Originally posted by ivanhoeIt's similar to a "jerk off", Ivanhoe and usually refers to someone who spends an inordinate amount of time engaged in a certain solitary pursuit. As an insult it was used in response to Colletti's "moron" statement in the immediate prior post.
What's a jerkwad, no1 ?
EDIT: My definition is a little off, but I can't post the correct one at RHP. Go to: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jerk+wad
Originally posted by ColettiHowever X=4.5 if you READ it right.
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.
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks for your explanation. I hope your insults will stay understandable for all the debators on this site. We're not all from the Anglo-American part of the world you know .... and it will consume too much of our time to look up every insult you write down in your posts.
It's similar to a "jerk off", Ivanhoe and usually refers to someone who spends an inordinate amount of time engaged in a certain solitary pursuit. As an insult it was used in response to Colletti's "moron" statement in the ...[text shortened]... HP. Go to: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jerk+wad
Maybe it would be a good idea if you would give a reference each time you insult somebody. You know moron*) .... like this
*)
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
One entry found for moron.
Main Entry: mo·ron
Pronunciation: 'mor-"än
Function: noun
Etymology: irregular from Greek mOros foolish, stupid
1 usually offensive : a mildly mentally retarded person
2 : a very stupid person
- mo·ron·ic /m&-'rä-nik, mo-/ adjective
- mo·ron·i·cal·ly /-ni-k(&-)lE/ adverb
- mo·ron·ism /'mOr-"ä-"ni-z&m, 'mor-/ noun
- mo·ron·i·ty /m&-'rä-n&-tE, mo-/ noun
I hope you will be so benevolent to accept and implement my proposal, idiot *).
*)Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Four entries found for idiot.
Main Entry: id·i·ot
Pronunciation: 'i-dE-&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French ydiote, from Latin idiota ignorant person, from Greek idiOtEs one in a private station, layman, ignorant person, from idios one's own, private; akin to Latin suus one's own -- more at SUICIDE
1 usually offensive : a person affected with idiocy
2 : a foolish or stupid person
- idiot adjective
See what I mean, no1 ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeThat looks like a lot of work; how will I ever find time to play chess, make inane comments in the Clan Forum and properly document every insult? And all that ambulance chasing leaves me soooooooo tired I can barely type my insults; I usually have to pay street urchins to come in and do it for me. Hey a quarter's a quarter and they do get to expand their vocabulary so it's good for them and me.
Thanks for your explanation. I hope your insults will stay understandable for all the debators on this site. We're not all from the Anglo-American part of the world you know .... and it will consume too much of our time to look up every insult you write down in your posts.
Maybe it would be a good idea if you would give a reference each time you insult ...[text shortened]... with idiocy
2 : a foolish or stupid person
- idiot adjective
See what I mean, no1 ?
Originally posted by no1marauder
That looks like a lot of work; how will I ever find time to play chess, make inane comments in the Clan Forum and properly document every insult? And all that ambulance chasing leaves me soooooooo tired I can barely type my insu ...[text shortened]... y do get to expand their vocabulary so it's good for them and me.
........ jacc *)
*) 1. jacc
(sarcastic tone) means "yeahhhh right" etc.. if someone sounds like they are talking bullshit, you say "jacc"
Person 1: "Last night I got laid by 200 different supermodels"
Person 2: "Jacc"
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jacc
Originally posted by ivanhoeHow'd you know what I did last night????
........ jacc *)
*) 1. jacc
(sarcastic tone) means "yeahhhh right" etc.. if someone sounds like they are talking bullshit, you say "jacc"
Person 1: "Last night I got laid by 200 different supermodels"
Person 2: "Jacc"
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jacc
Originally posted by no1marauder
All I'm reading here is blather with a bunch of ad hominem attacks thrown in.
Really? And what was ad hominem in what I wrote? Are you referring to the para where I wrote you have quoted statements (or fragments of statements) out of context in the past? Even in your precious legal system the prior transgressions of a person on trial can be brought into evidence if it goes to show a pattern. So, if we're playing this game by your rules, my so-called "ad hominem" statements would be perfectly justified.
Or are you saying that such statements have no place in a logical argument (since that is where the ad hominem fallacy comes into play)? But you say not everything needs to be expressed in formal logical terms (which are the same terms as logical argument). You need to decide - you can't have it both ways.
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.
What was it you were saying about ad hominem attacks again?
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.
If clarity was the issue, why did Jesus not simply say "Don't stone her"? Why don't you go back and read the passage again - the reason for Jesus's oblique answer will become clear.
As a point of interest, most Bible scholars believe the author of this passage (although traditionally included in John) was Luke - the gospel from which our rich young man's incident arises.
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.
This is why Coletti and I insist you must keep in mind the context:
1. The passage of the RYR has strong parallels with Lk 10:25-28. It is quite possible the two passages actually refer to the same incident, with the evangelist combining it with, perhaps, a separate teaching of Christ on the danger of riches. In Lk 10, the same question is posed by a young lawyer trying to test Jesus.
2. Stylistically, Jesus's reply is similar to the one in the case of the adulterous woman. This corroborates the idea that this response was actually a response to a test of some kind.
