So someone took to calling me a coward on the discussion thread for this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kkiyc0joHO8 (yes egoeimi3, I mean you) and I’m not standing for it. They posted this: (I will be sporking it; I’m in bold)
That forum offers more room to respond then this forum.. Dear computer illiterate. This is a private message, not a forum. but that is a cope-out What’s a cope-out? Is that like…a cop out? and a cowards way out. No, I just want you to summarize your argument so it doesn’t take up ten pages. U obviously live to have strenght Um…what? in numbers.. And you obviously live to ignore spellcheck. which I expected.. so i’m glad u can’t carry yourself without your buddies… My buddies? That’s odd. I’m a loner. like they say “birds of a feather flock together”… And ellipses seem to have flocked together here.
And future agreement.. believe me there won’t be any.. Wow, look at the optimism. and tell your own people The Chinese? The Kiwis? The Orlando Bloom fangirls? The dreamers? The historians? What do you mean by ‘my people’? that when they say I’m arrogant it’s funny how doublestand u can be like the others.. total silence on what Math said the other day. That can mean agreement. You called me arrogant first; just returning the favour, pal.
Why did they call me a coward? I refused to wade through more illiterate crap like what this person writes. At least on YouTube’s public forums, there is a character limit. Then, they switched to private messaging (no, egoeimi3, it’s not a ‘forum’. A forum is where multiple people discuss things in public.) and that has no limit, so he can write as much crap as he wants, going around in circles and bringing up all sorts of quotes from not-so-reliable sources.
This is the flame I sent him, in response to him calling me a coward. By then, all constraint was gone, and I’ll admit I was being a total uber-bitch:
Calling me a coward is the last straw. I am not afraid of your arguments, only of your atrocious grammar and spelling, which makes you look like a dyslexic thirteen year old. As if I don’t see enough teenaged girls who can’t spell trying to write. At least on the comment threads, you are limited to five hundred characters, which limits the amount of unintelligible illiterate trash I have to decipher before I can get to your argument.
I must wonder why you decided to take the debate to private messaging. Were you afraid of looking like an idiot on public forums? Reasonable, considering how well you performed.
You have yet to learn how to effectively persuade someone that they might be wrong, nor have you learned not to push the other debater…towards the opposite point of view. And you’re thirty-five? Please, teenaged girls under the influence of hormones can argue more eloquently. You think quoting makes you look learned? It doesn’t; it makes you look as if the only opinions you’ve got are the ones which have been spoon-fed to you.
I didn’t say anything about Mathenaut’s comment because I agree with it. You are arrogant; there it is. Every time I reply to someone else, you think the comment is for you, even though you probably did not receive the message in your inbox. I said ‘thanks’ to Mathenaut. You thought I was thanking you; how self-centered and arrogant is that? Why would I have *any* reason to thank you? I’m done with politeness, since you hardly showed any to me, calling me an arrogant neo right from the start, and now calling me a coward. Let’s just hope that your fellow believers aren’t like you, because that would give your cause a really bad look.
I’m glad I’m Catholic, because you are as backward as that of sixth century Europe. At least I won’t be tainted with the stigma of irrationality which sticks to you and your fellow sheep. If you represent the future of your country, then I’m not surprised you’re going into recession. I just pity the rest of the rational Americans who have to deal with you. God save the world from religious fanatics, and I’m not just talking about Al-Qaeda.
You may reply, but I won’t answer. I’ve got a novel to write, and honestly, there are better debate partners to be found. Literate ones.
I’ll give another example of how egoeimi3 writes:
Reading some of the things you said, this will be a better form.. What’s with the two random fullstops? to debate you which I surely don’t have a problem with it. because your logic is flawed.. let me quote what u said in one of your articles. Points, egoeimi3. I would hardly call something that has about a hundred words an ‘article’.
