Thread: Jamat, you self-righteous fuckwit Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005686
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
You have been courting nastiness and rudeness (all the while passive-aggressively boo-hooing that others are so mean to you, and bragging you've never been called to Hell), and then you have the nerve to call me a "Semantic nazi."
Well fuck you.
First off fuck you for so despising the Jews you claim to care so much about that you would compare someone who insists on using words right to the people who murdered 6,000,000 Jews. Yeah, that's a reasonable use of the word "Nazi." Antisemitic prick.
You are so sure your interpretation of the Bible is the only one, and even that it defines who Jesus is. But when pressed you lie lie lie -- you say that PSA is a metaphor, if pressed. But at other times you say that if it's not true then you are not saved. You pretend to admit that you realize that your interpretation is an interpretation -- but then you slam me for using the "connotation" of ethnos instead of the "denotation" which proves my interpretation is eisegesis and yours isn't.
In short you're a slimy little self-righteous anus.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Can we not use little as an intensifier for insults? Especially as Jamat is a rather large arsehole.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Can we not use little as an intensifier for insults? Especially as Jamat is a rather large arsehole.
Fair enough. Switch "little" in my closing insult to "morally repulsive."
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Gentlemen, gentlemen please. I actually feel quite sorry for Jamat. When your faith is a brittle and inflexible as his it must hurt when anyone applies pressure for it to bend or stretch ...
(Apologies for any inadvertent images conjured up there) ...
Jamat is sincere. I don't think he's lying as Mousethief suggests, I don't doubt his integrity. However, he has painted himself into as much of a corner with his fundamentalist interpretive schema as the RCs have with the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
The sad irony is that he has replaced the inflexibility of his Tridentine RC youth with an equally inflexible form of highly literal dispensationalist Protestantism.
Any deviation from that tightly ratcheted standard is going to appear to him as equivocation at best or apostasy at worst.
Also, I don't think he's as bright as he thinks he is. I'm not saying he's thick, but like a lot of fundies he is fiercely intelligent along a set of clearly demarcated tramlines.
We all seek to find patterns to make sense of things. Jamat is operating with a particular pattern and template that hems him in to a set of inflexible propositions to the extent that anyone who operates with a different model or pattern or even variation on a theme is seen as a threat.
I don't think Jamat is anymore of an arsehole than anyone else here. He's simply got a tighter rectum to speak out of than some others.
He's trapped in a strait-jacket of his own inflexible certainties.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Jamat is sincere. I don't think he's lying as Mousethief suggests, I don't doubt his integrity. However, he has painted himself into as much of a corner with his fundamentalist interpretive schema as the RCs have with the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
I don't think he is honest, he uses any rhetorical tricks he can think of to put down others - doubting their salvation, calling alternative ideas dumb, calling alternatives spiritually blind, obtrusion, delay, willful avoidance of points put to him, clear hatred of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy for no reason.
And then when anyone else has the gall to do to him the things he does to others it is "oh oh, they're persecuting me". As if his stupid ideas should get a special pass because they're "orthodox Evangelicalism" - which they're not, that's total crap - but he gets full license to attack others in the most extreme way possible.
I don't doubt his salvation, the Lord I know does what he pleases. But I remain convinced his theology is utter bunk and the way he thinks he is justifying or explaining it is utterly repulsive.
[ 27. May 2017, 06:47: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Gentlemen, gentlemen please. I actually feel quite sorry for Jamat. When your faith is a brittle and inflexible as his it must hurt when anyone applies pressure for it to bend or stretch ...
He's also a schoolteacher. The ones I feel sorry for are his pupils.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
What subject does he teach?
It can't be anything involving philosophical concepts or abstract thought, surely?
@mr cheesy, yes, Jamat's line of argument and rhetorical tacts are desperately skewed and flawed. I've spluttered into my tea a few times when he's responded to someone by accusing them of defensiveness or similar reactions to those he displays himself.
But then, none of us can smell our own backsides.
To be fair, I felt you were goading him to a certain extent and yes, I sometimes find your posting style abrasive - but then I'm sure people find mine intensely irritating at times ...
I'm sure a lot of the more conservative evangelicals here, being in a minority, do feel 'got at' at times.
However, Jamat seems pathologically incapable of considering any view point other than the most rigid and inflexible form of looney-tunes literalist dispensationalism.
So yes, he deserves the Hell call and I'm surprised it's taken so long.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To be fair, I felt you were goading him to a certain extent and yes, I sometimes find your posting style abrasive - but then I'm sure people find mine intensely irritating at times ...
Well I did lose it and just reflect back to him what he does to others. That was a mistake and I should have known that.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Gentlemen, gentlemen please. I actually feel quite sorry for Jamat. When your faith is a brittle and inflexible as his it must hurt when anyone applies pressure for it to bend or stretch ...
He's also a schoolteacher. The ones I feel sorry for are his pupils.
Oh, now that hurts. most of them are reasonably muffled from my sad realities and as Martin 60 would say..love wins
It's not easy being green.
Mousethief, I actually meant that crack as a compliment. I admire your exactitude when it comes to language. I am surprised you think the term nazi suggests anti Semitism which is not me but seeing it has offended I apologise for using it in connection with your considerable finesse with language.
Do not expect to break out the popcorn here as I do not do gratuitous insults for the world's entertainment and I actually quite like you all which Is why I am still here after so long. But feel free to call me names, I probably deserve them all.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
When you feel like being precious over Nazis or the Holocaust, just remember how Mel Brookes tackled the subject and do a little dance routine.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Oh, now that hurts. most of them are reasonably muffled from my sad realities and as Martin 60 would say..love wins
It's not easy being green.
I'm not talking of any reality except what you have shown on these boards - an inability to accept that the world was not created in 4004 BC and now an inability to concede that others may well have w different point of view. Neither an attribute I'd have liked in any of Dlet's teachers.
[ 27. May 2017, 09:25: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
simontoad--
Yes, Mel used both "The Producers" and "Hogan's Heroes" to make fun of the followers of that guy with the funny mustache.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Mousethief, I actually meant that crack as a compliment. I admire your exactitude when it comes to language. I am surprised you think the term nazi suggests anti Semitism which is not me but seeing it has offended I apologise for using it in connection with your considerable finesse with language.
If that's your idea of a compliment you had better keep your insults to yourself. You can cut out the patronising sarcasm too; it works as well here as it does in the classroom.
quote:
Do not expect to break out the popcorn here as I do not do gratuitous insults for the world's entertainment and I actually quite like you all which Is why I am still here after so long. But feel free to call me names, I probably deserve them all.
No one is calling you names (except here). You are simply wronger than a wrong thing that's mistaken.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I did call him delusional, which I suppose one might think was calling him a name.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
simontoad--
Yes, Mel used both "The Producers" and "Hogan's Heroes" to make fun of the followers of that guy with the funny mustache.
Just for clarification, Mel Brooks was not involved in "Hogan's Heroes." The other work he used to lampoon Hitler was "To Be or Not to Be."
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The sad irony is that he has replaced the inflexibility of his Tridentine RC youth with an equally inflexible form of highly literal dispensationalist Protestantism.
This.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
But feel free to call me names, I probably deserve them all.
Oh, God. He swallowed Martin60.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'm not talking of any reality except what you have shown on these boards - an inability to accept that the world was not created in 4004 BC and now an inability to concede that others may well have w different point of view.
He accepts we have differing views. Just not that our views are of a salvific Jesus.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think, Jamat, that the most charitable thing that could be said under the circumstances that your choice of epithet - calling Mousethief a 'grammar Nazi' or a 'grammar fascist' was highly inappropriate given the topic in question ... we were discussing anti-Semitism.
In another context calling someone a 'grammar fascist' wouldn't have caused as much offence.
It's called 'context'
C.o.n.t.e.x.t.
You may have heard of it.
Or perhaps not given the highly literalist nature of your posts.
I'm glad you like us, though.
That doesn't mean that the feeling is mutual ...
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
But at least you can take things against yourself - it would seem. That's always a good sign in my book.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I am surprised you think the term nazi suggests anti Semitism
Seriously, you're surprised at that association?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Hmmm ... Yes, I wonder how many other readers failed to spot the association?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
[qb] simontoad--
Yes, Mel used both "The Producers" and "Hogan's Heroes" to make fun of the followers of that guy with the funny mustache.
Just for clarification, Mel Brooks was not involved in "Hogan's Heroes." The other work he used to lampoon Hitler was "To Be or Not to Be."
Mel has apparently been asked by his own son not to do Hitler impersonations in front of his grandson, but the kid likes it so much that he does it anyway when the parents aren't around.
I'm not sure whether to find that inspiring or disquieting.
USA Today
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
We could have some fun with this:
Jamat: Mousethief, you Cyclops!
Mousethief: What?! Are you calling me a one-eyed mythological giant?
Jamat: Oh, no, no ... whatever gave you that impression? I was implying no such thing ...'
Or:
Jamat: Mousethief, you Stalinist ...
Mousethief: What? Are you accusing me of being like a tyrannical authoritarian Russian dictator?
Jamat: Oh dear, no, whatever gave you that impression? I really didn't intend that association at all. I'm really surprised you mad it ...
Or
Jamat: Mousethief, you reeking, festering big blue baboon's arse!
Mousethief: What? Are you saying I resemble a baboon's reeking, festering big blue arse?
Jamat: Oh no, no, I implied no such thing ... whatever gave you that impression? I'm genuinely surprised you made that connection from my post ...
And so on ...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
You mean like this?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
But feel free to call me names, I probably deserve them all.
Oh, God. He swallowed Martin60.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'm not talking of any reality except what you have shown on these boards - an inability to accept that the world was not created in 4004 BC and now an inability to concede that others may well have w different point of view.
He accepts we have differing views. Just not that our views are of a salvific Jesus.
Think of Jamat as John Hurt ...
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Think of Jamat as John Hurt ...
Another Mel Brooks reference?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Nick--
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
simontoad--
Yes, Mel used both "The Producers" and "Hogan's Heroes" to make fun of the followers of that guy with the funny mustache.
Just for clarification, Mel Brooks was not involved in "Hogan's Heroes." The other work he used to lampoon Hitler was "To Be or Not to Be."
Whoops! Thanks.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You mean like this?
Mousethief the limited tracks your mind runs along obviously do not include one for a sense of humour. In my work place we have 'stair nazis' These are ones that insist we all get fit by using stairs not the lifts.
One of my oldest friends was a 'music Nazi'. She insisted all her children learn instruments.
Take my advice and get a life.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Jamat, go fuck yourself. You have no right to tell me what to do, you have no right to talk about having a life, and you have no right to pretend to be jocular with me. Everything I said about you in the OP has been proved in this thread. Fuck off.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Jamat, go fuck yourself. You have no right to tell me what to do, you have no right to talk about having a life, and you have no right to pretend to be jocular with me. Everything I said about you in the OP has been proved in this thread. Fuck off.
Mousethief: Dear chap, it was well meant. Try to keep your blood pressure down at least.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
FFS I've got Jamat humping one leg and Martin60 humping the other. Good thing I've been fixed.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Jamat--
Have you ever watched "Grey's Anatomy"? It's a beloved medical drama on American TV. One of the favored characters is Dr. Miranda Bailey, an African-American doctor who trains new interns at a teaching hospital. She's a good doc, and cares about the interns; but such a tough trainer that she's nicknamed "the Nazi".
But then there was an episode where she had to deal with a real neo-Nazi, who was a paramedic and injured. He only wants a white doctor, doesn't want to be judged, etc. IIRC, he winds up being treated by a variety of non-white staff.
Continuing, via CinemaBlend's recap:
quote:
When Bailey sewed the NAZI up, she made he swastika tattoo looks like a 5. It’s kind of hilarious, but Shane does not agree. After asking how Mary is doing, he tells George that he’s not the devil. He’s just a guy with a belief system, to which George replies, “since we’re sharing belief systems, I believe that if you were dead, the world would be a better place.” Whoa. Zing?
Afterwards, Bailey tells everyone to never call her "Nazi" again.
I know people sometimes use the term in a casual way. (Like the "Soup Nazi" on "Seinfeld".) I have. But it's becoming less and less socially acceptable--and never should've been acceptable in the first place.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Jamat--
Have you ever watched "Grey's Anatomy"? It's a beloved medical drama on American TV. One of the favored characters is Dr. Miranda Bailey, an African-American doctor who trains new interns at a teaching hospital. She's a good doc, and cares about the interns; but such a tough trainer that she's nicknamed "the Nazi".
But then there was an episode where she had to deal with a real neo-Nazi, who was a paramedic and injured. He only wants a white doctor, doesn't want to be judged, etc. IIRC, he winds up being treated by a variety of non-white staff.
Continuing, via CinemaBlend's recap:
quote:
When Bailey sewed the NAZI up, she made he swastika tattoo looks like a 5. It’s kind of hilarious, but Shane does not agree. After asking how Mary is doing, he tells George that he’s not the devil. He’s just a guy with a belief system, to which George replies, “since we’re sharing belief systems, I believe that if you were dead, the world would be a better place.” Whoa. Zing?
Afterwards, Bailey tells everyone to never call her "Nazi" again.
I know people sometimes use the term in a casual way. (Like the "Soup Nazi" on "Seinfeld".) I have. But it's becoming less and less socially acceptable--and never should've been acceptable in the first place.
Yep, I know Grey's Anatomy. It is a great show. I hear where you are coming from and OK, I made an error of judgement here but honestly, there WAS no malice intended despite Mousethief's assertion to the contrary.
He needs to lighten up. If I really wanted to insult him I could have made a far better job of it but I did not and do not.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Jamat is sincere. I don't think he's lying as Mousethief suggests, I don't doubt his integrity. However, he has painted himself into as much of a corner with his fundamentalist interpretive schema as the RCs have with the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
I don't think he is honest, he uses any rhetorical tricks he can think of to put down others - doubting their salvation, calling alternative ideas dumb, calling alternatives spiritually blind, obtrusion, delay, willful avoidance of points put to him, clear hatred of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy for no reason.
