I Didn’t Ask Anyone To Die For Me.

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 281
Topic's author
#61
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I would of saved Jesus.  
Operation rescue Jesus from the cross.


 Nice one deb.  He was saved.  He didn't die either . So in actual fact there was no sacrifice.  And many of those qualified here seem to forget that Jesus was  forgiving  sin before his alleged "sacrifice".








#62
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Wow!

I thought Ethang was joking when he said you were obsessed. 


#63
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ethang5
It's no longer your truth eh?

it never was a matter of "my truth" -- In post 30, I accepted that you live under the false notion which you consider "your truth" and I pointed out that this was your error. You had said that you posted something which was "the" truth and I simply corrected you. You don't like that correction because you see your version of the world as "the truth" but you are wrong. If you want to refer to earlier parts of this dialogue, it is useful to note them in context -- I was conceding that you have a version of "truth" -- not that there are different truths.


 Oops! Don't slip back into PC nonsense. First, you can't "grant" anyone the truth, and second, there is no your truth or my truth. I know these non-liberal ideas are scary for you, but trust me, you will be fine.

I still don't understand how you tie the post modern idea of truths to a political position (or do you mean liberal in terms of some other set of values). You don't know how I vote and yet because I am tolerant of your erroneous position, and humor your calling it "truth" you want to guess at my various leanings. Weird.

Liberals also love to pontificate on their thinking. No one cares Rosends, that's why no one asked you. Opinions are like you know what, everyone has one. Now, find someone who finds your personal thoughts fascinating, and bother them.
It doesn't matter whether you find my thoughts fascinating ("How "useful" that was to you is of no concern to me.") If you find this to be a bother, then that is your problem, and if you are looking for a fight then you have looked in the wrong place.  All I'm doing is posting information on the truth and you are bothered that it makes clear that your version of things isn't the truth.

Separate question -- if I could show, demonstrate or prove that something that you posted was objectively and provably false -- that your statement which you think of as being "the truth" is wrong, would it make you reconsider your truth claims and see that what you insist on as being "the truth" is really just your perception and understanding?

#64
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
>> Stephen

there were only four humans on the planet at the time 
You 'know' this only because that is the apparent population by what can be read. As Mark Twain once said: ""It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble; it's what you knw for sure that just ain't so." You will notice that Cain is not noted as Eve's firstborn, just the first mentioned, because his actions are noteworthy; just as Abel is mentioned second, but not necessarily #2. If you read the Holy Bible as a complete body of literature, or holy writ if you're so inclined [you obviously have not in either case], you would note there's a fairly consistent propensity to mention male births, but not female, unless the latter become significant contributors to the entire history. So let's not get too hyped in numbering Eve's children.

Knowing the history of what we now hold as the Holy Bible, it is folly to read it as if it is an carefully constructed encyclopedia of historic events. Too much translation and transliteration, both with intended and unintended corruption of the text, and lacking any single book in its original script, taking anything as literal without having the back-up of asking God specifically what is and is not legitimate makes for interesting literature, but as for holy writ, that requires asking questions to the Source, but only by having faith that answers are forthcoming,  and that only after much study and prayer. Most people lack that effort.
#65
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Wow!
I thought Ethang was joking when he said you were obsessed. 
Lol. Told ya.
#66
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rosends
It's no longer your truth eh?

it never was a matter of "my truth"
I can only go by what you posted Rosends. I was the one who corrected you that it was never a matter of "your truth" or "my truth". Please don't try to pretend now that you didn't come up with that liberal subjective gem.

You had said that you posted something which was "the" truth and I simply corrected you.
By telling me it was "my truth". You can't run away from your old comments Rosends. I can cite it if you'd like.

You don't like that correction because you see your version of the world as "the truth" but you are wrong.
You flatter yourself thinking I didn't "like" something you said. All I did was point out to you that truth didn't come in flavors of mine and yours. That remains true no matter how angry you'd like to imagine I am.

If you want to refer to earlier parts of this dialogue, it is useful to note them in context -- I was conceding that you have a version of "truth" -- not that there are different truths.
Uh huh. "A version of truth" being different than, "different truths"? Sorry. There are no "versions of truths". That is the same PC liberal nonsense as, "your truth" and "my truth". You keep harping that I am wrong. I don't care. But right or wrong, there are still not " versions of truths".

I still don't understand how you tie the post modern idea of truths to a political position (or do you mean liberal in terms of some other set of values). You don't know how I vote and yet because I am tolerant of your erroneous position, and humor your calling it "truth" you want to guess at my various leanings. Weird.
The "post modern idea of truths". Lol. I do know how you vote Rosends. But liberal is not only political. And thank you for being " tolerant" of my position. Lord knows you don't want to deny me my rights by saying what you think.

It doesn't matter whether you find my thoughts fascinating...
Notice that I said I didn't?

("How "useful" that was to you is of no concern to me.")
Yet you keep harping that you didn't find my comment "useful".

If you find this to be a bother, then that is your problem, and if you are looking for a fight then you have looked in the wrong place.
The fact that you keep returning telling me what I've already told you, would make me doubt your above comment is true, but as I don't care, ....eh,

All I'm doing is posting information on the truth and you are bothered that it makes clear that your version of things isn't the truth
If I told you I was bothered would it make you happy Rosends? I have limited time, and if you're going to keep coming back with silliness, I will have to conclude that you aren't just mistaken, you are seeking a fight. As you know, I don't mind fights, but I'd rather them be about substance rather than petty PC butthurt.

Separate question -- if I could show, demonstrate or prove that something that you posted was objectively and provably false -- that your statement which you think of as being "the truth" is wrong, would it make you reconsider your truth claims and see that what you insist on as being "the truth" is really just your perception and understanding?
If you could do that, you would have done so already. What you think of my statement doesn't matter that much to me. Chasing me around insisting I agree with your position smacks of sjw-hood. You've told me you think I am wrong. I've told you I disagree. The PC liberal in you cannot accept that and wants to force me to "see it your way".

But your process is wrong. You don't think Truth is objective. How then would "prove that something I posted was objectively and provably false? And why would I care? I know you're only going to gave me what you see as "your truth" anyway.

Now here is what I said to you in my last post. Find someone who finds your personal thoughts fascinating, and bother them. If you missed it, I meant that I did NOT find your personal thoughts fascinating, AND that you were being a bothersome Karen. (redundancy deliberate)

No one HAS to agree with you. And you don't have to agree with anyone. I am not facinated with what you think. As a PC, post modern liberal, that may be hard for you to accept, but sometimes people end up agreeing to disagree. So suck it up and move on, Ethan is not interested in what you're selling.

#67
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
John 8:24 - I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. - King Jesus Christ.  Read the whole chapter 8. It will help you greatly.

Oh I have,  and more. 
I wish you had read it BEFORE you started your militant rants about me lying and that the bible supported your ignorant claims.

So if I don't believe in him I will die in sin or my inherited sin from thousands of years ago or both? 
Does the verse say anything about inherited sin from thousands of years ago?

It doesn't state  " King Jesus Christ" .  You have added that. 
Lol. It doesn't state "John 8:24" either Einstein. One is there so you know where the verse is, and the other so you know who uttered the words.

Anyway , Can you clear up the question BEFORE YOU start claiming any more shite.
The shite being that you didn't know, and were wrong about what the bible said? That shite? My claim was that the bible says you will die in your sin if you do not accept Jesus' payment for you. Is that claim shite?

We maybe able to proceed with your argument then.
Proceed where? You called me a liar, saying the bible said the exact opposite of my claim. I humiliated you by posting the verse and you call it shite. You were not only wrong, you were militantly wrong.

So, am I not a liar anymore? Has the bible suddenly changed? Does the bible no longer completely & utterly contradict MY UNSUPPORTED claims that -  you " will die IF " you don't accept His sacrifice? Have I moved out of the corner I painted myself in?

Where do you wish to "proceed" to now? See, I am not as nice as Trade secret. I will not let you bully and insult me and then pretend everything is fine when I demonstrate you are woefully ignorant.

Why would I want to "proceed" with a person so ignorant, he didn't even know his chosen topic, and so rude and uncouth, that he would throw out terms like "liar" and "shite" to his betters?

You must think speaking to you is some sort of privilege. It isn't. I've addressed everything you brought up in your OP. You still have your sin because you have not confessed them to Jesus and asked Him to take them away from you, and thus, if you die in that state, you will have to pay for them yourself. Scripture did not say YOUR sins are forgiven, it says your sins can be forgiven, IF you take them to Jesus. You say you have not taken your sins to Jesus, and that you don't want to.

Ok then. Stop whining about no one asking your permission and about how your sins were taken away without your permission. No one needed your permission. You lost. Jesus' payment was not made to you.

If you now want to ooze to yet another topic, start a new thread and I will demonstrate there too how little you know of Christian doctrine.
Topic's author
#68
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
John 8:24 - I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. - King Jesus Christ.  Read the whole chapter 8. It will help you greatly.
So if I don't believe in him I will die in sin or my inherited sin from thousands of years ago or both? It doesn't state  " King Jesus Christ" .  You have added that. 


Lol. It doesn't state "John 8:24" either Einstein.


 Ok you obviously don't understand that question about the verse that you believe proves a point. So lets try this one . 

 YOU HAVE POTED THIS VERSE>>

->@ethang5: John 8:24 - I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. - King Jesus Christ. "
Why  you have posted that verse?  It doesn't prove anything at all. Besides, I do believe  Jesus was a king  (but I can't prove it) and a son of god ( but I can't prove that either) And I am a Christian, (and you cannot prove that I am not) and  none of this alters the fact that  I still didn't want,  never mind ask, Jesus   to die for me and hate the idea the he sacrificed himself for my  sins that are my responsibility and  which your good buddy the Reverend Pastor Tradesecrtet is in total agreement, and  he should know . I suggest you go and read all of his/her qualifications that I listed above at post #57


...........................................

 PS.
Encouraging me to post in response to something or SOMEONE that YOU or they have introduced into the argument as some sort of entrapment doesn't work princess.  If you introduce it then  I have right to ignore or respond  to it  the best of my ability, as every lawyer and judge  will attest.   If you don't want me to discuss the brilliant qualifications of another member you will do well not to keep bringing him or her up at every opportunity you get.  I can do that aptly all on my own when the occasion or need call for me to do so. 

I mean,  how can a complementary post singing the praises such as that I made above concerning the Reverend Tradesecret at #57  be worthy of vindictive reporting?  The Reverend Tradesecrets simply said to me   "You must think I am an amazing authority". I replied that I do think that and listed my reasons why.  And  only someone really jealous and  vindictively hateful  would take offence at me  singing the praises of another member:  was it you? 


If you or the Reverend Tradesecrete believe it wise to continue to accuse me of having some kind of  "obsession" in every post you make then I have every right to respond in my own defence to the best of my ability. 

The forum doesn't just slap bans on members anymore. Members are now given a chance to explain themselves.  
#69
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ethang5

I can only go by whatyou posted Rosends. I was the one who corrected you that it was never a matterof "your truth" or "my truth". Please don't try to pretendnow that you didn't come up with that liberal subjective gem.
 
You corrected me whenI said you had “your truth” - I didn't claim that I had "my truth." You insisted that there is only one truth and yourposition was consistent with that one truth. I corrected you and you don’t likebeing told that “your truth” is not the same as “the truth.” The posts arestill all there for everyone to see.
 
