Another installment showcasing flogger willingness to assassinate their own intellect, if it will aid in trashing those they hate or disapprove of, but in this installment, I want to bring in some perfidious unctions from the peanut gallery comment thread.
I note that Mr. Confoy hasn't begun to see "paranoid and lunatic ravings" unless he's seen crap about "rape culture" from demented feminists like Amanda Marcotte...
But I digress.
I note that Mr. Confoy hasn't begun to see "paranoid and lunatic ravings" unless he's seen crap about "rape culture" from demented feminists like Amanda Marcotte...
But I digress.
Back to the subject at hand. I wonder how Al knows that Valerie, the author he's trashing and lying about, "...would have loved to have not had a United States of America." Maybe it came to him in a dream?
She seems to have approved the states being united under the Articles. What she disapproves of is the creation of a tyrannical federal government, which is NOT the United States -- far from it. A government is not the same thing as a nation and a people. I'm surprised Al is pretending he doesn't know this in order to issue that fraudulent statement and others trashing her.
Valerie doesn't contradict herself. What Al calls "glue" that held the United States together, Val calls dangerous and restrictive. Al's statement also supposes that the states being glued together is a good thing. That's not necessarily so and certainly not everyone agrees that it is.
And she doesn't have the tunnel vision of floggers and their followers who tight-focus on what some secessionists said about slavery, and blithely ignore everything else -- even in the very secession declarations that enumerate other reasons.
I'm not sure of the pertinence of Al's reference to the Trail of Tears. Val acknowledges that, unlike the Cherokee and other Indian tribes who were shipped out west, Southerners were allowed to stay in the South.
Oh, and do read up on the Trail of Tears, Al. The Indians weren't sent to Oklahoma for the benefit of Georgians and Southerners, but for people came from all over the country after they left -- even from other parts of the flippin' world -- to grab a piece of that land. Where have you been, Al, that you didn't know this? Or is it just your hatred of white Southerners (and their friends in New York) that keeps you from seeing the whole picture?
No, the Confederacy would not have become an empire of conquest, even if one senator from one state said something to the contrary. Anybody who thinks a modern Confederacy of the Southern states would send an army to Iraq and send them door to door to confiscate "illegal weapons" from the Iraqi people is demented. But that's what the American Empire is, Al. A demented empire.
PolitiFact.com, which belongs to the Tampa Bay Times, fact-checked Ron Paul's claim that the US has troops in 130 nations and 900 overseas bases, and concluded it is plausible. There is actually US military personnel in 148 countries, but in 56 of those countries, the U.S. has less than 10 active-duty personnel present. The 900 bases figure has to be qualified, too, because the Pentagon is reluctant to call some military facilities "bases." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/14/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-us-has-military-personnel-130-nation/
In any case, the US military presence around the world is a component of, and thus evidence of, empire. And the path that as led us here started with Lincoln. Writers, journalists, educators, pundits and others who have nothing invested in either the pro-north or pro-South view admit that the US was irrevocably changed by the civil war, when it became a "player" on the world scene.
Protégé is defined as "... one who is protected or trained or whose career is furthered by a person of experience, prominence, or influence..." Perhaps the general understanding and usage of "protégé" would cause the average person to reject that description of Marx and Lincoln. However, that does not preclude Lincoln's being influenced by his acquaintance with Marx.
Mentioning that a Jew is a Jew if his/her Jewishness isn't a factor in the subject under discussion might result from the mentioner's bigotry -- or it might not. However, when it is pertinent -- as in George Soros's activities as a teenager under Nazi rule -- it's not bigoted. Excerpt from a 60 Minutes interview:
I'll save discussion of "Islamophobia" (smirk) and Barack Hussein Obama for a later post. But what we have thus far is "bigotry" showing up in Al's interpretation that does not exist in the primary document. I believe Al is retired military, and that accounts for his gung-ho, my-country-right-or-wrong pro-American mania.
