Anti-Semitism In France!

[lisah25 3]

They are nit-picking. The writer used the term circle to decribe his view of the earth. Because it does not contain the eD wording you prefer does not change it's literal meaning in the context. It is extream nit-picking.

Well, either the bible can be taken literaly or it can't. It really is an either/or. Once you say one part, no matter how nit-picky it might seem to you is open to interpretation, where do you draw the line?

[Wheetsin 714]

They are nit-picking. The writer used the term circle to decribe his view of the earth. Because it does not contain the eD wording you prefer does not change it's literal meaning in the context. It is extream nit-picking.

First, what's "eD" wording?

Second, you're talking about scripture. I'm an atheist. Scripture is all Peter Pan to me. So why on earth would I have a preference for the wording?

Third, it is not "nit-picking" when you say that something should be taken literally, but then do not take it literally. That's a total paradigm shift. Everyone knows that context changes meaning, just like punctuation can. And if the meaning of something can be changed, it cannot be taken literally, because it is inherently subjective to its audience.

So I truly, from the core of my curiosity, would like to know how you can have both "take it literally" and "don't take it literally" at the same time.

I have never evading any question if it was serious. Do you deny that you go to great lengths to try to find fault with everything I say?

My questions were serious, and you evaded them. Perhaps you believed for some reason that they were not serious, but then - what you believe isn't always right. It's only right to you. And hence we come very close to full circle.

Yes, I deny that. I breeze past most of what you say. If you look back at this thread, you'll notice I've disregarded many more posts than what I have replied to. And I would also deny any "great lengths" to find fault with "everything" you say. For a few reasons. First being that when I have found fault with something you have said, it has been obvious. It doesn't take great lengths for me to see that the shirt I have on is brown, just as it doesn't take great lengths to see that something you have said is faulty. Second being that I don't pay attention to "everything" you say. There's no way I could even pretend to have read everything you've posted, let alone given them any regard or attention. So... yep. I would pretty much have to deny what you've asked.

Consolidated for coherence. My responses are in black:

I don't have all the answers and never claimed to. I am also not infallible and have never claimed to be, but I do know what I am talking about. I would say that when it comes to knowing scripture verbatim, and its meaning to you, you know what you are talking about. I would disagree with that statement in a generic sense. I can't agree that someone generically "knows what they are talking about" when they make statements such as (paraphrasing, but not much) "Atheists hate god" and "Atheists hate christians". Or many other claims that were made around the same thread era. It is very evident in that instance that you had no clue what you were talking about. As for beyond what's in this thread, I have no opinion because I have not seen any demonstrations of your knowledge or lack of. [...]debate Laured about chemistry, I have very limited knowledge and freely admitted it. I may not believe her conclusions, but I don't have the educated knowledge to comprehend all the detailed arguments. Those who do not have intimate knowledge into the scriptures are also not equipped to fully understand a lot of the theology I am speaking about, and you take it as me being arrogant and self-serving. It is anything but. First, be careful about putting words in people's mouths. Again. You've made it clear you don't like it when people do it to you, yet you continue to do it to others. What you know or believe you know about the scripture has nothing to do with people finding you arrogant of self-serving, and I think I can speak for many here when I say that. Laurend has been very firm and confident in her knowledge of biological science, and I've not noticed anyone telling her she is arrogant or self-serving. Knowledge, and a willingness to share it, earns you respect here. Stating opinion as fact and judging others based on your opinions (e.g. implying that others are "less christian" or "wrong" for not believing as you do) does not. That has always been the case.

I have respected many christians who have been able to show me evidence of their beliefs. But short of trying to draw you a picture, I don't know what I or anyone else here can do to try and make that any more clear to you. It is not the scripture. It is not the words. It is not your memorization of the words. It is not even your interpretation of the words. It's your disposition. Like a said a looooong time ago, and as many have reitterated in different forms since, and probably before, "It's not what you say, it's how you say it."

[anonemouse 1]

I could say that I was abducted by an alien last night and there would be evidence; my testimony. But, there would be "no real evidence" or "no evidence that can be supported scientifically".

