Nice.

My points still stand.

Only if one thinks that the term "summary" changes the answer to the question "WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?"




No. You misunderstood what was written, and you may look back and verify if you seek truth. I wrote "the first line". "The first line" does not equate and/or translate to "his first line."

Any other irrational conclusions about me you wish to discuss before answering the argument I presented earlier regarding the OP?

OK, you want me to prove why a stop sign is red and why it "ought" to be that way....

First, how do we "prove" it's red?
By general concensus? Ask people what they see. (majority opinion)
(or)
By light spectrometer? How was that calibrated and who developed the standard? It would have had to been agreed upon to become a national or international standard. (again, majority opinion)

So then we prove why it "ought" to be red mainly because red light scatters the least both night and day. Add to that the studies the goverment did, like they did a while back with the new international pictogram signs. Then add to that the color red has been a signal of danger since the ancient Greeks. (again, majority opinion rules)



So if we determine that it's red by majority opinion, why would majority opinion not be sufficient for why it "ought" to be red?
Even if you think the color is not in question and only ask why it "ought" to be red, why wouldn't majority opinion be sufficient reason as to why?


There is no objectivity when it comes to humans, I thought that much was clear to everyone.

Here's something to think about.
There are more possible meanings of "image" than most know about.

1. Physical "image"
2. Spiritual "image"

These are the two meanings that most people imediately associate with that verse.


But, imagine if you will a rose, picture it in your mind.
What have you now? An "image" in your mind... (imagination?)

It's quite possible that we're all just a figment of God's imagination and nothing is physically "real".




*sorry, the verse in reference was:

Genesis 1:27 (KJV)

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Denial huh?

Do I have to put the definition of summary here again?
You demanded that he show you where those words written in the Bible EXACTLY as shown.
Right there, was dishonest, knowing that it was his summary.

Bolding that line and calling it "the" first line is only true for yourself, that's why I pointed out that it was your bolded words that and you mislead about the context of his summary. He never claimed it was "exactly" what the Bible says and as a summary it's an abstract of the previous quotes so it's not expected to be exact.

Do you question the validity of the words he used? Do you not recognise Greek? (here's a few)
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/351.htm anakrisis
http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1252 diakrinō
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/hupokrites.html hupokrites


Do you ever obtain any facts before you dishonestly accuse someone of being dishonest?

This is actually the purest form of pantheism.

Moreover, when this is taken to its ultimate conclusion it quickly becomes apparent that "we" wouldn't be a 'figment' of God's imagination at all, but instead we would actually be the entity that is having the dream. (i.e. we must be God in this scenario)

Row, row, row your boat, life is but a dream.

And we are the dreamer.

That's Pantheism in its purest form.

And this is what the "Enlightenment" is all about. It's the realisation that we aren't the 'figment' of the dream, but rather we are indeed the dreamer.

Pan,

Here is what Thomas said about what we're discussing...



Now it seems apparent that there is a misunderstanding here regarding what he thinks I am referring to. I am referring to what immediately followed the question "What does the Bible say?" However, in his defense here, it certainly seems plausible that he is referring to the earlier part of his response that does constitue *being* what the Bible actually says. At least some version of it. I suspected that perhaps we were talking past one another, meaning he and I.

I preemptively made it a point to clarify the case in that I was *not* calling him a liar. I did so, because I can envision such an occurence, based upon my learning from past experience. Here it is again...



As I said before, covert dishonesty is not the same thing as intentional dishonesty. One can be be dishonest with themself - and not even know it. That is an assessment/judgment of the observer regarding the recognition of inherent inconsistency in another's claims. There are exhibited traits that are indicative of such a thing. One of which is when one does not know how to distinguish between true and false.

Example:

Regarding this in particular...



Lying *is* intentionally, deliberately, and knowingly representing a falsehood as though it were true. Because one cannot knowingly believe a falsehood, one can think that one is true. Therefore, one can spread falsehood without being a liar.



Who said anything about the term "abstract"? I never made a claim about the sequences of his sentences. In order to have lied, that would have have to have happened. It did not. Therefore, because I have not made a claim at all about the sequence of sentences, I could not have possibly lied.

Seeing how my understanding of the term "covert" has been more than adequately and sufficiently explained above, it obviously exists.

Would you care to discuss how truth is determined?