Let's look at Rob "Tu Quoque" Bakur's amazing claivoyance in predicting this:
"What’s even more ridiculous Al, is that certain characters of that particular ‘sphere of influence’ will come out in unfaltering defense of this person’s remarks. You will be denounced for crying antisemitism, because someone called a Jew, a Jew (even though the context shows contempt), and that there are legitimate reasons to be afraid of Islam. These are the same people that advocate white supremacy under the guise of cultural supremacy, and admittedly do not know any biblical scholarship, but will argue the merits of Islam."
Rob's gift of prediction is truly amazing, unless you follow the timeline...
She seems to have approved the states being united under the Articles. What she disapproves of is the creation of a tyrannical federal government, which is NOT the United States -- far from it. A government is not the same thing as a nation and a people. I'm surprised Al is pretending he doesn't know this in order to issue that fraudulent statement and others trashing her.
Valerie doesn't contradict herself. What Al calls "glue" that held the United States together, Val calls dangerous and restrictive. Al's statement also supposes that the states being glued together is a good thing. That's not necessarily so and certainly not everyone agrees that it is.
And she doesn't have the tunnel vision of floggers and their followers who tight-focus on what some secessionists said about slavery, and blithely ignore everything else -- even in the very secession declarations that enumerate other reasons.
I'm not sure of the pertinence of Al's reference to the Trail of Tears. Val acknowledges that, unlike the Cherokee and other Indian tribes who were shipped out west, Southerners were allowed to stay in the South.
Oh, and do read up on the Trail of Tears, Al. The Indians weren't sent to Oklahoma for the benefit of Georgians and Southerners, but for people came from all over the country after they left -- even from other parts of the flippin' world -- to grab a piece of that land. Where have you been, Al, that you didn't know this? Or is it just your hatred of white Southerners (and their friends in New York) that keeps you from seeing the whole picture?
No, the Confederacy would not have become an empire of conquest, even if one senator from one state said something to the contrary. Anybody who thinks a modern Confederacy of the Southern states would send an army to Iraq and send them door to door to confiscate "illegal weapons" from the Iraqi people is demented. But that's what the American Empire is, Al. A demented empire.
PolitiFact.com, which belongs to the Tampa Bay Times, fact-checked Ron Paul's claim that the US has troops in 130 nations and 900 overseas bases, and concluded it is plausible. There is actually US military personnel in 148 countries, but in 56 of those countries, the U.S. has less than 10 active-duty personnel present. The 900 bases figure has to be qualified, too, because the Pentagon is reluctant to call some military facilities "bases." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/14/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-us-has-military-personnel-130-nation/
In any case, the US military presence around the world is a component of, and thus evidence of, empire. And the path that as led us here started with Lincoln. Writers, journalists, educators, pundits and others who have nothing invested in either the pro-north or pro-South view admit that the US was irrevocably changed by the civil war, when it became a "player" on the world scene.
Protégé is defined as "... one who is protected or trained or whose career is furthered by a person of experience, prominence, or influence..." Perhaps the general understanding and usage of "protégé" would cause the average person to reject that description of Marx and Lincoln. However, that does not preclude Lincoln's being influenced by his acquaintance with Marx.
Mentioning that a Jew is a Jew if his/her Jewishness isn't a factor in the subject under discussion might result from the mentioner's bigotry -- or it might not. However, when it is pertinent -- as in George Soros's activities as a teenager under Nazi rule -- it's not bigoted. Excerpt from a 60 Minutes interview:
Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that's when my character was made.It's made even more significant by the fact that his protector claimed Soros was a Christian....
KROFT: In what way?
Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand and - and anticipate events and when - when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a - a very personal experience of evil.
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.
KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right.
I'll save discussion of "Islamophobia" (smirk) and Barack Hussein Obama for a later post. But what we have thus far is "bigotry" showing up in Al's interpretation that does not exist in the primary document. I believe Al is retired military, and that accounts for his gung-ho, my-country-right-or-wrong pro-American mania.
Let's look at Rob "Tu Quoque" Bakur's amazing claivoyance in predicting this:
"What’s even more ridiculous Al, is that certain characters of that particular ‘sphere of influence’ will come out in unfaltering defense of this person’s remarks. You will be denounced for crying antisemitism, because someone called a Jew, a Jew (even though the context shows contempt), and that there are legitimate reasons to be afraid of Islam. These are the same people that advocate white supremacy under the guise of cultural supremacy, and admittedly do not know any biblical scholarship, but will argue the merits of Islam."
