Anti-Semitism In France!

[Ron Cusano 0]

My typos are the result of sever arthritus in my hands which I shared several time before. Of course, that you conveniently forget.

Hmm, first - no I didn't know what you meant. I'm sorry you can't type or spell well, whatever be the case, but an inability to decipher is not our (or my) issue. There's no reason to get defensive because someone literally cannot understand what you're trying to say. If I wanted to "nit-pick", I would have called out all the times you said raceist, or weather, any of the other misspells. But I didn't. I asked you to clarify meaning.

If "everything I wrote is completely true", then I hate my parents because they are christians, and atheists hate christians. And franky, that's not only an inappropriate thing for you to suggest, but it's also, flat out, stone cold, black and white, wrong. Every athiest that I ever met has expressed distain if not hatred for God and Christianity. Perhaps I worded it improperly, which I previously admitted but you seem to want to overlook so you can keep bringing it back up, and I never suggested that you hate your parents.

I have? You're the one who brought up the entire topic of religion, after claiming to be a minister. Yet I'm the provoker? And how can I have done it "since day one" when for a long time, I wasn't even involved in this thread? I said I was in ministry, which is not the same as claiming to be a ministry which implys that I oversee a church. You could not be any more wrong. Can you own up to it??

Now that's desperation if I've ever seen it.

You have not given an insightful answer to my questions, you've evaded them or gone on the defense. Or answered one little tiny piece of a larger question, or answered anything BUT what you were asked.

That is pure bunk! Tell me what I have not answered!

[anonemouse 1]

I honestly thought that, if anything, you were trying to say an "-ed" word, such as "blasted" or "truncated", but accidentally deleted everything except the suffix.

That's pretty much what I thought, too. That, or those keys were hit accidentally.

[anonemouse 1]

I said I was in ministry, which is not the same as claiming to be a ministry which implys that I oversee a church. You could not be any more wrong. Can you own up to it??

Actually Ron, anyone who owns a ministry or participates in a ministry is a minister. They aren't necessarily ordained ministers that are sanctioned by a church, but they are ministers.

[wavydaby 1]

Ron, I didnt even know what you were trying to say, I skipped it.

However you said

For most study the NIV is good.

How can you say a particular translation is "ok enough" for some study and not all?

Why would one bible be the "gold standard" yet you choose to look at another verision?

That makes no sence to me at all.

Why bother to look at the shorthand, when the longhand is "perfectly fine"

Oh, and there isnt much you can say about the Church that will offend me.

I, however, reserve the right to defend it.

As I do about my entire faith. I am defending my faith.

I have brought facts to the table, heck, I even clarified a quote YOU pulled out of the bible that even you were short in defending on homosexuality.

Then you went on say that I took part of it "out of context".

Which I wanted, I guess, "to nit-pick" you on answers to my questions.

I do not accept anyone's beliefs on faith. I do not cower to anyone's brow beating, unless they can hold true to facts and answer the questions I have.

Yes, I "nit pick". When I took my senior biology thesis to my professors, they 'nit-picked' the bloody hell out of it. They wanted to know where I got my facts, show them my research data, show them the calculations where I drew my conclusions. It was not enough for me to take a line out of a text book and say, 'here is the truth.' I had to prove it was.

[Ron Cusano 0]

SEE BELOW!

[/color]Thank you! I was asking seriously, and I appreciate you taking the time to provide (finally) an explanation.

But where is it safe to go from there? Some of your explanation doesn't make sense. If I question it to gain deeper understanding, I'm tearing it apart. And if I don't question it, I either make assumptions about what the answers are (which does not further my understanding), or I just walk away as confused as ever, which has no gain for me.

So in your opinion, what's the right course of action here? Be sincere, and I will answer any questions and if I don't know the answer, I will say so. But whe everythime I give you an answer you come back with something to the effect that I am being deceptive or evasive, etc. Have you ever considered that not having a background in biblical studies that maybe you are not comprehending what I an saying?

