ARG220 A Good Debater?

[AuraSeer]

There's a thread in GD titled ARG220 And Mormonism (http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000335.html). In it, ARG has posted the following:
If I wanted to go against Bill, and all the Mormons, you wouldn't be able to stop me. You wouldn't even be able to contain me. ;) I'd rock the very foundations of their religion to the core, and they'd all be weeping from guilt and sorrow when I was through with them.

He seems to think he's pretty good at communicating ideas, and convincing people that he's right.

I personally think that ARG's debating skills are exactly zero. He writes opinion and conjecture as fact; his arguments contain many logical fallacies; when his points are refuted, he either simply repeats himself, or ignores the poster entirely. He also is very selective about the questions he answers, refusing to respond to anything that might catch him in a contradiction.

Am I wrong? Has ARG ever shown the ability to debate intelligently? Has he managed to sway even one person to his point of view?

(ARG, note that I am making no religious references of any kind. I am not bashing your beliefs, nor am I disparaging Christianity in general. This is a comment on what I see as laughable hubris, in your belief that you would easily out-debate your opponents. IMO, you couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag.)

------------------
Of course I don't fit in; I'm part of a better puzzle.

[Contestant #3]

What do you expect Auraseer? With you being a witch and casting "magik" spells, you've pretty much got him at your "magikal" mercy... Give the kid a break, he's but a mere mortal. Go play with another witch you bitch.

------------------
Contestant #3

[Czarcasm]

Connie, are you switching your vindictive and personal attacks to Auraseer, or just adding him to your list? I notice that you've been on an anti-witchcrat kick all over the board, even on topics such as this one that have nothing to do with the subject.

As far as ARG220 goes, ignorance of the subject does not make for a great debate. Participating in a debate on Mormonism without having read The Book of Mormon is like being a blind art critic. Someone may give you a pretty accurate description, but you still aren't qualified to judge.

[Diane]

Am I wrong? Has ARG ever shown the ability to debate intelligently? Has
he managed to sway even one person to his point of view?

Not only NO, but HELL FUCKING NO! If anything, he has done more damage to the Christian faith than any one of his debaters could even hope to accomplish.


------------------
>^,,^<
KITTEN

Coarse and violent nudity. Occasional language.

This thread may actually mean something, IF I thought I was a good debater. BUT, I don't think that I am. I said that I like to argue, and that I'm good at arguing. (Or as Monty said, that I'm "good at getting into arguments.")

Besides, Auraseer's quoting me from the Mormon thread is out of context. If I were to try and debunk Mormonism, it wouldn't be a "debate." All it would be is me showing some Scripture verse, and then comparing it to passages in the BOM, and D&C.

Has he managed to sway even one person to his point of view?
An interesting question. I'd say the answer is no. But I'd also say that nobody on this board has changed anyone else's mind while debating. Witness some of the Great Debates. While there are many on this board with excellent communication skills, and vast knowledge, nobody actually has a change of heart, or has their views changed. Everyone just keeps arguing until they get tired, and the thread is abandonded.

Adam



------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

As I have pointed out in the "ARG220 and Mormonism" thread, Adam tends to use two different standards in his posts. He approaches the Bible as being inerrant and infallible, while he approaches all other religious literature as being "offenders for a word," so to speak. While he will not blink at a glaring biblical self-contradiction, he will jump on the tiniest fault he sees in the Book of Mormon and instantly proclaim that book false.

When Adam ceases to have a double standard (one for his logic and quite another for others'), he will become a much better debater, IMHO.

[vanillanice]

Notice,how in the mormonism thread arg says he loves to argue. Not that he loves to tell people about Jesus.

[Contestant #3]

Slythe,

Are you jealous or something? Have I not been giving you enough attention?



------------------
Contestant #3

[Monty]

Adam: you apparently still persist in equating "good at arguing" with "good at getting into arguments." They're not the same thing.

[Monty]

ARG220
Member posted 09-12-1999 02:34 PM
Besides, Auraseer's quoting me from the Mormon thread is out of context. If I were to try and debunk Mormonism, it wouldn't be a "debate." All it would be is me showing some Scripture verse, and then comparing it to passages in the BOM, and D&C.

This from the tyke who thinks the Book of Abraham is part of the Book of Mormon.

[AuraSeer]

ARG, my point is that you have an overly high opinion of yourself.

You claim that you, singlehandedly, could "rock the very foundations of their [Mormons'] religion to the core." Conservative Christians of every stripe have been attacking LDS beliefs for centuries; if trained debaters and learned theologians have not succeeded in convincing the Mormons they're wrong, what makes you think that you'd manage to do it?

You also claim that the Mormons here would be "weeping from guilt and sorrow when I [ARG220] was through with them." I take this as an assertion that you would convince them that their beliefs are invalid, and make them sorry that they didn't recognize your One True Faith immediately. Isn't this what you meant? If not, how did you misspeak yourself so drastically?

------------------
Of course I don't fit in; I'm part of a better puzzle.

[Contestant #3]

Auraseer the witch blathered:

"ARG, my point is that you have an overly high opinion of yourself."

...kind of hypocritical coming from someone who's sig line reads:

"Of course I don't fit in; I'm part of a better puzzle."


------------------
Contestant #3

[pricciar]

Auraseer,
Arg probably shouldn't have said that, or atleast made it more clear that it was a joke. But, he has stated all over the place that he was trying to kid with that statement, he had the little winky face to show he was joking.
But, in reference to his debating skills, they won't improve until he aquires more firsthand knowledge, I think he has been told that over three trillion times, one of these days he will pick up on that and start reading more than just viewpoints that agree with his own.

pat

[E1skeptic]

Man, oh man! Why don't we give the kid a break? Better yet, why don't we ask the Administrators to give him his own Forum?

Personally (stay away C#3, please) I think that Adam needs to learn MANY things before he continues trying to even "argue". Maybe we could go to his forum just to post links to good sites, or recommend good books for him, and Vanillanice can tell him how much she likes him and then, maybe, he'll change his mind about sexual innuendos.

Adam is way to ignorant to be a good debater, or even a good "arguer" as he calls himself. He is way too selective when answering questions, and utterly subjective. And please, Adam, don't say you are not. You have avoided me (and others) as much as possible.

So, anyone here for creating a new forum just for Adam?

------------------
Men will cease to commit atrocities only when they cease to believe absurdities.
-Voltaire

[Byzantine]

You know what folks? ARG220 has gotten more attention than possibly any poster on this board. He must be doing SOMETHING right!

Hell, I'd flash my tits if I thought I could garner even 1/3 of the attention ARG220 gets!

Kisses all around!

[Polycarp]

Byz, you have a point. One thing I just noticed on reading this thread is that he's managed to get a witch to argue in behalf of the Mormons. That has to count for something!! :)

[vanillanice]

Elskeptic, Okay,I shouldn't have posted my innuendo.I apologized the Adam already. Forget I ever said it.