Rob's gift of prediction is truly amazing, unless you follow the timeline...
In the wee small hours of August 2 (3:41 a.m., to be exact), I uploaded a post to Backsass titled Oh, Crap. I'm Too Busy for This.
According to my hit counter, almost seven hours later, at 10 a.m., a visitor from Suwanee, Georgia, United States with the IP address Gwinnett County Public Schools (199.119.29.65), where Rob Baker just happens to be a teacher, visited Backsass (for the 275th time). Well, lo and behold! Rob posts his prediction here three and a quarter hours later, at 1:14 p.m. Amazing, iddinit?
As noted already, mentioning that Soros is Jew is pertinent to his confiscating property of Jews on behalf of the Nazis. And why shouldn't there be contempt for the "machinations of an atheist Jew whose vast fortune is the product of destroying nations and betraying his own people to their exterminators..."? I wonder if Rob thinks that is admirable conduct...
As for Islam, within my living memory, terrorism has been continually practiced by of Muslims.
Islam is to be spread by the sword, didn't you know? The Christian Crusades pale in comparison to Muslim aggression. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y
I'm not finished with Al's slander, "Very clearly the context shows contempt for the unnamed George Soros [it's obvious who he is] because he’s Jewish, just as the context clearly shows contempt for Obama because he has African-American heritage. ... And people who don’t have a clue about what Communism is should really stop labeling others as Communists."
Well, she wasn't slandering Soros "because he's Jewish," or Obama "because of his African-American heritage." But I'll save dealing with it further for another post.
Incidentally, I don't advocate white supremacy under any guise but I do acknowledge cultural inequality.
Rob would have us believe that the culture that created this (begun in 1906 and completed in 1907) ...
,,,is the equal of the culture that built this, from 1194 to 1250.
Tu Quoque's "biblical scholarship" ain't much better. Here's an example..
Connie: What I asked you about IS the gospel, according to St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians in that flawed book you evidently don't believe.... "...I declare unto you the gospel ..." (emphasis added).Duh....
Rob: For starters, Corinthians is a letter, not a gospel...
And just to clarify, you don't have to be a Biblical scholar to understand Islam (which is not simply a religion); you just have to watch the news....
My last observation for this installment involves the comment of Brooks D. Simpson, Professor of History at Arizona State University, to wit:
"I’m waiting for Connie Chastain to attack you while remaining silent on the post you highlight. She has a tendency to let antiSemites off, for example. As to why that is … I don’t know. But she’s big on the word bigot."I guess he defines "anti-Semitism" as any criticism whatsofreaking ever of anyone who is Jewish, even if it's deserved. Val's essay mentions two people who were/are Jews -- Marx and Soros -- and I don't consider either one above criticism. I don't believe the fact that they were/are Jewish should shield them from deserved criticism. Apparently, that is what Simpson conceptualizes as letting antiSemites off the hook... So, what? We're supposed to cheer the man who invented an economic, political, social order that resulted in the murder of tens of millions of people in the 20th Century, and lives of misery for millions more? Is that the professor's position? As I've mentioned before, he's a reasonably intelligent and well-educated man. Of course, smarts and education do not automatically guarantee integrity....
I'll end with that, for now -- and come back to address more of this hatred later.
_________________________
Images of the Great Mosque of Djenné are in the public domain. Images of Chartres Cathedral are available at Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons license.
><"I’m waiting for Connie Chastain to attack you while remaining silent on the post you highlight. She has a tendency to let antiSemites off, for example. As to why that is … I don’t know. But she’s big on the word bigot."><
ReplyDeleteSo you go lightly on anti-Semite Ulysses Grant?
I'm sorry where exactly did I use the word "predict"? But I digest.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the advertisement Connie. It's nice to know you're checking up on me, even if you do cut my comments off when you've been proven wrong ;)
Rob, I didn't say you SAID anything about predicting. I said you DID it. And so you did:
ReplyDeleteYou said, "certain characters ... will come out" which means you were predicting something that would happen in the future. Lemme reiterate, so you'll get it. Your comment indicates something that hasn't happened yet, but will.