And then when anyone else has the gall to do to him the things he does to others it is "oh oh, they're persecuting me". As if his stupid ideas should get a special pass because they're "orthodox Evangelicalism" - which they're not, that's total crap - but he gets full license to attack others in the most extreme way possible.
I don't doubt his salvation, the Lord I know does what he pleases. But I remain convinced his theology is utter bunk and the way he thinks he is justifying or explaining it is utterly repulsive.
quote:
Mr Cheesy:I don't think he is honest, he uses any rhetorical tricks he can think of to put down others -
Mr Cheesy it is true I am sarcastic at times. However, if you really do think this amounts to dishonesty, then I would like you to show me this and I am willing to apologise for it.
Most of my opinions are sincerely held convictions and though you and others disagree, even to the point of thinking them delusional, I usually try not to argue dishonestly.
I also agree with Gamaliel's point above that I am really not that smart and though I am good with language, there are many here that tear me to shreds in an argument. (but not Martin 60)
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Nobody gives a fuck about intent. We care about what you say and do.
If you were to run over somebody's cat, the fact that you did not mean to do so does not then magically bring the cat back to life.
Mousethief felt insulted. If you did not mean to do so, just stick to the fucking apology and stop making trying to wrangle some lame-ass telepathy-based excuse.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Think of Jamat as John Hurt ...
Another Mel Brooks reference?
Yeah, he directed Alien didn't he?
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Think of Jamat as John Hurt ...
Another Mel Brooks reference?
Yeah, he directed Alien didn't he?
Ridley Scott wasn't it?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Think of Jamat as John Hurt ...
Another Mel Brooks reference?
Yeah, he directed Alien didn't he?
Ridley Scott wasn't it?
Old "Olive" Ridley of the Mutant Ninjas?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Think of Jamat as John Hurt ...
Another Mel Brooks reference?
Yeah, he directed Alien didn't he?
No, but he directed a movie where John Hurt played Jesus. Which seemed to fit the context of the posts in question...
quote:
uote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'm not talking of any reality except what you have shown on these boards - an inability to accept that the world was not created in 4004 BC and now an inability to concede that others may well have w different point of view.
He accepts we have differing views. Just not that our views are of a salvific Jesus.
Think of Jamat as John Hurt ...
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Mr Cheesy it is true I am sarcastic at times. However, if you really do think this amounts to dishonesty, then I would like you to show me this and I am willing to apologise for it.
Most of my opinions are sincerely held convictions and though you and others disagree, even to the point of thinking them delusional, I usually try not to argue dishonestly.
I'm sure your views are "honestly held" - whatever that actually means* - but what is dishonest is the way that you abuse others, including publicly questioning their salvation and offering unwanted spiritual advice - and then get all uppetity when someone dares call your views stupid.
*I don't believe that you are just acting out holding them for lols
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Mr Cheesy it is true I am sarcastic at times. However, if you really do think this amounts to dishonesty, then I would like you to show me this and I am willing to apologise for it.
Most of my opinions are sincerely held convictions and though you and others disagree, even to the point of thinking them delusional, I usually try not to argue dishonestly.
I'm sure your views are "honestly held" - whatever that actually means* - but what is dishonest is the way that you abuse others, including publicly questioning their salvation and offering unwanted spiritual advice - and then get all uppetity when someone dares call your views stupid.
*I don't believe that you are just acting out holding them for lols
Sounds a bit pot and kettle. To me, your Biblical thinking has holes you could drive a truck through. Anyway, The Pharisees all thought they were saved right? Because all Israel is saved in their schema. They thought Abraham stood at the gate of Hades to drag back any Jew from the flames who might accidentally stray down there. But were they? You are mistaking what I said for personal judgement. What scripture states on the matter of salvation is that the cross is the key. Paul preached Christ crucified. The cross dealt with sin; we need to humble ourselves under it.
Perhaps there are people here that need to know that the path is narrower than they thought. If you or anyone else is offended by that then it is not me who is being offensive. We all need that kind of reflection. I never said I had all the answers, only what I consider scripture teaches.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Sounds a bit pot and kettle. To me, your Biblical thinking has holes you could drive a truck through. <snip>
Fine, then discuss it.
Do not make personal statements to me or for me or about me couched in religious terms I don't accept. It's a discussion, not some kind of counselling session where you can try to win me over to your view by the power of your spiritual-soundness.
quote:
Perhaps there are people here that need to know that the path is narrower than they thought. If you or anyone else is offended by that then it is not me who is being offensive. We all need that kind of reflection. I never said I had all the answers, only what I consider scripture teaches.
Discuss your ideas: put forward points, counter points with other points, give reasons, show some consistency and some evidence about why you get to that position.
It absolutely is you being offensive when you wander off the path of having a discussion and into you just saying things about me and my salvation that are totally uncalled for and unwanted.
Almost everyone else on these boards understands this. It seems it is only you who think that you are "in the truth" and that it therefore gives you special license to make these statements about other people, and that only you can get upset when someone calls your ideas stupid.
[ 29. May 2017, 10:12: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
It absolutely is you being offensive when you wander off the path of having a discussion and into you just saying things about me and my salvation that are totally uncalled for and unwanted.
Well that is a bit rich! Look at the tone of your own posts in the cold light of day. I have never suggested anything about you personally in terms of your spiritual state. I have never told you you are delusional or that there is no truth in you but you have definitely addressed me in these terms. Is that not offensive? Yet I freely forgive..no really..water under the bridge, moving right along.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
FFS I've got Jamat humping one leg and Martin60 humping the other. Good thing I've been fixed.
You've only got yourself to blame for having such humpable legs.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Not only is Jamat not very bright, he also lacks self-awareness.
His apparent concern about other people's spiritual well-meaning make sense in that context.
He can't imagine anyone being fulfilled, 'saved' (literally 'made whole') or generally on the right lines - as it were - without signing up for his particular brand of highly literal conservative evangelicalism.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
FFS I've got Jamat humping one leg and Martin60 humping the other. Good thing I've been fixed.
You've only got yourself to blame for having such humpable legs.
So, like a buck in rutting season or a tomcat around a female in heat, you have no control over what you hump. If it presents itself, you are unable to resist. Dude that's subhuman. Take some responsibility for your own actions and quit blaming the victim.
[ 29. May 2017, 13:43: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I'M the victim here! You flaunt your legs as SODOM!! It's more than flesh and blood can BARE!!!! Can I grovel yet?
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
BRAIN BLEACH for sale! Get yours here. Prices only reasonably inflated.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I hear where you are coming from and OK, I made an error of judgement here but honestly, there WAS no malice intended despite Mousethief's assertion to the contrary.
He needs to lighten up. If I really wanted to insult him I could have made a far better job of it but I did not and do not.
And you need to learn that, unless you're dealing with people who know you and your sense of humor well (and share your sense of humor), calling someone a Nazi is pretty much always going to be understood as an insult. That's especially true on an Internet forum. And you need to learn that telling them they need to "lighten up" adds to the insult.
It's really simple. When you offend someone, apologize sincerely, don't make excuses or try to justify yourself, don't tell them they're too sensitive, and then let it go.
Sheesh, my kids understood that when they were still in elementary school.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
He's at it again. He's threatening me with eternal damnation now ...
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
He's at it again. He's threatening me with eternal damnation now ...
Maybe you and I can have a beer there together.
Of course, it being Hell and all, it's likely the only thing on tap will be Budweiser.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
He's at it again. He's threatening me with eternal damnation now ...
Maybe you and I can have a beer there together.
Of course, it being Hell and all, it's likely the only thing on tap will be Budweiser.
Bloody Hell! And I thought demons poking you up the arse with pitchforks was bad enough!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
He's at it again. He's threatening me with eternal damnation now ...
Maybe you and I can have a beer there together.
Of course, it being Hell and all, it's likely the only thing on tap will be Budweiser.
Bloody Hell! And I thought demons poking you up the arse with pitchforks was bad enough!
The one is a metaphor for the other. Or vice versa.
______________
*ETA context
[ 04. June 2017, 12:16: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
G--
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
He's at it again. He's threatening me with eternal damnation now ...
Have you been playing pranks on St. Pete again, up at the gate?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Only if St Peter has a clip-board with a series of questions on the Atonement ...
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Only if St Peter has a clip-board with a series of questions on the Atonement ...
Listen Mate,
YOU have been very free on the other thread with personal comments about me.
I have not commented personally about you in anything like that manner. I have restricted comments to the stuff you posted. If I have, perchance offended you in this way, feel free to quote here.
I refer to the comments about me being a teacher..not being as bright as I think.. among others. What I do for a living is not your concern or up for comment. Neither is your pathetic attempts at spiritual psychoanalysis.
Desist, refrain and stop being being a jerk.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
ahahahahaha that's just perfect.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok, I've certainly 'had a go' at you. I'll hold my hand up there.
Thing is, what you're accusing me of doing you do time and again yourself and then some.
I've rung your bell and pulled your chain a few times but at no point have I ever presumed to doubt anyone's salvation, presumed to know all about other people's traditions nor behaved like a character from a Chick Tract.
I can understand how I've annoyed you but read your own posts. You've received the Hell Call you've deserved for years.
Your latest broadside on the Purgatory thread on the atonement would be very, very clever and hilariously funny if it were ironic or hyperbolic.
As it is, it's funny in a completely unintentional way. You really don't realise how much of a plonker you're making of your self.
Ok, I've engaged in pop-psychology and speculation to some extent - but you've laid yourself wide open - and you've laid into other people so much it's hardly surprising that various posters have taken you to task.
Perhaps my comments about you being a teacher and not being particularly bright were below the belt ... But again, read your own posts. At face value they betray a lack of nuance, rigidity and even a degree of paranoia ... But perhaps that's amateur psychology again ...
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
You really don't realise how much of a plonker you're making of your self.
This may be true.
Please post what you think is offensive.
You though are simply ignorant.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ignorant of what?
There are plenty of things I don't know but I don't claim to have a window into people's souls ...
Listen, all I have been doing us trying to confront you with a few home-truths - and in a rough and tumble kind of way.
It might be presumptuous of me to attempt that in the first place, but you constantly impugn other posters' motives and question their salvation - so a few tugs on your tail seem just recompense as far as I can see.
If I went around posting in the way you do, I'd expect to be called to Hell and given a grilling.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ignorant of what?
There are plenty of things I don't know but I don't claim to have a window into people's souls ...
Listen, all I have been doing us trying to confront you with a few home-truths - and in a rough and tumble kind of way.
It might be presumptuous of me to attempt that in the first place, but you constantly impugn other posters' motives and question their salvation - so a few tugs on your tail seem just recompense as far as I can see.
If I went around posting in the way you do, I'd expect to be called to Hell and given a grilling.
You are ignorant of the borderline, between what is unnecessary, offensive personal comment and what is valid criticism of an opinion. I pointed out to you where you crossed my borders. If at all I crossed yours, please show where.
It is not me that needs the home truths here. My criticism of you is specific. Do NOT comment on my personal spiritual life,try to psychoanalyse how I got that way, whether I am as smart as I think I am or what I may, or may not do to earn a living, on a forum which is about theological discussion.
Feel free to tell me my opinions are bigoted or judgemental, that is par for the course.
If you do not know how to separate those categories then please get counselling.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
People who take things as literally as you do and who take it upon themselves to pontificate about the spiritual destiny of other posters and who end up in rigidly fundamentalist theological positions are the ones who need counselling.
As I've said, read your own posts. Then you might realise why I've ribbed you and why others here have called you to Hell. Your lack of humour is excelled only by your lack of nuance.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Or perhaps your hypocrisy ...
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
People who take things as literally as you do and who take it upon themselves to pontificate about the spiritual destiny of other posters and who end up in rigidly fundamentalist theological positions are the ones who need counselling.
As I've said, read your own posts. Then you might realise why I've ribbed you and why others here have called you to Hell. Your lack of humour is excelled only by your lack of nuance.
I do. As I have said, opinions are fair game. I am not confronting you on your criticism of my so- called judgemental views. Please distinguish the issues correctly.. if you can.
It might stop conversations like this
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Only if St Peter has a clip-board with a series of questions on the Atonement ...
Listen Mate,
YOU have been very free on the other thread with personal comments about me.
I have not commented personally about you in anything like that manner. I have restricted comments to the stuff you posted. If I have, perchance offended you in this way, feel free to quote here.
I refer to the comments about me being a teacher..not being as bright as I think.. among others. What I do for a living is not your concern or up for comment. Neither is your pathetic attempts at spiritual psychoanalysis.
Desist, refrain and stop being being a jerk.
After doing all this to me, you have the gall to criticize ANYBODY for doing it to you? You have earned all you get and more.
The first time I called you on it you got all Martin60 faux apologetic, and then went right ahead and immediately did it again. I called you on it again and you were silent.
If there were a Richter scale for hypocrisy, you'd be off the chart.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
People who take things as literally as you do and who take it upon themselves to pontificate about the spiritual destiny of other posters and who end up in rigidly fundamentalist theological positions are the ones who need counselling.
As I've said, read your own posts. Then you might realise why I've ribbed you and why others here have called you to Hell. Your lack of humour is excelled only by your lack of nuance.
I do. As I have said, opinions are fair game. I am not confronting you on your criticism of my so- called judgemental views. Please distinguish the issues correctly.. if you can.
It might stop conversations like this
What would stop conversations like this is if you were to stop being a judgmental hypocrite. Yeah. That'd be good.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Mousethief:After doing all this to me, you have the gall to criticize ANYBODY for doing it to you? You have earned all you get and more.
The first time I called you on it you got all Martin60 faux apologetic, and then went right ahead and immediately did it again. I called you on it again and you were silent.
Your self righteous indignation is indeed impressive as always.
You are however, I suspect, entirely devoid of a sense of humour.
