Is everyone welcome here?
Comments
-
This whole discussion has become pitiful.
0 -
Mark said:
It is most likely that most people reading and responding to this thread knows that Jonathan follows a long line of others who have expressed a longing for a bit of kindness in the forums.
I hope so.
0 -
This thread is really good; people shouldn't be so intolerant of other people's intolerance.
That's why I'm so intolerant of people that express 'humility'. 'Polite'? Who (not counting Graham and the Marks)?
Let's always remember Jesus was not welcomed by humans (the synoptics emphasize it was Satan and his minions that DID see the problem.)
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Peace, Butters! I looked up your Sherlock Holmes segment and enjoyed it............ this post is to attempt to send the link again for others' perusal ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M76nPnaJ7G4
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Whyndell Grizzard said:
This whole discussion has become pitiful.
I agree and I would be tempted to not participate in it anymore, but that may imply complicity, if not agreement with some of what's been going on. I'll simply summarize my response here.
Of all the things to talk about, talking about how to talk about things is often the most circular.
The original post calls for being polite, exercising a bit of forbearance (to use a Biblical word), with the hope that these forums can be a bit more hospitable. That sentiment echoes 1Peter 3:15b (in some versions v.16a), regarding giving an answer (or defense - apologia) about what we believe, "...but do this with gentleness and respect."
Certainly even clear, direct, and unambiguous arguments can still be polite, forbearing, and hospitable, or, to use the words from 1Peter 3:15, gentle and respectful.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
The OP is not yearning for kindness or for politeness per se.
His perception of "politeness" and "kindness" is mediated by something else.
That "something else" is his desire to be affirmed and approved of, here and elsewhere.
The word "tolerance" is being used as a kind of veil to make that^ yearning sound more palatable, even supremely reasonable. It is neither.
That's what's really going on here. And in other similar threads. It's quite obvious to anyone not caught up in postmodernist confusion.
~Butters [:)]
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
Peace, Butters! I looked up your Sherlock Holmes segment and enjoyed it............ this post is to attempt to send the link again for others' perusal ...
Hah! Yes, it's good isn't it?
Here's a scene that displays Brett's extraordinary talent as an actor. Watch it to the end and observe the unbelievably subtle difference in how he thanks Inspector Lastrade for his "compliment."
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
Butters said:
That's what's really going on here.
I don't believe you. I do believe the poster's stated intent was to call for polite, forbearing and hospitable discussion (my restatement of his request) - even if in his call for such he was inconsistent in stating that intent.
You believe otherwise. Fine. But unless you're a mind-reader, state your intentions, not his.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Threads like these practically guarantee that more sensitive folks approaching Logos forums as a somewhat Christian or Christianized place of interaction will turn elsewhere if they can help it.
To some of you responsible for such "ministry" and "erudition", I say "Good job". With sarcasm.
Perhaps the moment has come for Logos to officially step in with a reminder or a re-statement about how discourse and disagreements are handled on these forums. For my part, I would hope that Logos consider that these forums are accessed by not only people from different faith traditions and distinctives, but also people from different levels of society, and indeed people from all over the world.
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:Butters said:
That's what's really going on here.
I don't believe you. I do believe the poster's stated intent was to call for polite, forbearing and hospitable discussion (my restatement of his request) - even if in his call for such he was inconsistent in stating that intent.
You believe otherwise. Fine. But unless you're a mind-reader, state your intentions, not his.
I'm not reading his mind. I'm reading his words. However, I prefer to use my brain while reading people's words.
~Butters [:)]
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
Peace, Dear Brother! What an interesting person you are, a very special unique creation of our Marvelous God! I truly rejoice at your involvement in various conversations on the Logos Forums. (I do not write here as an MVP - simply as as a plain and very ordinary Logos Bible Software user!)Butters said:The OP is not yearning for kindness or for politeness per se.
His perception of "politeness" and "kindness" is mediated by something else.
That "something else" is his desire to be affirmed and approved of, here and elsewhere.
The word "tolerance" is being used as a kind of veil to make that^ yearning sound more palatable, even supremely reasonable. It is neither.
That's what's really going on here. And in other similar threads. It's quite obvious to anyone not caught up in postmodernist confusion.
~Butters
I think, though, maybe God isn't finished with you yet, though! I think I'm perhaps being a little to "bold" to say that .... however ...... ... I do know for certain He's not yet finished with me! *smile*
Frankly, I don't agree with your psychological assessment of our brother, the OP, who makes some really valid points. Perhaps there are a few flies in the ointment of your analysis, eh???
