You didn't address it. You didn't rebut it. You didn't acknowledge it. You didn't refute it. You did... nothing.
This is what I mean when I talk about unbiased scholars. This is someone who had every reason to cling to the traditional authorship of the epistles, but he refused to do it because he knew damn well the evidence did not support his position.
You, on the other hand, have none of this guy's scholarship credentials, haven't studied the material, and -- this is most significant -- you are not open to the possibility that you are wrong, even if the evidence establishes it.
That, again, makes it pointless to argue with you. What evidence can I show you to demonstrate that you should value evidence?
Your method of debate and discussion is simply dishonest.
You disagree with the notion that Paul was not the author of Colossians, yet you refuse to heed the advice IN Colossians, which warned of forgeries being written in his name.
It's folly to think it's impossible any of those forgeries made it into the Bible. Of COURSE it's possible. There's a warning RIGHT THERE.
But you're smarter than the Bible scholars, I guess. Unless you agree with them. That seems to be the relevant barometer.
The "evidence" you're propounding is nothing more than some other "intellectual's" interpretation of what's written. Apparently, because you decided to elevate their consortium of talent far above that of your own (or my) understanding of what is written, that is sufficient for you to determine and judge what is right and what is wrong.
Some people see and hear what is written with their mind.
Some people see and hear what is written with their heart.
And some people (the majority, perhaps) do neither of the above.
It's perfectly fine to disagree with something. Disagreement should be expected and welcomed in any valid discussion. However, it would be helpful in understanding your point of view if you would specify what you disagree with and explain why.
There's no point in rounding third base if first base is nowhere in sight.
I love how he puts "intellectuals" in quotes. Like there's nothing to be said for people who actually study the material and the sources as opposed to just listening to his evidence-dismissing heart about it.
Meanwhile Paul is the author of Colossians, and if he's not, God is, so what's the big deal. That gets emphatic support. A guy spends a lifetime educating himself on the issues and he's an "intellectual" in quotes, unworthy of TLC's attention.
...just listening to his evidence-dismissing heart about it.
go the foolish, accusatory, ad hominem rout all you want, Raf.
the fact is that you actually know incredibly little about me, my background, my educational experience, my intelligence quotient, my life or my heart.
Listen, you're the one who put "intellectual" in quotes, thus resorting to ad hominem against an educated scholar in the field we are discussing. Don't try to act like I'm the one getting personal.
And calling you "evidence-dismissing" is not an attack. It is an accurate description of your own stated method of approaching this material.
go the foolish, accusatory, ad hominem rout all you want, Raf.
the fact is that you actually know incredibly little about me, my background, my educational experience, my intelligence quotation, my life or my heart.
Why would that be? Perhaps because for whatever reason you have declined to establish for your readers here any background that would lend credibility to what you post here without you properly explaining said posting and responding to feedback indicating desire for you to clarify wtf you're talking about much of the time?
It's more profitable for him to attack me than it is for him to defend his position having already announced the evidence will not support his view.
We have so-called eyewitness testimony handed down from non-eyewitnesses buttressed by a fraud pretending to be someone he's not.
So criticize those who have the training and expertise to point out the truth. Criticize those who seek unbiased experts to separate history from propaganda. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Because when you have the law on your side you pound the law. When you have the facts on your side, you pound the facts. When neither is on your side, you pound the table.
Someone I follow on twitter posted the Chicken Little story this evening. I remember my dad telling me about Chicken Little maybe about 60 years ago. (preschool age)
I don't remember ever reading the entire fable (even though I might have). But it SO relates to so much in life I thought it might be worth sharing here.
Chicken Little likes to walk in the woods. She likes to look at the trees. She likes to smell the flowers. She likes to listen to the birds singing.
One day while she is walking an acorn falls from a tree, and hits the top of her little head.
- My, oh, my, the sky is falling. I must run and tell the lion about it, - says Chicken Little and begins to run.
She runs and runs. By and by she meets the hen.
- Where are you going? - asks the hen.
- Oh, Henny Penny, the sky is falling and I am going to the lion to tell him about it.
- How do you know it? - asks Henny Penny.
- It hit me on the head, so I know it must be so, - says Chicken Little.
- Let me go with you! - says Henny Penny. - Run, run.
So the two run and run until they meet Ducky Lucky.
- The sky is falling, - says Henny Penny. - We are going to the lion to tell him about it.
- How do you know that? - asks Ducky Lucky.
- It hit Chicken Little on the head, - says Henny Penny.
- May I come with you? - asks Ducky Lucky.
- Come, - says Henny Penny.
