Here on ET, your opinion is just as valid as mine even though you likely have only a tiny percentage of the experience with the Bible as I. Uh, failed experience with the Bible... Doh! That's why they are called failed theists... Double Doh! Time spent in an endeavor failing, means little in terms of expertise. Triple Doh! I doubt someone who wanted success in trading would go to a trader who had spent 20 years full time trading, yet failed in learning how to trade for their "expertise" in trading... Quadruple Doh! Why as a failed theist you continue to think you understand the Bible the way it should be understood, or that you read the words as they were meant to be read, or that your take on the Bible is somehow relevant escapes me... Based on this "logic" we should go to someone who is a failed theist who has spent 2 or 3 times the amount of time you have with the Bible for expertise in it. Really silly Turok, really damed silly... Someone lost in the woods for a day, or their entire life, is still lost in the woods and can't find their way out...
============= Turok; Maybe James Bond was not too enthused about Jay advertising himself as a ''punk'' And while i agree with much of what you wrote; all the people in Hebrews 11 [Hebrew hall of fame ]never read the new testament]. All of them did know[memorized perhaps] some Word and had a realtionship with the living Word Jesus himself came to Israel when the new testament hadnt been written at the time.
You: Ad hominem attacks. Me: Par for the course from Turok when his confused failed theist thinking is exposed.
I'm impressed with your Bible experience, Turok. But don't you think the two posts quoted here contradict each other?
JB3 >I'm impressed with your Bible experience, >Turok. But don't you think the two posts >quoted here contradict each other? JB3, you're quite a smart guy -- I say that very sincerely. I've read enough of your posts to know this. With this in mind, I truly don't understand how we got here and why you have taken this position... Read that first quote again. Is there anything in that quote that implies that Bakker and Brown don't have the right to state their position? No. The writer simply believes that their conclusions are flawed and asks (perhaps rhetorically, perhaps sincerely) if the writers actually covered the supplied study materials. I agree with the writer that Bakker's conclusions are flawed and state so leading up to posting the quote. However, I SPECIFICALLY state that Jay has the right to whatever conclusion he comes to and that I have no problem whatsoever with that right. From your following post: >..."Who said that you're the final authority on >what the biblical version of christianity is?" Now, it's important to notice my response to the above, it's key to you understanding my position. Me: >That's right... who said? In other words, "I sure as hell didn't set myself up as the final authority, I'm just a anonymous poster on ET with an opinion". So to repeat your question: >...don't you think the two posts quoted >here contradict each other No, we're all just people with opinions and we all have equal rights to state them (and to a great degree, even live by them). Jay has the right to his and I have the right to mine. Now, just for clarity, let me emphasize what I was referring to as your "hypocrisy". In your response you say: >...it is quite clear that your opinion is >inconsistent with the Bible and then immediately follow with: >..."Who said that you're the final authority on >what the biblical version of christianity is?" Now talk about contradiction (or hypocrisy) JB3 -- those two statements have it in spades. In other words... Turok: "I believe 'A'". JB3: "You're wrong -- "B" is clearly correct". JB3: "and BTW, who the F*** made you the expert?" See the conflict? Here in ET, I have just as much right to be the the expert as you do. Peace. JB
You have the right to speak as a failed theist, as that is your stature. Posing as having expertise on the Bible, beyond being one who has failed to continue to have faith in it would be dishonest. All kinds of arguments can be put forth why you decided to renounce your faith, but each argument leaves you in the status of a failed theist, who has no expertise in the Bible but failure to sustain faith in the Bible. We could take a computer that had speech software built into it, such that it could "speak" English. We computerized speech commonly now. We could then take some OCR software and scan in the Bible, such that the Bible was now digitized, and the computer could then fully recite the Bible. Would the computer now be a theist because it could 'read' the Bible and recite it repetitively? LOL! Just because you were a mindless child who read or repeated the Bible, or mimicked the take of your elders, doesn't mean that you understood what you were actually reading or talking about as a child, and now that you have rejected that path and renounced whatever faith you had in the Bible...makes your "expertise" not in the Bible, but and expert in your own experiences, which are not that of a theist, nor one who consciously reads and accepts the Bible as true on the basis of faith. You could argue that faith is a waste of time, that the words of the Bible are what matter, but such arguments run counter to the common understanding of that scripture needs to be taken on faith, not read by a dry detached or angry intellectual materialistic point of view in order to understand the Bible. You are like the computer that can recite the words, but has no real understanding of the meaning of the words as they were intended to be taken, on faith. The computer is not an expert on the Bible, and neither are you in your failed theist status. Do you have a right to continue to make a fool of yourself by claiming to have expertise in the Bible because of your past history? You betcha...
Because you were quoting in an approving manner a fundamentalist point of view. Fundamentalism is harmful and needs to be fought everywhere you see them. 1. Don't put words I didn't say in my quotes. 2. I'm glad you see the conflict. That was the point of my post. Unfortunately you were determined to attack it rather than seeing the irony in it. You should set your snark detector at a higher dial.
Me: >... I truly don't understand how we got >here and why you have taken this position... JB3: >Because you were quoting in an approving >manner a fundamentalist point of view. >Fundamentalism is harmful and needs to be >fought everywhere you see them. Your response is actually just another example of how you don't understand the problem -- my issue with you is one of logic and has nothing to do with subject matter (thus my "A" and "B" hypo in my last post). We could have been discussing the latest company report from YHOO and your response (if written the same) would have contained the same logical flaw/hypocrisy. Oh well. >1. Don't put words I didn't say in my quotes. I certainly don't intend to do such. In fact, I can't find where I did (other than in my latest hypo where it was clearly intro'd as such). I'd be happy for you to show me where I mis-quoted you and you will receive a prompt apology. >2. I'm glad you see the conflict. That was >the point of my post. LOL -- if you saying that I see the conflict in my post -- well, you'd be throwing straw (and demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension). There was and remains no conflict in my original statement The conflict I refer to in my last post is YOURS. (the hypocrisy). As an end to all this, Jem and I are pretty much mortal enemies on this forum (exaggeration of course), but I certainly understand why he is struggling with your thought process over on that other thread -- you like to zig and zag to cover your ass and you REALLY don't read what people write, but assume what you like. You get the last word. peace and moving on. JB PS: Since I can't find it, if you don't respond with the post where I "put words you didn't say in your quotes" I will just assume you were "snarking".