Second, I personally often wish I had "said" things in a different way when I've reviewed my interactions with others. Part of being human, I guess.
Third, part of my nature (way too much probably!) is my desire to be affirmed and approved of here and elsewhere.
Fourth, my lovely wifey of 52 years (at this moment on a special tour of the Vatican hosted by my remarkable daughter! *smile* ) -- my wifey and I spend a lot of time and energy affirming and approving one another -- in words, in glances, in a thousand ways ...
I know I shouldn't likely be posting this; however, "fair is fair."
Fifth, perhaps I too am caught up in postmodernist confusion. It is certain that I -- as well as The Church -- must always be in a position of:
Ecclesia semper reformanda est! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_semper_reformanda_est
Ever since I was ordained in 1962 - I've tried to live and share the Incredible Grace and Love of an Incredible God Who has loved us with an everlasting love. A Love I still need to relish and to share and in which to Grow.
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:Butters said:
That's what's really going on here.
I don't believe you. I do believe the poster's stated intent was to call for polite, forbearing and hospitable discussion (my restatement of his request) - even if in his call for such he was inconsistent in stating that intent.
You believe otherwise. Fine. But unless you're a mind-reader, state your intentions, not his.
Thank you, Richard! You speak better than I! *smile* Psalm 29:11
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Jonathan Pitts said:
Thank you. I am already feeling suicidal today.
That really helps.
Please give me a break here. I'm not at my best.
0 -
Denise said:
This thread is really good; people shouldn't be so intolerant of other people's intolerance.
tolerance/intolerance.........
Freedom of conscience is a God-given right. No one should be forced to go against their beliefs just because a majority demands compliance. The whole issue erupted in the "Synoptic Problem" thread. The funny thing is, "scholars" can not even agree amongst themselves as to how to handle the "problem!" The OP denied the "problem" and posted the thread tongue-in-cheek. The answers were all meant as an attempt to help the poor, presumably uneducated, poster. Those who ridicule a belief in inspiration and inerrancy are probably guilty of ridiculing (being intolerant) of the OP's personal beliefs.
Proffering an indefensible position in the marketplace of ideas and demanding it's polite acceptance is not a human right. Bart Ehrman knows this and fully accepts that his ideas will be challenged. That is precisely why he publishes books. To shrink from questioning the new idea is not scholarly at all. We would have precious few resources in Logos were it not for challenging untenable beliefs. There was once a fellow who nailed a list of 95 theses to a door. How dare he be so "impolite" towards the Church!
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
@ST:
With respect, I was in that thread.
I did not detect any post that spoke from Bart Ehrmann's perspective.
I did not detect any post that ridiculed inspiration and inerrancy.
I certainly did not detect anyone who spoke from a position of "majority", or "demanded compliance". At least, not at first.
You're an MVP, with a whole boatload of Logos resources. You, of all people, know the rules of this forum, know the Logos resources you could have recommended, know how to express disagreement without resorting to intemperate language.
Has it ever occured to you, you could have been wrong? Are you laying "Luther and his 95 theses" and "Freedom of Conscience" on this forum, and in this particular matter? I don't think there's any comparison.
0 -
Bart was in the thread in full regalia. ST's very perceptive.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:
Let's always remember Jesus was not welcomed by humans...
Denise said:Bart was in the thread in full regalia. ST's very perceptive.
Full regalia? Bravo, a woman with words indeed. Your source? Cite, quote, re-state, please. Because if something had come out in full regalia, I -- as I'm sure many are -- remain in the dark about it. Enlighten us.
And even if Bart Ehrmann himself were to show up in this forum, so what? You're going to nail 95 Theses on him without so much as a "how do you do"?
Are you and ST contending that the content and direction of certain posts in that thread can be compared to the actions of Jesus, or of Luther?
Mind-readers and messiahs. Madmen and egomaniacs. I'm out of this thread.
Before I bow out: a reminder to Logos about "impressions".
- Denise has 4423 posts. Impression to forum readers: she's a fixture around here.
- ST is an MVP. Obviously he's no Logos employee, but 'nuff said.
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:Richard DeRuiter said:Butters said:
That's what's really going on here.
I don't believe you. I do believe the poster's stated intent was to call for polite, forbearing and hospitable discussion (my restatement of his request) - even if in his call for such he was inconsistent in stating that intent.
You believe otherwise. Fine. But unless you're a mind-reader, state your intentions, not his.
