So, you want everyone to believe he was just plain stupid? I guess not.
However, you must have overlooked part of my previous post.
Here it is again (in case you missed it):
However, evidently most (or all) that have posted here think pretty much the same of it (i.e., don't believe it did happen, and thinks anyone who believes it did was either tricked or fooled into it, or simply is a fool.)
"So, you want everyone to believe he was just plain stupid?"
I literally said the opposite of that.
I never said he was a fool. But gullible? Sure! You say that about the followers of literally every religion other than your own! You believe Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon on Golden Plates? How gullible are you? You believe Mohammad flew to heaven on a winged horse? How gullible are you? You believe Buddha did this, Confucius did that, Thor did the other thing? Oh my God. Scientologists believe WHAT?
You have no problem dismissing the claims of every other religion except your own.
Everyone can fall victim to gullibility (a point that was raised earlier in a post by Rocky). EVERYONE. No matter how intelligent. No matter how skeptical. No matter how discerning. It doesn't make people stupid. It makes us human. My kid still believes in Santa. He's not stupid (and he's figuring it out on his own, by the way, which I think is awesome). My wife never told her daughters "the truth" about Santa. They're in their 20s now. They play along. But they figured it out.
There is nothing "foolish" about faith. I have never called anyone here stupid or foolish (at least not without a reprimand). I know many believers who are brilliant. That doesn't make what they believe true.
Whether the specific people you mentioned actually existed or not, real people in the first century became Christians, and they weren't stupid.
You know what they were? Superstitious as f---. Seriously, how did Paul convert those very people. By appealing to the statue of the "unknown God" that they had erected, just in case they missed someone in all the statues they had erected. Huh? How gullible do you have to be to believe in the gods of Greek mythology? But they did, and they were just as smart when they believed in Zeus and Apollo as they were when they believed in Yahweh and the resurrected Y'shua.
I have absolutely no doubt that there are a great many very reasonable, logically put together, and highly intelligent reasons not to believe, Raf. In fact, aside from the one mentioned below (bold letters - obviously my emphasis), I suppose it would be rather difficult for anyone to make much of kind of sense of it (or case for it.) So, if you want to throw out scripture in its entirety, well... seems you simply (and more honestly) have virtually nothing left to think through or ponder. The door is shut.
Acts 17
[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
[12] Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
you know, i am sick and tired of your misreprentations. I did not say throw all scripture out. I said you cannot use scripture to prove itself.
That Exodus and Noah's flood did not happen are historical facts. They do not entail throwing all scripture out. David, for example, probably existed. Solomon almost certainly did. Nebuchadnezzar absolutely did.
The book of Daniel actually does record some history. Daniel himself is a fictional character.
Psalms and Proverbs make no historical claims. The Prophets contain some stories that in all likelihood actually happened (probably not Jonah, which we can explore separately if you wish).
But I never said toss out all scripture and I would seriously appreciate it if you would STOP LYING ABOUT ME.
As for the rest of your ignorant comment: i have done nothing but produce evidence for my position, which itself required me to change my mind and abandon decades of preconceived notions.
To suggest that I'm the one who has "shut the door" on examining the evidence with an open mind and heart is the height of hypocrisy. YOU are the one who has stubbornly shut the door refusing to consider evidence that conflicts with the myths you hold dear.
By the way, why would the Bereans search the scriptures to see if the resurrection was a historical event?
Wouldn't there be, you know, evidence? I mean, what were they looking at scriptures for? They weren't looking at Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, or Acts.
So... prophecies? No one is saying there were no prophecies. But prophecies don't prove the resurrection happened [the topic of this thread].
Again, the fact that people believed Paul does not entail that the things Paul taught were true. People believe con men all the time.
The truth of what someone teaches is independent of who is doing the teaching and whether anyone or everyone believes it.
The truth emerging from your scripture citations is that you're abandoning any pretense of argument and are instead appealing to piety as a substitute for the examination of evidence. That tactic might work if we were discussing what the Bible means. But it is pointless in a conversation where one side isn't impressed by the admonition of scripture to revere scripture because scripture said so. Scripture is not evidence of itself. It is a claim. The evidence either supports the claim, refutes it, or is neutral.
it is possible to construct a strong, evidence-based argument for the resurrection. I praised one earlier in this thread. But quoting scriptures to shame non believers for not revering scripture as the arbiter of truth would be like me accusing you of paying insufficient homage to the Q'uran while evaluating the claims of Islam.