So all three of them run on and on until they meet Foxey Loxey.
- Where are you going? - asks Foxey Loxey.
- The sky is falling and we are going to the lion to tell him about it, - says Ducky Lucky.
- Do you know where he lives? - asks the fox.
- I don't, - says Chicken Little.
- I don't, - says Henny Penny.
- I don't, - says Ducky Lucky.
- I do, - says Foxey Loxey. - Come with me and I can show you the way.
He walks on and on until he comes to his den.
- Come right in, - says Foxey Loxey.
They all go in, but they never, never come out again.
Listen, you're the one who put "intellectual" in quotes, thus resorting to ad hominem against an educated scholar in the field we are discussing.
no chit, Sherlock. I suppose you've never misspoke or didn't bother to proofread something before posting because you were in a hurry.
And yes, putting intellectual in quotes was quite intentional, not as a way to denigrate his education as much as it was to categorically include him in the intelligentsia that has been at work since olden times to effectually dethrone the spirit and obfuscate the simplicity and love of the truth in so many of lesser mental acumen.
16 hours ago, Raf said:
And calling you "evidence-dismissing" is not an attack. It is an accurate description of your own stated method of approaching this material.
It is an affront to me, as you incessantly continue to twist and distort - or more bluntly, to outright lie about - what I have previously stated.
But, you do whatever you want here Raf. I don't have the time or concern to contend with your (or a few others here) inability to grasp another perspective on the matter...
And yes, putting intellectual in quotes was quite intentional, not as a way to denigrate his education as much as it was to categorically include him in the intelligentsia that has been at work since olden times to effectually dethrone the spirit and obfuscated the simplicity and love of the truth in so many of lessor mental acumen.
It is an affront on me, as you incessantly continue to twist and distort - or more bluntly, to outright lie about - what I have previously stated.
But, you do whatever you want here Raf. I don't have the time or concern to contend with your (or a few others here) inability to grasp another perspective on the matter...
Ya know, if you'd respond to requests to clarify what you mean, it would be more difficult to "twist and shout distort" what you "previously stated."
Like, the bolded words above, I have NO freakin' idea what you mean. Please clarify it. Or, if you prefer, I'll just say, sorry that I am deficient in my ability to read your mind now, since you seem (by practice) to be averse to taking responsibility for stating what you want to say in a way that anyone might actually be able to understand your intended meaning.
It is an affront to all of us that you claim not to have said what you said: relying on evidence will not lead to your conclusion. Those were your words. Do you include things as evidence that are not evidence at all, and berate me for not accepting it. The "guidance of the holy spirit" is not evidence. It's your chosen method to dismiss it. I am aware it makes me look like the bad guy when I say such things, but it needs to be said. "I know it in my heart" and "God has shown me" are nothing but appeals to emotion. Mocking people who have educated themselves and studied the material and have come to conclusions that are against their belief system as quote-unquote "intellectuals," making yourself the arbiter of who's right based solely on whether they agree with you... you want to talk about a fundamentally dishonest approach to this discussion? THAT'S a dishonest approach.
Truth: you have shown no interest in an honest examination of evidence. You do not address the evidence. You do not rebut it. You do not refute it. You simply get on your holy high horse and decree its lack of value by mocking the messengers.
"Andyes, putting intellectual in quotes was quite intentional, not as a way to denigrate his education as much as it was to categorically include him in the intelligentsia that has been at work since olden times to effectually dethronethe spirit and obfuscated the simplicity and love of the truth in somany of lessor mental acumen."
Ok, so let's be clear. TLC did not put intellectual in quotes to denigrate the scholar's education. Just to paint him as a tool of the devil. Let's not confuse the two. Because TLC has judged the heart of a priest who spent a lifetime serving people and studying the Bible with an open mind and heart (evidenced by reaching conclusions that are against his interest because that is where the evidence leads).
You dare judge this man's spirituality after falsely accusing me of being "clueless" about you when I... what were your words... "actually know incredibly little about me, my background, my educational experience, my intelligence quotient, my life or my heart."
Do you know anything about this man, his background, his educational experience, his intelligence quotient [nice correction there, genius. Don't think we didn't notice] his life or his heart before you brand him one in a long line of hoity toities who try to stop God from fooling stupid people?
But it's okay when you do it.
You know, if I called believers stupid half the number of times you have, I would be run out of this forum on a rail.
And yes, putting intellectual in quotes was quite intentional, not as a way to denigrate his education as much as it was to categorically include him in the intelligentsia that has been at work since olden times to effectually dethrone the spirit and obfuscated the simplicity and love of the truth in so many of lessor mental acumen.
