Is Jesus the Son of God or God?

[Nam]

It is not the fault of religion, but the fault of man. Man is subjectively choosnions. He only objectively chooses it when it is based on facts.

Did you read everything she wrote? Most of all people in a religion are born into that religion: there is no choice. Oh, and sexist much?

The Bible says keep the sabbath.  So objectively I will accept it, based on the historical evidence if appropiate, and the Bible verse in addition to it. To be objective in this way, is to keep the day the Bible (internal evidence) and history (external evidence) say is correct, even though others keep sunday, which has no scriptural support whatsoever.

Much of what is in the Bible has no support.

I am being subjective in choosing my religion when I say, the Bible says keep the Sabbath, but because the majority of the church keep sunday, and because I dont want to give up playing football at 10am every saturday with my friends, I keep sunday because its more convenient to do so, even though there is no command anywhere in the Bible to keep sunday holy.

So, you do things according to selfishness. Isn't that a sin?

Then I will reinterpet scripture, where it says we are to keep the commandments of God, to mean regarding the sabbath day "any day I feel like to keep, as long as its just one day".  When someone places their views and desires above the bible, you get subjective interpretation. The Bible says what it says, but it must be taken in context with the whole canon.

Except when it conflicts with your selfish nature. But I like how you "reinterpret" the Bible to mean what you want it to mean to better suit yourself. Not many Christians would openly admit that.

-Nam

[ParkingPlaces]

So, the score remains:

1.  Bible Prophecy = Jdawg70 says he "concedes defeat"
2.  Leviticus 11, Grasshoppers have 6 legs = Parking Places admits the "Bible" was "right" this "one time" 

Theist 2, Atheist 0

Thank you fans.

Case closed:  Next please.

Sadly, the bible doesn't contain a policy statement about cynicism, so you don't have any way to understand it. I thought I'd put it nicely instead of saying that you were full of sh*t. Apparently I continued to overestimate your mental capacities.

But don't blame me. You do it too.

[Nam]

SOGGY,

Doesn't your religion teach you how to quote or were you asleep that day?

-Nam

Doesn't science teach you how to be a moral and upright person, or were you gassed in the classroom that day?

What does "science" have to do with anything? I hate to break it to you but science and atheism have nothing at all to do with each other. They are not synonymous.

-Nam

[nogodsforme]

SOGGY,

Doesn't your religion teach you how to quote or were you asleep that day?

-Nam

Doesn't science teach you how to be a moral and upright person, or were you gassed in the classroom that day?

Actually, no, science does not teach that. Ethics, morals, rules of behavior can be studied scientifically and we can determine where in the brain they come from, etc. But science has no way to determine specifically how people should behave.

Society and culture develop rules about human behavior over time, based on what makes it more likely for group and individual survival. Since humans and other social animals are so adaptive, there are lots of contradictory rules that different societies will decide to interpret as moral and upright. Clearly, there is no one religion that has the perfect set of rules for human survival--certainly none of the organized monotheistic faiths has been able to develop rules that make survival sense for the entire planet.

The animistic and pagan hunter-gatherer and early agricultural societies of Africa, Australia and the Americas lasted longer than any modern country. They were not wonderful paradises, and individual people's lives were hard, painful and short. I would not want to live like that-- doing backbreaking work every day, being pregnant ten times or more, suffering from hunger a lot of the time and probably dying before age 40. But the societies overall were able to survive decently well for thousands of years.

Since human societies are all temporary, the rules don't have to be perfect or eternal or anything like that. Just better than nothing, adaptable to changing environmental conditions and not too destructive. And the rules that ensure group survival become embedded in nearly every human culture. Like avoiding sexual relations with close family members, being wary of strangers, and dividing chores and food among group members.