By telling me it was"my truth". You can't run away from your old comments Rosends. I cancite it if you'd like.
 
Yes, “your truth” asopposed to “the truth.” That makes you in error.
 
You flatter yourselfthinking I didn't "like" something you said. All I did was point outto you that truth didn't come in flavors of mine and yours. That remains trueno matter how angry you'd like to imagine I am.
 
If you assert anerror is “the truth” then you must have invented a truth of your own. That’s aproblem you have.
 
Uh huh. "Aversion of truth" being different than, "different truths"?Sorry. There are no "versions of truths". That is the same PC liberalnonsense as, "your truth" and "my truth". You keep harpingthat I am wrong. I don't care. But right or wrong, there are still not "versions of truths".
 
No, the distinctionisn’t between “a version” and anything else, but in the fact that I said YOUhave a version, not I. Your presentation of “the truth” is only yourunderstanding and not “the truth.” You want to hold it as something called “truth”then it is “your truth” but certainly not THE truth. If you would prefer, I will just call your position "untruth" and not allow for an error in thinking on your part to help you craft a false world-view that you see as truth.
 
The "post modernidea of truths". Lol. I do know how you vote Rosends. But liberal is notonly political. And thank you for being " tolerant" of my position.Lord knows you don't want to deny me my rights by saying what you think.
 
Trust me, you have noidea how I vote and if you keep tying “liberal” to voting patterns theninjecting some other unnamed notion of “liberal” into the conversation isuseless. But have fun with that.
 
Yet you keep harpingthat you didn't find my comment "useful".
 
Because it doesn’tfurther dialogue. If you are OK with that, then fine.
 
If I told you I wasbothered would it make you happy Rosends?
 
You already did. And ithas no impact on my mood. You simply aren’t important enough.
 
If you could do that,you would have done so already.
 
No, I wouldn’t have because it wouldn't serve the conversation, butI could. My question still stands. If I can prove that you are wrong in onething you insist is truth then will you reconsider the claim to objective truthof your entire world view? Can you stand being wrong or will you dig in and insistthat you are right? And “seeing it my way” is immaterial. This isn’t a matterof opinion.
 
 Now here is what I saidto you in my last post. Find someone who finds your personal thoughtsfascinating, and bother them. If you missed it, I meant that I did NOT findyour personal thoughts fascinating, AND that you were being a bothersome Karen.(redundancy deliberate)
 
So you are botheredby someone who can prove that you are wrong? OK. Thanks. Sometimes a littleresearch can help you avoid being proven wrong. Your choice. I guess your holdon “the truth” isn’t as firm as you would like it to be so you squeeze tighterand close your eyes.  Why you call me a “bothersomeKaren” escapes me. I’m just stating the truth and you find that a bother, Iguess.
 
 
#70
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
@ethang5: John 8:24 - I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. - King Jesus Christ. "

Why  you have posted that verse?
You asked me to.

It doesn't prove anything at all. 
Lol. OK.

The rest of your post obsessively ranting about Trade secret again I ignored. Please seek some help. Even if its only talking to a friend.
#71
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rosends
I can only go by whatyou posted Rosends. I was the one who corrected you that it was never a matterof "your truth" or "my truth". Please don't try to pretendnow that you didn't come up with that liberal subjective gem.
 
You corrected me whenI said you had “your truth” - I didn't claim that I had "my truth." 
Unless the "your truth" you referred to meant "all truth", then you implicitly implied, "my truth" too.

 I corrected you and you don’t likebeing told that...
Your perception of what I liked or disliked is immaterial. It neither validates your argument or invalidates mine. It only makes you appear petty.

“your truth” is not the same as “the truth.”
I was the one who told you that. There is no "your truth". Therefore it cannot be " the truth". Please don't try to pretend now that you didn't come up with that liberal subjective gem.

Yes, “your truth” asopposed to “the truth.” That makes you in error.
There is no personal truth Rosends. There is no reason for you to keep repeating your opinion that I'm in error. And even if I am in error, there is still no personal truths. Keep your opinion, lose the illogic.

If you assert anerror is “the truth” then you must have invented a truth of your own. That’s aproblem you have.
"My problems" that exist only between your ears are fine with me.

...but in the fact that I said YOUhave a version, not I.
I know. I quoted you. And I corrected you in that there aren't "versions" of truth. Truth is objective. What you think isn't.

You want to hold it as something called “truth”then it is “your truth” but certainly not THE truth.
Then you are asserting that anyone holding any truth makes it become "their truth"! Nonsense. What a person holds is either the truth or not the truth, either way, there is no your truth or my truth. Truth is not subjective.

If you would prefer, I will just call your position "untruth" and not allow for an error in thinking on your part to help you craft a false world-view that you see as truth.
I couldn't care less for what you wish to call my position. You don't think my position is the truth. You've incessantly told us. We get it. Regardless, there is no personal truth. Truth is objective.

Trust me, you have noidea how I vote...
OK Rosends. My knowing how you vote is much harder than you knowing my false world-view that I see as truth.

Yet you keep harping that you didn't find my comment "useful".
 
Because it doesn’t further dialogue. If you are OK with that, then fine.
 I'm always OK with truth. And I value truth far above furthering dialogue. Sorry.


If I told you I was bothered, would it make you happy Rosends?
 
You already did.
Actually I haven't, but would it make you happy?

And ithas no impact on my mood. You simply aren’t important enough.
 Lol! You seem to be trying pretty hard for that "unimportant" thing.


if I could show, demonstrate or prove that something that you posted was objectively and provably false -- that your statement which you think of as being "the truth" is wrong, would it make you reconsider your truth claims...
If you could do that, you would have done so already.
 
No, I wouldn’t have because it wouldn't serve the conversation, butI could.
Uh huh.

My question still stands. 
Because you cut out my reply. I'm not important enough right?

So you are botheredby someone who can prove that you are wrong? OK. 
Lol. In your mind, you've already proven I am wrong haven't you?

Sometimes a littleresearch can help you avoid being proven wrong.
There ya go. You  say you didn't prove me wrong because it wouldn't have "furthered dialogue", but here you say you still proved me wrong (somehow) and that I could have avoided being proven wrong! Did you use magic?

Your choice. I guess your holdon “the truth” isn’t as firm as you would like it to be so you squeeze tighterand close your eyes.  
It must have been when my eyes were closed that you proved me wrong.

Why you call me a “bothersomeKaren” escapes me.
The bothersome part or the Karen part? Lol. Don't bother answering. Its rhetorical.
#72
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ethang5
I canonly go by whatyou posted Rosends. I was the one who corrected you that it wasnever a matterof "your truth" or "my truth". Please don'ttry to pretendnow that you didn't come up with that liberal subjective gem.
 
Unless the "your truth" you referred to meant"all truth", then you implicitly implied, "my truth" too.
 
Ah, so you responded to what you decided I “implicitly implied”not anything that I posted. Thanks for the clarification.
 
Yourperception of what I liked or disliked is immaterial. It neither validates yourargument or invalidates mine. It only makes you appear petty.
 
I can only go by what you posted. If you react by trying to bring in all sorts of other ideas (like politics) and you feel the need to impute an explicit statement when none exists, I can conclude your emotional content.
 
I wasthe one who told you that. There is no "your truth". Therefore itcannot be " the truth". Please don't try to pretend now that youdidn't come up with that liberal subjective gem.
 
You told me that I shouldn’t consign your erroneous statement to a position of “your truth” so I will just call it “your error which you see as truth but because you are in error, it is not truth”. That should resolve the question.
 
Icouldn't care less for what you wish to call my position. You don't think myposition is the truth. You've incessantly told us. We get it. Regardless, thereis no personal truth. Truth is objective.
 
Fine. I’ll stick with “your error which you confuse for the truth”
OKRosends. My knowing how you vote is much harder than you knowing my falseworld-view that I see as truth.
 
True. I haven’t said anything to indicate my vote and yet you have let your error construct a world-view.
 
Lol!You seem to be trying pretty hard for that "unimportant" thing.
 
What I “seem” to you has no impact on the truth. That’s your perception and your issue to deal with.
 
If youcould do that, you would have done so already.
 
Again, an assertion without proof. I could but I am trying to understand how you think you will respond before I do.
 
Becauseyou cut out my reply. I'm not important enough right?
 
Because your reply did not answer the question. What does that have to do with your idea of your importance?
 
Lol. Inyour mind, you've already proven I am wronghaven't you?
 
Well, actually, I haven’t proven it, but I have the proof. You made an error and I want to know how you will deal when that error is pointed out. I’m not talking about your opinion about what texts are in the bible. I know what texts are in the bible – that might be called an opinion on your part even though you call it “truth” but that's what I would say to your claim also. I’m not even talking about my voting record,which I know and you don’t, so you can’t call your statement “truth”. I’m talking about another statement you have made which is wrong. Is your position a unified truth that will suffer if one element is shown to be wrong, or can you accept that your view of things might not be “the truth” in one area and would that allow you to reconsider your vision of what is "truth" in other areas?
 
buthere you say you still proved me wrong (somehow) and that I could have avoidedbeing proven wrong! Did you use magic?
Where did I say I “still proved [you] wrong”? I said you could have avoided being wrong.
 
Thebothersome part or the Karen part? Lol. Don't bother answering. Its rhetorical.
 Sad that you insist that your response is rhetorical. If you can't explain then admit you can't - if you could have, you would have already. I'm asking for clarification. Both parts.
#73
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rosends
Ah, so you responded to what you decided I “implicitly implied”not anything that I posted.
Logic being a challenge for you is not my responsibility.

Your perception of what I liked or disliked is immaterial. It neither validates your argument or invalidates mine. It only makes you appear petty.
 
I can only go by what you posted. If you react by trying to bring in all sorts of other ideas (like politics) and you feel the need to impute an explicit statement when none exists, I can conclude your emotional content.
Sure you can. I didn't say you couldn't. I said it neither validates your argument or invalidates mine. But if petty is what you were going for, be my guest.

That should resolve the question.
What you decide to call something resolves only the turmoil between your ears. (Why do liberals think they can speak reality into being?)

Fine. I’ll stick with “your error which you confuse for the truth”
Stick with whatever you like, just try to remember that your personal mental contortions are not my interest in being here. Find someone who is interested.

I haven’t said anything to indicate my vote and yet you have let your error construct a world-view.
I'll repeat what I said. "OK Rosends".

You aren't that important.
Lol! You seem to be trying pretty hard for that "unimportant" thing.

What I “seem” to you has no impact on the truth. That’s your perception and your issue to deal with.
Is your claim that I'm not that important yet you keep responding also just my perception?

I could but I am trying to understand how you think you will respond before I do.
Uh huh.

My question still stands. 
Because you cut out my reply. I'm not important enough right?

Because your reply did not answer the question.
Well now. If you're going to delete my responses and put in your own comments, I can make better use of my time and just follow on the sidelines as you debate yourself. That might be more entertaining than listening to you pontificate over and over about how wrong you find me.

What does that have to do with your idea of your importance?
Not my idea, your Idea. I've said nothing about my importance. You said I was not important enough. That must be why you think it is OK to delete my replies and then claim your questions still stand.

Lol. In your mind, you've already proven I am wrong haven't you?
 
