A question for Christians

Even someone that has never read the Bible but knows a little about Jesus could say that....but it still would not mean he knows what Jesus preached. So do you have any specifics that you could say what Jesus’ message was primarily about?

 

I have a lot of those myself.

As for "missing the forest for all the trees getting in the way"... Even those tress started off with something, that in comparison, which could be referred to as minutia. Though one would rationalize and say that you missed the little snail crawling up the side of a small plant or miss the baby praying mantis (see link below). . . the trees are still just as important.
http://www.box.com/s/53ynsjaa3bp0eaudop6o An infant I found at the edge of the forest with all those trees.

 

You're doing it again...


Cute baby, btw.

 

My point is simply this. I do pay attention to details. How many people venturing in that area or similar area would notice something so small, yet something having an important role in the environment?
http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/2000/2154.html

That particular young one was transferred to a location closer to the house, to assist in the mosquito problem. Hopefully, he thrived and found a mate wherein they could start a home of their own. It was set free inside an Azalea bush.

 

I acknowledged that when I said "Fair enough".

Moving on, do you think that was the point? Do you think that was a direction to take the conversation that would bear some kind of useful fruit? So far it has not, and has simply been a waste of time. The point that was being made was BFS's renounciation of his own posts.
I have acknowledged your point and acquiesced to it. Is there more to say about it?
What do you think about what I was actually saying? Is BFS being disingenuous?

 

Thanks Felicity. It's one of mine as well.

It is actually a specialty of Incorporeal. He has started many threads that center around rhetorical irrelevancies but often talks himself into a corner, confusing subject with object and object with subject, and so on.
But that's his bliss, I guess. He seems to enjoy it.

 

Without reviewing your postings again, I do recall my sentiments regarding some of those comments as being acceptable, then as you already know, there are other points which I disagree with you on. I suppose that disagreement could be called a matter of 'doctrinal disputations', and there is no need to go into those again.

As for the points which BFS has renounced, well, that is his doing. Many on this forum have renounced one or more statements of their own. It is no big deal, as none of us are 'perfect', in spite of how some would like to view their own being. None of us KNOW the ultimate truth of scripture, life, or even the universe... so it really boils down to just another game that people play. Is BFS being 'disingenuous'? IMHO, for the most part, YES! Though in some other parts, he also makes some valid points, IMHO.

Useful fruit? Yes! The useful fruit was bringing to your attention and the attention of others that even BB makes errors, that in some circumstances can be considered as egregious. Even I am included in that scenario. As you have already pointed out through your stated acquiescence, there is no further need to continue that part of the discussion.

 

I just start skimming....


...and get a bit irritated that threads go awry.

 

And yet, no-one has been able to successfully refute that points that I bring forward. Talk about confused states of mind. .... Those people who simply do not recognize definitions of words and how those definitions can and do apply to their subject matter, is really overwhelming, when I consider how so many on this forum pretend that they are 'intellectuals'. As an example: 'What is a fact?' -- no-one seems to be able to refute the 2.c. definition; or "What is the religious meaning of 'evidence'"; one member claims that the Mayans had such a definition, and has been challenged to provide that source of information, but has not yet provided one.... Such confusion on the part of the so-called 'intellectuals'. Then of course, there are those who make a statement and then turn around in the same thread and refute their own statement.

 

Religion doesn't deal in facts or evidence. It deals with blind faith and myths. Given what religion is, no wounder why no one can refute 'your points'. Then again, you cannot refute that there is a Invisible Pink Panda next to me.

This is the problem with philosophy and religion. You can prove anything or disprove anything with philosophy. This is why I look at evidence and not philosophical nonsense.

Since I do, I will easily say there is no god. Why? Because in the 5,000+ years that mankind of been imagining god(s), there has never been ONE shred of evidence to support ANY god. Just Philosophical nonsense that could prove there is an Invisible Pink Panda next to me.

 

No...I think most just get tired of your getting bogged in the minutia.

It's what YOU like to focus on, but not everyone does. In fact, I think you are in the minority in enjoying that sort of discussion--I mean getting hung up on some minor detail of semantics or some perspective that doesn't answer a question in the exact way you want it to be answered--so people just quit on you because it gets boring. I know I get tired of slogging through petty semantic arguments...that's when I start skimming and then it's irrelevant to me what you've written--I'm looking for something that interests me.

[/hijack]

 

And you, you haven't proven a thing either, just made a bunch of nonsense claims and argumentation that all Christians everywhere, every single one of them are victims. All you've claimed is that whenever Christians lose in a court of law, or whenever a court of law finds against them, it means they are victims of oppression because the law must find in favor of Christians first, because Christians are special special people for serving a higher power, and everybody else second, or else.

