Post Reply
Page 39 of 87  •  Prev 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 ... 87 Next
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 8:04PM #381
Ed.W
Posts: 9,442

Blu, after you get through kicking up your dust, please address the issues in your replies.


‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 8:09PM #382
Ed.W
Posts: 9,442

May 6, 2012 -- 7:33PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:


May 6, 2012 -- 11:47AM, Ed.W wrote:


For he spoke, and they were made: he commanded, and they were created.


Psalm 148,5



Read more books, Bob.  Any books.





Clearly really you mean ONE particular, incorrect, inconsistent, false book:  The Bible.


I can't think of another book that defines "command" so poorly.  Here's the real definition for you bud, from a REAL book:


com·mand  (k-mnd)


v. com·mand·edcom·mand·ingcom·mands

v.tr.
1. To direct with authority; give orders to.

2. To have control or authority over; rule: a general who commands an army.

3. To have at one's disposal: a person who commands seven languages.

4. To deserve and receive as due; exact: The troops' bravery commanded respect.

5.
a. To exercise dominating, authoritative influence over: "He commands any room he enters" (Stephen Schiff).

b. To dominate by physical position; overlook: a mountain commanding the valley below.





Note that "create" nor "destroy" appear in the definition.  But don't feel dumb, it's your religion that's wrong-not so much you-you're just a sheep following a dumb shepherd, not your fault!





#5a "dominating, authoritative influence"  goes with the Psalm 148 (create/destroy)


I'd suggest reading Hugo's Les Miserables.  And get the 20 pounder. 

‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 8:39PM #383
Blü
Posts: 25,073


Ed


Blu, after you get through kicking up your dust, please address the issues in your replies.


I've addressed all the issues again and again.  Nothing of importance is outstanding.


The NT doesn't mention the Trinity.


It expressly denies it.


jlb's attempts to pretend otherwise are done by a series of false arguments, such as that he can reasonably assert anything he likes about the meaning of the text if his meaning isn't expressly contradicted somewhere; his assuming the Trinity and then trying to impose his assumption on the text instead of deriving his claim from the text; his wrenching of the text so as to impose his imagined meaning on it; his inability to come to grips with simple English like My Father is greater than all and I can do nothing on my own authority and  they know thee the only true God and his corresponding pretence that the bible doesn't contradict the Trinity; his absurd use of the anachronism attributed to Peter; his presentation of Jesus-as-liar-deceiver-dissembler with no textual basis; he invention of heavenly scenarios to support the imagined lies; and the depth of his incomprehension, as his last straw once again underlines.


And he always fled from the question of how the Ghost gets to be Yahweh's equal.


You adopted his reply in which he set out those fallacies and other faults.  You may wish to reconsider your view of that.  If not, you've made the fallacies and text-twisting and so on your own.


Either way, end of story.

Moderated by Adelphe on May 09, 2012 - 11:37AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 10:27PM #384
Ed.W
Posts: 9,442

May 6, 2012 -- 8:39PM, Blü wrote:



Ed


Blu, after you get through kicking up your dust, please address the issues in your replies.


I've addressed all the issues again and again.  Nothing of importance is outstanding.


The NT doesn't mention the Trinity.


It expressly denies it.


jlb's attempts to pretend otherwise are done by a series of false arguments, such as that he can reasonably assert anything he likes about the meaning of the text if his meaning isn't expressly contradicted somewhere; his assuming the Trinity and then trying to impose his assumption on the text instead of deriving his claim from the text; his wrenching of the text so as to impose his imagined meaning on it; his inability to come to grips with simply English like My Father is greater than all and I can do nothing on my own authority and  they know thee the only true God and his corresponding pretence that the bible doesn't contradict the Trinity; his absurd use of the anachronism attributed to Peter; his presentation of Jesus-as-liar-deceiver-dissembler with no textual basis; he invention of heavenly scenarios to support the imagined lies; and the depth of his incomprehension, as his last straw once again underlines.


And he always fled from the question of how the Ghost gets to be Yahweh's equal.


You adopted his reply in which he set out those fallacies and other faults.  You may wish to reconsider your view of that.  If not, you've made the fallacies and text-twisting and so on your own.


Either way, end of story.




JLB doesn't make false arguments; he is one of the best debaters here.  He has shown that your "arguments" are faulty and not as conclusive as you wish they were.


Let's take one issue at a time.  Clutter and misdirection is your MO.



I've asked you several times now;  where in the RYR discourse does the text say


a: Jesus is not God and


b: Jesus is not Good?



Here's the passage, fyc, Mark 10,16bf:


a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.




When you say, "it does not say that" we can proceed to your hangup with the word "authority".



Moderated by Adelphe on May 09, 2012 - 11:38AM
‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 10:28PM #385
jlb32168
Posts: 13,398

Now this is just pathetic [snicker, snicker], but typical.  You made up at least four fallacies since you couldn’t defend your points and you’ve still not addressed any scriptures that argue the exact opposite of your argument, namely, that Peter says that King David said, referring to Christ, “I foresaw YHWH always before my face”, and you said you were using the NT and then you changed, saying you were using the Gospels.  Why is that?


If I may, Ed.


May 6, 2012 -- 8:39PM, Blü wrote:

The NT doesn't mention the Trinity.  It expressly denies it.


