I would offer that he can fight back just fine. He can say where he thinks I am mistaken, he can cite where I have made errors, he can suggest his point on things, and back said points up with evidence. But accoriding to the bible he just can’t call me a fool. You aren’t really suggesting that makes him helpless in debate are you?
ISTM, badchad, you should just focus on the internal inconsistencies of liberal Christian faith, rather than on the failings of your current opponents to actually live up to their doctrines. I guess you’ll trip some up trying to pretend they are doing fine but most others have always got the fall back of “Oops, yeah. I guess I’ll search for forgiveness”.Some young atheists go to church dances, given the right circumstances. Should they be condemned?
And he doesn’t even have the semantics right. He’s lying, and he knows it. He misrepresents a danger that something might happen as an imperative that something will happen. And he knows that Jesus said only that there was a danger. It’s in his saved list. Ask him to paste it again.
No, you’re just claiming that it proves him to be a hypocrite, or something, which doesn’t exactly constitute debate or evidence, but just an opportunity to do a rather empty happy dance.
Jesus often called people “fool”, and I’m pretty sure the bible says it’s ok. Why do you think otherwise?
Good, so you and I now agree that Monty can defend himself, and that you were incorrect to suggest I seek to antagonize those who cannot. I think that’s worthy of a happy dance.
I think it does prove him to be a hypocrite. If he doesn’t want me to do my happy dance then he really shouldn’t come prancing through my thread throwing around a bunch of unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks. Or at least that’s how I look at it.
That’s because Jesus was himself a hypocrite, besides being a cunt.
Well that’s possible. The bible is very contradictory. You got a cite in mind or are you just hoping you are right?
Cause Jesus said otherwise.
Well now this just shows how personal and childish–not to mention retarded–your agenda is. Time for you to own up to your real motivations.
As an atheist, I find the reported words of Jesus, the historical figure, to have a great deal of wisdom, and his worldview to be essentially peaceful and decent. Now, if the reports that have come down through the ages are at all accurate, I believe he was also probably schizophrenic; that he heard voices, and believed himself to be a god. But he was not a cunt. Many of his followers are indeed cunts, but dude, seriously, your agenda is showing.
Jesus talks to you, does he?
And I’m perfectly correct in what I said about you seeking to antagonize those who cannot defend themselves or, rather, you claim their attempts to defend themselves only prove you right.
I have on numerous occasions.
Regarding wisdom, well this thread of mine…
…is less than three months old. I welcome your comments and resurrection of it. Regarding Jesus’ peaceful world view, I would suggest you visit the following site.
I read his alleged words in the bible.
So now you are saying Monty can’t defend himself without calling me a fool again? So are you just wishy washy, or are you just schizophrenic like lissener thinks Jesus was?
Wow, you’re really twisting to maintain a favourable misinterpretation, aren’t you? Your stance is essentially “you’re all idiots and only an idiot would argue with me”, then using the second clause to prove the first.
I shouldn’t have to break it down even this much. Next step is words of one syllable or fewer.
No I’m saying a Christian is not following the words of Jesus when they call me a fool. I may think a lot of people arguing with me are idiots that hasn’t been the gist of my recent argument with Monty.
Perhaps you should break down my words into syllables. I realize my arguments have few weaknesses and as such you have to modify them to respond, but this is really getting obvious. Keep trying though.
Can’t calling you a fool be something wholly detached from whatever discussion of religion is ongoing?
I suppose it could, but when a Christian does so, he is disobeying Jesus, as I have been saying.
But I thought your position was that the divinity of Jesus is a myth.
You are a dense aren’t you. Read above and note how often I specifically noted that I was talking from a Christian perspective. Are you literally this stupid Bryan or are you just fucking with me?
But I thought you weren’t a Christian.
Is it diminishing your enjoyment of the board?
Hardly an argument; simply an observation.
You have spent numerous posts pretending that because Monty referred to your stupidity, he was calling you a fool and that this was in direct violation of a specific statement by Jesus.
Monty cryptically pointed out your error and you were too lazy to note that he had refuted your baseless claim. (The misspelling, of course, was unfortunate, but any search of Google using rakah and fool would bring back the correct spelling.)
Working backward, stupidity is not identical to being a fool, so your claim that if he referred to your stupidity he was calling you a fool is simply an attempt on your part to dishonestly conflate two words just to let you attempt to make a rhetorical point.
Then, there is the problem that the verse does not say “if you call your brother a fool . . .” but “if you call your brother rhaka. . .” In other words, the threatened punishment is not for simply saying that a person is idiotic, it is for expressly naming that person “Fool” (further indicated by the author of Matthew’s transliteration of the Aramiac word, rather than simply writing it in Greek).
Since your position is that the text must be taken literally, unless Monty explicitly calls you “Rhaka” (or even “Empty-headed” or “Fool”) you have lied when you accused him of having violated the admonition of Jesus.
Quite a few of us have tried to have rational discussions with BCon more than one occasion only to find it futile. In my case when I complimented him he insulted me in return. From personal experience and from observing him with others my objection is that he doesn’t really want a rational discussion. He wants to perceive himself as the winner of any discussion he’s in. To that end I find him disingenuous to the extreme. He is reluctant to admit his own errors while eager to exaggerate his opponents. Rather than an straight up exchange of ideas and opinions he uses semantics and manipulation to try and control the discussion and favor his position. All to meet his end of perceiving himself as winner.
If that’s what entertains him I don’t care. That’s not what I enjoy about the SDMB.
I agree with your DFTT suggestion. I don’t need him to be banned when I can avoid his transparent techniques. It’s unfortunate that he succeeds in disrupting interesting threads but other posters just need to learn how to not take the bait. Eventually whether he is banned or not will be on his own shoulders.