Thank you, Richard! You speak better than I! *smile* Psalm 29:11
Mr Murray,
Thank you for your kind words sir.
With all due respect (and I really mean that, not just a throwaway line before I lay in, so to speak [:D]), I'm not reading the OP's mind. I'm reading his words.
It isn't hard to see what is really going on by this time in the thread. It doesn't take a mind reader or a seer or a magician; it just takes reading a person's words critically, carefully, and in view of truth and logic: watching how words are being used and mis-used, how the ever-so-slight shifts in semantics and the inconsistencies and confusion and illogic build up, thereby betraying another meaning and intention that is unsaid and unspoken, but laid utterly bare: that he doesn't want his opinions challenged and indeed wants them confirmed by the gathering "reality" around him; and is parading that need under the banner of "tolerance."
Coddling the OP - and catering to his psychological needs - isn't going to do him or anyone else any good. Not even curious people who come from anywhere or somewhere to read these threads.
~Butters [:)]
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
Most people like affirmation and it is easy to comprehend why. My Scriptural perspective is such that I don't get it that often, and when I do it is usually of the "I hate to agree with you, David, but..." variety. So be it. I take what I can get and I don't sweat it when most of what I receive is disagreement, abuse, or intolerance. I just expect that...which I think is a lot of what is in play here--expectations.
I tend to expect very little out of other people, mainly because...they are people. Humans are broken vessels. I some ways, I expect even less of religious people than I do of non-religious people, and yes, I think that religion is the significant reason for that reduced expectation. In other ways, though, religion tends to help. I've met "nice" people who were of both persuasions, and nice is nice. Nice, however, isn't a Godly characteristic.There is something similar to what people mean these days when they use the word "nice" which is a component of Godliness, but blurring the lines of semantics so "we can all get along" and be "nice" to each other is to reject the entire concept of Holiness. Holiness, by absolute definition, can brook no toleration of ANYTHING that is not likewise Holy. I'm sure a study using your Logos Bible software will support that assertion.
This is a Logos Bible Software forum, and its purpose is to support the use of said software. Fine. But the "Bible" part of that product description means that inevitably there will be excursions and incursions pertaining to that Book and its contents into this forum. It is inevitable. Mostly, when that happens, it goes by without much incident. Occasionally, someone gets strident and pushy. My advice, when such a thing happens, is DEAL WITH IT. I don't mean that in any other way that what those words normally mean. To emphasize, I don't mean what that phrase has somehow come to mean, which is "shut up and accept the thing you don't like because there's nothing you can do about it". Quite the contrary, I mean "deal with it". Principles are in place, and to Bob's credit, he's said he prefers to not have to invoke such "rules" unless absolutely necessary. But they are there and when needed they can be applied. To sum up, problems should be dealt with as they arise.
The question is, however, what constitutes a problem. Like most others, I come here for Logos news and Logos support. I have to say, though, that I am most engaged and captivated by some of the topical issues and conversations that arise. This forum is a gathering place for one of the more diverse groups of Bible-focused mindsets you could ever hope to find on the internet. In addition, generally speaking, the knowledge level of most participants is a few notches above what you would expect to find on a typical forum devoted to religious discussion. I appreciate that, and I do so even though there isn't anyone on this forum who perceives the Bible in the same way I do. That's fine, because I really don't expect it to be otherwise. But as I've said before about my Logos library, the only things in my library that I agree with are the Bibles and some of the lexicons. I still have a 7000 resource library and growing BECAUSE I don't look to have my point of view supported by the things I read. Quite to the contrary, I look to have what I read from my library CHALLENGE what I believe.
Jonathan, if you are here to learn more about the software, great. But I'm pretty sure it wasn't a BUG report or a "how to save a Layout" thread that you were participating in when you got your feelings hurt. It was one of those interesting and occasionally messy threads that many here have to consider a "guilty" pleasure only because we are expected to do something that is practically against nature--talk about Bible software without talking about the Bible. I know why Logos has the rule, and I generally try to abide by it, but it is a whole lot like trying to sweep sunshine off the sidewalk. And so we come back to the "deal with it" element I mentioned above. Folks, just get used to it--YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT. "Bible" will raise its unwelcomed head on this "Bible" software forum on something like a regular basis.
Why does that happen? Because the Bible is important to a lot of people--it's why we are all here. The consequences are life and death, not penny ante chump change. We all want to understand it better than we do when we show up. Often that entails a question about how to utilize this amazing tool to its fullest potential. And sometimes the answers will invite Bible discussion. That isn't sinful...it just isn't the specific purpose of this forum. But chasing the Bible from this Bible software forum is ludicrous in the extreme.
