15 Mar 12
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIf all Christians followed the Boy Scout code, the world would be a better place.
If all Christians followed the Boy Scout code, the world would be a better place. - Without the mythos, Jesus is little more than a bag of platitudes leavened with a scattering of cryptic allusions to things not of this world. But how do you, personally, interpret references to the Kingdom, the Father, etc, absent said mythos? What's the point of making Jesus' words your moral compass when plain common sense would do just as well?
I can only hope that you didn't put much thought into this and only wrote it as a throw away response meant to be "cute".
Without the mythos, Jesus is little more than a bag of platitudes leavened with a scattering of cryptic allusions to things not of this world. But how do you, personally, interpret references to the Kingdom, the Father, etc, absent said mythos? What's the point of making Jesus' words your moral compass when plain common sense would do just as well?
Perhaps you should take up the challenge I made to the retired pastor: Read the words of Jesus as if the rest of the NT did not exist.
Of what value do you find Jesus?
15 Mar 12
Originally posted by FreakyKBHC'mon Freaky. Just admit you made some foolish assumptions and went off on the guy without cause.Who said that, "he'd never reconciled the obvious differences between the discourses of the Lord Jesus Christ and the delineation of the mystery spiritual life mostly fleshed out by Paul"?
It sounds like my words, but the tell-tale sign is that you put them in quotes, inferring that, indeed, they are the words of someone other than yourself ...[text shortened]... uth than what you offered.
What you do with that is your own business, of course.
Your defense is about as weak as it gets and that's being kind.
I'll only take the time to address a couple of them.
It sounds like my words, but the tell-tale sign is that you put them in quotes, inferring that, indeed, they are the words of someone other than yourself. I'm guessing that someone is me?
You wrote all that to only demonstrate that you have at least some understanding of quotation marks? You can do not better than "guess" that it's you that's being quoted?
BTW, the reader/listener "infers". The speaker/writer "implys".
That being said, when you load your OP with words such as "acknowledged" (as though a party is admitting something previously denied and/or ignored)...you are either intentionally or unintentionally leaning the reader in the direction I chose.
No such connotation is necessarily attached to "acknowledged", so the reader is not being "leaned" in that direction.
The rest is as poorly reasoned.
15 Mar 12
7 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]I didn't miss it, nor did I think it was clear. I asked for clarification, but instead of clarifying you wish to create an argument about a somewhat irrelevant issue (ie whether or not you were clear in the first place). All this is obviously because you don't want to answer the main questions I asked."
I didn't miss it, nor did I think it was clear. I asked for clarification, but instead of clarifying you wish to create an argument about a somewhat irrelevant issue (ie whether or not you were clear in the first place). All this is obviously because you don't want to answer the main questions I asked.
[b]It's really quite simple. I find value in the w gs. I am calling you intellectually dishonest for refusing to admit that you do so.
You really don't think it clear?
Seriously. Read the following very carefully.
I wrote the following in a post:
"I certainly don't see...that all words/actions attributed to Jesus were spoken/done by him."
You responded to that post with the following:
"You don't even say clearly whether you believe the words attributed to him, were actually said by him. You know they were written down long after his death."
You asserted that I didn't say clearly say whether I believe the words attributed to Jesus were said by Him. The above evidence shows that I did.
I am accusing you of unjustifiably taking the Gospels over the Pauline writings. I am calling you intellectually dishonest for refusing to admit that you do so.
Let me try again.
By and large, I find the words attributed while He walked the Earth to be '"reasonably sound and reasonably coherent within themselves". What's more, I find much of what was attributed to him to be remarkably deep and quite profound. I don't share that view of the mythology and beliefs that the NT writers wrapped around them.
Imagine you're reading a book and find the words attributed to a quoted source as being "sound", "coherent", "deep" and "profound" and the text surrounding them as lacking, wouldn't you be "justified" in taking the quoted source over the surrounding text?
What's more Jesus explicity commands His followers to follow HIS word, follow HIS commandments, etc. He does not command them to follow the NT writers.