That is why most people on the planet nowadays don't care when someone else's Sabbath day occurs or what food taboos some other group wants to follow. Will it prevent my family from surviving if another group likes to eat fish and take Friday off, while my group prefers to eat ham on Sunday? Probably not. Morals only have to be good enough for now-- with "now" meaning say, 1000-5000 years.[1]

1.	India, China and Egypt each have over 3000 years of continuous culture, but most human societies only last 500-1000 years before they self-destruct or are destroyed from outside. I am taking an average view.

[jaimehlers]

It is not the fault of religion, but the fault of man. Man is subjectively choosing his religion based on feelings or opinions. He only objectively chooses it when it is based on facts.

Your religion is based on feelings and opinions as well.

i.e.  The Bible says keep the sabbath.  So objectively I will accept it, based on the historical evidence if appropiate, and the Bible verse in addition to it. To be objective in this way, is to keep the day the Bible (internal evidence) and history (external evidence) say is correct, even though others keep sunday, which has no scriptural support whatsoever.

However, you are basing your whole position on your opinion that what the Bible says is accurate.  Therefore, your belief is subjective, not objective; it is not predicated on facts, but on feelings and opinions.

When someone places their views and desires above the bible, you get subjective interpretation.

Placing the Bible highest is also subjective, because you are assuming - based on your opinion - that it is correct, and interpreting it based on that assumption.

The Bible says what it says, but it must be taken in context with the whole canon.

One of the biggest problems with religion is that people declare that something is 'canon' and use it as an excuse to avoid addressing anything that's supposedly outside of this arbitrarily-declared 'canon'.  Which is more subjectiveness.  How do people know what is truly canon and what isn't?  The fact is, they do not; they simply draw the line where it makes the most sense to them, but the mere fact that they draw a line at all demonstrates that they're being subjective.

[Foxy Freedom]

I won a victory. Get over it. ha ha ha.

I dont need to try and talk anyone into our faith. If someone is really looking for answers objectively, they will find them - and i believe the Adventist mindset captures that model well, as do our adversaries, the Roman Catholic Church. Emotion and opinions do not help you find truth, only facts in light of history can do that.  Everything else, is left to a degree of faith. We are not moved by our oponents claims because we have confidence in our ability to be objective of the facts and evidence placed in front of us.

Whenever you set up someone as god, the result is always the same, Jesus, Stalin, or that trinity of Kims in North Korea.

When someone places their views and desires above the bible, you get subjective interpretation.

You mean, they disagree with you.

Well, my views are Seventh-day Adventist and are not considered mainstream by most, including CARM which calls SDAs a cult. Infact, I use objectivity by quoting those who hate  and misrepresent our movement.

These words sound all TOO familiar.

[jaimehlers]

Getting back to the subject of insect legs, SwordOfGod has arbitrarily declared that the case is closed.  I don't accept this, for the simple reason that it is based on a single member saying that the Bible was partially right on that subject.  An opinion, in other words.  Didn't he just get done saying that humans screw up when they base things on opinions rather than facts?

It is a fact that all insects have six legs.  Indeed, insects are defined as having three pairs of legs.  SwordofGod acknowledged this here (I excised the links, I am not contesting that grasshoppers have specialized legs):

Grasshoppers have 2 pair of walking legs (Leviticus 11:20)
Grasshoppers have 1 pair of jumping legs (Leviticus 11:21)

So, let's look at the relevant sections of Leviticus 11.  "20 “‘All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. 21 There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23 But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean."

The last verse is especially damning.  It does not talk about flying insects that walk on four legs; it talks about flying insects that have four legs.  Yet not a single species of insect that anyone has ever observed has had only two pairs of legs.  They all have three pairs of legs.  So why would Leviticus contain a prohibition against eating flying insects that have four legs when none of them do?  It doesn't matter what the legs are specialized to do; the fact is that all insects have six legs whether they can fly or not.

Indeed, the crux of SwordOfGod's argument is that the writer of Leviticus knew that insects had six legs, and that he was making some kind of distinction between "walking" legs and other legs.  Yet this does not follow from reading the actual text.  It would have been trivial for a god, which presumably knew how many legs insects had, to simply say "all flying things that creep along the ground on their legs are unclean, unless they have jointed limbs for hopping, such as grasshoppers, locusts, katydids, and crickets."  See?  I was able to write it in about half the space that Leviticus took.