Again, Jonathan, you probably wouldn't have ever had a feelings-jarring encounter if your participation was solely focused on "how-tos". I seriously doubt you would have felt treaded upon if you hadn't chosen to wade into a "meaning"-focused thread. Meaning, of course, is the rub for all of us. What this Book actually means is the entire point for the existence of this software and our ultimate purpose for turning up on this site to begin with. To sum that meaning and purpose we have reference to a single word...TRUTH. Truth and Holiness imbue each other and for that reason there can be no allowance for "toleration". If you doubt my words, give the book of Joshua a once over, focusing especially on the places where YHWH sounds quite a bit like Darth Sidious when He commands, "WIPE THEM OUT, ALL OF THEM!" Those who were called by His Name were not to tolerate ANYTHING about those who "after all, simply had a different point of view".
Still, in all, the fact is that YHWH has a "clear" plan, and that plan entails giving people a bit of time to see things His way...even those who think they see things His way when they really don't. During that period of time, the time we are in now, YHWH exercises patience with humanity. In His way, He is shaking things up enough so (as prophecy shows) the readjustment of our understanding can take place...but that adjustment takes time and so He extends patience to us. We, likewise, need to exercise similar patience with others. Tolerance and patience may "look" alike to some folks, but the undercurrents are vastly different. The "horses and chariots of fire" that surrounded Elisha were waiting patiently for a command, but they would have exterminated whatever they were unleash upon. If YHWH were tolerant, Revelation would be one of the shortest books of the Bible. Because He is patient, most of it has not happened yet. But when patience ceases, and it always does, intolerance makes a clean sweep of the unacceptable. Holiness REQUIRES perfect intoleration.
Approaching this from another perspective, tolerance nearly always "holds its tongue", but love is rarely capable of such behavior. "Leaving others be" to harm themselves in ignorance is hate, not love. But love knows that it can't force others, so after a word or two, it often bides its time. Many Christians' concept of love is human, not Godly. He is only gentle when gentle is sufficient, and it rarely is. He is trying (in a manner of speaking) to save lives, not make people feel good. As body builders and triage attendants know, pain is often the only path to follow to achieve success.
Point is, Jonathan, you might need to change your expectations a bit, or at least keep to the obvious "how to" threads. Confrontation is the literal life blood of the Book--but it isn't meaningless confrontation. It is directed, purposeful confrontation. If confrontation wasn't part of the plan, YHWH would have killed Satan long before he got into the garden and He never would have brought up Job's name when Job was just going around minding his own Godly-business.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Butters said:
It isn't hard to see what is really going on by this time in the thread.
Agreed, though we obviously see it differently.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:Butters said:
It isn't hard to see what is really going on by this time in the thread.
Agreed, though we obviously see it differently.
True enough.
However, there's another difference: I believe our differences are worth pursuing, and pursuing them passionately; and I think they are worth pursuing because truth exists; and because at least one of our viewpoints is wrong. And because Civilization is not a kind of silence about the important and enduring things; rather, lively argument/discussion about truth, goodness and beauty is the very essence of Civilization.
~Butters [:)]
"CREEDS must disagree: it is the whole fun of the thing. If I think the universe is triangular, and you think it is square, there cannot be room for two universes. We may argue politely, we may argue humanely, we may argue with great mutual benefit; but, obviously, we must argue. Modern toleration is really a tyranny. It is a tyranny because it is a silence. To say that I must not deny my opponent's faith is to say I must not discuss it . . . It is absurd to have a discussion on Comparative Religions if you don't compare them."
~G.K. Chesterton: Illustrated London News, 10/10/08.
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
David Paul said:
Approaching this from another perspective, tolerance nearly always "holds its tongue", but love is rarely capable of such behavior. Leaving others be to harm themselves in ignorance is hate, not love. But love knows that it can't force others, so after a word or two, it often bides its time.
Magnificent post Monsieur Paul.
~Butters [:)]
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
Lee said:
I did not detect any post that spoke from Bart Ehrmann's perspective.
I am speaking to intolerance in general. You specifically downgraded the value of my input compared to Ehrman's, just like you are doing in comparison to Luther.
Lee said:I did not detect any post that ridiculed inspiration and inerrancy.
