04 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat you and Coletti do is start from a particular, preconceived point of view and "interpret" everything to fit into your already preconceived idea. That is certainly non-logical. I do not think any of you have pointed out an interpretation that makes any sense of the passage without torturing the language into a unrecognizable heap. Has to your larger "point" that it can't say what it says because that would contradict what you guys say is the "overall context of the Gospel", to paraphrase a Pennslyvania court, when the words in a document are clear, the letter of the words ought not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. That is precisely what you clowns are doing.
If you're talking about common sense, then it is common sense [b]not to interpret isolated statements in a document without considering the context of the statement and the overall message of the document. That is all Coletti, i ...[text shortened]... he American legal system the pinnacle of human thought and reason.[/b]
Of course, you've given no argument that I am not applying the principles correctly so I assume you know that I am. I fail to see why principles used every day to interpret thousands of documents cannot be used to interpret a document here. You've given no reason to believe they "contradict common sense" except you don't like the results here. Join the rest of the religious nuts who want to scrap every field of human endeavor and knowledge when it clashes with their narrow views of Biblical "truth", LH.
04 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThe problem is your reading of the text is not common sense - and no matter how many times you make the assertion - the question is not a clear denial. Saying it's clear does not make it clear. It's a question you moron, the propositional meaning is not clear.
What you and Coletti do is start from a particular, preconceived point of view and "interpret" everything to fit into your already preconceived idea. That is certainly non-logical. I do not think any of you have pointed out an interpretation that makes any sense of the passage without torturing the language into a unrecognizable heap. Has to y ...[text shortened]... human endeavor and knowledge when it clashes with their narrow views of Biblical "truth", LH.
Think of it this way:
We have the following equations:
x + y = 7
and
x - y = 2.
You are saying the the clear and only answer is x = 3 and y = 4 because everyone knows 3 + 4 = 7.
Do you get it? The "question" is not a clear denial - no matter how it seems to you. And a little further investigation shows that the question can not be the denial you want it to be.
04 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiNo, jerkwad, what I am saying is that IF such a statement was made in common every day conversation, everyone would recognize it as an implicit denial. What I am saying is that if there was a trial where the legal issue was "Is Jesus God?" the side arguing the negative would want this statement in evidence as an admission against interest and Jesus' lawyer would fight to keep it out, knowing that to the average person who is not a religious nut that the statement would be very damaging to a claim that Jesus is God. That you people can't accept these obvious truths because you can't accept any interpretation that clashes with your preconceived ideas makes you non-logical and narrow-minded.
The problem is your reading of the text is not common sense - and no matter how many times you make the assertion - the question is not a clear denial. Saying it's clear does not make it clear. It's a question you moron, the propositional meaning is not clear.
Think of it this way:
We have the following equations:
x + ...[text shortened]... ittle further investigation shows that the question can not be the denial you want it to be.
04 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThat makes sense from a sophist. Take a statement out of context if it might appear it supports your position. And as you said, the side arguing the negative would want the question as evidence. As long as they can spin it to support their side, Lawyers will grab at anything they can - it's all about how ya spin it baby! Logic and reason be damned!
...What I am saying is that if there was a trial where the legal issue was "Is Jesus God?" the side arguing the negative would want this statement in evidence as an admission against interest ....
04 Jun 05
The only fair way I can see you posting Scripture references to support your statements is if you can prove the Bible.
And no, you can't use Scripture to prove the Bible's validity. That would be as retarded as the circular reasoning of evolutionists. But that is a whole 'nother story // debate.
04 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiYour post you just made is a sophist argument. You ignored that I gave what both sides would do with the statement to make a ridiculous ad hominem attack on lawyers. The statement was not taken out of context at all; I've quoted it in full. You've made no logical or reasonable argument to the contrary, just it can't mean what it says cuz you believe something else. The same thing you do with Matthew 25. I guess it was predestined that you would be an irrational, fanatical fool after all.
That makes sense from a sophist. Take a statement out of context if it might appear it supports your position. And as you said, the side arguing the negative would want the question as evidence. As long as they can spin it to support thei ...[text shortened]... it's all about how ya spin it baby! Logic and reason be damned!
04 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't know what principles you're applying and I don't need to know. Either you're applying them correctly or you're not. If you are applying them correctly, then the results contradict both common sense and principles of textual criticism - hence they give those of us who do not hold American law sacrosanct no particular confidence in their robustness. If you are applying them incorrectly, then it gives us no confidence in the robustness of your method.
to paraphrase a Pennslyvania court, when the words in a document are clear, the letter of the words ought not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. That is precisely what you clowns are doing.
Of course, you've given no argument that I am not applying the principles correctly so I assume you know that I am. I fail to se ...[text shortened]... n no reason to believe they "contradict common sense" except you don't like the results here.