You also said, "You will be denounced ..." which is also a prediction. Thus, your predicting something would happen that had already happened is giving a false impression.
You would have been a great contestant on the old Twenty-One TV quiz show.
I don't "check up" on you, Rob. I look at my visitor log every day -- the whole thing, not just your hits, see? But it does tell me interesting things about your visits, like how many there have been in a given time frame, and whether you're visiting from school or elsewhere.
You haven't proven me wrong on anything. You've frequently expressed a different opinion from mine, but that's not the same thing as proof, ya know? Thus, I cannot have cut your comments for that reason. In fact, I have explained in the past why I disallow your comments from time to time.
You lie about me on comment threads of floggers who frequently won't let me comment (some of them never let me), or who "edit" my comments...So I have to answer at Backsass.
For example, you said, "These are the same people that ... admittedly do not know any biblical scholarship..."
Admittedly? If you're talking about me, I've never made such an admission. If you're referring to a statement I made HERE, http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4211529354680229185&postID=5576549805480409455
you are flat-out lying. What I said was, "I'm very familiar with the Bible (which should be capitalized, Mr. Master's degree holder) and I'm far more interested in the spiritual aspects of it than the "scholarship."
Where do you find an admission of not knowing any Biblical scholarship in that? If you sincerely perceive that, you are far, far less educated than you think you are. If you KNOW it's not said admission, then your statement is a flat-out lie.
Eddie, LOL. I don't go lightly on Grant, or let him off ... for anything. Maybe Brooks Simpson does, though. I don't believe I've ever encountered any floggers trashing Grant for his antisemitism, certainly not with the bursting energy and enthusiasm with which they trashed Val -- who actually expressed no antisemitism at all in that essay.
ReplyDeleteIn reality the devil is in the details Connie. I was specific in what you would say, which ties in more closely to the definition of forecast rather than prediction. Admittedly, because I read your outline of a post to come, but I digest.
ReplyDeleteYou might be right about the Biblical scholarship statement Connie. However, if we also acknowledge these comments you made when arguing Biblical scholarship, we can see a different picture.
I don't know what Dynamic and Neo-Orthodox Inspiration views are.
I don't know what "the Wesley" concept of salvation is.
Then there is my retort that you did not post, which pointed out that Paul's "gospel" as you described is a concentration on the resurrection. That Paul alludes to the gospel and then specifically the resurrection because it's special. Meaning that you generalized what Paul said the gospel was. In short, you admittedly, and humbly I might add, acknowledged you do not know biblical scholarship.
I'd also like to point something out. The reason your points about Cultural superiority is laughable, is because these questions about why certain peoples progress for rapidly than others has already been thoroughly investigated. I highly recommend Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. Or you can watch the documentary on YouTube (3 Parts) which deals with some of the same subject material.
Rob, please. You weren't specific in what I WOULD say -- you were specific in what I DID say ... because you had ALREADY READ IT several hours earlier, but you posted about it as if you were predicting, forecasting, foretelling, portending, prognosticating, prophesying about something you had no foreknowledge of -- which is dishonest, you know. But do continue to try to weasel out of it. I do enjoy watching my critics weasel.....
ReplyDeleteRe: Biblical scholarship -- first, what you posted is not the totality of Biblical scholarship. Second, it's irrelevant. "Biblical scholarship" begins and ends with man. You may not believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but I do, and nowhere in it does God require people to know the Dynamic and Neo-Orthodox Inspiration views or the "the Wesley" concept of salvation in order to save their souls, capisce? Countless generations of souls entered into eternity before that particular "Biblical scholarship" was even written.
I didn't describe it as Paul's gospel. How can you have a college degree and not be able to comprehend what you read? Paul didn't "allude" to the gospel and the resurrection, either; he flat out said "I declare to you gospel" and then he declared it. You don't need "Biblical scholarship" to see that. You only need "Biblical scholarship" to muddy the water and try to stroke your own ego by trashing somebody else.
Gracious, Rob... I didn't write a thing about WHY some cultures are superior to others. Nary a syllable about that. You didn't notice that? I simply acknowledged cultural inequality, and I used images of one very small aspect of two cultures to illustrate it.