So, why not do that, instead of bringing up the whole number of limbs thing to begin with?

[jynnan tonnix]

Sword, are you throwing around negative darwins because people are asking questions you don't like? WTF is up with that? I think that is abusing the darwin system. When you are a guest in someone else's house, you need to respect their rules. Isn't that the point of the A and E story?

Like the negative you gave jynnan for questioning the treatment of Adam and Eve. She just asked if you thought A and E knew that their misbehavior/disobedience (eating the fruit from the forbidden tree)  would result in all the suffering and devastation that happened to the earth. Did they understand what hell and suffering, etc meant? Maybe if they had better information, they would not have eaten the fruit, right?

You did not answer her. Instead you said, "they disobeyed god" and gave her a negative darwin for asking the question! We know they disobeyed god. The question was about their knowledge about the consequences of disobeying god. Like, if a boss tells an employee something and they disobey, is the boss entitled to do whatever they want to the employee, and to also do it their descendants forever?

If you can't or don't want to answer, just say so; don't throw out negative darwins because you don't approve of the question. Makes you look petty and cowardly. Not a good representation of your religious faith. 

Indeed. That negative karma rather upsets me. I know I should just be able to brush it off, but I do try to compose my posts, such as they are, in a reasonably thoughtful and non-aggressive way, so that even if you don't agree with the content, it should not be enough to anger, hurt or offend you. So why the smite?
And what's with your response to nogodsforme's kind post standing up for me? Granted, you gave her a positive karma in order to state it, which was nice, but what was so amusing about it? I really have no idea where you are coming from, because your reactions, in general, have not been of the tone which is generally associated with someone striving to emulate a Christlike attitude.

[screwtape]

Theist 2 - Athiest 0

your hubris is misplaced. For one, we are more intellectually honest and will admit when we are wrong.  When was the last time you - or any xian - did that?  For two, your score does not represent the whole game. 

[Hatter23]

Requests for unambiguous evidence of God vs. Actual unambiguous evidences for God.

 

Atheist 236,000,0000; Theist 0

Thank you fans.

Case closed:  Next please.

[screwtape]

This has been explained in one of the last posts with Andy S.

It wasn't. 

First of all, your quoting sucks, making it difficult to tell which text is yours.  I've asked you to use the quoting tutorial.  Get on it.

Secondly, you seem to have only addressed the specific case of honeybees, which is not only not comprehensive (does not take into consideration flies, flying beetles, mosquitoes, moths or any other kind of flying insect) but is also wrong. 
http://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/insects/ahb/inf2.html

Leg(s). The honey bee has three pairs of segmented legs. The legs of the bee are primarily used for walking. However, honey bee legs have specialized areas such as the antennae cleaners on the forelegs, and the pollen baskets on the hind legs.

Legs are legs. 

[jaimehlers]

your hubris is misplaced. For one, we are more intellectually honest and will admit when we are wrong.  When was the last time you - or any xian - did that?  For two, your score does not represent the whole game.

Actually, some Christians will admit when they're wrong about something, or when they just plain don't know.  OldChurchGuy is a good example of this.  But most of them don't come onto sites like this to begin with, because they don't have anything to prove to begin with.

[screwtape]

There has been 100 million people killed in the name of Soviet based Atheistic commuism 

Why do you call it "atheistic" communism and not just communism?  And why capitalize "Atheistic"? 

Yes, communism is atheistic.  But atheism was not the point of it.  Communism was.  And it was not the lack of god beliefs that made it horrible.  You should be well aware that belief in god and horrible ideas are not mutually exclusive.  It was that communism was also totalitarian.  And in any totalitarian regime, there can be no other authority.  In communism, that meant destruction of religious authority.  So atheism was a side effect. 

