Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Lynch:
your ignorant misinterpretation of Deuteronomy 13

You persist in bringing to your assertions about the Bible your own personal

Lynch:

...hot dose of interpretation
 
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Oct 18th, 2010 at 04:00:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
OK big boy. If you've got a pair (a big IF) why don't you come down into the arena and explain just how I misinterpreted Deuteronomy 13, instead of doing your usual (cheap) sling shooting from a distance? Oh, and don't hesitate to use citations (that is... if you find any) to back up your assertions (that is... if you have any).
by Lynch on Tue Oct 19th, 2010 at 02:44:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't give a damn how you interpret Deuteronomy 13 or anything else for that matter.

Your comment is violently trollish and gets a 0.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Oct 19th, 2010 at 03:14:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Look around you on this thread for violently trollish and you'll find it, but not on this remark.
by Lynch on Tue Oct 19th, 2010 at 03:19:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
nice church... the mysteries of the mass seem to be making you unusually charitable with your fellow man.

your tone is quite obnoxious, and reflects the belligerent, patronising and pseudo-sapient choice of your words.

as a self-appointed apologist for christian faith, you're digging in deeper, and revealing a petty-minded attitude that probably shepherds more towards faithlessness than otherwise. it's unfortunate, as some things you say are true, but they're surrounded by such bilious polemic and bitter hostility, anyone reading would question how much serenity and generosity of heart your faith affords you.

notably little, it appears! if you have something relevant to say about sven's diary, please say it civilly, without resorting to such diatribes. it doesn't help advance any point of view, it just pollutes discourse, dragging it down to the mucky level so many blogs wallow in, and which we have avoided pretty successfully up to now.

chill, man. if you have good to offer, let it speak for itself, without ugliness directed to others here, who are being remarkably patient and tolerant with you, imo. so mega troll rating for that comment, just horrible, ridiculous alpha posturing, testosterone squirts...

you can do better! faith surely doesn't mean low jabs like that.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Oct 22nd, 2010 at 03:13:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm going to be the contrarian here. Lynch started this with an innocent, cute question and got jumped on. Cut and coule' went on much further than logic, and Lynch is piled on into a corner.

Provoked, responded. Given 0's for it. Not right. I give a 4 and a 0 for balance.

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Sat Oct 23rd, 2010 at 04:48:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Lynch:
OK big boy. If you've got a pair (a big IF) why don't you come down into the arena

If you consider this worth a 4, I'd say that's your prerogative.

But a 0 for melo's comment above is plain abuse of the rating system.

"Innocent" and "cute" is your interpretation, and a mighty strained one. Lynch has a record here, and it's much closer to provocation than innocence and cuteness.

As for "piled on", what do you want people to do? All agree with a poster, when in fact they don't? All go away and not respond to that poster? If Lynch didn't want the debate, he would neither have started it nor continued with it.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Oct 24th, 2010 at 04:23:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
To what 'ism' will these 10 000 souls convert? Paganism? Judaism? Islam(ism)? ... or just plain capitalism? Then they can go to the local mall and pray at Starbucks every sunday.

That was a good question and a cute line. I took it as a nice way to thank Sven for writing the essay. Yet immediately it was jumped on for things it didn't say. By your implication, that was justified because Lynch has some history. Then, because he followed the thread where the stream took it, you justify the piling on. (And it was piling on, not <airquote>piling on</airquote>.)

I'm not going to waste my time by digging through that thread again, but darts were thrown from each side, and the outcome that you quoted was predictable, and the responsibility of both sides - as I was reading the thread, it came out as a poorly stated mirror of what was being tossed at Lynch.

As far as abuse of the system, get off it. melo's quips were clever, as always, but in no way polite or humanitarian...again, a more puckish backatcha, overly restated several times in several ways, of the logical conclusion of where the thread was pushed to. If the system had a "Lay off guys and quite being so full of yourselves while taunting your playmate" setting, I would have used that. But there are no negative numbers.

<reverts to never reading/participating in threads dealing with non-science based philosophy>

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Sun Oct 24th, 2010 at 05:51:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Yet immediately it was jumped on"

By DoDo in the opening comments? Nonsense. He attempted to get Lynch to make his meaning clear. Though, apparently, the meaning is clear to you, you'll have to accept that others didn't find it so.