You need to stop making things up and attributing them to me.
So now I am acting "as if"? Pretty loose description of my intent Connie.
ReplyDeleteCorrect, I posted simply a minutia of Biblical scholarship that is relevant to the topic discussed. It's funny you suggest that I don't believe that the Bible is inspired by God, displaying another shortcoming in your knowledge on the good word. You asked specific questions, I gave you specific interpretations I adhere by. You then cast them aside giving a broad stroke generalization based on irrationality and blind faith.
"Now, of what excellent use is reason, if we would either understand ourselves, or explain to others, those living oracles". John Wesley
"Reason" is the third aspect of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral by the way.
As to Paul, let's break this down. You said:
Connie: An attender of the Methodist church. Fascinating. If I may ask, do you believe the gospel?
Me:You'll have to be more specific Connie, there are many gospels.
Connie: The gospel of Jesus. Do you believe it? If not, do you believe ANY "gospel'?
Me: I suspect numerous prodding questions about one's faith, especially in these circumstances, has ulterior motives. That being said, you can classify me as someone stuck between Dynamic and Neo-Orthodox Inspiration views.
Connie: I don't know what Dynamic and Neo-Orthodox Inspiration views are. Let me specify it for you. Do you believe mankind is fallen, sinful ... that Jesus was God come to earth in the form of man...that he died for the sins of humanity, was buried for three days, and was resurrected from the dead and ascended to heaven ... and because he did, human beings can be saved from their sins and live eternally after physical death ... and that this does, or should, have an effect on how they live their earthly lives?
At this point I gave you a break down of what you said was the Gospel according to Paul. The reason for the break down was because you cherry picked numerous verses from 1 Corinthians 15: 1-12 in summation. Though admittedly there is nothing wrong with that as the context of Paul's retelling the resurrection is appropriate. The entirety of Paul's message about Christ's resurrection says:
15 Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters,[a] of the good news[b] that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, 2 through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you—unless you have come to believe in vain.
3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.[d] 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me has not been in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them—though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we proclaim and so you have come to believe.
(The [a], [b], etc. is for footnotes at the bottom of the page for translation notes, etc.)
[Cont'd]
[Cont'd]
ReplyDeletePerhaps I should take some time to clarify here. I did not say, that you said "Paul's Gospel" did I? I said "Paul's "gospel" as you described it. "Paul's gospel" is a well accepted description of Paul's message, which many today summarize as faith alone. Rather ironic that you throw out so many reading comprehension insults when you fall victim to it.
Ah yes, the argument of semantics. Well taken into context with your other comments, i.e. posts such as:
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/07/what-has-andy-hall-got-against-white.html?showComment=1375075978322#c1657447603036820969
http://thehistoricstruggle.blogspot.com/2012/04/yankee-that-scared-connie-chastain.html
(of course, as to my knowledge, those comments do not exist anymore on your Facebook group, I do have copies though)
And here
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/so-its-heritage-not-history-a-candid-admission/
The comments of the last link are telling as you neither deny or rebut the claims made about your statements on European Christian culture superiority. So yes Connie, your statement of "equality" over "inequality" is your way of saying superior and inferior. They are correlated. For something to be unequal, then something has to be inferior or superior to it less they be coequal. To deny the relation is simply dishonest.
Your images are misleading as well. They fail to answer the question "Why?". The why is implied by you, and the implication is wrong by the way. Religion is not why some cultures develop quicker than others, but in reality, is more than often what hinders many culture's from progress. Granted that religion may be diluted by human beings.
Yeah, you posted as if you were predicting, forecasting, foretelling, portending, prognosticating, prophesying about something you had no foreknowledge of -- when you did have foreknowledge because you'd read my post about it.
ReplyDeleteThe subject of Biblical scholarship may be relevant to you. It is not to me. Regarding your statement, "It's funny you suggest that I don't believe that the Bible is inspired by God, displaying another shortcoming in your knowledge on the good word."
