Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,108, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #1

    Oct 16, 2021, 08:36 PM
    Couldn't Leave This One Unanswered
    (From previous thread that was rightfully closed due to Jl's consistent nastiness.)

    from Athos
    Your continued bringing up "the Aquinas incident" which is about two years old is a case in point. Besides the fact of it's being ancient history by now, it was clearly explained to you, but in your troll-like fervor to disagree with anything, you can't let go of it.

    Whenever you bring it up, it's a clear sign you have nothing intelligent to say.
    from Jilsnbe
    It's an example of you giving a partial quote to supposedly support a contention of yours. When the entire quote was provided, it plainly contradicted your belief. It was, shall we say, suspicious in the extreme.
    Not a bit suspicious when it was explained at length, even going so far as to note two famous examples of the medieval Church silencing Erasmus and Galileo when they proposed controversial subjects. I note you have never included that in your "incident".

    To repeat, it never comes up unless you have nothing intelligent to say.

    My "brand of Christianity" is to depend on what Jesus said. You plainly don't agree
    No, your brand of Christianity is to depend on what others say Jesus said.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #2

    Oct 18, 2021, 07:50 AM
    Not a bit suspicious when it was explained at length, even going so far as to note two famous examples of the medieval Church silencing Erasmus and Galileo when they proposed controversial subjects. I note you have never included that in your "incident".
    Except that you were not referring to Erasmus and Galileo. You referred to Aquinas, and there was nothing concerning him that you could document was silenced, and certainly not in the passage you quoted. The only silencing that occurred was your intentional exclusion of the second part of the statement by Aquinas which you knew full well contradicted completely the point you were trying to make. Instead of being honest and just admitting it, you continue to ask us to believe silly stories.

    No, your brand of Christianity is to depend on what others say Jesus said.
    We only know what eyewitnesses claim He said. There are no other sources to refer to. I think we both know what the real problem is. You don't like what He said, preferring your beliefs over His.

    (From previous thread that was rightfully closed due to Jl's consistent nastiness.)
    That seems suspiciously strange to me. The thread was closed, and yet you were able to copy my quotes beforehand? Funny how you seemed to have some advanced notice that the thread was going to be deleted as well as WHY it was being deleted. Hmm. Who ya been talkin to? (Later note: The thread was not deleted. I misunderstood "closed" to mean deleted. My error.)

    Athos, sorry to tell you this, but you are in no position to criticize anyone for nasty comments. Consider these two comments for instance, "To repeat, it never comes up unless you have nothing intelligent to say." "but in your troll-like fervor to disagree with anything, you can't let go of it."

    For anyone interested, this is the passage in dispute. Athos posted the first paragraph and part of the second. He left out the underlined section which certainly changed the meaning dramatically.

    Quaestiones Disputatae, "De Veritate," Q. 14, art. 11: Objection: "It seems that it is not necessary to believe explicitly. For nothing should be accepted, from the acceptance of which something inappropriate would follow. But if we accept that it is necessary to salvation that something be believed explicitly, something inappropriate would follow. For someone might have been reared in the woods, or among wolves; and such a one cannot know explicitly anything of faith, so that thus there would be a man who would necessarily be damned-which is inappropriate; hence it does not seem to be necessary to believe in anything explicitly."

    Response: "The answer to the first argument is that nothing inappropriate follows from acceptance of the fact that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, even someone reared in the woods or among brute animals; for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way. For if anyone thus bought up were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed, or would direct some preacher of the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10)."
    Aquinas also said this.
    "I answer that, Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain salvation. Now it is manifest that no one can obtain salvation but through Christ; wherefore the Apostle says (Rom. 5:18): "As by the offense of one unto all men unto condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men unto justification of life." But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: wherefore it is written (Gal. 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men."
    Now I am in no way relying on Aquinas. I am simply pointing out that you intentionally misrepresented his views as expressed in this passage. It is absolutely beyond dispute. Sure looked like you posted your truncated quote believing no one would double check you.

    https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showpo...&postcount=251
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #3

    Oct 19, 2021, 05:13 AM
    Athos: (From previous thread that was rightfully closed due to Jl's consistent nastiness.)
    That kind of bothers me. How would Athos have known the reason the thread was closed? Probably sheer conjecture? The thread is locked and I have no idea why. If "nastiness" was an issue, then perhaps this from Athos qualifies more than any other post in the thread.