[/color]So do I understand correctly, that it frustrates you for people not to take what you say as the face value truth, and instead try to analyze it and gain a deeper understanding? No, wrong! What fustrates me is when people ask questions, not to get an understanding, but to try to trap me or find needless fault. I have spent a lot of time on this thread, and I also write articles for Christian newspapers, opinionsLiberal Daily newspapers in their religion column, teach Bible studies, and a lot of other things, plus work a full time job, so my time is very important and limited. I don't like wasteing it.

[Wheetsin 714]

My typos are the result of sever arthritus in my hands which I shared several time before. Of course, that you conveniently forget.

Umm no, see post #1809 where I stated very clearly: truly am sorry that you have physical challenges in being able to type, or other challenges in being able to spell. (And BTW, keep in mind that not everyone reads every post. It would be easy for someone to have not seen your posts re: arthritis, but you should not be so angry toward them for doing so).

So again, you're wrong. But when I'm wrong, it's a matter of whether or not I will own up to it (and if you'd read beyond this read, you would have seen me owning up to it several times).

I said I was in ministry, which is not the same as claiming to be a ministry

I never said you were a ministry. :)

[Ron Cusano 0]

Umm no, see post #1809 where I stated very clearly: truly am sorry that you have physical challenges in being able to type, or other challenges in being able to spell. (And BTW, keep in mind that not everyone reads every post. It would be easy for someone to have not seen your posts re: arthritis, but you should not be so angry toward them for doing so). The I apoligize! I took it to be sacrcasm.

So again, you're wrong. But when I'm wrong, it's a matter of whether or not I will own up to it (and if you'd read beyond this read, you would have seen me owning up to it several times).

I never said you were a ministry. :)

Go back and read you recent post wher you said I "claimed to be a minister"! Now, you are wrong! Will you own up to it?

[green 6]

Yeah, I was baffled by eD, too. I can sort out Cusano's misspellings but eD was right off the map.

[Wheetsin 714]

Have you ever considered that not having a background in biblical studies that maybe you are not comprehending what I an saying?

Have you ever wondered why you would assume I don't have a background in biblical studies?

No, wrong! What fustrates me is when people ask questions, not to get an understanding, but to try to trap me or find needless fault. I have spent a lot of time on this thread, and I also write articles for Christian newspapers, opinionsLiberal Daily newspapers in their religion column, teach Bible studies, and a lot of other things, plus work a full time job, so my time is very important and limited. I don't like wasteing it.

You're, again, making a lot of assumptions about my intentions.

I have said things like 4 or 5 times now, and you still don't seem to get it. What else should I do? Are you a visual learner? Is there a better means of communication for you other than the written word, e.g., diagrams?

[Ron Cusano 0]

The King James is or was the "gold standard" for accuarcy, but it was written in the "King's English" which some have a problem understanding, and some of the terminology in todays English has different meanings.

They came out with the "New King James" version which is in todays English, without the Thee's and Thou's!

A recent addition has been the New American Standard Bible which is touted to be the most accuarate word for word translations in modern English ever done.

There are other Bibles out ther call "pharaphrased" Bibles, such as "The Living Bible" which gives you what the writed say's the passaage means, but is not a literal translation.

And them there is the Strong's Concorrdance that give you the exact, literal translation of every single word in the Bible from the original Greek and Hebrew root, when you what to know what a specific word means. This is helpful when you find a word or reference that is clearly not meant literally by context.

I would be happy to explain context in any given sitution, bit a Bible study is a more apporiate forum because it take a lot of time and discussion.

I am trying real hard here to give you a serious answer.

Ron, I didnt even know what you were trying to say, I skipped it.

However you said

For most study the NIV is good.

How can you say a particular translation is "ok enough" for some study and not all?

Why would one bible be the "gold standard" yet you choose to look at another verision?

That makes no sence to me at all.

Why bother to look at the shorthand, when the longhand is "perfectly fine"

Oh, and there isnt much you can say about the Church that will offend me.

I, however, reserve the right to defend it.

As I do about my entire faith. I am defending my faith.

I have brought facts to the table, heck, I even clarified a quote YOU pulled out of the bible that even you were short in defending on homosexuality.

Then you went on say that I took part of it "out of context".

Which I wanted, I guess, "to nit-pick" you on answers to my questions.