When Jonathan used "anti-scholarly fundamentalist conservative" as a pejorative term he ridiculed fundamentalists. If you refer to my earlier post in this thread you will find the Wikipedia articles on "Fundamentalism." Enumerated there are inspiration and inerrancy. Most who embrace the Q hypothesis deny the plenary inspiration of the Bible. I am perfectly fine with their right to deny what 2 Tim 3:16 claims. I would also ask they respect my right to hold a different belief, having examined the Q hypothesis and found it wanting.
Lee said:I certainly did not detect anyone who spoke from a position of "majority", or "demanded compliance". At least, not at first.
It was pointed out (by one who agreed with the minority opinion) that the various explanations of the synoptic "problem" formed the majority views. No one challenged the "anti-scholarly" view of Markan priority. No one challenged the "anti-scholarly" view of "Q" (Even though there are many manuscripts of the Gospels but not even one of "Q.")
Lee said:You're an MVP, with a whole boatload of Logos resources. You, of all people, know the rules of this forum, know the Logos resources you could have recommended, know how to express disagreement without resorting to intemperate language.
I did recommend a few resources and two external websites in since the resources are still in Pre-Pub.I did not take the OP's question as serious. Read it again people! (boldface added by me)
Evan Boardman said:Could someone enlighten me on the problem. As I understand the synoptics, each was written for a different purpose. There is no problem.
I do regret posting the funny Q-tip cartoon. I deleted it for unity's sake. I could have just quoted the forum guidelines for Jonathan's inflammatory terminology but that just seems to anger people when an MVP plays policeman. Finally, I offer no apologies for my 12,202 Logos resources. I wish everyone had that and more.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Super Tramp said:
We would have precious few resources in Logos were it not for challenging untenable beliefs. There was once a fellow who nailed a list of 95 theses to a door. How dare he be so "impolite" towards the Church!
Not a big fan of Luther; still, I like this observation. Truth is, there are still today those who think what he did was heretical and others who think what he did was a godsend. Logos publishes material from both perspectives. I'm cool with that, even though I agree with neither.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Super Tramp said:Lee said:
I did not detect any post that spoke from Bart Ehrmann's perspective.
I am speaking to intolerance in general. You specifically downgraded the value of my input compared to Ehrman's, just like you are doing in comparison to Luther.
?? Quote me. If not, teach me some English. There's something you know that I don't. [Note: In case some readers believe in this aspersion, and think that I agree with Ehrmann's recent "findings", he could have a look at this thread. Heck, I can't even spell his name right! [:)]]
But to aid your reading comprehension, I will clarify that I am downgrading you in comparison with Luther. And I am downgrading Denise in comparison with YOU-KNOW-WHO.
Super Tramp said:Lee said:I did not detect any post that ridiculed inspiration and inerrancy.
When Jonathan used "anti-scholarly fundamentalist conservative" as a pejorative term he ridiculed fundamentalists. If you refer to my earlier post in this thread you will find the Wikipedia articles on "Fundamentalism." Enumerated there are inspiration and inerrancy. Most who embrace the Q hypothesis deny the plenary inspiration of the Bible. I am perfectly fine with their right to deny what 2 Tim 3:16 claims. I would also ask they respect my right to hold a different belief, having examined the Q hypothesis and found it wanting.
That's Jonathan, in this thread. He has clarified. He has gone so far as to apologise. Let's talk about that thread: did you ask for anyone to consider your views? Did you ask for anyone to consider some evidences, collateral circumstances, whatever? At first, did you ask?
Super Tramp said:I did recommend a few resources and two external websites
Yes, sir. You did do that. But was that the first shot of your bow?
ST and Denise, before you mention Luther and Jesus in connection with what you are doing, please take a moment and think about what you are saying.
0 -
Super Tramp said:
It was pointed out (by one who agreed with the minority opinion) that the various explanations of the synoptic "problem" formed the majority views. No one challenged the "anti-scholarly" view of Markan priority. No one challenged the "anti-scholarly" view of "Q" (Even though there are many manuscripts of the Gospels but not even one of "Q.")
LOL, another gem! I have never quite thought of it in that way before...there were plenty enough copies of Q floating around so that all the gospel writers got a copy, but not enough for one to have survived until...when? The 2nd century? The 3rd? Because if it had made it at least that far, it would certainly have been reproduced in the same fashion the gospels were. But it just didn't happen, even though you would think a contemporaneous listing of Yeishuu`a's sayings would be of even greater interest than a "second-hand" account called a "gospel". Considering we have more gospel scraps than we do of any other ancient writing, the absence of any Q is a deafening account of its non-existence. To say that its existence is "improbable" is a drastic understatement.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
As a theory Q is not one of humanity's strongest contributions. But that does not entitle us to write in the back-slapping, horn-tooting, flag-waving, card-carrying, arrow-shooting way that some might be inclined to. What is that, except to be doing as others do?
