Scott Plaid, Stand Up or Shut Up

[Sauron]

@Scott Plaid

Actually, they are commanded to follow many more rules then just that. You brought up all this “New Covenant” nonsense. However, as I said in the thread, Jesus’ own words contradict this.

Cute. If you want to cite Bible verses for this argument, let’s take a look at Matthew 22, verses 34-40:

34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Bolding mine – Sauron)

It’s apparently your view that Christians are commanded to follow the Jewish laws, although it’s been explained several times that’s not so. This is part of the problem with debating you – you either ignore or refuse to acknowledge points made by other posters.

@Scott Plaid

And as I said, a change in social mores has nothing to do with actual morality. Mores, means what is consider normal, while morality means what is right.

In the other thread, you gave a definition of mores. Let’s review it, shall we?

@Scott Plaid

the current use of mores:

1. The accepted traditional customs and usages of a particular social group.
2. Moral attitudes.
3. Manners; ways

Do you see a huge disconnect here? The definition you chose to use for the word “mores” specifically mentions “moral attitudes.” Mores DOES NOT MEAN simply what a society accepts; it can also mean what a society considers moral. This is the way I was using the term, and your own cite backs me up.

Again, one of the problems with debating you is your apparent refusal to acknowledge a difference in terminology, even when you’ve been made aware of it.

@Scott Plaid

Besides, you were not using the words “view of morality”, but “the prevailing morality of the time”. Two different things entirely.

Sigh. Society’s view of morality is the prevailing morality of the time. That’s how it got to be society’s view in the first place.

@Scott Plaid

You claimed, although the third page that public mores has anything to do with morality. I claimed that if people all [del]jump of bridges[/del] support slavery, that is social mores, but not morality. You disagreed.

I don’t really understand the first sentence, but I think you’re still stuck on believing “mores” means “traditional customs,” when I’ve already shown you that it can also mean “moral attitudes.”

And this illustrates yet another example of the impossibility of debating with you – your spelling and grammar are truly bad. It’s often difficult for someone to interpret what you mean.

@Scott Plaid

I don’t hold it up as an example of my “debating skills”, but instead, on your refusing to admit you had no case for your claim, and that I did. Scintillating debate? Hardly. However, it was a victory for me, nonetheless. You refused to admit you are wrong, and/or thought you were saying “view of morality", instead of what you were really saying, “the prevailing morality of the time”.

And here we have the coup de grace: You claim victory. In a debate where I provided definitions, cites, background for my position and a reasonably well-constructed argument (in my opinion, anyway), you think you won. You provided a cite that didn’t say what you think it said, and a definition of a word that illustrated my point. This, along with an apparent belief in absolute morality, is all you had going for you.

I’m not in debates to win, most of the time – I want to understand someone else’s viewpoint, examine my own, and see if there’s any common ground. You seem to view debating as a challenge to your manhood. Expand your horizons, man.

[Sauron]

@Scott Plaid

Scott may post a thread saying that the “New Covenant” is nonsense. When asked why, he points out bible verses that contradict such a concept.

Some posters then point towards verses they have intentionally misread to indicate that they can to eat pork, so there!

They “intentionally misread” verses? Is it not possible they have a different interpretation than you?

Your view is not the ONLY view.

[42fish]

@Scott Plaid

Tell me, how many examples of … an expert (Zev, Polycarp) agreeing that I was right on the issue does it take before you admit that while * may not be the best communicator, I am no mental slouch.

Personally, I’ll take one expert agreeing with you for each bit of incomprehensible gibberish that you’ve posted.

Actually, that’s unfair; there probably aren’t that many posters on this board.

So, how about one expert for each item of gibberish you’ve posted just in this thread. Hell, to make it easier, I’ll count multiple instances of incomprehensibility within the same post as a single occurance.

[tomndebb]

Tell me, how many examples of some one an incontrovertible fact I pointed out and an expert (Zev, Polycarp) agreeing that I was right on the issue does it take before you admit that while may not be the best communicator, I am no mental slouch.

In any major discussion, there will be smart people lined up on both sides of the debate and less smart people who line up alongside them. The fact that a less smart person champions a point that may “win” in the long run does not make the less smart person smarter than the brightest people on the opposing side. It just means the less smart person got lucky in emotionally supporting a side that eventually won.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, before Dobzhansky demonstrated that Mendelian genetics established the engine for Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection, giving Darwin’s theory the clear advantage in any evolutionary discussion, there were a number of competing theories regarding the the method and driving forces behind evolution. A lot of smart people held views on all those theories. The fact that one doofus might have championed Darwin does not make the doofus smarter than Darwin’s opponents. It does not make the doofus smart in any way. It simply means that the doofus happened to like (and quote) Darwin’s arguments better than those of Darwin’s opponents.

You have demonstrated that you can quote people with whom you agree. (You have also demonstrated that you can misquote people on all sides of the argument.) None of your borrowed ideas demonstrate anything about your mental posture, although your failure to understand (and willingness to misidentify) the arguments of your opponents indicates a laziness that does nothing to assert mental acuity or effort.