Might work on another Muslim, but only a jackass would think it sways you at all.
I asked to see how you (or others here) might actually think of it or answer, not merely to hear or read of something elsewhere.
Campbell goes into great detail, explaining what it is that people are seeking, as well as the whys and hows. Trying to summarize it with a few posts on this thread would do great injustice to him and his work. Are you not at least interested enough to look at Campbell's work yourself and offer a personal observation?
edit: Youtube has dozens, maybe hundreds of clips with Campbell. Some are as short as 3-4 minutes. The ones with Bill Moyer are especially good.
Because that truth is hard wired in all of us. The Jesus story/myth is one expression of that truth. And truth that cannot be summed up in words, only in part, and therefore not in a thread. (And that does not make it a con either.)
Because that truth is hard wired in all of us. The Jesus story/myth is one expression of that truth. And truth that cannot be summed up in words, only in part, and therefore not in a thread. (And that does not make it a con either.)
As I understand from Campbell.
It's the desire or need for it to be true that's hardwired in us. That's not really what this thread is looking at. This thread is considering the reality of it being an actual, historic event.
The power of myth, the resonance of these stories, does not make them true in the historical sense. Perseus was never sent in a crate down a river anymore than Moses was, and vice versa.
The Jesus myth is an expression of a lot of things, but historical truth is not one of them.
Campbell goes into great detail, explaining what it is that people are seeking, as well as the whys and hows. Trying to summarize it with a few posts on this thread would do great injustice to him and his work. Are you not at least interested enough to look at Campbell's work yourself and offer a personal observation?
edit: Youtube has dozens, maybe hundreds of clips with Campbell. Some are as short as 3-4 minutes. The ones with Bill Moyer are especially good.
Seems you missed my point. There was no need to do much more than glance at his work to gather you (and others here) see it (the resurrection) as being nothing more than a myth. However, I see it from a far different perspective. (And it's not as if I'm completely ignorant of psychology. For a time, I eyed psychiatry as a prospective career.)
Seems you missed my point. There was no need to do much more than glance at his work to gather you (and others here) see it (the resurrection) as being nothing more than a myth. However, I see it from a far different perspective. (And it's not as if I'm completely ignorant of psychology. For a time, I eyed psychiatry as a prospective career.)
I am totally in AWE of your intellectual prowess.
Nevertheless, you may have had a very hard time in fields related to psychology or psychiatry given your apparent difficulty with the communication process (i.e. listening skills).
Seems you missed my point. There was no need to do much more than glance at his work to gather you (and others here) see it (the resurrection) as being nothing more than a myth. However, I see it from a far different perspective. (And it's not as if I'm completely ignorant of psychology. For a time, I eyed psychiatry as a prospective career.)
Then again, maybe it's you who missed my point. If you had taken a few minutes to look at what I suggested you would have seen that Campbell's work is not explicitly about Jesus or any other specific narrative.It's about Man's need to give meaning to the seemingly unexplainable.
Literally not one person here used Campbell's work as the basis for the conclusion that the resurrection is a myth. Not one.
It is an event that either happened in history or did not.
If you believe the gospels and Acts preserve history, that is your prerogative. I disagree and articulated why. TLC's rebuttals called for accepting, as evidence, that which cannot be discerned from the senses. TLC also questioned my motives for disputing the gospel and scriptural accounts [ie, I just want to toss out scripture].
The problem with questioning my motives is, even if you are correct to do so, it does not alter the evidence. Luke is still unreliable on history and not above inventing miraculous tales [nativity, esp. its timing]. I'll cite more on request.
The problem with evidence that doesn't come by the senses is that there's no way to test it or even confirm its existence. Every single religion without exception claims some form of non-senses evidence. On what basis do you accept one religion's extrasensory claims over another's? You can't do it without engaging in circular reasoning. That is, testing it against the Bible assumes the Bible to be true, but that is what we're questioning in the first place. The thing with a falsifiable thesis is, if you assume it is NOT true, the evidence will still lead back to it.
