Jim & Tammy Faye one generation later

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Here on ET, your opinion is just as valid as mine even though you likely have only a tiny percentage of the experience with the Bible as I.

Uh, failed experience with the Bible...

Doh!

That's why they are called failed theists...

Double Doh!

Time spent in an endeavor failing, means little in terms of expertise.

Triple Doh!

I doubt someone who wanted success in trading would go to a trader who had spent 20 years full time trading, yet failed in learning how to trade for their "expertise" in trading...

Quadruple Doh!

Why as a failed theist you continue to think you understand the Bible the way it should be understood, or that you read the words as they were meant to be read, or that your take on the Bible is somehow relevant escapes me...

Based on this "logic" we should go to someone who is a failed theist who has spent 2 or 3 times the amount of time you have with the Bible for expertise in it.

Really silly Turok, really damed silly...

Someone lost in the woods for a day, or their entire life, is still lost in the woods and can't find their way out...

Quote from Turok:

Sorry 'bout the delay responding JB3. Somehow I lost your last post to this thread in the shuffle. I just read it, and will now respond:

JB3
>I thought it was obvious but evidently it wasn't
>obvious to you. I'll explain it to you, slowwwwly.

It doesn't matter whether you make your error quickly or slowwwwly, it’s still an error.

JB3:
>You made the claim that Bakker son's version of Christianity
>was not the biblical version, then quoted (and concurred
>with) this,
>>I would like to know if the writers of this article ever sat
>>down and read the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of
>>Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the Gospel of John from
>>the first verse of Chapter 1 to the last verse of each book?

Yes, I did.

>The implied message was that if one has not read
>the entire Bible, "from the first verse of Chapter 1 to
>the last verse of each book," then one does not have
>a standing to say what Christianity is.

Well, you're almost correct -- though it's not a point I give a rat about, he *doesn't* say you have to read "the entire bible" (your words), but rather the entire listed Gospels -- But since it matters not a whiff, for the sake of this argument I'll stipulate your incorrect reading.

>But by the same logic, you don't have a say here
>too - I don't believe that you've read the Bible,
>"from the first verse of Chapter 1 to the last
>verse of each book," judging from your posts.

Why would you assume that? Are you one of those who thinks that there is only one possible interpretation of the scriptures and if I interpret it differently than you, it must be because I didn't read it? I’d truly be interested in you showing me the posts where I convinced you that I haven’t read the ‘good book’.

Anyway, you must be thinking of someone else. I have read the *entire* bible. Yes, from "from the first verse of Chapter 1 to the last verse of each book." I have done this more times than I have fingers *and* toes.

There was a time when I believed in the biblical time of trouble. I believed that our Bibles would be taken from us during this time of last days tribulation. I sincerely believed that the way to God was through his word and that without our Bibles, the way to God was through the scriptures committed to memory. I have committed to memory more than 300 chapters (not verses, *chapters*) of both the old and the new testament plus thousands of individual verses. (yes, that would be close to 25 percent of the bible).

I was repeatedly tested on my ability to write these scriptures from memory (including punctuation). From being taken out of school at the second grade level through my late teen years I attended school where the curriculum was based 100 percent on the King James Bible -- and I don't mean philosophically based, but *literally* based.

Every math problem was straight out of the scriptures (only very basic math was taught – not even as far as simple geometry), every spelling test was a list of words from the Bible. The only history taught was biblical. We spent 5 hours per day at school with the KJB (three of those memorizing and reciting) and an additional 2 at home.

To this day I can stand next to you and verbally launch into a perfect recital of the 119th psalm (the longest chapter in the bible) with fewer punctuation errors than a good typist would commit during transcription. (if you really want to hear something funny, listen to someone verbally reciting scripture while including punctuation – “Blessed are the undefiled in the way – comma – who walk in the law of the Lord – period”

JB3
>In other words, I wasn't saying that you don't
>have standing. You were saying that.

So sorry … on this one you picked the wrong guy.

