Ask Me Help Desk - Father Forgive Them

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Am I to take your comment as strictly subjective, which you say is true of everything, or is there an objective element to it?

Give it up, pal. You're not as clever as you think.

Quote:

I've never claimed to "support" that idea

You have supported it since the day you arrived at this website. You do this by citing every passage you can think of whether or not it is germane. Nothing stops your inane claims supporting hell.

Quote:

and certainly don't love it.

Yeah, you love it for deep internal reasons like so many of your fellow white evangelicals. Stand by for a post about that crowd, coming one of these days.

Quote:

But I only mean that if you meant your remark to be taken literally.

It is literal.

Quote:

I absolutely do wish you, and everyone else here, the best.

Then act like it with more than words. Be honest and truthful in your posts - qualities you sorely lack.

Quote:

I think it's unfortunate you get so frustrated

As you have repeatedly demonstrated to me and the others here, frustrating us is your intention. There is no other explanation.

Quote:

I'm simply asking you to dig into your own thinking.

My thinking is fine, thank you. It is YOUR thinking that is the issue here. I employ rational and common sense arguments. You deflect and dissemble whenever you are pushed into a corner by the truth, which is often.

Quote:

I'm certainly open to the idea that I've misunderstood your meaning. I don't think it's likely,

More words, "... a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." There's a bit of the Bard you love so well.

Quote:

You are welcome to explain the problem

That's been done by me and others too many times to count. It never works.

Quote:

You have supported it since the day you arrived at this website. You do this by citing every passage you can think of whether or not it is germane. Nothing stops your inane claims supporting hell.

I have told you what Jesus said. You can accept it or reject it. Whether I "support" it or not, whatever that means, is not important. It just is what it is.

Quote:

Yeah, you love it for deep internal reasons like so many of your fellow white evangelicals. Stand by for a post about that crowd, coming one of these days.

Your opinion. You are welcome to it.

As to the rest, I tried to engage you in something meaningful and you have refused. Oh well. One thing I am learning here is that most people don't want to have their beliefs questioned. I'm not one of them as I rather enjoy it, but that doesn't seem to be the case generally.

Quote:

Perhaps we could start here. Does the New Testament actually have any objective meaning? You contended a long time back that the Greek word translated as eternal (aionios) does not mean everlasting but rather something more limited, possibly "ages-long" or something to that effect. But if everything is subjective, then we can't really apply a set meaning to any particular word, nor can we draw any settled, established meaning from any sentence or paragraph. So how do you reconcile what seems to me to be a genuine conflict? Perhaps I have misunderstood your meaning.

Preposterously absurd comments like this don't help your cause. "No one but you thinks Matthew wrote the Gospel."

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I have told you what Jesus said.

You have told me what an unknown author wrote what Jesus is supposed to have said. You also told me what talking snakes have said.

Quote:

I tried to engage you in something meaningful and you have refused.

No, you tried to continue a meaningless dialogue marked by your need for attention.

Quote:

I am learning here is that most people don't want to have their beliefs questioned, but that doesn't seem to be the case generally. I'm not one of them as I rather enjoy it

Lol, too funny. As a literalist, you are the last person to accept having their beliefs questioned. Like literalists everywhere, your mind is totally closed to any rational examination. Talking snakes! Indeed!

Quote:

I'm not one of them as I rather enjoy it.

Trolls enjoy trolling. What you enjoy is getting people to respond to your posts. It's what drives you. You are on this website 24/7 as evidenced by your constant posting on just about anything even when you lack any knowledge or expertise on a topic. You are a very needy individual. That's annoying to the rest of us but it's also very sad.

Quote:

Preposterously absurd comments like this don't help your cause. "No one but you thinks Matthew wrote the Gospel."

This is a prime example of your closed mind. The named Gospel authors are there for purposes of giving credence to the contents - contents which were officially approved by the Church many generations after the events described occurred. The majority of mainstream New Testament scholars are in agreement on this issue. This has been discussed here ad infinitum and now Jl wants to start it all over again. He will, of course, accuse me of "refusing to discuss".

