Henceforth I will be hiding the content of all posts where the quoted portion is longer than the author's portion. From the Forum Guidelines:
Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.
Give me a chance to edit if the numbers don't add up.
My appeals for more emphasis on expressing your ideas and arguments in your own words weren't meant to turn the writing of messages into an accounting exercise. I think you should compose your posts in a manner appropriate to circumstances while keeping in mind that threads here are like a discussion or debate, which don't often consist of long readings from written material. For example, in a debate rather than reading a page from St. Augustine someone might just say, "As St. Augustine argued in Confessions...<summarization of St. Augustine's argument>..."
Another reason to be wary of heavy use of quotes is that as responses they often only indirectly address the point or rebuttal that was raised. And sometimes people use quotes as a way of deflecting or ignoring arguments.
Rule 6 was added to the Forum Guidelines very early in EvC Forum's history. It's necessity quickly became obvious.
I don't see why you're reacting in such a way to Jaywill's posts. He merely stated that he believed in the Bible of the 66 books, and you reacted in a personal way to that. And he talked about speculation, and you accused him of calling someone a speculative fool. And you responded to other things in similar ways. I disapprove of the tone you're taking, and the Forum Guidelines request that you focus on the discussion and not on the people you're discussing with. If I missed where Jaywill expressed himself in a way that made you feel such responses were justified then I disapprove of those, also.
A mocking tone and sarcasm and so forth are not how someone with strong evidence and arguments proceeds. Whoever has the best evidence and argument, not other stuff, will carry the day here.
You seem to keep dodging Romans 8, though you were eager to mention it earlier (it made up almost 98% of the text in your post #94).
Are you saying that 98% of the text in Jaywill's Message 94 were quotes from Romans 8? If so, be assured that's not true and that I have not fallen down on the job. The message is 447 words, the Romans 8 quote is 98 words or 22%, and the rest of the post is 349 words or 78%.
You aren't any different (except you attack people in a tribalistic fashion) ... It doesn't really matter, except you keep on attacking them - in order to avoid defending your inconsistent position.
Since you want to keep attacking the JW, I ask you to demonstrate the following: ... And please segregate your (sure to come) attacks on the Jehovah's Witness' from the actual issue discussion.
One moderator responsibility is to keep discussion from spiraling out of control, and accusations of unjustified attacks are a common early symptom. Jaywill is critical of Jehovah Witness beliefs, but these are no more attacks than your critiques of Jaywill's beliefs are attacks. Please keep your focus on the topic and not on your perception of misdeeds by other participants. Let moderators handle Forum Guidelines violations. If you feel there are violations that moderators are missing then they can be reported over at Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0.
The antagonistic tenor of your posts continues unchanged, as if you hadn't read my Message 107, where I said that one moderator responsibility is to keep discussion from spiraling out of control, and that accusations of unjustified attacks are a common early symptom, which is what you are doing. Dispassionate critiques of others beliefs, such as Jaywill's criticisms of Jehovah Witness beliefs, are not attacks, but your criticisms of Jaywill's beliefs have crossed the line into attacks and abuse:
From the start,it was extremely screwed up to bring a guy from 300 AD...Then to make matter worse, you kept harping about the Jehovah's Witnesses (after about a half dozen posts, you NOW claim you are finished attacking them) ... So now I have to deal with you mixing into your obfuscating commentary on Romans the straw man attacks... ... Amazing that you spent so much time confusing the issue, but then failed to back up any of your obsessive attacks on the JW. ... The fact that jaywill is grasping at straws...
It shows that he really has nothing to actually offer.
Summarizing your comments directed at Jaywill instead of the topic, he was "screwed up" and obfuscative, he conducted "straw man attacks", he confused the issue, he conducted "obsessive attacks", he grasped at straws, and "he has nothing to actually offer."
In trying to detect a pattern or theme in the way you generally conduct your discussion all I can see is a tendency toward creating a mild chaos that, since you're familiar with it and others aren't, you can use to your own advantage. Please, when a moderator requests that you take it down a notch, don't ignore them and instead take it up a notch.
Also, please keep your focus on the topic and on the actual arguments made, not on how deficient your co-discussionists are. Let moderators handle Forum Guidelines violations. If you feel there are violations that moderators are missing then they can be reported over at Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0.
We are still left with the problem that your definition of blasphemy being incorrect and in fact limited to directly attacking God's divinity for the sole purpose of making this argument.
I don't know if this helps, but I think Jaywill is using a specific definition of blasphemy, something like this one from Young's Compact Bible Dictionary:
quote:BLASPHEMY (speak, reviling) Dishonoring and reviling the name, work, or being of God by word or deed. It is sometimes translated "cursed" or "profaned" (1Ki. 21:10, 13; Isa. 52:5; Eze: 20:27; 36:20). Death by stoning was the penalty (Lev. 24:16). See CURSE
The previous verse might provide some helpful context. Here is Romans 8:16-17:
"The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."
Here's my attempt to translate this into plain English:
quote:"The Holy Spirit bears witness with our own spirit that we are the children of god. And if we are the Children of God, then we are also the heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. If we suffer with Christ then we may also all be glorified together."
I think what is being sought is an explanation for how this could be interpreted as God being heir to anything, or inheriting anything.