Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Lost and confused

Bible study

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest
Did you forget that the LaClairs gave one of Mr. Ps sermons (preached in his church) to the Observer in an effort to slander him and jeapardize his employment.

You can't slander someone with his own words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. Paul doesn't appear to be stuck on trying to reduce everything to a deductive logical gimmie. He seems to recognize, as most of us do, that while logic is important to reason, it isn't the whole of it. We also have to employ our experience and our understanding of what things are and what they mean.

Then why didn't you accord me the same consideration?

The conclusion that Genesis 2 is a chronoligical account follows from the writing itself. It's told that way.

:lol:

Your argument "it's told that way" is very suggestive of the fallacy of begging the question.

Can you clarify what you mean to help distance your argument from that impression?

Your interpretation strains the reading beyond credulity.

Oh? In what way?

Notice the tendency, borrowed from Paul, to simply make assertions without supporting evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why was it revised? If it was the inspired word of God, it should have been perfect the first time.

That's an argument to direct toward a small sect of Christians affectionately called the "King James Only."

The doctrine of inerrancy does not encompass the perfection of various translations.

It's true that we would generally prefer 20th century scholarship over 17th century scholarship, but that assumes that knowledge advances over time.

In this case it demonstrably has. Scholars today have a better set of ancient manuscripts to work from thanks to the archeology. Significant strides have been made in distinguishing koine Greek from classical Greek, and a great deal more is known of the ancient Hebrew language.

With something like what the Bible is claimed to be, that wouldn't be true.

What claims about the Bible would make later manuscripts more reliable than earlier manuscripts?

Just the opposite, the best scholarship would be that closest to the actual revelations. The very fact that this isn't the pattern suggests that people who claim to believe in the Bible don't really believe it themselves, deep down.

We don't really have much record of scholarship that is closest to the actual revelations. We do have writing of the church fathers, but those are primarily useful in reconstructing the earliest forms of the Bible text, since many of them employed very free methods of interpretation (widely disparate symbolic interpretations, for example).

Face it, "Guest"--you don't know what you're talking about. Go read a book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
QUOTE(Guest @ Jun 26 2007, 12:24 PM)

The July issue of Harper's magazine includes an article on page 27 on this story. It starts with the following quotation from David Paszkiewicz in one of the September classes that was recorded.

David Paszkiewicz: "I'm going to keep this short --- every day we'll devote five minutes or so to you guys trying to make an atheist out of me."

Paszkiewicz wasn't being provoked into these discussions. He was planning on them. He said so himself. He said he was going to spend five minutes out of every class period discussing his religious beliefs.

You fundies manage to ignore reality and make things mean what you want them to mean, but how do you explain that?

(Strife) I can't wait to see what the fundies conjure up in response to this. :lol:

Apparently you're going to be waiting quite a while. Being an ignorant fundie must be wonderful. Out of all the millions of books in the world, all you have to read is one. Then close your mind, close your eyes and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist. If you're presented with a fact that doesn't fit, no problem, just ignore it. Do you think it will ever be possible to reason with them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
(1) Then why didn't you accord me the same consideration?

:lol:

(2) Your argument "it's told that way" is very suggestive of the fallacy of begging the question.

Can you clarify what you mean to help distance your argument from that impression?

Oh?  In what way?

Notice the tendency, borrowed from Paul, to simply make assertions without supporting evidence?

(1) Because you cut yourself off from human experience with your non-definition of justice and defense of the indefensible concept of hell.

(2) Read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
(1) That's an argument to direct toward a small sect of Christians affectionately called the "King James Only."

(2) The doctrine of inerrancy does not encompass the perfection of various translations.

In this case it demonstrably has.  Scholars today have a better set of ancient manuscripts to work from thanks to the archeology.  Significant strides have been made in distinguishing koine Greek from classical Greek, and a great deal more is known of the ancient Hebrew language.

(3) What claims about the Bible would make later manuscripts more reliable than earlier manuscripts?

(4) We don't really have much record of scholarship that is closest to the actual revelations.  We do have writing of the church fathers, but those are primarily useful in reconstructing the earliest forms of the Bible text, since many of them employed very free methods of interpretation (widely disparate symbolic interpretations, for example).

Face it, "Guest"--you don't know what you're talking about.  Go read a book.

(1) In other words, the Bibles you want us to read and follow conflict with each other in major ways. Why not just admit the truth, which is that the entire business is without foundation in the first place.

