Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Grammar
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 61 of 105 (47253)
07-24-2003 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by mike the wiz
07-23-2003 10:13 PM


"shall I interprate [sic] my own words for you even more?"
No, Mike, there's no need for that. All you need to do is to put them in intelligible sentences. That seems to be quite a challenge for you already.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2003 10:13 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 62 of 105 (47350)
07-24-2003 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by mike the wiz
07-23-2003 8:05 PM


quote:
Gee sorry moma, all I meant by that is you ask me questions then dissapear, and howw do you know my mind is barren ? have you been in my mind?
I ask you questions and then disappear?
Are you sure you have that right, Mike?
Are you sure it's not the other way around?
Of course, you may not disappear.
Much of the time you just avoid answering.
Anyway, perhaps you could point me to the answers you have given to questions of mine that I have neglected. I'd be happy to address anything I've left hanging, just let me know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2003 8:05 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 105 (47403)
07-25-2003 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by mike the wiz
07-23-2003 10:13 PM


Mike, you got out of the difficulty by saying...
... if those in leviticus were without sin?
This was your rebuttal to my post #56. Let me fill in the blanks for you.
1) Levitical laws demand punishment by death.
2) Jesus teaches "Let he who has no sin... "
3) Everyone has sin.
4) So the question I asked was "Who was intended to carry out God's commands?"
5) You respond with the statement quoted above.
6) How in hell does this make sense? You really can't have it both ways.
quote:
so you did fail to understand as I thought you might, what I am saying is that a good person is incapable killing or hurting someone
I don't buy that. There are times when a good person needs to beat the crap out of someone-- say, to foil a rape.
quote:
and since 'he without sin can cast the first stone' and only Jesus is without sin? do you get it?
Mike, think about your position. God gives us COMMANDS in Leviticus. If we do not follow those commands, are we not disobeying God? If we DO follow those commands, we are violating Jesus' maxim. So what gives?
And why the objection? You are saying exactly what I suggested-- that God gave the commands knowing that no one would follow them. Now, NOT doing what God says has in some twisted way become DOING God's will. What is the point of God giving laws at all?
Look... there are basically two cases.
1) Follow the OT laws. You can't fault someone for doing precisely what God stated explicitly. Can you? However, doing what God stated violates what Jesus teaches.
2) Do not follow the OT laws. Now we are following Christ, but NOT DOING what God told us to do.
We loose in each case. It is pretty simple.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2003 10:13 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by mike the wiz, posted 07-25-2003 11:27 AM John has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 64 of 105 (47407)
07-25-2003 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by John
07-25-2003 10:28 AM


'2) Do not follow the OT laws. Now we are following Christ, but NOT DOING what God told us to do. '
OR we can win by first reading the OT then if we are concerned about killing someone, we can look at the 'main' law, 'Thou shalt not kill'
and if we are still concerned then we can look at what God himself said when he came to fulfill the scripture, 'let he without sin cast the first stone'. S o if we think for a minute- 'hang on a minute, God said when with us, no eye for an eye anymore? no killing but loving? And since he is the fullfilling of the OT ? do we listen or follow his previous teaching? and even if we do follow the previous teaching we are not without sin to do this? Do you know what I am getting at?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by John, posted 07-25-2003 10:28 AM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by zephyr, posted 07-25-2003 2:01 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 65 of 105 (47446)
07-25-2003 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by mike the wiz
07-25-2003 11:27 AM


quote:
OR we can win by first reading the OT then if we are concerned about killing someone, we can look at the 'main' law, 'Thou shalt not kill'
and if we are still concerned then we can look at what God himself said when he came to fulfill the scripture, 'let he without sin cast the first stone'. S o if we think for a minute- 'hang on a minute, God said when with us, no eye for an eye anymore? no killing but loving? And since he is the fullfilling of the OT ? do we listen or follow his previous teaching? and even if we do follow the previous teaching we are not without sin to do this? Do you know what I am getting at?
I think the main point here is that you're being sensible in your approach to the Bible, but you're not being a literalist. You're using your (God-given, you might say) reasoning abilities to take input from the text, evaluate and weigh various parts, prioritize them (i.e. discard those that are contradicted and outweighed by others) and assemble a coherent whole, a set of beliefs, in your head. This is such a natural human action that you don't even seem to realize you're doing it. But you are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by mike the wiz, posted 07-25-2003 11:27 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by IrishRockhound, posted 07-25-2003 3:57 PM zephyr has not replied
 Message 74 by Jake22, posted 07-28-2003 7:43 PM zephyr has not replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 66 of 105 (47464)
07-25-2003 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by zephyr
07-25-2003 2:01 PM