That the NT doesn’t explicitly mention the Trinity is an argument from silence.  The NT doesn’t explicitly mention the name YHWH and yet you’re arguing that the deity of the Jews is YHWH.  Not a few people have commented on your innovative definition of the concept “expressly denies” as well.


May 6, 2012 -- 8:39PM, Blü wrote:

jlb's attempts to pretend otherwise are done by a series of false arguments, such as that he can reasonably assert anything he likes about the meaning of the text if his meaning isn't expressly contradicted somewhere . . .


Why is it false to speculate on how the text may be interpreted?  Do you think that speculating on what the text means is wrong or evil?  Do you think that the text is meant to be interpreted literally and no other way? 


May 6, 2012 -- 8:39PM, Blü wrote:

his assuming the Trinity and then trying to impose his assumption on the text instead of deriving his claim from the text


Again, you don’t seem to be deriving much from the text since the text records Peter as citing King David and how David says he foresaw Christ when David says, “I foresaw YHWH before my face”.


You appeal to the text when it’s convenient but chuck the text when it’s inconvenient.


May 6, 2012 -- 8:39PM, Blü wrote:

his wrenching of the text so as to impose his imagined meaning on it


In other words, you cannot exclude my interpretations from consideration; therefore, you’ll simply repeat your interpretations of the texts.


And you’ve yet to address text that says the exact opposite of what your argument says.  Why is that?


It seems to me that you don’t want to tackle them because you would have to interpret the texts so that they comport with your arguments.  In doing that, you’d be acknowledging that your opponent can do the same.  That, of course, would place you in a terribly awkward position since you have just accused someone else of imposing his assumptions on the text instead of deriving the claim from the text.  Furthermore, your embarrassment would only be exacerbated by the fact that you’ve hurled reckless accusations that others don’t want to “come to grips with simple English” – all while you ignore simple English – such as Peter’s speech about David, Thomas’ “My Lord and my God” and John’s “the Word was God . . . and the Word (which is God) became Flesh [Christ, that is]”


May 6, 2012 -- 8:39PM, Blü wrote:

And he always fled from the question of how the Ghost gets to be Yahweh's equal.


I believe that the Holy Spirit (I have yet to understand the uproariously goofy usage of the term “Ghost” unless you’re one of those who is Jacobean-English Obsessed) is the 3rd Person of the Trinity.  I’ve not asserted His equality other than to say the text allows for it via Christ’s Commission to the Apostles to baptize in nomine P, F, SS.


Obviously it bothers you that I don’t make a stronger assertion, but I can’t imagine why.


May 6, 2012 -- 8:39PM, Blü wrote:

Either way, end of story.


Do please run along.  Your infantile debate is simply tedious and tiring and proves you lost the debate a long time ago.

Moderated by Adelphe on May 09, 2012 - 11:40AM
Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 12:38AM #386
jonny42
Posts: 6,733

May 4, 2012 -- 9:07AM, Blü wrote:


jonny


That's not true.  Atheists do not want to be subject to God.


Those atheists you speak of will have a serious problem if they change their minds.  They'll find there are no gods in reality to be subject to, and they'll have to make do with the imaginary kind like everyone else.


Meanwhile it seems the atheists are defending the bible's text from marauding Christians who want to impose their own meanings on it.  And judging by the tone in Ed's last shot, the last thing those Christians want is to be held accountable for their inventions and imaginings.




 


That's one of the most ridiculous, disingenuous statements I've ever read.   As if your interpretation of the Bible has any meaning to atheists like yourself.  

Moderated by Merope on May 07, 2012 - 01:45AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 2:15AM #387
Blü
Posts: 25,073

jlb


Now this is just pathetic [snicker, snicker], but typical.


I see you saved the best till last.


This is the highest level your debating skills have ever reached.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 2:29AM #388
Blü
Posts: 25,073

jonny


As if your interpretation of the Bible has any meaning to atheists like yourself


We have many ancient religious texts.  The bible is one of them.


With the help of trustworthy translators I can read the words of any of them as well as the next man.


It makes not the slightest difference to me whether the NT mentions the Trinity, James K. Polk, or Confucius.


But in fact it mentions none of them.


However, it doesn't expressly deny Jesus is Confucius and it doesn't expressly deny that Jesus is James K. Polk, so you can expect jlb to tell you Jesus is both of them and you can expect Ed to back him up.


The NT does however expressly deny that Jesus is the co-equal of Yahweh.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 3:41AM #389
Ed.W
Posts: 9,442

May 7, 2012 -- 2:29AM, Blü wrote:



However, it doesn't expressly deny Jesus is Confucius and it doesn't expressly deny that Jesus is James K. Polk, so you can expect jlb to tell you Jesus is both of them and you can expect Ed to back him up.





Song sung Bluuuuuuuu weeping like a willow....Song sung Bluuuuuuuuuu not sleeping on MY pillow!


Blu, I'm discussing our scriptures with you unless and until you actually learn participate in a discussion.  Wink


I've asked you a question, scroll up there and find it, answer it, and we'll proceed.






‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 3:51AM #390
Blü
Posts: 25,073

Ed


You've expressly adopted jlb's position,  It follows you're as silly as he is, and conversation is fruitless.


Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 39 of 87  •  Prev 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 ... 87 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook