Defend the Second Amendment!

Doesn't make sense. why would Balbus' references be inferior or not in the same league as yours? No logic there just personal prejudice. And I didn't say anything about god I said the bible.

Sure they are if is a question of statistics. See how myopic your view?

This is taking quite the liberty. Who are you to say what answers anyone would appreciate? Who are you to decide what answers they deserve

How about you just say what you think and not try to judge what you think people deserve, including yourself. You can think yourself rude all you want but I don't take offense so it is truly your own difficulty about being straight forward that you imagine that you would be rude not to manipulate your answer in some way customized to your audience. Most deceitful the way you are approaching it, not to me but of yourself to imagine that you have everyone pegged to such a degree.

 

City stats on the internet. I.e. london vs. those I mentioned. Look it up, a phrase you are famous for. There are probably more. The point has been made regardless how nice you think some circumstance might appear.

 

[SIZE=10.5pt]What in the world are you talking [/SIZE]about? Balbus' references are inferior or not in the same league as mine? I have never said or even inferred such a thing and have in fact used them in my discussions with him. I hope you didn't strain yourself leaping to this conclusion.

[SIZE=10.5pt]And you know that I believe the Bible is the Word of God, so you should know that any time you reference the Bible I will understand it to mean you are talking about the Word of God.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Although statistics can be used to answer questions they are not answer in and of themselves. They are simply an accumulation of facts. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]See how myopic your view is?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]No it is not. I have not taken upon myself to decide anything of the kind. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]I just believe that one should extend the common courtesy of the personal touch of an individually crafted answer to the questions they have asked and not be given some cut and paste one size fits all answer that does not even address them as the unique individual they are. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]I'm sorry to hear that you don't [/SIZE]realize that how you treat others is who you are.

 

Although I have said "look it up", it is usually about something that is reasonably common knowledge and can be easily looked up or I tell them where they can look it up at.

If someone asks me to cite where I found something I usually will tell them unless I have a good reason not to.

And no, you have made no point.

 

[SIZE=11pt]Old [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The gods and fairies bit[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Do you mean Pistis who if I remember my Greek mythology she was a spirit (like an ancient Greek fairy or ghost) I’ll go and check[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][edit][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Yep here we go - PISTIS was the spirit (daimona[/SIZE]) of trust, honesty and good faith. She was one of the good spirits who escaped Pandora’s box and fled back to heaven abandoning mankind. Her Roman name was Fides, and her opposite number Apate (Deception) and the Pseudologoi (Lies).

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But we don’t live a thousand years ago so the description of faith in that dictionary as - “unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence” would seem more modern. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]It’s hard to have a memory of something that wasn’t said, but if it was said and I missed it can you say where the answer is? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Oh man that ‘hoot’ line was just a little jokey jib similar to your “Look, he can quote from a dictionary” jib earlier, aren’t you always telling me to not take it so personally LOL. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But if you are going to believe in one set of mythical supernatural beings like gods then why not believe in another set, like fairies, I mean there is no substance or evidence for either they are just stories that are made up by humans. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

it is all around you. Every thing around you is proof of God, every house is constructed by someone, but he that has constructed all things is God or are you one of those that believe that houses construct themselves?

