MASS confusion - OSAS opponents

[The Biblicist]

The opponents of truth share one thing in common with each other when it comes to attacking truth. They don't present one verse at a time and try to defend their interpertation by the immediate context. No, that would prove fatal to their position as it is quite easy to expose their eisgesis. No, instead they come on with a profuse amount of texts, or long lists of texts. Why, because that gives them more room to wiggle, to jump around and make it impossible for anyone to nail them down by context. They do this in their attacks as well as in their responses.

However, when we present only one precise verse or phrase and defend it from a contextual point of view they either ignore it or reply with MASS and diverse texts.

When they are nailed by precise words in a precise context, they ignore it for a while, and then later come right back with the same text even though they never were able to respond and though their false interpretation was never exposed and condemned.

If truth is what all are really after, then, lets drop the MASS scripture presentations and deal with one text at a time in its context. If I were a betting man [and I am not] I would bet this suggestion will be ridiculed by the opponents of truth and confirmed by those who believe the truth. Those who do embrace the truth will be for this as they know that context then must be the final judge rather than JUMPING AROUND FROM TEXT TO TEXT or LONG LISTS OF TEXTS.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

The opponents of truth share one thing in common with each other when it comes to attacking truth. They don't present one verse at a time and try to defend their interpertation by the immediate context. No, that would prove fatal to their position as it is quite easy to expose their eisgesis. No, instead they come on with a profuse amount of texts, or long lists of texts. Why, because that gives them more room to wiggle, to jump around and make it impossible for anyone to nail them down by context. They do this in their attacks as well as in their responses.

However, when we present only one precise verse or phrase and defend it from a contextual point of view they either ignore it or reply with MASS and diverse texts.

When they are nailed by precise words in a precise context, they ignore it for a while, and then later come right back with the same text even though they never were able to respond and though their false interpretation was never exposed and condemned.

If truth is what all are really after, then, lets drop the MASS scripture presentations and deal with one text at a time in its context. If I were a betting man [and I am not] I would bet this suggestion will be ridiculed by the opponents of truth and confirmed by those who believe the truth. Those who do embrace the truth will be for this as they know that context then must be the final judge rather than JUMPING AROUND FROM TEXT TO TEXT or LONG LISTS OF TEXTS.

I talk to a lot of atheists online and this is a big tactic of theirs. They go to some atheist "gotcha" site and copy and paste a million verses they've neither read nor understand. The purpose isn't so much to use the verses to disprove Christianity, but to overwhelm their opponent and then point out that his inability to answer them all shows that Christianity is indefensible.

It's dishonest when they do it and it's dishonest when "Dr"jamesach and his buddies do it.

I usually just tell them to look at the list and pick their top three and I'll be happy to address them. Once their bluff is called, I usually never see them again.

 

[annsni]

I usually just tell them to look at the list and pick their top three and I'll be happy to address them. Once their bluff is called, I usually never see them again.

I think that is possibly the best way to deal with it. When I see a giant list, I am challenged to address the whole thing (which is easy but time consuming and time that I just don't have) and I will tend to not get to it but give me a few? Then it's easy to work through and address the issues.

 

[evangelist-7]

I think that is possibly the best way to deal with it. When I see a giant list, I am challenged to address the whole thing (which is easy but time consuming and time that I just don't have) and I will tend to not get to it but give me a few? Then it's easy to work through and address the issues.

Okay, we'll call you Easy Ann from now on.
But, if you don't like that one, there other names that come to mind.
One of the more gentler ones would be Lazy Ann.
.

 

[The Biblicist]

Okay, we'll call you Easy Ann from now on.
But, if you don't like that one, there other names that come to mind.
One of the more gentler ones would be Lazy Ann.
.

The one who decrises name calling is name calling. Does anyone know how to spell "hypocrit"??

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Does anyone know how to spell "hypocrit"??

Erm..........

 

[annsni]

Okay, we'll call you Easy Ann from now on.
But, if you don't like that one, there other names that come to mind.
One of the more gentler ones would be Lazy Ann.
.

Or maybe Ann with a Life? Homeschooling my children, ministry, a job, a home and a husband kind of makes my time on the computer sketchy. I tend to get a couple of minutes many times through the day so to do an entire list of 60 something verses taken out of context would take too long to deal with. But you challenged me with 5 and did I not meet that challenge?

I honestly can't believe that you would be so rude as to decide my work ethic just because I choose not to neglect my God-given duties to address your false beliefs. Which fruit of the Spirit is that one?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

The one who decrises name calling is name calling. Does anyone know how to spell "hypocrit"??

I do, but you do not. Your third grade education has failed you.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

The opponents of truth share one thing in common with each other when it comes to attacking truth. They don't present one verse at a time and try to defend their interpertation by the immediate context. No, that would prove fatal to their position as it is quite easy to expose their eisgesis. No, instead they come on with a profuse amount of texts, or long lists of texts. Why, because that gives them more room to wiggle, to jump around and make it impossible for anyone to nail them down by context. They do this in their attacks as well as in their responses.

However, when we present only one precise verse or phrase and defend it from a contextual point of view they either ignore it or reply with MASS and diverse texts.

When they are nailed by precise words in a precise context, they ignore it for a while, and then later come right back with the same text even though they never were able to respond and though their false interpretation was never exposed and condemned.

If truth is what all are really after, then, lets drop the MASS scripture presentations and deal with one text at a time in its context. If I were a betting man [and I am not] I would bet this suggestion will be ridiculed by the opponents of truth and confirmed by those who believe the truth. Those who do embrace the truth will be for this as they know that context then must be the final judge rather than JUMPING AROUND FROM TEXT TO TEXT or LONG LISTS OF TEXTS.

The opponents of truth? You mean the opponents of Biblicist since he exclusively has the truth because of his infallible nature.

Your arrogance knows no bounds, and neither does your man-made, 16th century false doctrine.

I've debated lots of people on lots of forums, people of may denominations and beliefs, and I have never encountered anyone as arrogant and obnoxious as you. I don't see one bit of the fruit of the spirit in you. All I see is rotten fruit.

When somebody nails your rotten hide to the wall, all you can do is accuse them of taking scripture out of context, even when it clearly can be taken only one way. You accuse them of being lead by Satan, call them fools, ignorant, and all manner of insults.

Because of all this, even when I agree with you, I stand with your opponents instead. They'll be in heaven while you're still standing outside in your self-righteous robes knocking on the door and proclaiming that you know "truth".