Edited to clarify the misleading wording(sequence) being used by Pan.

What part of the question "What does the Bible say?" don't you understand Pan.

What followed was not.

It is a simple concept. Very simple. The questions placement was very misleading. One expects for what follows such a question to *be* an answer to that question.

It was not.

Are you arguing this point? It is clear(based upon his words) that Thomas has trouble making the distinction between what the Bible says, an what he thinks it says. If that were not the case he would have explained himself in a more proper manner. What might that be, you may ask? Since you invoked the concept of sequencial meaning, I'll take it up as well...

The more direct, concise, and appropriate way to express those thoughts would have been to offer his translation, ask the question, then offer the scripture as answer to the question.

Instead he offered scripture, asked the question, then offered his translation as an answer.

Evidently so.

I don't have any trouble understanding what the bible says.It is people who understand what the bible says but refuse to believe it or can not think of a way to spin it in their favor.It is obvious from what I am reading the usual people in here are having a hard time spinning this topic because I can always prove mutiple bible verses backing up what I am talking about.

Since you keep saying I am misinterpeting what the bible says I am posting the same bible verses I posted on page 12 that you keep failing to acknowlege or deny they exist.

So once again....


"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment" (John 7:24).

"I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner -- not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore 'put away from yourselves that wicked person'" (1 Corinthians 5:9-13).

"But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us" (2 Thessalonians 3:6).


"And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother" (2 Thessalonians 3:14,15).

Jesus said: "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the speck out of your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye" (Matthew 7:1-5).


Leviticus 19:15. "You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. But in righteousness you shall judge your neighbor."


1 Cor 2:14-15: "14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one."


Ephesians 5:1Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; 2And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. 3But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; 4Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. 5For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. 7Be not ye therefore partakers with them. 8For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: 9(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth 10Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. 11And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. 12For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. 13But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. 14Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. 15See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, 16Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. 17Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.

"Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren?" (1 Corinthians 6:1-5).

That is all good Thomas, but there are some misunderstandings in your post...

I did not say that you had trouble understanding what the Bible says. I said, and it was based upon what you quoted, that you had trouble distinguishing between what the Bible says and your understanding of what those words.

What the Bible says and your understanding of it are not the same thing.

My apologies if you've been offended. That is not my intent. I'll grant that your translation is exact, for the sake of making a different point which i have already mentioned that directly applies back to the OP.

How do you know that the words in the Bible are true? How do you establish that?

What I am saying is that, while parents may ground their children and may not give them what they want, they also do not tell them that if you don't live the way we tell you to live we will not love you. They don't tell you that being who you are is an abomination to us so we forbid it.

As for ways to forgive our sins, was not Jesus the ultimate sacrifice to forgive all of our sins? He died so that our sins may be forgiven, or was that a bunch of smoke blowing? I will ask forgiveness for any actual sin I may have committed, but I will not ask for forgiveness for loving someone. I won't ask forgiveness for being who I am, everything is something I will ask forgiveness for and do my best to not do it again.

Some people may be happy living as their religion dictates so that they can get a better afterlife, but I have zero proof of an afterlife so I prefer to live a good life now. I want to be happy in the here and now, because being happy in heaven (should it exist), won't do me any good if I don't have any happy memories now. I can say without a doubt that my grandmother (she died when I was 9) will kick my *** from here to eternity if I stop being who I am.

Uh, no. We already know that it can be proven. I wanted you to prove why it ought to be red rather than another color. Therefore, the 'why it *is*' is irrelevent and so i will not address that.



You've not proven why a stop sign 'ought' to be red.

It does not follow from the fact that the color red scatters the least that we 'ought' to choose red for the color of a stop sign. If the amount of light that enters the eye is the sole determing factor, then one would definitely conclude that a stop sign should be lit up. Even that does not prove why it 'ought' to be.

The mention of pictogram signs proves why a stop sign 'ought to be' red? How do you get to 'A stop sign ought to be red' from the government did a study, exactly?

Majority opinion rules?

That is so, so, not a way to prove an 'ought'. Let me use that very example in order to show the absurdity in the claim.

Hitler.

Need I say that it is a fact that the majority of Germans believed in Hitler's principles and rhetoric. Noiw we can then apply your reasoning to this...

