You seem to want to continue this discussion. Shall I continue? Or are you ready to move on? Either way, I’m fine with it, but as with much else you seem to want it both ways: to continue to berate me for an error I don’t consider very important, and to continue to berate me for continuing to discuss it. Someone might easily confuse you with someone who doesn’t want to take a clear position on substantial matters and would very much prefer to dwell on trivia.
I’m SO glad you brought my name into this. I was reading down the thread, wondering if I should jump in here to remind everyone of how crappy my knowledge of church history & theology is, and how many times Tom has corrected me when I’m wrong (about factual matters). Now that you specifically claim that he has never done this to me, I have to come in here and assure you that he has. In fact, a couple of times it has served to make me feel a little foolish…not because he has not been unfailingly polite to me, because he always has, but because it has made me realize that I should know more about the religion I profess.
I don’t know exactly how similar Tom & I are religiously, as he doesn’t talk about his specific beliefs, and I don’t like to all that much, either (as he says, what’s the point?) But I do know when I am talking to someone who is much more well-read on a subject than I am, and when it comes to church history, Tom is MUCH more well-read. SO, I am at least smart enough that when I KNOW I am talking to someone who knows more about a subject than I do, and they clearly have facts that refute my statements, it is a good idea to not cling to my statements and insist that it is the other guy who is being biased. The only thing to be accomplished by that is to dig yourself a hole, and make it look more and more like the other guy is 1) correct, and 2) a heck of a lot more reasonable.
That is a discussion of factual details which should at least have some relevance in GD don’t you think? Inaccurate sweeping generalizations are annoying enough without adding factual errors to the mix. It was PRR who extended the conversation by refusing to admit a simple error and thinking large fonts somehow made it more correct.
Sure it’s fair as opinions go. Just as every ranting atheist I’ve ever seen on this board **Val ** winds up presenting an unsupported belief about the nature of religion as if it’s fact, while criticizing believers for doing the same. There’s no logical defense or presentation of the belief. Just rephrase and reiterate. If Christians lack credibility for that kind of behavior then atheists with similar traits will have to own it as well.
**Tom ** obviously has knowledge and interest in the historical facts and participates in that area. The factual details matter.
When we all know that they never do that. This thread being one such example.
I think the point you and Val have been trying to make is bigger than the details but in order to make it effectively the details do count. How credible do you think your point is when it’s laced with factual errors. The solution seems to be to simply admit those errors rather than rant about being corrected.
For the record; People taking the Bible or any other written material as the “Word of God"in any literal sense is false, an inaccurate tradition about which there is much evidence to the contrary, and something that should be addressed as a false belief. Clear enough?
The question then arises “How do we deal with this?” How do we communicate effectively?”
That’s where accurate facts come in handy. That’s where inaccurate sweeping generalizations and ridicule only slow or stop any effective dialogs.
Could you please show me what the font size had to with my “refusing to admit a simple error”? I used the large fonts simply to draw unmistakable attention to the precise point where I had shown (twice) how I been extremely precise in directing Tom to where he had misquoted me, an error he has since apologized for (though he since also quibbled over how his failing to notice it was somehow my fault becuse I had demonstrated a rotten untrustworthy lying character in previous threads, entitling him to ignore my very clear directions for finding the spot of his misquotation in this one.)
Please acknowledge that your statement is an utter falsehood, Cosmosdan, entirely unworthy of you. Thank you.
You are correct that your large fonts were not involved in the discussion of dates or provenance, but in your anger at my misattribution of Valteron’s quote. Of course, then you blow it with the false claim that you were “extremely precise” in pointing out “twice” the misattributed quote. When you finally got around to noting the exact place of my error, (once), I immediately apologized and rectified the situation.
No wonder you can’t figure out how scripture is created or how it is employed by believers. 
No, you simply couldn’t be bothered going back to the beginning of my previous post because you didn’t have respect for my accusations, as you’ve said. Please don’t blame your laziness on me.