More strenuous argument developed from the point where Lynch told us ex cathedra what God was going to ask of individuals on Judgement Day (complete with his interpretation of what it meant), only later giving the Talmudic source he was quoting.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Oct 24th, 2010 at 06:27:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You don't have to keep convincing me that anything can, and often is compelled to be, justified...often in inverse proportion to the amount of responsibility taken by the justifier.

I do find it surprising that you will blithely use the word "Nonsense" about my comments, even when the critique of denigrating conversation is under the microscope.

You've already pointed out that the water was colored by virtue of Lynch's history. I've already pointed out that I don't want to parse this any further, though just looking at the first handful of comments with your new insight, and one can see the player's tells a bit more clearly, it confirms that this was piling on writ large. Perhaps it is more aptly named a Lynching.

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Sun Oct 24th, 2010 at 07:00:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
siegestate:
this was piling on writ large

OK, your interpretation, stick with it as I'm sure you will. No further comment.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Oct 24th, 2010 at 09:03:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Standing ovations from me for your outstanding (excellent) observation/analysis of this internal conflict - and for having had the courage to say it out loud.
by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Mon Oct 25th, 2010 at 06:11:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That was a good question and a cute line.

Am I allowed to disagree?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Oct 26th, 2010 at 01:41:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What you call "provocation" I call simply disagreeing with The Party Line. The Party's way of dealing with dissidents is ever so evident...
by Lynch on Sun Oct 24th, 2010 at 03:49:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Lynch,

I share your own 'party line' by and large though I may differ on how I communicate about it.

The point is that there are people who are convinced that something that is existential to you wouldn't exist. You are one and they are many. But you have and they don't.

I don't say you are stronger because you'd be right and they wrong. Religion's underpinning is faith, and faith puts you in a spiritually strong position. You have touched existential truth.

Debates that involve existential questions are not like an argument over holidays in the mountains or at the sea being the better alternative.
It's not just facts against facts when you're rooted in a spiritual reality that others have found to be invalid, inexistent or that they've agreed to ignore.

You stand on different ground and make theirs shake. It's a pity when the Truth you've found is clouded by an intellectual cross-fire about religious facts.

Many have ceased to look for what you've found, and this makes your presence by definition annoying though it could be an invitation.
   

by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Mon Oct 25th, 2010 at 06:46:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
:o)
by Lynch on Mon Oct 25th, 2010 at 05:28:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
?
by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Tue Oct 26th, 2010 at 08:42:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
:o) meant that I agree with you 100%
by Lynch on Tue Oct 26th, 2010 at 05:19:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Again you are inventing your own meanings. This practice can occasionally result in poetry, but mostly gibberish.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Oct 26th, 2010 at 05:48:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To illustrate my point -

You had said,

"OK big boy. If you've got a pair (a big IF) why don't you come down into the arena and explain just how I misinterpreted Deuteronomy 13, instead of doing your usual (cheap) sling shooting from a distance? Oh, and don't hesitate to use citations (that is... if you find any) to back up your assertions (that is... if you have any)."

"That just proves what a closed mind you have."

That's OT rhetoric - where the heart didn't see.

It shouldn't be necessary nowadays since we as Christians have received the Holy Spirit through faith.

(I think this thread is closed; I won't take this any further.)

by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Tue Oct 26th, 2010 at 10:26:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You stand on different ground and make theirs shake.

How does his serial misinterpretation of the scripture of his own religion shake anyone else's ground?...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Oct 26th, 2010 at 01:43:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From what I've seen, Lynch hasn't misinterpreted.

Anything else should be covered in a new diary IMO.

by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Tue Oct 26th, 2010 at 02:39:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Comedy gold.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Oct 26th, 2010 at 03:31:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
LOL. The comedy's on you mate.
by Lynch on Tue Oct 26th, 2010 at 05:20:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But for the record, let me rephrase my question - which was apparently misunderstood (apparently):
  • Do you know Christian Holy Scripture?
  • If you do... do you believe that it's "Evil"?
by Lynch on Tue Oct 26th, 2010 at 05:23:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
2 simple questions Colman. Can you answer them?
by Lynch on Wed Oct 27th, 2010 at 01:26:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you siegestate.
by Lynch on Sun Oct 24th, 2010 at 03:46:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series