Was this man a Christian?

Originally posted by CalJust
Let's see if we can hold a reasonably intelligent conversation without resorting to offensive abusive attacks. I'm sad to see that twhitehead apparently can't. Pity.

Please do me the justice of pointing out where I resorted to 'offensive abusive attacks' or apologize and withdraw the accusation.

Originally posted by CalJust
Now we have about one-and-half million whites and 48 million blacks.

I am curious as to where you found that statistic.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please do me the justice of pointing out where I resorted to 'offensive abusive attacks' or apologize and withdraw the accusation.

To refer to someone as "going to wriggle out of this for the next 20 posts or so" is not insulting, offensive and demeaning??

I am prepared to discuss any subject with anybody so long as there is an element of mutual respect.

Originally posted by CalJust
To refer to someone as "going to wriggle out of this for the next 20 posts or so" is not insulting, offensive and demeaning??

No, I do not think so, and certainly did not intend it that way. Why would you take it that way?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I do not think so, and certainly did not intend it that way. Why would you take it that way?

Because it is.

It describes someone who does not have anything real to say, but merely with empty verbosity fills page after page with meaningless drivel.

This picture that you paint is not derogatory?

Go and find somebody else to insult.

Originally posted by CalJust
Because it is.

It describes someone who does not have anything real to say, but merely with empty verbosity fills page after page with meaningless drivel.

This picture that you paint is not derogatory?

Go and find somebody else to insult.

I think you are just playing at being offended in order to get out of discussing Old Testament Law.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think you are just playing at being offended in order to get out of discussing Old Testament Law.

Twhitehead, you asked me where i thought you were offensive, and I explained that to you.

You now have some options.

Either you say: OK, i can understand that you were offended. I didn't really mean it that way. I wasn't trying to be intentionally malicious, but I can see that at the very least it was an error of judgement and an unfortunate choice of words. I apologise for my insensitivity.

Or you can say: however you understand my words or not, that is your problem. What I say is more important than what you hear. I repeat, I think you are stalling and not wishing to answer my very learned and erudite argument.

Or a third of your own composition.

But pick one. My response will follow.

Originally posted by CalJust
Or a third of your own composition.

I don't think my comment warranted the description of 'offensive abusive attacks', 'insulting, offensive and demeaning', or 'derogatory' and I have already stated that it was not intended that way.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't think my comment warranted the description of 'offensive abusive attacks', 'insulting, offensive and demeaning', or 'derogatory' and I have already stated that it was not intended that way.

Have you never heard that PERCEPTION , just like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder?

In communication theory, the actual meaning of a message is in the way that it is RECEIVED, not the way in which it was SENT OR INTENDED. That is why a feedback loop is so important.

The bottom line is that what you are actually saying is that you are free to insult anybody, just as long as YOU think that you are not being insulting.

I will take this into account should I decide to respond to any of your posts in future.

This conversation is over.

In peace

CJ

Originally posted by CalJust
Have you never heard that PERCEPTION , just like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder?

In communication theory, the actual meaning of a message is in the way that it is RECEIVED, not the way in which it was SENT OR INTENDED. That is why a feedback loop is so important.

The bottom line is that what you are actually saying is that you are free to insult ...[text shortened]... cide to respond to any of your posts in future.

This conversation is over.

In peace

CJ

Another one bites the dust 😀

Originally posted by CalJust
Have you never heard that PERCEPTION , just like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder?

Yes. And it is partly the responsibility of the preceptor to recognise this.

The bottom line is that what you are actually saying is that you are free to insult anybody, just as long as YOU think that you are not being insulting.
When did I say anything that would lead you to this conclusion? That is most definitely not what I am saying although I concede that is might be what you perceived I was saying although I think you are taking significant liberties in doing so.

Have you perhaps considered the possibility that falsely accusing me of making 'offensive abusive attacks', 'insulting, offensive and demeaning', or 'derogatory' remarks is itself an insult to my character? I don't see you offering any apologies.

I strongly suggest you spend a little time over in the debates forum so that you learn what a real insult looks like.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes. And it is partly the responsibility of the preceptor to recognise this.