[E1skeptic]

Hey, Vanillanice, I really think you were doing him a favor! I don't see why you should've apologized to him. Seriously, Adam needs to become part of the real world, and a nice, gentle, and good looking woman like you would help him. Or at least that's my opinion.

Salud.

[VegForLife]

Conservative Christians of every stripe have been attacking LDS beliefs for centuries
For how long?

Rich

[andros]

Adam? You still there? Or did you leave after failing to convert any Heathens?

------------------
There's always a bigger fish.

I'm still here. I'm just having fun reading this thread. I especially like the part about having someone give me my own forum. LOL. It's not as if I beg for the attention. YOU guys are the ones who keep creating threads with my name on them. :)

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

[Czarcasm]

That's nice Adam. While you're sitting there, think about all the people you've turned away from Christianity with your professed ignorance and your smug condemnations of other's beliefs. If there is a god, how do you think he would welcome you right now?

[andros]

Well said, Slythe.

Adam, please look at all your recent arguments with a critical eye. They all seem to boil down to "I'm right and you're going to burn for all eternity, neener-neener-neener."

------------------
There's always a bigger fish.

Slythe: There is a God. And He's proud that I obeyed Him, in bringing the Gospel to this MB. However, my own foolishness, arrogance, and ineptitude has gotten in the way of the Cross. I realize that most everyone here dislikes me. BUT, there may be a lurker out there who's read my posts, and now knows of the Gospel. THAT would make all my mistakes worthwhile. If there was one who hadn't heard, who's now heard.

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

[andros]

Right! How silly of me to forget! God wants worker bees and drones for His Kingdom! Not people who come to Him willingly after actually opening their minds!

Since this is the BBQ Pit, I'll throw a little fuel on. Adam, it sounds like you are extremely insecure in your faith. It further sounds like you are afraid that if you even LISTEN to someone of a differing faith you might reconsider yours. You have all the markings of a virulent dogmatic clinging desperately to a religion even while he doubts himself.

And that, my friend, can really mess with one's head.

-andros-
There is no God but Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet.

[Doobieous]

Well adam, i am sure you won over a lot of Catholics, as well as Mormons with your comments! (Sarcasm)

You really don't seem to get it do you? Your opinions really would turn a lot more people off to Christianity than you think. You are actually almost making me feel embarassed to be associated with you through our religion (Yes, our religion. I am Catholic, and as we told you we are Christian too, just like Mormons are).

I see why so many people are disenchanted with Christianity,in part because of attitudes like yours.

[Monty]

Doobieous: Thank you for a well said word at the right moment.

As always, your brother in Christ,

Monty

(But as we all know, ARG220 says the Christ you and I adore ain't Christ. Oh, well.)

(But as we all know, ARG220 says the Christ you and I adore ain't Christ. Oh, well.)What!?!? I think you better re-word that Monty. Don't spread any more lies about me.

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

[AuraSeer]

ARG, you have said many times in the past that neither Catholicism and Mormonism is truly a Christian religion. However, they do believe that one Jesus is their messiah, which is the very definition of Christianity.
If you're Christian and they're not, you must have a different Christ than they do. QED.

[VegForLife]

Hmm, I guess that website I checked accidentally left off the "B.C." after "1830."

Rich

[Monty]

Well, gee, Auraseer. Maybe, just maybe, ARG220 is actually going to admit (1) LDS and Roman Catholics are Christians, and (2) his sect isn't the perfection he thinks it is.

[Falcon]

Monty, if Adam does that, it's a sign of the apocalypse. Hey Satan, is it getting cold down there? Hell's about to freeze over...

[Byzantine]

Pardon me while I flash my tits and murmur, "ARG220, no matter how much you want to convert other's to your views, I bet I can get them interested in mine much sooner." She winks, tweaks her nipples and walks away....


------------------
The moon looks on many flowers, the flowers on but one moon.

[Doobieous]

Adam: Don't try to deny your past statements about Catholocism and Mormonism. We know exactly what you think about Mormonism and Catholocism (both not Christian to sum it all up). Dont try to lie because we can easily catch you in one here.

Ok, I'll say this: I believe in the Gospel of Jesus, and that the Bible is truth. I also believe that one should follow what it says, and not deviate from it, or ADD to it, or twist it in any way. Now, if you are Catholic, and believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that He is the Messiah, that you need Him to get to heaven, that you adhere to His teachings, and do not add anything to the Bible, and follow His commands...etc, then you are indeed a Christian. HOWEVER, IMO, the R.C.C. has distorted the Bible over the millenia, and it's views do not align with Scripture. (A point with which even SoxFan will agree with...if he's still around) Therefore, I do not believe that it's possible to completely conform to all the teachings of the R.C.C. AND still remain true to God's Word.

This really is a sensitive issue to many people. I've had Christian friends who were once Catholic. But they enjoyed the atmosphere of the Catholic church. The short Masses, the hymns, insence (sp?), candles, repeated simple prayers...the whole nine yards. Those are things of tradition, and I see no problem in them. I firmly believe that one can be true to God's Word, and fully Christian, yet still attend Catholic Masses, because they enjoy the atmosphere/tradition.

However, these friends did not adhere to the teachings of the R.C.C., i.e the Sacraments, and going to confession, praying to the saints and Mary, believing that the communion host actually becomes Jesus' body...etc. (I believe that's called "Transfiguration", but I'm not sure.) It's those things that, IMO, are a distortion of Scripture. Instead, they believed as I do, as Full Gospel Christians.

Mormonism...oh why do I have to get started on THIS again??? I'm not going to retreat at all on this one. IMO, Mormonism is a cult. Plain and simple. So, no, in my mind, Mormons are not Christians. You may say I'm wrong, but that's what I believe.

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

[andros]

Adam, I think the word you're looking for is "transubstantiation." And it's not exclusively a Catholic belief. Many folks have read "this is my body" and taken it literally, and sought to emulate it.

So, my next question for you would be, was the last supper a full-fledged miracle? Or was the Christ speaking metaphorically?

Heck, I grew up methodist. We had Welch's. So I don't know all that much about RCC beliefs on Communion.

-andros-

[andros]

True enough, Monty. I forgot for just a moment that we're in the Pit. And I forgot for a moment that I can't expect him to even make the attempt to get his facts straight.

I just got off a conference call with Allah, Zeus, Odin, Ganesha, Amun-Ra, and Inanna. They all decided that ARGlebargle has a lovely place reserved in any of their respective hells whenever he wants. (Actually, Ganesha just mentioned he would come back as a dung beetle. Dang nice-guy Hindus.)

-andros-

------------------
There's always a bigger fish.

Adam (who else?) wrote:

Mormonism...oh why do I have to get started on THIS again??? I'm not going to retreat at all on this one. IMO, Mormonism is a cult. Plain and simple. So, no, in my mind, Mormons are not Christians. You may say I'm wrong, but that's what I believe.

Must.....resist.....the urge.....to.....bang....head....against....wall....in....utter.....disgust.....

As I said before, you may not agree with my beliefs, but they are mine.