(2) How did those manuscripts get lost? If they were really God's divinely inspired work product, don't you think they would have been carefully preserved? And what about all the newly discovered writings that didn't make it into the Bible? If those count for scholarship, why were they omitted? Do you really think God would leave the writing of his instruction manual for the human race to a committee?

(3) That it comes from divine inspiration.

(4) You would if it was true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Sure you can.  It's very easy.  You just take his words out of context and create a false impression via insinuation.

Idiot, the recordings are on line. We've heard them. The guy was using his classroom to preach his religion and his politics, and he got caught by a resourceful teenager who thought at least six steps ahead of him. Stop already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
The July issue of Harper's magazine includes an article on page 27 on this story. It starts with the following quotation from David Paszkiewicz in one of the September classes that was recorded.

David Paszkiewicz: "I'm going to keep this short --- every day we'll devote five minutes or so to you guys trying to make an atheist out of me."

Paszkiewicz wasn't being provoked into these discussions. He was planning on them. He said so himself. He said he was going to spend five minutes out of every class period discussing his religious beliefs.

You fundies manage to ignore reality and make things mean what you want them to mean, but how do you explain that?

You idiot, you couldn't interpret your way out of a paper bag. When Paszkiewicz said "I'm going to" and "we'll," he didn't mean in the future. This isn't a chronological statement. You have to infer that, and since that inference isn't consistent with his defense, you can't make it. Knucklehead.

And he didn't say "five minutes." He said "five minutes or so." People have different interpretations of these things. He could have meant five seconds, or even one. You have to read these things in context.

And that business about "making an atheist out of me." He didn't mean he was going to discuss religion with the class. It means exactly what it says. He was going to listen quietly while the students tried to make an atheist out of him. He wasn't going to say a word.

And you call us fundies stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Idiot, the recordings are on line. We've heard them. The guy was using his classroom to preach his religion and his politics, and he got caught by a resourceful teenager who thought at least six steps ahead of him. Stop already.

:lol:

Thanks for taking my words out of context. It helps illustrate my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(1) Because you cut yourself off from human experience with your non-definition of justice and defense of the indefensible concept of hell.

No human would offer a non-definition of justice.

I suppose to be human I'll have to be like you and Paul, offering justifications that employ the fallacy of begging the question or the like.

And then you beg the question again with the defending the indefensible line.

You've blown it for all of the anonymous guests at KOTW. Post that fail to offer an semblance of reason, such as this one, will be ignored.

(2) Read it.

I've been over it with a fine-toothed comb, which is more than that comb-over of an argument deserved.

So you can't think of any way to excuse yourself from the charge of question-begging.

The only reason I can admit surprise is that you might have been expected to offer a question-begging argument to suggest that you weren't begging the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

I remember the story breaking about Mr. Paszkiewicz’s sermon. That was the one where he complained that religion is kept out of the public schools. That information came to me from the reporter, who found an outline of the sermon online and called me to ask for comment before running the story. I am not the one who uncovered that information, nor did anyone in my family. So you just bore false witness against me yet again.

I remember very well the big fuss on KOTW about the meeting in Mr. Somma’s office. You folks were all over me, taunting me to produce a recording of the meeting and calling me a liar for the absence of a recording. And then Mr. Paszkiewicz wrote a letter, which the Observer published, claiming he had been truthful in that meeting. In effect, he was calling Matthew a liar. So Matthew produced the recording, proving that everything he had said about Mr. Paszkiewicz’s remarks in that meeting was true. You folks shut up real fast about it after that, but I didn’t get any apologies and neither did Matthew. I thought you considered pride a vice. So why no humility in the form of an apology? And then you wonder why people call you hypocrites. You earn every ounce of it, and more. Most people don't bother because they think you're lost causes. That's what I had to overcome to post this at all.

More misrepresentations by Paul:

1. The sermon in the Observer was in outline form. The title was: "What You Won't Learn in School". The theme was essentially, as you go off to universities don't forget your faith. I know, I heard it preached. I also know that the Observer told a furious member of P's church who questioned how they could publish the sermon without permission that the LaClairs leaked it. If that's not true, then the Observer lied.

2. As you listen to the recording of the Meeting, Mathew asks Mr. P if he told the class "if they reject the Lord's salvation they belong in hell" or made the statement, "you belong in hell". Mr. P responded "no" and later said something to the effect that he talked about salvation but didn't say that, or at least not that way.