I was making an assumption based on your statement, "I view the bible as a library and certainly not infallible given its numerous editions and re-editions over time." So I wondered, whether you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but no longer trustworthy because it has been changed so much. But, frankly, I don't really care, so you can drop that. However, I do note that what I think of your views on the Bible has nothing whatever to do with my knowledge of the "good word"
To make sure you understand -- I don't CARE what Wesley said. He was not a writer of Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Look, if you didn't want to say what you believe about the Bible, the gospel, eternal damnation and salvation from it, etc., all you had to do was say you'd rather not discuss it. There was no need to go into all this irrelevant minutia.
Take all the time you want. Just note, it's easy to fall victim to bad reading comprehension when you're trying to read obfuscation that borders on nonsense.
ReplyDeleteI didn't deny relation, I illustrated it. Sheesh.
Well, if you don't like my premise that Christianity freed Europeans to be more creative, and thus advance their culture, then you're welcome to assume they advanced their culture because they were, I dunno -- racially superior? Sheesh...
Awful lot of synonyms there for such a moot point. It serves absolutely no purpose other than your vile attempts to demonize me, but whatever floats your boat.
ReplyDeleteSo I wondered, whether you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but no longer trustworthy because it has been changed so much. But, frankly, I don't really care, so you can drop that. However, I do note that what I think of your views on the Bible has nothing whatever to do with my knowledge of the "good word"
Which was answered in previous comments. You must have forgotten, otherwise you would not make such statements. If you did not care, why did you bother to bring it up, other than to paint me in a particular light?
No,but Wesley, much like the interpreted beliefs you have for the bible, mediated an interpretation of beliefs and practices relevant to numerous religious movements and denominations across the world. The UMC has 12 million members across the world and it is only one of the tens of denominations that believe in those interpretations.
You brought the subject up, you wanted to have the conversation so I engaged. If you did not want to here such answers, perhaps you should not have asked such open ended questions. I take religious conversations seriously.
You seem bent on revealing what you believe is some sort of hidden message of people. Al's post was pretty forthcoming in his contempt for certain comments; Andy's comments were as well.
So you deny actually writing about superiority but admit to it's illustration making the context relevant. Thanks for the clarification.
I've already recommended to you an excellent read/documentary on why certain cultures develop. I'm sorry you are so set in your ways that you cannot accept a good recommendation and expand your knowledge. One of your comments does interest me:
Well, if you don't like my premise that Christianity freed Europeans to be more creative, and thus advance their culture, then you're welcome to assume they advanced their culture because they were, I dunno -- racially superior? Sheesh...
Your cheap jabs aside do you really believe that Christianity "freed" Europeans to be more creative? You don't think the early church persecuted scientists (Galileo), and outlawed certain teachings such as medicine and human anatomy?
"So you deny actually writing about superiority..." Nope, just the opposite. Read it again.
ReplyDeleteYou answer questions with obfuscation. Whether that is to cover a refusal to commit to an answer, or to make yourself look, um, scholarly, it's still obfuscation.
As for everything else ... whatever.
Ahhh, so you don't deny it. That clears it up.
ReplyDeleteI don't write with obfuscation (I guess you found your new favorite word). What I write is pretty clear, though it may be complex. If it seems unclear or confusing to you, I'm sorry.
Correct, whatever. Again, it's best not to ask questions if you do not like, care for, or understand the answers.
Well, Rob, I thought, "I didn't deny relation," was pretty clear.
ReplyDeleteThat is an example of NOT obfuscating.
Which, yes, you do. If you don't like obfuscate, I'll change it to bamboozle.
You don't write for clarity, just the opposite. Your comments are the perfect example of that old saw, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b---s---."
I'm sure you think so Connie. End the end it does not matter. You've started numerous topics on this post to which you gave up on simply because you did not understand the terminology, the subject, or mislead the reader.
ReplyDeleteI know so, Rob. It's right here in front of my eyes.
ReplyDeleteMy "numerous subjects" are directly related to Al's "numerous subjects." I haven't given up on any of them.
I do admit to running out of patience with your water-muddying, your misperceptions, your mischaracterization of what I say. But that's not the same thing as giving up on the points in my blog post.
If it's right in front of your eyes, then you should be able to comprehend what is written, rather than claim obfuscation to demonize.