As an aside, you have shown little compunction in quoting statements (or even fragments of statements) in the past to demonstrate your point without any consideration as to the overall message of the document (or, in certain instances, without consideration of other phrases within the same sentence!).
As I said before, I couldn't care less what a Pennsylvania court (or a Nebraska court or the US Supreme court, for that matter) thinks the principles of textual interpretation should be.
I would agree with your Pennsylvania court principle if Jesus had said "I am not good" or "I am not God" or even "Don't call me good". But he didn't. I referred to the incident of the adultress precisely because that is another instance where Jesus's words require more than a 2-second reading to understand.
04 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf you ever decide to make an actual interpretation of the text, feel free. All I'm reading here is blather with a bunch of ad hominem attacks thrown in. It's not surprising that you've chosen to ignore the actual text, just as you came with a contrived, meaningless "interpretation" of Jesus not knowing the hour and day of his own Second Coming. The example of the adultress is pretty supportive of my view; Jesus doesn't outright say "Don't stone her" he says "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" knowing that the crowd will take the clear meaning of those words to be that they should not stone her. The same principle applies here, but it is even clearer as, whether your dogma allows you to admit it or not, "why do you call me good (or great) or wonderful) (or bad)?" is an objection to the attribution of "goodness" the Rich Young Men gave him. So prattle on about how legal principles of interpretation are wrong and how common sense doesn't apply to the Bible; you are just showing what a silly fanatic you are.
I don't know what principles you're applying and I don't need to know. Either you're applying them correctly or you're not. If you are applying them correctly, then the results contradict both common sense and principles of textual criticism - hence they give those of us who do not hold American law sacrosanct no particular confidence in their ro ...[text shortened]... hat is another instance where Jesus's words require more than a 2-second reading to understand.
04 Jun 05
For those who may be confused by LH's absurd diversionary tactic of attacking the American legal system, let me point out that the legal interpretation of documents is pretty standard across all legal systems. Basically, you are trying to determine what the parties to a document meant when they wrote it. The best evidence of this is, of course, the words they use in the document. If, and only IF, the words are unclear then, and only THEN, is it considered logical to look for context in the rest of the document to explain what the ambiguous part means. If the words are clear enough in meaning that the average, reasonable man would take them at face value to mean one thing, then that is what the law interprets it to mean. There is no trickery or anything else involved; just basic logical, principles used for thousands of years. Neither Coletti or LH have been able to give a reasonable explanation of the verse's words and instead have resorted to ad hominem arguments or a version of the Secret Decoder Ring Defense. If that's all ya got, that's all ya got, but don't call a pigheaded insistence that the passage CAN'T mean something because it clashes with your preconceived dogma "logical".
04 Jun 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: " .... to make a ridiculous ad hominem attack on lawyers. ... "
Your post you just made is a sophist argument. You ignored that I gave what both sides would do with the statement to make a ridiculous ad hominem attack on lawyers. The statement was not taken out of context at all; I've quote ...[text shortened]... estined that you would be an irrational, fanatical fool after all.
Is no1, who calls his opponents morons, idiots, fanatics, jerks, jerkwads and liars ....... that no1 paper hat, that genius, who never skips an opportunity to insult or degrade his opponents, is he insulted now ?
.... lol ........
😀 😵 😀
04 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNever go to law school, folks ! 😛 😀
For those who may be confused by LH's absurd diversionary tactic of attacking the American legal system, let me point out that the legal interpretation of documents is pretty standard across all legal systems. Basically, you a ...[text shortened]... thing because it clashes with your preconceived dogma "logical".
04 Jun 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeNope, I'm not insulted; I'm just pointing out that their "arguments" are fallacious and irrelevent to the point being discussed, just like this post of yours is.
No1: " .... to make a ridiculous ad hominem attack on lawyers. ... "
Is no1, who calls his opponents morons, idiots, fanatics and liars ....... that no1 paper hat, that genius, who never skips an opportunity to insult or degrade his opponents, is he insulted now ?
.... lol ........
😀 😵 😀
04 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe trouble is that reading Christ's words , and taking into the overall Gospels puts a Paulian filter on them, unless you view the Gospels as only Christ's words.
If you're talking about common sense, then it is common sense [b]not to interpret isolated statements in a document without considering the context of the statement and the overall message of the document. That is all Coletti, ivanhoe and I are doing - interpreting this statement of Jesus in the context of this particular event (the question of t ...[text shortened]... nlike you, I do not consider the American legal system the pinnacle of human thought and reason.[/b]
It's Paul that makes the assertions that you are using. It's not really a difficult thing to see either, Christ says ' walk' and Pauls says " to walk means to put you right foot forward and shake is all about , then put your left foot forward and shake it all about...."
See the difference?