I have never deliberately offended you. Unfortunately, this has not prevented you from throwing mud as usual. What would Jesus do I wonder?
This conversation did not concern you. Please excuse me.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
But the Hell thread concerned you Jamat. The conversation is happening in the context of a Hell call issued by Mousethief. If you read the rules for engagement in Hell you would see that anyone who posts here is fair game for criticism and effectively forfeits the right to take the moral high-ground by whining about unfair anyone else's posts might be.
You need to read for comprehension.
As for MT not having a sense of humour ... Sheesh, he doesn't always make me laugh but when he's on form some of his quips and one-liners can be very droll and often bang on the money.
Your own attempts at humour tend to fall flat.
You'd never make it as a stage comedian ... Ooh no, I've made a comment about what you might do for a living ...
The jibe about you being a teacher didn't come from me. It came from a Shipmate who was surprised that someone could be a school teacher and still believe the world was created in 4004 BC.
I joined in. I admit it. If that gave offence, I apologise. I may well have become somewhat ad hominem - if so, I apologise for that.
What I won't apologise for is for calling you out for your rank hypocrisy, inflexibility and wounded, self-righteous, self-pitying, self-centred tone.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
What would Jesus do?
I suspect he wouldn't spend as long as any of us on internet discussion boards, I suspect he wouldn't throw mud either - nor would he provoke it either by acting like a jerk as you have done.
The sheer hypocrisy you are displaying here is staggering.
It's alright for you to swagger around canting and mewling and effectively accusing everyone who differs to any degree from your brittle form of conservative evangelicalism of being in peril of their immortal souls - yet as soon as anyone challenges you on that you act all offended and take the moral high ground.
Listen pal, I'm not having a go at you about your beliefs, what I'm doing us calling you on the arrant hypocrisy you channel them through and your total stupidity. I'd call you a 'fool' if I weren't aware that doing so is to court the fate you continually warn about ... Or if I weren't aware of my own folly and prattery in other respects.
Don't flatter yourself.
Nobody is calling you to Hell because if your conservative theological views or highly literal and wooden approach to scripture or your apparent lack of awareness of how small t tradition operates - they are calling you to Hell because you've been acting like a jerk.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What would Jesus do?
I suspect he wouldn't spend as long as any of us on internet discussion boards, I suspect he wouldn't throw mud either - nor would he provoke it either by acting like a jerk as you have done.
The sheer hypocrisy you are displaying here is staggering.
It's alright for you to swagger around canting and mewling and effectively accusing everyone who differs to any degree from your brittle form of conservative evangelicalism of being in peril of their immortal souls - yet as soon as anyone challenges you on that you act all offended and take the moral high ground.
Listen pal, I'm not having a go at you about your beliefs, what I'm doing us calling you on the arrant hypocrisy you channel them through and your total stupidity. I'd call you a 'fool' if I weren't aware that doing so is to court the fate you continually warn about ... Or if I weren't aware of my own folly and prattery in other respects.
Don't flatter yourself.
Nobody is calling you to Hell because if your conservative theological views or highly literal and wooden approach to scripture or your apparent lack of awareness of how small t tradition operates - they are calling you to Hell because you've been acting like a jerk.
It is official then, this is a mudbath. I refuse to do this.
My issue with you is specific. You have not addressed it Show where I have chucked mud at you. I have not and I won't. Hypocrisy? Please demonstrate. Quotes please. Otherwise, if you say you are a believer, conduct yourself like one.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I don't believe this ...
Look, can I just spell this out?
I.have.not.accused.you.of.throwing.mud.at.me.
What I have accused you of is being a jerk.
You've only got to read your own posts to see evidence of your own jerkery - but a fox never smells its own hole.
I am acting like a believer, as you put it, by showing restraint and cutting you some slack, showing patience and understanding rather than calling you to Hell before now - as Mousethief has done and with justification.
As for your hypocrisy ... I could certainly 'proof-text' and cite chapter and verse from your own posts - but that's not the way I operate. I don't just take quotes out of context and point at them saying, 'There, the Bible says ...' or 'There, Jamat says ...'
Your hypocrisy lies in accusing other people of doing the self-same things you do yourself.
You've only got to go back over the thread in question to see ample evidence of that, time and time and time again.
You have as much self-awareness as a plank, as much subtlety as a brick and your theology is at kindergarten level - to put it mildly.
In an amongst, you occasionally make some very good points, but much of the time you either completely lose the plot, misunderstand or misrepresent what other people are posting and put the worst possible slant on their motives for doing so.
Read your own posts. I rest my case.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't believe this ...
Look, can I just spell this out?
I.have.not.accused.you.of.throwing.mud.at.me.
What I have accused you of is being a jerk.
You've only got to read your own posts to see evidence of your own jerkery - but a fox never smells its own hole.
I am acting like a believer, as you put it, by showing restraint and cutting you some slack, showing patience and understanding rather than calling you to Hell before now - as Mousethief has done and with justification.
As for your hypocrisy ... I could certainly 'proof-text' and cite chapter and verse from your own posts - but that's not the way I operate. I don't just take quotes out of context and point at them saying, 'There, the Bible says ...' or 'There, Jamat says ...'
Your hypocrisy lies in accusing other people of doing the self-same things you do yourself.
You've only got to go back over the thread in question to see ample evidence of that, time and time and time again.
You have as much self-awareness as a plank, as much subtlety as a brick and your theology is at kindergarten level - to put it mildly.
In an amongst, you occasionally make some very good points, but much of the time you either completely lose the plot, misunderstand or misrepresent what other people are posting and put the worst possible slant on their motives for doing so.
Read your own posts. I rest my case.
This is all bluster.
I made a specific objection to you. You do not have to address it but that is what led me to post here.
Any counter objection from you, I might admit could you just point it out. You obviously cannot.
I do not consider abusiveness Christian behaviour. It is unworthy of you as well as bad for your blood pressure.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I am perfectly calm and rational, thank you very much ...
Your specific accusation against me was that I'd engaged in amateur psychoanalysis of your spiritual condition and had engaged in ad hominem comments about your chosen profession.
Is that right?
I thought I'd addressed those already.
As I either hadn't done so or because you've failed to interpret my posts correctly, I will lay out a measured response.
Firstly, yes, I overdid it with my amateur psychologist hat on. I apologise for any offence I caused.
What I won't withdraw is the pertinent and incontrovertible observation that you are just as much a product of a particular Christian tradition as the rest of us are. Mousethief, mr cheesy, Nick Tamen, Mudfrog, Kaplan Corday, whoever else.
That's not amateur psychology, that's simply a statement of fact.
On the comments about your being a school teacher. If I remember rightly, my comment was to the effect that you must be teaching something that didn't involve nuance or the capacity for abstract thought. Something like that.
Again, to use a phrase I often use and get criticised for aboard Ship, I over-egged the pudding.
I don't know what you teach, but I'm sure you do it very well.
It's just that I wouldn't put you in charge of a paleontology class ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
As for charges of hypocrisy - no, I don't withdraw those at all.
For a kick-off you persist in being judgemental and second-guessing the spiritual state of various posters in the way you have just accused me of doing.
Look at your posts here - you have challenged me to 'act like a believer' - as though I may not actually be one according to your particular standards.
You consistently snipe at posters who don't see things exactly the way you do and insinuate either that they are not 'real' Christians or that their faith is lacking in some way in comparison with your own.
Can you not see that?
Do I need to point those instances out?
I really don't give a monkey's if you believed the moon was made of green cheese or that the world was created in 2 hours and 35 minutes by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I'm not at all fazed or worried by your adherence to a very rigid form of conservative evangelicalism.
What I object to is the way you act like a jerk in connection with that, either by misrepresenting and misconstruing what other people post or by getting on a high-horse of apparent biblical superiority when your capacity for nuanced or contextual debate seems limited to put it mildly.
That's what I'm getting at.
If you can't see how offensive it is to continually question other people's faith just because it doesn't conform to your own constipated viewpoint then there's not a lot else I can say.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
Gamaliel:
Thanks for all that. I do appreciate the time you took here.
I actually think hypocrisy is not the issue here. It is the inference that you and others take from my view of scripture that it suggests many here who say they are believers are not.
To have the temerity to even imply someone else may not be a Christian is in fact the unforgiveable sin on SOF. I have never said this though. I have only stated what I think scripture teaches.
In the end there is a place where God decides. It is called the judgement. We will all have to suck it up. If I am hard line it is because my experience of God's reality took me away from liberal Catholicism. You on the other hand seem to have reclined into some sort of amorphous spiritual bog where all the edges are blurred.
My concern about the atonement is that evangelicalism has compromised to the point where the gospel is reinvented. In scripture Paul states it is the power of God unto salvation but the gospel preached by many today has lost its teeth. If that makes me a judgemental hypocrite in your eyes, so be it. I pray blessing on you and on others.
The kind of abusiveness, language and victimisation that often goes on on the hell board here, though, is a disgrace to the name of Christ. I refuse to do it.
Goodbye and good night.
[ 06. June 2017, 20:06: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Fine, you don't have to post here. Go and luxuriate in your own self-righteousness.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Wow. Just...wow.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Mousethief:After doing all this to me, you have the gall to criticize ANYBODY for doing it to you? You have earned all you get and more.
The first time I called you on it you got all Martin60 faux apologetic, and then went right ahead and immediately did it again. I called you on it again and you were silent.
Your self righteous indignation is indeed impressive as always.
You are however, I suspect, entirely devoid of a sense of humour.
I have never deliberately offended you. Unfortunately, this has not prevented you from throwing mud as usual. What would Jesus do I wonder?
This conversation did not concern you. Please excuse me.
Honey, I started this thread. You are a hypocrite and a blasphemer and an asshole, perhaps not in that order. Attacking me YET AGAIN is not answering the charges I have against you, and only blackens your hypocrisy.
Also, this is SOF so anybody is welcome to post on any topic. So fuck yourself there, too.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Blasphemer?
That's harsh.
Rigid, doctrinaire, unnuanced, over literal and dualistic, yes - but a blasphemer?
How do you work that out?
Unless you consider a belief in PSA to be blasphemous.
What are you getting at here, Mousethief? Just as Jamat oversteps the mark in presuming to pontificate on the spiritual state of other Shipmates on the basis of his very narrow interpretation and application of scripture, are you echoing that judgementalism in some way with this charge?
I would have thought that a 'blasphemer' is one who consciously and deliberately sets out to blaspheme.
I don't think Jamat does that. He simply interprets and applies the scriptures according to a pattern he has learned / inherited from the particular form of conservative evangelicalism he espouses.
He thinks I'm fuzzy and with ill-defined boundaries, I find his views tight and restrictive with little chiaroscuro or room to breathe.
Fine, we have a difference in perspective ...
Sadly, in his zeal, Jamat has painted himself into a very restrictive and tight corner. He has given himself little room for manoeuvre. He had become cramped.
And if anyone suggests as much they are accused of sitting lightly by scripture with the insinuation that they might not be a 'true' believer' like he is.
That's sad and unfortunate, but hardly blasphemous I'd have thought ...
What is your basis for this nuclear option?
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To have the temerity to even imply someone else may not be a Christian is in fact the unforgiveable sin on SOF. I have never said this though. I have only stated what I think scripture teaches.
In other words, you think that because of what scripture teaches, some shippies are not Christians. This is not your own idea; it derives from scripture.
Moo
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My concern about the atonement is that evangelicalism has compromised to the point where the gospel is reinvented. In scripture Paul states it is the power of God unto salvation but the gospel preached by many today has lost its teeth. If that makes me a judgemental hypocrite in your eyes, so be it. I pray blessing on you and on others.
The kind of abusiveness, language and victimisation that often goes on on the hell board here, though, is a disgrace to the name of Christ. I refuse to do it.
If that first paragraph isn't stuffed full of abuse, intemperate language and victimisation pray what is?
There is plenty here this is a disgrace to the name of Christ, motes and beams, etc.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The martyrdom is strong here.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, and adds to the irritation ...
I really have no problem with Jamat holding very conservative views on scripture and so on - that's up to him.
The issue I have is the way he acts like a jerk with all that.
But he appears to lack the self-awareness to see when he's being a jerk.
That probably applies to all of us, of course ...
But enough already ...
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I was on the verge of urging you two to get a room.
I'll probably just break out the popcorn instead.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I was on the verge of urging you two to get a room.
I'll probably just break out the popcorn instead.
But Doc Tor, hell is the room, and you are the chatelaine looking in at the keyhole to make sure they are playing nice, or proper nasty.
I'll leave you with that mental image.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I think that presuming to speak for God about the condition of other people's souls is blasphemous. You're presuming to be God.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Jamat--
You said:
quote:
In scripture Paul states it is the power of God unto salvation but the gospel preached by many today has lost its teeth. If that makes me a judgemental hypocrite in your eyes, so be it. I pray blessing on you and on others.
I know you may not read this, but...do you let those gospel teeth chomp on you, too?
Your posts sound like you don't. But you still call down judgment on other people.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Jamat seems to have disappeared entirely.
I've not seen him in Purgatory either for a while ...
(adopts irritating sing-song US salesperson voice) 'Missing you already ...'
But yes, Jamat's only to happy to dole out the judgment but not to be on the receiving end -other than in a kind of canting 'woe is me kind of way' ...
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I've not posted again on this because I've come to realise that Jamat sees himself as a martyr for The Truth, so anything written about him in this vein actually boosts his self-image of a noble knight fighting for the truth against the hordes of uncouth barbarians.
Just fwiw. I think you're wasting your time even if he is bothering to read your posts in hell.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Thanks, both of you. Yeah, I know he left the thread (at least). But my comment occurred to me this evening, so I decided to post anyway.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've not posted again on this because I've come to realise that Jamat sees himself as a martyr for The Truth, so anything written about him in this vein actually boosts his self-image of a noble knight fighting for the truth against the hordes of uncouth barbarians.
Just fwiw. I think you're wasting your time even if he is bothering to read your posts in hell.
