Evidently you misread mine, in which you were quoted directly, at length, and in context.
Perhaps I did. But as you seem unwilling to clarify, I am going to continue to assume that is not true, and this is just you jerking me around again.
I earlier said:
The point here is obvious: what you say to me can't be abstracted from what you say to others in a similar context, in order to support a claim that I'm misreading you.
But what is the point specifically? I asked you: "
So what?" and you have chosen not to say. What does this have to do
specifically with our discussion?
Once again you choose to jerk me around rather than make yourself clear. It is a pattern.
A mischaracterisation of our discussion: see above, on how your position has evolved (#394) in response to criticism (good!), but which you are now claiming hasn't changed at all, in order to avoid a simple admission of mistake, while accusing me of dishonesty in highlighting this (bad!).
And yet again you are talking in generalities.
What do you think my position was originally? What do you think it changed to?
Why are you unable to be be specific? Pathologically unable, it seems to me. Right now, I am still going with the jerking-me-around hypothesis.
I can be specific:
Me in post #321:
Anyway, the point is he calls Onesimus his "begotten" son, when Onesimus was certainly not his biological son.
Post #323:
That he uses the word "begotten". Hence the use of that word elsewhere does not prove the author believed Jesus was the actual son of God, rather than the adopted son of God.
Me in post #327:
My point being that the Bible saying Jesus was God's begotten son does not tell us the author did not believe God adopted Jesus, given the term "begotten" is also used in one instance where it clearly means the guy was not the biological offspring.
That is my position. It was my position at the start, it is my position now. I can do that because I was trying to debate this honestly and sincerely. I stated my position up front, and I did so several times to try to make it clear.
A stark contrast to how you approached the discussion.
See above, on how your position has evolved (#394).
And see above on how it has not, post #395.
Now, do you think that has helped the discussion at all? No, of course not. You have, once again, chosen not to clarify what you are saying, despite being asked to do so.
As for my own, again, I'm at a loss to understand what you want from me, and baffled by your accusations of secrecy. You say it's my 'opinion on what you were discussing' that you're after, but given that I've given you plenty of opinions on what we've been discussing, this is unhelpful. If you want to know what I think about something, you need to ask me, specifically, about what you're looking for, else I'll continue to conclude that you're just abusing me.
What I want is for you to make your position clear.
Do not just accuse me of changing my position - state what you think my position was originally and what it changed to. That should be easy if you are right. Of course, if you were making up, you will not be able to.
And yes, I think you are making it up.
If I ask you a question, answer it! Do not just point me to another post. If I asked i
t it is because the other post was not clear.
See above, on how your position has evolved (#394). It's not a concession to agree with a truism, of course!
It is a concession to agree with a truism
if you originally took issue with it.
Me in post #321:
Anyway, the point is he calls Onesimus his "begotten" son, when Onesimus was certainly not his biological son.
You took issue with that previously. Now you say it is true. Looks like a concession to me.
Lucian said:
This is really, really poor form, and you do yourself no credit by doing anything other than admitting you got something wrong.
I earlier said:
I will remind you you just said my position was analogous to saying "that the Sun rose in the east this morning". Do you think the sun rose in the west?
You have made it clear you do not understand what I said. I have a choice here - either I can try to clarify, or I cannot. We could consider one to be the Pixie approach, and one to be the Lucian approach.
The Lucian approach:
See post #397.
The Pixie approach:
I was replying to a paragraph in which you indicated I was wrong about something, but referencing another paragraph in the same post where you indicated that what I said was trivially true. In your words my position was so trivially true it was analogous to saying, in your words, "that the Sun rose in the east this morning". Thus, I was highlighting the contradiction in your position whereby your are claiming that my position is wrong in one paragraph and yet claiming it is trivially true in another paragraph.
If you are saying I am wrong when my position is analogous to saying "that the Sun rose in the east this morning", then your position is analogous to claiming the sun rose in the west.
Can you see the difference? Which approach is more helpful? Which approach furthers mutual understanding? Which approach advances the discussion?
I am wanting everyone to understand what I am saying, so I make the effort to clarify when my interlocutor indicates he or she has not understood. You, on the other hand, refuse to do so, even when specifically asked to do so. I am here to debate; you are here to jerk people around.
I earlier said:
Further, your claim that I got something wrong is exactly my issue with your posts - once again, you are taking a position, but failing to say what the position is. I accused you earlier of failing to answer my questions. Let us see how you fare with these two.
- What do you think I am wrong about?
- Why can you not state it up front when you say I am wrong?
The second I am particularly interested in, because this does seem to be a feature of your posts, and is precisely why I believe you are just jerking me around.
Asked and answered: again, see #394.
I have looked at post #394, and I do not see your answer.
This is why I have asked you to clarify. Given you are
still refusing to make your position clear, I feel even more confident concluding you are just jerking me around.
I have - I've not exactly been coy about it!
You have not been coy about saying you think I am wrong, but I still do not know what you think I am wrong
about, given you have conceded that what I said was a truism.
But of course that is deliberate.
Unless you deign to make your position clear, I will not bother to reply further.