Pray all you want, but

[Boris Godunov]

Back to the parsing game. Always an indication Berz is in a tizzy!

Originally posted by Berzerker
Boris -

Gee, what did Lector do when reading these accounts?

Gee, uh, I dunno...derive amusement?

Derive amusement?

Aha! Knew it.

So, who is deriving amusement?

Certainly nobody still reading this thread.

A movie character that doesn't even exist?

Doesn't exist?! And here I thought Lector was real and hiding under my bed! *phew*

Does Molly just think of Lector whenever a tragedy occurs to religious folk or was it that someone in this thread "appears" to be laughing at this tragedy just as Lector would be laughing?

Gee, or maybe, as I said before and you just blithely ignored, the focus of the statement was on the people sitting in the church and praying instead of fleeing disaster, which is reminiscent of the sad tale in your initial post, and not on the "amusement" part?

Shrill? I asked Molly to identify the person deriving amusement from this tragedy. Hardly shrill...

No, but you'll note I was referring to all your posts thereafter. Get to page two and you're as shrill as a cockatoo. (hey, that rhymed!)

Btw, refusing to acknowledge a mistake is not paranoia.

Oh, it can be--when one is for some reason so paranoid about admitting he was in error that he'll just make more and more strident attacks to defend his erroneous ways. It's also paranoia when you think that any post made by a particular poster is aimed at insulting or attacking you.

What mistake? We have 2 interpretations, you accept yours and I accept mine.

Except your interpretation is wrong, as Molly explained. But instead of saying "okay, I see you didn't mean it that way," you just went on and accused molly of lying about his intent. This is a common tactic for you, which is why I mentioned the thread with Doc S. It's better to be just accuse the world of lying than admit error, eh?

Why would I?

Track record?

Do you realise you've just contradicted yourself?

Did not.

And yes, Laurie Dhue said 9 years, not 9 months.

Well, sans proof, I can only adopt your mindset and just accuse you of lying here. Obviously, you're just a lying liar who deliberately put a false sentence length in to generate sympathy for a martyr for your cause. You can try to explicate your lies all you want, but they're still lies, lies, lies!

(Note: Above is satire, as was the ENTIRE reference to the Chong thread. Doi!)

So what should have I done, typed 9 months instead of what I heard her say?

The lies continue!

Oh stfu,

No! You stfu! Ya hear?! You! Mr. Libertarian tryin' to silence my rights!

Molly jumped into this thread to compare someone to Hannibal Lector

And, as has been established, that wasn't the case, since the intent wasn't to compare anyone to Lector, but rather to compare the situations of religious zealots dying because they don't have any common sense during disasters.

and started insulting me when I asked him to identify the "villain" so don't give me this sh!t about me being eager, etc.,

You're certainly right that molly responded with an unwarranted statement. My hunch is that, like your first response to him, he made a mistake about what your intent was. Now, if both of you had just stopped and realized your assumptions were both wrong, this could have been so much simpler

But even so, after that post in which molly did explain the Lector comment had no such significance, you continued to harp on it and accused him of lying about his intent. So the point still stands. Move past page one, dear.

all I've done is try to get Molly to identify the target of his insult.

An insult that wasn't there, as has he clearly explained!

And this is the first time I've gotten on Molly's case so I don't know what in the hell you're talking about.

I've seen you two tussle before. But at least you admit you were getting on his case.

First, how do you know I "falsely implied" Strangelove isn't a doctor?

Gee, duh, because I was there in the thread where it happened? I also remember your trying to weasel out of your implication then, too!

Have you seen his medical diploma?

Yes, he faxed it to me.

He also did state explicitely he was a doctor. Now, since you'd rather accuse someone who disagrees with you of being a liar than just accepting a medical doctor has a contrary opinion, that's up to you...

And it wasn't over his medical opinion, it was over his use of "reefer madness" style arguments in support of the drug war.

Oh brother. Again, if someone disagrees with you, they just must be lying! On the issue of legalization I don't agree with Doc S, but I'm not gonna just flat out refuse to believe what he's observed. That's because I'm not gonna be in denial that mj is harmless and all happy, happy, fun, fun.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

yeah. This line gets more effective everytime you use it against people who disagree.

Oh stop your BS! I'm not "vindictive" with people who disagree with me, just with people who start insulting me first.

Uh.uhuh wait, in the other thread, you were the first to attack Doc S--he wasn't even participating in the thread yet. So the Bs is clearly...yours!

Feel free to actually prove an accusation for a change.