Fallen victim to the martyr-for-Christ fallacy:
- Christ said people will hate us for witnessing for him.
- People hate me for saying this.
- Therefore saying this is witnessing for him.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
It is even worse than that because he is convinced his own behaviour is justified whilst simultaneously doing the same things to others.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, discussion of any kind with Jamat is a waste of time. Not just in Hell but elsewhere. How can you debate anything with the man who is never wrong?
More fool me, eh?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, discussion of any kind with Jamat is a waste of time. Not just in Hell but elsewhere. How can you debate anything with the man who is never wrong?
More fool me, eh?
More fool we all.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, discussion of any kind with Jamat is a waste of time. Not just in Hell but elsewhere. How can you debate anything with the man who is never wrong?
More fool me, eh?
More fool we all.
Check the definition of hypocrite Mr..you can do it by reading your sig.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The kind of abusiveness, language and victimisation that often goes on on the hell board here, though, is a disgrace to the name of Christ. I refuse to do it.
Goodbye and good night.
"As a dog returns to its vomit, so fools repeat their folly."
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Check the definition of hypocrite Mr..you can do it by reading your sig.
This from the guy who said:
quote:
The kind of abusiveness, language and victimisation that often goes on on the hell board here, though, is a disgrace to the name of Christ. I refuse to do it.
That refusal didn't last long, did it?
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Check the definition of hypocrite Mr..you can do it by reading your sig.
This from the guy who said:
quote:
The kind of abusiveness, language and victimisation that often goes on on the hell board here, though, is a disgrace to the name of Christ. I refuse to do it.
That refusal didn't last long, did it?
So now you feel victimised Sir?.. because your hypocrisy is pointed out? Oh and perhaps you could also check out blasphemy.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Welcome back,Jamat. We were beginning to miss you ...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Jamat, save your breath until you know what you're talking about. You are the king of hypocrisy, so you accuse others of your own sin, the better to avoid coming to grips with your flaw. If you can show me where I ever called you impure or unclean, your worth-being-taken-seriously level might rise slightly above zero. But you cannot, because I have not, so your bleating on my sig is as empty as your head.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Jamat, save your breath until you know what you're talking about. You are the king of hypocrisy, so you accuse others of your own sin, the better to avoid coming to grips with your flaw. If you can show me where I ever called you impure or unclean, your worth-being-taken-seriously level might rise slightly above zero. But you cannot, because I have not, so your bleating on my sig is as empty as your head.
So sad. You don't see how filthy language and unsubstantiated accusations are NOT calling others impure and unclean. This is lying.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Your momma must have dropped you on the head when your skull was still soft.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Your momma must have dropped you on the head when your skull was still soft.
Seriously, this is just more of the same. Do you want to confront anything here? You began this thread, you used what was supposed to be a joke/compliment on my part, admittedly misplaced, to vent your spleen about the real sub text. This is of course how does one define a believer. Assuming you make that claim, how is what you posted here about me, something a Christian would say? Especially the unsubstantiated charges of hypocrisy and blasphemy. How is your sig in anyway consistent with your behaviour? How is your denial of hypocrisy not lying?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
You project like nobody's business. Where ever did I deny hypocrisy? Unlike you. You lie and you lie, and you think nobody notices. And why does this thread exist? Because you have the blasphemous audacity to tell other people they're not saved. As you're trying to do here, in a mealy-mouthed, deniable form.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You project like nobody's business. Where ever did I deny hypocrisy? Unlike you. You lie and you lie, and you think nobody notices. And why does this thread exist? Because you have the blasphemous audacity to tell other people they're not saved. As you're trying to do here, in a mealy-mouthed, deniable form.
Well that is something. You do not deny hypocrisy.
I too do not deny I doubt many so called Christians actually know the Lord. What is hypocritical about it? As I have said many times, It would be terrible not to warn as the stakes a very high. You should be able to handle that without chucking your toys .
Why is this blasphemous? I include myself in my own warnings by the way.
The issue as I stated quite bluntly on the atonement thread is about grasping, experientially, not necessarily intellectually that you have embraced the Lord. Gamaliel would see my view as dualistic, Saved/lost. He is right; not a lot of nuance there but so what? Salvation is an eternal issue. I do not apologise for rubbing fur backwards. You can feel totally free to ignore but as you haven't and you have called me here, then at least discuss reasonably and stop being an ass.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You can feel totally free to ignore but as you haven't and you have called me here, then at least discuss reasonably and stop being an ass.
What's the matter? Is your fur being rubbed the wrong way?
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You can feel totally free to ignore but as you haven't and you have called me here, then at least discuss reasonably and stop being an ass.
What's the matter? Is your fur being rubbed the wrong way?
Thanks for chipping in. Enjoy the show.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I tried discussing things reasonably with you, Jamat. It failed spectacularly, thanks to your hypocrisy and hubris. That's why this thread exists. If you were actually able and willing to discuss things reasonably, this thread would not exist.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Don't presume to know what I'd say, Jamat.
Suggesting that there are the damned and there are the saved isn't dualistic.
Thinking you have some kind of infallible yardstick for determining who is in each category is.
FWIW, I don't like Mousethief's 'filthy language' either - which is hypocritical of me as I use it myself at times on these boards.
I wish he didn't use it. But he does. I wish you were capable of nuance too but you aren't. I wish you weren't some kind of obscurantist, 6-Day Creationist with a ponderous line in numpty Dispensationalism too, but you are.
I wish everyone was as sane, balanced and nuanced as I am but that's not going to happen either ...
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I tried discussing things reasonably with you, Jamat. It failed spectacularly, thanks to your hypocrisy and hubris. That's why this thread exists. If you were actually able and willing to discuss things reasonably, this thread would not exist.
Noted. In your view 'reasonable' is anything you say it is, right?In that case this is over. For the record, I deny your aspersions and accusations. Also for the record, there is a difference between declaring what I think the Bible teaches defines a Christian, and judging who is one. I certainly did the former, the latter, people do all by themselves.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You don't get it, do you Jamat?
'Judge not lest he also be judged ...'
I think I've read that somewhere ...
I wonder who said that?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Also, you don't recognise how disingenuous you are.
You are constantly insinuating that people aren't true believers. You've done it to Mousethief, you've done it to other people, you've done it to me.
Then you hide behind the pathetic, 'It's not me who says it, it'd the Bible. Look, it suddenly grew a pair of hind legs and walked across to [insert name of Shipmate] and opened it's mouth and said, "Nah nur na na na - he said a naughty wo-o-rd. He can't possibly be a Christian - not like Jamat who takes me completely literally, even talking snakes in Genesis and the imagery in Revelation ... na nur na na nah ...'
It really is pathetic.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
This is a repeat announcement, do not adjust your sets, I repeat do not adjust your sets.
You are wasting your breath trying to make any kind of argument with Jamat.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I tried discussing things reasonably with you, Jamat. It failed spectacularly, thanks to your hypocrisy and hubris. That's why this thread exists. If you were actually able and willing to discuss things reasonably, this thread would not exist.
Noted. In your view 'reasonable' is anything you say it is, right?In that case this is over. For the record, I deny your aspersions and accusations. Also for the record, there is a difference between declaring what I think the Bible teaches defines a Christian, and judging who is one. I certainly did the former, the latter, people do all by themselves.
You would make a wonderful Pharisee.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
'Would'?
Correction:
'You ARE a wonderful Pharisee.'
@mr cheesy, looks like 'normal service' has been resumed ...
You're right. We are all wasting our time.
I might as well go into our local woods and strike up a debate with a tree-stump for the amount of 'give' and flexibility I'm going to get from Jamat and his brittle approach to issues of faith.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I tried discussing things reasonably with you, Jamat. It failed spectacularly, thanks to your hypocrisy and hubris. That's why this thread exists. If you were actually able and willing to discuss things reasonably, this thread would not exist.
Noted. In your view 'reasonable' is anything you say it is, right?In that case this is over. For the record, I deny your aspersions and accusations. Also for the record, there is a difference between declaring what I think the Bible teaches defines a Christian, and judging who is one. I certainly did the former, the latter, people do all by themselves.
You would make a wonderful Pharisee.
Don't diss the pharisees - they were far more inclusive.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Well, that's a hell of a mic-drop for a Hell thread:
To have leo land a sick burn on you. Dayum.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Also, you don't recognise how disingenuous you are.
You are constantly insinuating that people aren't true believers. You've done it to Mousethief, you've done it to other people, you've done it to me.
Then you hide behind the pathetic, 'It's not me who says it, it's the Bible.
It really is pathetic.
Gamaliel, I am glad you posted as I think this will probably be, finally it, from me.
First, it is not 'disingenuous' which I take to mean naďve, to refer to the Bible as clearly teaching something. Bear in mind that the Bible is a library of Jewish literature compiled over 4000 or so years. It does clearly teach. It seeks to demonstrate and it certainly contains guidelines for establishing a relational connection with God through Christ. To suggest that 'interpretation' needs to occur is a given, but the interpretive approach often encountered in this internet puddle, is to glean whatever one wants to supplement the current wisdom or Zeitgeist which is inevitably an imposition of outside assumptions on the text itself.
Regarding insinuating. It is the reader who does this. The insinuation is not from the side of the author. Thus, it is the reader's assumption. You and others might well be saved, (shrug), I do not have to worry about you, only about me in that regard, but I am not taking a backward step from telling you what I think scripture teaches regarding salvation when so many voices want to fudge it.
If I am pathetic, then it is news to me but I am sad you think so.
Yes, It is rather pharisaical behaviour witnessed here. As I recall, they ganged up to confront Jesus on many occasions. The object inevitably was to justify what their little 'collective' taught and believed.
The 'who made you the judge' line wears a bit thin as well. One is suddenly the judge when pointing out what scripture says? Go figure! There are several occasions in the NT where the writer withstood opposing views, notably in Galatians. I am not saying I am like Paul in stature, only that it happened to him and to others. Judgement, in the sense of discerning between the truth and error is encouraged in scripture. Titus was encouraged to rebuke those who taught wrong doctrine(Titus:1,10). Paul did not retreat quoting:
'judge not lest you be judged' on any occasion that I recall.
However, in the end, I have no regard for your opinion or that of the demonstrably unchristlike folk such as Mousethief who called me here so he could show his true self as he has done to many other posters over the years in many other contexts. The criteria one uses to judge oneself must necessarily be above the opinions of others whom one does not know, on an internet forum but one is not thereby justified before God and I do not assume anything. You have your lives to live according to your lights. I wish you well.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In your view 'reasonable' is anything you say it is, right?
No.
quote:
First, it is not 'disingenuous' which I take to mean naďve
Just no. Look up words you don't know. Don't assume what they mean and make a fool of yourself.
quote:
To suggest that 'interpretation' needs to occur is a given, but the interpretive approach often encountered in this internet puddle, is to glean whatever one wants to supplement the current wisdom or Zeitgeist which is inevitably an imposition of outside assumptions on the text itself.
Whereas for you the interpretation is just whatever the church you are going to tells you to believe it says.
quote:
Regarding insinuating. It is the reader who does this. The insinuation is not from the side of the author. Thus, it is the reader's assumption.
No. Again, you should look words up you don't know. Insinuation is BY DEFINITION from the side of the author. Is English your first language? Why are you so egotistical that you insist words mean what you want them to, rather then look them up and find out what they really mean? Who died and made you Noah Webster?
quote:
If I am pathetic, then it is news to me but I am sad you think so.
I wish it were news to you. But you just dismiss it out of hand rather than look at your behaviour and figure out what is giving off that impression.
quote:
The 'who made you the judge' line wears a bit thin as well. One is suddenly the judge when pointing out what scripture says?
The way you do? Yes.
quote:
However, in the end, I have no regard for your opinion
Clearly you have regard only for yourself. It's pathetic (look it up).
quote:
or that of the demonstrably unchristlike folk such as Mousethief
He's done it again. Will the hypocrisy never cease? No, probably not.
quote:
who called me here so he could show his true self
No, that is not why I called you here. Don't presume to tell me why I do what I do. You are 100% wrong 100% of the time.
quote:
I do not assume anything.
You are a liar. Just in this post you assumed you knew what several words meant (and you were wrong) and you assumed you knew why I called you here (and you were wrong).
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
First, it is not 'disingenuous' which I take to mean naďve, to refer to the Bible as clearly teaching something.
First, disingenuous does not mean naďve. It means lacking in frankness, or falsely sincere. In other words, dishonest.
Second, who has said the Bible doesn't clearly teach things? The problem is not that the rest of us don't believe the Bible clearly teaches things: it's that many of us disagree that it clearly teaches what you think it does with regard to some specific things.
This is one of the reasons many of us have become so frustrated with your method of discussion—rather than actually addressing what others say, you repeatedly create straw men that people, merely by disagreeing with your view of things, have tossed Scripture out entirely.
quote:
Regarding insinuating. It is the reader who does this. The insinuation is not from the side of the author. Thus, it is the reader's assumption.
Nope. Insinuation is done by the speaker/author. It means to hint at. (Perhaps you're confusing insinuate with infer.) And you have repeatedly insinuated that those who disagree with your narrow view of PSA are not saved.
quote:
You and others might well be saved, (shrug), I do not have to worry about you, only about me in that regard, but I am not taking a backward step from telling you what I think scripture teaches regarding salvation when so many voices want to fudge it.
No one has asked you to step back from what you believe. They have asked you not to suggest that anyone who believes differently is not a real Christian.
You have exhorted me and others to open our minds and consider whether the Lord might be trying to say something different to us. Your seemingly proud refusal to take your own advice is reminiscent of specks and planks, and only reinforces the perception that you stand in judgment of others. It wears very thin.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Nick Tamen: Nope. Insinuation is done by the speaker/author. It means to hint at. (Perhaps you're confusing insinuate with infer.) And you have repeatedly insinuated that those who disagree with your narrow view of PSA are not saved.
Your are correct of course, I should have checked.
