Every single claim of yours has been debunked. See Post # 74. As I've told you more than once, repeating the same thing gets you nowhere. In fact, expecting a different result is a sign of insanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
|
Every single claim of yours has been debunked. See Post # 74. As I've told you more than once, repeating the same thing gets you nowhere. In fact, expecting a different result is a sign of insanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Nah.
1. You are, for whatever reason, afraid to address specific texts (unarguable).
You have not responded to either the Matthew text or the 2 Peter text. Unarguable.
2. You claim you can understand the message of the Bible without referring to the Bible.
You claimed the message of the Bible was a "preferential option for the poor." Your quote is, "the clear meaning of the Bible is a 'preferential option for the poor' as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it," yet you provided no scriptural support at all, instead trying to use the laughable assertion that the entire Bible supported your idea, a proposition that would get you laughed out of many sixth grade classrooms. It is on the absurd level of an attorney saying, "Why your Honor, the entire body of federal law supports my argument." So once again, it is unarguable.
(Might add that the Catholic church has NOT said a "preferential option for the poor" is the primary message of the Bible, so once again you have misapplied a quote.)
3. You claim to have some special knowledge of what Paul would have said about taxes and welfare.
Here is your quote. "Paul would be happy to do exactly that." Again, it is unarguable
As I have said, I will not accept your strange views simply on the basis of your say so.
As to post 74, this assertion is flatly untrue. "That should be obvious even to you. What you are trying to say is that I don't throw out verse after verse like Bible Bingo the way you do. I prefer to discuss the passages in context and for their various meanings. You don't like when I or others do that." You discuss a passage in context? Really? To discuss a passage in context, you would first have to quote the passage. You tried that with the three passages you quoted earlier. They did not at all support your idea, and you did not use them or discuss them in context.
See above post #81. You are doing it again. Read what I said about repeating and expecting a different result.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Everything you have repeated here is not true. It has been thoroughly debunked, yet you post the whole thing again. Your basic problem is that you do not believe what I say. As I have said REPEATEDLY that is fine with me. Calling it fear or lies is simply your way to deny what has been said without engaging in discussion - other than throwing out verse after verse to speak for you. Yet you deny me the same privilege. You will not read my links or internet references. This goes way back, but it's always the same with you. You criticize others with the same methodology - refusing to read links, demanding they put long complex answers to fit into the space here for a post. You're not fooling anyone.
Here is a great example of your thought process: When I say Paul accepted government (Paul's words) and he accepted helping the poor (Jesus' words), you charge me with claiming "special knowledge" of Paul. Complete nonsense.
Example #2: You claim I said the Catholic Church declared their "primary mission" to be a "preferential option for the poor". I never said that was their "primary mission", yet you claim I did! More nonsense.
Your posts are filled with inaccuracies (using a nice word), changing words around to give your desired spin (not only me, others also), and repitition ad infinitum (already noted here).
We've all taken the measure of you here, and know you have a deceitful nature. That's not an insult, just the truth. A person who uses the Bible as a weapon to intimidate others with the fear of eternal punishment in hell is simply not to be trusted.
You are exactly right, and I would encourage you to do likewise with me. That is why I ask of you, or of anyone for that matter, supporting material.Quote:
Your basic problem is that you do not believe what I say.
Nope. It was your statement, as I clearly posted above, that, "Paul would be happy to do exactly that," which illustrated your idea that you knew, not what Paul said, but what he WOULD HAVE said. Even at that, our discussion is not about supporting government. It never has been. The discussion has been about what that government should be doing.Quote:
Here is a great example of your thought process: When I say Paul accepted government (Paul's words) and he accepted helping the poor (Jesus' words), you charge me with claiming "special knowledge" of Paul. Complete nonsense.
I did not say you claimed it was their primary message. I pointed out that you used their quote as support for your assertion that the primary message of the Bible was "a preferential option for the poor." I posted your quote.Quote:
Example #2: You claim I said the Catholic Church declared their "primary mission" to be a "preferential option for the poor". I never said that was their "primary mission", yet you claim I did! More nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Semantics. It's always semantics with you - never actual content.
I'm considering posting a summary of your message/posts so everybody here can see what kind of a person you are. I'm busy at the moment, so don't lose any sleep over it.
Semantics has nothing to do with it. Supporting your claims is the idea.
Content? Here's your content a second time.
Nope. It was your statement, as I clearly posted above, that, "Paul would be happy to do exactly that," which illustrated your idea that you knew, not what Paul said, but what he WOULD HAVE said. Even at that, our discussion is not about supporting government. It never has been. The discussion has been about what that government should be doing.
I did not say you claimed it was their primary message. I pointed out that you used their quote as support for your assertion that the primary message of the Bible was "a preferential option for the poor." I posted your quote.
