Words are imprecise, malleable and definitions are often inadequate.
And there it is. The “words don’t mean anything except when I need them to” defense. It’s just pathetic. You’re better than this.
I certainly prefer it to the "straw men are an instant failure except when I use them" technique. No, I prefer to use logic. Definitions can be a tool of logic, but logic can also extend or negate imprecisely used definitions, precisely because language is imperfect. It's called nuance.
Not really, since that’s not what is being discussed here.
Really? Seems to be exactly what is being discussed to me. Maybe I've misunderstood you, which is very easy to do when you respond so snippily and with the focus on belittling the person rather than the point.
Doesn’t matter. The definition of the word ‘nuance’ is fluid, and thus it doesn’t mean what you want it to mean. It’s inadequate, in other words. Imprecise.
Really? Seems to be exactly what is being discussed to me.
Not the trinitarian nature of Jesus within Christianity but Jesus being YHWH as the Jews understand it.
Doesn’t matter. The definition of the word ‘nuance’ is fluid, and thus it doesn’t mean what you want it to mean. It’s inadequate, in other words. Imprecise.
Nice try. Language being imprecise doesn't mean I'm going to stop using language.
Your continued inability to grasp that the world doesn't exist in black and white terms and that a bit of give and take is needed is going to mean this dance will carry on a while yet. Keep saying "definitionally" all you want.
Not the trinitarian nature of Jesus within Christianity but Jesus being YHWH as the Jews understand it.
So now you're restricting the nature of the discussion to a Jewish understanding, despite it originating from another person's opinion which is clearly of a Christian stance?
No wonder you don't get it, and since you completely failed to state your angle from the start, while using the word Christian multiple times I'm baffled that you can come out with things like "It’s quite plain what my position is."
You are never plain. You are opaque, obtuse, and frequently obnoxious.
Language being imprecise doesn't mean I'm going to stop using language.
How about that. Almost as though your statement thereof is meaningless. Knock off the projectionism, please. NOPE. I wouldn’t bother engaging with willful stupidity of this caliber if I didn’t know you were capable of more. Then let me make this perfectly clear. AGAIN.
Respond to what was said, not what you invent.
What do you want me to respond to and what have I invented? You redirected the terms of the discussion to "Jesus being YHWH as the Jews understand it." You answer complex doctrinal problems with "nope" and "definitionally wrong" as if that's sufficient. You refer to "two authorities that matter" without saying what you think they are. You claim to be speaking plain while being anything but, and then have the gall to call other people stupid for not being able to read your mind.
Language is problematic and your use of of it is especially problematic. Unless you're actually going to say what I've got wrong instead of just taking umbridge at logical conclusions then there's nowhere else to go. Don't want to argue? Fine, don't. But you don't get to pretend like you're presenting any sort of reasonable standpoint.
You redirected the terms of the discussion to "Jesus being YHWH as the Jews understand it." You answer complex doctrinal problems with "nope" and "definitionally wrong" as if that's sufficient. You refer to "two authorities that matter" without saying what you think they are.
CONTEXT CLUES. In a discussion involving Christian and Jewish matters, WHICH TWO PARTIES DO YOU IMAGINE–JUST IMAGINE NOW–MIGHT BE THE ONES THAT MATTER?
For fuck’s sake, do they not teach this anymore? I’m seeing it everywhere.
Really? Seems to be exactly what is being discussed to me. Maybe I've misunderstood you, which is very easy to do when you respond so snippily and with the focus on belittling the person rather than the point.
You redirected the terms of the discussion to "Jesus being YHWH as the Jews understand it." You answer complex doctrinal problems with "nope" and "definitionally wrong" as if that's sufficient. You refer to "two authorities that matter" without saying what you think they are.
CONTEXT CLUES. In a discussion involving Christian and Jewish matters, WHICH TWO PARTIES DO YOU IMAGINE–JUST IMAGINE NOW–MIGHT BE THE ONES THAT MATTER?
For fuck’s sake, do they not teach this anymore? I’m seeing it everywhere.
Since it was primarily a Christian subject then the authorities could have been the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, or any other Christian denomination that you consider important (again, I can't read your mind). Since the ecclesiastical question of Jesus's divinity doesn't even register in Jewish matters I didn't really consider them to be a party that mattered as part of the discussion all. Just because you make connections in your head doesn't mean everyone else is thinking on the same path.
Since all caps seems to be the way you think you make people understand: I CANNOT READ YOUR MIND.
My studies have taught that the Father is Yahweh or YHWH and the Messiah is Yahushua or Yahshua.