“Okay, let’s say that the world was created in seven days. Jesus said to forgive your enemies ‘not seven times, but seventy-seven times’. Does that mean I keep a tally, and stop forgiving people after I’ve done it seventy-seven times? Of course it doesn’t. What Jesus meant was that we had to keep on forgiving people over and over again. We have to forgive an infinite number of times. So if seventy-seven stands for ‘infinity’, then by logic, the seven days of creation, while they are shorter than infinity, actually means ‘a great number of days; too great to count.’”
I’m sure you know what pretexting is correct.. I thought pretexting was a bad thing? why did u pretext here using which I’m sure u know inproper interpetation and I’m sure u have heard of the art and science of interpetation.. Sorry, I have yet to learn to interpret what you are saying. being a literary writer doesn’t mean u are all of a sudden a theologian Never claimed I was. because u yourself have admitted u don’t know Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek, yet I see how easiy u are aplliing your understanding of lanugage use in your culture to the bible along with other presuppostions.. I wouldn’t dare to apply language use in my culture to anything, considering I can write about four words of Chinese. but I’m asking u to break this down properly that the “SEVEN DAYS” talked about in Genesis is the same style of writing mented in Jesus talking about ‘FORGIVENESS”. Egoeimi3, have you ever noticed that there are many styles of allegorical writing, and each writer has their own style?
Because here is the problem..
I know u are not saying that when someone mentions Jerusalam Jerusalem, unless you’re using some medieval form which I have not yet seen in the manuscripts. in the text. u won’t call that symbolic and not the real Jerusalam, Yes I would; don’t predict what I will say. so your blanket statement that the bible is a book of symbols isn’t logical.. Considering what I just said, your point is moot. u are cherry picking what is symbolic and what is not.. This point is moot too. without showing how the text u cherry pick and compare it to another is the same style of writing. Different writers have different styles of writing; get that through your head.
And u are doing this without know Aramiac, Hebrew, and or Greek.. And you do? just adding your own meanings to the words used without showing how it was understood to the culture and audience being spoken to. I have shown how the audience might have understood it. You just didn’t read those bits, I gather, or you didn’t understand them. (refer back to previous points I made on the discussion thread)
Easy example.. If I said “it’s raining cats and dogs out side” that doesn’t mean anything to a person who doesn’t know anything about the meaning I’m appliying to it. unless they know something about my culture and how we use that phrase.. and the same thing go’s for the biblical text.. u can quote Jesus, and Moses, but u have to show what the meanings are in that language not your languauge.. You know, those people who translated the Bible would have had to see to it that they did not write some sort of Pig-Latin, in other words, translate word for word, because not only would it not make literal sense, it would also not make any grammatical sense. They would make sure that the meaning was preserved, and that includes the symbolism.
That is what theologians are for.. because if that is the cause then u tell me the meaning of this. And as a free-thinking person, I have the right to doubt what theologians say.
but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.” Mal 1:3. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the person who wrote this didn’t like Esau’s descendants and justified this discrimination by saying ‘God willed it’?
Tell me it’s context, it’s meaning, what is being said.. break it down.. show me with your masterful literary expertise what this means….
And i’m interested in seeing ;your logics work when it comes to the biblical text.. if u are that good as u put forth.. then we need to set up a natiaonl debate with Hank Hanegraff, Who? which he will debate you.. so that will be the second step, and don’t back down like everyone that i have asked in the forum to debate their equals.. u don’t even have to waste your phone mins.. if u are willing to debate on national radio.. I’m all the way in the South Pacific, dude. I can hardly debate on U.S. national radio. Not everyone lives in the U.S., you know. all u have to do is call the toll free number and get it on.. Not toll free for me. but that is secondary to what I want to hear about your explination of how u compared to two verses to make Genesis sound like it is allogorical language by using another verse as u see it.. which is not proper in a theoloigal sense because they dont’ cross reference each other… If anyone can translate this sentence and explain it to me, I’ll be very grateful. It’s a bit hard to argue with someone when you can’t even understand what they’re saying because of language problems.
I’ll be posting more as time goes on, but I need to sort out which argument was in response to what, and so on and so forth. Egoeimi, feel free to comment as much as you like, but it’s only common courtesy to write in English, and not whatever strange mix of text language and something else that you like to throw at me.