My point then, is that what one chooses to infer from what I wrote about the atonement, is not necessarily what I implied or insinuated... not my personal judgement in other words. Thank you for that.
As for the rest of your post Nick, feel free to join the feeding frenzy but it does not reflect well on one to be part of a pack of snapping dogs. May you be blessed.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Nick Tamen: Nope. Insinuation is done by the speaker/author. It means to hint at. (Perhaps you're confusing insinuate with infer.) And you have repeatedly insinuated that those who disagree with your narrow view of PSA are not saved.
Your are correct of course, I should have checked.
My point then, is that what one chooses to infer from what I wrote about the atonement, is not necessarily what I implied or insinuated... not my personal judgement in other words. Thank you for that.
The thing is, Jamat, if everyone is inferring the same unintended message from what I say, I tend to ask myself whether the fault is mine for not communicating clearly. By saying that we have all "chosen" to infer what you did not imply or insinuate—which should perhaps more accurately be what you did not intend to imply or insinuate—you have abdicated responsibility for your own words and laid the blame on those who took your words at face value. That doesn't reflect well on one either.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Mousethief:You are a liar. Just in this post you assumed you knew what several words meant (and you were wrong) and you assumed you knew why I called you here (and you were wrong).
I did make a mistake in defining the word insinuate. so, yes, I apologise.
As to the rest of your post, I think it is clutching at straws. You called me here under a pretext of being insulted. You maintain the charade. It is just more lies. You merely wish to vent your unpleasant spleen which you continue to do. That is rather sad. One who feeds off the kind of bitterness you seem to must, at heart, be a very miserable man.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I did make a mistake in defining the word insinuate. so, yes, I apologise.
As to the rest of your post, I think it is clutching at straws. You called me here under a pretext of being insulted. You maintain the charade. It is just more lies. You merely wish to vent your unpleasant spleen which you continue to do. That is rather sad. One who feeds off the kind of bitterness you seem to must, at heart, be a very miserable man.
After all, it's impossible to actually be insulted by Jamat. The people on this thread are just pretending so they can vent their nastiness. And of course, Jamat can tell you what is in other people's heart because he's so so special. I think it's his own inner doubt about the belief he professes that makes him so vehement in attacking others because he thinks they are like him at the hollow core. Any one watching his panic about Genesis not being literal can see that.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Jamat, even in Hell I did not say 'you' were pathetic, I said 'it' was pathetic referring to your behaviour.
You seem unable to make that distinction and interpret any 'opposition', however mild, as some kind of personal attack or else some nefarious attempt to undermine the Gospel.
Nick Tamen argues in a very measured and reasoned way and yet you accuse him of joining a 'feeding frenzy'.
I see no 'feeding frenzy' here - and there have certainly been such things in Hell and they aren't pretty - but plenty of frustration at what you seem unwilling to acknowledge - that your interpretive framework is exactly that - an interpretive framework - and that you don't have any special rights or privilege to sit in judgement over the spiritual state of anyone else.
It's been counter-productive of Mousethief to use what the BBC calls 'strong language' as all it's done is feed your own ego and spiritual pride. 'I'm glad I'm not like that unChristlike Mousethief, swearing at people ...'
You've accused me of amateur psychologising in the past. Now you are doing exactly the same thing by speculating how 'miserable' Mousethief must be and presuming to understand what flaws he must have in order to have the temerity to challenge you in your unassailably biblical and principled position ...
You make assumptions over and over again. You've even assumed what words mean without bothering to look them up.
In a similar way you make assumptions about the position / spiritual state of fellow Shipmates without bothering to find out what they believe and why.
You cling to a comfort-blanket of highly conservative fundagelicalism and dismiss any hint of nuance or variation as evidence of a dangerous slippery slope towards liberalism and perdition.
You have gone beyond the legitimate use of an interpretive framework and transformed it into a strait-jacket.
That is what is sad. That is what is 'pathetic'.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I did make a mistake in defining the word insinuate. so, yes, I apologise.
As to the rest of your post, I think it is clutching at straws. You called me here under a pretext of being insulted. You maintain the charade. It is just more lies. You merely wish to vent your unpleasant spleen which you continue to do. That is rather sad. One who feeds off the kind of bitterness you seem to must, at heart, be a very miserable man.
After all, it's impossible to actually be insulted by Jamat. The people on this thread are just pretending so they can vent their nastiness. And of course, Jamat can tell you what is in other people's heart because he's so so special. I think it's his own inner doubt about the belief he professes that makes him so vehement in attacking others because he thinks they are like him at the hollow core. Any one watching his panic about Genesis not being literal can see that.
It is not a matter of seeing hearts, merely one of interpreting behaviour in a common sense manner, given Mousethief's track record of career internet bullying.
And you, mate, are obviously a fool.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Gamaliel: It's been counter-productive of Mousethief to use what the BBC calls 'strong language' as all it's done is feed your own ego and spiritual pride. 'I'm glad I'm not like that unChristlike Mousethief, swearing at people ...Gamaliel
Well, now, that is pretty judgemental. I am not the judge of my own pride so how could you be? And on what basis do you claim to know my motives? I have only pity for anyone as bitter and vindictive as someone who needs to lash out on such a flimsy pretext. I also beg to differ on the feeding frenzy. It does not bother me at all but there is no personal judgement at all on my part and pretty well a constant stream of pretended outrage not at my views but at me personally, from a number of folk.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Your lack of self-awareness is monumental.
I'd admire it as I would a large rock sculpture if the unintended irony weren't so deafening.
You really, really, really don't get it do you?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Your ability to assess how badly you come across online is exceeded only by your inability to look words up in the dictionary and cope with anything beyond the most basic, formulaic and binary level of assessment.
If I didn't know differently, I'd assume you had a day job as a pit-prop or a railway girder.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Yes, It is rather pharisaical behaviour witnessed here. As I recall, they ganged up to confront Jesus on many occasions. The object inevitably was to justify what their little 'collective' taught and believed.
The aspect of pharisaical behaviour I referred to was their self-righteousness and belief in superior sanctity, not the paranoia you demonstrate. Don't for a moment compare the opposition you get here to the sufferings of our Lord.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
"He's not the Messiah..."
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
And on what basis do you claim to know my motives?
On what basis do you claim to know mousethief's motives? Or that anyone's outrage is "pretended"?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well exactly.
I got stick - justifiably probably - from Jamat for presuming to analyse aspects of his conversion from adolescent Roman Catholicism to conservative evangelicalism and now he's doing the self-same thing by presuming to be able to 'read' people's motives.
The double-standard is spectacular.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
It can sometimes be hard for people to recognize the meta-content of their own modality - it is a common human failing. However, in Jamat's case, there is clearly some profound inability process any reflected reality that challenges Jamat's prejudices.
So, while this thread is unlikely to affect any change, at least it vents some frustration. Which, I suspect, was this threads only original intent. No matter how patiently some participants have tried to make it more worthy.
Also: sky blue; sea wet.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
... you assumed you knew why I called you here (and you were wrong).
As to the rest of your post, I think it is clutching at straws. You called me here under a pretext of being insulted.
You are still wrong. How on earth do you think you know what is inside my mind? So much so that you can tell me to my face I am lying when I report on my inner states? What thought-o-meter do you think you possess, you whitewashed tomb, that you dare to presume to know what I'm thinking or feeling?
And of course your report is internally self-contradictory. Am I venting my spleen, or only pretending to be angry? You can't have both.
quote:
One who feeds off the kind of bitterness you seem to must, at heart, be a very miserable man.
Ask anybody who knows me IRL if I am a miserable man. I who for 8 years ran an award-winning humor website. Who am first to make a joke at any pretext. (Indeed I was nearly banned from the Ship for the frequency and nature of my joking.) No, you judgmental fool, I am not a miserable man.
No, you had best stick to mis-interpreting the Bible rather than trying to interpret men's souls. Because you suck at it.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Your lack of self-awareness is monumental.
You misspelled "choking."
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
So, while this thread is unlikely to affect any change, at least it vents some frustration. Which, I suspect, was this threads only original intent.
Correct.
quote:
Also: sky blue; sea wet.
I live near Seattle. Only the second one seems to be true this year.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
It can sometimes be hard for people to recognize the meta-content of their own modality - it is a common human failing. However, in Jamat's case, there is clearly some profound inability process any reflected reality that challenges Jamat's prejudices.
Yes. There is many a shipmate whose stubborn close-minded posting prods me to hellish frustration (and vice versa as well, I'm sure). But with Jamat it's not frustration I feel so much as sorrow. He seems to have already heeded a hell-call of his own making-- trapped in a very rigid prison at the "hands of an angry god". I wish for him freedom and grace, even as I despair of seeing a way forward toward that.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Yes, It is rather pharisaical behaviour witnessed here. As I recall, they ganged up to confront Jesus on many occasions. The object inevitably was to justify what their little 'collective' taught and believed.
They did not 'gang up'- they enjoyed discussing with Jesus as with one of their number.
They did not have a collective belief - everything was disputable and they always recoded all opinions.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
leo--
Hmmm...I wonder if any of them had been around when Jesus was 12 and debated with them? Could've made for interesting dynamics. "Young upstart... (or) Seems to have matured well... (or) He's BA-AAACK!"
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
leo--
Hmmm...I wonder if any of them had been around when Jesus was 12 and debated with them? Could've made for interesting dynamics. "Young upstart... (or) Seems to have matured well... (or) He's BA-AAACK!"
point is they were friends, not enemies
[ 21. June 2017, 15:06: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
leo--
Hmmm...I wonder if any of them had been around when Jesus was 12 and debated with them? Could've made for interesting dynamics. "Young upstart... (or) Seems to have matured well... (or) He's BA-AAACK!"
point is they were friends, not enemies
Before or after he called them hypocrites and whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
leo--
Hmmm...I wonder if any of them had been around when Jesus was 12 and debated with them? Could've made for interesting dynamics. "Young upstart... (or) Seems to have matured well... (or) He's BA-AAACK!"
point is they were friends, not enemies
Before or after he called them hypocrites and whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones?
What I had heard was that it was part of the way Pharisees debated. Insults given to the losers with no animosity. A sport or Bro kinda thing.
This was from an RCC priest.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I'd want to see some kind of contemporary verification of that.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'd want to see some kind of contemporary verification of that.
I think that would have to come from a scholar of Judaism, I am just repeating what I heard.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
{Tangent--Pharisees}
I did some searching on "pharisees debating style". One interesting hit is "Talk:Jesus/Scribes Pharisees and Saducees" (Wikipedia). The page cites various scholars. I only skimmed it, but it seems to support leo's statement.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I've started a "Pharisees: Friends of Jesus?" thread in Keryg. Figured the H/As would eventually shut the tangent down, or move it to a Keryg thread. I've copied the relevant posts over.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Sorry. That should be "Friends with", not "of".
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I've started a "Pharisees: Friends of Jesus?" thread in Keryg. Figured the H/As would eventually shut the tangent down, or move it to a Keryg thread. I've copied the relevant posts over.
Good call. +1 Ship points, redeemable on insults and Mousethief Coolers.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
{Curtsey.}
Thankee.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
In which case, Jesus would be a friend of Jamat's ...
I'm sure he is ...
I'll get me coat ...
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
leo--
Hmmm...I wonder if any of them had been around when Jesus was 12 and debated with them? Could've made for interesting dynamics. "Young upstart... (or) Seems to have matured well... (or) He's BA-AAACK!"
point is they were friends, not enemies
Before or after he called them hypocrites and whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones?
typical hyperbole used between pharisees of the time.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
He's back, with fresh new judgmentalism in defiance of his much-repeated claim that he never makes judgments on other people's eternal destinations. Italics mine.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Aijalon: You need to stop chucking the pearls in front of swine. Almost no one here takes the Bible as God's word. Professing to be wise, they are fools whose hearts are hardened and their understanding is consequently darkened. (Romans 1:21) Most are apostates who should know better but are now on the broad road although there are a few genuinely unenlightened individuals. Lil Buddah's ignorance of spiritual issues is only exceeded by her arrogant assertions about them. She should be in our prayers.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Wow.
Jamat, do you know how snooty that post mt quoted sounds?
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
mt--Link or thread name, please? Th.
[ 04. July 2017, 04:55: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Always glad to oblige.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Thx, mt.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Wow.
Jamat, do you know how snooty that post mt quoted sounds?
His nose is pointed back so far he'd drown in a light rain
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Np, GK.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Bless 'im, he thinks he's the voice in the wilderness. He probably believes that we're in even deeper shit now God has sent him to warn us of our apostasy. I could certainly put myself in his shoes and make up a Biblically consistent narrative to that effect.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
The think we have to remember is that on Jamat's worldview it is not possible for any of us to be arguing in good faith.
As soon as you acknowledge that the truth of fundamentalist Christianity isn't self-evident, that people can come to a different conclusion in good faith and after evaluating the evidence to the best of their ability - then you have to face the question So why does God condemn them anyway?
The fundamentalist answer seems to be that we all do know on some level that fundamentalist Christianity is true, but have chosen, as an act of will, to reject it.
Anyone who says they reject it because of the problem of evil or discrepancies in the genealogies of Jesus or whatever - is lying. Maybe to themselves as much as to anyone else, but still lying.
There is no point in him trying to persuade us through reason or logic because our rejection of his worldview is based on sin, not reason. All he can do is rebuke us for our sin and hope that our repentance brings acknowledgement that he is right.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't know whether that is a correct summary of Jamat's views, but it sounds rather like presuppositionalism, with which I've had some awkward encounters. It's not difficult to apparently invalidate someone else's argument, by saying that their use of reason is itself suspect. But I say 'apparently', since that argument makes everything collapse, doesn't it?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
It really doesn't help that he is an arse on top of all that.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It really doesn't help that he is an arse on top of all that.
Guilty, no doubt.
There are lots of assumptions in these last posts, not least of which are the stereotypes of literalism and fundamentalism. But no one can be simply summed up in these terms.