I think its reasonable to believe that because the meeting took place almost a month after the statements were made, Mr. P probably didn't remember exact phrasing and mathew was drilling for yes or now answers. Remember, Mr P probably didn't have the advantage of copious nots on his words or tape recordings to review with the aid of an attorney father.

The most controvercial statement Mr. P made concerned his answer to a student's question (quite possibly Mathew's) regarding how a truly loving God could possibly send his children to hell.

The fullest context of his response is on classroom CD Sept. 14.

Mr. P. responded that the way he saw it was: "He (God) did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so, that he put your sin on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying, 'Please accept me, believe me!' If you reject that, you belong in hell ... its up to you to reason it out, the outcome is your prerogative. But the way I see it, God himself sent his son to die for David Paszkiewicz on that cross ... and if I reject that, then it really is to hell with me."

Also, you say in this post that Mr. P, in effect, called Mathew a liar. I listened to the recording the Observer posted and Mathew actually asked Mr. P if he was calling him a liar. Mr. P responded by saying no because there was a shred of truth in the things he said but each was taken out of its context. So again, you deliberately misrepresent Mr.P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You idiot, you couldn't interpret your way out of a paper bag. When Paszkiewicz said "I'm going to" and "we'll," he didn't mean in the future. This isn't a chronological statement. You have to infer that, and since that inference isn't consistent with his defense, you can't make it. Knucklehead.

And he didn't say "five minutes." He said "five minutes or so." People have different interpretations of these things. He could have meant five seconds, or even one. You have to read these things in context.

And that business about "making an atheist out of me." He didn't mean he was going to discuss religion with the class. It means exactly what it says. He was going to listen quietly while the students tried to make an atheist out of him. He wasn't going to say a word.

And you call us fundies stupid.

LOL, nice. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I am no cruder than that which I criticize. The above is a perfect example. You guys believe the crazy stories, and damned if I'm going to be told there's something wrong with me for seeing the lunacy in this.

This is an excellent point. Monotheism tells a completely nutty story without the slightest foundation in any known fact. It's like the big lie. If the story is really crazy, people are actually more likely to believe it because they won't believe that anyone could make up anything that crazy. And not only that, you know deep down that it's not true, so you get wiggle room to kind of slide along and do a few things you want to do even though they're against the rules. How else can you explain all the sinnin' that supposedly religious people do, and the fact that they often laugh about it? If they really believed they could suffer forever for it, or that it wounded the God who gave them life, they wouldn't do that. So instead of making people better, these religions actually provide cover for all the lousy stuff anyone really wants to do.

As a result, we and our ancestors have been living out the fantasies of some people who lived anywhere from 1,500 to 3,500 years ago who may have been delusional. And since everybody knows deep down that this kind of religion is all a crock, no one takes it seriously (not even the fundies), which means that there's a huge vacuum where religion ought to be.

And you wonder why the world is screwed up. Greeeeeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
He couldn't have forgotten it because it isn't true. I thought about whether to respond to this post. Many think all that does is dignify the attack. I decided to respond because I still have faith in your capacity as a human being to act more honestly about this situation than you have in the past, and in particular with a post like the one above. Please listen carefully because what I have to say to you is important.

I remember the story breaking about Mr. Paszkiewicz’s sermon. That was the one where he complained that religion is kept out of the public schools. That information came to me from the reporter, who found an outline of the sermon online and called me to ask for comment before running the story. I am not the one who uncovered that information, nor did anyone in my family. So you just bore false witness against me yet again.

I have to tell you, the more I see and read from people supporting Mr. Paszkiewicz, many of whom are obviously members of his church, the more disgusted I am. You claim to worship God, and then just flat out lie about my family and me over and over and over again. Why don’t you sit with each other and talk it over carefully and calmly? Because I’ll tell you what, if there is a god who punishes people for doing bad things, you’re going to have some answering to do. Be careful what you wish for. You might not really want it.

We said quite a few things about Mr. Paszkiewicz during all this, and some of it didn’t paint a pretty picture, but every word of it was true. You didn’t want it to be true, but it was. All of it. And if Mr. Paszkiewicz was slandered by his own sermon, his own words --- do you really need me to draw the conclusion for you? He put them on the internet, or his church did. And you want to blame me? What is wrong with you? All that says is that it didn't turn out the way you and he would have hoped, but that is because he took his religious beliefs, which he has every right to express in church and on the street, and tried to push them in his classroom, where he is a paid public employee.