I was just about to say basically the same thing, TOM. People can find "evidence" of whatever they believe, whether it is Bigfoot, aliens, or a global flood. But at the end of the day, someone is right and someone is wrong, and the only evidence that truly matters is the evidence that can be scientifically proven. And the fact is, there is no scientific evidence of a flood that covered the entire world.

[Ron Cusano 0]

See below -

First, what's "eD" wording? That was typo. Should have been 3D but you knew that already, didn't you. Perfect example of myour nit-picking.

Second, you're talking about scripture. I'm an atheist. Scripture is all Peter Pan to me. So why on earth would I have a preference for the wording?

Because you're looking for a geometric description what what was said is withing the context of what was being said. Again, nit-picking! Looking to provoke argument.

Third, it is not "nit-picking" when you say that something should be taken literally, but then do not take it literally. Everyone knows that context changes meaning, just like punctuation can. And if the meaning of something can be changed, it cannot be taken literally, because it is inherently subjective to its audience. So I truly, from the core of my curiosity, would like to know how you can have both "take it literally" and "don't take it literally" at the same time. The scriptures are to be taken literally except where the context clearly indicates otherwise. This is a standard used by all serious Bible scolars. You are taking words out of context and/or picking words that clearly were not meant to be literal in their context or in todays english. The use of the word "dirt" in the verse you quoted is a good example.

My questions were serious, and you evaded them. Perhaps you believed for some reason that they were not serious, but then - what you believe isn't always right. It's only right to you. And hence we come very close to full circle.

Yes, I deny that. I breeze past most of what you say. If you look back at this thread, you'll notice I've disregarded many more posts than what I have replied to. And I would also deny any "great lengths" to find fault with "everything" you say. For a few reasons. First being that when I have found fault with something you have said, it has been obvious. It doesn't take great lengths for me to see that the shirt I have on is brown, just as it doesn't take great lengths to see that something you have said is faulty. Second being that I don't pay attention to "everything" you say. There's no way I could even pretend to have read everything you've posted, let alone given them any regard or attention. So... yep. I would pretty much have to deny what you've asked.

Don't give me that garbage that you are serious about wanting to know the answers. As an avowed athiest, you already have your mind made up, already know you disagree with everything I say, are completely closed minded, and are playing games to provoke controversy. Your bitterness and nastiness are amazing. I disagree with a lot of people on this board, but none of them are vile. It is amazing that they allow you to moderate this board with your attitude. It's a disgrace. Don't bother coming back with your ranting and raving (did they name this column after you)! You are not worth me wasting any more of my time on. It is like talking to the dead. I am planning to ignore all of your posts from now on.

Consolidated for coherence. My responses are in black:

[anonemouse 1]

That was typo. Should have been 3D but you knew that already, didn't you. Perfect example of myour nit-picking.

I don't know why you think people should automatically be able to decipher your words, Ron. I wasn't sure what you meant by eD, so I just skipped over it and read the rest of your sentence.

Don't give me that garbage that you are serious about wanting to know the answers. As an avowed athiest, you already have your mind made up, already know you disagree with everything I say, are completely closed minded, and are playing games to provoke controversy. Your bitterness and nastiness are amazing. I disagree with a lot of people on this board, but none of them are vile. It is amazing that they allow you to moderate this board with your attitude. It's a disgrace. Don't bother coming back with your ranting and raving (did they name this column after you)! You are not worth me wasting any more of my time on. It is like talking to the dead. I am planning to ignore all of your posts from now on.

Ron, you are going way too far. You don't have the right to tell someone else to stay away. Why don't you try answering her questions? People generally won't ask a question that they don't want the answer to. Many of us have picked up on the same habit of yours that she mentioned. You evade questions and then complain that you are being attacked when we stay after you for an answer. We generally ask questions because we want you to go into more detail or to explain why you made a comment. That isn't attacking you, and it doesn't mean that we are automatically harassing you. We just want you to explain your comments and what your intent behind them is. Personal attacks like the one you just made aren't getting anyone anywhere, except possibly getting you banned. And you can be assured that if you do get banned, it isn't because you have a point of view we disagree with, it's because you are personally attacking people!