Now, do I believe this is what gives me standing to comment on issues of Religion? No. Here on ET, your opinion is just as valid as mine even though you likely have only a tiny percentage of the experience with the Bible as I.

JB

PS: wind up the the troll (not referencing you JB3)

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from Turok:

Another interesting article on Jay Baker:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/artsentertainment/2003474280_bakker13.html

I especially like this quote from him:

>To publicize his Revolution Church, Jay slaps stickers
>onto parking meters that read: "As Christians we're
>sorry for being self-righteous judgmental bastards."

Nicely put.

JB

=============
Turok;
Maybe James Bond was not too enthused about Jay advertising himself as a ''punk''

And while i agree with much of what you wrote;
all the people in Hebrews 11 [Hebrew hall of fame ]never read the new testament]. All of them did know[memorized perhaps] some Word and had a realtionship with the living Word

Jesus himself came to Israel when the new testament hadnt been written at the time.

 

[Turok]

Me:
>PS: wind up the the troll

Released right on time.

JB

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Here on ET, your opinion is just as valid as mine even though you likely have only a tiny percentage of the experience with the Bible as I.

Uh, failed experience with the Bible...

Doh!

That's why they are called failed theists...

Double Doh!

Time spent in an endeavor failing, means little in terms of expertise.

Triple Doh!

I doubt someone who wanted success in trading would go to a trader who had spent 20 years full time trading, yet failed in learning how to trade for their "expertise" in trading...

Quadruple Doh!

Why as a failed theist you continue to think you understand the Bible the way it should be understood, or that you read the words as they were meant to be read, or that your take on the Bible is somehow relevant escapes me...

Based on this "logic" we should go to someone who is a failed theist who has spent 2 or 3 times the amount of time you have with the Bible for expertise in it.

Really silly Turok, really damed silly...

Someone lost in the woods for a day, or their entire life, is still lost in the woods and can't find their way out...

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

You: Ad hominem attacks.

Me: Par for the course from Turok when his confused failed theist thinking is exposed.

Quote from Turok:

Me:
>PS: wind up the the troll

Released right on time.

JB

 

[james_bond_3rd]

I'm impressed with your Bible experience, Turok. But don't you think the two posts quoted here contradict each other?

Quote from Turok:

I concur with this comment posted o...e point in your second post, with some snark.

 

[Turok]

JB3
>I'm impressed with your Bible experience,
>Turok. But don't you think the two posts
>quoted here contradict each other?

JB3, you're quite a smart guy -- I say that very sincerely. I've read enough of your posts to know this. With this in mind, I truly don't understand how we got here and why you have taken this position...

Read that first quote again. Is there anything in that quote that implies that Bakker and Brown don't have the right to state their position? No. The writer simply believes that their conclusions are flawed and asks (perhaps rhetorically, perhaps sincerely) if the writers actually covered the supplied study materials.

I agree with the writer that Bakker's conclusions are flawed and state so leading up to posting the quote. However, I SPECIFICALLY state that Jay has the right to whatever conclusion he comes to and that I have no problem whatsoever with that right.

From your following post:
>..."Who said that you're the final authority on
>what the biblical version of christianity is?"

Now, it's important to notice my response to the above, it's key to you understanding my position.

Me:
>That's right... who said?

In other words, "I sure as hell didn't set myself up as the final authority, I'm just a anonymous poster on ET with an opinion".

So to repeat your question:
>...don't you think the two posts quoted
>here contradict each other

No, we're all just people with opinions and we all have equal rights to state them (and to a great degree, even live by them). Jay has the right to his and I have the right to mine.

Now, just for clarity, let me emphasize what I was referring to as your "hypocrisy".

In your response you say:

>...it is quite clear that your opinion is
>inconsistent with the Bible

and then immediately follow with:

>..."Who said that you're the final authority on
>what the biblical version of christianity is?"

Now talk about contradiction (or hypocrisy) JB3 -- those two statements have it in spades. In other words...

Turok: "I believe 'A'".
JB3: "You're wrong -- "B" is clearly correct".
JB3: "and BTW, who the F*** made you the expert?"

