Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Logical Fallacies - just for your information
- Thread starter Jim Parker
- Start date
Jews then and Today know all the arguments. A Chassidic Jew will know your Bible and positions if he is a rabbi.Paul quoted Greek myth,who taught him about stoicism? It was in his Yeshiva or equivalent, or he asked one to learn and debunk.He wasn't illerate .He was a Freeborn Roman,those went to school and knew Greek ,Latin.He was a Rabbi meaning he also knew Aramaic and Hebrew.
Try learning another language.English is often strange and ineffective at description. German is very precise,Greek as well.When I learned Spanish I saw how simplistic it was and more descriptive it is.We have one word for hope.Spanish has two.Buscar,and Esparar.Esparar is to hope for,Buscar is translated at times to hope,to wait for and to carry.It's fits the hope of Jesus.
smaller
Member
Uh, because he really has no interest in reading what was already written and preferred criticism without specifics or understandings, which I happen to detest as a methodology of communications. Ditto for you.
Please stop this type of drivel.
Unnecessarily you are creating "Reba versus the elitists" split. Your words objectify others with whom you perceive a difference, and that is creating a schism. In all honesty, you are not the only one who is doing that, but since you are an Administrator I do not believe that sort of division-creating is beneficial to any conversation, nor and this is even more important, it stifles those who, like me have been continuously making posts to bridge that gap you are making larger.
We have done that by asking questions seeking clarifications on topics and asking for definitions. We do that for one reason: we want to use the same terms, and understand what they mean so that casual conversations can continue. In reply, we get evasions, off topic and irrelevant comments plus unnecessary and divisive insults.
Is it your aim that some of will get so "annoyed off" at these continuous cheap shots that in our justifiable consternation, we do likewise to you, and then we get booted off CFnet by you? I really do not know.
But I do know that others, like myself have remained remarkably restrained in the face of what we see as a hostile environment, and IMO, it is comments like the ones from you at the top of the post (there are others, but those are sufficient) that poison the flow of conversation.
Do you realize that after I gave a link to a post to one poster in post 156 on Wednesday afternoon, there was no poster who looked at it. Talk about "spoon feeding" to get a discussion going well........ I did notice, and I thank you for your going to the Miriam-Webster Dictionary. However, according to what OZ posted, you truncated it, and left out significant data, and that sorta skewered things. I wonder why that is the case?
No, I am not attempting to "start a fight with an Administrator". Instead, I am attempting to use your words to demonstrate the tone that they create, and in doing that, help you change them to create a less toxic environment here.
Unnecessarily you are creating "Reba versus the elitists" split. Your words objectify others with whom you perceive a difference, and that is creating a schism. In all honesty, you are not the only one who is doing that, but since you are an Administrator I do not believe that sort of division-creating is beneficial to any conversation, nor and this is even more important, it stifles those who, like me have been continuously making posts to bridge that gap you are making larger.
We have done that by asking questions seeking clarifications on topics and asking for definitions. We do that for one reason: we want to use the same terms, and understand what they mean so that casual conversations can continue. In reply, we get evasions, off topic and irrelevant comments plus unnecessary and divisive insults.
Is it your aim that some of will get so "annoyed off" at these continuous cheap shots that in our justifiable consternation, we do likewise to you, and then we get booted off CFnet by you? I really do not know.
But I do know that others, like myself have remained remarkably restrained in the face of what we see as a hostile environment, and IMO, it is comments like the ones from you at the top of the post (there are others, but those are sufficient) that poison the flow of conversation.
Do you realize that after I gave a link to a post to one poster in post 156 on Wednesday afternoon, there was no poster who looked at it. Talk about "spoon feeding" to get a discussion going well........ I did notice, and I thank you for your going to the Miriam-Webster Dictionary. However, according to what OZ posted, you truncated it, and left out significant data, and that sorta skewered things. I wonder why that is the case?
No, I am not attempting to "start a fight with an Administrator". Instead, I am attempting to use your words to demonstrate the tone that they create, and in doing that, help you change them to create a less toxic environment here.
Our grandfather was French born there... Often i wished he had taught us the language... But that long ago very many immigrants tried hard to be American.. so he woud not speak French..
Which means you don't have an interest in clearing up the attempt at communication which did not communicate. By Grace and I were asking for clarification on what you meant by what you wrote, but your judgmentalism is that he and I have 'no interest in reading' what you wrote.
That is absolutely false. If I had no interest in what you wrote, I would not have asked for clarification.
So, are you saying that you don't want to clarify your communication with us?
Oz
Last edited:
smaller
Member
There is already plenty of information in this thread from my end to engage in conversation about, without your illogical inquisition.
That's a red herring fallacy because you did not respond to what I wrote. What is preventing you from addressing the content of what I wrote?
smaller
Member
I reject your notions of red herrings as the claims are illogical.
That demonstrates that you don't understand what a red herring fallacy is and how you have used it in this thread.
View attachment 9319
Bye, bye,
Oz
smaller
Member
That demonstrates that you don't understand what a red herring fallacy is and how you have used it in this thread.
View attachment 9319
Bye, bye,
Oz
It is the red herring you tossed in a futile attempt to control and manipulate the conversation in the face of information to the contrary.
smaller
Member
Another
It is logical to engage in dialog with information provided by those conversing. IN our case you have information from me but refuse to engage it. Then you claim information is not being given. Then you demand that another set of information be addressed that you impose that is quite irrelevant to the data that is on the table already.
That is classic smelly red herring.