[lisah25 3]

The scriptures are to be taken literally except where the context clearly indicates otherwise. This is a standard used by all serious Bible scolars. You are taking words out of context and/or picking words that clearly were not meant to be literal in their context or in todays english. The use of the word "dirt" in the verse you quoted is a good example.

This doesn't make sense. It's either literal or it's not. The second you say something like "the context clearly indicates otherwise" you are introducing intreptation, which can and does vary by person. What is clear to you may not be to someone else.

Don't give me that garbage that you are serious about wanting to know the answers. As an avowed athiest(bolding mine), you already have your mind made up, already know you disagree with everything I say, are completely closed minded, and are playing games to provoke controversy. Your bitterness and nastiness are amazing. I disagree with a lot of people on this board, but none of them are vile. It is amazing that they allow you to moderate this board with your attitude. It's a disgrace. Don't bother coming back with your ranting and raving (did they name this column after you)! You are not worth me wasting any more of my time on. It is like talking to the dead. I am planning to ignore all of your posts from now on.

And this is why we have problems with you, and tell you that you belittle people.

[Ron Cusano 0]

She knew exactly what it meant.

I don't know why you think people should automatically be able to decipher your words, Ron. I wasn't sure what you meant by eD, so I just skipped over it and read the rest of your sentence.

Ron, you are going way too far. You don't have the right to tell someone else to stay away. Why don't you try answering her questions? People generally won't ask a question that they don't want the answer to. Many of us have picked up on the same habit of yours that she mentioned. You evade questions and then complain that you are being attacked when we stay after you for an answer. We generally ask questions because we want you to go into more detail or to explain why you made a comment. That isn't attacking you, and it doesn't mean that we are automatically harassing you. We just want you to explain your comments and what your intent behind them is. Personal attacks like the one you just made aren't getting anyone anywhere, except possibly getting you banned. And you can be assured that if you do get banned, it isn't because you have a point of view we disagree with, it's because you are personally attacking people! I meant for not to come back TO ME with her garbage because I am not going to answer her. Everything I wrote is completely true. She has been trying to provoke argument since day one and is never sincere about her questions. You can take that to the bank. If she wants to ban me, let her ban me. I have gone to great lengths to answer any questions, give detailed inciteful answers, and understand that many don't agree with me, but enough already with the provoking and needling. Yeah, I lose my temper with the likes of her.

[/quote]

[Wheetsin 714]

First, what's "eD" wording? That was typo. Should have been 3D but you knew that already, didn't you. Perfect example of myour nit-picking.

No, I actually had no idea. That's why I asked. I wanted to be able to understand what it was you were trying to say. How could I have known that "eD wording" meant 3D?? So I guess what we're really seeing is an example of your wrong assumptions, and volatile nature.

Second, you're talking about scripture. I'm an atheist. Scripture is all Peter Pan to me. So why on earth would I have a preference for the wording? Because you're looking for a geometric description what what was said is withing the context of what was being said. Again, nit-picking! Looking to provoke argument.

Ok, you're probably going to attribute this to more nit-picking, but I've tried re-reading this statement a few different times and I really cannot understand what you're trying to say. Could you perhaps reword it?

description what what was said is withing the context

And no, I'm not looking for geometric descriptions. Nor am I trying to provoke an argument, but again with the wrong assumptions. I am trying to get an answer to my question. If the bible is to be taken literally, and the bible calls the earth a circle, is the earth a circle? Why not just answer the question?

The scriptures are to be taken literally except where the context clearly indicates otherwise. This is a standard used by all serious Bible scolars. You are taking words out of context and/or picking words that clearly were not meant to be literal in their context or in todays english. The use of the word "dirt" in the verse you quoted is a good example.

So scripture is literal, except for where it is not literal. If I understand correctly. And where it is not literal, subjective context rules the meaning. As I've said many times now, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, as it's definitely a bit divergent from the customary. I'm not a scriptural scholar, nor have I ever pretended to be. I have read the words, but I would never assume that how I take them is correct. So I have to ask. Only by asking can I understand what others think.

Don't give me that garbage that you are serious about wanting to know the answers. As an avowed athiest, you already have your mind made up, already know you disagree with everything I say, are completely closed minded, and are playing games to provoke controversy.