In any case, Coletti's interpretation is equally reasonable - and in fact more in consonance with your own hermeneutic principle of looking at the words themselves. After all, when Jesus asks "Why do you call me good?" - why should we assume it was a rhetorical question in the first place? The most literal reading of this statement would be that Jesus asked this to find out why the young man called him good.
The problem with your interpretive principle is that it destroys the argument you're trying to make.
Once again.
Joe Blough goes to a party. He sees Bobby Fisher accosted by a man in a raincoat, who says "What's the best response to e4? I'm asking you because you are the best that ever was"
Bobby says "Who me? You must mean Bobby Fischer"
The raincoat goes away.
Joe Blough is puzzled, but what he doesn't know is that the raincoat guy is nuts and is naked under the coat and has sworn to *flash* Bobby Fisher.
Did Bobby deny being Bobby? You betcha!
It's just English, people ...
Now I'm going away.
Originally posted by no1marauderBut aren't you already violating this principle by looking at the immediate context of the RYR's question?
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.
After all, the words "Why do you call me good?" have a clear meaning in themselves - it is a question asking for a reason. To show that these words constitute a denial, you must bring in the immediate context (i.e. the next verse). But that is a violation of your "IF and only IF" principle.
And, if you can use verses around this one to justify your interpretation, why stop at 1-2 verses? Why not look at the whole document, especially to consider stylistic issues.
As I said before, your principle destroys the very argument you're trying to make.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat's just stupid. It's the SAME PASSAGE, not the "context" of an entire thousand page "book" I'm looking at! And if it wasn't a rhetorical question, how come Jesus never waits for an answer but simply continues with how you acheive eternal salvation? And how come if it wasn't an objection the next time the guy says teacher, he omits the "good" part?
But aren't you already violating this principle by looking at the immediate context of the RYR's question?
After all, the words "Why do you call me good?" have a clear meaning in themselves - it is a question asking for a reas ...[text shortened]... your principle destroys the very argument you're trying to make.
You've come up with some sophist arguments before, but this one really takes the cake. I think you need a remedial reading course before you try to interpret anything.
BTW, ad hominem refers to your ridiculous attacks upon the American legal system which Iam a member of to "support" your argument. You other statements which attempt to insinuate that I deliberately excluded anything I thought was relevant in a citation in a dishonest honest to bolster my argument is a simple lie.
EDIT: Mark 10:20 And he said unto him, Teacher, all these things have I observed from my youth.
The "good" is omitted the second time the man calls Jesus teacher. Tell me what is the obvious reason it was, LH and you win a cookie.
Originally posted by no1marauder
That's just stupid. It's the SAME PASSAGE, not the "context" of an entire thousand page "book" I'm looking at!
I'm not talking about a 1000-page book either. Simply examine similar instances a few chapters around where Jesus makes an oblique answer and that will give a better indication of his intentions in this case.
BTW, ad hominem refers to your ridiculous attacks upon the American legal system which Iam a member of to "support" your argument.
You have consistently cited the American legal system as an authority on matters of textual interpretation. All I'm saying is that it is not such an authority, especially not on matters of Biblical exegesis. The principles of textual interpretation used in any legal system would primarily be used for legal documents (contracts, wills etc.) - not documents such as the Gospels. Also, when was the last time you saw a case that involved interpreting a non-legal document older than a few decades (much less one that is a few millennia old)?
You have appealed to the authority of the American legal system. I contend:
1. That the American legal system is not a relevant authority in this case
2. That the American legal system does not, IMO, represent the pinnacle of human thought and reason and there is no reason for me to accept its principles as definitive
That I do not recognise US courts as the be-all and end-all authority on Biblical exegesis does not make it an ad hominem attack (you might want to look it up).
You other statements which attempt to insinuate that I deliberately excluded anything I thought was relevant in a citation in a dishonest honest to bolster my argument is a simple lie.
Do you really want to go down that road?
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22769&page=7
(Objection I.1(b))
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22769&page=8
(Read the post dated 3/5/05 23:49 - look at the last section)
EDIT: In that discussion, I tried to be as courteous as possible - I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you did not ignore the relevant phrases on purpose.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe obvious reason was the one I gave earlier. The RYR was smarter than you and understood the intended rebuke.
That's just stupid. It's the SAME PASSAGE, not the "context" of an entire thousand page "book" I'm looking at! And if it wasn't a rhetorical question, how come Jesus never waits for an answer but simply continues with who you acheive eternal salvation? And how come if it wasn't an objection the next time the guy says teacher, he omits the ...[text shortened]... e man calls Jesus teacher. Tell me what is the obvious reason it was, LH and you win a cookie.
P.S. Ad hominems are attacks of a persons views or ideas - Christ often used them to show how certain beliefs people held lead to foolishness. And attack against the legal system would not be an ad hominem. Calling you are moron is an abusive ad hominem if I used it as part of my argument - for instants: "your argument is worthless because you are a moron."
Originally posted by ColettiDo you think that the passage involving the RYR in Lk 18 refers to the same incident as the young lawyer in Lk 10?
The obvious reason was the one I gave earlier. The RYR was smarter than you and understood the intended rebuke.
P.S. Ad hominems are attacks of a persons views or ideas - Christ often used them to show how certain beliefs people held lead to foolishness. And attack against the legal system would not be an ad hominem. Calling you are moron is an [i]ab ...[text shortened]... t as part of my argument - for instants: "your argument is worthless because you are a moron."