I remember very well the big fuss on KOTW about the meeting in Mr. Somma’s office. You folks were all over me, taunting me to produce a recording of the meeting and calling me a liar for the absence of a recording. And then Mr. Paszkiewicz wrote a letter, which the Observer published, claiming he had been truthful in that meeting. In effect, he was calling Matthew a liar. So Matthew produced the recording, proving that everything he had said about Mr. Paszkiewicz’s remarks in that meeting was true. You folks shut up real fast about it after that, but I didn’t get any apologies and neither did Matthew. I thought you considered pride a vice. So why no humility in the form of an apology? And then you wonder why people call you hypocrites. You earn every ounce of it, and more. Most people don't bother because they think you're lost causes. That's what I had to overcome to post this at all.

Now read slowly and carefully because here's the important part.

With all your claims about being holy, you seem to have no sense of right and wrong. The way you express it, religion seems like something you use to sing yourself to sleep with at night, your version of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “lalalalalalalalala” at the top of your lungs so you can close out the world and ignore what is really going on. When someone makes a point against you that you can't answer, you don't think about it and change your mind; you just ignore the point and pretend it was never said. "Lalalalalalala I'm not listening!" Shame on you.

You people don’t get it. You think I’m against religion. I’m not. I am deeply religious. I’m against what you’re doing to religion and to the world.

There’s nothing religious about what you’re doing. Religion brings all things together in harmony. What you’re doing is dividing, and you can’t even follow some of your own most basic commandments. I’m not just saying I disagree with you. I’m saying you’re doing a lot of harm. Why else would you say things about my son and me that aren’t true, over and over and over and over again, with no apparent sense of shame or contrition even after it is pointed out to you? Why? What does that tell you about the religion you claim to be practicing? Before you pass judgment on that, think about it. We need you as part of our society and our country, and if you don't measure up to your moral responsibility, we all pay the price. Please pass this on to your church.

Most sincerely,

Paul LaClair

You spent a lot of time explaining somehing that it is not true, don' you think? why is that Paul?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
1. The sermon in the Observer was in outline form. The title was: "What You Won't Learn in School". The theme was essentially, as you go off to universities don't forget your faith. I know, I heard it preached. I also know that the Observer told a furious member of P's church who questioned how they could publish the sermon without permission that the LaClairs leaked it. If that's not true, then the Observer lied.

2. As you listen to the recording of the Meeting, Mathew asks Mr. P if he told the class "if they reject the Lord's salvation they belong in hell" or made the statement, "you belong in hell". Mr. P responded "no" and later said something to the effect that he talked about salvation but didn't say that, or at least not that way.

I think its reasonable to believe that because the meeting took place almost a month after the statements were made, Mr. P probably didn't remember exact phrasing and mathew was drilling for yes or now answers. Remember, Mr P probably didn't have the advantage of copious nots on his words or tape recordings to review with the aid of an attorney father.

1. You can't "leak" something that's already on the Internet.

2. Yeah, right. That's why it made national and international news. I'd remember saying "you belong in hell" - unless of course Paszkiewicz says it so often he can't remember where. Friends like you would do him a favor keeping quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bewildered
:o

Thanks for taking my words out of context.  It helps illustrate my point.

Bryan, do you have even the slightest clue as to what "taking something out of context". You pull this canard whenever someone says something true that you do not like. There is nothing in the context of the recorded class that even suggests that Paszkiewicz did not initiate the conversation and did not present his views as true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
More misrepresentations by Paul:

1. The sermon in the Observer was in outline form. The title was: "What You Won't Learn in School". The theme was essentially, as you go off to universities don't forget your faith. I know, I heard it preached. I also know that the Observer told a furious member of P's church who questioned how they could publish the sermon without permission that the LaClairs leaked it. If that's not true, then the Observer lied.

2. As you listen to the recording of the Meeting, Mathew asks Mr. P if he told the class "if they reject the Lord's salvation they belong in hell" or made the statement, "you belong in hell". Mr. P responded "no" and later said something to the effect that he talked about salvation but didn't say that, or at least not that way.

I think its reasonable to believe that because the meeting took place almost a month after the statements were made, Mr. P probably didn't remember exact phrasing and mathew was drilling for yes or now answers. Remember, Mr P probably didn't have the advantage of copious nots on his words or tape recordings to review with the aid of an attorney father.

The most controvercial statement Mr. P made concerned his answer to a student's question (quite possibly Mathew's) regarding how a truly loving God could possibly send his children to hell.

The fullest context of his response is on classroom CD Sept. 14.