[b]The bottom line is that what you are actually saying is that you are free to insult anybody, just as long as YOU think that you are not being insulting.
When did I say anything that would lead you to this conclusion? That is most definitely not what I am saying althoug ...[text shortened]... u spend a little time over in the debates forum so that you learn what a real insult looks like.[/b]

'What a real insult looks like..' ? So if there are grades of insults. A Grade 1 is the kind like what I can dish out and a Grade 10 is like what you did, does that make it acceptable? Maybe for certain people your statement might sound fine because some people really waffle over 20 posts without dealing with an issue. In the case of Caljust Im sure you know very well that he is not that type. He is the type as you can see to put an end to a pointless conversation gracefully and diplomatically as soon as possible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think you are just playing at being offended in order to get out of discussing Old Testament Law.

After my msg this morning i went to gym and there the thought came to me that I really needed to reply to this comment, lest it be thought by default that i am avoiding it.

I do not need to "get out of " discussing anything. I feel no personal need nor desire to defend my beliefs to you, nor to try to convert you to mine.

In fact, there is a fundamental difference between us how we handle debates or discussions.

Your approach is to ridicule the other person, to point out where they are wrong and/or inconsistent. Then, when you have destroyed them, you feel nice and warm and give yourself a pat on the back - you have WON again!

My approach is that from the outset I assume that the person who is willing to engage me, is at least as intelligent as I am (otherwise what's the point?). That being so, they must have a reason for believing what they believe.

For example, my buddhist friend and I have many conversations. I am interested in finding out exactly WHY he jettisoned the Christian faith in favour of Buddhism. I would like to understand more about his view on reincarnation (are there a finite number of "souls" or does this number grow over time?) and how does he explain evil? I do NOT start with the premise that he is stupid, illogical or confused, and that i have to "point out where he is wrong"

Certainly, there is never any ridicule, or one-upmanship. Nobody scores points off the other. I have learned many things from him, and I flatter myself that he has learned some from me.

The only reason you want me to talk about OT laws, is so that you can humiliate me publicly with your logic, your rhetoric, your insight, and show how stupid I am. You are NOT interested to find out, for example, how a reasonably intelligent person can look at the seeming contradictions between the OT and the NT and make sense out of it. How the vicious god of war who killed women and children in the OT be revealed in the NT as a Father who loves us.

Now if there was somebody who really and honestly was looking at these matters and seeking answers, i would be more than delighted to engage in a mutually rewarding discussion.

But not just to stroke your ego!

Do yourself a favour and listen to the enlightening TED talk on

www.ted.com/talks/daniel_h_cohen_for_argument_s_sake

Originally posted by Rajk999
'What a real insult looks like..' ? So if there are grades of insults. A Grade 1 is the kind like what I can dish out and a Grade 10 is like what you did, does that make it acceptable?

No, thats not what I said. I said 'what a real insult looks like' as opposed to an imagined insult.

Maybe for certain people your statement might sound fine because some people really waffle over 20 posts without dealing with an issue. In the case of Caljust Im sure you know very well that he is not that type.
No, I do not know that - or I wouldn't have said it.

He is the type as you can see to put an end to a pointless conversation gracefully and diplomatically as soon as possible.
No, hes the type who feigns being insulted to get out of discussing the real issues.

Originally posted by CalJust
My approach is that from the outset I assume that the person who is willing to engage me, is at least as intelligent as I am (otherwise what's the point?). That being so, they must have a reason for believing what they believe.
...
Certainly, there is never any ridicule, or one-upmanship. Nobody scores points off the other. I have learned many things from him, and I flatter myself that he has learned some from me.

You start off nicely and then:

The only reason you want me to talk about OT laws, is so that you can humiliate me publicly with your logic, your rhetoric, your insight, and show how stupid I am. You are NOT interested to find out, for example, how a reasonably intelligent person can look at the seeming contradictions between the OT and the NT and make sense out of it. How the vicious god of war who killed women and children in the OT be revealed in the NT as a Father who loves us.
Suddenly you know all about me and my motivations for this discussion! Suddenly the person who a moment ago does not prejudge others but tries to listen to what they have to say thinks he knows exactly where this discussion is going and what his opponents motivations are and to preempt that has decided to call it all off.
If you want to engage in mind reading, you are free to do so, but remember that when I did exactly that to you, you felt it was an 'offensive abusive attack'.

The fact is that your earlier statement:

The PRINCIPLES of the OT Law were not wrong.

is indefensible and you know it and have no wish to discuss it.