Monty says:I'm truly astounded that after numerous opportunities to alleviate himself of that ignorance, he has retreated into delight in that ignorance. I think you mean, "After Adam has failed to accept Mormons as Christians, I'll say that he's ignorant."

I'm sorry Monty, but "alleviate himself of that ignorance" also does not mean, "conform to the truth, as Monty sees it" either.

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

Adam wrote:

As I said before, you may not agree with my beliefs, but they are mine.

No one's saying you're not entitled to your own beliefs. If you want to believe that Mormons are not Christians, fine. That's your business, not mine.

What I was trying to point out in my last 1000 posts to you is, if you haven't read the Book of Mormon, you really don't have an informed opinion of Mormonism. If you don't want to read the Book of Mormon, that's fine too. Just don't expect me to give you quite the credence I would give you if you had actually read the thing and understood LDS doctrine. You can "debunk" Mormonism all you want, but TO ME, your opinions of it are uninformed and thus not credible.

[Monty]

Adam: as Snarkberry has so eloquently shown in his last posting above, your opinions are not based in fact and therefore are based on ignorance. Your espousal of said ill-informed (actually uninformed) opinions constitutes bigotry.

That is not "truth as Monty sees it," bigot; that is Reality with a capital R.

[Doobieous]

Your ignorance astounds me Adam. Instead of talking to people who know what Catholocism is about, you resorted to former Catholics who converted to a FUNDAMENTALIST mindset, no less. Well, i give up, this is like talking to a wall. Go on your merry ignorant way Adam.

Phrase of the day: "Fundamentalist churches: Check your brains in at the door because you wont be needing them here!"

[Monty]

Andros: and the two words the rest of us have no trouble in finding to refer to ARG220 are "bigot" and "ignorant."

I'm truly astounded that after numerous opportunities to alleviate himself of that ignorance, he has retreated into delight in that ignorance.

Doobieous:Instead of talking to people who know what Catholocism is about, you resorted to former Catholics who converted to a FUNDAMENTALIST mindset, no less. Except, that I HAVE spoken to people who know what Catholocism is all about. I've even discussed it with Tomndebb, and Pickman's Model.

I have to say something, because it's been bothering me for months now. Many of you say that I'm ignorant about other religions. You know what? You're right. I haven't read the BOM, or the Catechism. I do not know every single little thing about Mormonism, or Catholocism. BUT, I DO know some things. Paul says: "Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?" 1 Corinthians 5:6

One bad teaching affects an entire religion. A little distortion of Scripture goes a LONG way. There may be beliefs that are very close to Protestant beliefs in many ways. BUT, a few differences, and it changes everything. What I'm trying to say, is that one does not need to read, or study another religion for a lifetime to see distortions, perversions, or differences in teaching. And a little bad yeast will ruin the dough.

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

[Monty]

And I always thought "A little leaven leaventh the whole loaf" was one of the descriptions of a positive aspect of Christianity. Thanks for showing a perverse view of that, Adam.

Oh, perhaps that means you've perverted the Word!

[Monty]

Adam: you say that maybe you don't know every little thing about the Roman Catholic and the Latter Day Saint churches; and I maintain that you know exactly nothing about them.

Here's a cool little test for you and it'll even help you develop debating skills:

1) Roman Catholic Church: What's the official doctrine of that church about Mary, Jesus's mother? Please give sources.

2) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: Tell us about the Salamander Letter. Again, please give sources.

Everyone else: please, please, withhold your comments until Adam has responded. That's only fair, isn't it?

Monty:And I always thought "A little leaven leaventh the whole loaf" was one of the descriptions of a positive aspect of Christianity. Thanks for showing a perverse view of that, Adam. I'm sorry Monty, but you're wrong again. Yeast in Scripture is never a good thing. Why do you think that the Jews are not to eat leavened bread during Passover? Or other celebrations? It's because in Scripture, yeast represents corruption, and sin.
Go ahead and prove me wrong. There is not one verse in the Bible that speaks of yeast in any positive manner.

I do not wish to play games with you Monty. Yea, you stumped me with your questions on the Catholic teachings of Mary, and the Mormon teaching on the Salamander Letter. By asking me these questions, you obviously didn't understand my post above though. I don't have to know about any Salamander Letters to know there are false teachings in LDS.

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

[SkeptiJess]

... BUT, I DO know some things. Paul says: "Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?" 1 Corinthians 5:6

One bad teaching affects an entire religion. A little distortion of Scripture goes a LONG way. There may be beliefs that are very close to Protestant beliefs in many ways. BUT, a few differences, and it changes everything. What I'm trying to say, is that one does not need to read, or study another religion for a lifetime to see distortions, perversions, or differences in teaching. And a little bad yeast will ruin the dough.

Once again, Adam -- you are confusing what you think with what you know. Just because YOU perceive something as a "distortion" or "perversion" does not make it so. It is your opinion only. Furthermore, by your own admission, it is an uninformed opinion -- the very worst kind. And! You chose to word your uninformed opinion in an offensive and derogatory way. Not that I am surprised -- coming from an individual who doesn't hesitate to call another person's religion "wrong and evil." Really, Adam, you are a waste of skin, bones and brain cells.


------------------
Jess
Full of 'satiable curtiosity

[andros]

Adam pontificated:
"Why do you think that the Jews are not to eat leavened bread during Passover? Or other celebrations? It's because in Scripture, yeast represents corruption, and sin."

So Jews who eat leavened bread are sinning? Or does yeast only become sinful during holidays?

-andros-

------------------
There's always a bigger fish.

Believe what you want, Adam. Hey, if we have a difference of opinion, let's just agree to disagree and consider the subject closed.

AuraSeer wrote:

IIRC, Passover is the holiday on which modern Jews remember the flight from Egypt.

Actually, I think it's to remember the destroying angel passing them by, wasn't it?

------------------
"God is good...but yeast is bad."

[GLWasteful]

I've been good. Haven't said a thing. Also saw that others were saying it before I got the chance, so I just laid low and read the postings.

Then this, from Bill:"God is good...but yeast is bad."

Dagnabbit. . .now my co-workers are wondering what I'm doing that is causing me to make these choking sounds.

Priceless. . .

Waste
Flick Lives!

[tomndebb]

ARG220:I'm sorry Monty, but you're wrong again. Yeast in Scripture is never a good thing.

Mt 13:33 He told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour till it was all leavened."

There you have it. The Kingdom of Heaven is not a good thing.

------------------
Tom~

Tom: I knew somebody would quote that passage in Matthew. But alas, you've taken it out of context.

You took that verse from the parable of the Mustard Seed, and the Yeast, also found in Luke 13: 18-20

I'll quote the whole parable, since it isn't that long.
13:18) Then Jesus asked, "What is the kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it to?
19) It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew and became a tree and the birds of the air perched in it's branches."
20) Again He asked, "What shall I compare the kingdom of God to? It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough."