I am serious. I think most people reading this thread would also say that I'm serious. I want to know. When I don't know something, I ask questions. It's strange, that when I've questioned Gadget or Lisa or Carlene or - well - any other christians, they've understood that my questions were questions, have taken them at face value, and have been happy to give me answers. Why are you so defensive when questioned? And what makes you believe I am close-minded? That I don't agree with your perspectives?

Your bitterness and nastiness are amazing. I disagree with a lot of people on this board, but none of them are vile.

Really? And if you want to try and call foul about how someone is acting, or how you believe you're being treated, or whatever else you perceive to be happening, RnR is not the place to do it. It's kind of the nature of the beast -- "if you can't take the heat don't go in the kitchen" kind of thing. I think you were reminded about this earlier, too. At least once.

It is amazing that they allow you to moderate this board with your attitude. It's a disgrace. Don't bother coming back with your ranting and raving (did they name this column after you)! You are not worth me wasting any more of my time on. It is like talking to the dead. I am planning to ignore all of your posts from now on.

And hence you have proven the "Predictable Cycle of Ron Cusano behavior" absolutely correct. You get backed into a corner you can't rhetoric or evade your way out of, or someone shows that you are wrong, or you start to stutter over your own words. Adn then you try and make it person by attacking people's beliefs or, in the case of heathens like me with no beliefs, personalities. And when that doesn't work, you "quit". Either quitting specific conversations, or dramatically quitting the entire thread(s) (only to later come back).

And no, this forum was around loooong before I was. But nice try. Unfortunately your insults have about as much impact as your logic.

I am planning to ignore all of your posts from now on.

Aww, you give up so easily... I'm disappointed.

It is like talking to the dead.

Ok, that visual is about as creepy as you calling me darling.

[Wheetsin 714]

She knew exactly what it meant. [...] I meant for not to come back TO ME with her garbage because I am not going to answer her. Everything I wrote is completely true.

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.

She has been trying to provoke argument since day one

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?

If she wants to ban me, let her ban me.

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

I have gone to great lengths to answer any questions, give detailed inciteful answers, and understand that many don't agree with me, but enough already with the provoking and needling. Yeah, I lose my temper with the likes of her.

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.

[Ron Cusano 0]

I don't believe that for a moment. You knew exactly what it meant.

No, I actually had no idea. That's why I asked. I wanted to be able to understand what it was you were trying to say. How could I have known that "eD wording" meant 3D?? So I guess what we're really seeing is an example of your wrong assumptions, and volatile nature.

Ok, you're probably going to attribute this to more nit-picking, but I've tried re-reading this statement a few different times and I really cannot understand what you're trying to say. Could you perhaps reword it?

The writer madea statement about the "circle of the earth". They did not a 3D description by saying sphere, and you have a fit. They wwre using a terminolgy not giving a lecture of geometry, and you are trying to twist it into an argument for not taking the Bible literally.

description what what was said is withing the context

And no, I'm not looking for geometric descriptions. Nor am I trying to provoke an argument, but again with the wrong assumptions. I am trying to get an answer to my question. If the bible is to be taken literally, and the bible calls the earth a circle, is the earth a circle? Why not just answer the question?

So scripture is literal, except for where it is not literal. If I understand correctly. And where it is not literal, subjective context rules the meaning. As I've said many times now, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, as it's definitely a bit divergent from the customary. I'm not a scriptural scholar, nor have I ever pretended to be. I have read the words, but I would never assume that how I take them is correct. So I have to ask. Only by asking can I understand what others think.

OK, at the outside chance that you are serious, I will give you an example. In the New Testament, Jesus spoke about "who eat my body

and drink my blood". Since it is obvious that He is not referring to cannablism, then it is also obvious that the meaning is not literal, so we look for the real meaning. The rule used by Bible scolars is that you read the Bible literally, except where it is obviously not literal based upon the context and the whole of scripture. A non-Biblical example would be if you get made at your kids and say, "I'm going to kill you"! Unless you are a murdered, that is not to be taken literally, even though everything else you say you mean literally. You look at the context (you're mad) and you look at the big picture- the context - (you have never murdered or harmed anyone). I am sure you will tear this explanation apart, which is why you fustrate me.

