Jesus Christ Changed the World

@ThinkOfOne

C'mon jaywill. You've once again lost context of our discussion. My post was in response to your making as if I haven't been clear on my position. My post was to prove that I have made it clear many a time. The quoted text was provided as an example.

Your response is ineffectual. It only begs the question. It digs in its heels and restates your attitude - to apply an arbitrary filter to the New Testament.

Before reading it we know you reject a large portion of the New Testament in a vague way.

After reading it we know you reject a large portion of the New Testament in a vague way.

And after you repost it with a boast of having done so before, guess what?
All we know on the Nth reading of it is that you reject a large portion of the New Testament in a vague way.

@sonship said
@ThinkOfOne

C'mon jaywill. You've once again lost context of our discussion. My post was in response to your making as if I haven't been clear on my position. My post was to prove that I have made it clear many a time. The quoted text was provided as an example.

Your response is ineffectual. It only begs the question. It digs in its heels and restates y ...[text shortened]... now on the Nth reading of it is that you reject a large portion of the New Testament in a vague way.

The sad thing is that you actually seem to believe that your responses make logical sense.

Like I said in the portion that you disingenuously omitted from your response:

To compound it, you've once again addressed each statement in the example as if it were said in a vacuum. As I've repeatedly pointed out to you, you can't draw reasonable conclusions using that methodology. You do it with what other posters write. You do it with scripture.

As I wrote earlier:
<<Unfortunately the vast majority of those rendered incapable of rationally discussing their "faith" believe themselves capable.>>

You've once again shown that that includes you.

@dj2becker said
Possibly you calling Hammond a liar without proof?

OK.
You do not know what slander is so that added to the confusion.
You mean libel.

So either Mandela admitted to terrorism and every biography about him is wrong.
Or he did not and your man is a liar.

So either Gandhi had sex with his sister and every biography about him leaves that nugget out.
Or he did not and your man is a liar.

@wolfgang59 said
OK.
You do not know what slander is so that added to the confusion.
You mean libel.

So either Mandela admitted to terrorism and every biography about him is wrong.
Or he did not and your man is a liar.

So either Gandhi had sex with his sister and every biography about him leaves that nugget out.
Or he did not and your man is a liar.

Are you naive enough to believe that nothing is ever omitted from a biography?

Do you know the actual reasons for Mandela’s imprisonment?

@dj2becker said
Are you naive enough to believe that nothing is ever omitted from a biography?

Do you know the actual reasons for Mandela’s imprisonment?

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm dying to hear this.

@dj2becker said
Are you naive enough to believe that nothing is ever omitted from a biography?

Biographers write down EVERYTHING.
They want to sell books.

@dj2becker said
Do you know the actual reasons for Mandela’s imprisonment?

Income tax? I dunno.
Educate me.

@suzianne said
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm dying to hear this.

Me too...

@ThinkOfOne

The sad thing is that you actually seem to believe that your responses make logical sense.

Oh, don't be so sad. You can't expect to buffalo everybody.

Like I said in the portion that you disingenuously omitted from your response:

There was no disingenuous omission.
That I targeted certain things to discuss, is typical of this medium of discussion.

The submitted paragraphs are postured by you as clearing up your position on the ministry of Jesus while He walked on the earth. As far as I can see, it just restates the concept.

When you come down to it "the ministry of Jesus while He was on earth" simply means " What I like in the New Testament."

There's nothing too profound about it other then that.

@sonship said
@ThinkOfOne

The sad thing is that you actually seem to believe that your responses make logical sense.

Oh, don't be so sad. You can't expect to buffalo everybody.

Like I said in the portion that you disingenuously omitted from your response:

There was no disingenuous omission.
That I targeted certain things to discuss, is typi ...[text shortened]... ns " What I like in the New Testament."

There's nothing too profound about it other then that.

C'mon jaywill. The point is that you keep missing the point and keep ignoring context - both of the immediate context as well as the discussion as a whole.

No doubt in your mind you don't. But the sad fact is that you do and are oblivious to this fact. Your pride blinds you.

It makes trying to have a rational discussion with you impossible.

@wolfgang59 said
Income tax? I dunno.
Educate me.

So why are you calling Hammond a liar if you dunno?

@wolfgang59 said
Biographers write down EVERYTHING.
They want to sell books.

Everything that people want to hear.

@suzianne said
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm dying to hear this.

Wolfgang just called Hammond a liar and when asked if he in fact knows the reasons for Mandela’s imprisomment he doesn’t know as suspected.

@dj2becker said
So why are you calling Hammond a liar if you dunno?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

@dj2becker said
Wolfgang just called Hammond a liar and when asked if he in fact knows the reasons for Mandela’s imprisomment he doesn’t know as suspected.

Why would I need to know?

If somebody tells me Jesus was 6 inches high and I call them a liar.
I am supposed to know and prove what height Jesus was?