ReplyDeleteIn this thread and the one referenced, you made absurd claims about my faith, and religion but I'm mis-characterizing, Connie? I notice you ran away from that argument pretty quick. Keep living in your world of blissful ignorance.
Rob, just because one can see obfuscation in front of one's eyes doesn't mean one can understand it, particularly when it is written not ot be understood but to bamboozle.
ReplyDeleteI initially asked whether you're a Christian because of your basically calling early Christians liars who wrote about Roman persecution. If you didn't like where the conversation went from there, you were perfectly at liberty to end it.
You seemed to respond fairly well to some parts and less to others. It is more apparent that you pick and choose what to talk about, dismissing the rest as obfuscation.
ReplyDeleteYou did not ask if I was a Christian. You asked if I believed in the Bible if I recall correctly. You then began a series of other religious questions, to which you got upset, began ranting, and decide to say "whatever" to. Then you said that you didn't care. If you didn't care, then why ask in the first place? Because you assumed an answer, and you did not receive the answer you sought. I also did not call early Christians liars. I referred to Christian myth. That is not the same thing.
Rob, I respond to your responses that are continuations of the discussion. When you throw in a lot of extraneous obfuscation, yes, I dismiss it.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct, I should have asked if you are a Christian, but chalk it up to my perception that believing the Bible doesn't make you a Hindu, or a Shinto, or a Muslim... My "series of other questions" were in response to your evasive replies. If you didn't want to answer, all you had to do was say so.
I asked because I was curious. Being curious is not the same thing as caring.
Christian myth, Christian lies ... potato, potahto...
You are the one that brought up the numerous other issues, on top of the issue. I stay on topic as much as possible. That is actually one of the things that will get your comment edited on my blog, if you deviate from the point of the post.
ReplyDeleteMy responses were direct answers to your questions. You did not know what those answers meant, which you very humbly admitted. I had no reason not to answer, outside of suspicion. But even the question, "Do you believe in the Bible?", is such an open ended question these day given the hundreds of translations and versions. My reply should have been, "Which Bible?". So my mistake.
Actually they are akin to one another. Look up the etymology of curiosity some time.
More like potato, tomata. Mythology and lies are different things.
You're getting downright risible. The vast majority of people know exactly what you're talking about when you ask, "Do you believe the Bible?"
ReplyDeleteYour answers were lumbering, meandering flights of irrelevancy, designed not to answer the question, but the opposite -- and to display your, um, learnedness....
I was curious. Being curious is not the same thing as caring.
Myths, as you meant it, are untruths, another word for lies.
Do you believe in the book of Maccabees 1 and 2? Or how about The Idol Bel and the Dragon? Most people? A lot people think the KJV of the Bible is an accurate depiction of God's word.
ReplyDeleteMy answers answered your question. I cannot help it if you did not like the answers, or if you did not understand them, or knew what they meant.
Again, the words are akin to each other. If you are curious, your care about the answer. If you do not care what the answer, then what prompts the curiosity?
So now you know what I meant when I said, "You know a lot of those Roman-Christian Persecution stories are over-exaggerated and have no real evidence to support right?" Again, mythology, myths, Christian myths and lies, are not the same thing.
Your answers answered my questions? Well, they were replies to my questions, sure enough, but there were as many evasions as answers. They were not "direct."
ReplyDeleteYou came here throwing around your "scholarly" weight in response to my pop-culture reference to Christians and lions, which was a facetious comment meant to convey my impression of the hostility to white Christians in Andy Hall's comment on another blog.
In your second comment in that thread, posted on July 27, at 7:57 a.m., you said, "The last things I will say on this topic is..."
Since your "last things", you have posted 2725 words in 15 posts, most of which connected to this topic in one way or another. Throughout these two threads, your purpose has been to obfuscate, nitpick and denigrate.
Just consider "myths" and "lies" to be the same thing, the way you considered my comment "PC era" to be the same thing as "PC crowd." You dismissed my comment differentiating them with, "You use 'PC crowd' routinely," as if that somehow makes "PC era" and "PC crowd the same thing, and you follow that with, "let's not engage in such petty arguments." If correcting your errors is a petty argument, I will say that your correcting me on the difference between "myth" and "lies" is a petty argument.