    "No one is required to "just accept everything I say". My posts are for all to read and reply if they want with reasoned discourse. Something you have notably failed to do, and for which you have been cited by more than one member of this website. Lacking a talent for anything but a knee-jerk reliance on your brand of Christianity, you don't contribute much to the discussion.

    Your continued bringing up "the Aquinas incident" which is about two years old is a case in point. Besides the fact of it's being ancient history by now, it was clearly explained to you, but in your troll-like fervor to disagree with anything, you can't let go of it. Whenever you bring it up, it's a clear sign you have nothing intelligent to say."

    I guess those were examples of "reasoned discourse"?

    If by "nastiness" he means I point out his errors and inconsistencies, then I plead guilty. When that happens, he gets upset and posts material such as is quoted above.
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,108, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #4

    Oct 19, 2021, 12:37 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    Except that you were not referring to Erasmus and Galileo.
    I included Erasmus and Galilieo in an attempt to show how things worked in the Middle Ages when the Church felt threatened.

    Instead of being honest and just admitting it, you continue to ask us to believe silly stories.
    I explained to you at length the situation with Thomas Aquinas. You chose to not believe it. Your choice. I note that you never include my explanation whenever you use AQUINAS to throw around your nastiness.

    We only know what eyewitnesses claim He said.
    No, you don't know what evewitnesses said that Jesus said. You only know what is found many generations after Jesus lived that non-eyewitnesses wrote about him. That's a fact. Like the "Aquinas incident", you only believe what you choose to believe.

    I think we both know what the real problem is. You don't like what He said, preferring your beliefs over His.
    The same thing could be said of you, only with much more powerful accuracy. My position is supported by FACTS. Your position is supported by nothing other than your belief.


    The thread was closed, and yet you were able to copy my quotes beforehand?
    Easy to do. Read a manual on how to navigate the internet. (This helps to see your misunderstanding of Aquinas and Jesus).

    (Later note: The thread was not deleted. I misunderstood "closed" to mean deleted. My error.)
    Athos, sorry to tell you this, but you are in no position to criticize anyone for nasty comments.
    Sorry to tell you this, Jl, but before your arrival, these pages had no nastiness. The discussion was civil, and your entry soon generated a reaction to treat you the way you treated others. You have been the proverbial apple spoiling the barrel.

    Now I am in no way relying on Aquinas.
    Obviously not.

    It is absolutely beyond dispute.
    What is absolutely beyond dispute is your ignorance of Aquinas. When I posted the circumstances, you simply denied them even thought you admitted to ignorance of him.

    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    That kind of bothers me. How would Athos have known the reason the thread was closed?
    It was all too obvious to anyone reading the thread.

    perhaps this from Athos qualifies more than any other post in the thread.

    "No one is required to "just accept everything I say". My posts are for all to read and reply if they want with reasoned discourse. Something you have notably failed to do, and for which you have been cited by more than one member of this website. Lacking a talent for anything but a knee-jerk reliance on your brand of Christianity, you don't contribute much to the discussion.

    Your continued bringing up "the Aquinas incident" which is about two years old is a case in point. Besides the fact of it's being ancient history by now, it was clearly explained to you, but in your troll-like fervor to disagree with anything, you can't let go of it. Whenever you bring it up, it's a clear sign you have nothing intelligent to say."

    I guess those were examples of "reasoned discourse"?
    Thank you for posting them AGAIN. They are quite good and describe you to a "T".
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #5

    Oct 19, 2021, 02:03 PM
    No, you don't know what evewitnesses said that Jesus said. You only know what is found many generations after Jesus lived that non-eyewitnesses wrote about him. That's a fact. Like the "Aquinas incident", you only believe what you choose to believe.
    Luke said his account was from eye-witnesses. John claimed he was an eyewitness. Matthew certainly was an eyewitness.

    The same thing could be said of you, only with much more powerful accuracy. My position is supported by FACTS. Your position is supported by nothing other than your belief.
    That's a strange statement. You scarcely ever quote scripture. You just claimed that the statements attributed to Jesus are unreliable. What "facts" you are referring to is hard to establish. Certainly they are not "facts" from the Bible. The quote you posted from Aquinas certainly did not amount to a "fact".

    Sorry to tell you this, Jl, but before your arrival, these pages had no nastiness. The discussion was civil, and your entry soon generated a reaction to treat you the way you treated others. You have been the proverbial apple spoiling the barrel.
    Why are your failures always the fault of someone else? Try manning up and taking some responsibility for your own actions.