You know, if I called believers stupid half the number of times you have, I would be run out of this forum on a rail.
Contrary to your perverted opinion, I don't consider or call believers (in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ) stupid. They do, however, have the spirit of Christ as means to provide additional information... which is something you incessantly equate to stupidity.
Someone I follow on twitter posted the Chicken Little story this evening. I remember my dad telling me about Chicken Little maybe about 60 years ago. (preschool age)
I don't remember ever reading the entire fable (even though I might have). But it SO relates to so much in life I thought it might be worth sharing here.
Chicken Little likes to walk in the woods. She likes to look at the trees. She likes to smell the flowers. She likes to listen to the birds singing.
One day while she is walking an acorn falls from a tree, and hits the top of her little head.
- My, oh, my, the sky is falling. I must run and tell the lion about it, - says Chicken Little and begins to run.
She runs and runs. By and by she meets the hen.
- Where are you going? - asks the hen.
- Oh, Henny Penny, the sky is falling and I am going to the lion to tell him about it.
- How do you know it? - asks Henny Penny.
- It hit me on the head, so I know it must be so, - says Chicken Little.
- Let me go with you! - says Henny Penny. - Run, run.
So the two run and run until they meet Ducky Lucky.
- The sky is falling, - says Henny Penny. - We are going to the lion to tell him about it.
- How do you know that? - asks Ducky Lucky.
- It hit Chicken Little on the head, - says Henny Penny.
- May I come with you? - asks Ducky Lucky.
- Come, - says Henny Penny.
So all three of them run on and on until they meet Foxey Loxey.
- Where are you going? - asks Foxey Loxey.
- The sky is falling and we are going to the lion to tell him about it, - says Ducky Lucky.
- Do you know where he lives? - asks the fox.
- I don't, - says Chicken Little.
- I don't, - says Henny Penny.
- I don't, - says Ducky Lucky.
- I do, - says Foxey Loxey. - Come with me and I can show you the way.
He walks on and on until he comes to his den.
- Come right in, - says Foxey Loxey.
They all go in, but they never, never come out again.
Any thoughts on how this relates?
I don't know. Learning from fiction is hard. I'd rather learn from stories about talking snakes and superheroes who lose their powers with a haircut.
Contrary to your perverted opinion, I don't consider or call believers (in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ) stupid. They do, however, have the spirit of Christ as means to provide additional information... which is what you incessantly equate to stupidity.
You constantly refer to them as people of lesser [note the spelling] mental acumen and distinguish them from those with intelligence. So, yeah, sorry, but the way communication works is, you're calling them stupid.
I'm going to start referring to people of faith as "those with lesser mental acumen" and see how long it takes for someone of lesser mental acumen to report me.
You constantly refer to them as people of lesser [note the spelling] mental acumen and distinguish them from those with intelligence. So, yeah, sorry, but the way communication works is, you're calling them stupid.
There's difference between merely being intelligent, and being part of the intelligentsia described in my previous post, which evidently you have either failed or refused to recognize.
There's difference between merely being intelligent, and being part of the intelligentsia described in my previous post, which evidently you have either failed or refused to recognize.
Can you briefly describe the difference and illustrate how it relates to the topic?
He acts like that's the only time he called believers stupid.
He actually said if God had provided adequate evidence, it would show "respect of persons," i.e., favoritism for intelligent people.
I am not taking you out of context, TLC, and I'm starting to resent your falsewitness. You wanna dig up the quotes and deny you said exactly what you said?
You don't value evidence, you don't value education, you don't have an argument to back up your position, so all you can do is bad-mouth the people who DO have the intelligence and the facts to support theirs.
Try a single post that actually addresses the points being made on this thread without attacking the spirituality (or lack thereof) of those who are demonstrating your position is full of dung.
If you can't do that, you're not really involved in this discussion. You're just trying to derail it because you can't handle where it's headed.
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
If you'd read it, then you would know that the false epistles' distortion of Paul's doctrine was already discussed. You don't address that. Nice try.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"I disagreed with it."
You didn't address it. You didn't rebut it. You didn't acknowledge it. You didn't refute it. You did... nothing.
This is what I mean when I talk about unbiased scholars. This is someone who had every reason to cling to the traditional authorship of the epistles, but he refused to do it because he knew damn well the evidence did not support his position.
You, on the other hand, have none of this guy's scholarship credentials, haven't studied the material, and -- this is most significant -- you are not open to the possibility that you are wrong, even if the evidence establishes it.