You mean like you did with Aquinas, or with your most recent post of the Catholic quote? Remember that one? "...the clear meaning of the Bible is a "preferential option for the poor" as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it." Except, of course, that they did no such thing in relation to, "the clear meaning of the Bible," so I trust you will pardon me if I'm skeptical.Quote:
I'm considering posting a summary of your message/posts
at last the nub of the problemQuote:
I trust you will pardon me if I'm skeptical.
Come on, you're obsessing. I stand by the fact that Paul would have supported helping the poor - via government or not. I never said he made a statement in those exact words.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Anyone who has ever read Paul's writings would not find it an impossible thought. If you believe otherwise, fine. Prove that he never believed it. Yeah, yeah, I know - can't prove a negative. More for you to digest.
Yes, you did. Go back and look. As is your wont, you took my ACCURATE claim of the position of the Catholic Church which uses those exact words of a preferential option for the poor - you took it out of context. The context was the poor - not the overall mission of the Catholic Church. Yet you persisted in calling it the "primary mission of the Catholic Church".Quote:
I did not say you claimed it was their primary message. I pointed out that you used their quote as support for your assertion that the primary message of the Bible was "a preferential option for the poor."
CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT. Not the first time you have been warned about context.
Whether Aquinas or the Catholic Church, you manage to get it so wrong so often, that it truly becomes a waste of time replying to you. I understand you thrive on getting replies like any troll, but this is really getting ridiculous.Quote:
You mean like you did with Aquinas, or with your most recent post of the Catholic quote? Remember that one? "...the clear meaning of the Bible is a "preferential option for the poor" as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it." Except, of course, that they did no such thing in relation to, "the clear meaning of the Bible," so I trust you will pardon me if I'm skeptical.
The best reply to you is simply showing your actual words so all can see how you misconstrue and misquote what was written.
You claimed, and still do claim, to know what Paul would have said about government welfare programs. Saying that Paul said we should obey the gov is useless since no one has questioned that.Quote:
Come on, you're obsessing. I stand by the fact that Paul would have supported helping the poor - via government or not. I never said he made a statement in those exact words.
The context was the meaning of the Bible. You misapplied that quote and made it appear that the Catholic church agreed with your view of the primary message of the Bible. Your statement was, "In relation to your oft-presented position re taxation and the poor, the clear meaning of the Bible is a "preferential option for the poor" as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it." You tried to be deceptive and got caught. Get over it.Quote:
Yes, you did. Go back and look. As is your wont, you took my ACCURATE claim of the position of the Catholic Church which uses those exact words of a preferential option for the poor - you took it out of context. The context was the poor - not the overall mission of the Catholic Church. Yet you persisted in calling it the "primary mission of the Catholic Church".
In both cases you tried to be deceptive and got caught, and it's made you angry. End of story.Quote:
Whether Aquinas or the Catholic Church, you manage to get it so wrong so often, that it truly becomes a waste of time replying to you. I understand you thrive on getting replies like any troll, but this is really getting ridiculous.
Well, if you want to try that, then go ahead. So far your only attempt has been to suggest that I, "persisted in calling it (a preferential option for the poor) the 'primary mission of the Catholic Church.'" That's, to put it charitably, mistaken. I never suggested that, so your first attempt failed miserably. But if I did suggest it, I'm sure you'll post the quote. I won't hold my breath.Quote:
The best reply to you is simply showing your actual words so all can see how you misconstrue and misquote what was written.
I agree with that. I'm perfectly happy to just stand on what has already been said and let the few readers left here decide for themselves.Quote:
but this is really getting ridiculous.
I never claimed to KNOW what Paul said. How could I possibly know that? I wasn't there. Again, my view of Paul was derived from his writings. Why you cannot understand that is totally beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
IN-RELATION-T0-THE-ISSUE-OF-THE-POOR! Holy Cow - how many times does it have to be said????????Quote:
The context was the meaning of the Bible.
Only you EVER mentioned the "primary mission" of the Bible. How many times do you have to be called out on this before you finally stop your misquoting?Quote:
You misapplied that quote and made it appear that the Catholic church agreed with your view of the primary message of the Bible.
Thank you for my exact words. Read my lips (better, your own quoted words above) - "In relation to your oft-presented position re taxation and the poor...". Do you get it now - finally?Quote:
Your statement was, "In relation to your oft-presented position re taxation and the poor, the clear meaning of the Bible is a "preferential option for the poor" as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it."
The funny thing is - I don't think you actually try to be deceptive - it just comes naturally to you. There's no other explanation for your absolutely false reading of what I said re Paul and the Church.Quote:
You tried to be deceptive and got caught. Get over it.
I get frustrated, not angry. What frustrates me is having to go back again and again to try to get you to understand the plain meaning of words. Talk about a fool's errand! I can understand your initial misunderstanding, but the same thing over and over and over.... It's truly mind-boggling.Quote:
In both cases you tried to be deceptive and got caught, and it's made you angry. End of story.