    What is absolutely beyond dispute is your ignorance of Aquinas. When I posted the circumstances, you simply denied them even thought you admitted to ignorance of him.
    Considering your track record, why should anyone believe an unsupported statement by you concerning Aquinas, especially considering the account I posted above where you clearly distorted the truth?

    It was all too obvious to anyone reading the thread.
    Ah. So it was sheer conjecture on your part. I should have guessed it sooner than I did.

    Thank you for posting them AGAIN. They are quite good and describe you to a "T".
    Hmmm. The nastiness critic doubles down on his own nastiness. Strange that he has given himself permission to engage in what he claims to dislike. Strange and yet predictable. I'm sure he will say it was someone else's fault.
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,108, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #6

    Oct 19, 2021, 03:41 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    Luke said his account was from eye-witnesses. John claimed he was an eyewitness. Matthew certainly was an eyewitness.
    If you knew anything about the provenance of the NT, which you clearly do not, you would never make assertions like "Luke said, John claimed, Matthew certainly was" and offer them as proofs of being eyewitnesses.

    You just claimed that the statements attributed to Jesus are unreliable.
    My claim is that the NT has been edited and redacted over several centuries. Some statements of Jesus are accurate and represent his genuine attitudes. Other statements are clearly not from Jesus and they are inserted in order to justify positions of the later church.

    What "facts" you are referring to is hard to establish.
    They are very simple to establish. The earliest complete manuscripts of NT parts are from several centuries after the events described. Those are the FACTS.

    Certainly they are not "facts" from the Bible. The quote you posted from Aquinas certainly did not amount to a "fact".
    Obviously the Bible is not going to say its facts are not facts. The Bible needs to be studied and examined in its historical and theological setting to determine its accuracy. This is a continuing effort well into modern times.

    Why are your failures always the fault of someone else? Try manning up and taking some responsibility for your own actions.
    Look in a mirror.

    Considering your track record, why should anyone believe an unsupported statement by you concerning Aquinas,
    My track record is excellent, far better than yours. I don't demand anyone believe anything I say, all are free to choose. As a student of Aquinas in my school days, knowing more about the great man than can be found on the internet, I stand by what I posted. Can you say the same about your many inaccuracies on many subjects?

    Ah. So it was sheer conjecture on your part.
    To you, sheer conjecture is what others call reasoned analysis - especially when it contradicts your belief.

    The nastiness critic doubles down on his own nastiness.
    Be prepared to receive as you dish out. Don't whine like a baby when that happens.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #7

    Oct 19, 2021, 06:03 PM
    If you knew anything about the provenance of the NT, which you clearly do not, you would never make assertions like "Luke said, John claimed, Matthew certainly was" and offer them as proofs of being eyewitnesses.
    I didn't say it was proof. I simply stated what they claimed.


    My claim is that the NT has been edited and redacted over several centuries. Some statements of Jesus are accurate and represent his genuine attitudes. Other statements are clearly not from Jesus and they are inserted in order to justify positions of the later church.
    It's an absurd claim. You would have to have some means of knowing what His genuine attitudes were, but if your theory is right, you have no way of establishing that since you consider the NT to be unreliable. So you read those unreliable (according to you) Gospel accounts and want everyone to believe that you have some magical ability to know what represents the "genuine attitudes" of Jesus versus what does not. It's simply ridiculous. It seems to just comes down to this. You have built a make-believe Jesus who agrees with YOUR genuine attitudes. Anything else you just dismiss out of hand.

    They are very simple to establish. The earliest complete manuscripts of NT parts are from several centuries after the events described. Those are the FACTS.
    First of all, what is a "complete manuscript of NT parts"? Secondly, as is true of practically all ancient writings, the earliest manuscripts are incomplete. But just with the second century manuscripts alone, about 40% of the NT can be established to within a century or so of the originals. Add that to quotations from the early church fathers and the Diatessaron, and there is a great deal of early evidence for the NT.

    As a student of Aquinas in my school days, knowing more about the great man than can be found on the internet, I stand by what I posted.
    I can only reply that your appalling misrepresentation of his quote works against your claimed scholarship, so you once again want people to believe that which only you represent to be true.

    To you, sheer conjecture is what others call reasoned analysis - especially when it contradicts your belief.
    I don't believe anything about why the thread was locked. I have no idea, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. "Reasoned analysis?" That made me laugh.