I'll do so when you prove that Doc S isn't a doctor, or that molly was deliberately saying someone derived amusement from the deaths, or that it was a Democrat who egged Arnie. Prove your own accusations. Pot, kettle, black.

Here is what started the insult war and if you look close, it wasn't me:

And, as I said, molly's statement wasn't warranted, but neither was your continual harp on his Lector comment, which you made the focus of your subsequent attacks. If it was the second sentence you were so upset about, just stick with that instead of accusing him of lying about his intent on the former issue. Because otherwise, yes, you look like a paranoid, thin-skinned jerk.

That was a simple and polite question.

Polite? Not really. You can just tell your intent is mean and nasty. Bitter ol' you! You're just lying again about your own intentions!

(Note: satire again)

Yeah, Molly isn't here to insult anyone, it's all an honest mistake.

Nor did I say anything about that comment initially. I only brought up the Lector one. As I said above, the latter comment was unwarranted.

I suggest you read the thread before blabbing on about "vindictiveness" because that insult from Molly preceded any negative comments I made about him.

Derrrr thanks for the advice! But that doesn't explain your paranoid continuation to attack the Lector comment, deriving an intent that wasn't there. You're trying to revise the argument into being about the latter sentence, which isn't the case, since on page two you're blathering on:

Just giving others here enough credit to recognise your lies. And if I was omniscient then obviously I would know what others are thinking. Doh!

At least you could give us enough credit to see that you were still rambling on about the imagined Lector slur. You'll also note that my first post on the subject was only about the Lector comment, and you still went on about molly obviously lying about his intent in that regard. Yes, paranoia, m'dear!

Whining about me being "vindictive" while ignoring Molly's posts is hypocritical. Btw, that was quite a vindictive post there, Mr Consistency...

Oh ho ho. Vindictiveness had nothing to do with my posts. But I have no problem with calling you on a pattern in your attacks on people, wherein you don't accept contrary opinions, you just accuse the other side of being liars and wanting to hurt people. I just think it's sad that your worldview is so narrow that you can't stand people thinking you're wrong on an issue.

I meant to parse more, but that takes too much effort.

TTFN!

[JohnT]

You know, I feel that this whole flame war could've been avoided had I not verified that Lector did indeed make those comments.

The blame is mine. Can't we all just get along?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by JohnT
You know, I feel that this whole flame war could've been avoided had I not verified that Lector did indeed make those comments.

The blame is mine. Can't we all just get along?

Burn him!!!!

Seriously, I'm done. Berz can go through the effort of a dramatic parsing response, but I'm through with the whole deal.

I suspect it all could have been avoided if everyone, including myself, had cooled their jets and just, for once, not think the worst of intent from people.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by LoneWolf
Hey, the rabbit turd is back!!! Cool!!!!
These sorts of threads always intrigue me. If you don't believe, why do you care if others do? And if you do, (as I do), say what you believe and hope it sticks.

It's not an issue of caring what others believe. If you're allowed to state your belief, so is anyone else. But if you enter into a debate over the logic of your beliefs, you have to be prepared to defend them.

It reminds of when, years ago, Pat Robertson whined on TV that his religious beliefs were coming under attack. Well, Pat, that's because, instead of minding your own business and keeping your beliefs between you and your god, you chose to foist those beliefs unto other people via your political lobbying and campaigning. When religious beliefs are put into the political realm and can potentially effect non-believers, they are fair game for rational dissection.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Burn him!!!!

Seriously, I'm done.

Really?

Berz can go through the effort of a dramatic parsing response,

He's not the only one.

but I'm through with the whole deal.

Then why the next post?

I suspect it all could have been avoided

Suspect? You provide no evidence! You just want to destroy religion, you criminal!

if everyone,

You just like to lump us all together, huh?

including myself,

Oh, wait. Maybe not.

had cooled their jets

But what would've been the fun in that?

and just, for once, not think the worst of intent from people.

Boy, you are naive, aren't you?


( )

[mrmitchell]

To the topic: "God helps those who help themselves".

[Boris Godunov]

@ JohnT, c'est brillant

[Berzerker]

Boris -

You're certainly right that molly responded with an unwarranted statement.

So where's your condemnation? Yes, after I have to point out to you that his insults are what started this little flame war and after you launch a diatribe about me, he gets an "unwarranted" from you. Your selective indignation is hypocritical.

My hunch is that, like your first response to him, he made a mistake about what your intent was.

Really? But if I make a mistake I get a long diatribe about what a horrible person I am and Molly gets a pass even though he started the flame war here.