[SIZE=11pt]No you believe [have faith] that everything around you is proof of your particular god, but that doesn’t make it so. But if you can produce this god of yours and it can prove scientifically that it is capable of such a thing I’ll concede. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]No I’m just saying you are being self servingly selective in your thinking. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]You’re saying that people that might think of themselves as Christians but do things that you think are not Christian are therefore not Christian.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The thing is that there are lots of Christian gods, all human inventions and all with differing attributes and views given to them by their followers so it is very easy and self serving of one sect to call another sect un-Christian - just as you are. [/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=11pt]Old[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Back to the thread[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]LOL I could say – “Why do you see the splinter in your brother's eye but not notice the log in your own”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I’m sorry but that just comes across like a case of sour grapes, the thing is that your arguments are not that original most have been presented many times and didn’t stand before. You have a good line in bluster and faux righteous indignation but your arguments are not up to much. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]#85 – the points raised were addressed in subsequent posts - people can go and look, I’m happy to stand on the record - it wasn’t anything I hadn’t heard before in one form or another, and it was not hard to address.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]#111 (I presume you mean 112 as 111 is by 6-eye?) this is just another in the sequence and was addressed[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]#132 (I presume you mean 133 as 132 is by Meagain?) that is another in the same sequence and was addressed[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]#225 (I presume you mean 226 as 225 is by me) and once again it was addressed [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]It is incredibly disingenuous if not damned right dishonest to suggest that you have raised counter arguments that have been addressed as if they hadn’t.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The things you raised didn’t seem to stand and they are now passed - that is unless you wish to raise them again and then we will only get the repetition you claim to dislike. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I mean you ask why I keep repeating answers - well for this very reason because people like you keep bring up stuff that has already been addressed as if it hadn’t. [/SIZE]

And none so deaf as those that will not hear (to continue your paraphrasing of Jeremiah 5:21)

[SIZE=11pt]I’m not refusing to hear or see – but from the example above if anything it seems to be you who’s decided not to see the inconvenient or listen to anything but your own voice. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]. [/SIZE]

 

I forgot you that you are too lazy to actually make any effort to participate in a discussion with someone, so here I'll do it for you.

Here is the actual definition of the word from Strong's Concordance;
pistis: faith, faithfulness
Original Word: πίστις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: pistis
Phonetic Spelling: (pis'-tis)
Short Definition: faith, belief, trust
Definition: faith, belief, trust, confidence; fidelity, faithfulness.

I would have thought you would know that the Bible is not written in English but in Greek and so when the the definition of a word in English changes it does not change the meaning of the word in Greek. As I have already pointed out πίστις was defined as "the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld" by the Bible over a thousand years ago and that definition has not changed no matter how the English word's definition has changed.

As for using "updated" versions of words because it would "seem more modern", if you are reading a book from the eighteen hundreds and encounter the words gay and queer and apply the modern definitions you are seriously not going to understand what you are reading. Likewise your application of modern definitions to a book thousands of years old is going to make you misunderstand what is being said.

 

How is my situation different from yours. The statistics I quote are within the realm of reasonable common knowledge and can be easily looked up on the internet. What ever could your good reason be. Mine is simply I already took the time to look up the information. You question it's source it's your question to satisfy yourself on. But anyway I wouldn't want to make it more difficult for you to understand things you have difficulty with to begin with.
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Seattle-Washington.html
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Providence-Rhode-Island.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London
Yes I have made the point that you compare apples and oranges in your use of statistics and you think you are comparing on an equal basis.

Here is murder by gun statistics for the two countries us and england,

United Kingdom

0.25 (2010)











United States

10.30 (2011)



numbers again per 100000

 

http://www.biblepages.net/hh09.htm

again with the myopic understanding and the comparison of apples and oranges.
You are wrong. The bibles definition expounds on the definition of the greek word for communication of the whole biblical meaning.
The definition of the greek word is not the assurance of things hoped for nor the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld, but lies in your first and simplest definition.
Here is the actual definition of the word from Strong's Concordance;
pistis: faith, faithfulness
Original Word: πίστις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: pistis
Phonetic Spelling: (pis'-tis)
Short Definition: faith, belief, trust
Definition: faith, belief, trust, confidence; fidelity, faithfulness.

Peri fucking od!

You amplify meaning of the greek word in a specific way by the definition provided by, paul?.
So you are talking about actual definition vs biblical exposition.

 

It was said, as I have pointed out above.

Oh, sorry, I didn't know you had changed the rules again or are they only changed for you? When you change them again in the future, please let us know, so we can all get on board.