[Maus_Magill]

@Scott Plaid

So, in short, if there are more reasons for something then against it, then one side has won. True, there might be more reasons why something should not be, but if neither side brought that fact up, then their side loses.

Let’s test this. Tell me which side won.

Reasons for teaching Creationism in public schools’ biology classes.

• It’s what is in the Bible.
• Evolution denies God.
• If we do, then children will have no basis for morality and will run hog-wild.
• Jim Dobson, a well respected doctor, supports it.

Reasons for teaching Evolution in public schools’ biology classes.

• It is a valid, well proven scientific theory.

[Scott_Plaid]

@Sauron

Cute. If you want to cite Bible verses for this argument, let’s take a look at Matthew 22, verses 34-40:

34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Bolding mine – Sauron)

That paraphrases lessons taught by rabbis before he was born. That does not in the least bit invalidate commandments to keep laws.

It’s apparently your view that Christians are commanded to follow the Jewish laws, although it’s been explained several times that’s not so.

What I recall seeing was posts claiming just this kinda nonsense. The son breaks the laws set by the father, under circumstances already permitted, due to necessity, with was already provided for in jewish law. Then, christians turn around and do what ever the hell they want to do, under any circumstances. Nonsense.

Do you see a huge disconnect here? The definition you chose to use for the word “mores” specifically mentions “moral attitudes.”

Yes, a definition due to common misunderstandings, like yours. Furthermore, it is a circular definition. How do we know it is moral? Because society approves of it. And how do we know that society is right?

Sigh. Society’s view of morality is the prevailing morality of the time. That’s how it got to be society’s view in the first place.

Actually, morality is based on what is right and good. Female circumcision is a social more, among certain tribes, but noway, nohow is it moral.

And here we have the coup de grace: You claim victory. In a debate where I provided definitions, cites, background for my position and a reasonably well-constructed argument (in my opinion, anyway), you think you won.

Actually, you conceded that it was theoretically possible to judge christianity as a whole, which was my point and used an odd definition of morality. Since it was pointed out to you that you were not using it corectly, by myself and others, you lose.
Oh, and as for taking being wrong as a challenge to manhood, so what? Bricker will sometimes admit he is wrong. However, he will often stick with certain viewpoints no matter how many times has been shown to be wrong. It is human nature.

[Scott_Plaid]

@Maus Magill

You said you heard me when I said “Read more. Post less”. But you’ve posted 14 times since then. That was less than 24 hours ago. Obviously you didn’t.
Obviously not.

Piss off.

It is called tabbed browsing, plus an extension with allows for automatic refreshing of a page. I browse through past threads, while at the same time checking up on updates to threads I am subscribed to. How hard is that to understand. Sure, I am rereading old threads, but I am also defending myself here. Is the desire to defend past statements so hard to understand? Oh, and as for “Piss off”, insults are not going to change my mind one bit. They simply don’t affect me.

[Scott_Plaid]

@Sauron

They “intentionally misread” verses? Is it not possible they have a different interpretation than you?

Your view is not the ONLY view.

No, it is not really possible to interpret verses like “This shall be the law for all time.”

Sometimes, there is only one way to interpret something.

[Metacom]

@Scott Plaid

Sometimes, there is only one way to interpret something.

And if you’re the author, there’s often no way.

[Greathouse]

@Scott Plaid

Since it was pointed out to you that you were not using it corectly, by myself and others, you lose.

Circle gets the square. Game over. :rolleyes:

[Bricker]

@Bricker

OK - then here’s a challenge.

Find someone who’s willing to come along into this thread and say that in his or her opinion, you’re very smart.

Apparently, you can start with Zev and Polycarp. Should be no problem.

Are you taking up this challenge, Scott?

Because I believe that you misinterpret the support given to you by Zev and Polycarp, and I believe that neither would be willing to come in here and say that, in their view, you’re very smart.

In fact, I believe that NO regular poster will be willing to make that statement on your behalf.

What conclusion might you draw from that?

[Scott_Plaid]

@Maus Magill

Let’s test this. Tell me which side won.

Reasons for teaching Creationism in public schools’ biology classes.

• It’s what is in the Bible.
• Evolution denies God.
• If we do, then children will have no basis for morality and will run hog-wild.
• Jim Dobson, a well respected doctor, supports it.

Reasons for teaching Evolution in public schools’ biology classes.

• It is a valid, well proven scientific theory.

::A PTA meeting::

Ah ha! However, the pro-evolution side can then fire back that non-christians, such as the indian couple next door have morality, and raise fine children, and don’t base their views on the bible. Also, Dobson is out numbered by intelligent experts in childrearing, who also support evolution.

However, that is not what you are asking. Instead, you are bringing up an imaginary discussion where the points I made do not exist. Well, in such a situation, while the evolution side was right, the christian side has clearly won. After all, if your argument took place at a PTA meeting, and the teachers went along with the christian side, then an actual result would take place, and the students would lose.