Now, if both of you had just stopped and realized your assumptions were both wrong, this could have been so much simpler

No, it would never had started if Molly hadn't resorted to insults instead of answering a simple question. That fact still isn't registering in your thought process because you're only interested in attacking me. And you complain about vindictiveness?

But even so, after that post in which molly did explain the Lector comment had no such significance, you continued to harp on it and accused him of lying about his intent. So the point still stands. Move past page one, dear.

Umm... that's when the flame war had already started.
And he lied about me in his first response so I was less inclined to accept his explanation as sincere.

Oh, it can be--when one is for some reason so paranoid about admitting he was in error that he'll just make more and more strident attacks to defend his erroneous ways. It's also paranoia when you think that any post made by a particular poster is aimed at insulting or attacking you.

But I explained early on (read the thread) that I didn't think Molly was accusing me of deriving amusement from this tragedy. And my "strident" attacks were in response to Molly's initiation of a flame war.

Except your interpretation is wrong, as Molly explained. But instead of saying "okay, I see you didn't mean it that way," you just went on and accused molly of lying about his intent.

After he lied about me, his later explanation became suspect to say the least.

This is a common tactic for you, which is why I mentioned the thread with Doc S. It's better to be just accuse the world of lying than admit error, eh?

Ah, 2 times is common now? Where did I ever accuse Strangelove of lying about his intent? I merely asked Ted if he really thought he was a doctor (and the humorous/satirical intent of my question, even the smilie, was obviously lost on you, hmm).

And, as I said, molly's statement wasn't warranted

After I pointed out that he started in with the insults, a fact you ignored when typing out your diatribe against me.

If it was the second sentence you were so upset about, just stick with that instead of accusing him of lying about his intent on the former issue. Because otherwise, yes, you look like a paranoid, thin-skinned jerk.

The second sentence is why I didn't accept his later explanation. But if you had read the thread, you'd see I NEVER accused Molly of insulting me with that comment about Lector. Do these facts matter to you?

Polite? Not really. You can just tell your intent is mean and nasty. Bitter ol' you! You're just lying again about your own intentions!

Satire or not, asking "who was amused" is a simple and polite question and his response was anything but simple or polite. But since that fact doesn't fit into your little vendetta, you'll dismiss the genesis of this dispute because it shows how hypocritical you're being.

Derrrr thanks for the advice! But that doesn't explain your paranoid continuation to attack the Lector comment, deriving an intent that wasn't there. You're trying to revise the argument into being about the latter sentence, which isn't the case

I'm not revising anything, I considered the first part of his initial response to be insulting and the second part to be a lie which is why I thought he was deceitfully rationalising with his explanation later in the thread. If you had read the thread you would have seen, even in my response to you, that I considered his comment about what "rights" people have to be a lie. You're the one who revised what happened by ignoring the fact that it wasn't me who started in with the insults and only "admitted" that fact after your diatribe against me and after I pointed out to you what actually happened.

At least you could give us enough credit to see that you were still rambling on about the imagined Lector slur. You'll also note that my first post on the subject was only about the Lector comment, and you still went on about molly obviously lying about his intent in that regard. Yes, paranoia, m'dear!

I was less inclined to accept his explanation after he dodged my question by lying about what I believe. Sinking in yet?

He also did state explicitely he was a doctor. Now, since you'd rather accuse someone who disagrees with you of being a liar than just accepting a medical doctor has a contrary opinion, that's up to you...

You're revising history again, Strangelove told me he was a doctor AFTER I asked Ted if he thought he was a doctor, not before. In previous discussions, the only comment I got from Strangelove was that he worked with addicts in rehab which could mean he was a therapist, a psyche, or any number of jobs in addition to doctor. I pointed that out the last time this matter came up but since it doesn't help your "vindictive" desires here, it too must be ignored.

I'll do so when you prove that Doc S isn't a doctor, or that molly was deliberately saying someone derived amusement from the deaths, or that it was a Democrat who egged Arnie. Prove your own accusations. Pot, kettle, black.

I've already accepted that Strangelove is a doctor, not because I've seen evidence, but to give him the benefit of the doubt. I've already accepted that Molly wasn't attacking anyone with that Lector comment. And I never said Arnie was egged by a Democrat, I said it must have been (an educated guess) a liberal Democrat and when pressed for evidence, I said it was my intuition based on evidence I supplied in that thread...evidence that was ignored by the person (was that you?) complaining about me. That person asked me if it was liberal Democrats who pied Nader and Willie Brown as if this was evidence it wasn't a liberal Democrat who egged Arnie and I supplied the proof that it was indeed a liberal organisation responsible for what happened to Brown and Nader. Now, prove your accusation.