Then again, maybe it's you who missed my point. If you had taken a few minutes to look at what I suggested you would have seen that Campbell's work is not explicitly about Jesus or any other specific narrative.It's about Man's need to give meaning to the seemingly unexplainable.
I did look at it, as plainly stated in my last post.
you know, i am sick and tired of your misreprentations.
and I yours... given how you repeatedly lie about what I post, and twist what I say. Evidently it's impossible for you (an investigative reporter ?) to see it from my perspective. Yet, you continually get bent out of shape when I call you on it., as if you're perfect and never do the very thing you persistently accuse me of doing.
For instance, here a sampling of spin from your last exhale:
6 hours ago, Raf said:
Literally not one person here used Campbell's work as the basis for the conclusion that the resurrection is a myth. Not one.
You know I never said that. Not that you said I did, but that is what is implied. That's spin. Or twist. Call it whatever you want.
6 hours ago, Raf said:
TLC's rebuttals called for accepting, as evidence, that which cannot be discerned from the senses.
That's about as close to a lie as it gets. In fact, I said nearly the opposite. That (possibly by design) there was no evidence for believing it, but that there were reasons. Furthermore, I plainly stated that in spite of this lack of evidence, "This doesn't mean that there is absolutely nothing left to evaluate for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not something (i.e., the resurrection) happened." But you set about to put your own spin on that earlier post (somewhere on page 10) to make it look like I was trying to present "non-evidence" as evidence. So it appears that you have a difficult time comprehending the difference between what is deemed to be evidence and what all can, might, and/or does fall into the category of "reasons."
6 hours ago, Raf said:
TLC also questioned my motives for disputing the gospel and scriptural accounts [ie, I just want to toss out scripture].
More spin, and an (implied) lie. How so? By conveniently (probably intentionally) leaving a word or two - or even the entire context - (see below, in red) out of what I actually said.
On 4/25/2019 at 5:50 PM, TLC said:
I have absolutely no doubt that there are a great many very reasonable, logically put together, and highly intelligent reasons not to believe, Raf. In fact, aside from the one mentioned below (bold letters - obviously my emphasis), I suppose it would be rather difficult for anyone to make much of kind of sense of it (or case for it.) So, if you want to throw out scripture in its entirety, well... seems you simply (and more honestly) have virtually nothing left to think through or ponder. The door is shut.
Acts 17
[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
[12] Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
Furthermore, I actually don't care much about what does or doesn't motivate you, so the only reason I might have for questioning or doubting your motives might be if I thought you were trying to conceal or mask them. Maybe I'm missing something from an earlier post, but quite frankly, I just don't recall that being the case anywhere in this thread, and I don't know why you're so insistent on saying I did question your motives. To put it bluntly, they seem rather obvious.
6 hours ago, Raf said:
The problem with evidence that doesn't come by the senses is that there's no way to test it or even confirm its existence.
Care to explain exactly what "evidence that doesn't come by the senses" it is that you think I've talked about or tried to present here as evidence? Probably not.
So, Ignore or spin this however you want, it won't change what it actually says:
On 4/10/2019 at 8:20 AM, TLC said:
Frankly, it was so ridiculous to me that anyone would say or might think that the "proof" (or evidence, if you prefer) they have for the resurrection is obtained by revelation (which was plainly alluded to), that I'm inclined to think your own chosen verbiage (i.e., "spiritual insight") and view of it probably isn't much different.
Keep on playing games with what I've said and claim you don't twist or spin them into something else if you want... but don't expect me not to call you on it.
Nevertheless, you may have had a very hard time in fields related to psychology or psychiatry given your apparent difficulty with the communication process (i.e. listening skills).
I'll let readers judge who is accurately reflecting the conversation and who's constantly distorting what other people say because he can't defend his own position using evidence.