Yeah, a lot of “Christian” content has been usurped by heresies in the last century or so. This also doesn’t exist. There’s no “shared” heritage or whatever.
singularity said:
I can disprove that in under 300 words and without even invoking religion in any capacity, but it will just be deleted like the last time I posted it because feelings trump fact.
there is a shared heritage. the first "christians" (not what they were called then) were jews, that is they thought themselves jews who found a messiah. they did not deny their jewishness nor give up their cultural-religious history, but went forward in a different direction. the term "christian" came about quite early while peter the disciple was still alive, so yes- there would has to be shared history. these days, though, most christians have no idea what it means to be jewish, let alone first century jew (and little of their old testament). as a professor at a theological university/seminary with a long history, background and degrees in this area, i know what i am talking about. though i am not certain how talking about any of this helps in this thread.
when it comes to hate speech, i believe you are bang on.
If people want to refuse business for whatever reason then they should. End of story. It doesn't matter what sex acts you enjoy privately, it's my business and your business is none of my business too. It's my reputation and I just don't like your face so thats good enough for me. Gosh imagine a cell phone free meal? Obviously business is booming. Sorry PC (politically correct) police. Not happening in my business. "You got a complaint? There's the door dude!"
And although i am a die hard apple fan boy who goes so far as to beta test both they're hardware and software... who's business of there's to tell me who I can and can not sell to? Stay out of other people business. Can you image back in the '50s or '60s if Coke started coming out voicing their "opinion!" Who cares? Sell your product and shut up. If you're in business keep your comments to yourself. No one wants to go see Madonna in concert then sit through one of her 15 minute PC rants. People now just walk out. They went to be entertained not to be told how to think or what to wear.
There is a vast difference between refusing a single customer based on that single customer's behavior versus refusing an entire group of individuals based on an innate characteristic. That's how laws for public accommodation evolved. I would not want to play 'restaurant roulette' in Jackson to try and figure out which restaurants would serve my partner and me and which ones would toss us out in the street because serving pizza to gays somehow violates their personal beliefs. That being said, they don't have a huge amount of leverage, although I suppose that Apple could, for example, close all of its Mississippi stores. I think Apple makes these statements, in part, to position themselves as a socially responsible corporate that thinks about both making money and doing some good. Is their strategy perfect? No. But it's a start.
Beliefs and "morals" end when they deny others their basic rights and freedoms, which reach BEYOND "beliefs" and (religious) "morals."
Exactly. And no one has a right to enslave others. No one has a right to force someone to bake you a cake, be your DJ or photographer.
You're digging the hole deeper.
Yes, they do. See also "public accommodation laws"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations "Under United States federal law,
public accommodations must be accessible to the handicapped and may not
discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national
origin."[1][2] Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law[3] but not religious organizations.[4][5]"
Might want to check your definition of "slavery" at any number of online sources, unless you consider bakers (for example) to be the wholly owned property of the customer. Merriam Webster: "someone who is legally owned by another person and is forced to work for that person without pay".
The point is, believer of fake man up in the clouds, is that people simply do their jobs under much worse circumstances than selling a cake or pizza to much worse people. Just do your job and shut up.
Please name a pizzeria that actually refused someone some pizza because they were gay.
"However, the O'Connors said they would not deny service to any
individual who walked in for a pizza. What they disagree with is gay
marriage. Memories Pizza refuses to cater gay weddings or celebrations.
Crystal's father Kevin O'Connor defended his position: "I choose
to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat
over the head to go along with something they choose?" "
No one actually asked them to cater a wedding. It was a question proposed by a news group. In bold above, you can see what they actually said. They would not refuse service to anyone, they just would not cater to gay weddings or celebrations. So, they did not actually refuse service to anyone so still waiting for the pizzeria that actually refused someone because they were gay. (Far fetched anyone would actually have pizza catered for a wedding anyway but who knows.)
Stop confusing gay people receiving regular service in bakeries, flower shops, pizzerias, etc with the business owners catering to a gay wedding or celebration. The way in which it is constantly discussed/mentioned is that all service is being refused which is not true at all.
"However, the O'Connors said they would not deny service to any
individual who walked in for a pizza. What they disagree with is gay
marriage. Memories Pizza refuses to cater gay weddings or celebrations.
Crystal's father Kevin O'Connor defended his position: "I choose
to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat
over the head to go along with something they choose?" "
No one actually asked them to cater a wedding. It was a question proposed by a news group. In bold above, you can see what they actually said. They would not refuse service to anyone, they just would not cater to gay weddings or celebrations. So, they did not actually refuse service to anyone so still waiting for the pizzeria that actually refused someone because they were gay. (Far fetched anyone would actually have pizza catered for a wedding anyway but who knows.)
Stop confusing gay people receiving regular service in bakeries, flower shops, pizzerias, etc with the business owners catering to a gay wedding or celebration. The way in which it is constantly discussed/mentioned is that all service is being refused which is not true at all.
If you scroll down there's another article about an Indiana restaurateur that regularly denies service to gay people. I'd post the link but it's almost impossible to do with the mobile version of this site.