I have not challenged that you pointed out my error, but your claim of “extremely precise” and “twice” is simply false.
You know, merely repeating “siimply false” doesn’t make it so. If you look at my post 261, where I have copied in very large type words like “the beginning” and “start off” while clearly referring to my previous post, I think that a retarded four-year old (or an adult who was trying to find it) would easly have found that misquotation I was referring to.
As for “twice,” post #261 contains references to two separate posts of mine (they are the posts marked by the large type) directing you back in the clear and and precise manner I have indicated.
This is not a winner for you, Tom. Learn how to say “I’m wrong” when you’re wrong, and stop trying then to demonstrate how, despite your apology, you were actually right. It tends to irritate people, and drag out a process that no one but you cares about. Just stop lying right now, please, and allow the conversation to go on, because every time you try to end this utter hijack with another lie, I’m going to come back here and point the simple and obvious truth.
Well, I for one am highly offended at Tom’s egregious misbehavior. After all, he’s left the title to this thread “If Jesus Could Heal the Sick and Raise the Dead” even though we left that topic alone about five pages back, instead of changing it to This Thread Is All About Pseudotriton Ruber Ruber, as a clear examination of the contents would show any objective observer.
Tom and Sarahfeena are called on as Catholics to give assent to the doctrinal teachings of Catholic theology. There’s a distinction, though, between “give assent” and “grant uncritical, mindless credence.” For me, stating that "“Polycarp founds his beliefs on the Bible” is something I’ve repeatedly denied, and repeatedly been misrepresented as doing.
Just as, six months ago, we Liberal Christians were roundly condemned by people for not being more outspoken against the perversion of Christianity advanced by the Dobsons and Falwells of the world. And yet when I for one take that criticism to heart, I get savaged for daring to criticize somebody’s fundamentalist parents by including them in a generalized criticism of what fundamentalists believe. (In that regard, let me offer whatever apology is due kanicbird with reference to my defining one school of conservative Christian beliefs as including a focus on the wrath of God and the necessity to prevent sinners from calling that wrath down on all and sundry. I intentionally said that it was something of a strawman, a rough cut on beliefs similar to hers – and I trust that my including that caveat, and her own disclaimer of the political-action-against-sin end of CC beliefs, is sufficient to prevent my having misrepresented and insulted her.)
But I was not right and I do not claim that I was right. I only note that you were not remotely “extremely precise” (especially given your history of never providing a citation for an accusation–including in this thread until your third try) and that it seems that on those rare occasions where you have been right, you tend to mess it up by overstating your case.
As an illustration of this, were Tom and I ever to sit down and discuss our ideas about Catholic doctrine, no doubt they would be different (how different, I don’t know, but I never met two Catholics who had the *exact * same view of doctrine…even those very well-educated on the subject, such as priests). And yet, we would both still consider ourselves Catholics. And what may be even more confounding to some folks, is that the CHURCH would even consider both of us Catholics.
So, the idea that anyone, whether Catholic, Protestant, religious non-Christian, or Atheist, can take one narrow view of what Christianity is “supposed” to be, and then ask any random person who professes to be Christian to defend that narrow view is absurd. Even the idea of how one is “supposed” to read scripture varies wildly from one denomination to the other.
Anyone who claims that they know exactly how Tom or Polycarp or anyone else gained their understanding and faith in the Christian religion, and how that understanding and faith should be characterized, simply doesn’t know what they are talking about.
Reading this thread (and skipping over the trainwreck parts) it strikes me that there are similarities in all the positions.
I think everyone would agree that not all of either the Gospel accepted into the NT or the gospels that were not are true. I think almost everyone would accept that they are not completely false. For instance, it seems probable that some of the sayings of Jesus did get transmitted with some degree of accuracy.
But all of us are using extra-Bibical methods to determine which parts to accept, and which to reject. These are no doubt a mixture of faith, logic, history, science, and habit. How these are mixed determines where on the atheist - fundamentalist spectrum you fall.