[Scott_Plaid]

@Bricker

Are you taking up this challenge, Scott?

Actually, I said that they have in the past agreed that I was correct to make certain statements. Being correct once proves nothing. However, once it happens again and again, it start to look indicative of intelligence, and/or having memorized a lot. Still, despite the fact that such examples don’t prove a thing, I am currently gathering up quotes. However, I still have not heard an answer. That was not just a rhetorical question. How many times?

[Sauron]

Scott Plaid: I shouldn’t have mentioned that “debate,” and I certainly didn’t intend to rehash it here. My apologies to the other participants in this thread.

I will simply state that your last reply to me is an excellent example of everything people have been telling you for 12 pages now.

On preview, I see this:

@Scott Plaid

No, it is not really possible to interpret verses like “This shall be the law for all time.”

Sometimes, there is only one way to interpret something.

If that’s the case, then intepret Acts 10:9-16 for me, specifically verse 15.

Look, you’re not a Christian. That’s fine. You were apparently raised Jewish. That’s fine. But that doesn’t mean that everyone has to abide by, or even agree with, your position. It seems to me you are willfully shutting yourself out of a great learning opportunity here.

[CandidGamera]

@Scott Plaid

Actually, I said that they have in the past agreed that I was correct to make certain statements. Being correct once proves nothing. However, once it happens again and again, it start to look indicative of intelligence, and/or having memorized a lot. Still, despite the fact that such examples don’t prove a thing, I am currently gathering up quotes. However, I still have not heard an answer. That was not just a rhetorical question. How many times?

A broken clock’s right twice a day.

Honestly, you just say so many things, you’re bound to get out a coherent sentence that corresponds with facts at some point. It’s like the infinite monkey - Shakespeare thing.

[Bricker]

@Scott Plaid

Actually, I said that they have in the past agreed that I was correct to make certain statements. Being correct once proves nothing. However, once it happens again and again, it start to look indicative of intelligence, and/or having memorized a lot. Still, despite the fact that such examples don’t prove a thing, I am currently gathering up quotes. However, I still have not heard an answer. That was not just a rhetorical question. How many times?

Your question was: “Tell me, how many examples of some one an incontrovertible fact I pointed out and an expert (Zev, Polycarp) agreeing that I was right on the issue does it take before you admit that while may not be the best communicator, I am no mental slouch.”

The answer is: no number of times will convince me, because the mere fact that you stand on the same side of an issue as an expert does not make you smart.

I asked YOU if you thought people here viewed you as very smart. You said that they did. Now I’m asking you for an explicit proof of that: find me someone who will come into this thread and say that in his or her opinion, you’re very smart.

If people here really view you as very smart, that should be no problem.

So find me one regular poster to come in here and say that he or she views you as very smart.

Go ahead.

[Scott_Plaid]

examples of me being right. Do ALL Torah scholars agree that sin of Sodom = inhospitality?

@WeRSauron

In this post of this thread, Scott Plaid said that

Now, perhaps I am being picky, but is this true? Do all Torah scholars believe the sin of Sodom was inhospitality?

If some disagree, who are they and what do they believe the sin of Sodom was? Do the Talmud - for it is indeed a part of the Torah - and Talmud scholars in agreement with this assertion? If not, what other interpretations do they give?

I would especially like to hear what C K Dexter Haven and zev_steinhardt (they are the prominent experts in Judaism I have noticed; I am sure there are other very erudite and wonderful experts in Judaism, and they are more than welcome to contribute) have to say.

WRS

@cmkeller

Not merely inhospitatlity (though that’s all that’s implied in Ezekiel), but according to the Midrash, a perveted justice system. <snip>

Then, in the thread that inspired that question:

@DocCathode

Squink Yep. Ihosptality. A traveller arriving at Sodom or Gamorrah (or generally any other town in the middle east) didn’t have enough food and water to make it to another town. If you turned them away, they died. Rather than taking in travellers and giving them food and shelter, the people of Sodom and Gamorrah laughed at them, played tricks on them, and were rude. <snip>

Also, Zev was in agreement with me, minus a few minor nit-picks in Would it have killed you to actually call an Orthodox Rabbi?, The story of Sodom and Gomorrah., and Jesus H. Christ, synagogue dues are expensive!

[Bricker]

@Scott Plaid

examples of me being right.

Scott:

How many times have posters in this thread said to you that you have a very poor sense of being right?

Yet you continue to offer examples in which, in your view, you were right.

That proves that you thought you were right, to be sure. But we already know you thought you were right.

[wonky]

@Bricker

Because I believe that you misinterpret the support given to you by Zev and Polycarp, and I believe that neither would be willing to come in here and say that, in their view, you’re very smart.

In fact, I believe that NO regular poster will be willing to make that statement on your behalf.

I think he’s smart.

He’s impatient, obstinate, and occasionally unintelligible. And I think he’s well above average, brains-wise.

Of course, now I’ll learn that I’m not a regular poster.

[Metacom]

Sheesh. I call “argumentum ad populum” on both sides! 10 post penalty!