I couldn't help but notice that you seem to avoid questions that you are asked. Let me ask again; are you one of those that believe that houses construct themselves?

Yeah, right, the creator of the Universe is at my beck and call so that I can produce him so you can poke and prod him. Now that is funny.

Yeah you can say it but once again I remind you just saying something, even repeating it does not make it so.

Once again, if someone steals your identity does that make them you? If they commit crimes using your name, does that mean that you did them or approved of those crimes? If you say is wasn't me and you are told; "aren't you just being self serving selective", what would you say to that?

No there is only one God, creator of of the universe and he is not a human invention, humans are his invention.

The Bible plainly lays out how to tell if someone is a christian or not, if a person is trying to fit that description they are a christian, if they murder someone they are not even trying to fit that description and thus can no longer be considered a christian. The term sect is not even applicable, you are either a foot step follower of the Christ or you are not.

 

Old

Oh LOL so I’m guessing you didn’t know it was a Greek spirit fairy, so you’ve gone all huffy.

The biblical thing, so you didn’t know it was originally a Greek spirit fairy?

Yes and a Greek spirit fairy but so what if it is the word for faith , here is faith in a number of other languages. Glaube, fidi, fede, usko,

In the Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon, Pistis is defined as meaning ‘trust in others’ (Herodotus) and in a commercial sense ‘credit’ (Demosthenes)

You saying you believe the Old Testament was originally written in Greek, sorry I’d have to disagree.

Well if might have been defined by the bible but that’s not the definition in the Collins dictionary or the Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon

You can stamp your foot all you want but you can't demand that we all accept only your definition of pistis and faith, when there are others.

And as I’ve said you can hope all you want that doesn’t mean any evidence for your god exists.

Simple, you use the appropriate definition; all I’m saying is that to me and the Collins dictionary the appropriate definition of faith can be an “unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence”

 

Really what is the description? That ye love one another. Period. The mind that is in christ is in you or it is not. No such mind is lively apparent in you even though you have strongly held beliefs about christ. Doesn't mean that the divine spark is not present just that it has not been liberated from your judgmental ignorance.
All you have to show is your take on the bible. The bible plainly says etc... you demonstrate no first hand understanding of christ, which by the way is anointed authority. Until you yourself become authoritative you are not authority on anything. So if you will hold them to your standard I will hold you to christ's, for as you do to the least you do also to me as I am like him. When we see christ we shall be like him. You use what you think the bible says as a way to condemn those as out laws that don't agree with your take. Really getting weary of your judgmental crap.

If you think I am judging you you are mistaken, I am reflecting back to you the nature of your own determinations for the sake of honest rendering of the subject you put forward as though you are an authority. You have the capacity to change your mind and the indwelling of the holy spirit has the capacity to change how you perceive the world.

 

Old

Then it should be easy to point out?

What the hell are you talking about what rule changes, where?

LOL I’m an atheist, I’ve told you several times.

So as I said all you have is your belief [faith] that everything around you is proof of your particular god, but that doesn’t make it so.

No there have and is lots of gods, old ones like Horus, Zeus, Mars or Thor and the many modern ones – for example let’s take the Christian gods, there is the catholic ones and the protestant ones, the one that loves gays and the one that thinks them an abhorrence, the one that wants women priests and the on that doesn’t, the one that encourages genocide and the one that says love thee neighbour and so on and so on.

Then there are the Hindus gods which one of them is 'the only one'...Oh and humans are just a creatures that happened to evolve over many millions of years.

[SIZE=11pt]Here is a few of the mass killing in the bible committed either directly by this god or by its agents or at its behest - [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]1. The Flood [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]2. The cities of the plain, including Sodom and Gomorrah [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]3. The Egyptian firstborn sons during the Passover [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]4. The Canaanites under Moses and Joshua [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]5. The Amalekites annihilated by Saul [/SIZE]

This god commands “Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

 

Some one stole your christian identity? Sorry to hear that, what are you ever to do without your identity?