17 Mar 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne"Bump" for twhitehead.
I didn't miss it, nor did I think it was clear. I asked for clarification, but instead of clarifying you wish to create an argument about a somewhat irrelevant issue (ie whether or not you were clear in the first place). All this is obviously because you don't want to answer the main questions I asked."
You really don't think it clear?
Se ...[text shortened]... mmandments, etc. He does not command them to follow the NT writers.[/b]
If you don't respond I can only assume that you still can't bring yourself to admit that you were mistaken in your assertion that I didn't clearly state my stance on the words attributed to Jesus and that you finally see that your accusation of intellectual dishonesty on my part was false, but you don't want to admit it.
If that ends up being the case, I can only say that I had thought of you as having more character than that.
17 Mar 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYes, I don't. But I have no interest in arguing over whether or not it is clear, I am only interested in getting an answer I can understand. Whether it is you not being clear or me not understanding you is somewhat irrelevant. You seem to have no interest in clarifying your position and are only interested in proving that you were clear.
You really don't think it clear?
Let me try again.
By and large, I find the words attributed while He walked the Earth to be '"reasonably [b]sound and reasonably coherent within themselves". What's more, I find much of what was attributed to him to be remarkably deep and quite profound. I don't share that view of the mythology and beliefs that the NT writers wrapped around them.[/b]
I am trying hard to understand what you are trying to say, but I really don't get it. Do you or do you not, believe that Jesus said the words attributed to him in the gospels?
Imagine you're reading a book and find the words attributed to a quoted source as being "sound", "coherent", "deep" and "profound" and the text surrounding them as lacking, wouldn't you be "justified" in taking the quoted source over the surrounding text?
No. I see no justification.
What's more Jesus explicity commands His followers to follow HIS word, follow HIS commandments, etc. He does not command them to follow the NT writers.
That's similar to the ridiculous claim that the Bible must be true because it says so. You must take as fact, that Jesus' words are paramount (and that the gospels are accurate) before you accept the command (supposedly from Jesus) that his words are paramount.
So, I will say it again: the words of Jesus in the gospels are recorded by the NT writers. Do you admit that you are not being intellectually honest when you ignore this fact and take his recorded words over other writings by NT writers without justification?
17 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsThat's right . Just start ramming that down your kids ears as soon as they can comprehend. Great . Listen kid, despite you having been a good kid you are a no good sinner.
I do not justify any disobedience to Christ, for all have sinned and come short
of the glory of God. 😏
Can you see why I am so dissapointed with christians?
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]One thing that is clear is that you don't seem to have the intellectual honesty to admit that your assertion was false. The lengths some will go in order to deny something never ceases to amaze me, though it does seem much more prevalent amongst Christains than non-Christians.
Yes, I don't. But I have no interest in arguing over whether or not it is clear, I am only interested in getting an answer I can understand. Whether it is you not being clear or me not understanding you is somewhat irrelevant. You seem to have no interest in clarifying your position and are only interested in proving that you were clear.
[b]Let me try is recorded words over other writings by NT writers without justification?
It also seems pretty clear that you're similarly determined to keep from admitting that your accusation of intellectual dishonesty is also false. It also seems pretty clear that you determined not to consider that you've made some false assumptions about my beliefs. If you did, you might stop asking the wrong questions and making wrong assertions.
In what way am I "ignoring" that the "words of Jesus in the gospels are recorded by the NT writers"? I've neither stated nor implied any such thing.
Remarkable that you say that you see no justification in placing something "sound", "coherent", "deep" and "profound" above something that isn't. In your mind, should they be taken as equal? Should the latter be taken above the former? I see from your profile that you're a programmer. You wouldn't place a "sound" and "coherent" system design above one that isn't? You couldn't see someone "justifying" doing so? I can only imagine the quality of your work.
Let go of your assumptions about what I believe. They seem to be keeping you from actually considering what I'm trying to tell you.
17 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneC'mon Freaky. Just admit you made some foolish assumptions and went off on the guy without cause.
C'mon Freaky. Just admit you made some foolish assumptions and went off on the guy without cause.