Well, actually, I haven’t proven it, but I have the proof. 
Then you advice on how I could have avoided being proven wrong was a little premature was it not Rosends? Lol.

I said you could have avoided being wrong.
You admit that you have not proven me wrong, but say I could have avoided being wrong. This is a perfect example of liberal logic. If I have not avoided being wrong, you don't need to prove me wrong now do you? To you, just your feeling that I am wrong is proof enough for you to start telling me how I could have avoided being wrong! How could I have "avoided" what you admit you have not yet done?

The bothersome part or the Karen part? Lol. Don't bother answering. Its rhetorical.

Sad that you insist that your response is rhetorical.
It was. What's truly sad is that you don't know what "insists" means.

If you can't explain then admit you can't...
No one asked me to explain. So then why would I "admit" I cannot?

- if you could have, you would have already. 
Before I was asked? Your pettiness is now morphing into making you look stupid. Thanks, but I don't need the help.

I'm asking for clarification. Both parts.
If you need me to explain to you what a karen is, and why they are bothersome, you do not have the ability to get it. I won't waste my time.

You are still hanging on to that silly liberal idea that you are the arbiter of what is true and relevant. That everyone must agree with your thinking or else they are "bad/mistaken/evil". That the only proof needed for someone to be wrong is for you to think they are wrong.

You can't wear me down, anger me, shame me, or trick me. I don't tire, get bored, or get frustrated. You cannot " win" against me with pettiness, obstinacy, obtuseness, or pigheadedness. I care about logic. I don't know you. Only your logic is real to me.

Your insistence that I'm bothered or angry doesn't help you. Drop the SJW attitude and give me logic. If you don't, I will just toy with you. And I can do that longer than you can play the liberal "you must agree with me because I'm right game".

Now, do you have anything of substance, or do you only want to say yet again that you think I'm wrong?
#74
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ethang5
 It only makes you appear petty.

If pointing out your inaccuracy is what you call petty then, ok.

(Why do liberals think they can speak reality into being?)
Yes, answer why you think that repeatedly calling me a "liberal" somehow makes it real.

Is your claim that I'm not that important yet you keep responding also just my perception?
No. Just a function of my boredom. By your logic, though, I must be important to you as you keep responding.

Then you advice on how I could have avoided being proven wrong was a little premature was it not Rosends? 
How is it premature? Had you done the research, you wouldn't have made the error and then you wouldn't have been able to be proven wrong. And since I am able to prove you wrong, advice about what you could have done to avoid my having this ability is not premature.

 If I have not avoided being wrong, you don't need to prove me wrong now do you? 
That's pretzel logic. If you have not avoided it then you are wrong. I might not NEED to prove it, but I am able to. I don't need to do much of anything in terms of your mistakes. One thing I choose to do is to point out when you make them.

Your pettiness is now morphing into making you look stupid.
You mean by my quoting your words? Got it.

The fact is, you are wrong on many levels. I started this by pointing out that a statement you made was mired in your own subjective position and you insisted that it wasn't. You made a claim which you said comes from "My answer was restricted to the truth." But it wasn't. It was restricted to an understanding that you have about the definition of a word/concept that not all agree with. When you assert that you are "restricted to the truth" then you say that anyone else's understanding of the term is not "the truth" and that is also wrong. That smacks of your statement, "That everyone must agree with your thinking or else they are "bad/mistaken/evil". That the only proof needed for someone to be wrong is for you to think they are wrong." So far, the only proof you have for what you initially claimed is that claim. And the only proof you have about other claims you have made is your perception and assumptions which you mistake the "the truth." And since it is easy to prove at least one of those other claims as wrong, the underlying and blanket belief in your access to "the truth" fails.

So keep dancing if you must, avoiding if you like, and calling names if it works for you. 

If you need me to explain more, just let me know. Understanding how people mistake their versions of the world for the world is an important step you must make.
#75
Utanity
Utanity's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 375
0
2
2
Utanity's avatar
Utanity
0
2
2
-->
@rosends
Why dont your asking that anyone lives for you.
#76
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Utanity
I'm too busy living for others to ask them to live for me. I'm hoping that they are doing the same.
#77
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rosends
 If pointing out your inaccuracy is what you call petty then, ok.
Harping on what you call an inaccuracy after I have acknowledged your opinion is petty.

(Why do liberals think they can speak reality into being?)

Yes, answer why you think that repeatedly calling me a "liberal" somehow makes it real.
Your PC thinking is what makes you a liberal, no matter what you call yourself.

Is your claim that I'm not that important yet you keep responding also just my perception?

No. Just a function of my boredom.
Ah. OK. My importance rises with your boredom. Lol.

By your logic, though, I must be important to you as you keep responding.
You will notice that, unlike you, I have not said you are unimportant. Your little tit-for-tat silliness doesn't work if the our behaviors are not reciprocal.

Then your advice on how I could have avoided being proven wrong was a little premature was it not Rosends? 

How is it premature? 
You had not yet proven me wrong.

Had you done the research, you wouldn't have made the error and then you wouldn't have been able to be proven wrong.
And had you proven me wrong, your claim that I could have avoided it would not be incoherent.

And since I am able to prove you wrong, advice about what you could have done to avoid my having this ability is not premature.
Lol. Liberal think. "I can prove you wrong, so though I haven't, you have the "ability" to be proven wrong, so you're wrong." 

 If I have not avoided being wrong, you don't need to prove me wrong now do you?

That's pretzel logic.
Lol!! You're telling me.

If you have not avoided it then you are wrong. 
OK genius. Do people often avoid what you don't do?

I might not NEED to prove it, but I am able to.
Sure. Just your being able to means I haven't avoided it!

I don't need to do much of anything in terms of your mistakes.
Not prove them obviously.

One thing I choose to do is to point out when you make them.
You should have pointed out a million dollars. You could use the money no?

Your pettiness is now morphing into making you look stupid.

You mean by my quoting your words? Got it.
Lol. Sorry, you look really smart.

The fact is, you are wrong on many levels. I started this by pointing out that a statement you made was mired in your own subjective position and you insisted that it wasn't.
And of course, being liberal, just you pointing out meant that you were right.

You made a claim which you said comes from "My answer was restricted to the truth." But it wasn't.
Well that's proof enough for me!

It was restricted to an understanding that you have about the definition of a word/concept that not all agree with. When you assert that you are "restricted to the truth" then you say that anyone else's understanding of the term is not "the truth" and that is also wrong.
Remember our exchange about how pettiness makes you look?

That smacks of your statement, "That everyone must agree with your thinking or else they are "bad/mistaken/evil". That the only proof needed for someone to be wrong is for you to think they are wrong."
My comments "smacks", your comments actually said everyone else was wrong. But liberals are always right. Right?

So far, the only proof you have for what you initially claimed is that claim.
And you have the fact that I have not avoided what doesn't exist.

And the only proof you have about other claims you have made is your perception and assumptions which you mistake the "the truth."
I am grateful you were here to tell us what the truth was.

And since it is easy to prove at least one of those other claims as wrong, the underlying and blanket belief in your access to "the truth" fails.
Right. I fail just by you claiming to be able to prove me wrong. Imagine how much more my belief would have failed if you had actually proven me wrong instead of only claiming to have the ability to!

So keep dancing if you must, avoiding if you like, and calling names if it works for you. 
Lol. My dancing is like your proof.

If you need me to explain more, just let me know. Understanding how people mistake their versions of the world for the world is an important step you must make.
No Rosends, just your claim that you have the ability to prove me wrong is obviously enough. You are a liberal after all. That you think you're right, makes you right. Right?

Yeeesh.
#78
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ethang5
Your PC thinking is what makes you a liberal, no matter what you call yourself.
Your mistaken labeling doesn’t create reality.
 
Ah. OK. My importance rises with your boredom. Lol.
No, that doesn’t change your importance. Why would you think it would? I’m bored, so I respond. You think that makes you more important?
 
You will notice that, unlike you, I have not said you are unimportant. Your little tit-for-tat silliness doesn't work if the our behaviors are not reciprocal.
You did suggest that your responses would elicit an emotional response from me (“ would it make you happy”). I simply said that you aren’t important enough to do that. If you take from that a more general statement that you are unimportant (a word you introduced in post 71) then that's for you to deal with.
 
You had not yet proven me wrong.
That’s true, but that doesn’t make my advice for how you could have avoided being wrong premature. Whether or not I prove it  to you doesn’t change that you are wrong and you could have avoided that.
 
Lol. Liberal think. "I can prove you wrong, so though Ihaven't, you have the "ability" to be proven wrong, so you're wrong.
This is where you get tripped up. There is no “SO you’re wrong” –your being wrong is irrelevant of anything I type. You don’t suddenly become wrong when someone proves it to your face, or can prove it.
 
OK genius. Do people often avoid what you don't do?
People avoid many things. Some of those things are things I do,and some are things I don’t do. People should do things to avoid being wrong.For example, had you done any measure of looking on the internet (before you made certain assumptions) you wouldn’t have posted an error.
 
Not prove them obviously.
Exactly – I have no need to prove them.
 
And of course, being liberal, just you pointing out meant that you were right.
No (ignoring the attempted “liberal” label), my pointing it out means that you are no more right simply because you insist it.
 
 
My comments "smacks", your comments actually said everyone else was wrong. But liberals are always right. Right?
Actually, my comment was that your claim to be “restricted tothe truth” is wrong. It is your insistence that you are always right because youare restricted to the truth which is in error. I didn’t comment on everyone else.
 
And you have the fact that I have not avoided what doesn'texist.
No, what you have not avoided and are therefore wrong about has nothing to do with your initial claim about what constitutes biblical citation, but about something else which certainly does exist. I'm just curious who much you see your worldview ("restricted to the truth") as a unified whole.
 
I am grateful you were here to tell us what the truth was.
How about this -- for a moment, I'll focus on your initial claim (in post 17, supported by your citations in post 19)

If I say to you “Romans, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts are notpart of The Bible” are you saying I am wrong? Are you saying that the canon oftexts that I happen to buy in my local store, that calls itself The Bible is wrong? If the only “true” definition of “bible” is the one you hold on to, then you are saying that everyone else is wrong. But liberals are always right. Right?

This isn’t even where you are wrong - this is just where you confuse your opinion with "the truth".
 
Right. I fail just by you claiming to beable to prove me wrong. Imagine how much more my belief would have failed if you had actually proven me wrong instead of only claiming to have the abilityto!
I’m just waiting for you to answer a question about theunderlying notion of your “truth” – do you see your statements which are "restricted to the truth" as a representing a wholly consistent and interlaced truth? I’m asking about what you would do if part is shownto be wrong. Once you let me know how you think you will handle being shown to be wrong, then I will show you. If you have no interest in discussing your holdon “truth” then so be it.
 
You are a liberal after all. That you think you're right, makes you right. Right?
Generally, no. However when you make a claim which I can prove, then I know I’m right.
 
If you really don’t want to confront how you will reconcile your insistence that you are “restricted to the truth” even though a statement you made was wrong then that’s fine. I can stop playing whenever you want.
#79
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rosends
Your PC thinking is what makes you a liberal, no matter what you call yourself.

Your mistaken labeling doesn’t create reality.
 I was the one who told you that Rosends.

Ah. OK. My importance rises with your boredom. Lol.

