Why are Christians under attack ?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well that's convenient for you, that this imagined slight has mysteriously vanished and
cannot be found.

I suggest that this is because it doesn't exist.

The exchange I posted WAS the dispute you remember. You just remember it wrong.

You do not have the infallible memory you wrongly believe yourself to have.

Sorry, but obviously, I disagree..

So by what you wrote here, are you saying that IF I find this original post and your original response, not only will I get an apology, but that maybe you'll start to believe in God??

Even you have to admit there are similarities in the argument.


(Now I know you'll reject most things I write with all your being, merely because I represent all that is wrong with the world, in your opinion, just as I know you'll reject this statement too, as well as this entire post. For one who prides himself on his education, you are completely predictable at times. 🙂 This is why I've *almost* ceased listening to your arguments, because the pattern is nearly identical to what has come before. But the devil is in the details and the very important part of what I just said is that one word "nearly". )

-Removed-

Thanks for proving my point, princess.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
In fairness, my 'incomprehensibility' remark was made in explicit and clear reference to Hinds who befuddles me on a daily (*dairy) basis.

As clearly stated, i find it hard to remember who here takes the bible literally and who allows for a degree of metaphor. (On this occasion i was unsure if JWs viewed the entire bible as literal history).

As an aside, where the Dickens did Cain's wife come from?

As an answer to your aside, (which I left out of my post, sorry, I'm juggling two threads here at once 🙂 ) I don't have the foggiest clue where Cain's wife came from.

All I have to say about that is the same thing I regularly say to Ron. "The Bible doesn't tell us everything." Remember too, that there are books that were voted out of the Bible at one of the many Councils of Nicea and others, that may have shed light on questions such as this. One such book is the Book of Enoch, which does go into more detail about some events in Genesis, such as Noah's flood and tells something of the Watchers, which were only superficially touched on in Genesis.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well that's convenient for you, that this imagined slight has mysteriously vanished and
cannot be found.

I suggest that this is because it doesn't exist.

The exchange I posted WAS the dispute you remember. You just remember it wrong.

You do not have the infallible memory you wrongly believe yourself to have.

The slight itself isn't even that big a deal anymore. The reason I brought it up again seems to escape everyone. (Actually, probably not FMF, but he is a different case, because to him, forum drama is his raison d'etre. ) The reason I brought it up is because that entire scenario just encapsulates this entire concept of 'Christians under attack'. You may disagree, but that, too, is 'business as usual' here.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Does that leeway for the use of metaphor to convey something other than the literal also apply to an understanding of the bible?

Yes the Bible is full of metaphorical utterances.

-Removed-

You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.

You can attract more flies with manure than with honey, but you can't catch many of them that way... manure isn't sticky enough for doing anything other than attracting flies.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Sorry, but obviously, I disagree..

So by what you wrote here, are you saying that IF I find this original post and your original response, not only will I get an apology, but that maybe you'll start to believe in God??

Even you have to admit there are similarities in the argument.


(Now I know you'll reject most things I write with all your being, ...[text shortened]... l is in the details and the very important part of what I just said is that one word "nearly". )

You wont find 'the original post' [to be different from the one I posted].

I just went over every post I made that year [2014] from January up until the posts I have
already linked. And in none of them am I talking to you about not respecting your beliefs.

This argument and falling out started precisely with the posts I linked to.

That is when you made this "we should all respect each others positions/beliefs" argument
that I objected to.

I have looked long and hard for this other post you claim exists, and can find no evidence
for it, when evidence of it should not only exist, but be readily available.

Thus given that the exchange I linked to exactly fits the description of the exchange, with the
exception that I don't say what you misremember me saying, and there is no evidence of any
prior discussion on this topic, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that this was in fact the
beginning to the argument.

If you can prove me wrong and find another beginning where I do what you claim then I will
apologise. [I won't start believing in god... because that would be silly]

I am not 'just rejecting' what you are saying, I have gone to quite considerable lengths to verify
what you are saying is wrong. Because unlike you I do not have a belief that I have an infallible
memory.

YOU are making a claim about what happened, and thus the onus is on you to provide the evidence
to justify that claim.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Sorry, but obviously, I disagree..

So by what you wrote here, are you saying that IF I find this original post and your original response, not only will I get an apology, but that maybe you'll start to believe in God??

Even you have to admit there are similarities in the argument.


(Now I know you'll reject most things I write with all your being, ...[text shortened]... l is in the details and the very important part of what I just said is that one word "nearly". )

Now I know you'll reject most things I write with all your being, merely because I represent all that is wrong with the world

No. That is not true at all.

Originally posted by Suzianne
The slight itself isn't even that big a deal anymore. The reason I brought it up again seems to escape everyone. (Actually, probably not FMF, but he is a different case, because to him, forum drama is his raison d'etre. ) The reason I brought it up is because that entire scenario just encapsulates this entire concept of 'Christians under attack'. You may disagree, but that, too, is 'business as usual' here.

But as it didn't happen as you claim it did, and as it has not had any observable effect
on the general demeanour of the forums, beyond apparently changing your demeanour...

It doesn't actually demonstrate what you think it does.

And also, I quite enjoyed having discussions with you, and would prefer it if you didn't
just ignore me based on an insult/slight/whatever that I never actually gave.

If I'm going to be hated, I prefer it to be for things I have actually done/said/meant.

Originally posted by Suzianne
See my edit to my post. I wasn't quite finished. 🙂

And yes, RJH is the king of incomprehensibility here, to be sure.

In my edit, I think he's also more akin to the "ancient man" than the "modern man" in that he takes the creation story literally, and so believes it to be a totally true record, instead of being a version he can understand. ...[text shortened]... to understand that it's aimed at a less learned audience and therefore acts as metaphor.

Yes, that makes sense.

-Removed-

Yes its termed wisdom.

-Removed-

Heaven help us all. 🙂