Giving Leftists too much benefit of the doubt

[Crucible]

Must have hit a nerve....or rather a vein, so to speak. Psalm 68:21

So Lon, is the Bible the inerrant word of God or not?

Taking random Bible verses and stringing them up to talk about how bad you think they are just makes you look like a blithering tool.

The Bible speaks from a spirit that, quite frankly, a lot of people on the Left who are so pompously assured of their own overblown self righteous bias won't understand.
I could seriously imagine Steven Fry, for example, opening up the Bible and act like a gargantuan moron before he even puts it back down.

The people who accuse us of forcing our beliefs and demanding an explanation from us- are the people forcing their beliefs on us and trying to explain things for us.
Why don't you all just shove off somewhere? Talking about you 'struck a nerve'- people just become frustrated by the shallowness is all.

 

[quip]

It is acting out and attention getting. 1) I think I know more about Buddhism than you do about Christianity. 2) I am nowhere near as reactionary against it that I need to be on a Buddhist board swinging wildly.

1. I'm sure you know more about Buddhism than I.
2. :idunno: There's no such need. So, relax.

On this, it doesn't matter because you don't care anyway. I've got excellent answers to the questions and am knowledgeable enough to field the question but you are already tuning me out because it wasn't a sincere question. This was all sarcasm on your part.

I care...rationally speaking rather than mystically so. Don't assume they're compatable bedfellows.

Well, of course, if you bought the cheap course. I went the expensive route. You get what you pay for. Don't cry about sub-par education when your prefer it. You do need binoculars in the cheap seats.

An argument from the Sale of Indulgences? Lon, you should know better!

What is it worth? I have no idea what you mean by it, especially with the dancing devil icon after it.

In that case you may freely use your PhD in lieu of Charmin™

 

[quip]

Taking random Bible verses and stringing them up to talk about how bad you think they are just makes you look like a blithering tool.

"how good" as well?

Or are you making biased rant?

 

[Lon]

1. I'm sure you know more about Buddhism than I.

Are you sure you read my sentence correctly?

2. :idunno: There's no such need. So, relax.

That was the actual contrast no? You feel an obvious need to do so here.

I care...rationally speaking rather than mystically so. Don't assume they're compatable bedfellows.

It is an observation from a dichotomous worldview, I'd think, but you do seem more interested in frivolous rather than the bright and exceptional on point.

An argument from the Sale of Indulgences? Lon, you should know better!

Again, no. You were saying interpretation was a dime a dozen, and that is definitely a commentary from the cheap seats. There are definitely opinions and interpretations from dime stores, Macy's has fewer but of quality, so to speak. Know where you shop, and why by illustration.

In that case you may freely use your PhD in lieu of Charmin™

Because I had no idea what you meant? :doh: What side did you wake up on, this morning? Was a PhD supposed to know what you meant? When I grade a paper a C, it is because the 'student' is unclear, not me.

 

[quip]

Are you sure you read my sentence correctly?

Yes. Hint: I'm appealing to your - rather abundant - spiritual ego.

That was the actual contrast no? You feel an obvious need to do so here.

Again, there's no need. Buddhism cares less if you like or dislike it; accept it or deny it. It's dogma-free.

It is an observation from a dichotomous worldview, I'd think, but you do seem more interested in frivolous rather than the bright and exceptional on point.

Rather sophomoric for a PhD. Stick to your field.

Again, no. You were saying interpretation was a dime a dozen, and that is definitely a commentary from the cheap seats. There are definitely opinions and interpretations from dime stores, Macy's has fewer but of quality, so to speak. Know where you shop, and why by illustration.

They're all "cheap seats"...you're just a haughty fool enough to believe otherwise.

Because I had no idea what you meant? :doh: What side did you wake up on, this morning? Was a PhD supposed to know what you meant? When I grade a paper a C, it is because the 'student' is unclear, not me.

This isn't a paper..professor.

 

[Lon]

"how good" as well?

By good, do you mean contextually accurate, or were you referring to the dime-a-dozen store?

Or are you making biased rant?

Disagreeing with your poor interpretation is biased? Reading our 'own' embraced theology? You are the one quote-mining. That isn't any of the rest of us. Did you 'read' the bible yourself and find those, or did you go to the local atheist/agnostic five and dime? They really do sell the cruddy there, it is a quote-mine wholesale of the inane, stretch & far reaching, and the lame. That's not the full dozen, but you get the idea. So where did you get your mined quote? Did you pull it yourself or was it bought for a nickel off of atheist.com? Are you seeing patterns of sincerity vs patterns of insincerity yet?

