@kellyjay saidYour inability to field questions about what you say in a public debate - and any pouting attendant thereto - are part of the discourse.
I say the things I want to when I'm talking to someone; if you want to come behind a conversation others are having and give one the third degree, we can choose to ignore you or answer; I'm not compelled to give you the time of day. If I'm willing because you ask, I'll try to respond if I think you are only being annoying, maybe not.
29 Dec 21
@kellyjay saidNot quite clear of your point here, are you equating the Lord of the Rings to the Illiad? Or are you suggesting that the Illiad is not comparable to OT books?
I agree there many great lessons of morality in scriptures and other stories, I found some of the things written in the Lord of the Rings inspiring, but I don't put that among historical documents.
29 Dec 21
@avalanchethecat saidNot at all, we can find points to draw on in many writings. The distinction with the Lord of the Rings which I love and have read more than a few times, I don't count it as historical. While the OT you can draw on as we can the Illiad, but having something to draw on that actually occurred is different than Gandalf talking to Frodo.
Not quite clear of your point here, are you equating the Lord of the Rings to the Illiad? Or are you suggesting that the Illiad is not comparable to OT books?
29 Dec 21
@fmf saidHere is where I think you are confused; I'm not in a debate with you; I'm on a chess server in the Spirituality forum talking about things I care about for as long as I care to. You may feel this is a public debate form, and therefore requirements are laid on each one who says anything to anyone here, I don't. Any discourse I have is because I don't mind or desire; there isn't any compulsion; please take note of that.
Your inability to field questions about what you say in a public debate - and any pouting attendant thereto - are part of the discourse.
@kellyjay saidAs I said, your inability to withstand questions in the course of a public debate is part of the discourse. Your resort to playing victim cards is also part of the discourse.
You may feel this is a public debate form, and therefore requirements are laid on each one who says anything to anyone here, I don't. Any discourse I have is because I don't mind or desire; there isn't any compulsion; please take note of that.
29 Dec 21
@kellyjay saidI would amend that to "...having something to draw on that may have actually occurred..." but otherwise I agree.
Not at all, we can find points to draw on in many writings. The distinction with the Lord of the Rings which I love and have read more than a few times, I don't count it as historical. While the OT you can draw on as we can the Illiad, but having something to draw on that actually occurred is different than Gandalf talking to Frodo.
29 Dec 21
@divegeester saidWhat is your reasoning?
Why do so manny of the Christians in this forum find it so difficult to give direct honest answers to direct honest questions?
29 Dec 21
@avalanchethecat saidI agree which is why I believe Jesus to be the Word of God made flesh.
No, I tend to think that if a god or gods wishes to communicate with us it won't require men to intermediate.
29 Dec 21
@fmf saidIt takes at least two to debate, and typically both are participating in it, you may have been debating I was just having a conversation. You want to debate I suggest you inform the one you want to debate and set it up.
Both of us. It's still all there.
29 Dec 21
1 edit
@kellyjay saidThat phrase doesn't really mean anything. Do you mean the 'name' of god made flesh?
I agree which is why I believe Jesus to be the Word of God made flesh.
Edit: Also, the books you're reading about Jesus were written by men. Acting as intermediaries.