The yeast in the parable represents corruption in the kingdom of God. Note in the KJ translation that Jesus says the woman "hid" the yeast in the dough. You don't hide good things. The analogy of yeast holds true, in that it's evil. It is deceptive, and infiltrates the entire kingdom. We must be on our guard against this yeast though, by putting on the armor of God.

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

Adam wrote:

[Yeast] is deceptive, and infiltrates the entire kingdom. We must be on our guard against this yeast though

Tell me more about this insidious, evil yeast. Lynn, is this your doing?

[tomndebb]

Adam, you are a loon.

(I should probably just stop there.)

It does not say that some sinful action is like the leaven in the kingdom of heaven. It says that the kingdom of heaven is like leaven. No matter what spin you put on this, you are left with "kingdom of heaven" = "yeast/leaven."

You are so sure of your (generally uninformed) opinions of what Scripture truly means, that you will bend yourself inside out to arrive at you preconceived conclusions. This is why, when you spout off about the truth being found in Scripture, most of us (Christians, Jews, unbelievers of all varieties, and everyone else) generally dismiss your rantings.

You made a claim. I poked a hole in it. Instead of pretending that you are a Moebius strip to show how you were still right, you should have simply backed off and said that yeast usually indicated evil and that you had simply misspoken.

In point of fact, I would love to see any evidence from a serious scholar that yeast did indicate evil as a general rule. I suspect that it is much more likely that having unleavened bread as a central symbolic element in one of the defining moments of Judaism (replayed in Christian mythology, as well) meant that unleavened bread was called upon to represent the purity of devotion to God and that yeast and leavening had no particular meaning associated with it except as an analogy for certain actions.

------------------
Tom~

[tomndebb]

Oh, and Adam? You are guilty of further twisting. The verse regarding the woman and the leaven is in no way "a part" of the parable of the mustard seed. It is its own parable in the midst of a series of parables. It stands alone.

------------------
Tom~

Tom, you didn't poke a hole in anything my friend. Apparently, you interpret that parable differently than I do. But that is no surprise, seeing that you probably interpret MANY Scriptures differently than I do. Don't you see?

In 1 Corinthians Paul refering to Passover, says, "Therefore, let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with the bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth. 1 Cor. 5:8 Again, here we see yeast as representing wickedness, evil.

Also, the parable of the mustard seed, and yeast go together. According to my Bible, the mustard seed and yeast are paired. The mustard seed represents the kingdom and it's development from a small beginning, into something that flourishes. The birds are snalogous to evil imposters who will steal away the truth in the kingdom. There is basis for this in Matthew 13, where birds are an agent of destruction, as well as in Revelation, where birds are unclean, and detestable. My point is that the parables go together, as one.

Just trust me Tom. In Scripture, yeast is never good. I've given you plenty of evidence of that already, Why deny it?



------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

Good grief! Tom was as plain as plain can be and you STILL don't see his point, Adam! Why, I could talk until I was blue in the face, present you with all the contradictions in your argument, and...oh wait, those are your lines of argument. Nevermind.

I see Tom's point. I just don't agree with it. He says that the kingdom of heaven = yeast. Well, the Scripture says MORE than that. There's a lot between the lines, that we don't see, until further examination of Scripture. Which, of course, reveals my point, that the parable describes false teaching and corruption that has infiltrated the entire kingdom of God.

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

[Monty]

Just a second, ARG220; are you saying that the Kingdom of God has evil within in it? What would that evil be? Who would be perpetrating that evil? Would they be Christians? If not, how could they not be if they are part of the Kingdom of God?

[Monty]

I don't have to know about any Salamander Letters to know there are false teachings in LDS.

Actualy there was only one such letter, a forgery, and the forger happens to reside in the Utah State Prison System for the rest of his natural life because he's also a murderer (killed two folks). A number of your ilk, ARG, used that "Salamander Letter" as "proof" the LDS church is a crock. Too bad they didn't keep up with the times.

However, what we are left here is your implication that you don't have to research what you attack as false to know it's false. Okay, how do you know it's false without examining it?

In response to you saying I'm accusing you of not reading your Bible: I don't accuse you; you have accused yourself of that by your explicit admission you have not read the whole thing.

[andros]

WHOA! Adam admitted to not having read the Bible in its entirety???!?

Oh, wow. Oh, Adam. That's REALLY screwing the pooch. But about what I'd expect from someone who's clearly terrified to engage in ANYTHING even resembling critical thinking.

To answer the topic's question, NO, Adam. You are in no way a good debater. You clearly aren't as talented as you have claimed at arguing. An agrument, to borrow liberally from Python, is NOT just the automatic gainsaying of whatever the other person has to say.

-andros-

------------------
There's always a bigger fish.

Andros wrote:

An agrument, to borrow liberally from Python, is NOT just the automatic gainsaying of whatever the other person has to say.


Yes it is!

[andros]

No it isn't! <g>

Time's up, sorry. If you want to continue arguing, that'll be five more pounds.

Adam wrote:

I see Tom's point. I just don't agree with it. He says that the kingdom of heaven = yeast. Well, the Scripture says MORE than that. There's a lot between the lines, that we don't see, until further examination of Scripture.

Oh, I get it. It's the stuff between the lines that nobody sees that determines how we interpret scripture! I dunno, Adam, this smacks of "private interpretation" to me, and you know that's a no-no.

[tomndebb]

Hee, hee, hee. This is great! We now get to see how Adam really looks at the world. To wit:
Adam (in a display that could only cause Humpty-Dumpty great envy) chooses exactly what Scripture is supposed to say. He then gets to tell everyone who does not accept his version of Scripture that they are not truly following the Bible and, therefore, are not truly Christian.

Let us, just for the sake of discussion, examine Mt 13:33.

Adam says leaven (yeast) always represents evil. The verse says that the kingdom of heaven is like leaven. Substituting "evil" for "leaven" we find that Jesus says "The kingdom of heaven is like {evil}." Adam also says that the complete verse shows the woman "hiding" the (evil) leaven in the flour. In other words, according to Adam, Jesus says "The Kingdom of heaven is like {evil} that a woman hides."

OK. Not exactly the interpretation that I'd have given it, but Adam has told us that he is certainly more knowledgable about how God wants His Scriptures interpreted than I am.

Ah! But then Adam points out that in HIS Bible verse 33 is joined to verses 31-32 where the kingdom of heaven is compared to a mustard seed. He may have to rethink his position, of course: I also think that the verses form a couplet.
In my humble offering, the kingdom of heaven is compared to two unprepossessing items, a tiny seed that will grow into a huge shrub and a small lump of dough that can cause three full measures of flour to rise.

However, Adam can't have that. He joins verses 31-32 and 33 together into a single parable. He has not yet explained what the meaning would then be. (Perhaps, the kingdom of heaven is like a small seed that grows into an enormous pernicious weed and also a lump of dough that must be hidden? I dunno.)

