(March 3, 2009 at 5:01 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I made my point EvF, which padraic challenged without grounds. I simply asked padraic to prove his logic, which he has failed to do. I am not avoiding the issue. He is.
But your point that you made in the first place was groundless. Why should it need to be challenged with ground when the 'point' didn't really have any substance?
You merely said that you like to see the whole message of the book altogether, not cherry-pick different bits. But how can you possibly know that your interpretation of the 'whole' of the book is the correct one? You didn't explain how on earth it's interpreted correctly, and any more correct than anyone else's? The way you view the message?
If you are somehow trying to interpret it as a whole positively in order to ignore all the nastiness in there (you see it as some big message, 'lesson' or something like that for example, ignoring all the horror in there or something like that) then how is it any more valid than cherry-picking individual bits?
How does it have any more ground than cherry-picking individual bits? It's like your just cherry-picking out your own personal interpretation of the 'book as a whole' rather than actually paying attention to the parts.
Like "the message is this, this is how I interpret the whole", and if not necessarily ignoring the rest, using it to somehow back up the 'message' that you interpret or something?
Where are YOUR grounds, where is the substance for your point in the first place? Why would any challenge need ground when you didn't really give any substance to your 'point'? How on earth do you interpret the message correctly as a whole when everyone interprets it differently? And how do you make sure you aren't just doing some kind of disguised cherry-picking by using the stuff you don't like to somehow backup the 'message' perhaps, rather than just being like "Well I don't like this, I like this though so I'll pay attention to that".
Just because you're paying attention to the book as a whole doesn't mean you're still not kind of avoiding the nastiness somehow. You may not be ignoring it but it's kind of cherry-picking in a way I think; (or equally silly) to use bits you don't like to back up your own personal 'whole message' of the bible. How you interpret the bible as a 'whole'.
Or are you simply just totally ignoring the rest, and saying that you are interpreting it as a 'whole' when in fact you are actually just focusing on one part and saying it's the whole message. And not even somehow using the rest to back it up, but simply ignoring that because that's not part of the message?
So where is the real substance to your point in the first place? Why would it need grounds to be dismissed when as far as I'm concerned at least; it's groundless itself?
You appear to be merely asserting your 'point'. Where is the substance? Why can't it be merely dismissed when I don't see the ground for this 'point' itself in the first place?
EvF