0 -
Lee ... just so we're clear, and to be fair with ST, our opinions are almost 180 degrees opposite. I get the feeling you're reading more into the his and my comments than needed. (1) He's from OK. I think even worse, north of the Arkansas, much less the Red. (2) He likes many opinions; I don't like any except my own and (3) We're about as far apart theologically as possible. But (4) he does have a very nice family and so must be a nice guy.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I tooted my horn a few days ago for Yohm T'ruu`aah and will do so again in a few more days for Yohm Kippur. I don't know if that means I qualify or not.
[*-)]
Fwiw, I prefer a yohbheil as a shohphaar over a Yemini kudu horn--less flashy, more authentic.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
I tooted my horn a few days ago for Yohm T'ruu`aah and will do so again in a few more days for Yohm Kippur. I don't know if that means I qualify or not.
Fwiw, I prefer a yohbhel as a shohphaar over a Yemini kudu horn--less flashy, more authentic.
Are you a prophet? Indeed I think you are. Prophets weep. Prophets bleed. Prophets pray. Prophets plead. A word to the wise.
We are now talking about that thread, as well as the responses from you and ST in this thread. So please get on point, full regalia and all. I can take an apology. I can take a refutation. I can take an honest clarification. I reject obfuscation. Don't just talk to me. Talk to the anyone who might happen to be reading this sorry state of affairs.
0 -
Lee said:
?? Quote me.
Here is where you call my opinion "ill-formed conjecture."
Lee said:It is no use countering the likes of Ehrman with ill-formed conjectures of "our own"
Here is where you belittle the importance of what I have to say.
Lee said:Are you laying "Luther and his 95 theses" and "Freedom of Conscience" on this forum, and in this particular matter? I don't think there's any comparison.
And, yes, I am. My freedom of conscience is equally important to Luther's freedom of conscience and more people have probably read my posts on the forums than read the original list on the Castle Church door. The thread has been viewed 2069 times.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
If you want to quote, please do it properly:
Lee said:
@Denise
It is no use countering the likes of Ehrman with ill-formed conjectures of "our own". Anyway, if you want to help the OP, you could feed him information. Or refer him to it.In fact, let's invite people to read the first page of that thread by themselves. The gist is clear enough.
And what was it in the next "quote" that belittles you ... unless, unless you actually think you are like Luther, posting 95 Theses against the wrongfulness and excesses of his day. You would actually mis-read/mis-quote me, attribute Ehrmanism to me, post your illogical diatribes, and compare your crass acts with Luther?
I can't believe what I'm hearing.
No way am I replying to these madmen. If you want to have the last word, ST & Denise, you can have it.
0 -
Lee said:David Paul said:
I tooted my horn a few days ago for Yohm T'ruu`aah and will do so again in a few more days for Yohm Kippur. I don't know if that means I qualify or not.
Fwiw, I prefer a yohbhel as a shohphaar over a Yemini kudu horn--less flashy, more authentic.
Are you a prophet? Indeed I think you are. Prophets weep. Prophets bleed. Prophets pray. Prophets plead. A word to the wise.
Odd that a qeren comment provoked such a response. After meditation, I was going to say more, but then you went and added to what you said...and made it rhyme.
More meditation, I suppose.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
It's funny, it never ever fails. I have seen it over and over again in many different environments.
It's invariably the very people who continually trumpet the importance of civility in discussion - and are ever calling for "tolerance" and "politeness" - who are the quickest to display the very behavior they rail against.
Absolutely classic. LOL. [:D]
~Butters [:)]
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
Butters said:
... truth and logic ...
Well heck! There's your problem right there! [;)]
[Just watched all of the Sherlock episodes again a few months ago with my wife. Brett is the only SH worth watching. Thnx for the clips.]
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
0 -
Butters said:
Jonathan, you are indeed welcome here! It always amazes me that anyone would feel otherwise - even on the most rabidly secularist/atheist fora, I have felt that I was most welcome, even especially when my arguments were reviled.
Anyway, I am a relative newcomer and I don't believe I've had the pleasure of interacting with you very much; and I cannot say that I know much about you.