No, that doesn’t change your importance. Why would you think it would?
I'm capable of logic and I'm not petty.

I’m bored, so I respond. You think that makes you more important?
 I think it makes you petty.

You will notice that, unlike you, I have not said you are unimportant. Your little tit-for-tat silliness doesn't work if our behaviors are not reciprocal.

You did suggest that your responses would elicit an emotional response from me (“ would it make you happy”).

Emotional or not, your little tit-for-tat silliness doesn't work if our behaviors are not reciprocal.

I simply said that you aren’t important enough to do that.
Lol. OK Rosends.

If you take from that a more general statement that you are unimportant (a word you introduced in post 71) then that's for you to deal with.
 You must be very, very bored. But I'm here for you.

Then your advice on how I could have avoided being proven wrong was a little premature was it not Rosends? 

How is it premature? 
You had not yet proven me wrong.

That’s true, but that doesn’t make my advice for how you could have avoided being wrong premature.
Lol! This is turning out to be a masterclass in liberal PC think! Your "advice" was about how I did not avoid what does not exist! Wish I could pin this thread.

Whether or not I prove it  to you doesn’t change that you are wrong and you could have avoided that.
Your word "that" above is equivocal. But it is hilarious that you think I did not avoid what you did not do. Funny.
 
Lol. Liberal think. "I can prove you wrong, so though I haven't, you have the "ability" to be proven wrong, so you're wrong.

This is where you get tripped up. There is no “SO you’re wrong” 
"If you have not avoided it then you are wrong." - Rosands

Shall we add "liar" to petty?

–your being wrong is irrelevant of anything I type. You don’t suddenly become wrong when someone proves it to your face, or can prove it.
 Lol. You only have to think it huh?

OK genius. Do people often avoid what you don't do?

People avoid many things. Some of those things are things I do, and some are things I don’t do.
Uh-huh. Do they ever not avoid what you don't do?

People should do things to avoid being wrong. For example, had you done any measure of looking on the internet (before you made certain assumptions) you wouldn’t have posted an error.
 And if you could think, I would not have avoided your error.

Not prove them obviously.

Exactly – I have no need to prove them.
 Exactly. For the liberal, their claims stand even when they can't prove them. We are agreeing Rosends.

And of course, being liberal, just you pointing out meant that you were right.

No...
Yes. In fact, you've amended it now to show that I am wrong simply because you think it. That is classic loony liberal logic.

(ignoring the attempted “liberal” label), my pointing it out means that you are no more right simply because you insist it.
 Thanks, ye old keeper of the truth.
 
My comments "smacks", your comments actually said everyone else was wrong. But liberals are always right. Right?

Actually, my comment was that your claim to be “restricted to the truth” is wrong.
Because you think it....

It is your insistence that you are always right because you are restricted to the truth which is in error. I didn’t comment on everyone else.
 You didn't have to comment. You only need to think it. Remember?

And you have the fact that I have not avoided what doesn't exist.

No, what you have not avoided...
What have I "not avoided" Rosends? The proving me wrong that you admit you have NOT done. You will not be allowed to shirk your liberal think consequences. How did I not avoid what you didn't do?

...and are therefore wrong about has nothing to do with your initial claim about what constitutes biblical citation, but about something else which certainly does exist.
Unlike your proving me wrong, which certainly doesn't exist.

I'm just curious who much you see your worldview ("restricted to the truth") as a unified whole.
 The truth is not restrictive to your worldview, I can see that. It must be liberating to not be held down like that.

I am grateful you were here to tell us what the truth was.

How about this -- for a moment, I'll focus on your initial claim (in post 17, supported by your citations in post 19)
You can "focus" on anything you like. I'd love to see you focus on that proof that makes me wrong that you admit you have not yet offered. That would be amazing.

If I say to you “Romans, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts are not part of The Bible” are you saying I am wrong? 
Are you saying that the canon of texts that I happen to buy in my local store, that calls itself The Bible is wrong? If the only “true” definition of “bible” is the one you hold on to, then you are saying that everyone else is wrong.
Everyone holding on to an untruth IS wrong. You think a large number of people being wrong mitigates their error?

But liberals are always right. Right?
According to liberals, yes. Reality is a different story.

This isn’t even where you are wrong - this is just where you confuse your opinion with "the truth".
 Lol! Something you're in no danger of doing!

Right. I fail just by you claiming to be able to prove me wrong. Imagine how much more my belief would have failed if you had actually proven me wrong instead of only claiming to have the ability to!

I’m just waiting for you to answer a question about the underlying notion of your “truth” – do you see your statements which are "restricted to the truth" as a representing a wholly consistent and interlaced truth?
A wholly consistent and interlaced truth is what Christianity is.

I’m asking about what you would do if part is shown to be wrong. Once you let me know how you think you will handle being shown to be wrong, then I will show you. If you have no interest in discussing your hold on “truth” then so be it.
This is silly given your comment, "Exactly – I have no need to prove them [your claims] Did you suddenly develop a need to prove your claims? And since you've already proven me wrong simply by thinking I am wrong, why do you need to "show me"? Haven't I "not avoided" your phantom proof already?

You are a liberal after all. That you think you're right, makes you right. Right?

Generally, no. However when you make a claim which I can prove, then I know I’m right.
There ya go. When you think you're right, you ARE right. Classic liberal think. So I already have NOT avoided the error you think I have! You have dreamed my error into reality! Sorry, your reality.

If you really don’t want to confront how you will reconcile your insistence that you are “restricted to the truth” even though a statement you made was wrong then that’s fine.
But, but, haven't I already not been able to avoid your proving me wrong? I love confronting actual reality, not so much the "reality" between the ears of liberals.

I can stop playing whenever you want.
You can stop playing whenever YOU want too. But I'm here for you Rosends. I was trained for posters like you. Whenever you need to be right simply by thinking you're right, or you need someone to be wrong simply because you think they are wrong, I'm your guy.

I will play your liberal game with you.
#80
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ethang5
I was the one who told you that Rosends.
 
Yes, and I’m showing you how your words apply to your position.
 
I think it makes you petty.
 
So your definition of pettiness involves someone’s being bored? OK. That's not really part of the definition though. Your thinking it is doesn't make it so.
 
Emotional or not, your little tit-for-tat silliness doesn't work if our behaviors are not reciprocal.
 
And your response doesn’t work if you ignore what was actually said.
 
You must be very, very bored. But I'm here for you.
 
I am, so I appreciate that you keep trying.
 
Lol! This is turning out to be a masterclass in liberal PCthink! Your "advice" was about how I did not avoid what does not exist! Wish I could pin this thread.
 
Your insistence that something does not exist doesn’t stop it from existing. You did not avoid what DOES exist but that you, because you didn’t take steps, are unaware of. If you had written 2+2=5 because you didn’t do research into addition, then you would be wrong and still not know that 2+2=4.
 
But it is hilarious that you think I did not avoid what you did not do. Funny.
 
You did not avoid what YOU did. It is unfortunate that you refuse to see this.
 
Shall we add "liar" to petty?
 
Only if you want to misunderstand another word. Taking two separate statements of mine and pretending that they are pointing to the exact same referent is intellectually dishonest.

If you have not avoided being wrong, then you are wrong.However, your being wrong does not hinge on my proving you are wrong. 
 
Your restatement of my position was “I can prove you wrong, so though I haven't, you have the"ability" to be proven wrong, so you're wrong”
 
In that sentence, the “SO” which you inserted and to which I responded indicated causality between what I can do and your status as wrong. This is an erroneous claim.
 
In this other statement of mine that you reposted, “If you have not avoided it then you are wrong." The relationship is between your action and your status as wrong,nothing to do with what I can do.
 
Lol. You only have to think it huh?
 
No, your being wrong has nothing to do with what anyone thinks.
 
Uh-huh. Do they ever not avoid what you don't do?
 
In this situation, you did not avoid something which I don’t do.
 
Exactly. For the liberal, their claims stand even when they can't prove them. We are agreeing Rosends.
 
I don’t know about this “liberal” fiction you keep clinging to.A claim can be right even when it isn’t proven. And the opposite claim is wrong whether or not it is proven.
 
Yes. In fact, you've amended it now to show that I am wrong simply because you think it. That is classic loony liberal logic.
 
Then you haven’t been reading. You are wrong because you are wrong. The fact that I have access to a fact that you don’t simply clues me into your being wrong while you still think you are right.
 
You didn't have to comment. You only need to think it.Remember?
So when you impute a statement to me which I didn’t say but you think that I think it, that is intellectually honest? Another “implicitly implied” case, I guess.
 
How did I not avoid what you didn't do?
 
Finally, a direct question. Simply put, you made a factually incorrect claim which I did not (and would not) ever make. You could have avoided making that claim. You did not avoid it, and I did not do it.
 
It must be liberating to not be held down like that.
 
Can you accept that your worldview might not always be reflective of the truth? Or are you claiming that you are always right?
 
You can "focus" on anything you like. I'd love to see you focus on that proof that makes me wrong that you admit you have not yet offered. That would be amazing.
 
You aren’t quite ready yet, but you are getting there.
 
Everyone holding on to an untruth IS wrong. You think a large number of people being wrong mitigates their error?
 
So if everyone holds on to something which you say is an untruth(because your position is “restricted to the truth”) then everyone is wrong.Therefore, your position is the only one that is right because, by definition,your position is the truth. Then you are the one insisting that you are always right and are the “liberal”. If your idea of what “the bible” is is the only one that is restricted to the truth, then anyone who understands “the bible” as referring to anything else is wrong.
 
According to liberals, yes.
Well, and you.
 
 
Right. I fail just by you claiming to be able to prove me wrong.
No, you fail in your claim in the moment you make it if it is wrong. Why do you insist on thinking that what I do can affect the truth status of your claim?
 
A wholly consistent and interlaced truth is what Christianity is.
Fantastic! Are you Christian? If not, this statement doesn’t help me understand where you stand.

This is silly given your comment, "Exactly – I have no need to prove them [your claims] Did you suddenly develop a need to prove your claims? And since you've already proven me wrong simply by thinking I am wrong, why do you need to "show me"? Haven't I "not avoided" your phantom proof already?
 
I still have no need and I haven’t proven anything by thinking.I’m willing to prove your claim wrong but would first like to consider how you will react.
 
There ya go. When you think you're right, you ARE right. Classic liberal think. So I already have NOT avoided the error you think I have! You have dreamed my error into reality! Sorry, your reality.
 
You are responding to a comment in which I said the opposite.
 
But, but, haven't I already not been able to avoid your proving me wrong? I love confronting actual reality,not so much the "reality" between the ears of liberals.
 
If you read what I wrote, you will see that I said that you were able to avoid being wrong, but you didn’t take steps to be wrong.
 
I will play your liberal game with you.
 
I’m not sure what a “liberal game” is, nor do I know where someone gets formal training in writing posts in online forums (training that would include misunderstanding words, misstating positions and refusing to answer questions). But if you want to engage (more than you have, in saying that anyone who holds that “the bible” refers to a canon different from the one you consider “the bible” is wrong) then simply answer my question:

If your view of the world is restricted to the truth, and one claim that you made can be shown not to be the truth, will you then reconsider all or any of your other assumptions, or will you find a way to excuse a single error? If the latter, that you can admit you are wrong, but insist that your error is confined and singular, then I learn something about you. If the former, that you admit that if you made an error in assumptions in one case, then you might have made it in other cases, then I learn something else.