We see this in theocracies as well.  Do the ayatollahs in Iran allow other religions there?  Not really.  That is because they strive to be totalitarian.

So it is not that they do all this bad stuff because they are fanatical atheists.  They do it because they are fanatical communists.

Your attempt to paint us with that same brush fails.

[Hatter23]

  It was that communism was also totalitarian.  And in any totalitarian regime, there can be no other authority.  In communism, that meant destruction of religious authority.  So atheism was a side effect. 

If I can clarify; Soviet and Chinese Communism was Totalitarian and atheist. There are Christian Communist communities sprinkled around the world, particularly South America in opposition to Totalitarian regimes. This movement is called Liberation Theology. None of these groups have held enough power to become Totalitarian. You gave example of explicitly theistic totalitarian governments. So we have Totalitarian, Non Totalitarian, Communistic, and Non Communistic. Atheist and Theist.

So:

Totalitarian Communist Atheistic: USSR, China, North Korea

Totalitarian Communist Theistic: None

Totalitarian NonCommunist Atheistic: None

Totalitarian NonCommunist Theistic: Iran, Most of Western Europe until about 1650, Vatican City, Third Reich.

NonTotalitarian Communist Atheistic: None

NonTotalitarian Communist Theistic: Liberation Theology groups, Early Christianity prior to 300AD

NonTotalitarian NonCommunistic Atheistic: None, though borderline examples such as Germany, Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, and Norway are amongst the highest quality of life in the world.

NonTotalitarian NonCommunistic Theistic: None, though modern Israel is a borderline example and Modern Britian is in    name only and in reality should be in the group above.

[screwtape]

^ so are you agreeing with SOG? 

[Hatter23]

^ so are you agreeing with SOG?

No. I am disagreeing with you, partially. By demonstrating that the qualities of: Theist, Communist, and Totalitarian are not automatically either linked fully or fully exclusive, but don't seem to be completely independent of each other.

I am disagreeing with SOG fully. He is attempting to use a bad company fallacy, and utterly simplifying things to the point of cartoonishness.

[Andy S.]

I've got to "bee" honest and tell you I did not look at your source for "bees for dummies".  I already know they generally use all six feet for walking unlike your god says in his holy book.

The text doesn't say what you think you know about bees. If you can't be objective enough to look at scientific sources and apply logic and reason from a non-biased premise, then, you will not learn anything new.

Sword, with about 20 hours of hesitation, I think I will finally open up the source you gave me on bees.  The reason why I first didn't look at it is because I already know bees walk on all six feet and not "all fours".  But, I am open minded and maybe my eyes deceived me when I witnessed the dozen times I have seen a bee walk on all six legs in addition to the four youtube videos I saw yesterday.  Plus, like you said, I might learn something new.  Soooooooo..............let's see if this source you gave me says bees walk on "all fours" or are "four-footed".  Here goes nothing......................

WOW, and I mean NOTHING.  There is nothing that would make me change my belief that bees walk on "all fours" or are "four-footed".  The article for "dummies" does say, "The hind legs are specialized on the worker bee".  The article also says the front pair of legs are special too as they are used to "clean the antennae".  In addition, "The middle legs help with walking and are used to pack loads of pollen".  So with your logic (or lack thereof) should I now conclude that a bee walks on ALL ZERO'S since all six legs have additional special functions besides just walking?


On a side note, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth when pretending to know how to correctly interpret the bible.  You responded to nogodsforme by saying, "When someone places their views and desires above the bible, you get subjective interpretation."

But then regarding the defects of Lev. 21 you place your "views" and "desires" above a literal interpretation of the bible.  You can't imagine worshiping a god that is intolerant of people with defects so you say, "These physical examples of disabilities are pictures of the spiritual. We must learn to read the Bible with the spiritual in mind, as well as for the obvious physical teachings."