 

[Lon]

Yes. Hint: I'm appealing to your - rather abundant - spiritual ego.

Were you perhaps remembering a prior conversation regarding about ten sources on Buddhists against abortion? Other than that, you'd be completely over-balanced and defensive.

Rather sophomoric for a PhD. Stick to your field.

I think I handled this in the post above. It was you that did the sophomoric quote-mining. You can try and turn that into a serious inquiry and pursuit, but this is my field and you failed. You are HORRIBLE about introspection, but you need to do it. Again the simple question that settles this is 'where did you get your two verses?' Personal bible reading? :think:

They're all "cheap seats"...you're just a haughty fool enough to believe otherwise.

"Fool" huh? :think: I ask again, where did you get your mined quotes?

This isn't a paper..professor.

It doesn't matter what it is, C- , and that is only because I have no idea if you were sincere or not because 'blessed' has a religious meaning and a dancing devil icon is hard to understand, and you are against Christianity. So even if you had some sincerity there, C-

 

[quip]

By good, do you mean contextually accurate, or were you referring to the dime-a-dozen store?

Either. Pick one.

So where did you get your mined quote?

ummm...the bible :chuckle: (online variety)

 

[quip]

Were you perhaps remembering a prior conversation regarding about ten sources on Buddhists against abortion? Other than that, you'd be completely over-balanced and defensive.

Now, now Lon....quote mining?!

I think I handled this in the post above. It was you that did the sophomoric quote-mining. You can try and turn that into a serious inquiry and pursuit, but this is my field and you failed. You are HORRIBLE about introspection, but you need to do it. Again the simple question that settles this is 'where did you get your two verses?' Personal bible reading? :think:

"Fool" huh? :think: I ask again, where did you get your mined quotes?

Supra

It doesn't matter what it is, C-

:banana:

 

[Lon]

Now, now Lon....quote mining?!

Go ahead and find me ten Buddhist sources that say it is okay then. I 'think' you are pick'n'choose even regarding your Buddhism. Sure, they won't kick you out for it (not that its organized quite that way), but quote mining? Not only that, you still haven't read what I had said for understanding. You went overt all on your own. I don't have to embrace the accusation and this goes clear back to another thread, for random off-topic meanderings. Next? I actually spent a lot of time 'reading' :noway:

One of us was actually, sincere, honest, self-educating, and interested. Again, that was another thread, but it seems it is still an ouch on your mind. Wasn't it over a year ago now, and you are still thinking about? Context, at any rate. That was there, this thread is about something else AND you missed the point due to an overt hurt from another thread.

Supra

Right. It was quote-mining from the cheapest seat available and you didn't really care a whit about context or how it applied to me, or even them, nor that there was no verb-action-command. You weren't looking for that, just a careless google for "scripture" and "blood" to suit your whim.

:banana:

:third:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Now, now Lon....quote mining?!





Supra




:banana:

Has Buddha started that new diet yet?

 

[quip]

Go ahead and find me ten Buddhist sources that say it is okay then. I 'think' you are pick'n'choose even regarding your Buddhism.

Whyfor...Buddhism is not about rote, mindless recitation. But you know this already don't you Lon?

One of us was actually, sincere, honest, self-educating, and interested. Again, that was another thread, but it seems it is still an ouch on your mind. Wasn't it over a year ago now, and you are still thinking about? Context, at any rate. That was there, this thread is about something else AND you missed the point due to an overt hurt from another thread.

If you say so ... it must be true.

Right. It was quote-mining from the cheapest seat available and you didn't really care a whit about context or how it applied to me, or even them, nor that there was no verb-action-command. You weren't looking for that, just a careless google for "scripture" and "blood" to suit your whim.


:third:

Speaking of cheap seats, I was actually granted this particular scripture from a Nick M. quote. He's quite fond of it. Perhaps, you two should get together and straighten this up.

 

[quip]

Has Buddha started that new diet yet?

Dunno, ask him.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Dunno ask him.

It would sound better coming from one of his followers.

 

[quip]

It would sound better coming from one of his followers.

Ok then.

No. He tried strict acetisism.....he found it lacking! :chuckle:

(Hey, I think you were right....that was funny!)