#81
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rosends
I was the one who told you that Rosends.
 Yes, and I’m showing you how your words apply to your position.
 Lol! I chose the words capt. Obvious. I know how they apply to my position.

I think it makes you petty.
So your definition of pettiness involves someone’s being bored? OK.
Your continued replies to an unimportant person because you're bored makes you seem petty. Focus Rosends.

That's not really part of the definition though. Your thinking it is doesn't make it so.
 It is a novel concept to a liberal. You will get over the fascination.

Emotional or not, your little tit-for-tat silliness doesn't work if our behaviors are not reciprocal.
And your response doesn’t work if you ignore what was actually said.
 My responses seem to be working just fine.

You must be very, very bored. But I'm here for you.
I am, so I appreciate that you keep trying.
 You're welcome. A fulfilling life is a rare thing.

Lol! This is turning out to be a masterclass in liberal PCthink! Your "advice" was about how I did not avoid what does not exist! Wish I could pin this thread.
 
Your insistence that something does not exist doesn’t stop it from existing.
I'll step out of your way here prof and allow you to enlighten us with your razor sharp logic.
 
But it is hilarious that you think I did not avoid what you did not do. Funny.

 You did not avoid what YOU did. It is unfortunate that you refuse to see this.
 You admitted you have not proven that I did that. D'oh!

Shall we add "liar" to petty?
Only if you want to misunderstand another word.
I quoted you Rosends.

If you have not avoided being wrong, then you are wrong. However, your being wrong does not hinge on my proving you are wrong. 
 Which is why you don't think you need to prove me wrong. Just your thinking it makes it real.
 
In that sentence, the “SO” which you inserted and to which I responded indicated causality between what I can do and your status as wrong. This is an erroneous claim.
 You could say, prove me wrong, instead of only asserting it. I pointed out your sloppy thinking and of course, you didn't like what it implied.

In this other statement of mine that you reposted, “If you have not avoided it then you are wrong." The relationship is between your action and your status as wrong,nothing to do with what I can do.
 Which is exactly why you have not yet proven me wrong. But that won't stop you from pretending it is already a reality, will it liberal?

Lol. You only have to think it huh?
No, your being wrong has nothing to do with what anyone thinks.
 Lol, then how do you know I'm wrong?

Uh-huh. Do they ever not avoid what you don't do?
 In this situation, you did not avoid something which I don’t do.
 Actually, I also didn't avoid you not being coherent.

Exactly. For the liberal, their claims stand even when they can't prove them. We are agreeing Rosends
A claim can be right even when it isn’t proven. And the opposite claim is wrong whether or not it is proven.
 You must be killer at debates.

Yes. In fact, you've amended it now to show that I am wrong simply because you think it. That is classic loony liberal logic.
Then you haven’t been reading. You are wrong because you are wrong.
I'm convinced.

The fact that I have access to a fact that you don’t simply clues me into your being wrong while you still think you are right.
Access to a fact I don't? I was being prophetic when I called you ye old keeper of truth wasn't I?

You didn't have to comment. You only need to think it. Remember?
So when you impute a statement to me which I didn’t say but you think that I think it, that is intellectually honest? Another “implicitly implied” case, I guess.
You claim I am wrong though you admit you have not proven it, does that not show you believe I am wrong because you think it? I quoted your statement Rosends. Perhaps you should be more careful in your statements.

How did I not avoid what you didn't do?
Finally, a direct question. Simply put, you made a factually incorrect claim which I did not (and would not) ever make.
And of course, you need not prove that I made a factually incorrect claim. Just your saying so is proof.

You could have avoided making that claim. You did not avoid it, and I did not do it.
But to my credit, I did avoid your proving it false. That is something!

It must be liberating to not be held down like that.
Can you accept that your worldview might not always be reflective of the truth?
When it is proven to me with logic instead of simple declarations sure.

Or are you claiming that you are always right?
 I said I was restricted to the truth. Don't worry if you don't understand it.

You can "focus" on anything you like. I'd love to see you focus on that proof that makes me wrong that you admit you have not yet offered. That would be amazing.
You aren’t quite ready yet, but you are getting there.
 Lol. OK professor.

Everyone holding on to an untruth IS wrong. You think a large number of people being wrong mitigates their error?
 
So if everyone holds on to something which you say is an untruthfulness...
Wait, wait. Like you saying so about me? Like that?

(because your position is “restricted to the truth”) then everyone is wrong. Therefore, your position is the only one that is right because, by definition,your position is the truth.
Sloppy thinking. Others may have positions different from mine but not in contradiction. They would not be wrong. And some could share my position, they also would not be wrong.

Then you are the one insisting that you are always right and are the “liberal”. If your idea of what “the bible” is is the only one that is restricted to the truth, then anyone who understands “the bible” as referring to anything else is wrong.
 Lol. Liberals can't stand that the truth is not subjective.

But liberals are always right. Right?
According to liberals, yes.

Well, and you.
 Only liberals do it by just thinking it so. I use logic.
 
Right. I fail just by you claiming to be able to prove me wrong.
No, you fail in your claim in the moment you make it if it is wrong.
And you know its wrong how?

Why do you insist on thinking that what I do can affect the truth status of your claim?
 I think you have no idea of the truth status of my claim. Yet that has not stopped you from claiming I am wrong.

A wholly consistent and interlaced truth is what Christianity is.
Fantastic! Are you Christian? If not, this statement doesn’t help me understand where you stand.
Look over our exchanges Rosends, you aren't capable of understanding where I stand. You are far too corrupted with liberal illogic like "personal truth" and conflating your opinion with fact.

This is silly given your comment, "Exactly – I have no need to prove them [your claims] Did you suddenly develop a need to prove your claims? And since you've already proven me wrong simply by thinking I am wrong, why do you need to "show me"? Haven't I "not avoided" your phantom proof already?
 
I still have no need and I haven’t proven anything by thinking.
Magic then? Voodoo? Juju?

I’m willing to prove your claim wrong but would first like to consider how you will react.
 I'm willing to date Beyoncé too, but would first like to consider how her husband will react. I feel ya.

There ya go. When you think you're right, you ARE right. Classic liberal think. So I already have NOT avoided the error you think I have! You have dreamed my error into reality! Sorry, your reality.
 
You are responding to a comment in which I said the opposite.
 You thought you were wrong, so you are wrong?

But, but, haven't I already not been able to avoid your proving me wrong? I love confronting actual reality,not so much the "reality" between the ears of liberals.
 
If you read what I wrote, you will see that I said that you were able to avoid being wrong, but you didn’t take steps to be wrong.
 Sorry. I was waiting for you to prove me wrong. My bad.

I will play your liberal game with you.
 
I’m not sure what a “liberal game” is, nor do I know where someone gets formal training in writing posts in online forums (training that would include misunderstanding words, misstating positions and refusing to answer questions). But if you want to engage (more than you have, in saying that anyone who holds that “the bible” refers to a canon different from the one you consider “the bible” is wrong) then simply answer my question:
I have answered your questions. That is how you convinced yourself I was wrong.

If your view of the world is restricted to the truth, and one claim that you made can be shown not to be the truth, will you then reconsider all or any of your other assumptions, or will you find a way to excuse a single error?
Tautology. If my view of the world is restricted to the truth, then no claim that I make can be shown to not be the truth. You might as well ask me if God could be shown not to exist.

If the latter, that you can admit you are wrong, but insist that your error is confined and singular, then I learn something about you. If the former, that you admit that if you made an error in assumptions in one case, then you might have made it in other cases, then I learn something else.
ROFL!! You want a concession from me before you have proven your contention that I am wrong! Do people often fall for that little logical pretzel Rosends? I should I am wrong though you have conceded you have not proven I am wrong. Lol. This is rich.

Keep begging Rosends. I might feel pity for you if you grovel enough, and I might concede just to spare you the embarrassment.
#82
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ethang5
Your continued repliesto an unimportant person because you're bored makes you seem petty. Focus Rosends.
 
Again, you tie boredom to pettiness. That’s not how words work, but have fun with it.
 
 
I'll step out of your way here prof and allow you to enlighten us with your razor sharp logic.
You can insist that tigers don’t exist. That doesn’t make them not exist. I’ll use other examples if this proves too difficult for you. 
 
You admitted you have not proven that I did that. D'oh!
Yes, but that doesn’t mean you didn’t do it.
 
I quoted you Rosends.
Yes, improperly. I showed how. You seem to have excised that from your response.
 
Which is why you  don't think you need to prove me wrong. Just your thinking it makes it real.
 No, I don’t need to because there is no imperative incumbent on me to. My thinking has no bearing on whether or not something exists.
 
You could say, prove me wrong, instead of only asserting it. I pointed out your sloppy thinking and of course you didn't like what it implied.
Yes, I could – but as I have said, before that, I want to see if we can anticipate how you will react.
 
Which is exactly why you have not yet proven me wrong. But that don't stop you from pretending it is already a reality will it liberal?
Are you saying that something will become a reality only when I prove it to you?
 
Lol, then his do you know I'm wrong?
 
Because I have access to a fact you don’t, yet you made a factual claim which flies in the face of this fact.
 
You must be killer at debates.
I do pretty well, yes. That is a good observation.
 
 
Access to a fact Idon't? I was being prophetic when I called you ye old keeper of truth wasn't I?
You and I must understand “prophecy” differently then.
 
You claim I am wrong though you admit you have not proven it, does that not show you believe I am wrong because you think it? I quoted your statement Rosends. Perhaps you should be more careful in your statements.
No, that shows I know you are wrong because I con confirm that you are wrong. Meanwhile, you insist you are right simply because you think it.
 
And of course, you need not prove that I made a factually incorrect claim. Just your saying so is proof.
No, just saying it is not proof. You must not be killer at debates.
 
But to my credit, I did avoid your proving it false. That is something!
No, actually, I have consciously avoided it. You are the one claiming that my proof doesn’t exist because you haven’t seen it. But that doesn’t make reality.
 
When it is proven to me with logic instead of simple declarations sure.
Great. But (and this isn’t the point I will prove) when confronted with the statement that other peopledefine “the bible” differently, you decided not that there might be more than one definition, but that everyone else is wrong.
 
I said I was restricted to the truth. Don't worry if you don't understand it.
Fine. You are restricted to the truth. And if one statement that you made can be shown to be an untruth, how would you react?
 
Sloppy thinking. Others may have positions different from mine but not in contradiction. They would not be wrong. And dome could share my position, they also would not be wrong.
So if I point to people who say “the book of Acts is not in the bible” is that a contradiction? Are they wrong because they don’t agree with you and you are restricted to the truth?
 
Only liberals do it by just thinking it so. I use logic.
You have yet to use logic, and you have just admitted that you hold the same position as “liberals”with the only difference being the method by which you got to the position.
 
And you know its wrong how?
In time, padawan.
 
Look over our exchanges Rosends, you aren't capable of understanding where I stand. You are far too corrupted with liberal illogic like "personal truth" and conflating your opinion with fact.
 
Are you saying that in our exchanges, you have declared your religious identity? Or are you sayingthat by citing certain books you have implicitly aligned yourself with a group and not with any other that might also see the books as canonical? I asked a straightforward question. You didn’t answer. Why?
 