 

6-eye

Thank you – the cartoon perfectly represents the fear (even in supposed humour) that I’m pointing out - some seem to fear that armed people will come to their door and because of that fear they feel they need to have a gun.

 

Does that mean that you’re assuming that I don’t see the “log in my own” eye or are you just randomly quoting scripture?

In any case, just saying I have a log in my eye does nothing to remove the splinter in your eye now does it?

Personally I’m interested in what you have to say, can you say the same?

That is why I even brought up your whole cut and paste one size fits all “discussion” technique in the first place. Not to belittle you as you seem to imagine but to get some fresh views on what you believe.

I really don’t care if my arguments are “original” or not but saying they not original does in any way invalidate them, like you seem to think.

And I have to return the compliment; You also have “a good line in bluster and faux righteous indignation but your arguments are not up to much”.

I’m not sure what is happening but just went back and checked and all the numbers I cited to you are my posts on my computer, sorry for the inconvenience.

Actually it is you that is being [SIZE=11pt]disingenuous, you said that you have seen any [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]counter arguments[/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]raised and I was just pointing out that many [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]counter arguments had been raised. [/SIZE]

Whether you addressed them and whether you addressed them effectively is another question altogether.

A fine example your dismissive attitude toward what others have to say.

Another good example of what I’ve been saying. It seems you don't even try to listen to what other have to say.

If you want to repeat yourself from time to time that’s fine with me but it is your dismissive cut and paste one size fits all “debate” technique that you hide behind that talking about.

[SIZE=12pt]Yep[/SIZE]

Honestly, from the examples I've given above, it seems you turned your mind off years ago.

Hello anyone there?

 

[SIZE=12pt]Old[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Sorry man but your reply has nothing of any substance in it, its only function seeming to be for you to tell me I’m a bad person that turned my mind off years ago.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Honestly if you want to regurgitate the argument you raised in Post 85 go ahead it will just mean we take a step back and forces me to repeat my relies. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I’d say to people and yourself – why not go back and read the posts and then if you or they have anything new to raise then it can be raised and maybe we can move forward. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I mean have you anything new to add to that argument? [/SIZE]

 

Yeah we are here. You do not compute.

 

And this from someone who got all “huffy” because I couldn’t figure out that when you said “rick”, you meant risk.

Yes and a Greek spirit fairy fits so well into the fact we were talking about faith.

As for this; “here is faith in a number of other languages. Glaube, fidi, fede, usko”, since we are talking about a Greek word being translated into an English word, I’m not sure what citing the word faith in other languages has to do with any thing.

Okay, since we are not talking about a commercial sense, let’s go with “trust in others”, did it also happen to mention that it was a ‘trust in others’ without any reason to trust them, as you seem to be saying it is?

I have to compliment you on your somewhat persistent attempts to deflect discussions away from things you don’t want to address.

Hebrew, Aramaic (a language related to Hebrew) and common (koi‧ne′) Greek were originally used to write various parts of the Bible, the “New Testament” was written almost entirely in Greek with only few exceptions. English was not used to write any of the Bible because it did not exist at the time.

Now the definition of faith, that I pointed to you is found at Hebrews 11:1 and that particular scripture was written by Paul in Greek.

And again both written fairly recently compared to the Bible and are influenced by relatively “modern” thinking and definitions.

You are the only one who seems to be stamping their feet; me, I find the whole discussion mildly amusing.

I'm not demanding anything and it is not my definition; the question of the definition of faith, in this instance, is a religious one and the Bible plainly provides its own definition of faith at Hebrews 11:1, so it is the Bible’s definition not mine.

Once again I ask you the simple question, you continue avoid; Do you believe houses build themselves?

Now you are not even listening to yourself; “you use the appropriate definition” and wouldn’t that "appropriate definition" be the definition from the book itself, instead of a definition from another source some 2000 years later?