However, I must say something about your post, something that is liable to not go over well; and yet, I'm going to say it anyway because methinks it's important and relevant.
I think you imagine that below you are inhabiting a kind of "Switzerland of the Mind" - that you are putting forth a neutral and supremely reasonable point of view. And I am sure there are many people on this forum who agree with you.
But you see, there are some problems with that posture.
...
You don't seem to be aware that you are actually expecting other people to conform to YOUR normative notions.
...
Now, you might thoroughly understand how radical it is; you may have come to the conclusion that this is the only or best way to explore the truth....however, please don't imagine that this is some sort of neutral point of view.
Many people, including myself, see this approach as potentially quite dangerous to you as a person.
An isolated person trying his or her best to "figure things out" on his own terms is not only liable but likely to end in error, and at worst to stay there.
All of the above was written in the spirit of love.
~Butters
Butters said:This is just going around in circles.
Maybe you need to be more "open-minded" about the possibility that your use of the word "intolerance" is incoherent, or "close minded," or "intolerant"? (On your own terms and their use of them; not mine, mind you!)
But I suspect the problem goes deeper than this.
I suspect that you're in the habit of seeking approval and affirmation from people.
Among people of your sort (the sort of people who use the word "intolerant" the way you do), I have often suspected that they believe the point of conversations and discussions is to affirm one another. And that the whole point of a social order is to embrace everything and everyone.
Would you say this is an accurate portrayal?
~Butters
Butters said:The OP is not yearning for kindness or for politeness per se.
His perception of "politeness" and "kindness" is mediated by something else.
That "something else" is his desire to be affirmed and approved of, here and elsewhere.
The word "tolerance" is being used as a kind of veil to make that^ yearning sound more palatable, even supremely reasonable. It is neither.
That's what's really going on here. And in other similar threads. It's quite obvious to anyone not caught up in postmodernist confusion.
~Butters
Butters said:I'm not reading the OP's mind. I'm reading his words.
It isn't hard to see what is really going on by this time in the thread. It doesn't take a mind reader or a seer or a magician; it just takes reading a person's words critically, carefully, and in view of truth and logic: watching how words are being used and mis-used, how the ever-so-slight shifts in semantics and the inconsistencies and confusion and illogic build up, thereby betraying another meaning and intention that is unsaid and unspoken, but laid utterly bare: that he doesn't want his opinions challenged and indeed wants them confirmed by the gathering "reality" around him; and is parading that need under the banner of "tolerance."
Coddling the OP - and catering to his psychological needs - isn't going to do him or anyone else any good. Not even curious people who come from anywhere or somewhere to read these threads.
~Butters
Butters said:However, there's another difference: I believe our differences are worth pursuing, and pursuing them passionately; and I think they are worth pursuing because truth exists; and because at least one of our viewpoints is wrong. And because Civilization is not a kind of silence about the important and enduring things; rather, lively argument/discussion about truth, goodness and beauty is the very essence of Civilization.
~Butters
Butters said:It's funny, it never ever fails. I have seen it over and over again in many different environments.
It's invariably the very people who continually trumpet the importance of civility in discussion - and are ever calling for "tolerance" and "politeness" - who are the quickest to display the very behavior they rail against.
Absolutely classic. LOL.
~Butters
Butters said:I agree about the nature of love. It's not a vague and sentimental, subjective feeling - which more often than not verges upon a kind of indifference.
Moreover, it's true that no one understands that love completely, in part because it's a mystery.
However, by mystery (another word that has been thoroughly deracinated into incoherence), I do not mean "opaque" - rather, by "mystery" I am using the word in its true sense: that that love is so immense we cannot even remotely begin to comprehend it; so profound it cannot be plumbed.
Cheers,
~Butters
Butters said:I love reading your posts Lee! Given their general confusion, their near total lack of reasoning, and their overall nastiness (if there is a less inflammatory way to describe that post there and some of your other posts in this thread, please advise me!), their evidential value with respect to everything I've said (particularly the below) in this thread is most appreciated:
Cheers!
~Butters
p.s., keep it coming my good man!
Sick and pitiable.
0 -
Lee said:
And what was it in the next "quote" that belittles you ... unless, unless you actually think you are like Luther, posting 95 Theses against the wrongfulness and excesses of his day. You would actually mis-read/mis-quote me, attribute Ehrmanism to me, post your illogical diatribes, and compare your crass acts with Luther?
I fall short of Luther in one respect; I only killed one holy cow with my posts, Luther killed 94 more than I with his hammer and nails.If it were not for the content of my post (believing God is able to preserve his inspired Word) there would be less contention.