 

[Lon]

Whyfor...Buddhism is not about rote, mindless recitation. But you know this already don't you Lon?

Yes. You are being pedantically sensitive to 'another thread' that 'happened over a year ago.' All I said here was that "I think I know more about Buddhism than you do about Christianity." You are trying to force something beyond that. On top of that, Buddhism is against abortion because it is philosophically not in sync with it. That isn't rote, although they do have a few harsher rebukes for abortion advocates (and again, this thread isn't about that, but I'm talking about Buddhist philosophy at this point).

If you say so ... it must be true.

Belaboring the missed point as just above and the prior post. Is it just an odd desire for banter today? This is all rabbit-trailing. Do you even need to respond? Do I? What is the point?

Speaking of cheap seats, I was actually granted this particular scripture from a Nick M. quote. He's quite fond of it. Perhaps, you two should get together and straighten this up.

Both of them? The context of the first was for physical Israel and the second had messianic fulfillment in Christ crushing the serpent's head. Neither are about Christians with blood on their feet. Our fight is against an enemy that would ruin your soul and what you embrace. I want to see your soul saved, not ruined. Christianity doesn't wrestle with flesh and blood.

 

[quip]

Yes. You are being pedantically sensitive to 'another thread' that 'happened over a year ago.' All I said here was that "I think I know more about Buddhism than you do about Christianity." You are trying to force something beyond that. On top of that, Buddhism is against abortion because it is philosophically not in sync with it. That isn't rote, although they do have a few harsher rebukes for abortion advocates (and again, this thread isn't about that, but I'm talking about Buddhist philosophy at this point).

Then you simply haven't meditated on the Buddhist teachings. You're taking a legalistic/dogmatic approach to the non-dogmatic. You've obviouly read about Buddhism but obviously understand nothing of it.

Belaboring the missed point as just above and the prior post. Is it just an odd desire for banter today? This is all rabbit-trailing. Do you even need to respond? Do I? What is the point?

Respond or don't respond...same conclusion ensues.

Both of them? The context of the first was for physical Israel and the second had messianic fulfillment in Christ crushing the serpent's head. Neither are about Christians with blood on their feet. Our fight is against an enemy that would ruin your soul and what you embrace. I want to see your soul saved, not ruined. Christianity doesn't wrestle with flesh and blood.

They're from the same chapter. :idunno: The first verse coincides with the latter. Apparently, Nick and your interpretations differ dramatically....which only adds to my prior point. (dime-o-dozen)

 

[Lon]

Then you simply haven't meditated on the Buddhist teachings. You're taking a legalistic/dogmatic approach to the non-dogmatic. You've obviouly read about Buddhism but obviously understand nothing of it.

I do understand that about them and like my friends that are, but there is some truth to be said for not being an insider. I'm not. I wouldn't go as far as to say nothing of. Because such is against the meditations and implications of Buddhist thought, I went ahead and shared ten sources and quotes with you about abortion. I'm not sure I'll go much beyond that, concerning Buddhism, here. It was a comparison simply to say you don't know my faith very well. Next time I'll simply say that.

They're from the same chapter. :idunno: The first verse coincides with the latter. Apparently, Nick and your interpretations differ dramatically....which only adds to my prior point. (dime-o-dozen)

Language is contextual. All the excess interpretation are a dime-a-dozen perhaps, mine was not. It cost me a great deal because the dime store brands wasn't what I was looking for. Most people can philosophize and so can do philosophy, but that isn't philosophy scholarship or a reason to throw it out of college discipline. The nature of forums tends to be of the dime-store variety and so I don't disagree.

You said it was 'all' dime store with merely shows ignorance and or disdain on your part. A person can even get a doctorate in theology. Steven Hawking disdains philosophy as well, but he's been wrong even in his own chosen field, so certainly can be wrong concerning another's field of study. Philosophy is still a needed class, science isn't the end all. A Buddhist should certainly agree I'd think. I've read a good amount of our religions and philosophies enough to be able to converse. I do not say I know a lot about Buddhism, but rather was saying I think I know about it and treat it more fairly than you do Christianity.

 

[lighthouse99]

A good article, but only as description.

.

or as the Bible says

they gave themselves over [to evil]

and God abandoned them so they could do what they [thought they] wanted

that's a paraphrase but probably a pretty good one

actually, maybe it is NOT a good one because it wasn't god who abandoned them, it was the other way around