"However, the O'Connors said they would not deny service to any
individual who walked in for a pizza. What they disagree with is gay
marriage. Memories Pizza refuses to cater gay weddings or celebrations.
Crystal's father Kevin O'Connor defended his position: "I choose
to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat
over the head to go along with something they choose?" "
No one actually asked them to cater a wedding. It was a question proposed by a news group. In bold above, you can see what they actually said. They would not refuse service to anyone, they just would not cater to gay weddings or celebrations. So, they did not actually refuse service to anyone so still waiting for the pizzeria that actually refused someone because they were gay. (Far fetched anyone would actually have pizza catered for a wedding anyway but who knows.)
Stop confusing gay people receiving regular service in bakeries, flower shops, pizzerias, etc with the business owners catering to a gay wedding or celebration. The way in which it is constantly discussed/mentioned is that all service is being refused which is not true at all.
If you scroll down there's another article about an Indiana restaurateur that regularly denies service to gay people. I'd post the link but it's almost impossible to do with the mobile version of this site.
I read it but they were not the pizzeria in question which was the subject of my comments. None of my comments are meant to support that other restaurant.
The article conveniently leaves out all the death threats that pizzeria received as well as other vicious harassment they received. So much for tolerance. 255
If you scroll down there's another article about an Indiana restaurateur that regularly denies service to gay people. I'd post the link but it's almost impossible to do with the mobile version of this site.
I read it but they were not the pizzeria in question which was the subject of my comments. None of my comments are meant to support that other restaurant.
The article conveniently leaves out all the death threats that pizzeria received as well as other vicious harassment they received. So much for tolerance. 255
I never get how people think fighting hate with more hate is a productive means to an end.
woah woah hold your horses. the jews do not believe that. in fact, many of them believe jesus never existed, but even those who do would never claim that he was god
woah woah hold your horses. the jews do not believe that. in fact, many of them believe jesus never existed, but even those who do would never claim that he was god
I believe you understood it wrong. The first part, and second part of the sentence are exclusive.
Comments
Really? Seems to be exactly what is being discussed to me. Maybe I've misunderstood you, which is very easy to do when you respond so snippily and with the focus on belittling the person rather than the point.
Not the trinitarian nature of Jesus within Christianity but Jesus being YHWH as the Jews understand it.
Your continued inability to grasp that the world doesn't exist in black and white terms and that a bit of give and take is needed is going to mean this dance will carry on a while yet. Keep saying "definitionally" all you want.
So now you're restricting the nature of the discussion to a Jewish understanding, despite it originating from another person's opinion which is clearly of a Christian stance?
No wonder you don't get it, and since you completely failed to state your angle from the start, while using the word Christian multiple times I'm baffled that you can come out with things like "It’s quite plain what my position is."
You are never plain. You are opaque, obtuse, and frequently obnoxious.
Knock off the projectionism, please.
NOPE. I wouldn’t bother engaging with willful stupidity of this caliber if I didn’t know you were capable of more.
Then let me make this perfectly clear. AGAIN.
Respond to what was said, not what you invent.
Language is problematic and your use of of it is especially problematic. Unless you're actually going to say what I've got wrong instead of just taking umbridge at logical conclusions then there's nowhere else to go. Don't want to argue? Fine, don't. But you don't get to pretend like you're presenting any sort of reasonable standpoint.
For fuck’s sake, do they not teach this anymore? I’m seeing it everywhere.
Since all caps seems to be the way you think you make people understand: I CANNOT READ YOUR MIND.
when it comes to hate speech, i believe you are bang on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations
"Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the handicapped and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."[1][2] Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law[3] but not religious organizations.[4][5]"
Might want to check your definition of "slavery" at any number of online sources, unless you consider bakers (for example) to be the wholly owned property of the customer. Merriam Webster: "someone who is legally owned by another person and is forced to work for that person without pay".
"However, the O'Connors said they would not deny service to any individual who walked in for a pizza. What they disagree with is gay marriage. Memories Pizza refuses to cater gay weddings or celebrations. Crystal's father Kevin O'Connor defended his position: "I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?" "
No one actually asked them to cater a wedding. It was a question proposed by a news group. In bold above, you can see what they actually said. They would not refuse service to anyone, they just would not cater to gay weddings or celebrations. So, they did not actually refuse service to anyone so still waiting for the pizzeria that actually refused someone because they were gay. (Far fetched anyone would actually have pizza catered for a wedding anyway but who knows.)
Stop confusing gay people receiving regular service in bakeries, flower shops, pizzerias, etc with the business owners catering to a gay wedding or celebration. The way in which it is constantly discussed/mentioned is that all service is being refused which is not true at all.
The article conveniently leaves out all the death threats that pizzeria received as well as other vicious harassment they received. So much for tolerance.
255