In addition, unless someone is claiming to have a direct connection to god (which I haven’t noticed) these methods are all uninspired.
So, even if you believe parts of the Bible and Gospels are inspired, you must use methods to determine them which are subject to error. None of us know what the main message of Jesus was, assuming he had one. None of us knows what Jesus would think of gay marriage. He might be horrified, and condemn it, or he might consider it an expression of love. Okay so far?
The difference between this and science is that we can’t test our hypotheses. It’s all so fuzzy that new discoveries can always be explained away. If someone found the body of Jesus tomorrow, don’t you think explanations involving his spiritual body would follow soon after?
The heart of the dispute is that all religions (except Unitarians, perhaps) have a core absolute belief. The core may be bigger or smaller, but it is subject to the same non-inspired reasoning as everything else. The existence of that core considered as inspired truth, though uninspired and unproven, is the place where liberal and conservative religionists are similar. The size of the core differs, the contents differ, but the existence of the core is the same.
When relgionists accuse atheists of being fundamental atheists, they are assuming that atheists have a core of belief also - which is usually not true. Though there may be a few fundamentalist atheists around, most have provisional disbelief.
As for me, the smaller the core a religionist accepts, and the greater the willingness to admit that beliefs are uninspired, the more likely he will be to tolerate other beliefs.
How about we change the title to Go to Hell, Polycarp!? That’s about as accurate, and about as personally insulting (NB, trigger-happy Mods) as your suggestion. I’ve been trying to answer, in a relatively polite and neutral manner, Tom’s persistent and repeated accusations of lying, and other thread-shitting acts he’s been unwilling to let go, and I’ve offered several times to drop thie stupid hijack and get back to the OP, but he refuses to stop dwelling on how helpless he was to commit his misquotation and blaming it all on me, and I will continue to rebut every foolish thing he says (well, maybe not every one–that’s a full-time job–but most).
Funny definition you have for “never”–an absolute for which you find an exception in the very sentence you state the absolute. As I keep saying, the directions I have repeated and bolded and printed extra-large are clear enough for a retarded four-year old to follow. Obviously you consider yourself below that standard of intelligence.
Personally, I think you are too prideful, not too unintelligent, to take full responsibility for your acts so you’re faking that level of denseness. The instructions just weren’t that fucking hard, Tom—it was clearly within your powers to find what I was pointing you to. You simply didn’t care enough to try. More evidence of animosity and hostility that you’re refusing to fess up to, with your face and fingers smeared with jam.
Maybe it would help if we looked at the bigger picture.
First, I never said that **all ** Christians or all Muslims take the Bible or the Koran to be the perfect and inerrant word of God. But surely they do consider it to be SOME SORT of communication from the creator of the universe, in some way or other, do they not?
I am not even interested in getting into flyshit such as the fact that the Gospels say that there were 42 generations between Abraham and Jesus and then go on to mention only 41. I am not interested in smirking and saying “doesn’t your God know how to count?”
I am not interested in pointing out that hares do not chew a cud although it says so in the OT. That is all flyshit.
The fact that you cannot get around is this.
-
If you attribute no religious significance at all to the Holy Books like the Bible or the Koran, then I guess they are no better and no worse than anything else written by human beings that make you think about things. I suppose you might consider the Satyricon or Gulliver’s Travels or Candide or The Great Gatsby on a par with the Bible or the Koran. All of these books, if viewed as purely human inventions of the human mind, have given me food for thought.
-
If you attribute some divine inspiration or authorship to the Holy Books, if you consider them as containing some kind of message that an omniscient God wanted to communicate to humanity, then why is the message so unclear? Why were people like Torquemada and Francisco Franco able to read exactly the same Gospels as Tomndeb and Polycarp read, and yet come to such unbelievably different conclusions.