Many here state they began their spiritual journies with iron clad categories that they have now broken free from. They may judge other people as still unevolved from where they were.
However, what if something has been rediscovered ?
If one is a seeker after truth, can one put restrictions and assumptions as foundations of the search?
EG dismissiveness..the Bible is internally inconsistent..
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
The internal inconsistency of the Bible is not an assumption. It is an observation.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The internal inconsistency of the Bible is not an assumption. It is an observation.
Never understood why this isn't glaring obvious to everyone.
Variations in how to reconcile this, I understand. But not missing the need to do so.
I can only suppose the Fundamentalist Shuffle a more enjoyable dance than it appears.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Here's a question ...
Why DOES the Bible have to be internally consistent?
How does it make it any less the Bible if it isn't?
Why should we expect it to be internally consistent? Because of divine inspiration?
If something is divinely inspired then does it have to be internally consistent at every conceivable point otherwise its divine inspiration can be called into question?
How does that work?
The Bible isn't the Quran or the Book of Mormon. It wasn't 'dictated'. It didn't drop from the sky ready formed.
I can see what Jamat is getting at when he accuses folk here of acting as if they have 'evolved' to a higher plane or level of understanding - but I'm not sure that's what's going on here.
It's more a case of Jamat's overly rigid and inflexibly literalist approach fitting the stereotype to a tee.
Or am I missing something?
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Here's a question ...
Why DOES the Bible have to be internally consistent?
How does it make it any less the Bible if it isn't?
Why should we expect it to be internally consistent? Because of divine inspiration?
If something is divinely inspired then does it have to be internally consistent at every conceivable point otherwise its divine inspiration can be called into question?
How does that work?
The Bible isn't the Quran or the Book of Mormon. It wasn't 'dictated'. It didn't drop from the sky ready formed.
I can see what Jamat is getting at when he accuses folk here of acting as if they have 'evolved' to a higher plane or level of understanding - but I'm not sure that's what's going on here.
It's more a case of Jamat's overly rigid and inflexibly literalist approach fitting the stereotype to a tee.
Or am I missing something?
As this is a tangent away from what a FW I am, I will reply on the inerrancy thread in DH.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
And bets that it will end up back here?
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
How could one expect books written over thousands of years to be internally consistent?
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
Easy. Books one supposes to be directly and personally composed by a changeless, immortal, supernatural being which lives both inside and outside of time will, of necessity (due to its author's changelessness) be internally consistent.
That internal consistency in turn points to the book's Truth and also demonstrates the existence of the changeless, immortal, supernatural author.
The completeness and perfection of this logical circle only adds to its charms for those enamored of it; hence, the fundamentally anti-intellectual nature of this worldview: logic is a tool of Satan.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Logic isn't the tool of the devil. Misusing it is.
The logic described only works if one hasn't read the Bible.
As soon as one does, the logic fails, so maintaining the fiction that the Bible is internally consistent and accessible to plain reading requires one to eschew logic.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Logic isn't the tool of the devil. Misusing it is.
The logic described only works if one hasn't read the Bible.
As soon as one does, the logic fails, so maintaining the fiction that the Bible is internally consistent and accessible to plain reading requires one to eschew logic.
I take it your sarcasm meter is in the shop? I'm pretty sure what you just said was Ohher's point. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
looks round back of meter...
follows cord to wall...
not plugged in!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've followed Jamat to Dead Horses and now I'm back here in the infernal regions.
No doubt he'll be here soon.
For the record, I don't regard him as a FW, just a very naughty boy ...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I'm pretty sure what you just said was Ohher's point.
It was a pretty darned good paraphrase, in fact.
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
I've rarely run across Jamat on these boards, but I have RL experience with folks who subscribe to the Bible's 'internal consistency' as well as its inerrancy and its divine authorship.
An elderly member of my former church (and yes, she was waaay out-of-step with most of the rest of that congregation) joined a small group I was part of. She apparently took me on as a project (or did I take her on as one?). It took several months, but she eventually came straight out and told me (after basically disrupting and ending the group) that she had zero interest in the group's original purpose, and that she joined only in order to "convert" me.
Over the course of that time she told lies, arranged fake emergencies for me to "help" her out of, and engaged in assorted other shenanigans. When confronted about these antics, she calmly explained that none of this mattered; any and all means fair or foul which might result in my salvation -- that is, in my being converted to her understanding of Christianity -- were justified provided it saved my soul.
Again, I don't know Jamat, but my RL experience with this woman and a couple of others of similar views have taught me simply to steer clear. FWIW.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Jamat doesn't give any indications that he gives a shit about the souls of anyone here. If he does, his is the most inept application in history.
Whilst I think your church-mate misguided, at least she potentially meant well.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Jamat doesn't give any indications that he gives a shit about the souls of anyone here. If he does, his is the most inept application in history.
Whilst I think your church-mate misguided, at least she potentially meant well.
The Epistle to the Romans has a verse along the lines of people having no excuse because what can be known about God is obvious from Creation.
The literal interpretation of this is clearly bunkum in the same sense as "grass is purple" would be. However, some fundamentalists interpret it to mean that actually everyone knows deep down that God is real and that Christian Fundamentalism is basically true, so anyone not believing in it once it's explained to them is either not of the elect (if you're a Calvinist) or choosing not to because they don't want to surrender their sovereignty to God (if you're an Arminian)
This explains the approach. Keep hitting people with The Truth until they have to admit you were right and are saved. Hallelujah!
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Jamat doesn't give any indications that he gives a shit about the souls of anyone here. If he does, his is the most inept application in history.
Whilst I think your church-mate misguided, at least she potentially meant well.
The Epistle to the Romans has a verse along the lines of people having no excuse because what can be known about God is obvious from Creation.
The literal interpretation of this is clearly bunkum in the same sense as "grass is purple" would be.
That verse, Romans 1:20 actually needs no interpretation as it is a simple statement. It is really the same as Ps 19:1 the heavens show forth God's glory. However, the heavens show forth the glory of the Big Bang doesn't really have the same poetry does it? BTW, the grass is purple to the bloke with purple glasses Karl, it is only the Holy Spirit,though, that can get into our hearts.
@Lil Buddha: I can assure you I do GAS but I am not sure what indications would convince you.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
That verse, Romans 1:20 actually needs no interpretation as it is a simple statement.
The Bible. You're doing it wrong.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
If that verse were a simple statement, then it would be simply wrong. Incorrect. False. Were it true, there'd be no atheists. And there'd even less be people like me who really, really want to believe in God but find it hard to do so. We'd have all the evidence we needed, wouldn't we?
And I can't believe you're still peddling that utterly absurd false dichotomy between God and Big Bang. Are you really that stupid?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Jamat doesn't give any indications that he gives a shit about the souls of anyone here. If he does, his is the most inept application in history.
Whilst I think your church-mate misguided, at least she potentially meant well.
The Epistle to the Romans has a verse along the lines of people having no excuse because what can be known about God is obvious from Creation.
The literal interpretation of this is clearly bunkum in the same sense as "grass is purple" would be.
That verse, Romans 1:20 actually needs no interpretation as it is a simple statement.
It may be a simple statement but like every other passage needs to be interpreted in the context of scripture as a whole.
It's the Word of God that is infallible, not the words.
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
Is "interpretation" even avoidable? I'd say not. No matter who we are or what we believe, we read through the filters of our experience, our values, our vocabularies, our worldviews, etc. A "straightforward" sentence can mean quite different things to different readers. Try discussing a bit of text with a class-full of college freshmen. We may all be looking at the same passage, but we are all reading it differently. And the reading into passages that goes on would make the hair stand up on the back of your neck . . .
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Try discussing a bit of text with a class-full of college freshmen. We may all be looking at the same passage, but we are all reading it differently. And the reading into passages that goes on would make the hair stand up on the back of your neck . . .
Well, quite.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I quite like the art version of that.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Jamat doesn't give any indications that he gives a shit about the souls of anyone here. If he does, his is the most inept application in history.
Whilst I think your church-mate misguided, at least she potentially meant well.
The Epistle to the Romans has a verse along the lines of people having no excuse because what can be known about God is obvious from Creation.
The literal interpretation of this is clearly bunkum in the same sense as "grass is purple" would be.
That verse, Romans 1:20 actually needs no interpretation as it is a simple statement.
It may be a simple statement but like every other passage needs to be interpreted in the context of scripture as a whole.
It's the Word of God that is infallible, not the words.
That last statement works for me but re Ro1:20 if as KarlLB says it is a simple statement that taken at face value is obviously wrong. It says, in paraphrase:
Since the beginning of the world, God has been evident in the things that are created and men have been able to acknowledge that and are responsible for doing so.
So, unpacking that, how can it be 'interpreted in any other way than stating simply:
The world was created
It had a beginning
Humanity can see this
This knowledge leads to the acknowledgement of the God who created ir.
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?
quote:
Karl LB : Are you really that stupid
Apparently so Karl; I wouldn't want to disappoint you. Now here's a question for you. If you want to believe but find it difficult what are you prepared to put on the table? Or put another way, is anything up for grabs in your world? It is just that IME God doesn't respect my non negotiables.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Whose paraphrase is that? What are their theological biases? If there is no plain reading, there sure as heck isn't any such thing as a plain paraphrase. You are begging the question.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Whose paraphrase is that? What are their theological biases? If there is no plain reading, there sure as heck isn't any such thing as a plain paraphrase. You are begging the question.
Its mine. If you have a problem with it,get English lessons.
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
Moreover, one "plain reading" will differ from another depending on the translation used. The KJV version (which many American Christians privilege above all others) gives us this:
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
The NIV offers this:
"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
So if a rationally-inclined secular humanist comes across this passage, some troublesome questions arise:
How are we "seeing" what is plainly stated in the passage to be invisible? We're not "seeing" that at all; we're looking at the physical environment and interpreting that. We're looking around, finding ourselves awed and humbled by what is beyond our own power and comprehension, and explaining to ourselves how it must have come into being.
And that last step is an assumption: Goddidit. There are other explanations available; they just don't appear in this little passage.
Beyond that, one of these passages ends with a period, separating it from the next. The other indicates the passage is semantically linked to what follows. Should we keep reading or not?
Not all that straightforward, then.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Whose paraphrase is that? What are their theological biases? If there is no plain reading, there sure as heck isn't any such thing as a plain paraphrase. You are begging the question.
Its mine. If you have a problem with it,get English lessons.
Perhaps he might; right after you get lessons in reason, logic and rational thinking.
[ 12. July 2017, 21:10: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
So if a rationally-inclined secular humanist comes across this passage, some troublesome questions arise
Look, no one is saying that it does not have possible connotations this way or that. I do not deny the necessity for interpretation of Biblical texts. Of course we have lenses and need to recognise that we have them. This theoretical secular humanist will hopefully be challenged in his preconceptions when he reads a statement like that. What he will not be able to do with integrity is say it does not mean what it says. He will not be able to hide behind the word 'interpretation' as if it was some kind of eraser of meaning as an excuse for ignoring it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Whose paraphrase is that? What are their theological biases? If there is no plain reading, there sure as heck isn't any such thing as a plain paraphrase. You are begging the question.
Its mine. If you have a problem with it,get English lessons.
Saying "My paraphrase agrees with my interpretation" is a bit of a tautology, isn't it? You can't prove your interpretation is right by using your paraphrase as proof of what the text means. That's circular reasoning.
Also I thought you were going to stop being nasty to people? I was very straightforward and polite and don't deserve this swipe.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Whose paraphrase is that? What are their theological biases? If there is no plain reading, there sure as heck isn't any such thing as a plain paraphrase. You are begging the question.
Its mine. If you have a problem with it,get English lessons.
Perhaps he might; right after you get lessons in reason, logic and rational thinking.
Reason, logic and rational thinking did not actually work that well for Rousseau and Voltaire if you can remember that far back. It led to.. "Kill the infamous thing!"
Spiritual truth is not discerned with natural tools.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Whose paraphrase is that? What are their theological biases? If there is no plain reading, there sure as heck isn't any such thing as a plain paraphrase. You are begging the question.
Its mine. If you have a problem with it,get English lessons.
Saying "My paraphrase agrees with my interpretation" is a bit of a tautology, isn't it? You can't prove your interpretation is right by using your paraphrase as proof of what the text means. That's circular reasoning.
Also I thought you were going to stop being nasty to people? I was very straightforward and polite and don't deserve this swipe.
You are simply tedious. OK, I summarised in my own words what the verse said. I did it for simplicity's sake. Do you really have to query every tiny wee linguistic aberration? Is it helpful or just being an arse? You know perfectly well what was said and what was meant. I am not meaning to be rude just struggling to be patient with having my intelligence questioned because I see things differently to you.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, but that's not an excuse for obscurantism, special pleading and circular arguments ...
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Spiritual truth is not discerned with natural tools.
Well, that kind of does the author (neither Voltaire nor Rousseau) of Romans 1:20 in, doesn't it? Isn't he saying, "Look around you! Isn't it obvious this was all created by God, just like you yourselves?" Spiritual truth, meet natural tools.
[ 12. July 2017, 21:38: Message edited by: Ohher ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Spiritual truth is not discerned with natural tools.
Well, that kind of does the author (neither Voltaire nor Rousseau) of Romans 1:20 in, doesn't it? Isn't he saying, "Look around you! Isn't it obvious this was all created by God, just like you yourselves?" Spiritual truth, meet natural tools.
Jamat's POV is "isn't it obvious?" and he has the balls to then say what he did. He spins faster than a politician losing votes.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I'm not talking about intelligence. I'm talking about your argument. It's circular. I suppose it's tedious for me to point out that your argument is circular when you have no intention of making a good argument.
But if you intend to debate things with people, making fun of logic and reasoning isn't the way to get them to take you seriously. You are in fact attempting to use logic and reasoning. Insulting them is kind of ungrateful. If you're going to argue and debate, you're going to use logic and reasoning. And if you're going to use logic and reasoning, you are placing your arguments on the table for weighing against common logical fallacies. If you make a fallacious argument, surely making fun of Rousseau doesn't make it sound.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not talking about intelligence.