Quote:

You have told me what an unknown author wrote what Jesus is supposed to have said. You also told me what talking snakes have said

You don't accept the Bible. I understand that. The Bible makes no reference to "talking snakes". Even at that, to suggest it does violates your principle that all text is subjective. After all, "talking snakes" could be a reference to a puppet show, telephone wires, dancing earthworms, and so forth.

You claimed I am the only person who accepts Matthew as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. It is a completely stupid claim as I demonstrated in my answer. It contradicts the universal testimony of the early church. And still you have failed to mention a single legitimate reason why any thinking person would take your suggestion seriously. It is absolutely your poorest attempt at making a serious statement so far.

Again, it is sad that you get so angry and frustrated in your comments. In my experience, it's what people do when they realize they have no answers which, perhaps, explains why you still refuse to address this. "Perhaps we could start here. Does the New Testament actually have any objective meaning? You contended a long time back that the Greek word translated as eternal (aionios) does not mean everlasting but rather something more limited, possibly "ages-long" or something to that effect. But if everything is subjective, then we can't really apply a set meaning to any particular word, nor can we draw any settled, established meaning from any sentence or paragraph. So how do you reconcile what seems to me to be a genuine conflict? Perhaps I have misunderstood your meaning," or perhaps you worded it carelessly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You don't accept the Bible. I understand that.

You have no idea what I accept or don't accept. You make accusations to fit your bias. Nothing new there.

Quote:

The Bible makes no reference to "talking snakes"

.Duh. Ever heard of Genesis? It's the first book in the Bible.

Quote:

Even at that, to suggest it does violates your principle that all text is subjective

Oh God, this again? YOU-DO-NOT-UNDERTSAND-THE-WORD-SUBJECTIVE-AS-USED. Keep knocking your head against the wall. Ok by me.

Quote:

After all, "talking snakes" could be a reference to a puppet show, telephone wires, dancing earthworms, and so forth.

Come on, you know exactly what the reference is. You're on record as believing that God allowed the snake to talk. Stop playing the fool. If you have now changed your mind, just say so.

Quote:

You claimed I am the only person who accepts Matthew as the author of the Gospel

I stand by that "claim". Hyperbole. Other fundies are included in that.

Quote:

It is a completely stupid claim as I demonstrated in my answer.

You demonstrated nothing. Nada.

Quote:

It contradicts the universal testimony of the early church.

We're not discussing the "universal testimony of the early church". We're discussing MODERN Bible scholars who are not pressured to toe the party line (some still are, but the best ones are not).

Quote:

And still you have failed to mention a single legitimate reason why any thinking person would take your suggestion seriously.

Look again. I said they study the Bible in schools, and they study the languages involved, and the study the ancient cultures, and they study the ancient histories. What more could be said?

Quote:

Again, it is sad that you get so angry and frustrated in your comments.

My model is Jesus in the Temple with the money-changers. You also peddle a false currency.

Quote:

In my experience, it's what people do when they realize they have no answers

Not always. Sometimes they are mean and nasty like you. Sometimes, unlike you and like Jesus, they have answers and righteous anger.

Quote:

which, perhaps, explains why you still refuse to address this. "Perhaps we could start here. Does the New Testament actually have any objective meaning? You contended a long time back that the Greek word translated as eternal (aionios) does not mean everlasting but rather something more limited, possibly "ages-long" or something to that effect.

Answered "a long time back". I'm sure you can find it. If not, just google the terms for a scholarly answer which, of course, you won't do.

Quote:

But if everything is subjective, then we can't really apply a set meaning to any particular word, nor can we draw any settled, established meaning from any sentence or paragraph. So how do you reconcile what seems to me to be a genuine conflict? Perhaps I have misunderstood your meaning," or perhaps you worded it carelessly.

I worded it just fine. It was an opportunity for you to learn how a word can be nuanced (with a proper explanation if necessary). You couldn't understand, didn't understand, or refused to understand. Take your pick.

Speaking of answering, go back over my posts and see what points I made that you failed to reply to. That tells us something about you.

and another one bites the dust.