Sorry. I was waiting for you to prove me wrong. My bad.
Yes, your bad.
 
I have answered your questions. That is how you convinced yourself I was wrong.
No, you haven’t. Note how above, I asked a pointed question about your religious affiliation and you only responded -- you didn’t answer.
 
Tautology. If my view of the world is restricted to the truth, thdn one claim that I make cannot be shown to not be the truth. You might as well ask me if God could beshown not to exist.
 
OK, I think we are getting somewhere – by this assertion, you are insisting that any claim you make can not be shown to be not the truth.  So, hypothetically, how would you react when I show you that a statement you made is untrue?
 

#83
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rosends

Your continued replies to an unimportant person because you're bored makes you seem petty. Focus Rosends.
 
Again, you tie boredom to pettiness. That’s not how words work, but have fun with it.
 I tie continuing to respond when bored to a person you claim is important to pettiness. And I can do that. Liberals cannot stand not having control.
 
I'll step out of your way here prof and allow you to enlighten us with your razor sharp logic.

Go prof! Go!
 
You admitted you have not proven that I did that. D'oh!
Yes, but that doesn’t mean you didn’t do it.
 Lol. OK genius.

I quoted you Rosends.
Yes, improperly. I showed how.
 I quoted you properly.

Which is why you  don't think you need to prove me wrong. Just your thinking it makes it real.
No, I don’t need to because there is no imperative incumbent on me to. My thinking has no bearing on whether or not something exists.
 Thank you.

You could say, prove me wrong, instead of only asserting it. I pointed out your sloppy thinking and of course you didn't like what it implied.
Yes, I could – but as I have said, before that, I want to see if we can anticipate how you will react.
 Uh-huh.

Which is exactly why you have not yet proven me wrong. But that don't stop you from pretending it is already a reality will it liberal?
Are you saying that something will become a reality only when I prove it to you?
 No. You say its reality simply if you think it. I am really not too bothered by your loopy thinking.

Lol, then his do you know I'm wrong?
Because I have access to a fact you don’t, yet you made a factual claim which flies in the face of this fact.
 I have access to facts you don't too. I've corrected you each time you flew in the face of my facts.

You must be killer at debates.
I do pretty well, yes. That is a good observation.
 Lol. Your opponent lays out an intricate argument and you simply think he's wrong because you have "access" to a fact he doesn't and poof! You're right! Its a wonder you only do pretty well.
 
Access to a fact I don't? I was being prophetic when I called you ye old keeper of truth wasn't I?

You and I must understand “prophecy” differently then.
 Proof too.

You claim I am wrong though you admit you have not proven it, does that not show you believe I am wrong because you think it? I quoted your statement Rosends. Perhaps you should be more careful in your statements.
No, that shows I know you are wrong because I con confirm that you are wrong. Meanwhile, you insist you are right simply because you think it.
 
"...you are wrong because I can confirm that you are wrong..."
All before you actually prove me wrong. Lol Bravo!

And of course, you need not prove that I made a factually incorrect claim. Just your saying so is proof.
No, just saying it is not proof. 
What's your proof that I made a factually incorrect claim? Remember now, you've denied its your thinking or magic or voodoo.

You must not be killer at debates.
 Logic always is. That one burned you didn't it? I can always tell when the liberal throws it back at me.

But to my credit, I did avoid your proving it false. That is something!
No, actually, I have consciously avoided it.
Lol. We know Rosends.

You are the one claiming that my proof doesn’t exist because you haven’t seen it. But that doesn’t make reality.
 Your failure to present it doesn't help you prof.


When it is proven to me with logic instead of simple declarations sure.

Great. But (and this isn’t the point I will prove) when confronted with the statement that other people define “the bible” differently, you decided not that there might be more than one definition, but that everyone else is wrong.
 Are you predicting what I will do? Or are you asking a question?

I said I was restricted to the truth. Don't worry if you don't understand it.

Fine. You are restricted to the truth. And if one statement that you made can be shown to be an untruth, how would you react?
 I've already answered you prof.

Sloppy thinking. Others may have positions different from mine but not in contradiction. They would not be wrong. And dome could share my position, they also would not be wrong.

So if I point to people who say “the book of Acts is not in the bible” is that a contradiction?
Why would that be a contradiction? A contradicton of what? If I point to people who say the Earth is flat is that a contradiction? You think someone disagreeing with me makes me wrong??

Are they wrong because they don’t agree with you and you are restricted to the truth?
 They are wrong because they are wrong. Remember your comment?


Only liberals do it by just thinking it so. I use logic.

You have yet to use logic, and you have just admitted that you hold the same position as “liberals”with the only difference being the method by which you got to the position.
 Sure. Liberals and sensible people can agree on topics. We both agree we are alive for example. But I know I'm not alive because of blind chance.

And you know its wrong how?

In time, padawan.
 Lol! In the main time should I take you on faith?

Look over our exchanges Rosends, you aren't capable of understanding where I stand. You are far too corrupted with liberal illogic like "personal truth" and conflating your opinion with fact.
 
Are you saying that in our exchanges, you have declared your religious identity?
Did I say anything about a religious identity?

Or are you sayingthat by citing certain books you have implicitly aligned yourself with a group and not with any other that might also see the books as canonical?
I'm saying you aren't capable of understanding where I stand. Was that not simple?

I asked a straightforward question. You didn’t answer. Why?
 I answered. That you didn't like the answer is unimportant to me.

Sorry. I was waiting for you to prove me wrong. My bad.
Yes, your bad.
 Lol. I should have assumed I was wrong BEFORE you proved I was wrong. >>sniker!!<<

I have answered your questions. That is how you convinced yourself I was wrong.

No, you haven’t. Note how above, I asked a pointed question about your religious affiliation and you only responded -- you didn’t answer.
 My affiliation is off topic. You have not answered my questions too. I didn't bother you because we both know why you dodged.

Tautology. If my view of the world is restricted to the truth, then one claim that I make cannot be shown to not be the truth. You might as well ask me if God could be shown not to exist.
 
OK, I think we are getting somewhere – by this assertion, you are insisting that any claim you make can not be shown to be not the truth.
Why would I say that when you have asserted that...
1. You have no need to prove me wrong
2. Can simply think my error into existence
3. I am wrong because I'm wrong

So, hypothetically, how would you react when I show you that a statement you made is untrue?
You've asked and I've answered you.

Are you growing a need to show me wrong? Cause you've insisted you have no such need. I bet you see yourself as this super logical stoic don't you? Lol. This is shat PC groupthink does to a perfectly good mind. So convinced you are right you need do nothing for it to be established truth.

I fear for the future of America.

#84
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ethang5
 I tie continuing to respond when bored to a person you claim is important to pettiness. And I can do that. Liberals cannot stand not having control.
 
Except I didn't claim you were important. You are a way to kill time.
 

 I quoted you properly.
Simply insisting it doesn't make it so.


 No. You say its reality simply if you think it. I am really not too bothered by your loopy thinking.

I never said it was reality simply if I think it. You are misquoting me again. It is reality because it is reality. I know it but my knowing it doesn't make it reality.

 I have access to facts you don't too. I've corrected you each time you flew in the face of my facts.

That's nice. So what? I never claimed to have all the facts, nor did I claim that the things that I know are "restricted to the truth."

 Lol. Your opponent lays out an intricate argument and you simply think he's wrong because you have "access" to a fact he doesn't and poof! You're right! Its a wonder you only do pretty well.
 
No, my opponent lays out understanding and an assembly selected facts to build an argument and I either present a refutation of the facts claimed, or an alternative affirmative argument. In this case, though, since you haven't laid out facts about the bible, simply a claim that certain books are in it, there is no proof, so nothing to disprove. The fact that I know is unrelated to that.


"...you are wrong because I can confirm that you are wrong..."
All before you actually prove me wrong. Lol Bravo!

A half quote...very nice. What I said "I know you are wrong because I con confirm that you are wrong" and yes, I know this before I prove it to you because I have facts you don't.

What's your proof that I made a factually incorrect claim? Remember now, you've denied its your thinking or magic or voodoo.

That's a fair question, but one which I have refused to answer until I can piece together a guess as to how you will respond, once you see that your "restricted to the truth" worldview has an error in it. You just have to address that head on, and I can show you your mistake.


Your failure to present it doesn't help you prof.
I'm not looking for help. Your failure to address my question doesn't lead to any new understanding on your part.

 Are you predicting what I will do? Or are you asking a question?

Neither -- that would explain why I spoke in the past tense, and had no question mark at the end of my statement.

 I've already answered you prof.
You have replied, but haven't addressed my question in an answer.

Why would that be a contradiction? A contradicton of what? If I point to people who say the Earth is flat is that a contradiction? You think someone disagreeing with me makes me wrong??

A contradiction to your statement that the book of Acts IS in the bible. Do you see that there are two valid opinions, or that there is your statement and anyone else who disagrees is wrong? (note the question mark)

They are wrong because they are wrong. Remember your comment?
I remember yours, about making a claim with no proof.


 Lol! In the main time should I take you on faith?
Nope. You can either review what you have said and research it, or help me understand how you will react when you are shown the error. Or, you can ignore all of this because you don't care.

Did I say anything about a religious identity?
No, I did, specifically asking if you are a Christian, and you suggested that I review the exchanges.

I'm saying you aren't capable of understanding where I stand. Was that not simple?
Simple-minded, maybe. Certainly not an answer to a direct question.

 Lol. I should have assumed I was wrong BEFORE you proved I was wrong. >>sniker!!<<
Remember, I haven't proven anything yet. You still have time to review and realize (but no, not assume).

My affiliation is off topic. You have not answered my questions too. I didn't bother you because we both know why you dodged.
No, your religious affiliation is on topic. I asked about your view of books of the bible and then about your view of the world and its being restricted to the truth. You answered my question about YOUR world view by writing, "A wholly consistent and interlaced truth is what Christianity is". That is eaither reflective of you or immaterial. I'm just asking which is the case.

Why would I say that when you have asserted that...
So my restatement was wrong? Please correct it so I can understand your position.

1. You have no need to prove me wrong
Why do you think I have any need like that?

2. Can simply think my error into existence
I have never said that. You keep setting this up as a strawman so you can knock it down, but since it isn't my position, that is wasted effort on your part.

3. I am wrong because I'm wrong
Well, that is correct. If you said 2+2=5 you would be wrong, simply because you would be wrong.

You've asked and I've answered you.
No, you have only insisted that you can't be wrong, and not confronted the hypothetical.

Are you growing a need to show me wrong?
No, not really. If you want to, feel free to say, "Rosends, I'm not interested in what you think I have said that is untrue." That would be great. I would move on, knowing what I know, and you would move on, content in what you think you know, none the wiser. 

I await your decision.


#85
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rosends
I tie continuing to respond when bored to a person you claim is important to pettiness. And I can do that. Liberals cannot stand not having control.
Except I didn't claim you were important. You are a way to kill time.
 Thank you. Petty.

 I quoted you properly.
Simply insisting it doesn't make it so.
Which why your insistence I am wrong doesn't make it so

No. You say its reality simply if you think it. I am really not too bothered by your loopy thinking.

I never said it was reality simply if I think it. You are misquoting me again. It is reality because it is reality. I know it but my knowing it doesn't make it reality.
Um hmm.