That's about as close to a lie as it gets. In fact, I said nearly the opposite. That (possibly by design) there was no evidence for believing it, but that there were reasons. Furthermore, I plainly stated that in spite of this lack of evidence, "This doesn't mean that there is absolutely nothing left to evaluate for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not something (i.e., the resurrection) happened." But you set about to put your own spin on that earlier post (somewhere on page 10) to make it look like I was trying to present "non-evidence" as evidence. So it appears that you have a difficult time comprehending the difference between what is deemed to be evidence and what all can, might, and/or does fall into the category of "reasons."
More spin, and an (implied) lie. How so? By conveniently (probably intentionally) leaving a word or two - or even the entire context - (see below, in red) out of what I actually said.
Furthermore, I actually don't care much about what does or doesn't motivate you, so the only reason I might have for questioning or doubting your motives might be if I thought you were trying to conceal or mask them. Maybe I'm missing something from an earlier post, but quite frankly, I just don't recall that being the case anywhere in this thread, and I don't know why you're so insistent on saying I did question your motives. To put it bluntly, they seem rather obvious.
Care to explain exactly what "evidence that doesn't come by the senses" it is that you think I've talked about or tried to present here as evidence? Probably not.
So, Ignore or spin this however you want, it won't change what it actually says:
Keep on playing games with what I've said and claim you don't twist or spin them into something else if you want... but don't expect me not to call you on it.
Dude, you can make those statements, but they lack integrity. Whenever (yes, every time) anyone asks for clarification, you state they are twisting or spinning your words, as opposed to you trying to clarify so the reader might possibly come closer to understanding your intended message.
Further, when a reader responds with what s/he does understand you to have intended to mean, you jump on them for intentionally misunderstanding... or "playing games with what I've said..." (rather than, "sorry, that's not what I meant. Let me see if I can present it another way that might make more sense to you")
One seems to only be able to reasonably deduce that you are either toying with people here or are more dense than the densest diamond that's ever been found.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
161
58
35
61
Popular Days
Apr 23
28
Apr 24
24
Mar 9
19
Apr 6
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 161 posts
Rocky 58 posts
waysider 35 posts
TLC 61 posts
Popular Days
Apr 23 2019
28 posts
Apr 24 2019
24 posts
Mar 9 2019
19 posts
Apr 6 2019
18 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
If you are asking this question in earnest, you might want to consider exploring the works of Joseph Campbell.... The Power of Myth/The Hero's Journey/ etc. etc. etc. The Hero With A Thous
Raf
Tell me there's another way to read this (and by all means, go to the original post. I'm truly not doing the "evidence" part justice). Why would God deliberately make it harder for smart people t
Raf
Ok, TLC. Look, if you want to make this thread about your stamp of approval on our questions and answers, you go ahead and do that. I am deeply sorry that you do not have the patience or con
Posted Images
Raf
"So, you want everyone to believe he was just plain stupid?"
I literally said the opposite of that.
I never said he was a fool. But gullible? Sure! You say that about the followers of literally every religion other than your own! You believe Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon on Golden Plates? How gullible are you? You believe Mohammad flew to heaven on a winged horse? How gullible are you? You believe Buddha did this, Confucius did that, Thor did the other thing? Oh my God. Scientologists believe WHAT?
You have no problem dismissing the claims of every other religion except your own.
Everyone can fall victim to gullibility (a point that was raised earlier in a post by Rocky). EVERYONE. No matter how intelligent. No matter how skeptical. No matter how discerning. It doesn't make people stupid. It makes us human. My kid still believes in Santa. He's not stupid (and he's figuring it out on his own, by the way, which I think is awesome). My wife never told her daughters "the truth" about Santa. They're in their 20s now. They play along. But they figured it out.
There is nothing "foolish" about faith. I have never called anyone here stupid or foolish (at least not without a reprimand). I know many believers who are brilliant. That doesn't make what they believe true.
Whether the specific people you mentioned actually existed or not, real people in the first century became Christians, and they weren't stupid.
You know what they were? Superstitious as f---. Seriously, how did Paul convert those very people. By appealing to the statue of the "unknown God" that they had erected, just in case they missed someone in all the statues they had erected. Huh? How gullible do you have to be to believe in the gods of Greek mythology? But they did, and they were just as smart when they believed in Zeus and Apollo as they were when they believed in Yahweh and the resurrected Y'shua.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I have absolutely no doubt that there are a great many very reasonable, logically put together, and highly intelligent reasons not to believe, Raf. In fact, aside from the one mentioned below (bold letters - obviously my emphasis), I suppose it would be rather difficult for anyone to make much of kind of sense of it (or case for it.) So, if you want to throw out scripture in its entirety, well... seems you simply (and more honestly) have virtually nothing left to think through or ponder. The door is shut.