Your defense is about as weak as it gets and that's being kind.
I'll only take the time to address a couple of them.
It sounds like my words, but the tell-tale sign is that you put them in quotes, inferring that, indeed, they are the words of some r is not being "leaned" in that direction.
The rest is as poorly reasoned.
My "going off on the guy" was certainly not without cause.
You're telling us how refreshing it is to have someone display supposed intellectual honesty, when the person in question is doing nothing more than displaying his general ignorance. While there is certainly nothing wrong with admitting the limitations of one's knowledge on any given topic, a pastor is held to a higher standard than the average guy. He is tasked with becoming expert on all matters biblical, and for this one to openly acknowledge that he failed to do so is anything but refreshing: it is, as stated, shameful.
You wrote all that to only demonstrate that you have at least some understanding of quotation marks?
No, I wrote that little patch of sarcasm to underscore the obvious. As in, you obviously knew who introduced those words, so why would you waste time asking from whence they came?
BTW, the reader/listener "infers". The speaker/writer "implys".
BTW, my use of the word as applied is correct but apparently now considered outdated. My how time flies.
Or, perhaps as you suggest, how time flys.
No such connotation is necessarily attached to "acknowledged", so the reader is not being "leaned" in that direction.
Of course it is not necessarily attached, but it is nonetheless established throughout the body of your OP. You've gone to great lengths to trumpet how good it was to hear a Christian--- retired pastor, no less--- agree (at least in part) with your completely off-base and aberrant theology. We're all supposed to be chastised by this pastor's alleged piety, when the reality is, his failure to accurately handle the word of truth is an object lesson of what to avoid.
The rest is as poorly reasoned.
Thank you.
17 Mar 12
Originally posted by FreakyKBHGive it up Freaky. You're only continuing to embarrass yourself. Sometimes you have to know when to cut bait.
[b]C'mon Freaky. Just admit you made some foolish assumptions and went off on the guy without cause.
My "going off on the guy" was certainly not without cause.
You're telling us how refreshing it is to have someone display supposed intellectual honesty, when the person in question is doing nothing more than displaying his general ignorance. While th ...[text shortened]... t lesson of what to avoid.
The rest is as poorly reasoned.
Thank you.[/b]
You went off on the guy without cause. That you choose to "pile on" in an effort to try to "save face" is really too much.
18 Mar 12
4 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThinkOfOne may have some justification for his views. Many NT scholars believe the synoptic Gospels used a shared source, lost to history, containing purely quotations from Jesus, sayings which were passed along via oral tradition until incorporated into the written accounts. The hypothetical source is called "Q", short for Quelle ("source," German), and you're probably already aware of it. Q lends some support to ThinkOfOne's contention that the sayings of Jesus enjoy a preeminent status within the NT, as they could conceivably predate even Paul's letters.
Yes, I don't. But I have no interest in arguing over whether or not it is clear, I am only interested in getting an answer I can understand. Whether it is you not being clear or me not understanding you is somewhat irrelevant. You seem to have no interest in clarifying your position and are only interested in proving that you were clear.
Let me try is recorded words over other writings by NT writers without justification?
18 Mar 12
Originally posted by epiphinehasNonsense.
ThinkOfOne may have some justification for his views. Many NT scholars believe the synoptic Gospels used a shared source, lost to history, containing purely quotations from Jesus, sayings which were passed along via oral tradition until incorporated into the written accounts. The hypothetical source is called "Q", short for Quelle ("source," German), a ...[text shortened]... a preeminent status within the NT, as they could conceivably predate even Paul's letters.
18 Mar 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelDo you think you should not tell your children the truth, especially about the
That's right . Just start ramming that down your kids ears as soon as they can comprehend. Great . Listen kid, despite you having been a good kid you are a no good sinner.
Can you see why I am so dissapointed with christians?
important spiritual matters? Lying to them about things that does really matter,
like Santa Clause and his flying raindeers, the tooth fairy, and the Easter Bunny
is relatively harmless in comparison.