-
I assume, Tomndeb, Liberal, Polycarp and other theists on these boards do NOT agree with the interpretation given to the Gospels by someone like Torquemada? If so, whose opinion is right? His or yours? Yours, you say? Why? Is that not a bit arrogant of you?
That is my whole point. If the holy books are some sort of message from an omniscient being, why are they SOOOOOO unclear and why have they been open to thousands of interpretations over the years?
My WAG is to make it timeless. The book of Revelation is regarded to be highly symbolic, and gives a perfect example. I propose no matter when you read that book in history, you will find yourself in exactly the same place, that is just on the verge of the tribulation/second coming of Jesus. I believe that this was done intentionally to have just that effect as we should always be ready for the second coming of Christ.
You continue ranting without cause, here. My reference to never providing a citation is to the multiple personal accusations that you have hurled against me since you began your vendetta in October.
I have taken responsibility for my action, here, apologizing and correcting the issue.
I simply have not groveled in the manner that you would prefer to have seen and I have not let you get away with your silly claims of extreme precision.
You keep “offering to let it go” (as long as you get to have the last insult). If you wanted to let it go, you could have dropped it several posts back.
Pay attention, (You can use this lesson in the writing class you teach):
Several posts back, cosmosdan posted a mistake, accusing you of using extra large fonts to make a point in our argument over dating and relevancy.
He thus provided you a perfect opportunity to score some points by correcting him along with taking a shot at me.
Your response could have been something like:
You have posted in error. My large font posts were addressing Tom’s claim that I had posted something I had not.
Simple. Clean. Accurate. Two birds with one stone, getting to correct cosmosdan while reminding everyone of my error. To such a statment I would have made no response, since it was fair and accurate even if it portrayed me in a less than perfect light.
However, you had to go crazy and overstate your case, claiming that you had been “extremely precise” on two occasions.
You simply had not. For example, in your first objection to my misattribution, instead of quoting me regarding your persistent errors regarding Christian belief and then changing the topic with
using precision might have meant posting as your first objection:
You are hardly one to talk of accuracy when you began your Post #210 with someone else’s quote attributed to me.
That is precision. Extremely precise might have looked like
You are hardly one to talk of accuracy when you began your Post #210 by quoting Valteron and attributing his post to me.
See the difference? Your claim was perfectly clear to you, of course, but it was hardly “extremely precise.” (And your later posts were a succession of mouth-foaming rants that only much later actually identified the quote I had mangled.)
You need to keep in mind all the factors that will affect your readers’ perceptions.
I opened the thread to find your accusation
- as a change of topic (so that it was not immediately clear which post had angered you)
- in a thread in which I had quoted you more than once in several posts (so that your “first” qualifier did not immediately indicate the post in question)
- with a knowledge that you are in the persistent habit of making false accusations against me.
With no particular reason to think that this charge was different than previous false accusations and certainly with no “extremely precise” pointer to the exact location of my error, I did, indeed, miss my error as you grew increasingly frustrated. When you finally noted the exact (precise?) quotation I had messed up, I went back and fixed it.
However, when you responded to correct cosmosdan, instead of maintaining your dignity with a simple correction that shamed him while recalling my blunder, you had to go overboard with your silly claims of extreme precision, thus calling me back to point out that your hyperbole was not justified by your murky allusion.
Now, you claim that you are willing to drop this, yet here you are, nearly five hours after my last post, with not one, but two separate additional posts attempting to excoriate me over this terrible crime (along with any other accusations you can dream up).
OK. Since you seem unable to refrain from picking at the scab, I will leave it alone, now.
(But maybe you should take a course on writing with clarity and precision)
Oh How I laughed.
My inference was that you blew **Tom’**s misquote entirely out of proportion in order to avoid simply admitting a mistake you had made. By making a big unnecessarily extended production out of his misquote, which had little to do with the discussion at hand, you avoided admitting your own mistake.
Like many Bible passages, my comment was not intended to be taken literally. AFAICT you’re still playing semantic games. Knock youself out.