    Be prepared to receive as you dish out. Don't whine like a baby when that happens.
    I haven't complained about your nastiness. I have pointed out your blatant hypocrisy. While you consistently employ the practice, you also consistently want to complain about it. I would suggest that if you don't like it, then don't practice it. If you do practice it, then give up complaining about what other people do. Short of that, I will continue to point out your hypocrisy.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #8

    Oct 19, 2021, 07:49 PM
    A few questions.

    1. How do you establish what the "genuine attitudes" of Jesus were?
    2. You say that, "Other statements are clearly not from Jesus and they are inserted in order to justify positions of the later church." Which statements are you referring to, and what manuscript evidence are you using to verify that?
    3. Specifically, how do the texts of fourth century manuscripts differ in content from the texts of second century manuscripts?
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,108, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #9

    Oct 19, 2021, 09:25 PM
    As I said above, we've done this to death. There's no point in going over the same material again. If you insist, I suggest you go to the archives for your answers - they're all there for your perusal.
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,108, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #10

    Oct 19, 2021, 09:43 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    I didn't say it was proof. I simply stated what they claimed.
    Then what was the point of your statement?

    I have neither the time nor the inclination to once more go over all the issues you have raised in this post. It's been done to death and you are simply incapable of reacting intelligently to anything that challenges your bred-from-infancy literal understanding of the Bible.

    Your fundamentalist/evangelical Biblicism does not lend itself to any rational analysis of the book(s).

    However, I did enjoy your "blatant hypocrisy" comment in the same sentence that you denied aver complaining about my nastiness. I always get a kick out of your faux pas.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #11

    Oct 20, 2021, 03:40 AM
    Then what was the point of your statement?
    Just what I said. The authors claimed to either have eye-witness testimony or to actually BE eyewitnesses. You chose your own opinion over theirs. Your choice.


    A few questions.

    1. How do you establish what the "genuine attitudes" of Jesus were?
    2. You say that, "Other statements are clearly not from Jesus and they are inserted in order to justify positions of the later church." Which statements are you referring to, and what manuscript evidence are you using to verify that?
    3. Specifically, how do the texts of fourth century manuscripts differ in content from the texts of second century manuscripts?
    Too bad that you have no answers. That's unfortunate. It could have been an interesting discussion, but no problem. I'll provide them for you since you were quite willing to leave those questions "unanswered".

    1. As I've already demonstrated, it would not seem possible to be able to "pick through" the statements of Christ and decide one is "genuine" while another is not unless you can begin by trusting, on some level, the reliability of the Gospel accounts to begin with, and yet that is the very thing you are questioning. They certainly are not labeled as "genuine". No one will take you seriously in this regard unless you can describe the process you supposedly use to determine what the "genuine attitudes" of Jesus were.
    2. Same answer as for the first question. It's just silliness to suggest you can do so.
    3. That's a little more involved answer. There are differences. Most of them involve spelling or grammatical changes. A relative few involve a word or phrase here or there, but it should be an easy process for you to find manuscript evidence to support your suggestion that entire passages concerning the statements of Christ were, "inserted in order to justify positions of the later church." Insertions of that order would be easy to identify simply by comparing earlier manuscripts to the redacted ones. You clearly have no knowledge of such changes.

    I can always tell when you're just blowing smoke by asking a few questions. If you want to make the kind of serious charges you have made, you really need to be prepared to support them. It's like the suggestion you once made that the the Greek word "aionios" did not mean eternal. When I pointed out that no Greek lexicon and no major Bible translation supported your idea, you had no reply for that either.

    You do need to learn what the term "faux pas" refers to. You misused it. You will also find that I have not complained about your nastiness, but I have, on more than one occasion, pointed out the foolishness of the nastiest poster on this board complaining about my supposed employment of the practice. It seems to make you frustrated to have that pointed out. I do understand.
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 39,354, Reputation: 5431
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #12

    Oct 20, 2021, 08:54 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    Too bad that you have no answers.
    He answered. Please do good keyword searches.
    You do need to learn what the term "faux pas" refers to. You misused it.
    He used it correctly.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #13

    Oct 20, 2021, 08:55 AM
    1. I asked the question last night. Why would I need to do a search in a thread with fewer than ten posts to find his answers?

    1. He did not. You don't understand the expression either. Perhaps this will help you.

    The definition of a faux pas is a behavioral gaffe or some type of social mistake that you make. An example of a faux pas is burping in public. A social blunder; error in etiquette; tactless act or remark. An embarrassing or tactless blunder (especially used in social situations and contexts); a misstep.