I am serious. I think most people reading this thread would also say that I'm serious. I want to know. When I don't know something, I ask questions. It's strange, that when I've questioned Gadget or Lisa or Carlene or - well - any other christians, they've understood that my questions were questions, have taken them at face value, and have been happy to give me answers. Why are you so defensive when questioned? And what makes you believe I am close-minded? That I don't agree with your perspectives?

Really? And if you want to try and call foul about how someone is acting, or how you believe you're being treated, or whatever else you perceive to be happening, RnR is not the place to do it. It's kind of the nature of the beast -- "if you can't take the heat don't go in the kitchen" kind of thing. I think you were reminded about this earlier, too. At least once.

I can take the heat and I don't mind being questioned, but I get hot under the collar when someone is delibritely trying to provoke me.

And hence you have proven the "Predictable Cycle of Ron Cusano behavior" absolutely correct. You get backed into a corner you can't rhetoric or evade your way out of, or someone shows that you are wrong, or you start to stutter over your own words. Adn then you try and make it person by attacking people's beliefs or, in the case of heathens like me with no beliefs, personalities. And when that doesn't work, you "quit". Either quitting specific conversations, or dramatically quitting the entire thread(s) (only to later come back). Who said I was quitting the thread. I said I was not going to respond to your needling and provoking.

And no, this forum was around loooong before I was. But nice try. Unfortunately your insults have about as much impact as your logic.

My logic is just fine. Your ability to comprehend it is what is suspect.

Aww, you give up so easily... I'm disappointed.

Yeah, you're disappointed. You have made a career out of busing my shoes!

Ok, that visual is about as creepy as you calling me darling.

[Wheetsin 714]

As an avowed atheist, you already have your mind made up, already know you disagree with everything I say, are completely closed minded, and are playing games to provoke controversy.

Oops just noticed this one!

So if the fact that I am an atheist, who questions you about your religious beliefs despite already having my mind made up, makes me closed minded and a provoker, then...

...what does it make you to have questioned my atheism, after announcing that you were a minister?

[lisah25 3]

I don't believe that for a moment. You knew exactly what it meant.

And here is another example of why you get the response you do. This sounds like the classic "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts". And you say other people are closed minded? I didn't realize you meant 3D either.

[lisah25 3]

Oops just noticed this one!

So if the fact that I am an atheist, who questions you about your religious beliefs despite already having my mind made up, makes me closed minded and a provoker, then...

...what does it make you to have questioned my atheism, after announcing that you were a minister?

That's why I bolded that in my reply to Ron. That says volumes about him.

[Wheetsin 714]

I don't believe that for a moment. You knew exactly what it meant.

Yes! You weren't ignoring me after all!

Ron Cusano, how do you KNOW that? What amazing abilities of mind reading could possibly let you know what I do or do not know? The same ones that let you know what I had or hadn't researched a page or two back?

I will say it again. For the third or fourth time.

I truly am sorry that you have physical challenges in being able to type, or other challenges in being able to spell. But when you type something that I literally cannot understand, what would you prefer I do? Ask to clarify, so I can be sure of what you're trying to say, or make assumptions?

BTW, "3D" would not have been an assumption. Not in a million years. 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.

Others have told you they would not have guessed "3d", so why won't you believe what I'm saying?

[Wheetsin 714]

OK, at the outside chance that you are serious, I will give you an example. In the New Testament, Jesus spoke about "who eat my body

and drink my blood". Since it is obvious that He is not referring to cannablism, then it is also obvious that the meaning is not literal, so we look for the real meaning. The rule used by Bible scolars is that you read the Bible literally, except where it is obviously not literal based upon the context and the whole of scripture. A non-Biblical example would be if you get made at your kids and say, "I'm going to kill you"! Unless you are a murdered, that is not to be taken literally, even though everything else you say you mean literally. You look at the context (you're mad) and you look at the big picture- the context - (you have never murdered or harmed anyone).

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?

I am sure you will tear this explanation apart, which is why you fustrate me

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?