Good grief. You have it backwards (surprise, surprise) - Let me try once more - I did NOT suggest you called it a primary mission of the Catholic Church. I wrote that you said I said that. Dear God, this is getting impossible. Why can't this guy understand his native language?Quote:
your only attempt has been to suggest that I, "persisted in calling it (a preferential option for the poor) the 'primary mission of the Catholic Church.'" That's, to put it charitably, mistaken.
No one said you did. Read above. I'm now suspecting this is a troll strategy - a strawman argument. Anything to keep it going.Quote:
I never suggested that,
What I wrote has been posted by YOU. It's in this very post. Please, READ IT!Quote:
I'm sure you'll post the quote.
Your quote. "the clear meaning of the Bible is a "preferential option for the poor" as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it." The conversation was always about the primary meaning of the Bible. Not sure what significant difference there is between "primary mission" and "primary meaning". At any rate, it certainly seemed that you misused a quote to make it appear the Catholic Church agreed with your conclusion, but since you now are at least seeming to say that the quote you alluded to did not actually support your conclusion, then I'm glad we have cleared that up.Quote:
Only you EVER mentioned the "primary mission" of the Bible. How many times do you have to be called out on this before you finally stop your misquoting?
Again, your very clear quote. "Yet you persisted in calling it the "primary mission of the Catholic Church". But if you are now admitting that I never suggested that, then that's fine with me. I'm glad it's been cleared up. If you can show a quote where I suggested you were claiming that to be true, then we can clear that up as well.Quote:
Good grief. You have it backwards (surprise, surprise) - Let me try once more - I did NOT suggest you called it a primary mission of the Catholic Church. I wrote that you said I said that.
" But if I did suggest it, I'm sure you'll post the quote. I won't hold my breath." Still waiting and not holding my breath.
I'd suggest you take a deep breath and calm down a little.
Dear God! You omitted the key phrase - "in relation to your oft-repeated position re taxation and the poor". That's the whole point of this ridiculous exchange. You cannot or will not see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
As for the rest, it is simply more of the same. You want me to reply so you can continue your feeding frenzy.
Didn't take a deep breath and calm down did you? At any rate, it was about your view of the primary message of the Bible. Very simple.Quote:
Dear God! You omitted the key phrase - "in relation to your oft-repeated position re taxation and the poor". That's the whole point of this ridiculous exchange. You cannot or will not see it.
No one has asked you to reply. Strictly up to you. I actually much prefer that you don't since we are completely unable to arrive at any agreement.Quote:
As for the rest, it is simply more of the same. You want me to reply so you can continue your feeding frenzy.
So simple, you can't recognize your own words.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You'd die without my replies. You need replies - your lifeblood.Quote:
No one has asked you to reply. Strictly up to you.
If you'll remember, you blocked me for several months. I lived right on, very happy. It's actually a relief to be spared talking with someone so obstinately wrong and unwilling to admit to it. If you really feel I "need" your replies, then stop supplying them and let's see what happens.Quote:
You'd die without my replies.
I still have you on "ignore". Nothing has changed. It's just that I watch your posts on occasion. Time to put you back in your cage.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You confuse being wrong with disagreement. It's a common trait of yours.Quote:
It's a relief to be spared talking with someone so obstinately wrong
Shall we begin with Jesus condemning unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment? I didn't think so. Or how about Jesus the same as the OT God who destroys entire tribes and even all mankind in a flood? That's how you started here.
What kind of a sociopath keeps a private torture chamber for its mistakes? That is your God. Welcome to the world of white evangelicals.
You believe in those things. I don't.
People like you would die on the vine without replies. Trolls tend to leave when ignored by others. I cannot cause others here to ignore you, even tho I'm not surprised when some do.Quote:
If you really feel I "need" your replies, then stop supplying them and let's see what happens.
You must watch my posts a dozen times a day considering how many replies you make. Jump off the train anytime you want.Quote:
I still have you on "ignore". Nothing has changed. It's just that I watch your posts on occasion. Time to put you back in your cage.
As to your other suggested topics, I'll be glad to discuss them anytime you want, even the plainly racist one that you love so much.
.Replying is your choice as is ignoring. Stop whining about it when you choose not to.Quote:
People like you would die on the vine without replies. Trolls tend to leave when ignored by others. I cannot cause others here to ignore you, even tho I'm not surprised when some do
No, more confusion on your part. Several replies by me are part of a SINGLE topic within a thread. One subject and its tangents. Go back and look so you don't make the same mistake twice.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I am rarely on your train. I will continue to keep you honest when you are at your most egregious.Quote:
Jump off the train anytime you want.
No problem. They should be discussed on the Religion board or the Christianity board.Quote:
As to your other suggested topics, I'll be glad to discuss them anytime you want,
I have no idea what you're talking about.Quote:
even the plainly racist one that you love so much.
I ask you both to consider this from James 4
Quote:
What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:07 PM. |