JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
>In alt.education Re: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's,
>Bob LeChevalier wrote...
>>I did not call them "liars". They have their opinions about what Scripture
>> means, and their opponents have their opinions about what Scripture
>> means, and Christians have their opinions about what Scripture means.
>> Opinions held in good faith are not "lies" not matter how misplaced the faith
>>might be.
>>Now you're waffeling again.
Nope.
>Earlier, when you called those Jews liars
>you lumped them in with all "extremists" and said they were dishonestly
>interpreting Scriptures for political gain. Here are your very own
>words from the other day...
> "Do you really think that Christians should care what one extremist
> Jewish political group uses as arguments against another extremist
> Jewish political group? For that matter, do you think that ANY
> person, especially an extremist, trying to win a political argument
> will interpret Scripture honestly and in a way unaffected by his
> political stance? (Picking and choosing only those verses that
> can be read to support his cause.)"
Yes I did say that. I could also say the same of you. I'm not
calling you a liar, though. I think you really believe the stuff you
are posting. I even think the nincompoop believes the junk he posts.
But it is still dishonest argument, in that the selection of verses
and their interpretation is based on the political position they (and
you) are coming from.
>You are no doubt accusing those Jews which you've labeled "extremist
>Jewish political group" of breaking the TEN COMMANDMENTS by saying they
>are bearing false witness for political gain.
No I am not. (for one thing, you omit a phrase from the commandment
>Thou shalt not bear false witness *against thy neighbour* (Exodus 20:16)).
Stating a false argument is not bearing false witness in the first
place. In a political argument, the false witness would be against
ideas and not against your neighbor.
So you have omitted part of the verse in the interest of supporting
your argument. Your argument is false, and it is deceptive to anyone
who believed you. This does not mean that you lied, because I have no
way of knowing whether you intentionally omitted those words, or
whether you were blinded by the beam in your eyes that Christ told you
to get rid of.
>Simply put you're calling
>them liars according to the Hebrew definition of the word "false" in
>"false witness". The Hebrew word for "false" (as in false witness) is
>"sheqer". My Hebrew dictionary renders the following definitions for
>sheqer: "an untruth; a sham, deceit, feignedly, liar, lying"
Yes, I'm sure it does. But any one use of "sheqer" may not imply
*all* of those English meanings, any more than "running a computer
program" involves a sprint on a race track.
>So a Jew who understands his Torah, in Hebrew, would easily be able to
>see that you did indeed call those Jews liars.
Nope.
>Yet you have every right to call them liars.
Yes. We have this thing called "freedom of speech" in this country.
>What you do not have the
>right to do and remain "right" is to deny Mr. Knight the same right.
I don't deny him the right. I couldn't if I wanted to - do you think
I'm going over to his house and use a pistol on him if he should ever
use the word "liar"? He has every right to use that word, and indeed
to lie himself, and I have every right to make fun of him for doing so
in such a foolish manner.
>See, you are playing god again just as John said in the Jefferson
>discussion, only this time you can call Jews but John Knight can't (in
>your godlogic).
No. If the nincompoop were not able to (the meaning of "can't", then
why will he have several posts since I wrote that in which he did
precisely what he "can't" do).
(And if I were doing it, then you would be doing it as well, in
judging me to be "playing god again")
lojbab