See the conflict? Here in ET, I have just as much right to be the the expert as you do.

Peace.

JB

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

You have the right to speak as a failed theist, as that is your stature.

Posing as having expertise on the Bible, beyond being one who has failed to continue to have faith in it would be dishonest.

All kinds of arguments can be put forth why you decided to renounce your faith, but each argument leaves you in the status of a failed theist, who has no expertise in the Bible but failure to sustain faith in the Bible.

We could take a computer that had speech software built into it, such that it could "speak" English. We computerized speech commonly now.

We could then take some OCR software and scan in the Bible, such that the Bible was now digitized, and the computer could then fully recite the Bible.

Would the computer now be a theist because it could 'read' the Bible and recite it repetitively?

LOL!

Just because you were a mindless child who read or repeated the Bible, or mimicked the take of your elders, doesn't mean that you understood what you were actually reading or talking about as a child, and now that you have rejected that path and renounced whatever faith you had in the Bible...makes your "expertise" not in the Bible, but and expert in your own experiences, which are not that of a theist, nor one who consciously reads and accepts the Bible as true on the basis of faith.

You could argue that faith is a waste of time, that the words of the Bible are what matter, but such arguments run counter to the common understanding of that scripture needs to be taken on faith, not read by a dry detached or angry intellectual materialistic point of view in order to understand the Bible.

You are like the computer that can recite the words, but has no real understanding of the meaning of the words as they were intended to be taken, on faith. The computer is not an expert on the Bible, and neither are you in your failed theist status.

Do you have a right to continue to make a fool of yourself by claiming to have expertise in the Bible because of your past history? You betcha...

Quote from Turok:

JB3
>I'm impressed with your Bible experience,
>Turok. But don't you think the two posts
>quoted here contradict each other?

JB3, you're quite a smart guy -- I say that very sincerely. I've read enough of your posts to know this. With this in mind, I truly don't understand how we got here and why you have taken this position...

Read that first quote again. Is there anything in that quote that implies that Bakker and Brown don't have the right to state their position? No. The writer simply believes that their conclusions are flawed and asks (perhaps rhetorically, perhaps sincerely) if the writers actually covered the supplied study materials.

I agree with the writer that Bakker's conclusions are flawed and state so leading up to posting the quote. However, I SPECIFICALLY state that Jay has the right to whatever conclusion he comes to and that I have no problem whatsoever with that right.

From your following post:
>..."Who said that you're the final authority on
>what the biblical version of christianity is?"

Now, it's important to notice my response to the above, it's key to you understanding my position.

Me:
>That's right... who said?

In other words, "I sure as hell didn't set myself up as the final authority, I'm just a anonymous poster on ET with an opinion".

So to repeat your question:
>...don't you think the two posts quoted
>here contradict each other

No, we're all just people with opinions and we all have equal rights to state them (and to a great degree, even live by them). Jay has the right to his and I have the right to mine.

Now, just for clarity, let me emphasize what I was referring to as your "hypocrisy".

In your response you say:

>...it is quite clear that your opinion is
>inconsistent with the Bible

and then immediately follow with:

>..."Who said that you're the final authority on
>what the biblical version of christianity is?"

Now talk about contradiction (or hypocrisy) JB3 -- those two statements have it in spades. In other words...

Turok: "I believe 'A'".
JB3: "You're wrong -- "B" is clearly correct".
JB3: "and BTW, who the F*** made you the expert?"

See the conflict? Here in ET, I have just as much right to be the the expert as you do.

Peace.

JB

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Turok:

JB3
... I truly don't understand how we got here and why you have taken this position...

Because you were quoting in an approving manner a fundamentalist point of view. Fundamentalism is harmful and needs to be fought everywhere you see them.

Quote from Turok:
So to repeat your question:
>...don't you think the two posts quoted
>here contradict each other

No, we're all just people with opinions and we all have equal rights to state them (and to a great degree, even live by them). Jay has the right to his and I have the right to mine.