Of course not, you are talking about Jamat.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Spiritual truth is not discerned with natural tools.
Well, that kind of does the author (neither Voltaire nor Rousseau) of Romans 1:20 in, doesn't it? Isn't he saying, "Look around you! Isn't it obvious this was all created by God, just like you yourselves?" Spiritual truth, meet natural tools.
Do we really have to define the word natural then..sigh. Yes it can mean empirical pragmatic etc. Scripture says KJV that the 'natural man does not comprehend the things of God as they are foolishness to him' they are 'spiritually' discerned. Paul juxtaposes natural and spiritual suggesting that learning about God requires a different approach than that used to acquire knowledge in the realm of the natural universe. That is the way I was using it.
As to your point that Paul points to the natural world as a proof of creation, That is true of course but here he is merely saying that existence of a created world implies a creator rather than exploring any theological point about how that creator might be understood.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I am not meaning to be rude just struggling to be patient with having my intelligence questioned because I see things differently to you.
This from the guy who tediously but persistently questions the faith and salvation of those who see things differently from him.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not talking about intelligence. I'm talking about your argument. It's circular. I suppose it's tedious for me to point out that your argument is circular when you have no intention of making a good argument.
But if you intend to debate things with people, making fun of logic and reasoning isn't the way to get them to take you seriously. You are in fact attempting to use logic and reasoning. Insulting them is kind of ungrateful. If you're going to argue and debate, you're going to use logic and reasoning. And if you're going to use logic and reasoning, you are placing your arguments on the table for weighing against common logical fallacies. If you make a fallacious argument, surely making fun of Rousseau doesn't make it sound.
Not making fun of him. His life and the entire enlightenment prove that you can't sort human problems as the illuminati of that time tried to..with logic and reason.
My circularity I take it is because I made a paraphrase of a verse and then unpacked my own paraphrase. Given that my lens made the paraphrase, the unpacking led back to it. OK I could say you and pretty well everyone else would do that too Every time you start with a premise, it is your premise,seen your way. If you extrapolate from this then you can't learn anything but the inference from your premise. You cannot get past your own thinking. There is no escape for you from the world of circularity. However this is only true when you are not allowing information in, when the system is closed. I think I would claim that the verse in question is not mine though I am seeing it with my lens. As this is the case, what I paraphrased is outside data. I am not then arguing in a circle.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I am not meaning to be rude just struggling to be patient with having my intelligence questioned because I see things differently to you.
This from the guy who tediously but persistently questions the faith and salvation of those who see things differently from him.
Nick, 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.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You better be careful of everyone starts agreeing with you. That is a bad sign.
Nice piece of pseudo wisdom there.
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Do we really have to define the word natural then..sigh.
I doubt "we" either need to or can define anything; speaking only for myself, English is my native language and I'm acquainted with the meaning of "natural" in the plain-speaking, plain-reading Anglophone world you were originally referring to -- the "straightforward" meaning.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Do we really have to define the word natural then..sigh.
Absolutely! Paul's use of "natural" in Romans is notoriously tricky. In Paul's eyes, non-Jews being Christians is unnatural. Yet here we are. Being unnatural must not be so awful or unacceptable to God after all.
quote:
There is no escape for you from the world of circularity.
I don't recognize my beliefs in your straw man.
quote:
However this is only true when you are not allowing information in, when the system is closed. I think I would claim that the verse in question is not mine though I am seeing it with my lens. As this is the case, what I paraphrased is outside data. I am not then arguing in a circle.
If the question is, "Is my interpretation of this verse correct?" the verse itself is not outside information.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
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.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I am not meaning to be rude just struggling to be patient with having my intelligence questioned because I see things differently to you.
This from the guy who tediously but persistently questions the faith and salvation of those who see things differently from him.
Nick, 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.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
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.
Are you serious?
I know this kind of nauve literalism exists, but I thought it had been beaten out of most of the denizens.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
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.
Are you serious?
I know this kind of nauve literalism exists, but I thought it had been beaten out of most of the denizens.
Sorry,
You are basically telling me I cannot read?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Who said anything about paraphrase? I said interpretation. What you think the meaning of the original is is your interpretation. You can't check your interpretation against the uninterpreted original because you don't have the uninterpreted original. None of us does. We have our interpretations, you just as much as the rest of us.
You do understand what "interpretation" means, and why we can't say definitively why our interpretation is the "right" one, right?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Sorry,
You are basically telling me I cannot read?
No. He's telling you that you cannot comprehend.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Sorry,
You are basically telling me I cannot read?
No. He's telling you that you cannot comprehend.
If I understand Jamat's question, he's referring to reading the biblical text. As if that's good enough to know what it means. No, Jamat, you cannot read first century Greek. Nobody alive now can.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Sorry,
You are basically telling me I cannot read?
No. He's telling you that you cannot comprehend.
Comprehend what? That a verse says what it says?
That I cannot paraphrase it with relative accuracy? That it contains ideas exterior to my own thinking?
That it might actually mean what it actually states?
What 'literalism' is in play here?
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Mousethief: who said anything about paraphrase? I said interpretation
I realise that but it is ridiculous to say that an interpretation that is a paraphrase does not reflect a text accurately. It is what Martin60 would say. 'You cannot, not interpret'. But you can. The scribes of Israel did it for centuries. That is the primary message of the Dead Sea scrolls.
My point concedes that in a paraphrase there is interpretation but claims that my paraphrase,done only for simplicity's sake, accurately reflects the original enough to be classed as 'outside' information. Can we move on?
[ 14. July 2017, 03:48: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Can we move on?
I would be the last person to tell you what to do. But this is pure bullshit:
quote:
It is what Martin60 would say. 'You cannot, not interpret'. But you can. The scribes of Israel did it for centuries. That is the primary message of the Dead Sea scrolls.
My point concedes that in a paraphrase there is interpretation but claims that my paraphrase,done only for simplicity's sake, accurately reflects the original enough to be classed as 'outside' information.
You cannot use your paraphrase to prove that your interpretation is accurate. You have proved only that your interpretation and your paraphrase coincide, which would be surprising if they didn't. But you have only convinced yourself. If you came upon another Christian whose interpretation differed from yours, they would have no reason to jettison their interpretation and take up yours.
The point of Purgatory is to debate things, and where there is disagreement, to argue one's corner. You have not done so; you have only mumbled to yourself.
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
OK, I summarised in my own words what the verse said. I did it for simplicity's sake.
Sorry -- I missed this earlier. You did not (necessarily) summarize what the verse said. You summarized your interpretation of the verse. Anyone with a similar interpretation will find your summary accurate. Anyone with a different interpretation won't. How in the world does this simplify anything?
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
OK, I summarised in my own words what the verse said. I did it for simplicity's sake.
Sorry -- I missed this earlier. You did not (necessarily) summarize what the verse said. You summarized your interpretation of the verse. Anyone with a similar interpretation will find your summary accurate. Anyone with a different interpretation won't. How in the world does this simplify anything?
You and Mousethief are both right in principle, wrong in fact. It is correct to say that a paraphrase is interpretive by its nature. Certainly I admit interpretation. However, I think I would claim that someone who read the verse would agree my paraphrase of it is essentially in line with the basic textual meaning whether or not they shared my framework. That is my claim. If you think you can prove the contrary, please do.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Those who make claims have the burden of proof, not those who are unconvinced by them.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Mousethief : But this is pure bullshit:
What is BS is a claim that a text cannot be accurately paraphrased by a third party. People do this all the time.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Mousethief : But this is pure bullshit:
What is BS is a claim that a text cannot be accurately paraphrased by a third party. People do this all the time.
I made no such claim. Did you even read what I wrote? I was very plain and laid out my argument quite explicitly.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What is BS is a claim that a text cannot be accurately paraphrased by a third party. People do this all the time.
Imagine a darts board. Accuracy means how close your darts are to the bullseye. Precision is how close the darts are together.
If one has two darts an equal distance apart either side of the bullseye, one might say that they've on average accurately hit the bullseye. But this seems to ignore the precision point that none of them actually have hit the bullsye.
If three darts land together but way off from the bullsye, one might say that the darts player is very precise, but not very accurate.
I think maybe you want to consider this illustration and the meaning of the word "accurate" when making claims about your posts.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
That it might actually mean what it actually states?
What 'literalism' is in play here?
That one, right there.
Of course I am not saying you can't read. You are going to have to come up with a better red herring that that to wriggle out of this.
What is missing in the first question is the "I". A text never simply states something in some kind of pure objectivity - there is always an interpreter. So while it is commendable that in the part of your post I snipped you have paid some attention to the idea that there could be ideas exterior to your own thinking in play in interpretation, you are missing something even bigger - your own subjectivity.
You seem to be under the false impression that everyone must accept some kind of common sense meaning of the text, as if it is simply objectively exactly as you see it (and perhaps only as you see it). Why should anyone concede that?
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
OK, I summarised in my own words what the verse said. I did it for simplicity's sake.
Sorry -- I missed this earlier. You did not (necessarily) summarize what the verse said. You summarized your interpretation of the verse. Anyone with a similar interpretation will find your summary accurate. Anyone with a different interpretation won't. How in the world does this simplify anything?
You and Mousethief are both right in principle, wrong in fact. It is correct to say that a paraphrase is interpretive by its nature. Certainly I admit interpretation. However, I think I would claim that someone who read the verse would agree my paraphrase of it is essentially in line with the basic textual meaning whether or not they shared my framework. That is my claim. If you think you can prove the contrary, please do.
Yes, this is the kind of common sense interpretation you seem to be advocating for. The Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid also advocated for this idea in the eighteenth century, suggesting that there is a plain meaning of objects and words, that they can be understood plainly (neatly bypassing Augustine's problem of hermeneutics, as well as Kant's deliberations on epistemology and the way knowledge is mediated by simply ignoring the problem - basically the philosophical equivalent of putting one's fingers in one's ears and yelling "I can't hear you" repeatedly), and that hermeneutics just complicates everything.
This position is, of course, non-falsifiable. If I disagree with your interpretation of something, than my common sense understanding of the "plain" meaning is impaired by prejudice. Which is really fucking infuriating - hence this thread.
MT is quite right in saying the burden is on you to support your assertion, rather than upon anyone else to discredit it. There is another possibility - we could just look at the thousands upon thousands of instances where people disagree on the "plain meaning" of scripture, and conclude that common sense interpretation is bullshit. Which it is.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think this is a general issue with all texts, and part of the postmodern revolution was the insight that there is no objective interpretation, since we are not objects, but subjects. Of course, along with that, in literary criticism, the intentions of the author were downgraded.
So the idea of a plain meaning seems incoherent to me, for any text. 'The cat sat on the mat' might mean that a cat sat on the mat, but it could mean other things of course.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Dark Kinight: you seem to be under the false impression that everyone must accept some kind of common sense meaning of the text, as if it is simply objectively exactly as you see it (and perhaps only as you see it). Why should anyone concede that?
I am under the impression that there is an objective denotative meaning imbedded in most written text that is under normal conditions intended by the author and evident to the reader.
This is because the alternative, the inability to agree on what something denotes or signifies, renders communication impossible. It puts you in the extreme post modernist's conundrum of thinking that meaning of text is totally relativistic.
I do not, however, need to doubt that the meaning of the ideas denoted by Romans 1:20 depends somewhat on my interpretation to also believe that it also has a meaning intended by the author and the Holy Spirit that is objective and that is conveyed within the text itself (and, incidentally, reinforced by other Biblical texts.)
The idea here is that God created the observed world and It's corollary is that the creation is evidence of the creator. You can deny this, disagree with the text. You cannot honestly deny that the text states what it states.
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."
What you think it means may certainly differ from what I think it means but if I ask you what it says, you and I are quite likely to agree that it contains an assertion by Paul that the creator has made himself evident in his creation as well of other things.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I am under the impression that there is an objective denotative meaning imbedded in most written text that is under normal conditions intended by the author and evident to the reader.
Indeed. This is the common sense position. I have no problem with the first part (well - Augustine would have a lot to say about the inevitable loss when the verbum interium becomes "incarnate" in language, but I think broadly I would agree that the author's words more or less cohere to what they think they mean, at the very least). The problem is with the second part. It is all very well to communicate with the intention of being understood, but it is actually quite hard. Such that Schleiermacher, the father of modern hermeneutics, argued that it is far more common to be misunderstood than understood.
Even if one is not prepared to go that far, the idea that "under normal conditions" the author's meaning will be comprehended by the listener is very naive. Which is why I used that descriptor for your position initially (although I misspelled it, ironically in a post that was about effective communication. God was watching, and wanted to mess with me. Or autocorrect, which amounts to roughly the same thing).
quote:
This is because the alternative, the inability to agree on what something denotes or signifies, renders communication impossible. It puts you in the extreme post modernist's conundrum of thinking that meaning of text is totally relativistic.
No, it doesn't. quetzalcoatl may have brought up the hoary old chestnut of postmodernism, but the problem of interpretation is MUCH older than that. All the postmoderns really add is the doubt about whether or not the author's meaning is the most significant one. Long before Roland Barthes was the most fabulous one in several billion swimming toward the orb, communication was complicated by misunderstanding, and the conflict of interpretations. Once again, I point you to the myriad different interpretations of the "plain meaning of scripture".
Doing hermeneutics (and we all do it, whether we like it or not) is not to say that all meaning is relative. That would be an extreme claim. It is rather to say that communication is really hard, and that interpreting something correctly is not automatic, certainly not the result of common sense, and that you may have to support your own interpretation with reason and logic - one cannot simply expect everyone will simply agree, and if they don't it is because of prejudice. [/QUOTE][/qb]
quote:
I do not, however, need to doubt that the meaning of the ideas denoted by Romans 1:20 depends somewhat on my interpretation to also believe that it also has a meaning intended by the author and the Holy Spirit that is objective and that is conveyed within the text itself (and, incidentally, reinforced by other Biblical texts.)