I have access to facts you don't too. I've corrected you each time you flew in the face of my facts.
That's nice. So what? I never claimed to have all the facts, nor did I claim that the things that I know are "restricted to the truth."
No. You just have access to facts that othersdon't,t and that makes them wrong even when all you do is "know".

Lol. Your opponent lays out an intricate argument and you simply think he's wrong because you have "access" to a fact he doesn't and poof! You're right! Its a wonder you only do pretty well.
No, my opponent lays out understanding and an assembly selected facts to build an argument and I either present a refutation of the facts claimed, or an alternative affirmative argument.
You mean you don't wait to see what his reaction would be first? Or just "know" he was wrong because you have access to facts he doesn't?

In this case, though, since you haven't laid out facts about the bible, simply a claim that certain books are in it, there is no proof, so nothing to disprove. The fact that I know is unrelated to that.
Don't be so shy. You listed your special access to facts as evidence of my error.

"...you are wrong because I can confirm that you are wrong..."
All before you actually prove me wrong. Lol Bravo!

A half quote...very nice. What I said "I know you are wrong because I con confirm that you are wrong" and yes, I know this before I prove it to you because I have facts you don't.
Thank you.

What's your proof that I made a factually incorrect claim? Remember now, you've denied its your thinking or magic or voodoo.

That's a fair question,...
Is that why you keep dodging it?

...but one which I have refused to answer...
But yet you list my not answering your questions as evidence you are right.

...until I can piece together a guess as to how you will respond, once you see that your "restricted to the truth" worldview has an error in it.
Lol!! So you refuse to "prove me wrong" until I admit I am wrong? You aren't just petty and lying, you're ludicrous!

You just have to address that head on, and I can show you your mistake.
Hee! Hee! This is hilarious fun!

Your failure to present it doesn't help you prof.
I'm not looking for help.
Yes. It would be a further waste of your time.

Your failure to address my question doesn't lead to any new understanding on your part.
You'll live.

 Are you predicting what I will do? Or are you asking a question?

Neither -- that would explain why I spoke in the past tense, and had no question mark at the end of my statement.
Ah, then I can ignore it.

 I've already answered you prof.
You have replied, but haven't addressed my question in an answer.
"Address" to you means I concede. Lol, I think I'll require you to prove your claim instead of conceding I'm wrong before you've proven your claim. Remember, I'm restricted by logic too.

Why would that be a contradiction? A contradiction of what? If I point to people who say the Earth is flat is that a contradiction? You think someone disagreeing with me makes me wrong??

A contradiction to your statement that the book of Acts IS in the bible. Do you see that there are two valid opinions, or that there is your statement and anyone else who disagrees is wrong? (note the question mark)
Someone disagreeing with me doesn't make me wrong. That is just yet more loony liberal tolerance dogma.

They are wrong because they are wrong. Remember your comment?
I remember yours, about making a claim with no proof.
Of the two of us, only you have admitted you have not presented proof.

 Lol! In the main time should I take you on faith?

Nope. You can either review what you have said and research it, ...
Why? Because you think I'm wrong? I speak purposely. I need no review.

...or help me understand how you will react when you are shown the error.
All BEFORE you have shown any error? I will not enable your liberal confusion.

Or, you can ignore all of this because you don't care.
Those aren't my only choices. I think I will toss and ridicule you for your ridiculous anal attempts at logic. Life is too short to waste all this fun.

Did I say anything about a religious identity?
No,...
Then your asking me if that is what I Kent is silly.

I did, specifically asking if you are a Christian, and you suggested that I review the exchanges.
So that you would see that you are incapable of understanding my position. Focus Rosends.

I'm saying you aren't capable of understanding where I stand. Was that not simple?
Simple-minded, maybe.
Then you should get it.

Certainly not an answer to a direct question.
Sooner or later you will comprehend that I don't have to do what you want.

Lol. I should have assumed I was wrong BEFORE you proved I was wrong. >>sniker!!<<

Remember, I haven't proven anything yet.
You've proven your decietfullness.

You still have time to review and realize (but no, not assume).
I think I'll wait until you prove I am wrong BEFORE I concede genius. I'm stubborn that way.

My affiliation is off topic. You have not answered my questions too. I didn't bother you because we both know why you dodged.

No, your religious affiliation is on topic.
I decide. Not you. Sooner or later you will comprehend that you aren't the boss.

I asked about your view of books of the bible and then about your view of the world and its being restricted to the truth. You answered my question about YOUR world view by writing, "A wholly consistent and interlaced truth is what Christianity is". That is eaither reflective of you or immaterial. I'm just asking which is the case.
My views are never immaterial. But if you ask something and then take my reply to be immaterial.... eh.

Why would I say that when you have asserted that...
So my restatement was wrong? Please correct it so I can understand your position.
I'm waiting for you to concede you were wrong BEFORE I correct you. Ha!

1. You have no need to prove me wrong
Why do you think I have any need like that?
I'm posting what you said Rosends. Try to stay focused.

2. Can simply think my error into existence
I have never said that. You keep setting this up as a strawman so you can knock it down, but since it isn't my position, that is wasted effort on your part.
You admit you have not proven me wrong, but insist I am wrong. When asked how you know I'm wrong, you say you won't say so yet, but insist I am wrong. You even are asking me to concede an error, all while admitting you haven't proven anything yet. Look again Rosends, that " strawman" is flesh and blood.

3. I am wrong because I'm wrong
Well, that is correct. If you said 2+2=5 you would be wrong, simply because you would be wrong.
Thank you.

You've asked and I've answered you.
No, you have only insisted that you can't be wrong, and not confronted the hypothetical.
I'm waiting for the actual.

Are you growing a need to show me wrong?
No, not really.
Yet you want me to believe you will show me wrong at some future point.

If you want to, feel free to say, "Rosends, I'm not interested in what you think I have said that is untrue."
Thanks, but I think I will continue to choose my words myself.

That would be great. I would move on, knowing what I know, and you would move on, content in what you think you know, none the wiser. 
You can move on at anytime you want. I will respond, or not respond, when I want.

I await your decision.
Here ya go.
#86
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Stephen
Nowhere will we find a single reference where Jesus admits to his inner circle of coming to specifically do die for their sins. There are a few verses that could be crowbarred into suggesting that he did as much, such  as John 3:16,  but it will be a struggle to squeeze these words into the mouth of Jesus and sins are not even mentioned, only belief. 
I think he pretty much says it outright in Luke 24:46-47: "This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

Jesus is perhaps partially referring to Isaiah 53, the meaning of which has been interestingly debated by Jews and Christians for centuries since the time of Origen at least. Isaiah 53 reads "For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."

Regardless, I agree with you - I find it very alarming that anyone else should suffer for what I am responsible for. I think the intent is commendable, but it nevertheless arouses my sense of injustice and is unacceptable to me personally.

The bible seems to suggest we alone are responsible. Deuteronomy11:16 “ take heed of yourself”.
Deut 11:16 merely appears to be a caution against worshipping other gods than Yahweh.

Genesis4; 9  “Where is Abel your brother?”
He said, “I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?

“Am I my brother's keeper?”
Is this to say that I am not responsible for anyone but myself, my actions and my own behaviour?
"What am I, his babysitter? Why are you asking me? I wasn't even there. What is this, the Spanish Inquisition? Fuck off." -- Cain

I think that is the extent of the meaning of this passage. But that's just me.
Topic's author
#87
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Castin
The bible seems to suggest we alone are responsible. Deuteronomy11:16 “ take heed of yourself”.
Deut 11:16 merely appears to be a caution against worshipping other gods than Yahweh.

So,   you alone  are responsible for who you transgress against and no one else.


Genesis4; 9  “Where is Abel your brother?”
He said, “I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?

“Am I my brother's keeper?”
Is this to say that I am not responsible for anyone but myself, my actions and my own behaviour?
"What am I, his babysitter? Why are you asking me? I wasn't even there. What is this, the Spanish Inquisition? Fuck off." -- Cain
I think that is the extent of the meaning of this passage. But that's just me.

Well that would be  "fuck off " god wouldn't it?  As Cain was apparently dead.  So it would be "fuck off "god I am not responsible for Cain or his whereabouts.  I am responsible for myself and my own deeds.. 

I did say ;  the bible  seems to say we alone are responsible,   for our sins/crimes.



Luke 24:46-47 .....................

 Indeed at a push.  I did mention that there were a few that could maybe forced to appear as such. But  clearly he does not tell them ever that he had specifically been sent to die for their sin .


Regardless.........We have to wonder why god didn't raise him if he was that concerned.  Life does at times come across as cheap to god in these scripture. 



 



#88
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ethang5
No. You just have access to facts that othersdon't,t and that makes them wrong even when all you do is "know".
Facts aren't wrong. People who make claims in the absence of facts are wrong.
 
Lol. Your opponent lays out an intricate argument and you simply think he's wrong because you have "access" to a fact he doesn't and poof! You're right! Its a wonder you only do pretty well.
In a formal debate, I have no interest in learning how my opponent will cope with learning he is wrong. Therefore, I simply prove my side (or directly refute the claims). This is not a formal debate and I'm curious about how you will cope.


Don't be so shy. You listed your special access to facts as evidence of my error.

Yes, but not about the books of the bible. There you have only posited your opinion and because there are differences of opinion, your position accurately represents your belief system. To you, that makes everyone else wrong because you equate your beliefs with "truth."

But yet you list my not answering your questions as evidence you are right.

No, your refusing to answer is only evidence that you refuse to answer.

Lol!! So you refuse to "prove me wrong" until I admit I am wrong? You aren't just petty and lying, you're ludicrous!

No, until you engage in a discussion of how being wrong will affect you.


"Address" to you means I concede. Lol, I think I'll require you to prove your claim instead of conceding I'm wrong before you've proven your claim. Remember, I'm restricted by logic too.
Well, that's not what "address" means but I'll skip that part. If you don't want to discuss the hypothetical then that's fine. I know your opinion about the books of the bible and I know your error in another matter. You don't want to explore the possible implications? OK.

Someone disagreeing with me doesn't make me wrong. That is just yet more loony liberal tolerance dogma.
Nor does it make you right. Same dogma.

Why? Because you think I'm wrong? I speak purposely. I need no review.
OK.

All BEFORE you have shown any error? I will not enable your liberal confusion.
It is more fruitful to predict BEFORE something happens, yes.

Those aren't my only choices. I think I will toss and ridicule you for your ridiculous anal attempts at logic. Life is too short to waste all this fun.
That is also your choice. Have fun.

So that you would see that you are incapable of understanding my position. Focus Rosends.
you told me to review instead of explaining the answer to my question, so that I would see that I'm incapable of understanding?

Sooner or later you will comprehend that I don't have to do what you want.
I do understand that, as you should understand that I don't have to do what you want. If you don't want to answer a direct question, or don't want to help me understand how you will react in a given situation, then don't.

I think I'll wait until you prove I am wrong BEFORE I concede genius. I'm stubborn that way.
So, when given the opportunity to review and rethink a position and claim, you will refuse. I'm learning interesting things about you.

I decide. Not you. Sooner or later you will comprehend that you aren't the boss.

But you did decide by inserting Christianity into your response. This isn't about being the "boss" but about my asking for clarification of something you wrote.
My views are never immaterial. But if you ask something and then take my reply to be immaterial.... eh.
So then your making a statement about Christianity after I ask about your interlaced worldview is relevant? OK, I will therefore conclude that you are a Christian.