That, again, makes it pointless to argue with you. What evidence can I show you to demonstrate that you should value evidence?
Your method of debate and discussion is simply dishonest.
You disagree with the notion that Paul was not the author of Colossians, yet you refuse to heed the advice IN Colossians, which warned of forgeries being written in his name.
It's folly to think it's impossible any of those forgeries made it into the Bible. Of COURSE it's possible. There's a warning RIGHT THERE.
But you're smarter than the Bible scholars, I guess. Unless you agree with them. That seems to be the relevant barometer.
Whatever, dude.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
The "evidence" you're propounding is nothing more than some other "intellectual's" interpretation of what's written. Apparently, because you decided to elevate their consortium of talent far above that of your own (or my) understanding of what is written, that is sufficient for you to determine and judge what is right and what is wrong.
Some people see and hear what is written with their mind.
Edited by TLCSome people see and hear what is written with their heart.
And some people (the majority, perhaps) do neither of the above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
There's no point in rounding third base if first base is nowhere in sight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Dude's not even at bat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I love how he puts "intellectuals" in quotes. Like there's nothing to be said for people who actually study the material and the sources as opposed to just listening to his evidence-dismissing heart about it.
Meanwhile Paul is the author of Colossians, and if he's not, God is, so what's the big deal. That gets emphatic support. A guy spends a lifetime educating himself on the issues and he's an "intellectual" in quotes, unworthy of TLC's attention.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
go the foolish, accusatory, ad hominem rout all you want, Raf.
the fact is that you actually know incredibly little about me, my background, my educational experience, my intelligence quotient, my life or my heart.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That's "intelligence quotient," genius.
Listen, you're the one who put "intellectual" in quotes, thus resorting to ad hominem against an educated scholar in the field we are discussing. Don't try to act like I'm the one getting personal.
And calling you "evidence-dismissing" is not an attack. It is an accurate description of your own stated method of approaching this material.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I most appreciate your kindness and forbearance. Thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Why would that be? Perhaps because for whatever reason you have declined to establish for your readers here any background that would lend credibility to what you post here without you properly explaining said posting and responding to feedback indicating desire for you to clarify wtf you're talking about much of the time?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It's more profitable for him to attack me than it is for him to defend his position having already announced the evidence will not support his view.
We have so-called eyewitness testimony handed down from non-eyewitnesses buttressed by a fraud pretending to be someone he's not.
So criticize those who have the training and expertise to point out the truth. Criticize those who seek unbiased experts to separate history from propaganda. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Because when you have the law on your side you pound the law. When you have the facts on your side, you pound the facts. When neither is on your side, you pound the table.
TLC's table is already a pile of splinters.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Someone I follow on twitter posted the Chicken Little story this evening. I remember my dad telling me about Chicken Little maybe about 60 years ago. (preschool age)
I don't remember ever reading the entire fable (even though I might have). But it SO relates to so much in life I thought it might be worth sharing here.
Chicken Little likes to walk in the woods. She likes to look at the trees. She likes to smell the flowers. She likes to listen to the birds singing.
One day while she is walking an acorn falls from a tree, and hits the top of her little head.
- My, oh, my, the sky is falling. I must run and tell the lion about it, - says Chicken Little and begins to run.
She runs and runs. By and by she meets the hen.
- Where are you going? - asks the hen.
- Oh, Henny Penny, the sky is falling and I am going to the lion to tell him about it.
- How do you know it? - asks Henny Penny.
- It hit me on the head, so I know it must be so, - says Chicken Little.
- Let me go with you! - says Henny Penny. - Run, run.
So the two run and run until they meet Ducky Lucky.
- The sky is falling, - says Henny Penny. - We are going to the lion to tell him about it.
- How do you know that? - asks Ducky Lucky.
- It hit Chicken Little on the head, - says Henny Penny.
- May I come with you? - asks Ducky Lucky.
- Come, - says Henny Penny.
So all three of them run on and on until they meet Foxey Loxey.
- Where are you going? - asks Foxey Loxey.
- The sky is falling and we are going to the lion to tell him about it, - says Ducky Lucky.
- Do you know where he lives? - asks the fox.
- I don't, - says Chicken Little.
- I don't, - says Henny Penny.
- I don't, - says Ducky Lucky.
- I do, - says Foxey Loxey. - Come with me and I can show you the way.
He walks on and on until he comes to his den.
- Come right in, - says Foxey Loxey.
They all go in, but they never, never come out again.
Any thoughts on how this relates?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
no chit, Sherlock. I suppose you've never misspoke or didn't bother to proofread something before posting because you were in a hurry.