Well, gee, let's check Adam's brilliant scholarship. At the beginning of verse 31, in the Greek, we find these words "'Allên parabôlên parethêchen autois legôn. . ." which translate pretty easily to "Another parable he set before them saying. . ." OK.
Unfortunately, when we look at verse 33, we find "Allên parabôlên 'elalêsen autois. . ." which also is pretty easy to translate: "Another parable he spoke to them. . ." In other words, verse 33 says that there is a new (i.e., different) parable being preached.

But, of course, the text must be wrong because Adam has already pointed out that the three verses make up a single parable.

--

You know, Adam, we could have avoided this little demonstration. In my post of 03:40 pm I mentioned that you merely had to substitute "yeast usually represents evil" for "yeast always represents evil." However, you are always so sure that you have been divinely inspired with the knowledge of God's words and intents that you simply had to post your rather absurd interpretation.

Note that I have never claimed that Paul did not use yeast as a negative symbol. I simply responded to your assertion that "yeast always equals evil" with a single instance where yeast was used as a positive symbol. You are the one who hung yourself in your arrogance. (Of course, I'm dying to know what message you thought Jesus was trying to convey by saying that the "kingdom of heaven" = "yeast" = "evil".)

As for this interesting postI see Tom's point. I just don't agree with it. He says that the kingdom of heaven = yeast. Well, the Scripture says MORE than that. There's a lot between the lines, that we don't see, until further examination of Scripture. Which, of course, reveals my point, that the parable describes false teaching and corruption that has infiltrated the entire kingdom of God.
For crying out loud, Adam. It's a two-clause parable intended to be understood by simple shepherds and villagers. I'll grant that you can find deep meaning in it, but starting out with the preconceived notion that yeast has to be evil so it does not mean what it says is pushing it just a bit.

Tell you what, print out your interpretation of "the kingdom of heaven" = "yeast" = "evil" and take it to your pastor. I'd love to hear what he makes of it.

------------------
Tom~

Adam: What I'd like to know is, where do you pick up a copy of this "read-between-the-lines" Bible? It must be selling like hotcakes, because you can ascribe any old doctrine to it that you like (the print being invisible and all).

Maybe that's what NIV stands for: New Invisible Bible. Complete with non-footnotes and a non-commentary in the back. Can I use invisible money to buy this thing?

[Lynn Bodoni]

{{Adam wrote:

quote:
-----------------------------------
[Yeast] is deceptive, and infiltrates the entire kingdom. We must be on our guard against this yeast though
----------------------------

Tell me more about this insidious, evil yeast. Lynn, is this your doing?}} Snarkberry

It wasn't me. This time.

Though I do have an abcess on my breast, about half the size of a golf ball. I'm starting on antibiotics, so I imagine that I'll get a yeast infection in about...oh, 18-24 hours or so. And it WILL be EVIL yeast.



------------------
Lynn the Packrat

Oh my gosh, Lynn, I'm so sorry. I didn't know, or I wouldn't have mentioned you at all. I hope you can forgive me for saying that. :(

Tom. I never said it was ONE parable. It is TWO parables. BUT, from the text, it's clear that they go together. As in a single little message. For crying out loud Tom, don't you read my posts? That pretty much makes your post irrelevant. I already explained what the parable of the yeast means. And if I took iot to my pastor, I'm sure he's say, "Yep, I agree."

BTW, I don't have some power that enables me to interpret Scripture like this. As I said above, MY BIBLE says that the parables are a pair. As in, the study guide on the bottom of the page. That's what I love about this Bible. If you don't get it, it explains it fully to you.

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

Dammit, where are my manners? You'd think I was from Youngstown, Ohio or something, the way I've been acting today. Please take my insults with a grain of salt, Adam--you know, I do love you as a brother, even if I do follow you around and pick on you sometimes on the SDMB like I've been doing today. Damn! I've been acting like crap today.

[andros]

ROFLMFAO!!!

Oh, Adam! Keep 'em coming!

"If I don't want to try to understand something on my own, here's a pre-digested, pablum 'explanation' right on the bottom of the page!"

-andros-

------------------
There's always a bigger fish.

[Jodi]

I can't believe I'm wading into this ::shaking head at own foolishness::

Adam, you do realize, don't you, that the comments at the bottom of a study Bible are not part of the Bible? They are interpretations of fallible men such as yourself. Even if you do believe that the Bible is the absolute word of God, that doesn't mean the annotations are. Right? So, for a change, why don't you try thinking for yourself? You may reach the same conclusion you've reached now, but at least you'll have made up your own mind.

No flame intended. :)

[Doobieous]

Adam: I looked through TWO bibles that I have at my house. A 1991 version of the New American Bible, and an 1849 version of the bible from the American Bible Society, and BOTH state that the mustard seed parable, and the parable of the yeast are S E P A R A T E
parables. They are not a part of the same parable. You are wrong Adam. Admit it.

From The mustard seed parable, part of the first sentence from both bibles: 1. He proposed another parable to them, 2. Another parable he put forth unto them saying,...

From the parable of the yeast, part of the first sentence from both bibles: 1. He spoke to them another parable., 2. Another parable he spake unto them,...

So, you say yeast represents corruption and sin, and the parable of the yeast says the Kingdom of God is like yeast. Hmm so i guess you say the Kingdom of heaven is corrupt and full of sin. Just like everyone else here has pointed out to you.

There you have it, I have TWO bibles (and I have two other bibles also) that both clearly state that they are separate parables not part of the same one. One written 142 years earlier than the other one. Of course you will probably claim that both are false and have twisted the scriptures, but I beg to differ.

Oh BTW: I noticed you quote from the King James bible. Probably one of THE worst translations of the bible ever published.

[Doobieous]

Ok I will give you this Adam: They are a part of the same message (See, I can admit I am wrong). However, it says something VERY different from your interpretation:

"13, 31-33: See Mk 4, 30-32; Lk 13, 18-21. The parables of the mustard seed and the yeast illustrate the same point: The amazing contrast between the small beginnings of the kingdom and its marvelous expansion."

So again Adam, you don't seem to understand what the message truly is.

Ok, so now you fault me for reading the study guide in my Bible. This is rich. Unless all of you are field scientists that actually discover EVERYTHING on your own, then you too have learned about the world through the works of others.

Jodi: You do make a good point that the authors of the study guides are human, capable of mistakes. That is EXACTLY why I look at the guide, and then do my own cross referencing, to make sure what they say makes sense. I know how to study the Bible on my own. In fact, without the study guide, I looked up every use of the word "yeast" in the Bible, and looked up every verse to make sure that it was in fact, used as a metaphor for evil, and corruption in every verse. Aren't you proud that I did something on my own? ;)

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

I'm just going to quote my Bible's study guide, regarding the parable of the yeast. This is from The Full Life Study Bible in NIV.

It talks about the yeast in the OT, which I've already mentioned, and then the yeast in Paul's books, which I also mentioned..."Therefore many understand this parable to indicate evil, false doctrine and unrighteuosness exsisting and spreading within the visible kingdom of God."

Then it goes on to give a million verses, and other notes about why "yeast" in the kingdom, and how we are to overcome it, and stand against the corruption which it stands for.