I'm waiting for you to concede you were wrong BEFORE I correct you. Ha!

Of course, if I am wrong and you are not a Christian, I will happily concede that my assumption was in error -- it was limited to the statements you made. 


You admit you have not proven me wrong, but insist I am wrong. When asked how you know I'm wrong, you say you won't say so yet, but insist I am wrong. You even are asking me to concede an error, all while admitting you haven't proven anything yet. Look again Rosends, that " strawman" is flesh and blood.
I'm not asking you to concede an error. I know you made an error. I'm asking you to entertain how you will react when I present that error. You then insist that you need not entertain the hypothetical because I have not yet shown the error, therefore it doesn't exist -- that my thinking it is the only reason I am mentioning it. As that is not the case, you are establishing a false position to argue with.

I'm waiting for the actual.

If that is your position, and I will not be presenting it until I can anticipate a reaction, you have a long wait.

Yet you want me to believe you will show me wrong at some future point.

I don't care what you believe or not, nor do I have a "want" in that regard. I am just curious about what will happen if I show you your error.


You can move on at anytime you want. I will respond, or not respond, when I want.
And your responses will dictate the course of the conversation. If you want to move forward in one direction, just answer what I asked. If you want to move in a different direction, feel free to continue whatever it is you think you are doing. If your goal is to wear me down by evasion, then so be it. I will choose to walk away because you have shown no interest in learning. Instead of engaging in a thought experiment with me, you will continue to rehash the same statements and will then become boring to me and I will walk away. You set the goal and I will respond accordingly.


#89
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rosends
No. You just have access to facts that others don't and that makes them wrong even when all you do is "know".
Facts aren't wrong. People who make claims in the absence of facts are wrong.
 It is expected that you'd be the  y"e old keeper of facts" too.

Lol. Your opponent lays out an intricate argument and you simply think he's wrong because you have "access" to a fact he doesn't and poof! You're right! Its a wonder you only do pretty well.
In a formal debate, I have no interest in learning how my opponent will cope with learning he is wrong. Therefore, I simply prove my side (or directly refute the claims). This is not a formal debate and I'm curious about how you will cope.
Proving your claim would do that Einstein.

Don't be so shy. You listed your special access to facts as evidence of my error.

Yes, but not about the books of the bible.
Was that one voodoo?

There you have only posited your opinion and because there are differences of opinion, your position accurately represents your belief system. To you, that makes everyone else wrong because you equate your beliefs with "truth."
And as a tooolerant liberal, any differing viewpoint must be cuddled, no matter how absurd.

But yet you list my not answering your questions as evidence you are right.
No, your refusing to answer is only evidence that you refuse to answer.
My "refusing to answer" is only evidence that you claim I refuse to answer.

Lol!! So you refuse to "prove me wrong" until I admit I am wrong? You aren't just petty and lying, you're ludicrous!
No, until you engage in a discussion of how being wrong will affect you.
Keep waiting. Any day now.

"Address" to you means I concede. Lol, I think I'll require you to prove your claim instead of conceding I'm wrong before you've proven your claim. Remember, I'm restricted by logic too.
Well, that's not what "address" means but I'll skip that part.
Ya sure? Cause maybe I'll fall for that bit of hokum if you persist.

If you don't want to discuss the hypothetical then that's fine. I know your opinion about the books of the bible and I know your error in another matter. You don't want to explore the possible implications? OK.
You are so gracious! Deluded, but gracious.

Someone disagreeing with me doesn't make me wrong. That is just yet more loony liberal tolerance dogma.
Nor does it make you right. Same dogma.
There goes your "valid" differing views.

Why? Because you think I'm wrong? I speak purposely. I need no review.
OK.

All BEFORE you have shown any error? I will not enable your liberal confusion.
It is more fruitful to predict BEFORE something happens, yes.
So its prediction? You said it wasn't prophesy. Good to know.

Those aren't my only choices. I think I will toss and ridicule you for your ridiculous anal attempts at logic. Life is too short to waste all this fun.
That is also your choice. Have fun.
Thanks for the permission.

So that you would see that you are incapable of understanding my position. Focus Rosends.
you told me to review instead of explaining the answer to my question, so that I would see that I'm incapable of understanding?
Yep. And I think you see it now.

Sooner or later you will comprehend that I don't have to do what you want.
I do understand that, as you should understand that I don't have to do what you want.
Notice that I haven't demanded or insisted you do anything. Remember it only works if our behaviors are reciprocal.

If you don't want to answer a direct question, or don't want to help me understand how you will react in a given situation, then don't.
Thank for the permission.

I think I'll wait until you prove I am wrong BEFORE I concede genius. I'm stubborn that way.
So, when given the opportunity to review and rethink a position and claim, you will refuse. I'm learning interesting things about you.
Lol. You think I should review and rethink my position because you think I'm wrong. But aren't able to show I am wrong. Then why should I review and rethink my position? Because you say so? Your opinion of yourself is much higher than my opinion of you.

I decide. Not you. Sooner or later you will comprehend that you aren't the boss.
But you did decide by inserting Christianity into your response.
Yes. I decided. See?

This isn't about being the "boss" but about my asking for clarification of something you wrote.
I have low tolerance for disingenuous smarm. You were asking me to concede because you were unable to prove me wrong.

My views are never immaterial. But if you ask something and then take my reply to be immaterial.... eh.
So then your making a statement about Christianity after I ask about your interlaced worldview is relevant? OK, I will therefore conclude that you are a Christian.
Why not? You've already concluded that I'm wrong.

I'm waiting for you to concede you were wrong BEFORE I correct you. Ha!

Of course, if I am wrong and you are not a Christian, I will happily concede that my assumption was in error -- it was limited to the statements you made. 
I remain unconcerned about the tangential things you "conclude".

You admit you have not proven me wrong, but insist I am wrong. When asked how you know I'm wrong, you say you won't say so yet, but insist I am wrong. You even are asking me to concede an error, all while admitting you haven't proven anything yet. Look again Rosends, that " strawman" is flesh and blood.
I'm not asking you to concede an error. I know you made an error. I'm asking you to entertain how you will react when I present that error.
The quickest and most efficient way to do that is to prove I am wrong. Stop begging, I am not going to fall for your trick.

You then insist that you need not entertain the hypothetical because I have not yet shown the error, therefore it doesn't exist -- that my thinking it is the only reason I am mentioning it. As that is not the case, you are establishing a false position to argue with.
I insist that I need not entertain the hypothetical because you have not yet shown the error. Period.

I'm waiting for the actual.

If that is your position, and I will not be presenting it until I can anticipate a reaction, you have a long wait.
I packed a toothbrush.

Yet you want me to believe you will show me wrong at some future point.

I don't care what you believe or not, nor do I have a "want" in that regard. I am just curious about what will happen if I show you your error.
When your curiosity grows large enough, you may attempt it. I just hope by then I haven't grown tired of toying with you.

You can move on at anytime you want. I will respond, or not respond, when I want.

And your responses will dictate the course of the conversation.
Really capt. Obvious?

If you want to move forward in one direction, just answer what I asked.
Sooner or later you will know in ways other than intellectual that you cannot make me do what you want.

If you want to move in a different direction, feel free to continue whatever it is you think you are doing.
I'm just responding to you. What do you think I'm doing?

If your goal is to wear me down by evasion, then so be it.
Wear you down? Am I forcing you to reply? Did I make you anal?

I will choose to walk away because you have shown no interest in learning.
Oh no great teacher! Wherever will get knowledge if you walk away?

Instead of engaging in a thought experiment with me, you will continue to rehash the same statements and will then become boring to me and I will walk away.
Remember you said you were bored at the beginning of this exchange.

You set the goal and I will respond accordingly.
Do whatever you want. I will too. Stop telling me what we both already know.
#90
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6

Proving your claim would do that Einstein.
Proving would lead to one dimension of understanding. I'm looking for additional ones.

Was that one voodoo?
No, that was simply your opinion which you confuse with truth.

And as a tooolerant liberal, any differing viewpoint must be cuddled, no matter how absurd.
So the "liberal" cuddles all different viewpoints but insists that everyone else is wrong (" to force me to "see it your way"", the liberal "you must agree with me because I'm right game".)? 


So its prediction? You said it wasn't prophesy. Good to know.
I said that you have a different definition of prophecy from mine if you equate prophecy and prediction. I also said that I am interested in learning about you so that I can get a sense of how you will act. 



Notice that I haven't demanded or insisted you do anything. Remember it only works if our behaviors are reciprocal.
Nor have I. I have pointed out what you refuse to do, and you have pointed out what I refuse to do. I never demanded or insisted that you do anything -- I asked you a question.

Lol. You think I should review and rethink my position because you think I'm wrong.

No, I suggest you might want to. If you don't, and you have said you don't, then that is what it is. And I know you are wrong.

But aren't able to show I am wrong.

Sure I am. You just can't imagine that you are wrong so you claim that I can't prove it. That is a lack of imagination on your part, leading to a false conclusion.

Then why should I review and rethink my position? Because you say so?
No, you should only if you feel that it might reveal to you an error. If you don't think it will, then don't review anything. The post is out there for all to see.

Yes. I decided. See?
Yes. So you made religion a part of the discussion. 
I have low tolerance for disingenuous smarm. You were asking me to concede because you were unable to prove me wrong.
Concede what? I asked for an understanding of your position and you tied it to a religious position, so I asked if you identify with that religion.

I remain unconcerned about the tangential things you "conclude".
I don't recall asking if you were concerned about it.

The quickest and most efficient way to do that is to prove I am wrong. Stop begging, I am not going to fall for your trick.
I haven't begged for anything. I asked you to explore a possibility and discuss a potential situation. You don't want to.


I insist that I need not entertain the hypothetical because you have not yet shown the error. Period.
If I showed it, it wouldn't be hypothetical. Duh.


Yet you want me to believe you will show me wrong at some future point.
I don't care what you believe. If I can get you to discuss how you will react in the hypothetical case, then I will show that you are wrong so we can compare how you actually react to what you had claimed would be your reaction. Without the former, there is no potential for the latter.

Wear you down? Am I forcing you to reply? Did I make you anal?
No, nor are you wearing me down, but if that is your goal then that is what it is. How would that make someone "anal"?
Oh no great teacher! Wherever will get knowledge if you walk away?
I don't know, but that isn't my concern.
Remember you said you were bored at the beginning of this exchange.
yes, and you were a distraction from that boredom. When you become as boring, then you are no longer a distraction worth the attention.

I will ask questions here, for anyone to think about. You will either answer them or you will not and everyone can see how you react. If you choose not to answer and engage in topical and fruitful dialogue then I won't respond and you can put another notch in your belt, or do whatever it is you do when someone decides you are no longer worth the effort.

1. Are you a Christian?
2. Is your worldview a comprehensive and cohesive one entirely "restricted to the truth" across the board?
3. How do you think you would react if you were shown that a claim made is shown to be wrong? -- would that make you reconsider your idea of that worldview, or would you find a way to excuse a single situation and insist that the rest is still that coherent whole?

If you insist that there is no way that you can be wrong when you make a claim so the hypothetical is impossible therefore the consequence need not be entertained then i will learn something also.