I can't understand how you can apply sound reasoning to something like this mike, but when it comes to an old Earth you stick your head in the sand?
Look, the fact that the Earth is old is not going to somehow destroy your faith. If you believe in God then what are you afraid of? Is taking the Bible literally an integral part of your belief? If you have an unshakeable faith in God and Jesus then the wording of the Bible shouldn't matter a damn - you should just be happy that you have that faith supporting you every day.
If you are willing to hear me out, I'd like to try to convince you that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. But if you've decided already that there's nothing that can change your mind, please let me know.
Would a little grammar be too much to ask for too? I don't know about anyone else but your posts are very hard to read.
The Rock Hound
------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by zephyr, posted 07-25-2003 2:01 PM zephyr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by mike the wiz, posted 07-26-2003 8:48 PM IrishRockhound has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 67 of 105 (47544)
07-26-2003 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by IrishRockhound
07-25-2003 3:57 PM


Dear Irishrochhound, I am pleased to hear you want to explain about an old earth. I will definately hear you out.
'Would a little grammar be too much to ask for too?'
Please point out or suggest what is so bad about my grammar and I will try my best to change it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by IrishRockhound, posted 07-25-2003 3:57 PM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by mike the wiz, posted 07-27-2003 5:38 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 89 by IrishRockhound, posted 07-31-2003 8:49 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 68 of 105 (47597)
07-27-2003 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by mike the wiz
07-26-2003 8:48 PM


'Would a little grammar be too much to ask for too?'
There are too many 'too' in this sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by mike the wiz, posted 07-26-2003 8:48 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by NosyNed, posted 07-28-2003 3:11 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 70 by Parasomnium, posted 07-28-2003 3:55 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 69 of 105 (47649)
07-28-2003 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by mike the wiz
07-27-2003 5:38 PM


LOL LOL, good one , mike

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by mike the wiz, posted 07-27-2003 5:38 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 70 of 105 (47652)
07-28-2003 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by mike the wiz
07-27-2003 5:38 PM


" 'Would a little grammar be too much to ask for too?'
There are too many 'too' in this sentence.
"
Grammatically speaking, that's not true. IrishRockhound asked for one thing (for Mike to hear him out) and then for another thing (a little grammar). He seems concerned that it is too much to ask to be heard out. He is also concerned that a little grammar is too much to ask. Hence the second 'too'.
Stylistically speaking however, IrishRockhound's sentence is a bit lame. Better would have been: "Would a little grammar be too much to ask for as well?" or "Also, would a little grammar be too much to ask for?"
Mike, your grammar isn't all that bad (everybody is entitled to a few mistakes now and then) but you could work on your interpunction. A comma here and there would do wonders for the readability of your posts. Full stops also come in handy sometimes.
Cheers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by mike the wiz, posted 07-27-2003 5:38 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by John, posted 07-28-2003 8:55 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 105 (47688)
07-28-2003 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Parasomnium
07-28-2003 3:55 AM


quote:
"Also, would a little grammar be too much to ask for?"
Warning! Warning! Dangling 'for.'
Perhaps, "Also, would it be too much to ask for a little grammar?"
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Parasomnium, posted 07-28-2003 3:55 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Parasomnium, posted 07-28-2003 10:17 AM John has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 72 of 105 (47703)
07-28-2003 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by John
07-28-2003 8:55 AM


I wasn't aware that the word 'for' could dangle, but then, I didn't learn English in the very state where Bushisms originate and where everything should be expressed in as non-dangling a way as possible, lest the locals don't understand and respond in the only manner they deem appropriate, being the pointing in one's face of the business end of a rather nasty appliance, locally known as a 'gun', asking in complete oblivion "What you leavin' this 'ere 'for' danglin' for, mister?"
Not being in the immediate presence of Texans with guns, in a non-virtual way that is, I say: live and let dangle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by John, posted 07-28-2003 8:55 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Rrhain, posted 07-28-2003 1:51 PM Parasomnium has not replied
 Message 75 by John, posted 07-29-2003 10:29 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 73 of 105 (47755)
07-28-2003 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Parasomnium
07-28-2003 10:17 AM