Which is an extremely poor argument.

Because what you don't realize is that if we apply that logic of yours to you, it defeats your claims and argumentation.

Because it means that everybody are being oppressed by the law, and that everybody is a victim of oppression, including the criminals in jail who raped or killed people. Because some of them are Christians too. So then again, if they are being oppressed then they should be released so they can serve God and follow they're religion.

Because of how special Christians are above everybody else, and those people in jail are just being oppressed for being a Christian. Regardless if they killed or raped somebody.

But i'm sure you'll claim otherwise. Because Christians are just so special people that they must be above rules and logic and must have that special privilege.

 

You call it 'minutia', but that which you refer to as 'minutia' is the actual building blocks of the very language you like to use. That language you like to use is a tool, and as a tool, it has its proper use and wrongful use. One such wrongful use, is disregarding the meanings of the very words that you choose to use.

Example: Science is obligated to dealing with 'facts' and 'theories'. However, when the basics of what a 'fact' is, is brought to light and that appearance of more 'truth' seems to be an affront to those who would choose not to be faced with a more complete truth. When faced with that more complete truth, and realization comes into being that the more complete truth acts against the prior popular semi-truth, then there is bitterness toward that more complete truth being revealed.

Of course, you and all the others do have the option of placing me on your ignore list.

 

Let me translate this:

I have to attack words because I cannot refute the evidence.

 

Wishful thinking on your part.

 

Well, at least you made one truthful statement. As for all the rest of your BS... I do think you should link to any posting of mine where I have claimed a victim status for any Christian. Otherwise, there is a special name for you that we are not allowed to use on this forum.

 

You may not outright say it, but you imply it with posts like these. You make those claims when you say things like every single time the law does not find in favor of a Christian it means they are the victims of oppression and are being criminalized.

Aren't implications grand? It allows you to say something without actually saying something, and when people call you on it, you can just take the high moral road and deny what you're doing and dance around the issue.

It's a great thing to do, no matter how wishy washy it is.

I wish I could be that dishonest, but I much prefer open and honest debate without such wishy washy tactics.

 

Where have I made any reference to courts not finding in favor of a Christian? Show the link and we will discuss what was said. Otherwise, all you are doing is posting your nothing comments.

 

I caught you in one of your patently silly rhetorical threads not being able to tell the object from the subject in a sentence, and you never acknowledged it and went on like you were the keeper of the keys of all things language.
What you are learning on here is that most people find you to be a pontificating blowhard. When I made a mistake on this thread that you pointed out, I immediately acknowledged it. I find that a good way to go. It maintains your integrity.
Try it some time.

 

Because you have not caught me in anything.

Resorting to name-calling now? Interesting. If one method don't work, try another.

The mistake you made was getting caught telling a lie. So, how many more of your statements are lies or are based on the lies told by others?

 

Come now. You remember how you tripped all over yourself with subject and object.
You simply have too much false pride to admit it.
It WAS pretty embarrassing, being as elementary an element of grammar as it was.

I'm not really name calling. I'm simply observing how people seem to relate to you. It seems relatively universal so far, but again, just observing.

I really wasn't lying. My case was stating that BFS's case was changing and lacked consistency. But I accepted my stumble.
Why can't you?

 

Pride, pure and simple.

 

If in fact there was an error on my part, such as calling a 'subject' an 'object' or vice versa, that is nowhere near as egregious as telling outright lies, such as you recently did. As I stated before, I am not perfect, and neither are you.

Not embarrassing at all. Embarrassment is one of those things that are brought on by a sense of pride being disturbed. Were you not taught in those elementary years, the wrongful nature of telling a le?

No! You are publishing your own thoughts, subsequently it is you that has resorted to name-calling. You probably want to clean the lenses on your observation equipment.

But it was a lie. You can call it a stumble if you desire, but it was a lie. To say one thing in a breath and then turn around and say the opposite in another breath is a lie. Don't you have the ability to recall what you have recently published?

 

Fortunately my pride is not wrapped up in your insecure accusations.

Take care of yourself.

(You could brush up on your radar for sarcasm and parody. LOL!)

Ironically, what you accuse me of is exactly my point about what BFS said about not reading anything outside the Bible to gain understanding of it. Then he said he did. Was he lying? I don't think so. I think he doesn't have a clue what he really believes, or wants to communicate. Neither was I lying. I simply was making a case about the case he was trying to make, and that got entwined together. This is your famous tactic of making mountains out of less than molehills. It's what you do, and it seems it is universally ridiculed.

Rage on, Inconsequential.