Soooooo, you interpret the bible literally unless the text points to your god being a jerk?  I'm sure you probably do this with the doctrines of heaven and hell too.  You probably interpret the verses about heaven literally but then you "spiritualize" the verses about hell because you can't imagine your god being a god of torment.  I could be wrong but I am going to check into what the Seventh-Day Adventist's think about hell..............

Okay, I'm back and I was right!  I guess I could be wrong about your personal beliefs on hell as you could actually be involved in a Seventh-Day Adventist "spin-off" cult of a cult of a cult of a cult, but Wikipedia points out how your denomination views the doctrine of hell:

"Adventists teach that the resurrection of the righteous will take place at the second coming of Jesus, while the resurrection of the wicked will occur after the millennium of Revelation 20. They reject the traditional doctrine of hell as a state of everlasting conscious torment, believing instead that the wicked will be permanently destroyed after the millennium. The theological term for this teaching is Annihilationism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_theology 

I cracked the code.  I know how you interpret the bible now.  Just for the record, I can't believe Christians say there is a "science" to interpreting scriptures (which is called "hermeneutics") because how does one determine what Christianity has the correct interpretation since the bible is ambiguous and contradictory.  Anyway, I think I cracked the code to SDA hermeneutics:  If a verse in the bible makes god look good - interpret it literally.  If a verse in the bible points to god being a stupid jerk - interpret it "spiritually" to make him look good.

By the way Sword, nice dodge on the unscientific passage of Lev. 11:5,6 describing rock badger's and rabbit's as animals that "chew cud".  I don't think you have to answer me now.  I think I figured out what your answer will be.  Since you don't want your god to look stupid for not knowing how to observe or describe the creatures he created, I am supposed to literally interpret that camels "chew cud" (verse 4) but am supposed to "spiritually" interpret verses 5 and 6 that wrongly describe the rock badger and rabbit as animals that "chew cud".

Sword, I know it is hard for you to defend the bible because the bible is really a piece of crap.  And I know 1 Peter 3:15 says to always be prepared to "make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you".  But I want you to know that you are giving a horrible defense.  The only defense you have is throwing out blatantly stupid karma smites.  If I was a Christian and saw some of the things you are writing here, I would pray to god that you would leave the forum as you are doing a HUGE disservice to the movement of Christianity.  However, since I am an atheist, I say keep clickin' away as you are doing a HUGE disservice to the movement of Christianity.  Plus, I have gotten a few good chuckles out of your posts. 

As I look back at the many conversations I read on this forum, I see many people trying to "fish" and reach out and get people "hooked" on reason and logic.  Atheist and christian alike.  Unfortunately for you, I don't foresee too many people wanting to engage in conversation with you because in your case, the lake is dry.   

[Nam]

SOGGY smited me as "lying atheist scum", and it made me think of this:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=57184

Oh, and SOGGY: unlike you: I don't lie.

-Nam

[nogodsforme]

Incidentally, not to try to take away from any of the volcanic awesomeness that was the previous post by Andy S. but doesn't traveling on "all fours" mean crawling on the hands and knees? So the bible says that insects are crawling on their four knees, not walking on their six legs.[1]

Or is that again something that we have to spiritually [re]interpret?

Back to [one of the] main points here. Why would anyone look in a 2000 year old never updated book for current information about the world to begin with? People who say they rely on the bible wouldn't pay attention to last year's tv guide.

1.	The bee's knees!

[jaimehlers]

Interesting how SwordOfGod had time to smite Nam (for lying, which itself appears to be a lie) but apparently hasn't actually posted a response to the legitimate points made by myself, Andy S, and others.

[SwordOfGod]

Except when it conflicts with your selfish nature. But I like how you "reinterpret" the Bible to mean what you want it to mean to better suit yourself. Not many Christians would openly admit that.