    He is trying to make the absurd point that I admitted to complaining about his nastiness. I've already demonstrated that not to be the case. Do a keyword search and find my answer.
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 39,354, Reputation: 5431
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #14

    Oct 20, 2021, 09:22 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    1. I asked the question last night. Why would I need to do a search in a thread with fewer than ten posts to find his answers?
    In various threads, he has answered.
    1. He did not. You don't understand the expression either. Perhaps this will help you.

    The definition of a faux pas is a behavioral gaffe or some type of social mistake that you make. An example of a faux pas is burping in public. A social blunder; error in etiquette; tactless act or remark. An embarrassing or tactless blunder (especially used in social situations and contexts); a misstep.
    Correct. He used the exprese correctly. And you are doing all of those. Not sure about the burping though...I do occasionaly hear noises when I read your posts. Maybe it's Mattie the Cat passing gas as she naps.
    He is trying to make the absurd point that I admitted to complaining about his nastiness. I've already demonstrated that not to be the case. Do a keyword search and find my answer.
    The nastiness always begins with you. That's why I do crossword puzzles now instead of posting happily on AMHD.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #15

    Oct 20, 2021, 10:19 AM
    In various threads, he has answered.
    Fine. Use those superior keyword search skills to find them. Shouldn't take a minute IF they are there. Sadly for you, they are not. That being the case, you will either beg off OR post a link to a comment that does not even approach being an answer. Let the reader beware.

    Correct. He used the exprese correctly. And you are doing all of those. Not sure about the burping though...I do occasionaly hear noises when I read your posts. Maybe it's Mattie the Cat passing gas as she naps.
    Fine. Show the paragraph. But remember, it has to be in this thread. Go for it.

    [FONT=Arial, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][COLOR=#000000]The nastiness always begins with you. That's why I do crossword puzzles now instead of posting happily on AMHD
    It gets tiring to read the self-proclaimed moral leaders making pronouncements of guilt for alleged behaviors you engage in constantly. If you don't like nastiness, then don't engage in it. Set a good example. And bear in mind that pointing out someone's incorrect answers is not nastiness.
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 39,354, Reputation: 5431
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #16

    Oct 20, 2021, 10:35 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    Fine. Use those superior keyword search skills to find them.
    I read them when first posted and, yes, have found them again.
    Fine. Show the paragraph. But remember, it has to be in this thread. Go for it.
    I refuse to do your homework for you. You are fully capable.
    It gets tiring to read the self-proclaimed moral leaders making pronouncements of guilt for alleged behaviors you engage in constantly. If you don't like nastiness, then don't engage in it. Set a good example. And bear in mind that pointing out someone's incorrect answers is not nastiness.
    Yes, if you don't want nastiness, don't start the nastiness ball rolling. Again, he was correct in the use of that expression. Please learn French.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #17

    Oct 20, 2021, 01:20 PM
    I read them when first posted and, yes, have found them again.
    Sorry. Just don't believe it.

    I refuse to do your homework for you. You are fully capable.
    Correct. I am capable, and that's how I know that your assertion is incorrect. This is my first statement on the issue. You will plainly see that I am pointing out that Athos is in no position to criticize anyone for supposedly nasty comments. "Athos, sorry to tell you this, but you are in no position to criticize anyone for nasty comments. Consider these two comments (of his) for instance, 'To repeat, it never comes up unless you have nothing intelligent to say." "but in your troll-like fervor to disagree with anything, you can't let go of it.' "

    Yes, if you don't want nastiness, don't start the nastiness ball rolling. Again, he was correct in the use of that expression. Please learn French.
    I'm not complaining about nastiness. That's the two of you at work on that. Two practitioners of the "art" are complaining about what they do so well. If you don't think it's right, then don't do it. And whatever you do, take responsibility for your own actions instead of blaming it on someone else.

    Well, short of someone being willing to answer questions, we've talked this to death. The heading of this thread was, "Couldn't Leave This One Unanswered." I laugh when I read this. Evidently there is a great willingness to leave many things unanswered.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

How to get over a relationship with unanswered questions [ 1 Answers ]

My ex girlfriend broke up with me August 1st!she say she wanted space, so I gave her space!Some days I will give her space, and some days I will talk to her!We had a god relationship from my judgement!Im 23 and she is 34, but for some reason she always want to quit we met on may 9, said we love...


View more questions Search