Now, just for clarity, let me emphasize what I was referring to as your "hypocrisy".

In your response you say:

>...it is quite clear that your opinion is
>inconsistent with the Bible

and then immediately follow with:

>..."Who said that you're the final authority on
>what the biblical version of christianity is?"

Now talk about contradiction (or hypocrisy) JB3 -- those two statements have it in spades. In other words...

Turok: "I believe 'A'".
JB3: "You're wrong -- "B" is clearly correct".
JB3: "and BTW, who the F*** made you the expert?"

See the conflict? Here in ET, I have just as much right to be the the expert as you do.

Peace.

JB [/B]

1. Don't put words I didn't say in my quotes.
2. I'm glad you see the conflict. That was the point of my post. Unfortunately you were determined to attack it rather than seeing the irony in it. You should set your snark detector at a higher dial.

 

[Turok]

Me:
>... I truly don't understand how we got
>here and why you have taken this position...

JB3:
>Because you were quoting in an approving
>manner a fundamentalist point of view.
>Fundamentalism is harmful and needs to be
>fought everywhere you see them.

Your response is actually just another example of how you don't understand the problem -- my issue with you is one of logic and has nothing to do with subject matter (thus my "A" and "B" hypo in my last post). We could have been discussing the latest company report from YHOO and your response (if written the same) would have contained the same logical flaw/hypocrisy.

Oh well.

>1. Don't put words I didn't say in my quotes.

I certainly don't intend to do such. In fact, I can't find where I did (other than in my latest hypo where it was clearly intro'd as such). I'd be happy for you to show me where I mis-quoted you and you will receive a prompt apology.

>2. I'm glad you see the conflict. That was
>the point of my post.

LOL -- if you saying that I see the conflict in my post -- well, you'd be throwing straw (and demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension). There was and remains no conflict in my original statement The conflict I refer to in my last post is YOURS. (the hypocrisy).

As an end to all this, Jem and I are pretty much mortal enemies on this forum (exaggeration of course), but I certainly understand why he is struggling with your thought process over on that other thread -- you like to zig and zag to cover your ass and you REALLY don't read what people write, but assume what you like.

You get the last word.

peace and moving on.

JB

PS: Since I can't find it, if you don't respond with the post where I "put words you didn't say in your quotes" I will just assume you were "snarking".

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from Turok:

Sorry 'bout the delay responding JB3. Somehow I lost your last post to this thread in the shuffle. I just read it, and will now respond:

J


There was a time when I believed in the biblical time of trouble. I believed that our Bibles would be taken from us during this time of last days tribulation. I sincerely believed that the way to God was through his word and that without our Bibles, the way to God was through the scriptures committed to memory. I have committed to memory more than 300 chapters (not verses, *chapters*) of both the old and the new testament plus thousands of individual verses. (yes, that would be close to 25 percent of the bible).

I was repeatedly tested on my ability to write these scriptures from memory (including punctuation). From being taken out of school at the second grade level through my late teen years I attended school where the curriculum was based 100 percent on the King James Bible -- and I don't mean philosophically based, but *literally* based.

Every math problem was straight out of the scriptures (only very basic math was taught – not even as far as simple geometry), every spelling test was a list of words from the Bible. The only history taught was biblical. We spent 5 hours per day at school with the KJB (three of those memorizing and reciting) and an additional 2 at home.

To this day I can stand next to you and verbally launch into a perfect recital of the 119th psalm (the longest chapter in the bible) with fewer punctuation errors than a good typist would commit during transcription. (if you really want to hear something funny, listen to someone verbally reciting scripture while including punctuation – “Blessed are the undefiled in the way – comma – who walk in the law of the Lord – period......................

=============
Interesting;
also interesting Psalm 119 is alphabeticaly arranged/alliterated/per every 8 verses


Not many old testament passeges are;
Proverbs 31 is also''She considereth [examines]a field and buyeth it , with her earnings she planteth a vineyard.King James Version/others