My posting of a long list of verses is not overly done.
It only has to be done once to be overdone. I've explained why. Accept it or don't.
I only do so at the appropriate times (i.e At the start of a thread, or to explain a particular belief).
You don't seem to understand that "Throwing the Elephant" stifles discussion. To go through bit-by-bit all that you jam into one huge post takes an enormous amount of time and effort. Who wants to slog through a near-endless post, consuming hours and hours in order to do so? I don't.
You assume that my use of long walls of texts is not used appropriately.
It is such a common tactic used by people to overwhelm any who might dissent that it has been given the name "Throwing the Elephant." I know of no one - except those who like to employ this tactic - who appreciate it.
So if I posted a long list of verses in defense that Jesus is God, you would object to such a thing?
Is it necessary to do so? Could you not make your case with just a few well-chosen verses explicitly stating your point? Yes, you could. But "Throwing the Elephant" is so much more difficult for an opponent to deal with. And marshaling so many verses makes it look like you've got Scripture on your side - until your opponent goes through each one and shows that you don't, which rarely happens since very few care to spend the time and effort necessary to do so. And so, you go away confirmed in your view by the absence of any comprehensive rebuttal of your epic posts. "Throwing the Elephant," then, not only silences any potential critics of your view but makes it seem like you've won your case. Is it any wonder that it is such a popular debate tactic?
Or do you only object to a long list of verses for a belief that you do not agree with?
I only object when those verses are being wrongly applied or wrested to make them fit a particular view.
See, I find it hard to believe that you would object to a post that shows 160 reasons why Jesus is God.
See above.
So I would say it is the content and not the actual way I post that you disagree with.
I told you exactly what I have a problem with. But, like you so often do in your posts, you refuse to hear what is being said to you and work things around 'til they fit what you want to believe.
But how is it different? How is writing a letter to believers different than writing to believers online?
Are you suggesting a letter is identical to a thread post? I hope not. It's obvious to me how one of Paul's letters differs from a post you might make online. For one, he was an apostle writing inspired Scripture to the Early Church. You aren't. For another, Paul's epistles were generally instructive, not written in a give-and-take style, as the posts on a forum thread usually are. Also, the length time it would take for Paul's communications to reach his intended audience required that he put as much into each missive as he could. Long time delays are not usually an issue in an online back-and-forth conversation. Shall I go on?
Are they not both forms of written communication?
Is a lion a housecat? They both have whiskers, four paws and a tail.
Is information your enemy? It shouldn't be.
I think you know full well that it isn't.
Do I post long verses in each of my posts every time I talk to people? No.
Did I say that you did? No. But it is easier to dismiss and or defeat my comments if you overblow them, isn't it? This is another fallacious tactic you often employ in your posts.
I only do so as a means to show a person what I believe the Bible says.
You can do this perfectly well with much smaller posts.
But you falsely assume that I always post with a long set of verses in each of my posts.
See? You create this overblown version of my position and then argue against it as though it is what I actually said. This is called Strawman arguing and is another form of fallacious argument that you often use.
I have never said that you
always post with a long set of verses. Nor have I implied it.
Nobody is suggesting that my long list of verses is the final end of the debate.
It is difficult to recognize in what and how you write that you don't feel this way about your perspectives.
You have addressed a few verses in my long list of verses before. So you cannot say it is not effective method of communication because you yourself have replied to such a method.
??? It doesn't follow that because I have bothered to address several dozen verses you've posted that your posting them was an "effective method of communication." In fact, it was very tedious to have to go through them one-by-one and show they didn't fit with your argument.
But they would have to prove that by pointing out the context, cross references, etc.
Yes, but even then, Jason, you remain staunchly unconvinced. You are clearly highly invested in your own point of view and so it is very unlikely that even when someone makes the effort to challenge your thinking, that you will ever see it in any way as flawed. By "prove" what you often seem to mean is "change my mind." But proving something to be in error is not always the same thing as persuading someone who holds to that error that it is, in fact, error. The former can be achieved by basic rules of logic and reason, sound argument, and objective evidence, but the latter is a subjective thing that often resists all proof.
Yet, the majority of the answers here did not give this answer that we should pray for them.
Possibly, as I said, because it is the sort of thing that goes without saying.
Is it wrongly applied? If so, then there wouldn't be so many verses that plainly defend a particular belief.
What you think they defend and what they actually defend has, in my discussions with you, many times turned out to be two different things.
But more times often than not, the verses is either twisted to mean something else by someone say it means something totally different in the Greek, or that the verse is speaking metaphorically in it's entirety.
And if the Greek
does alter your preferred meaning? Why is this a problem? It is the
original language of the New Testament and as such has an important bearing upon how the NT ought to be understood. As well, if the verse
is speaking figuratively, why should it be made to be literal in its meaning? How is forcing a metaphoric verse to be a literal one not twisting Scripture?