Acts 17
[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
[12] Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
you know, i am sick and tired of your misreprentations. I did not say throw all scripture out. I said you cannot use scripture to prove itself.
That Exodus and Noah's flood did not happen are historical facts. They do not entail throwing all scripture out. David, for example, probably existed. Solomon almost certainly did. Nebuchadnezzar absolutely did.
The book of Daniel actually does record some history. Daniel himself is a fictional character.
Psalms and Proverbs make no historical claims. The Prophets contain some stories that in all likelihood actually happened (probably not Jonah, which we can explore separately if you wish).
But I never said toss out all scripture and I would seriously appreciate it if you would STOP LYING ABOUT ME.
As for the rest of your ignorant comment: i have done nothing but produce evidence for my position, which itself required me to change my mind and abandon decades of preconceived notions.
To suggest that I'm the one who has "shut the door" on examining the evidence with an open mind and heart is the height of hypocrisy. YOU are the one who has stubbornly shut the door refusing to consider evidence that conflicts with the myths you hold dear.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
By the way, why would the Bereans search the scriptures to see if the resurrection was a historical event?
Wouldn't there be, you know, evidence? I mean, what were they looking at scriptures for? They weren't looking at Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, or Acts.
So... prophecies? No one is saying there were no prophecies. But prophecies don't prove the resurrection happened [the topic of this thread].
Again, the fact that people believed Paul does not entail that the things Paul taught were true. People believe con men all the time.
The truth of what someone teaches is independent of who is doing the teaching and whether anyone or everyone believes it.
The truth emerging from your scripture citations is that you're abandoning any pretense of argument and are instead appealing to piety as a substitute for the examination of evidence. That tactic might work if we were discussing what the Bible means. But it is pointless in a conversation where one side isn't impressed by the admonition of scripture to revere scripture because scripture said so. Scripture is not evidence of itself. It is a claim. The evidence either supports the claim, refutes it, or is neutral.
it is possible to construct a strong, evidence-based argument for the resurrection. I praised one earlier in this thread. But quoting scriptures to shame non believers for not revering scripture as the arbiter of truth would be like me accusing you of paying insufficient homage to the Q'uran while evaluating the claims of Islam.
Might work on another Muslim, but only a jackass would think it sways you at all.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Campbell goes into great detail, explaining what it is that people are seeking, as well as the whys and hows. Trying to summarize it with a few posts on this thread would do great injustice to him and his work. Are you not at least interested enough to look at Campbell's work yourself and offer a personal observation?
edit: Youtube has dozens, maybe hundreds of clips with Campbell. Some are as short as 3-4 minutes. The ones with Bill Moyer are especially good.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
https://www.netflix.com/title/70281117
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Thanks, Mr. B.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Did Jesus rise from the dead?
Yes. . . .
Because that truth is hard wired in all of us. The Jesus story/myth is one expression of that truth. And truth that cannot be summed up in words, only in part, and therefore not in a thread. (And that does not make it a con either.)
As I understand from Campbell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It's the desire or need for it to be true that's hardwired in us. That's not really what this thread is looking at. This thread is considering the reality of it being an actual, historic event.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
We have now entered the horsesh*t as evidence phase of this discussion
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Like snow on the camel humps?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Jesus rose from the dead as surely as Gandalf did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The power of myth, the resonance of these stories, does not make them true in the historical sense. Perseus was never sent in a crate down a river anymore than Moses was, and vice versa.
The Jesus myth is an expression of a lot of things, but historical truth is not one of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Seems you missed my point. There was no need to do much more than glance at his work to gather you (and others here) see it (the resurrection) as being nothing more than a myth. However, I see it from a far different perspective. (And it's not as if I'm completely ignorant of psychology. For a time, I eyed psychiatry as a prospective career.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I am totally in AWE of your intellectual prowess.