Given that yeast is a bad thing, indicating corruption, and evil in every other part of the Bible, we have no reason to believe that Jesus meant it in any other way. You don't have to interpret this parable this way. But after careful examination of Scripture, I find that it is an accurate interpretation.

Feel free to disagree with me, but I'm done arguing. Peace. (For now....)



------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

[Doobieous]

Ok Adam, believe what you wnat (either way it doesnt matter to me). However in the bible dictionary in my other bible (New American Bible, Saint Joseph second edition), here is what it says about yeast:

YEAST. In scriptures, this word has two meanings. The fermented dough wich serves to make new dough rise is either a symbol either of the beginning of developement in the kingdom of God (Mt 13, 33) or a corrupting element which causes the entire mass to deteriorate and spoil (Mt 16, 6; 1 Cor 5, 6)

Notice that you are somewhat right (not fully right mind you). However, yeast is not ALWAYS a symbol of sin and corruption, and it is not in Mt 13, 33. So, what I quoted before about the mustard seed and yeast parables is correct, they both talk metaphorically about the small beginnings of the kingdom of God, and how like yeast and mustard seeds has grown into something grand. Not about corruption and sin.

Wow, this is the only religious arguement i really have gotten into indepth. Thank you Adam for showing some of your ignorance.

[tomndebb]

Adam, you have never explained what the parable means. You have simply made vague statements about yeast being evil. You have at no time explained how "the kingdom of heaven is like an evil thing" makes any sense. The verse does not say "beware of letting the kingdom of heaven become like. . . ." The verse says "the kingdom of heaven is like. . . ."

This is not a matter of "different interpretations." Choosing or not choosing to read "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." as establishing Peter in the role that Catholics would later call pope is an act of finding different interpretations. What you appear to be claiming is a flat-out misreading of the words: the kingdom of heaven is evil.

I will wander out tomorrow to see whether I can find this wierd study bible of yours. Maybe that's your only problem: you are looking at one of Satan's study bibles.(?)

------------------
Tom~

[AuraSeer]

ARG, once again you have shown your ignorance of your own Bible. You really should read it sometime; it'll help you avoid looking foolish.

When the Jews as a people were preparing to leave Egypt, they baked a lot of bread to take with them. The yeast was left out simply so that the dough would not rise; the resulting bread is far more compact, and thus is easier to carry. (One pound of matzoh(sp) takes up far less space than one pound of, for instance, white bread.)

IIRC, Passover is the holiday on which modern Jews remember the flight from Egypt. Unleavened bread is a symbol of their ancestors' suffering. Yeast is not considered corrupt or evil; it's simply a luxury that the fleeing Jews were not able to make use of.

------------------
Of course I don't fit in; I'm part of a better puzzle.

[tomndebb]

Oh, and Adam? Please reconcile these quotes from your posts:
You took that verse from the parable of the Mustard Seed, and the Yeast, also found in Luke 13: 18-20

I'll quote the whole parable, since it isn't that long.Also, the parable of the mustard seed, and yeast go together.

vsTom. I never said it was ONE parable. It is TWO parables.
(bolding mine.)

I recognize that the two parables form a couplet (and said so, above), but you did, indeed, claim they were one parable.

------------------
Tom~

Auraseer: Please. I think I know what I'm talking about. Leviticus 1-7 contains the instructions of how offerings are to be made unto God for the attonment of sin, and as acts of worship. Any time an offering is presented at the altar, it is to be made of unleavened bread. NO yeast.

Yeast ferments things. Fermentation represents corruption, and decay, throughout the entire Bible. This is why honey was not to be used in the grain offering either, since honey also aids fermentation.

Perhaps one of our Jewish friends could chime in and offer up their thoughts on the matter.

Note: Yeast WAS allowed in the Fellowship offering (Leviticus 7:11-14) because the bread offered was not placed ON the altar.

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

My word. You guys can't leave well enough alone. You want to continue the argument? Fine.

Doobieous. That dictionary is subject to error, just as the notes in my Bible are subject to error. Please keep that in mind.

Tom. I did say "parable" when refering to the parables of mustard and yeast. My mistake. I was always aware that they were actually two parables, although part of one little message.

If you go look for my Bible, you'll have no trouble finding it. It's widely used, and generally considered an EXCELLENT Bible, and study guide. Any decent Bible book store will have it. (I'm pretty sure they carry it at B. Dalton, and Barnes and Noble too.)
If you read through it, you have to remember that it's a Full Gospel Bible, i.e. Pentecostal. Not that the Scripture is changed, but the study notes are choc-full of Full Gospel teaching, and belief. (Which is why I love it so much.)

If you look at my post above, you'll see that I quoted the author of my Bible, and it explained what the parable of yeast meant.

I'll take a stab, and go further than the author. I think that the kingdom of God is like the flour. Jesus didn't say, "It's like yeast," and stop right there. He said it's like yeast that a woman mixes in a large amount of flour. Obviously, Jesus would not be so confused as to say that the kingdom of God is evil. So, the kingdom is the "large amount of flour" and the yeast is the corruption present; in the form of false doctrine and teaching.

Note that in the KJ, the text says that the woman "hid in three measures of meal." This would reinforce the belief that the yeast represents evil, because of what Paul says about yeast in 1 Corinthians. He says that "a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." In other words, this small amount can affect the whole. And again, why would the woman "hide" the yeast if it were a good thing? The text implies that she does it secretly. This reinforces the belief that the yeast stands for deception also.

I'm telling you guys. If you read the Scriptures, the yeast=evil thing really does make more sense. Like I said, you don't HAVE to believe it, but it's what I believe is the correct interpretation.


------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

That's interesting, Adam. I really do need to read the Old Testament all the way through. It's been a long time since my senior year of high school, when I studied it in Seminary. You learn something new every day on this board.

[Czarcasm]

Small question, Adam. You say that you read the study notes at the bottom, but just to make sure, you cross-reference them.
With what? You have already admitted that you won't read anything that might possibly conflict with what you already believe. Therefore we have to believe that you are cross-referencing the Bible with itself, or with a book by the same authors that did the study notes at the bottom of your Bible. Which is it?

[tomndebb]

Adam, burn your book. You may claim it is EXCELLENT, but I have a problem with a reference work that claims, in spite of the text, that the kingdom of heaven is evil. The verse says (and I've checked the Greek) that the kingdom of heaven is like leaven/yeast. Whatever modifier your put on the next clause, to equate evil with leaven is to equate evil with the kingdom of heaven.

I am aware that it is useful to look for consistent usage in words in Scripture (or in any other work that is being examined). However, when the existence of a metaphor is used to override the actual meaning of a sentence, I think that the line separating reality and goofiness has been crossed.

At any rate, while I will check out this EXCELLENT reference that calls heaven evil, I think that we have pretty well established the level of your skills at critical thinking.

------------------
Tom~

[Doobieous]

Note that in the KJ, the text says that the woman "hid in three measures of meal."

