| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Stangl writes:
> So either prove his statements wrong, or admit that you're a Bible-Thumper
> that won't take any proof against the word of the Bible, no matter how strong >or how logical.
I really have no idea what John Neal believes or why he believes it. I know
he claims to be a Xtian -- but I see precious little evidence that he either
reads, understands, or follows the words of Jesus (in the future, it is my
intention to ignore his assertions that he is a Christian unless he can
prove it with something -- anything! -- besides his mere say so). And he
may be a bible-thumper, but spanking the good book won't get him very far
with me or anyone else.
John likes to get a lot of mileage out of the idea that I can spend 20
minutes on google and know everything I know about mythology, biblical
parallels, etc. Anyone that has actually ever done any reading for
themselves would know that there is no such easy road to knowledge -- it's
the long and hard road instead. One spends hours reading and researching
and speculating, and confirming with more reading and researching, etc -- in
a near endless cycle of trying to improve oneself through knowledge. And
you can't easily find with google what you don't know to look for in the
first place, right? Well, maybe you could -- but you'd spend a LOT of time
doing it because at some point you'd have to do the necessary reading for
yourself! But it is very clear to me that John has never done this kind of
work because it is one of the trademarks of his *debate techniques* to mock
knowledge. John is not a skoolboy.
I know what the Bible says because I have read it as a believer, as a
non-believer, as a scholar, and as a skeptic -- many times. I think I have
proven that I am not without at least some knowledge as to the "words" in
the bible. John by contrast argues in ways that at least suggest that he
has never read the Bible for himself, or even if he did read it he
understood very little of it. I asked that John show me biblical support
for Xmas or Easter, which was a bit of a trick because I know that these
holidays are Pagan in origin and have no biblical support -- to the
contrary, such practices are condemned in the Bible and I showed that myself
and gave reference to where one could read more if one wished. Frankly, I
was kinda surprised he didn't call me on it right off -- which is what he
should have done. John is still in a fog. No biblical cites were
forthcoming, nor ever could have been -- at least some of what John
practices has no support in the Bible and anyone that has read it would know
that simple fact. So while I played a trick on John with my questions about
Xmas and Easter -- all I really meant to do was to test his knowledge and
the bases for his opinions. And that much seems fair, given this is
"debate" -- I merely tested the veracity of his views.
I originally quoted to John passages from the Book of Mark because most
biblical scholars accept that Mark may be closer to an original source than
any of the other gospel texts for reasons to do with linguistic
anthropology. Luke and Matthew, and to a lesser extent the Book of John,
seem to use Mark as a source (with the occasional addition of another source
called "Q"). So while this is a very streamlined explanation of things, if
you wanted the hardcore best gospel it would be the Book of Mark. [See? no
googling -- it's all in my noggin.] It was no accident that I picked Mark
-- but to a guy like John, these distinctions are meaningless. I assume John
gets his views from the pulpit, or TV, or some dreadful religious tracts --
but not apparently from the Bible. When I quote him from King James he asks
why I can't use an "easier" text, as if the thing were not written in
English -- is this the request of a reader? I think not. He might have
complained to me of the many translatory errors in King James (and if you
read back, I left the door open for that -- yes, another trap, another piece
of bait left untouched by John) Anyway, John didn't get Mark any more than
he gets anything else we have talked about here.
[John could actually learn something here if he just tried even a very
little and wasn't some kind of moralizing tyrant. And I wouldn't even be as
hostile to his beliefs if I knew he was actually trying instead of just
stewing in his own brew. But whatever...]
I think it is safe to state that I have shown several things about John's
beliefs:
1) John thinks he is a Xtian.
2) John doesn't know the words of the bible; or at least not very well or
comprehensively.
3) John doesn't know or recognize the plain meaning of the biblical passages
he has read (he is deeply confused with special meanings for ordinary words
and passages).
4) John formulates opinions about textual passages taken out of context,
usually considered death for any citation from authority. It also suggest
bad faith argumentation techniques are being employed.
5) John has no knowledge of biblical scholarship or archeology -- one
passage of the bible has the same value as another.
6) John is willing to accept a huge rift between the old Testament and the
New Testament and accepts all of the inherent contradictions holding such a
view provides (there is a better more holistic view he could take, BTW --
but yes, it tends to be a more fundamentalist view also; and no, it's not
perfect either -- the hard road again!).