Nevertheless, you may have had a very hard time in fields related to psychology or psychiatry given your apparent difficulty with the communication process (i.e. listening skills).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Then again, maybe it's you who missed my point. If you had taken a few minutes to look at what I suggested you would have seen that Campbell's work is not explicitly about Jesus or any other specific narrative.It's about Man's need to give meaning to the seemingly unexplainable.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Literally not one person here used Campbell's work as the basis for the conclusion that the resurrection is a myth. Not one.
It is an event that either happened in history or did not.
If you believe the gospels and Acts preserve history, that is your prerogative. I disagree and articulated why. TLC's rebuttals called for accepting, as evidence, that which cannot be discerned from the senses. TLC also questioned my motives for disputing the gospel and scriptural accounts [ie, I just want to toss out scripture].
The problem with questioning my motives is, even if you are correct to do so, it does not alter the evidence. Luke is still unreliable on history and not above inventing miraculous tales [nativity, esp. its timing]. I'll cite more on request.
The problem with evidence that doesn't come by the senses is that there's no way to test it or even confirm its existence. Every single religion without exception claims some form of non-senses evidence. On what basis do you accept one religion's extrasensory claims over another's? You can't do it without engaging in circular reasoning. That is, testing it against the Bible assumes the Bible to be true, but that is what we're questioning in the first place. The thing with a falsifiable thesis is, if you assume it is NOT true, the evidence will still lead back to it.
That is how evidence works
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I did look at it, as plainly stated in my last post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
and I yours... given how you repeatedly lie about what I post, and twist what I say. Evidently it's impossible for you (an investigative reporter ?) to see it from my perspective. Yet, you continually get bent out of shape when I call you on it., as if you're perfect and never do the very thing you persistently accuse me of doing.
For instance, here a sampling of spin from your last exhale:
You know I never said that. Not that you said I did, but that is what is implied. That's spin. Or twist. Call it whatever you want.
That's about as close to a lie as it gets. In fact, I said nearly the opposite. That (possibly by design) there was no evidence for believing it, but that there were reasons. Furthermore, I plainly stated that in spite of this lack of evidence, "This doesn't mean that there is absolutely nothing left to evaluate for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not something (i.e., the resurrection) happened." But you set about to put your own spin on that earlier post (somewhere on page 10) to make it look like I was trying to present "non-evidence" as evidence. So it appears that you have a difficult time comprehending the difference between what is deemed to be evidence and what all can, might, and/or does fall into the category of "reasons."
More spin, and an (implied) lie. How so? By conveniently (probably intentionally) leaving a word or two - or even the entire context - (see below, in red) out of what I actually said.
Furthermore, I actually don't care much about what does or doesn't motivate you, so the only reason I might have for questioning or doubting your motives might be if I thought you were trying to conceal or mask them. Maybe I'm missing something from an earlier post, but quite frankly, I just don't recall that being the case anywhere in this thread, and I don't know why you're so insistent on saying I did question your motives. To put it bluntly, they seem rather obvious.
Care to explain exactly what "evidence that doesn't come by the senses" it is that you think I've talked about or tried to present here as evidence? Probably not.
So, Ignore or spin this however you want, it won't change what it actually says:
Keep on playing games with what I've said and claim you don't twist or spin them into something else if you want... but don't expect me not to call you on it.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Sarcasm gotten you far in life, has it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'll let readers judge who is accurately reflecting the conversation and who's constantly distorting what other people say because he can't defend his own position using evidence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Dude, you can make those statements, but they lack integrity. Whenever (yes, every time) anyone asks for clarification, you state they are twisting or spinning your words, as opposed to you trying to clarify so the reader might possibly come closer to understanding your intended message.
Edited by RockyFurther, when a reader responds with what s/he does understand you to have intended to mean, you jump on them for intentionally misunderstanding... or "playing games with what I've said..." (rather than, "sorry, that's not what I meant. Let me see if I can present it another way that might make more sense to you")
One seems to only be able to reasonably deduce that you are either toying with people here or are more dense than the densest diamond that's ever been found.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Don’t windmills cause brain cancer???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
My best witness is Christians who know full well I have accurately represented TLC's views and false accusations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.