Hello!? The parable talks about the kingdom of heaven being LIKE yeast NOT like meal. If it were talking about the kingdom being like meal, they would have said it.Go read Lk 13, 20-21. It is the same parable as Matthew wrote and says the SAME thing. There is no mention in Luke either that the kingdom of Heaven is the meal and the yeast is the corruption and evil as you claim it means. I think you are reading much too deeply and pulling things out of a hat to fit your argument here.

This would reinforce the belief that the yeast represents evil, because of what Paul says about yeast in 1 Corinthians. He says that "a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough."

So what?

You pretty much keep ignoring what I tell you. Maybe my bible dictionary is wrong, according to you.I dont think that is so. You do afterall quote from the KJ version of the bible, which in my mind makes anything you quote suspect.
I suspect you think the bible dictionary interpretation is wrong just so you wont have to admit you may be wrong in what you are saying.

Um, excuse me for butting in again, folks, but I'd like to point something out: what is this, a freaking Seinfeld episode? You're arguing about YEAST. Yeast, for goodnes sakes. Does anyone really give a rat's tail about what yeast "stands for" in the Bible?

1. Love God.
2. Love thy neighbor as thyself.
3. Interpret "yeast" to your liking.

Somehow, #3 just doesn't seem as important as the first two commandments. This is an extremely pedantic conversation here. I wonder what a non-Christian would think if he was reading the board for the first time and stumbled onto this thread. What impressions of Christianity would he get from it? Is "yeast" really that important, to spend one's entire day arguing over it's symbolic meaning in someone's study Bible?

OK, I'm going to make this as clear as day. At no time, in no way shape or form, does my Bible say ANYTHING about the kingdom of God being evil. NOT evil. NOT evil. Is that clear enough. The kingdom of heaven is NOT evil. And nowhere in my interpretation did I say it was evil. Do you guys understand that? My word.

Doobieous. I always, always quote from the New International Version. Of the million Scriptures that I've posted on the SDMB, I think I've used the KJ twice, and both instances were in this very thread, part 2. Didn't you read my post when I told Tom that I use the Full Life Study Bible in NIV?

We see another instance of Jesus using the word yeast to mean something bad, or evil. It's in Matthew 16.

6) "Be careful," Jesus said to them. Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Saudducees."
7) They discussed this among themselves, and said, "It is because we didn't have nay bread."
8) Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, "You of little faith, why are you talking amoung yourselves about having no bread?" .....skip to verse 11
11) "How is it that you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees."
12) Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast uaed in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

You see, this was Jesus using another example for yeast only three chapter later than the parable of yeast. Why would Jesus use two different meaning for yeast, especially, since He was Jewish, and already knew about yeast from the laws in Leviticus?

This is as far as I can go with this discussion. If you don't see the connection, then so be it.

Oh, and Tom, trust me, that Bible is excellent. You may not think so, because it's Full Gopsel, and will obviously not align with Catholic teaching, but it's a powerful tool for studying God's Word.

Adam



------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

[Monty]

Adam: "trust me" is not a valid proof of a position.

Again, I ask of you, do us all a favour, and take a debating class, college level preferably.

My take on Yeast:

I think yeast is a good thing, generally. I like to make pizza sometimes, and let me tell you, there's nothing like yeast to make a good, thick crust. Of course, some may argue that thin crust is better and that yeast should NOT be used in pizza crusts, but I think they're all heretical and I don't think they're true Yeastians. A true Yeastian would put the yeast in the dough and be glad he even has yeast. I believe Adam is not a true Yeastian, because he constantly denounces yeast as "evil."

Now some of you may say, "How do you, Snarkberry, know for sure whether yeast is good or evil, since you also use extra seasonings that drown out yeast's taste when you make pizza?" I just laugh at their ignorance, knowing that the seasonings just make the yeast taste better.

I also believe that yeast should be used when making leavened bread, but definitely should not be used for unleavened bread.

Adam is the anti-Yeast, if you ask me, and I will fight his heretical yeast ideas to the bitter end.

[andros]

Getting away from yeast for a bit . . . Adam, you made a point a few posts back that it's ok for you to take the study notes in your bible as absolute truth. As you put it,

"Unless all of you are field scientists that actually discover EVERYTHING on your own, then you too have learned about the world through the works of others."

You're absolutely correct. The WORKS of OTHERS. Plural. The trick is to study many different viewpoints and make a decision based on as much data as you can gather. And then be willing to alter your beliefs as you receive additional data. THAT is what critical thinking is about. Not accepting one source as Truth and blinding yourself to all further input. That's not faith. It's stagnation.

Once again, it appears as though you are so insecure in your faith that you are afraid to listen to anything that runs counter to your warm little world view. Ghod gave you a mind, son! Use it!

The world is flat, dammit.

-andros-

------------------
There's always a bigger fish.

[Doobieous]

Snark: Nah, i really dont give a rats ass what yeast means, but since this is the pit, and the topic was brought up, i thought i would reply, you know just for sake of argument? :) (Hmm, i wonder is that what ARG stands for, because he likes to argue?).

Adam, point is: Yeast has a double meaning. Accept it. Just because Jesus says it's evil and corrupt in one passage doesn't mean it is in that specific parable (and so far two people have cited that the yeast has a double meaning).

You seem to have major problems understanding this very simple point we all have been making. Anyone that says that the yeast in Mt 13, 33 represents corruption and sin in the kingdom of heaven, makes me seriously wonder how strong their faith really is.

Tell you what, go back to school (or if you are in school, go enroll) and take a proper debating class. Saying "trust me" doesn't cut it. Then maybe i will continue this conversation with you. Otherwise, I can't be bothered anymore. You're dismissed Adam.

Doobieous wrote:

Snark: Nah, i really dont give a rats [posterior] what yeast means, but since this is the pit, and the topic was brought up, i thought i would reply, you know just for sake of argument?

Yeah, I don't really care what "yeast" means either. I just thought I'd throw in that Bible dictionary quote to support Tom's points, showing Adam that at least two other Christian religions believe differently. As I have said, it's a silly issue to get all worked up about.


[NOTE: This message has been edited to fit onto your screen, and for content, by Snarkberry.]

[Monty]

Doob: there's no way we'll get him to understand that yeast has another meaning. After all, he posted on 09-14-1999 at 09:03 PMSlythe: There is a God. And He's proud that I obeyed Him, in bringing the Gospel to this MB.

Last I checked, Proverbs in the Bible called Pride a sin. Therefore, God sins.

Once you accept that, then Heaven being Evil or Corrupt is a logical conclusion.

Doobieous: Oh, I misunderstood what you were saying. Yeah, I suppose that it's a valid subject for the SDMB BBQ Pit, even though silly. I wasn't really talking about you when I denounced the subject as worthy of being a Seinfeld episode--that was directed mostly at Adam, who refused to admit he was mistaken.

Adam: It's okay to be wrong or mistaken about a minor religious issue and still retain your faith. I know this from experience.