Oh, Yeah, there was that mockery of "scholars"...
You know, that was probably where I lost the audience,
Certainly before the Q-tip cartoon.
Don'cha' think?
Bye, Lee.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Butters said:
It's funny, it never ever fails. I have seen it over and over again in many different environments.
It's invariably the very people who continually trumpet the importance of civility in discussion - and are ever calling for "tolerance" and "politeness" - who are the quickest to display the very behavior they rail against.
Absolutely classic. LOL. [:D]
~Butters [:)]
[center] + [/center]
Lee said:Butters said:I'm not reading the OP's mind. I'm reading his words.
It isn't hard to see what is really going on by this time in the thread. It doesn't take a mind reader or a seer or a magician; it just takes reading a person's words critically, carefully, and in view of truth and logic: watching how words are being used and mis-used, how the ever-so-slight shifts in semantics and the inconsistencies and confusion and illogic build up, thereby betraying another meaning and intention that is unsaid and unspoken, but laid utterly bare: that he doesn't want his opinions challenged and indeed wants them confirmed by the gathering "reality" around him; and is parading that need under the banner of "tolerance."
Coddling the OP - and catering to his psychological needs - isn't going to do him or anyone else any good. Not even curious people who come from anywhere or somewhere to read these threads.
~Butters
Sick and pitiable.
[center] = [/center]
See what I mean?
~Butters [:)]
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
= believing God is able to preserve his inspired Word
I stand by that whole-heartedly. Talk about casting aspersions.
Psycho-analysing people? Yes, Butters, I've seen your type before too.
0 -
Lee said:
= believing God is able to preserve his inspired Word
I stand by that whole-heartedly. Talk about casting aspersions.
Who said you didn't? (MeThinks you are a little Lee-centric here.)
I was being Super.Tramp-centric by saying it.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
JRS said:Butters said:
... truth and logic ...
Well heck! There's your problem right there!
[Just watched all of the Sherlock episodes again a few months ago with my wife. Brett is the only SH worth watching. Thnx for the clips.]
Hah! Yeah, isn't he fabulous? I did the same with my wife last winter - we simply couldn't stop watching them. I hadn't watched them for some time but was struck, yet again, with how very good they are; and how very good an actor he is.
Cheers!
~Butters [:)]
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
Lee said:
= believing God is able to preserve his inspired Word
I stand by that whole-heartedly. Talk about casting aspersions. Yes, and Butters, I've seen your type before too.
Did someone sprinkle some water? [^o)]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
I'd say 200 degrees apart but it won't work mathematically.Denise said:our opinions are almost 180 degrees opposite.
A few miles South , and its the Oklahoma River around here.Denise said:(1) He's from OK. I think even worse, north of the Arkansas, much less the Red.
Denise said:(2) He likes many opinions;
Guilty.
I think we worship the same God. Everything else-different.Denise said:(3) We're about as far apart theologically as possible.
That is what if-then reasoning will get you. [6]Denise said:(4) he does have a very nice family and so must be a nice guy.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Lee said:
Sick and pitiable.
Lee said:I stand by that whole-heartedly.
Well, my good man, what I said previously bears repeating...
[center]_____[/center]
It's funny, it never ever fails. I have seen it over and over again in many different environments.
It's invariably the very people who continually trumpet the importance of civility in discussion - and are ever calling for "tolerance" and "politeness" - who are the quickest to display the very behavior they rail against.
Absolutely classic. LOL. [:)]
~Butters [:)]
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
This is where the forum police would insert the standard "Forum Guidelines" text.
I would do it but I've seen what happens to whoever does. [8o|][:|][:@]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Somehow this discussion is making me reconsider Ludwig Wittgentstein's esoteric (and sometimes contradictory) theories.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
David Paul said:
Good grief! It took a while, but I got it. Probably a little too obscure esp. for the non-USA forum users or anyone under 30 years old (he said it in 1992!).
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:
Somehow this discussion is making me reconsider Ludwig Wittgentstein's esoteric (and sometimes contradictory) theories.
Richard, my deepest condolences. I can't imagine the trauma you must be undergoing to resort to something like that. [;)]
Nothing short of Rack Torture could induce me to read him again.
Cheers!
~Butters [:)]
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
Yes.Jonathan Pitts said:Is everyone welcome here?
This thread is now pointless, the question has been answered.
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3Ru54zlkUU:550:0]