I do not accept anyone's beliefs on faith. I do not cower to anyone's brow beating, unless they can hold true to facts and answer the questions I have.

Yes, I "nit pick". When I took my senior biology thesis to my professors, they 'nit-picked' the bloody hell out of it. They wanted to know where I got my facts, show them my research data, show them the calculations where I drew my conclusions. It was not enough for me to take a line out of a text book and say, 'here is the truth.' I had to prove it was.

[Ron Cusano 0]

Because you said and I think I am quoting you, "I am an atgiest and am not a Bible scholar." or something to that effect.

Have you ever wondered why you would assume I don't have a background in biblical studies? [/color]

You're, again, making a lot of assumptions about my intentions.

I have said things like 4 or 5 times now, and you still don't seem to get it. What else should I do? Are you a visual learner? Is there a better means of communication for you other than the written word, e.g., diagrams?

And you don't condiser that sarcastic??

[Wheetsin 714]

Go back and read you recent post wher you said I "claimed to be a minister"! Now, you are wrong! Will you own up to it?

Wow, it's a big deal for you that I'm wrong, eh? Will I own up to it? Is this about proving me wrong? Because that sounds very much like a challenge. Why make it that way? Why "us v them"? I have no problem owning up to it when I am wrong. If that's something you're craving, just spend some time persuing different threads and you'll find plenty of instances. More than enough to satisfy whateever it is you're after, I'm sure. And yes, I accidentally misrepresented what you had said. You said you were in christian ministry, and over the month and a half that passed since I read that post, I remembered it as you were a minister. That is my bad.

But you may have missed my point. Your words to me were "I said I was in ministry, which is not the same as claiming to be a ministry". And I never made the claim that you were a ministry.

[Ron Cusano 0]

First, no one ownes a ministry. A ministry, if organized, must be non-profit and run by a board of directors. A ministry can have a director, but never an owner.

Likewise, many people can contribute and be part of a ministry, bit in the common understanding withing the church, that are not ministers. And church ministers can be called ministers without beinf part of a ministry, aside from their own personal ministry.

The usual understanding of the title of minister means to be the minister of a congregation. By someone saying that I claimed to be a minister, they were giving a false statement and picture of my role.

Actually Ron, anyone who owns a ministry or participates in a ministry is a minister. They aren't necessarily ordained ministers that are sanctioned by a church, but they are ministers.

[Ron Cusano 0]

No! But you had just gotten done raking me over the coals claiming that I don't admit when I am wrong, even thought I have done so several times. I wanted to see if you hold yourself to the same standards. You vare persuiing different threads, and I an discussing/debating usually several people at once and doing other things, so my time and attention is stretched at least as much as yours is.

Wow, it's a big deal for you that I'm wrong, eh? Will I own up to it? Is this about proving me wrong? Because that sounds very much like a challenge. Why make it that way? Why "us v them"? I have no problem owning up to it when I am wrong. If that's something you're craving, just spend some time persuing different threads and you'll find plenty of instances. More than enough to satisfy whateever it is you're after, I'm sure. And yes, I accidentally misrepresented what you had said. You said you were in christian ministry, and over the month and a half that passed since I read that post, I remembered it as you were a minister. That is my bad.

But you may have missed my point. Your words to me were "I said I was in ministry, which is not the same as claiming to be a mnistry". And I never made the claim that you were a ministry.

[Wheetsin 714]

And you don't condiser that sarcastic??

No, not at all. You obviously are not acquainted with any of the "what do you do for a living" threads, or any of the countless other threads where I have shared (including one BJean had up not that long ago).

A large part of what I do professionaly is to understand the different ways that people assimilate and process knowledge and information. Part of this is understanding that not everyone communicates or learns in the same way. For example, some people learn visually and cannot process information without some visual stimulation, whereas others might process kinestheticaly, and could find visuals distracting. Of course it goes much deeper than that, but that's another thread.

I had said the same thing something like 4 or 5 times, if not more, and you were not understanding it. Hence, the possibility that you do not assimilate well through the written word, and that something graphic, associative, contratative, etc. might better get the message across.