Isaiah 49:6

Open Heart said:
No, if I'm analyzing what you write, that is NOT PERSONAL.
Click to expand...
It is when the analysis is made personal.


"There seems to be some discrepancy in the correct definition of the word, 'literal'." ----- That is not personal. That is about the post's contents.

"It looks like you have a hard time understanding the difference between literal and figurative." ----- That is personal. I am not the subject of discourse and there is absolutely no warrant from mentioning me or any other poster if there is some question about the correct definition of terms used.
Open Heart said:
But hey, if you want to be a snowflake and take it personally, that's your perogative.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm..... now I want to be a snowflake.

Appeals to ridicule don't solve the problem, they worsen it, and as I said, I understand the definition of the word "literal" just fine and I will not trade posts with those who refuse to keep the posts about the posts. Thank you for your time.
 
Josheb said:
It is when the analysis is made personal.


"There seems to be some discrepancy in the correct definition of the word, 'literal'." ----- That is not personal. That is about the post's contents.

"It looks like you have a hard time understanding the difference between literal and figurative." ----- That is personal. I am not the subject of discourse and there is absolutely no warrant from mentioning me or any other poster if there is some question about the correct definition of terms used.

Hmmmm..... now I want to be a snowflake.

Appeals to ridicule don't solve the problem, they worsen it, and as I said, I understand the definition of the word "literal" just fine and I will not trade posts with those who refuse to keep the posts about the posts. Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...
This is ridiculous. Your two examples pretty much say the same thing. You seem to be offended that I used the word "You." Well, get over it. If I'm analyzing your writing, it is not personal. Now, I'm just repeating myself, which is a sure sign the conversation is over. Hey, I'll even let you have the last word. If I were you, I would think long and hard as to whether this form of entertainment is for you. It really doesn't work out well for people who are so sensitive they can't stand having their writing analyzed. But it's your choice.
 
Open Heart said:
This is ridiculous. Your two examples pretty much say the same thing. You seem to be offended that I used the word "You." Well, get over it. If I'm analyzing your writing, it is not personal. Now, I'm just repeating myself, which is a sure sign the conversation is over. Hey, I'll even let you have the last word. If I were you, I would think long and hard as to whether this form of entertainment is for you. It really doesn't work out well for people who are so sensitive they can't stand having their writing analyzed. But it's your choice.
Click to expand...
Keep the posts about the posts, not the posters.

There isn't a word in that entire post about Isaiah 49:6.

12. Attacking people:
  1. No name-calling, insults, or mockery of a board poster/member. No negative comments of any sort concerning any board poster/member/moderator/administrator. The rule applies only to forum posters/members. Posters are personally responsible for any comments made on persons, not members of the forum.
  2. Do not discuss a board poster on the forums/visitor messages/chat, do not comment using their user name...

  4. Do not discuss a forum poster on the discussion boards/messages/chat, and do not attempt to moderate a forum poster’s correct behaviors. Stick to the topic of discussion.


  7. No negative comments of any sort concerning a board user.....
22. Divisiveness:
  1. Don’t waste the time of the board participants by intentionally being divisive....

39. Topics:
  1. Stick to the subject of the respective board.
  2. Don’t post the same topic on the same board repeatedly, and do not post a topic on more than one board unless permitted by an administrator. Please post only two topics per board per day to be courteous to other board posters and their topics.

So.... assuming the usual or most basic meaning of the words above are correctly understood.... there's no excuse for hiding behind the fallacious "if I'm analyzing what you write, that is not personal," because what I wrote was not analyzed. My lack of knowledge and understanding of the word literal was assumed. There's nothing analytical about "you are having problems with the difference between literal and figurative," and it is personal. It is ad hominem. The only problems I have are those occurring with posters who don't practice the forum's rules, make posts personal and derisive, think the word "you" isn't personal in its usual and most basic meaning, assume things they cannot possibly know about others, and most importantly defend their wrongdoing and add to their personal comments instead of making observable efforts to amend the problem.

Plenty of opportunity to show where "literal" was not used correctly has availed itself.
Open Heart said:
Hey, I'll even let you have the last word.
Click to expand...
I'll bet that is not true, either.


