Mr Cheesy,
Congratulations.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) I hope my wife doesn't mind...
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That all makes sense, Goperryrevs.
However, I'm not convinced there are 'plenty of others' aboard Ship who are on exactly the same page as Jammed-Up.
Most of the evangelicals here seem far more nuanced than he is, although there have been others like him who haven't stuck it out as long as he has nor faced as much flak.
On balance, I'm glad Jammed-Tight is around as it's healthy to have a varied eco-system.
Like you, though, I'd like to see him acknowledge the interpretation element in his paraphrase as I agree it'd be a big step forward for him.
I suspect he'd too Jammed-In to do so, though, but wonders will never cease - log-jams do clear.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Consider: if I stage-whisper something to you in the hearing of person Y, it may be not because I think you don't know it, but because I hope Y might hear me.
We're all trying to clue-bat Jamhead into self-awareness, just in our own ways.
As opposed to addressing the fruit bat directly, like the rest of us have?
I would also like to add my congratulations to gropey and Mr cheesey. Many years of addressing each other while really meaning to talk to someone else.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
As opposed to addressing the fruit bat directly, like the rest of us have?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) FFS. My first post addressed Jamat directly. Mr Cheesy responded, so then I replied to him directly. This isn't rocket science.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
I would also like to add my congratulations to gropey and Mr cheesey.
Bagsie I get to compile the Amazon gift list.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Well, if we're discussing fruit bats, then the novel "Island Of The Sequined Love Nun" is both topical and a good read. I won't give any details, except read the whole thing!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
As opposed to addressing the fruit bat directly, like the rest of us have?
FFS. My first post addressed Jamat directly. Mr Cheesy responded, so then I replied to him directly. This isn't rocket science.
No dramas. Hey, thanks again for letting everyone know about the interpreting, in your stage whisper or whatever.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Look, Batman, I get it. This is Hell. It's "cool" to come across all sassy and sarcastic with clever put-downs. The thing is, there has to be at least some substance to the content of your sass or you just end up looking like a bit of a tool. I give you an 'A' for effort but an 'F' for the standard of work... Oh look, I fell into the sass trap too. My bad. Have a blessed day.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Dinner, dinner, dinner, dinner, dinner, dinner, dinner, dinner ...
JAMAT!
(Well, it is almost an anagram of Batman ... except 'Batman' has a B and an N in it and not a J. Otherwise ...)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Yes, I can see that I didn't read what gropey has been saying properly. Or at all, frankly. My apologies.
I guess I understand why you have engaged with Jamat's paraphrase. As far as I'm concerned, I couldn't care less about the content of their argument. I'm interested in the false premise that it is based on - that one can avoid interpretation, and that our Kiwi chew toy had somehow managed this extraordinary trick. But fair enough.
Anyway, I'm done.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Thanks man, I appreciate that. You might even get an invite to the wedding.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It's easy to turn up and slag Jamat off, but only Orfeo challenged it in any way, and moo kind of shot that down.
And my point, which I decided not to re-emphasise after moo's response but which I think you at least understood, was not that I thought that Jamat's interpretation on the particular issue I chose was wrong, but just to highlight that it was an interpretation.
Moo actually went and did the kind of work required. All I was really saying was that that work was necessary.
Also, I agree with you that "responsible" and "held responsible" are subtly different things and that in some situations that difference might be significant.
We might not be having another recruitment round for legislative drafters for a while, but in the meantime please feel free to look for a job in the Australian public service where you'll be giving me instructions. You'd be a pleasure to work with.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
However, there was a very clear challenge from him: prove that his specific paraphrase was an interpretation and that it didn't materially differ from the original text. Three or four days went by without anyone actually doing so clearly. Honestly, I was disappointed. It's easy to turn up and slag Jamat off, but only Orfeo challenged it in any way, and moo kind of shot that down.
Sorry, this is bullshit. In isolation, you might have a point. Woefully, Jamat's post does not exist in isolation but in a history of attack, irrelevant point, ignore response, attack from another angle, ignore response, repeat earlier point, misinterpret response; rinse and repeat.
This is not to denigrate ether moo or orfeo for their responses, but you slag off the rest of us who have been responding to his shite.
Though, I will admit giving up on him long before others did.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