Oh ho ho. Vindictiveness had nothing to do with my posts.

But I have no problem with calling you on a pattern in your attacks on people, wherein you don't accept contrary opinions, you just accuse the other side of being liars and wanting to hurt people.

If you've detected this pattern, why are you oblivious to the fact that this pattern almost always starts with someone insulting me? And Strangelove does want to hurt people, millions! He wants millions of people punished for personal behavior... Definitely strangelove...

I just think it's sad that your worldview is so narrow that you can't stand people thinking you're wrong on an issue.

How ironic, I've admitted being wrong in this thread, not you. Hell, all I can get out of you is that Molly's response was "unwarranted"! I've admitted being wrong in other threads too, did you admit being wrong in that thread about who pied Willie and Nader? Hey, we can start a myth, you never admit being wrong.

I've seen you two tussle before. But at least you admit you were getting on his case.

Molly and I have debated issues a few times, but contrary to your accusation, this is the first time I've even gotten on his case. But feel free to prove that one too...

I meant to parse more, but that takes too much effort.

Btw, you need to learn what the word means.

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris:

I didn't say he couldn't answer prayers, but that he wouldn't. The evidence seems to suggest that, if he's out there, he doesn't.

Nitpick. The crux of your argument is that God could not answer prayers without violating his omniscience.

I remember a funny quote from Scott Adams, with a garbageman as the smartest man in the world.

His reasoning is that when asked the question of why the smartest man in the world wanted to be a garbageman, he concludes, that because he is the smartest man in the world, we are in no position to question the decisions of the garbageman.

We do not understand omniscience, or how God can know everything, yet allow man a semblence of Free Will.

One thought that came into my mind, please drop it if is does not help. Suppose God knows everything in the past, present and in the future.

Everything in the future, depends on the events of the present. God sees all the possibilities that can come from our actions, but knows not which possibility will occur because we are free individuals.

Thus the timeline looks like a cone, with a large top, and a slender line representing the past, and an expanding point in the present.

There are many passages in the bible that affirm that God hears our prayers, and that some of them he answers. Why he answers some generally can be attributed to what God wants and not what we do, otherwise all our prayers would be answered.

As for this one tragedy, God seemed to offer an escape, but the man refused, since the answer did not match his expectations.

Again, I offer this explanation, though I do not have biblical evidence to support this argument. Take it or leave it as you may.

[Ben Kenobi]

UR:

How does the second part follow from the first?

God loves each one of us as a father does a son, in that he wants his sons to grow and develop to their full potential.

In this, the only way in which we can grow is through trial. If God did all of our homework, would we ever learn how to solve the problems? No. Therefore God allows us to stumble and make mistakes, so that we may learn.

[Berzerker]

Ben, if God is omniscient, and this is the same God of the Bible, why do we find ample evidence from the Bible that God is not omniscient? For example:

1) God has to call out to Adam and Eve to find them in the Garden before seeing that they had partaken of the Tree.

2) God has to question Cain to learn of Abel's demise.

3) God should have known what the Serpent would do in the Garden and therefore "set-up" Adam and Eve for a fall from grace.

4) God has to send messengers to investigate allegations of corruption in Sodom.

5) God agrees to a test proposed by Satan to see Job's reaction. A reaction God is not exactly happy with...

This evidence (and more) cannot be negated by claims that God is omniscient unless we reject the Bible as the source of our knowledge of God.

[Ben Kenobi]

Berz:

Two debates at the same time.

Next time, chapter and verse.

1) God has to call out to Adam and Eve to find them in the Garden before seeing that they had partaken of the Tree.

Genesis 3:8-11

"Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man, 'Where are you?' "
He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."
And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"


God knew Adam hid. God wants to know why Adam tried to hide from God, since God would immediately know where Adam hid, and Adam ought to know. To do so, God calls Adam out.


2) God has to question Cain to learn of Abel's demise.

Genesis 4:9-10

Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"
"I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"
The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.

If the blood cries out to God, why did he ask? To give Abel a chance to redeem himself.

3) God should have known what the Serpent would do in the Garden and therefore "set-up" Adam and Eve for a fall from grace.

No. Adam and Eve could have refused the serpent, yet did not. God chose to let the serpent into Eden to test the faithfulness of Adam and Eve.