For the record: the word "temple" simply means any place, usually an edifice, designated for worship, the first temples were not made of stone, and the body as a temple has a history that long precedes the building of Solomon's law-breaking temple of hewn stone. The temple as a place of worship regardless of whether it is made of stone or not is the most basic meaning, literal, meaning of the word. It does not mean "house of worship" and such a house does not require stones. Only within the context of Judaism's law-breaking temple of hewn stone does the word "temple" mean the temple is made of stone. Furthermore, in the most usual, most basic meaning of temple there is no usual, most basic meaning where there is silence.

The fact is there isn't a single verse in the whole of Tanakh explicitly stating a third temple of stone will be built.

And had any of that been addressed instead of the completely incorrect, completely lame, completely off-topic, "It looks like you have a hard time understanding the difference between literal and figurative," we'd have had an entirely different conversation about Isaiah 49:6.
Open Heart said:
[The word "literal"] means the usual or most basic meaning of a word, without allegory, metaphor, etc.
Click to expand...
I know. And nothing I posted should have been construed to say otherwise.
Open Heart said:
Hey, I'll even let you have the last word.
Click to expand...
I'll bet that's not true.
 
Josheb said:
Keep the posts about the posts, not the posters.

There isn't a word in that entire post about Isaiah 49:6.

12. Attacking people:
  1. No name-calling, insults, or mockery of a board poster/member. No negative comments of any sort concerning any board poster/member/moderator/administrator. The rule applies only to forum posters/members. Posters are personally responsible for any comments made on persons, not members of the forum.
  2. Do not discuss a board poster on the forums/visitor messages/chat, do not comment using their user name...

  4. Do not discuss a forum poster on the discussion boards/messages/chat, and do not attempt to moderate a forum poster’s correct behaviors. Stick to the topic of discussion.


  7. No negative comments of any sort concerning a board user.....
22. Divisiveness:
  1. Don’t waste the time of the board participants by intentionally being divisive....

39. Topics:
  1. Stick to the subject of the respective board.
  2. Don’t post the same topic on the same board repeatedly, and do not post a topic on more than one board unless permitted by an administrator. Please post only two topics per board per day to be courteous to other board posters and their topics.

So.... assuming the usual or most basic meaning of the words above are correctly understood.... there's no excuse for hiding behind the fallacious "if I'm analyzing what you write, that is not personal," because what I wrote was not analyzed. My lack of knowledge and understanding of the word literal was assumed. There's nothing analytical about "you are having problems with the difference between literal and figurative," and it is personal. It is ad hominem. The only problems I have are those occurring with posters who don't practice the forum's rules, make posts personal and derisive, think the word "you" isn't personal in its usual and most basic meaning, assume things they cannot possibly know about others, and most importantly defend their wrongdoing and add to their personal comments instead of making observable efforts to amend the problem.

Plenty of opportunity to show where "literal" was not used correctly has availed itself.

I'll bet that is not true, either.


For the record: the word "temple" simply means any place, usually an edifice, designated for worship, the first temples were not made of stone, and the body as a temple has a history that long precedes the building of Solomon's law-breaking temple of hewn stone. The temple as a place of worship regardless of whether it is made of stone or not is the most basic meaning, literal, meaning of the word. It does not mean "house of worship" and such a house does not require stones. Only within the context of Judaism's law-breaking temple of hewn stone does the word "temple" mean the temple is made of stone. Furthermore, in the most usual, most basic meaning of temple there is no usual, most basic meaning where there is silence.

The fact is there isn't a single verse in the whole of Tanakh explicitly stating a third temple of stone will be built.

And had any of that been addressed instead of the completely incorrect, completely lame, completely off-topic, "It looks like you have a hard time understanding the difference between literal and figurative," we'd have had an entirely different conversation about Isaiah 49:6.

I know. And nothing I posted should have been construed to say otherwise.

I'll bet that's not true.
Click to expand...

Can you rephrase that?
 
Lee Magee said:
Can you rephrase that?
Click to expand...
Can that be rephrased? ;)

Yes. Everything in that post can be rephrased, but I think it unnecessary since my diversely phrased position on Isaiah 49:6, diversely phrased requests for topical content, and diversely phrased requests for personally derisive content to cease went unheeded in favor of more of the same problem. Those who wish to engage that content op-relevantly have plenty with which to work topically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top