The idea here is that God created the observed world and It's corollary is that the creation is evidence of the creator. You can deny this, disagree with the text. You cannot honestly deny that the text states what it states.
If only life were so kind. But as I have said, and as others have also at length, you do not have the presumption of the one correct meaning. If you want to contend for your position, do so. Argue it, support it. But you don't just get to state it and go on your way rejoicing, as if it is just so because you say so.
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."
What you think it means may certainly differ from what I think it means but if I ask you what it says, you and I are quite likely to agree that it contains an assertion by Paul that the creator has made himself evident in his creation as well of other things.
Do you have any other insights as to what I might be thinking right now? I am sure others who have been reading this kind of nonsense from you for several days now, can hazard a guess.
This is really no way to argue, and is an insult to the intelligence of others. If you hold your position, and honestly try to convince me of it, well and good. That I can live with. But just telling me that you are right and if I disagree I am simply wrong is the kind of thing I would expect from a toddler.
[ 14. July 2017, 12:14: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Very good post, Dark Knight. As well as the hoary old chestnut, there are plenty of other factors complicating linguistic communication.
For example, the insights of depth psychology seem to suggest that there is plenty of covert communication, not on the surface. Linguistics distinguishes the sentence from the utterance, so that the semantic content of the former may be only one factor in the significance of the latter.
Reader response theory shifted the focus from writer to reader, and their 'construction' of meanings.
Anyway, one could go on. The idea of a plain meaning of any text seems counter-intuitive today.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I think that the word you are after is 'perspicuity'.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think that the word you are after is 'perspicuity'.
That is an amazingly stupid doctrine. If it were at all close to reality, there wouldn't be so much schism in Christianity.
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
Let's take a "simple" two-word written phrase: "God's nature." What does this phrase "mean?"
Is it a reference to what God is like, to God's essential characteristics?
Is it a reference to our not-created-by-us environment, i.e. "nature," as originating from or belonging to God?
Is it a reference to some other possibility?
How do we determine which of these ideas is on offer here?
We can ask the phrase's author to tell us what she meant, should the author be available. Let's assume she isn't, as this is the case with much of what's been written throughout the last roughly 6,000 years since writing has existed (so far as we know, though I gather there's now some evidence which suggests writing may have begun much earlier than previously thought).
Obviously, we have to be reasonably fluent in the phrase's original language and writing system. The written phrase will convey nothing to a reader who is only familiar with Farsi or Japanese.
We also probably need at least some grasp of the culture in which the phrase originated. The word "god," for example, is a loaded term; say it to the average Christian, and it conjures up a being traditionally also labeled as "father," and "he," and having masculine overtones. Say "god" to a practitioner of Dabu, and the term is loaded with the notions of motherhood, "she," and assorted feminine overtones.
(Sorry -- I've run out of time. To be continued.)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I'm going to take a moment to point out that the heat has been pretty much been drawn out from this argument, and that there's a perfectly good Biblical inerrancy thread you can re/join at your leisure.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Ohher
There's also the grammatical ambiguity - 'God's nature' can mean 'God is nature'.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm going to take a moment to point out that the heat has been pretty much been drawn out from this argument, and that there's a perfectly good Biblical inerrancy thread you can re/join at your leisure.
While this assessment is accurate regarding the majority of recent posts, I suspect that the fundamental subject matter is still a burning ember of scorching stupidity that is inevitably going to re-assert his willful ignorance and ignite anew the flames of discontent.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Clearly the only answer is to kill them all.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Clearly the only answer is to kill them all.
Always the end answer for the communist, eh comrade?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
There will be no ideology test from the commissars. Just your continued presence on this thread.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There will be no ideology test from the commissars. Just your continued presence on this thread.
I hear and obey.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Ohher
There's also the grammatical ambiguity - 'God's nature' can mean 'God is nature'.
Though to be fair that ambiguity would not exist in Greek.
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Ohher
There's also the grammatical ambiguity - 'God's nature' can mean 'God is nature'.
Indeed. Hence my pointing out the existence of additional possible meanings, for those troubling to read that far.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
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."
What you think it means may certainly differ from what I think it means but if I ask you what it says, you and I are quite likely to agree that it contains an assertion by Paul that the creator has made himself evident in his creation as well of other things.
Do you have any other insights as to what I might be thinking right now? I am sure others who have been reading this kind of nonsense from you for several days now, can hazard a guess.
So let me summarise:
You deny denotative meaning can be accurately understood and replicated though you acknowledge it exists.
You deny that a third party could possibly predict what YOU may think the verse above contains and you resent an attempt to do it
(how dare anyone presume to tell you what it says..how infuriating)What nonsense to say 2 people could look at a text and concur on its content(not its meaning, mind.)
You use the term 'plain meaning' a term I have never mentioned here as some kind of proof text of a denial mentality; an accusation. I reject this straw man.
I do not deny That everyone who restates something interprets. In that sense Chinese whispers is a universal pastime. Lots of ideas are gained and lost in translation. All I have stated here, and you have tried unsuccessfully to refute, is that the verse above contains particular elements of meaning discernible to any educated reader.
If you refuse to acknowledge this intellectually, you certainly behave, linguistically as if it is true by even posting here. If you did not, communication would be impossible.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
We can communicate on this site, albeit to a less than perfect degree, because we share a language, a general culture and we live in the same timeframe. The same cannot be said for anything in the Bible.
Understanding Shakespeare properly takes study and it is in the same language and only a few hundreds, instead of thousands of years ago.
The only difference is if you believe God infused the book will the spiritual version of Google translate. If he did, he needs to update the algorithms, because it isn't working properly.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm going to take a moment to point out that the heat has been pretty much been drawn out from this argument, and that there's a perfectly good Biblical inerrancy thread you can re/join at your leisure.
While this assessment is accurate regarding the majority of recent posts, I suspect that the fundamental subject matter is still a burning ember of scorching stupidity that is inevitably going to re-assert his willful ignorance and ignite anew the flames of discontent.
Yeah, stop pouring oil on the fire that's nearly out, do everyone a favour and shut this down. If it helps, MT is right; isn't he always? And I repent in sack cloth casting dust on my head. I promise to be good till next spring.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So let me distort
Fixed that for you.
quote:
You deny denotative meaning can be accurately understood and replicated though you acknowledge it exists.
No, I don't. I would emcourage you to read for comprehension, but I am not sure that is a possibility. When one is determined to misunderstand, communication truly becomes impossible.
Here I go again, throwing these pearls before your clueless snout.
An author or speaker has an idea, which - in order for them to even have - has to be mediated through language (this is the point at which Augustine talks about the verbum interium becoming incarnate in the word of language, at which point he would claim there is already a loss, as human language cannot convey all the possible meaning - but I digress). The author/speaker utters, which is then mediated again to the reader/listener, going through another process of loss. This is all exacerbated when there are different languages involved, and other things factors like different worldviews effecting meaning of terms - all of which are in play when trying to interpret biblical texts.
I don't "deny" authorial intent at all. I am saying it is up for grabs, and you have to do the hard work of convincing others that your interpretation is correct, not just state yours as if everyone agrees with you.
quote:
You deny that a third party could possibly predict what YOU may think the verse above contains and you resent an attempt to do it
(how dare anyone presume to tell you what it says..how infuriating)What nonsense to say 2 people could look at a text and concur on its content(not its meaning, mind.)
Why stop at one logical fallacy when you can collect the whole set?
Never said this, or anything like it. False dichotomy for sir?
quote:
You use the term 'plain meaning' a term I have never mentioned here as some kind of proof text of a denial mentality; an accusation. I reject this straw man.
Right. Because when you were claiming that the text in question means what it says, and needs no interpretation, you didn't mean "plain meaning." Thanks for clarifying.
quote:
I do not deny That everyone who restates something interprets. In that sense Chinese whispers is a universal pastime. Lots of ideas are gained and lost in translation. All I have stated here, and you have tried unsuccessfully to refute, is that the verse above contains particular elements of meaning discernible to any educated reader.
I'm not trying to refute anything, you moron. You are the one who has to support your claim. You haven't yet.
quote:
If you refuse to acknowledge this intellectually, you certainly behave, linguistically as if it is true by even posting here. If you did not, communication would be impossible.
I already burned this straw man earlier. I am not claiming communication is impossible. I'm saying it is hard. It is certainly nearly impossible when one party is unwilling or unable to communicate. And if I'm being opaque, let the reader understand - I'm talking about you, dumbarse.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
MT is right; isn't he always?
Let's just say you've never disproven a single thing I've said. Mostly because you think derision constitutes disproof, and it does not. Stating your claim multiple times does not constitute proof. Comparing your paraphrase to your interpretation does not constitute proof. I'm not sure you know what proof means.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Jamat, how would you read this passage from Isaiah? An earth with four corners?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Jamat, how would you read this passage from Isaiah? An earth with four corners?
I mean, it's not like there's a whole other board devoted to the interpretation of Biblical passages.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Sorry,
You are basically telling me I cannot read?
No. He's telling you that you cannot comprehend.
Comprehend what? That a verse says what it says?
That I cannot paraphrase it with relative accuracy? That it contains ideas exterior to my own thinking?
That it might actually mean what it actually states?
What 'literalism' is in play here?
I've been away for a month. I see your skull has continued to thicken during that time.
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
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.
Please explain how you, or any reader, gets to (2) WITHOUT first accomplishing (1). Alternatively, simply provide your interpretation of the verse, then repeat your paraphrase of the verse, and compare them. Are they different?
[ 15. July 2017, 12:51: Message edited by: Ohher ]
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Yeah, stop pouring oil on the fire that's nearly out, do everyone a favour and shut this down.
Silly rabbit, trix are for kids.
The esteemed Hellhost above is annoyed with the patience and calm being employed on this thread, because some of those individual posts would better suit another board. However, my guess is that the underlying fount of their frustration remains, and that the current polite posting through clenched teeth still warrants an outlet away from the civilized boards.
Unless you're ready to explicitly admit that meaning is not as obvious as you have previously claimed, and start actually trying to parse why you believe what you believe with actual reason. But I doubt that you can, or will. Because your kind of literalism doesn't co-exist with reason. It can't, because simplistic and literal readings quickly demonstrate the internal inconsistencies. So either it's more complicated than that (and, by extrapolation, god is a bit mysteriousą about it), or it's all bullshit.
De-facto, your posts elsewhere are strong support for the bullshit hypothesis, and that irks people. But you're too fucking stupid to see that. And that's why I think there is likely to be continuing need for this thread.
ą TRANSLATION: an asshole
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
That's right. Destroy my last vestiges of hope, why don't you? ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That's right. Destroy my last vestiges of hope, why don't you?
shhhh There, there; just let hope go. It will make your job here much easier.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
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. What is the issue for me though is that the text carries objective meaning. How one gets to that seems to be the issue for others. That it has meaning apart from the reader or interpreter is what the post modern literary theorists deny. However, when it comes to the Bible, this thinking creates an impossible obstacle. How can I gain knowledge from it if it is I who determine what it means? My view of the Bible which is not literalist BTW, requires that I sit under it's wisdom, not reign over its accuracy.
In the real world if you read a verse and then comment on it then it is generally accepted you have first laid out what you are talking about. The one is the statement, the other is the interpretation. This is what is denied here ISTM. Here, there is an absurd demand for me to prove not my interpretation of it is correct but that my understanding of it is. My understanding of what it says, which is itself termed an 'interpretation' would involve a definition of all the terms so that MT ,DK and others can carefully pick it apart and in their wisdom pronounce my understanding of it flawed. This unreasonable and arrogant demand is called reason and logic in their parlance ..but stuff that for a game of cowboys.
Given we are dealing with language and degrees of subjectivity, it might be practical if not precise to use the denotative/connotative distinction. In defining terms you are denoting, in unpacking them you are connoting. While this is probably unsatisfactory to the pedants, it is IMV a useful distinction
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
MT was right - you really are a self-righteous fuckwit.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
MT was right - you really are a self-righteous fuckwit.
I'm always right. Jamat said so.
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
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.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
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 ?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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 ]
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
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.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
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
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
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.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
How very rare. Conflating two different shipmates for similar offences.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
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.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
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.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I also didn't think the pasta example was very relevant, fwiw.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Yet another example where Actually Talking About The Thing is better than Yet Another Weird Analogy.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
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...
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
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.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
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?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Is there anything more important?
...
pasta?
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
If you ask my daughter, yeah.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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.."
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
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.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
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.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
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 ]
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
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.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
<<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.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
And all failing miserably ...
It's a lost cause ...
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
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.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
As for my engagement to Mr Cheesy,
Congratulations. ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Well played, comrade. Well played.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
As for my engagement to Mr Cheesy,
Congratulations.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
I hope my wife doesn't mind...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
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.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
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.
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.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
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)
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
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.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...)
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
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.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Thanks man, I appreciate that. You might even get an invite to the wedding.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
What you've been responding to is the substance.
What I was responding to is the process. Which I actually think is more important, because the nasty substances the Jamat-theological-machine generates are merely a symptom of the flawed process.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
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.
Point taken, lB. My intention was neither to lump everyone into one homogeneous group, nor to slag anyone off. As I said, I was disappointed that no-one had tackled a very clear challenge, but I get that people might be battle-weary.
As it is, no response from Jamat. Hmmm. I guess we must be in the 'ignore response' stage of the process you describe.
And thanks for the offer, Orfeo. Would I be able to work from home? (i.e. England)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Rather than start a new Jamat Hell thread, I'll add something to this one.
Is he really that stupid?
He's chelping away in the Terrorism thread completely missing the point of what I, and anyone else is trying to say.
He must be the stupidest poster currently aboard the Ship by a country mile and then some.
Not only is he incapable of reading for comprehension but his brain appears to be a nuance free zone.
I can't remember the last time I came across anyone as stupid aboard Ship. Is there an award for this? He deserves one.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0