-Nam

Here's the actual correct quote as it is written below:

I am being subjective in choosing my religion when I say, "the Bible says keep the Sabbath, but because the majority of the church keep sunday, and because I dont want to give up playing football at 10am every saturday with my friends, I keep sunday because its more convenient to do so, even though there is no command anywhere in the Bible to keep sunday holy. Then I will reinterpet scripture, where it says we are to keep the commandments of God, to mean regarding the sabbath day any day I feel like to keep, as long as its just one day".  When someone places their views and desires above the bible, you get subjective interpretation. The Bible says what it says, but it must be taken in context with the whole canon.

To the self confessed "asshole" (see your post 389)

All that waffle you mentioned before about me allegedly not quoting properly, and you yourself don't even do it right.  Talk about atheist double standards. 

You wrongly divided the quote in two in your version of the text to deliberately mislead and deceive others reading it and to misrepresent my views.  The correct quote above was illustrating a scenario of a Sunday keepers excuse for not keeping the Sabbath day as commanded in the Bible. This highlights the excuses they give, not what I would say as a Sabbath keeper, since I am a Seventh-day Adventist... What you did was to divide the comment up in order to make it look as though that was my attitude, which is dishonest, but expected from morally bankrupt atheistic people like you, a typical numb-skull response of taking out the context, because thats the only way atheists can argue their fictional "monkey man is my dad" doctrine of demons.

To the fool who says about himself "I'm an asshole" I declare that's the only thing you as an atheist can ever really live up to. (see your own post talking about yourself at 389 - how hilarious!).  What an idiot you really are. I mean, what sort of intelligent person calls themselves an asshole? None! I don't know any intelligent people who would profane their own name.... perfhaps thats one reason why God is greater and more exalted than you... and cleverer.  He respects Himself and commands respect from others. You merely command profanity.. and thats about your own name. So why would i expect you to treat others with any dignity when you cant even have a high enough opinion of yourself?  Again.. thats atheist morality and logic for you.. its self hatred, and by extension, hatred of others, and ultimately, God.

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers,and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”  (Rev 21:8 )

[SwordOfGod]

SOGGY smited me as "lying atheist scum", and it made me think of this:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=57184

Oh, and SOGGY: unlike you: I don't lie.

-Nam

REALLY??

Heres the CORRECT VERSION  BELOW (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25855.464.html) POST 490

You had to go there. 

Objective religion?

It is not the fault of religion, but the fault of man. Man is subjectively choosing his religion based on feelings or opinions. He only objectively chooses it when it is based on facts. 

i.e.  The Bible says keep the sabbath.  So objectively I will accept it, based on the historical evidence if appropiate, and the Bible verse in addition to it. To be objective in this way, is to keep the day the Bible (internal evidence) and history (external evidence) say is correct, even though others keep sunday, which has no scriptural support whatsoever.

I am being subjective in choosing my religion when I say, "the Bible says keep the Sabbath, but because the majority of the church keep sunday, and because I dont want to give up playing football at 10am every saturday with my friends, I keep sunday because its more convenient to do so, even though there is no command anywhere in the Bible to keep sunday holy. Then I will reinterpet scripture, where it says we are to keep the commandments of God, to mean regarding the sabbath day "any day I feel like to keep, as long as its just one day".  When someone places their views and desires above the bible, you get subjective interpretation. The Bible says what it says, but it must be taken in context with the whole canon.

AND NOW YOUR VERSION BELOW, DIVIDING IT, THUS GIVING A DIFFERENT CONTEXT DUE TO THE DIVISION OF THE ORIGINALLY ONE WHOLE QUOTE.

I am being subjective in choosing my religion when I say, the Bible says keep the Sabbath, but because the majority of the church keep sunday, and because I dont want to give up playing football at 10am every saturday with my friends, I keep sunday because its more convenient to do so, even though there is no command anywhere in the Bible to keep sunday holy.

So, you do things according to selfishness. Isn't that a sin?

Then I will reinterpet scripture, where it says we are to keep the commandments of God, to mean regarding the sabbath day "any day I feel like to keep, as long as its just one day".  When someone places their views and desires above the bible, you get subjective interpretation. The Bible says what it says, but it must be taken in context with the whole canon.