Mr. P. responded that the way he saw it was: "He (God) did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so, that he put your sin on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying, 'Please accept me, believe me!' If you reject that, you belong in hell ... its up to you to reason it out, the outcome is your prerogative. But the way I see it, God himself sent his son to die for David Paszkiewicz on that cross ... and if I reject that, then it really is to hell with me."

Also, you say in this post that Mr. P, in effect, called Mathew a liar. I listened to the recording the Observer posted and Mathew actually asked Mr. P if he was calling him a liar. Mr. P responded by saying no because there was a shred of truth in the things he said but each was taken out of its context. So again, you deliberately misrepresent Mr.P.

1. So why were you upset that the Observer publicized his sermon. If you really want to spread the gospel to the world, what's the problem?

I had every right to ask that David Paszkiewicz be fired. The Board had more than ample cause to do it. I did not, and they did not. The way you and he are continuing to behave, you're making me regret that I didn't. However, the fact is that I had nothing to do with the Observer getting that story. They didn't need permission to publish because it was already online.

As to what happened, there's a third alternative, which is probably true. You guys at that church got your signals crossed again. You've made many accusations against my family and me, none of which are true and most of which have been shown conclusively not to be true. Contrary to what you seem to be hearing in church, things aren't true because you want them to be, and facts don't disappear just because you don't like them. You just make stuff up. It's called lying, and it's not nice.

2. People can draw their own conclusions about whether Mr. P crossed the line, and already have. The Board's policy on church-state separation didn't come out of thin air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
You spent a lot of time explaining somehing that it is not true, don' you think? why is that Paul?

Because civilizations are built on beliefs, and harmful beliefs damage civilizations. Nazism, for example. You may have no trouble agreeing that Islamic fundamentalism damages that culture. So the argument that there's no point arguing against something that isn't so is itself not so. There is a point if that belief is damaging the culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryan, do you have even the slightest clue as to what "taking something out of context" [means?].

Yes. Do you?

You pull this canard whenever someone says something true that you do not like.

I'd say that's patently false. Why don't you bring in your best example and we'll discuss it like two reasonable people?

There is nothing in the context of the recorded class that even suggests that Paszkiewicz did not initiate the conversation and did not present his views as true.

And perhaps you should go back and review the context of the comment of mine you answered while you're at it.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=58851

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=58817

The subject was the chronology of Genesis chapter two before you happened on the scene. Perhaps "Guest" misled you via his attempt to express irony by using Paszkiewicz as his example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I'd say that's patently false.  Why don't you bring in your best example and we'll discuss it like two reasonable people?

That assumes that two reasonable people would be having the discussion. If Bryan is one of them, that would not be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because civilizations are built on beliefs, and harmful beliefs damage civilizations. Nazism, for example. You may have no trouble agreeing that Islamic fundamentalism damages that culture. So the argument that there's no point arguing against something that isn't so is itself not so. There is a point if that belief is damaging the culture.

Where does Paul derive his philosophical standing for asserting damage to the culture? How does he know it isn't simply the culture evolving, for example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, the fact is that I had nothing to do with the Observer getting that story. They didn't need permission to publish because it was already online.

And if they had needed permission, it would make no sense for them to go to you for it. Would the accuser have us believe that you have a license agreement that allows you to control publication rights to Paszkiewicz' sermon outlines? That you own the copyright to the sermon? Or that you have a power of attorney or other authority to make such decisions on Paszkiewicz' or his church's behalf?

Even before your denial, it was obvious that the accusation was out of whack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bewildered
Yes.  Do you?

I'd say that's patently false.  Why don't you bring in your best example and we'll discuss it like two reasonable people?

And perhaps you should go back and review the context of the comment of mine you answered while you're at it.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=58851

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=58817

The subject was the chronology of Genesis chapter two before you happened on the scene.  Perhaps "Guest" misled you via his attempt to express irony by using Paszkiewicz as his example.

I loathe reading any of your current posts. Why should I torment myself by trying to read other posts you've written? And wouldn't I be reading them out of context if I just read the one post you've cited or do I need to read everything under that topic. The second Genesis story conflicts with the first. My comment about Paszkiewicz was an illustration of my first comment. People on his side always throw out the "out of context" blather and claim P's words are being distorted. Any sane person can listen to the whole recording or read the transcripts and see that his comments, especially ones like "God did all he could..He sent his only son...dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark, etc. are out of place in a history class. They are religious views. The statements were not mollified by statements like "Some people believe" or "Christians believe." They were made as statements of theological truth. That isn't allowed in public schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...