Scripture needs reading

Originally posted by Coletti
A simple example will show you that you are wrong:

When are you going to the store?

That is a simple question seeking an answer.

My previous question was a rhetorical question - that is the unstated premise is the answer the obvious answer. But my earlier questions where not rhetorical in nature. They where simple questions. You don't have to answer them if you don't want - but don't embarrass yourself by giving lame excuses.

think again

Originally posted by frogstomp
think again

OK..... I thunk it. You're still wrong. 😀

Originally posted by Coletti
A simple example will show you that you are wrong:

When are you going to the store?

That is a simple question seeking an answer.

My previous question was a rhetorical question - that is the unstated premise is the answer the ...[text shortened]... 't want - but don't embarrass yourself by giving lame excuses.

Bad example: Are you going to the store? is a simple question.

When are you going to the store? presumes that at some point you are going to the store.

So in English, not Coletti-Humpty Dumpty Speak, a question in the form posed is concluding that you are going to the store.

Ex: When are you going to stop beating your wife?

In legal terms, such questions are "leading" and are not allowed over objection.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Bad example: Are you going to the store? is a simple question.

When are you going to the store? presumes that at some point you are going to the store.

So in English, not Coletti-Humpty Dumpty Speak, a question in the form posed is concluding that you are going to the store.

Ex: When are you going to stop beating your wife?

In legal terms, such questions are "leading" and are not allowed over objection.

thank you

Originally posted by Coletti
OK..... I thunk it. You're still wrong. 😀

The only time I was ever wrong was that one time I thought I had made a mistake.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Bad example: Are you going to the store? is a simple question.

When are you going to the store? presumes that at some point you are going to the store...

It does not answer "when" and that is what a rhetorical question does. There may be premises you can infer from some questions, but the question does not suggest it's own answer unless it is rhetorical. "When are you going to the store" does not suggest the answer of "when".

My questions:

* "So you're a Gnostic now?" does not imply the answer yes or no.

* "Finally ready to give us a "statement of faith"?" does not imply the answer yes or no.

* "What church or denomination do you belong too??" doesn't imply the answer of what denomination.

You may think I suspect a particular answer, but that is your importing suggestions not given by the questions. I clearly do not know the answers, and that is why I asked the questions. It is paranoia that causes froggy to think I am assuming the answers.

Originally posted by frogstomp
The only time I was ever wrong was that one time I thought I had made a mistake.

🙂

Originally posted by Coletti
It does not answer "when" and that is what a rhetorical question does. There may be premises you can infer from some questions, but the question does not suggest it's own answer unless it is rhetorical. "When are you going to the store ...[text shortened]... s paranoia that causes froggy to think I am assuming the answers.

I know you hate it when I give the actual definition of a term that differs from your invented ones but:

The rhetorical question is usually defined as any question asked for a purpose other than to obtain the information the question asks. For example, "Why are you so stupid?" is likely to be a statement regarding one's opinion of the person addressed rather than a genuine request to know. Similarly, when someone responds to a tragic event by saying, "Why me, God?!" it is more likely to be an accusation or an expression of feeling than a realistic request for information.
http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/Figures/R/rhetorical%20questions.htm

It's safe to say that your first two questions were not a true attempt to obtain the supposedly requested information, but were indirect attacks on frogstomp. If you had wanted information you would have simply asked for it in a normal question format i.e. "Are you a Gnostic?" "Could you give us a statement of your faith?" Sorry, but in the English language your "questions" remain rhetorical and their form remains "leading" and objectionable.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I know you hate it when I give the actual definition of a term that differs from your invented ones but:

The rhetorical question is usually defined as any question asked for a purpose other than to obtain the information the question asks. .

Therefore my questions where not rhetorical.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Which issue would you regard as 1) Theological amusement; 2) A waste of time or 3) Neither or 4) Both : the A) Do viruses sin; B) Would designing and selling Viral Hats be a profitable venture; or C) Was Marcion on to something by seeing the incompatibility between the cruel, human-like God of the OT as compared to the message of love, compassion and charity of Jesus? Please mark your answers in no2 Pencil.

Chill out No1, go on a holiday or whatever and stop making yourself look ridiculous.

Originally posted by Coletti
Therefore my questions where not rhetorical.

Your reading comprehension sucks as usual; your questions were not actually meant to obtain information as was obvious by the way they were phrased. Selective quotation is Ivanhoe's gig; you play the ridiculous "I make up the meanings for words and everyone must obey them" gig here. Try to keep it straight.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Chill out No1, go on a holiday or whatever and stop making yourself look ridiculous.

Why is it that BF101 can go around saying that creatures like viruses with no cognitive skills or reasoning will "worship God" and you have nothing to say, but when I point out how absurd such a belief is you call me "ridiculous"? Outside of your never ending personal vendettas, you don't seem to have anything relevant to say on the forums at all anymore, Ivanhoe.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why is it that BF101 can go around saying that creatures like viruses with no cognitive skills or reasoning will "worship God" and you have nothing to say, but when I point out how absurd such a belief is you call me "ridicu ...[text shortened]... ve anything relevant to say on the forums at all anymore, Ivanhoe.

Error will continue it's attempt to suppress the Truth, it can not do no other because it's existence depends on it.
That Error used Paul's un-intentional (by Paul) inclusion into the word of God ,so that Paul's writings lead to misunderstand the word of the Kingdom is a good example of just how devious Error is.
Also while I'm at it: There is good reason not to call Paul an Apostle, since doing so creates the situation where there is no word that carries the import that this is a person walked and talked with God-incarnate.
Which brings me back to the Gospel of Thomas and why saying it's not the same in entirety as Mark and Mathew : It's the Gospel of Thomas,there absolutely no reason it would cover all the things in either of the other two and Mark and Mathew aren't identical anyway.
Also, whatever gave people the idea that Spirits have or the tools of reproduction? I couldn't bring myself to tell luciferhammer he's going to have to leave it at the door or he won't get in.