The majority of Germans under Hitler wanted to exterminate an entire race of people based upon rhetorical advertising, a distortion of Kantian ethics, and an equally distorted view of Darwinism.

That is what *is*.

Now, according to your claim above, because the 'majority opinion rules', it proves that it 'ought' to have been that way?

Surely you'll recognize the mistake in your thinking here and retract that line of reasoning.

Any argument that majority opinion should be the basis of morality is truly lame.

On one time it was indeed the majority opinion in the South that slavery should remain legal. It was such a majority opinion in the South that they were willing to fight and die against those in the north who held a different 'majority opinion'.

Of course if we had turned to the Bible back then, we would have had to conclude that slavery is ok, because the Bible clearly condones slavery and even gives instruction on how to property care for and treat slave.

Thank the universe that the nasty biblical God didn't win that battle!

It should be crystal clear to everyone by now that the Bible doesn't contain superior moral values at all. The authors of the Bible were stupid and prejudiced and they created a stupid prejudiced fictitious Godhead.

Even Jesus clearly didn't agree with many of the things the authors of the Old Testament had to say. Yet Christians use Jesus as the spearhead of their bigotry.

Funny, I knew exactly what he was talking about, I understand what a summary is. I also didn't ignore the previous line(s).

The first line "SUMMARY", tells any normal person what follows is the "bullet points" of the topic. The current topic being whether or not to judge someone else.

The second line "Judge not" tells you what the subject was about.

The third line, explains that the previous quoted scripture is the abreviated answer to soon follow.



Now, pay attention to this one line here which I bolded just for the hell of it.


Is that the logic you use??? That you can paraphrase someone and make them say what you want?



That was NOT preemptive, that came AFTER the "I bolded it purposefully to show the covert dishonesty in this post" line. Again, a problem with you distinguishing the proper sequence of things...
So what's the difference of calling him a liar or calling his post "covert dishonesty"?

Perhaps you do not understand what it is you have done. Perhaps you do not fully understand the words: "covert", "summary", "abstract" and "dishonest".

Notice when I first addressed you after you called him dishonest, I did not accuse you of anything. I questioned your use of the word dishonest, exposed that boldness as yours, and showed the words the way they "ought" to have been presented and gave you the opourtunity to correct the error.












Really, go look up covert in the dictionary and re-evaluate why you think covert is NOT intentional...





I admit my error in stating "his first line", I have no problem with that. Still, "the first line", was your choice, not his.
I do believe it was intentional, that you were implying it was his first line and that in the context of a standalone question demanded exact wording from the Bible as proof.
Either I believe it was intentional or otherwise I'd have to believe you have zero intelligence.





IT. WAS. A. SUMMARY.... You omitted the words that told everyone else that it was so.
sum·ma·ry 
–noun
1. a comprehensive and usually brief abstract, recapitulation, or compendium of previously stated facts or statements.

Alright, then look up compendium if you aren't interested in abstract. Obviously you do not understand "summary", there has be a way for you to learn the meaning of these words.





Ummm no, quite the opposite.

co·vert
–adjective
1. concealed; secret; disguised.
2. covered; sheltered.

Wow, those thing seem pretty intentional to me.

You really need to expand your vocabulary a bit more...





Yeah, this should be interesting.

I think you won't address it because of fear of admiting that even the names we give colors have been derived from the opinions of humans. For you to admit that would remove the entire base of your "ought" dilema.







So here we are again, you determining what constitutes proof.
Do you somehow think you have an "objective" opinion still?

I buy a house, then paint it red. Why "ought it be" red???
Because it's my house and that's what I want.
Why is a stop sign red? Because the government designed it and determined that red was the most universal color for effectiveness.




They did studies for both, I thought maybe you had seen the news a few years back when they went into great detail about the selection process, but that obviously is beyond your box limits.





Yes, you need to say it and then prove it, or at least give me an idea of what to look for.





Facts that I could verify? No facts about the extortion the Nazis perpetrated on their own people to get them to conform?




I'll retract nothing untill you can prove every German agreed with Hitler.


In summary, while you make a point by bringing up personal opinions and "ought", it's nothing new. I've been saying that for awhile.
Since you won't accept proof of why something "ought to be", I won't accept proof of why something "ought not to be", so you may as well drop the subject

He didn't even say every German agreed with Hitler.

You're right, change that to "majority"