4) God has to send messengers to investigate allegations of corruption in Sodom.

Gen 18:20-21

Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

By going to Sodom, requires personal intervention to see if the sin is as great as it seems, or whether the people will repent when confronted by God.

5) God agrees to a test proposed by Satan to see Job's reaction. A reaction God is not exactly happy with...

We had a long debate on this point earlier. God won, and Job regained his prosperity. Job never charged God with wrongdoing, although he cursed the day of his birth, he did so that he may never had to endure what he suffered. Nowhere did he blame God for his troubles.

What does this point have to do with omniscience?

[Berzerker]

Ben -

God knew Adam hid. God wants to know why Adam tried to hide from God, since God would immediately know where Adam hid, and Adam ought to know. To do so, God calls Adam out.

God didn't know Adam was hiding until Adam said he was hiding, and God wouldn't need to ask why he was hiding if God was omniscient. Now, the explanation I've heard for this curious incident is that God wanted Adam to admit all this and only played along as if God was ignorant, but given the evidence elsewhere in the Bible, this explanation is tenuous.

But the LORD God called to the man, 'Where are you?' "
He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

God asks, "where are you" and "who told you" and "have you eaten".

If the blood cries out to God, why did he ask? To give Abel a chance to redeem himself.

You mean Cain? I take that to mean God detected something in Cain's demeanor.

No. Adam and Eve could have refused the serpent, yet did not. God chose to let the serpent into Eden to test the faithfulness of Adam and Eve.

But this was a test an omniscient being would know could not be passed. In fact, what exactly did God say would happen if they ate from the Tree and what did the Serpent say would happen? Who was right? The Serpent - and we have even God's testimony to that fact.

By going to Sodom, requires personal intervention to see if the sin is as great as it seems, or whether the people will repent when confronted by God.

An omniscient being wouldn't need to investigate.

We had a long debate on this point earlier.

Is this Obiwan?

God won, and Job regained his prosperity. Job never charged God with wrongdoing, although he cursed the day of his birth, he did so that he may never had to endure what he suffered. Nowhere did he blame God for his troubles.

What does this point have to do with omniscience?

That doesn't explain why God felt the need to lecture Job if he passed the test. True, I cannot find a passage in which Job "curses God to his face" as Satan predicted (apparently both God and Satan are not omniscient), but to suggest Job passed the test raises the question as to why Job would need to repent at the end of the book.

[Ben Kenobi]

Is this Obiwan?

I wonder. Should I tell?

as to why Job would need to repent at the end of the book.

Start with the back...

Job 42:3-6

"Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.

"You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.'
My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes."

Why does Job repent? Look at that bit, 'now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I despise myself.'

Seeing God makes Job realise his sinfulness in comparison. Though an upstanding man, Job repents when exposed to the glory of God.

It's an excellent question Berz! I had not thought of that point before.

An omniscient being wouldn't need to investigate.

He does if he desires the people of Sodom to repent.

But this was a test an omniscient being would know could not be passed. In fact, what exactly did God say would happen if they ate from the Tree and what did the Serpent say would happen? Who was right? The Serpent - and we have even God's testimony to that fact.

Could it be passed? How hard is it to not eat of a tree filled with apples when you have an entire garden?

Your second question is not that tough. Did God say that they would die right away? No. I don't see why the serpent being correct takes anything away from God's omniscience.

Genesis 2:16-17

"You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

God asks, "where are you" and "who told you" and "have you eaten".

Yes, he wants to hear Adam's answer. Adam ends up passing the buck to Eve, and Eve to the serpent.

God didn't know Adam was hiding until Adam said he was hiding,

God makes the heavens and the Earth. Now God can't find Adam? Something's not adding up here.

but given the evidence elsewhere in the Bible, this explanation is tenuous.

Care to elaborate?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
It's not an issue of caring what others believe. If you're allowed to state your belief, so is anyone else. But if you enter into a debate over the logic of your beliefs, you have to be prepared to defend them.

It reminds of when, years ago, Pat Robertson whined on TV that his religious beliefs were coming under attack. Well, Pat, that's because, instead of minding your own business and keeping your beliefs between you and your god, you chose to foist those beliefs unto other people via your political lobbying and campaigning. When religious beliefs are put into the political realm and can potentially effect non-believers, they are fair game for rational dissection.

Another reason is many, many Christians proselytise. Some even do it in crooked ways, taking advantage of weaknesses and vulnerabilities in their victimstargets.

It's just fair that some of us are out to deconvert Christians.