Especially the definition of God, which is sure to be controversial among theological lexicographers.

Last edited Wed Dec 5, 2018, 11:38 AM - Edit history (1)

God n. (gawd) -
1. Any of various imaginary, supernatural entities supposed to have extraordinary powers and attributes. A deity.
2. A particular deity worshiped exclusively by a group of monotheistic human beings.
3. Any of several deities in polytheistic religions.
4. (expletive) A non-specific entity called upon at times of ecstasy, anger, rage, or surprise, combined with other expletives. e.g.: Oh, God! Oh my God! Goddammit! For God's sake!, etc.
5. (proper noun) The particular deity worshiped by Jews and Christian. Also known as Allah by Muslims.

Great start on defining "gawd".

The words change, but the goal remains the same: to demonize and/or dehumanize people with different opinions, to marginalize them, and to negate what they say so someone does not have to engage in actual discussion or debate of the issues, particularly when that someone is horrendously and embarrassingly ill-equipped to do so.

All of which are forms of an Ad Hominem fallacy:
Ad hominem {Latin for "to the person"}, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem



Paul Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement lists ad hominem as the second lowest type of argument in a disagreement.

Emphasis added.

...good company or as just another voice in the multitude?

Feel free to expand the choices, if you rail against decidedly imposed binary options.

But someone had to say it, I think. As I said earlier, "We are all definers now."

Some never seem to rise far from the bottom.

But your posts are out there for all to see, even the old ones.

However, you have convinced yourself that you are correct and that others are wrong.

including the one you recently deleted. Perhaps because of how it was developing.

judgments about them. They represent my opinions, as I clearly state at the bottom of every post. I stand by my opinions.

You have called me a "definer." I accept that appellation gladly. Of course I am. We all are definers. If we were not, we would have no world views or ethics at all. You use the word as a pejorative. I claim it as a positive description. I define things for myself.

Thus, this thread.

As for the thread I deleted, I explained my reason in the final post before ending the discussion through self-deletion. You're welcome to read that, as is anyone else here.

my use of the word "definer" is intended to point out that some here apparently feel that only they can define what is an acceptable reading of Biblical text. And that claim puts them in the company of the Biblical literalists.


As to the deleted thread, the tone of the responses, and who they were from, is revealing.

You applied it to several members of this Group with whom you frequently disagree. We can all see what you did, Guy. I decided to reclaim your insult and return it to its actual meaning. And here you are, as expected.

And some took exception to it.

And you could have responded in my post, but decided to start your own thread. Ironic.

I'm sure you will do the same. Others will decide how they feel about them.

It reads more like someone who is desparately trying to think of something insulting to say about someone else while doing a much better job belittling themselves with that sort of nonsense. I sincerely hope you add this one to your repertoire. Maybe someday you'll have enough self-depreciating material to take your show on the road.

Holy fucking shit, g. How can you post that with a straight face? You do exactly that ALL THE TIME.

Not succeeding.

I've saved that post - a link AND a screenshot in case he decides to delete - and will definitely use it the next time he starts a new thread instead of replying within an existing one.

It's nice that he does such a great job discrediting himself that we really don't need to do anything more.

It can be a symptom of several medical disorders. My mother, in fact, has an advanced case of Alzheimer's and can't remember anything much for more than a minute or two. She constantly forgets what she has just said.

I've learned that gently repeating things again and again works best to help her find her bearings. So, perhaps that's the answer.

Perhaps his own words will be less threatening and more likely to register the next time he engages in the behavior he claims to detest!

That might help.

specifically a link to something that was said would be requested, then shortly after said post would be deleted.

And as I've told you time and time again, I am PERFECTLY happy letting the readers of this forum draw their own conclusions. Your threats are hollow, and only serve to further reveal what kind of Christian you really are.

...that's it.