Except when it conflicts with your selfish nature. But I like how you "reinterpret" the Bible to mean what you want it to mean to better suit yourself. Not many Christians would openly admit that.

-Nam

SUBTLE BUT EFFECTIVE.

So, you lose you lying atheist scum. And I dont really care what anyone else thinks of this comment, I'm not here to win friends, I'm here to tell the truth, whether you like it or not and whether its popular or not.  Nam is a lying scum bag and those who support him are no better. I make no apologies and Im proud to say it, for I speak the truth with no care for what anyone thinks here. I will dig my heals in and annoy anyone and everyone even more because this is nothing but a proverbial witchhunt. But Im game, as truth is like unyeilding steel pillars that can never be moved, and any lies that come against it are smashed in Jesus name. Thats why I do not tire of this, and that's why I will keep on.

And screwtape, who sent this to my inbox way before this episode, "you are acting like a trollish cock.  cool your jets" can get away with calling me that, but when I say scum, its a different rule for me.  Again... the same hypocritical values keep being repeated by atheists who are liars, subjective in their approach to justice, which then also filters through all their other spheres of observation, to become so skewed, they cant see the truth, presented in factual form.  What a handicap atheism is, no wonder why God has no use for those who accept it.


(smite from nam - "untwist your panties, man")

Sounds rather gay to me nam. I'll keep them twisted if it protects my ass.

[Nam]

Man you're an idiot. I didn't take anything out of context. It's called: responding to what you say, and that's what I did.

Idiot.

-Nam

[SwordOfGod]

Man you're an idiot. I didn't take anything out of context. It's called: responding to what you say, and that's what I did.

Idiot.

-Nam

YES YOU DID ASSHOLE.

The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is REMOVED from its SURROUNDING matter in such a way as to DISTORT its INTENDED MEANING.
(emphasis mine)
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

You fail.

And asshole (see post 389), here ends conversation with you, Im just wasting time replying to your fact-less subjective opinions , which is petty infantile crap. You never ask any deep questions, just irrelevant twaddle which has no place within serious topics like this. You are no help to anyone, giving no real contribution. Youre just a "spanner" in the works so to speak.

Have a nice day.

[jdawg70]

YES YOU DID ASSHOLE.

The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is REMOVED from its SURROUNDING matter in such a way as to DISTORT its INTENDED MEANING.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

You fail.

Perhaps you could explain how his use of your quote distorts its intended meaning?

[Nam]

Apparently one has to quote his entire wall of text for it to be in context; funny thing is: he didn't mind it until now. I think he knows I am telling the truth, and he's just too afraid to admit it.

Or perhaps that member I linked to when he called me an "atheist scum" is actually him and SOGGY is just a sockpuppet.

-Nam

[SwordOfGod]

YES YOU DID ASSHOLE.

The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is REMOVED from its SURROUNDING matter in such a way as to DISTORT its INTENDED MEANING.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

You fail.

Perhaps you could explain how his use of your quote distorts its intended meaning?

Its already been explained above knucklehead. By dividing the whole portion in two, and removing the second half from its previously connected whole, asshole has intended to distort my intended meaning, see post above.

Last time I'm explaining this, open your eyes and read the posts. Its been explained and I'm not wasting time with you as well. Figure it out.

[jdawg70]

Its already been explained above knucklehead. By dividing the whole portion in two, and removing the second half from its previously connected whole, asshole has intended to distort my intended meaning, see post above.

Last time I'm explaining this, open your eyes and read the posts. Its been explained and I'm not wasting time with you as well. Figure it out.

I tried to figure it out.  I failed.  Because it doesn't look like any expected intent would have changed with splitting the quote in question.  It really doesn't.  But if you spell it out, it may help.

If needing it explained to me means that I'm an idiot, then so be it.  I'm fine with that.  Help an idiot out.

[SwordOfGod]

Getting back to the subject of insect legs,

Then go back to post 480 ... http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25855.msg602719.html#msg602719

Thanks.