This person is not all there, mentally. Usually I ignore him but I had to laugh at finding a scripture that I had just barely posted. I apologize for the digression.
It doesn't matter. There are major issues with his view that he won't answer that are so much more problematic that going back to this just gives him an argument he can make sound plausible when it's ignoring almost the entire Book of Mormon. Push him off that verse and into the rest of the book.
It does matter, though. I read your comments and will address the points you’ve raised when I get there, don’t worry.
Smokey wrote: It does matter, though. I read your comments and will address the points you’ve raised when I get there, don’t worry.
Why should anyone take seriously whether or how you address the points anyone else has made, given your tagline:
*All Posts Are Satire*
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Smokey wrote: It does matter, though. I read your comments and will address the points you’ve raised when I get there, don’t worry.
Why should anyone take seriously whether or how you address the points anyone else has made, given your tagline:
*All Posts Are Satire*
He seems to genuinely discuss the issues, and that’s what I’m here to do. I’m not arguing in bad faith and always happy to be learning and teaching. If I don’t know something or am wrong about some details I like to be corrected.
honorentheos wrote:That's not what he's saying. He is trying to say Nephi didn't identify as a Jew and that is the most simple reading of that particular verse. It's not an impossible reading of the verse and possibly even the intended one given Smith was "translating" and phrased it that way because Smith was accustomed to speaking about the Jews in the third person.
It doesn't matter. There are major issues with his view that he won't answer that are so much more problematic that going back to this just gives him an argument he can make sound plausible when it's ignoring almost the entire Book of Mormon. Push him off that verse and into the rest of the book.
No worries, Honor. I'm aware of Alma 10:3. What I'm not sure of is that Smokes is fully aware of how he defines, 'Jew', for the purpose of targeting his hatred, and that is what I'm poking at.
From the Church's website:
"Even in Lehi’s time a Jew could be defined variously: progeny of Judah (generic), citizen of the Jewish state (political), and believer in the Jewish religion (covenant). Then as now, to many Israel is a people; to others it is a place or state; and to still others it is an idea, concept, or ideal."
honorentheos wrote:That's not what he's saying. He is trying to say Nephi didn't identify as a Jew and that is the most simple reading of that particular verse. It's not an impossible reading of the verse and possibly even the intended one given Smith was "translating" and phrased it that way because Smith was accustomed to speaking about the Jews in the third person.
It doesn't matter. There are major issues with his view that he won't answer that are so much more problematic that going back to this just gives him an argument he can make sound plausible when it's ignoring almost the entire Book of Mormon. Push him off that verse and into the rest of the book.
No worries, Honor. I'm aware of Alma 10:3. What I'm not sure of is that Smokes is fully aware of how he defines, 'Jew', for the purpose of targeting his hatred, and that is what I'm poking at.
From the Church's website:
"Even in Lehi’s time a Jew could be defined variously: progeny of Judah (generic), citizen of the Jewish state (political), and believer in the Jewish religion (covenant). Then as now, to many Israel is a people; to others it is a place or state; and to still others it is an idea, concept, or ideal."
Smokey has a pattern. His arguments are often based on little semantic games.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote: Smokey has a pattern. His arguments are often based on little semantic games.
I think there is certainly a pattern of you arguing in bad faith.
Let’s try to be very clear and not play any little semantic games:
Jew = of the tribe of Judah.
And now I, Nephi, do not give the genealogy of my fathers in this part of my record; neither at any time shall I give it after upon these plates which I am writing; for it is given in the record which has been kept by my father; wherefore, I do not write it in this work.
For it sufficeth me to say that we are descendants of Joseph.
What did the angel mean when he told Nephi the Bible came from the mouth of a Jew in purity to the gentiles? The angel doesn't describe it as coming from Israel.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
If anyone wonders why /pol/smoker keeps highlighting certain words in blue it's because there's a recent thing /pol/ is doing called Blue the Jew. So in his own sort of metaposting style he's playing along with 'blueing' the Jew.
For more information see the 'Operation Blue the Jew' thread on /pol/:
Last edited by Guest on Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
He hasn't specifically rejected the point that I brought up, that the Bible is the stick of Judah, or the word of the Jew, that will become one in the Lord's hand along with the Book of Mormon, the stick of Joseph; even though prior to to making that point, he had written material proven false by that point. I assume he concedes the point that the Bible is the word of God, and is also the word of the Jew. Now he insists on narrowing his point to Nephi's genealogy, something that nobody has ever disputed. Nobody said Nephi's parents were of the tribe of Judah.
His recent point violates his own rule of affirming the consequent: Jews are Israel but Israel aren't Jews. Yeah, we get it. However, the same Holds for Judah --> Jew does not mean Jew ---> Judah, which is what he's trying to argue. He's specifically trying to make his present point by the fallacy of affirming the consequent. So funny enough, his semantic game is on full display when he writes, "Jew = of the tribe of Judah."
Your point is interesting because it shows that theological dichotomies like "Jew and Gentile" make innovation of the kind Joseph Smith and co. was trying to do difficult. Was Nephi a Jew or a Gentile? Certainly, in that context, he would have been a Jew. Hitler no doubt would have agreed, and had Jerusalem been under siege by Nazi Germany, Nephi wouldn't have got his family off the hook by showing a paper that he was really of the house of Joseph.
There is absolutely no way the language throughout the Bible and Book of Mormon is consistent to the degree we can make a science out of it. Whether Joseph Smith and co. were lumper or splitters depends on what they were trying to pull in that instance. It simply suffices to diffuse Smokey's point that the kind of consistency he needs to make his grand conspiracy just doesn't exist in the scriptures.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