[Doobieous]

Monty: Silly me, i should have known. After all, Adam did say God was proud (ooo pride is a sin), and implied that he is proud (sin again) in himself for bringing the gospel here. Well, I'll move on. Like I said earlier, it's like talking to a brick wall. It has been fun, but the novelty only lasts so long. :)

Ciao!

[tomndebb]

Snarkberry:This is an extremely pedantic conversation here. I wonder what a non-Christian would think if he was reading the board for the first time and stumbled onto this thread. What impressions of Christianity would he get from it? Is "yeast" really that important, to spend one's entire day arguing over it's symbolic meaning in someone's study Bible?
Bill, this has nothing to do with Christianity. This discussion is about rational thought and literary criticism. The field of battle just happens to be a couple of verses in Scripture (which is where Adam chooses to forego rational thought). (Of, course, I noticed that you still waded in with an opinion a couple of posts later < eg >.)

I never did find a "Full Life Study Bible" at Border's this afternoon. I did find about seven other study bibles and (surprise!) every one of them (including the Scofield, the Nelson, and the Harper-Collins) said basically that while there are many instances in the New Testament where yeast/leaven is used as a metaphor for a corrupting influence, in the case of Mt 13:33 this was clearly not true--that the verse meant that the kingdom of heaven would grow from a small, insignificant object to a very large thing. (A couple of sources mentioned that the "three measures" would equal about fifty pounds of flour.) Coupled to the preceding parable about the miniscule mustard seed becoming an enormous shrub, this seems to make sense.

I was amused to discover that the MacKenzie Study Bible specifically had a statement (paraphrased here) that a few people, noting that leaven is often used as a symbol of corruption, have distorted the words of Jesus to mean that leaven in this verse represents corruption in the kingdom of heaven.

I had initially accused Adam of making up whatever he wanted the verse to say. I must now retract that accusation: there are people who say the same thing that he does. Of course, that leaves us with the fact that Adam will parrot whatever strange belief that those people hold, even when his/their interpretation is a violation of the text that they are reading.

Adam can try to claim two contradictory meanings if he wants, but it only proves the point of this whole thread.
The verse said that the kingdom of heaven is like leaven. If leaven is a symbol of evil, the only logical conclusion is that Jesus meant that the kingdom of heaven is like an evil thing. All the talk of "hiding" the leaven or anything else is irrelevant. There is no possible reading of the words in the text of that verse that can avoid equating the kingdom of heaven and leaven. If leaven must be evil, then the kingdom of heaven must be evil.

As another interesting sidelight, most of the commentaries pointed out that the reason that bread containing leaven or honey in the OT could not be sacrificed, was that the Jewish people recognized that there was "life" in the fermentation process. It was wrong to burn a living thing. (In holocausts, the sacrificial animals had to have been cleanly killed before the holocaust consumed them). In other words, the reason for not burning/sacrificing leavened bread was not because it was evil, but because it contained life.
No one denies that leaven is, indeed, used as a metaphor for evil in several places. Every legitimate scholar notes that the use of the leaven/evil metaphor is dependent on context.

------------------
Tom~

But seriously, Adam, here is what my Bible dictionary says about "leaven":

[quote]Leaven
Anything that in cooking produces fermentation, a lump of old dough being generally used. No leaven was allowed during the Passover feast (Ex. 12:15, 19; 13:7; Deut. 16:4), or in offerings made to God with fire (Ex. 29:2; Lev. 2:11; 7:12; Num. 6:15). It was probably forbidden because there was associated with it the idea of corruption. In the N.T. it was as a rule symbolical of sin (Matt. 16:6; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1; 1 Cor. 5:7; Gal.5:9); but in Matt. 13:33 it is compared to the inward growth and influence of the kingdom of heaven (church) upon the earth.
<small>Holy Bible (King James Version):Bible Dictionary, Copyright 1979 by Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.</small>

So, according to this entry, leaven has two (2), count 'em, two different meanings in the Bible. So I side with Tom on this issue. And if you can't figure out that one word can have two different meanings, I feel sorry for you.

Tomndebb wrote:

Bill, this has nothing to do with Christianity. This discussion is about rational thought and literary criticism. The field of battle just happens to be a couple of verses in Scripture (which is where Adam chooses to forego rational thought).

And oh, boy, does he! I can't think of a more obvious conclusion than the one you came to about the kingdom of heaven being likened to leaven. But I've decided to stop criticizing Adam so much, so I'll not say any more on this subject to him unless he specifically asks me to.

(Of, course, I noticed that you still waded in with an opinion a couple of posts later < eg >.)

One of the hazards of not having anything to do all day except the SDMB. Man, I need a life!

I wrote:

But I've decided to stop criticizing Adam so much.

Okay, Teeming Hundreds, I expect you to hold me to this statement. If any of you see me criticizing Adam excessively, please remind me of the above quote. I really do want peace between the two of us.

[Falcon]

FYI for those of you who may not read the MPSIMS area....Adam has stated that he is leaving the boards for personal reasons. There's a thread over there if you want to read more.

As for the thread topic at hand....Adam couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag. And at some point, I think he sould pay for the injuries we've all received from banging our heads against a wall! :)

[Doobieous]

Thanks Tomndebb! I knew you could help clarify this situation :). For me this was more about Adam's critical thinking and debating skills. I wonder, if he has read tomndebb's current post, does he now realize that several bibles all say the same thing that contradicts his statements (probably not, but hey it doesn't hurt to speculate)?

I also noticed he was leaving the board for personal reasons. Could Me, Tomndebb, Monty, and everyone else who contributed have possibly driven him off of the SDMB for good? I surely hope not because it's kind of a weak reason to leave, just because of a discussion we had here in the pit (Where it's supposed to get fiery (Sp?)). I guess this is a case of: "if you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".

[WallyM7]

After reading some of ARG220's posts, I think the question of whether he is a good debater is ludicrous.

He has clearly demonstrated that he is completely unfamiliar with the process.

He can't argue much, either. Mostly, he prates.

AuraSeer accuses ARG of having an overly high opinion of himself. I believe this to be understatement.

I also believe that the attention that you gave to ARG in this thread is out of proportion to his abilities as an explainer of ideas.

------------------
If you're an optimist, you haven't been paying attention.

[tomndebb]

Nah. This is (at least for me) just a mildly amusing way to pass time. If it would have helped Adam see his way clear to rational thought, that would have been a bonus, but I never expected that outcome.

Adam declares that leaven always means evil in Scripture.
I throw out a single verse that refutes his statement.
Adam declares that even my verse equates leaven to evil.
I point out the inconsistency of his statement.
We wrangle a bit.
We all move on to other things.

In the meantime, I discover that:
there really are loons that publish the sort of silliness that Adam believes (scary but useful information);
the prohibition on offering leavened bread or honey at the sacrificial altar, where it is consumed by fire, is based on a recognition among the earliest Jews that some aspect of life is present in the fermentation process.

So for 20 minutes research at home and another 10 minutes at Border's (plus an excuse to go into Border's--as if I needed one), I get to have a bit of fun and actually learn something. Kinda what the SD is all about.

------------------
Tom~