Whatever kind of Xtian John is, it's pretty slippery since there is no
biblical support for at least some of his views. As far as I can tell, this
doesn't necessarily bother John because he doesn't care about the origins of
his practices. He denies that Jesus himself supported mosaic law, even if
he also added to them (which may actually be debatable). So as far as I can
tell John has no significant knowledge about anything he purports to have at
least some knowledge of -- including Xtianity and the Bible! He wants to be
the messenger of something -- but even he doesn't know what that something
might be. All John has are his muddled personal beliefs, whatever they might
be and whatever their sources.
I expect that the few that might actually be reading this think I am a huge
******* -- and I probably am an ******* at least some of the time. But it
may surprise y'all to know that I actually get no pleasure in John's
comeuppance -- I think it more sad for him than some intriguing debate "win"
for me. I mean from what I see, here is a guy that hasn't apparently
pondered anything for himself -- and I gather this fact from the lack of
evidence that he has done his own reading or research. That's just sad.
I guess I just got tired of hearing John prattle on about things he clearly
doesn't know anything about. I got tired of his "beliefs" trump card plays.
I got tired of his dictatorial moralizing. I got tired of his seemingly
friendly jibes, that are often really more in the way of bigoted personal
attacks. And the list goes on. I just got tired of it. I know that we
have many of us accepted that John is often VERY tiresome -- but I just had
to see for myself if I took him seriously just for a moment if he'd pull out
of his endlessly silly tailspin and give me the goods. I thought, "Fine --
he wants to talk God -- let's talk god." I REALLY wanted him to show me
that he DOES grasp something with coherence and precision. And you can see
where that got me: nowhere. Did I get the goods? Hell no. So even in the
one area I expected John to be maybe even an expert, he gave me nothing. He
gave me empty answers from the pulpit or something like that. I don't think
he even gave me his own answers in good faith -- I think he gave me pat
answers from some source known only to him. He still seems to think Xmas is
a Xtian holy day, and so forth...
::Yawn::
By contrast, I have what I think is a rich and satisfying spiritual life. I
don't take everything given us from the mouth of "science" at face value.
If I had a motto it would be: "question everything." I question my own
assumptions. I question everything that "feels" right with other criteria
in mind. I question things that seem logical with my "feelings" and even my
intuition sometimes. I am just always looking at something anew and trying
to come to better terms with it. Surprisingly, and despite the things that
I do know; I feel more certain about all of the things that I don't know. I
am a law to myself and I reject all spiritual authorities. At the same
time, I don't pretend to tell others what to do with their own lives and I
don't moralize about how they choose to live if it fails to harm to me. I
mind my own business right up to the point that someone else gets in my face
-- then, look out!
And do you know what got me going this time? John Neal took offense that
the word "Christmas" wasn't capitalized by Larry P. How ignorant can one
person be (and I mean John Neal)? Xmas is not even a Xtian holiday -- not
in general, not in the particulars. This is common knowledge the last time
I checked -- at least it is for anyone that cares to look it up for
themselves. There must be hundreds, possibly thousands, of places one could
verify this simple fact. I gave Neal URLs from Xtian websites -- this was
an attempt to show that it wasn't me -- great Pagan that I am that was
saying this -- it was other Xtians! There must be millions of Xtians that
recognize that Xmas is Pagan in origin. John Neal would prefer to argue
about it instead. John wants to examine the mote in my eye, instead of
explain the beam sticking out of his own.
The usual...complete and total idiocy.
I have said elsewhere that "One learns by suffering." I guess I had to
suffer through it one last time with John Neal. I can't find anything
redeemable in any of his views except what he has stated elsewhere about
MOC train widths (cold comfort here in debate). The man is like talking to
a wall. A terrifying, ignorant, bigoted, yahoo of a wall at that -- because
he won't keep silent! He murmurs nonsense from time to time. So disturbing...
I apologize to those, like Tom here or James, that have asked me to be
silent as to John Neal. I apologize to Dave! who I asked to stop responding
to John Neal. I am sorry to myself for responding to John Neal when I had
intended no to do so. I mistakenly thought I had a purpose that would show
that lead could be turned into gold. I was dead wrong.
Now I will go from this thread and very hopefully sin no more.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) <huge honkin' snip> I really have no particular desire to get into what seems to be a private battle here, but calling John out for his beliefs and saying he isn't a Christian because he doesn't follow a strictly biblical teaching isn't (...) (22 years ago, 13-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| I see. You've proved yet again you are a stubborn, knee-jerk Bible-thumper. Instead of gathering data to prove Richard's assertions wrong, you just launch into whacko ranting in an attempt to discredit HIM rather than his data. If you want to prove (...) (22 years ago, 13-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