Parasomnium responds to John:
quote:
I wasn't aware that the word 'for' could dangle,
Well, it is a preposition and it is generally considered good grammar not to end a sentence with a preposition. Of course, this leads to constructions that seem extremly stilted. The classic example being, "That is the sort of behaviour up with which I will not put!"
A joke along those lines:
A good ole boy gets accepted to Harvard. Being new, he gets a little lost and asks someone, "Where's the library at?" The Harvardite (or is it "Harvardian"?) sniffs back, "At Harvard, we do not end our sentences with prepositions." The good ole boy retorts, "Fine: Where's the library at, asshole?"
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Parasomnium, posted 07-28-2003 10:17 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Coragyps, posted 07-29-2003 12:43 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Jake22
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 105 (47782)
07-28-2003 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by zephyr
07-25-2003 2:01 PM


I think the discussion may be over, but I'll offer my input anyway . As far as Leviticus and Jesus contradicting, the standard Christian view is that they don't do so at all. Paul writes that we're delivered from the Mosaic Law, as it is through Jesus and not the Law that we're now justified. To the Christian, Leviticus is valuable in that it is a great history and perhaps reveals parts of God's nature, but it is not written for the Christian but instead for the Jew of that time. The entire OT, with the Law, rise and fall of nations, and the like, was in preparation for Jesus, the culmination of God's redemptive plan. We often see strange or even seemingly cruel treatment of the Jews, but it was "tough love" on God's part because they had an important role as the mode through which the world's savior would come. When the manifestation of God's plan arrived in the form of Jesus, the Law passed away (symbolized, for instance, by Jesus' paraphrased words, "you have heard an eye for an eye, but I tell you the truth, if somone strikes you on one cheek, turn the other").
This is all demonstrated by the idea that there is a "new" testament(covenant/contract/agreement). The previous "contract" with God has been wiped away and we are presented with a new way to be justified before him. The Bible says it's only with blood that there's justification for sins. In the OT this occurred in the form of sacrifices, death penalty, etc., and this was spelled out in Leviticus and other books of the Law. With the coming of Jesus, God provided all people, Jew and Gentile, justification through this blood sacrifice. Thus Christians are delivered from the Law, and Leviticus is not applicable to our lives as a binding system of rules. (We are, however, bound by systems of morality put forth in the NT.)
I once heard a good illustration relating the two covenants to driving. When you drive from one state to another, you are under a totally different jurisdiction. Some laws change and others remain the same, but the point is that you're no longer responsible to conduct yourself according to the previous state's laws, providing that similar laws are nonexistent in the new state. I know that's jumbled, but I hope it gets the idea across.
Now, as for the whole idea of someone killing another human and God's authorization for it, it is a huge religious and philosophical debate for which this space is too limited .
I'm not arguing that this is all true (although I do believe it), but I simply wanted to note that Christian dogma doesn't contradict in this instance.
Phew, that took longer than I wanted it to...back to work .
Jake
P.S. Oops, after reading more of the past posts I realized someone brought up the passage where Jesus says that he did not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. Most Christians would say that this does not contradict Paul's view. This is probably better suited as a new post, but I'll try to give a quick version of the viewpoint. In short, Christ fulfilled the demands of the Law, which required perfect obedience. He didn't destroy it in the sense of overthrowing it, but he ended its binding effect on man by fulfilling it and bringing it to fruition. According to Paul, the Law was important in its role as the medium through which Christ saves...by fulfilling and delivering us from the binding nature of the Law through his blood sacrifice.
Ugh, okay, I know that was nebulous and incomplete, and I didn't tie it in with the body of my text. I'm sure some online sources could discuss it better and with fewer times constraints than I. Oh well, there's my attempt .
[This message has been edited by Jake22, 07-28-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by zephyr, posted 07-25-2003 2:01 PM zephyr has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 105 (47873)
07-29-2003 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Parasomnium
07-28-2003 10:17 AM


quote:
I wasn't aware that the word 'for' could dangle, but then, I didn't learn English...
I must ask. Did you learn English? Grab any grammar book or -- God forbid, look it up on the web-- and you'll find that 'for' can indeed dangle.
quote:
in the very state where Bushisms originate and where everything should be expressed in as non-dangling a way as possible, lest the locals don't understand
I believe Bush probably dangles quite a few modifiers.
Interesting that you are equating official English usage with Texas and at the same time making fun of the state for its dialect, which is far from standard. If only you could see how foolish your stance appears!
By the way, Brainiac, it was tongue-in-cheek. You corrected Mike's and offered an equally bad sentence as an alternative.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 07-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Parasomnium, posted 07-28-2003 10:17 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Parasomnium, posted 07-29-2003 11:15 AM John has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024