And yes, putting intellectual in quotes was quite intentional, not as a way to denigrate his education as much as it was to categorically include him in the intelligentsia that has been at work since olden times to effectually dethrone the spirit and obfuscate the simplicity and love of the truth in so many of lesser mental acumen.
It is an affront to me, as you incessantly continue to twist and distort - or more bluntly, to outright lie about - what I have previously stated.
But, you do whatever you want here Raf. I don't have the time or concern to contend with your (or a few others here) inability to grasp another perspective on the matter...
Edited by TLCfor the spelling genius, raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Ya know, if you'd respond to requests to clarify what you mean, it would be more difficult to "twist and
shoutdistort" what you "previously stated."Like, the bolded words above, I have NO freakin' idea what you mean. Please clarify it. Or, if you prefer, I'll just say, sorry that I am deficient in my ability to read your mind now, since you seem (by practice) to be averse to taking responsibility for stating what you want to say in a way that anyone might actually be able to understand your intended meaning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It is an affront to all of us that you claim not to have said what you said: relying on evidence will not lead to your conclusion. Those were your words. Do you include things as evidence that are not evidence at all, and berate me for not accepting it. The "guidance of the holy spirit" is not evidence. It's your chosen method to dismiss it. I am aware it makes me look like the bad guy when I say such things, but it needs to be said. "I know it in my heart" and "God has shown me" are nothing but appeals to emotion. Mocking people who have educated themselves and studied the material and have come to conclusions that are against their belief system as quote-unquote "intellectuals," making yourself the arbiter of who's right based solely on whether they agree with you... you want to talk about a fundamentally dishonest approach to this discussion? THAT'S a dishonest approach.
Truth: you have shown no interest in an honest examination of evidence. You do not address the evidence. You do not rebut it. You do not refute it. You simply get on your holy high horse and decree its lack of value by mocking the messengers.
Dodge. Distract. Anything but admit.
I've seen this movie before.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"And yes, putting intellectual in quotes was quite intentional, not as a way to denigrate his education as much as it was to categorically include him in the intelligentsia that has been at work since olden times to effectually dethronethe spirit and obfuscated the simplicity and love of the truth in so many of lessor mental acumen."
Ok, so let's be clear. TLC did not put intellectual in quotes to denigrate the scholar's education. Just to paint him as a tool of the devil. Let's not confuse the two. Because TLC has judged the heart of a priest who spent a lifetime serving people and studying the Bible with an open mind and heart (evidenced by reaching conclusions that are against his interest because that is where the evidence leads).
You dare judge this man's spirituality after falsely accusing me of being "clueless" about you when I... what were your words... "actually know incredibly little about me, my background, my educational experience, my intelligence quotient, my life or my heart."
Do you know anything about this man, his background, his educational experience, his intelligence quotient [nice correction there, genius. Don't think we didn't notice] his life or his heart before you brand him one in a long line of hoity toities who try to stop God from fooling stupid people?
But it's okay when you do it.
You know, if I called believers stupid half the number of times you have, I would be run out of this forum on a rail.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Hmmm. I think I might see the problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Contrary to your perverted opinion, I don't consider or call believers (in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ) stupid. They do, however, have the spirit of Christ as means to provide additional information... which is something you incessantly equate to stupidity.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't know. Learning from fiction is hard. I'd rather learn from stories about talking snakes and superheroes who lose their powers with a haircut.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You constantly refer to them as people of lesser [note the spelling] mental acumen and distinguish them from those with intelligence. So, yeah, sorry, but the way communication works is, you're calling them stupid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm going to start referring to people of faith as "those with lesser mental acumen" and see how long it takes for someone of lesser mental acumen to report me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
There's difference between merely being intelligent, and being part of the intelligentsia described in my previous post, which evidently you have either failed or refused to recognize.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Can you briefly describe the difference and illustrate how it relates to the topic?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
He acts like that's the only time he called believers stupid.
He actually said if God had provided adequate evidence, it would show "respect of persons," i.e., favoritism for intelligent people.
I am not taking you out of context, TLC, and I'm starting to resent your falsewitness. You wanna dig up the quotes and deny you said exactly what you said?
You don't value evidence, you don't value education, you don't have an argument to back up your position, so all you can do is bad-mouth the people who DO have the intelligence and the facts to support theirs.
Try a single post that actually addresses the points being made on this thread without attacking the spirituality (or lack thereof) of those who are demonstrating your position is full of dung.
If you can't do that, you're not really involved in this discussion. You're just trying to derail it because you can't handle where it's headed.
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.