Koran burning cancelled

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Basically telling someone what they okay is okay with someone else...ie your job to edit copy....your boss isn't going to go over it....is rather easy to understand.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"]saw on the news it was only off because the pastor thought that the islamic center wasn't being built... this whole mess is just idiotic imo.. the fact that 1 guy with like 20 followers can create this kind of worldwide uproar ( with the media's help of course ) is just friggin' ridiculous..comp_atkins

When was the Qu'ran stupid again?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]So argue without thought? Got it.LJS9502_basic

Do you reject or in other words state that the Bible doesn't support the idea that the earth was created in 6 days? If so, you have to some degree an interpretation with what the text means. Gnostic. You might of course not be entirely sure what a biblical "day" is, but you have still interpreted the bible to not mean something, and likewise pass judgement on it's meaning. If you neither accept nor deny the interpretation of the bible which supports the idea of a 6 day creation, then you would be agnostic.

coolbeans90

You therefore dismiss what they're saying as a creation of their own mind. You do not say that it is right. You do not say that it is wrong. All you do is point out that it is just their own creation which they have invented and extrapolated from a piece of writing which make no literal references to any of the things they discuss. Now, in doing so, you do not consider what the bible means or doesn't mean. All you are doing is pointing out that their assertion lacks authority because it is a creation of their mind, not a literal piece of text in the bible.

That is all i did. The pope saying that the bible says he is infallible is a creation of his own, not a line in the bible where this is dictated.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Then you would effectively be required to reject anything the text says at all.

coolbeans90

In doing so, i am offering no inference AT ALL of greater meaning or interpretation, but merely dismissing what someone else is saying as a creation of their own mind.

Even "literal" meanings are largely subjective. Furthermore, what seems "literal" to you very well isn't always what some else considers to be "literal."

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Yeah he's since changed his position. Now it's not canceled but 'in limbo' (do evangelicals believe in limbo? :P) so it's not over yet. DroidPhysX

When was the Qu'ran stupid again?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]False equivocation once again. Having no definite/clear/formed opinion doesnt mean I have no thought.Teenaged

Do you reject or in other words state that the Bible doesn't support the idea that the earth was created in 6 days? If so, you have to some degree an interpretation with what the text means. Gnostic. You might of course not be entirely sure what a biblical "day" is, but you have still interpreted the bible to not mean something, and likewise pass judgement on it's meaning. If you neither accept nor deny the interpretation of the bible which supports the idea of a 6 day creation, then you would be agnostic.coolbeans90

This guy got WAY more attention then he deserved. If the news reported every small-time idiot there was then we'd have no time for real news. PernicioEnigma

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] If one...don't make this personal....is arguing without clarity and understanding...then one shouldn't be argued actually.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Again I dont see how he argued without clarity or understanding. How do you come with these equivocations? Um, make it personal? For whom?Teenaged

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Do you reject or in other words state that the Bible doesn't support the idea that the earth was created in 6 days? If so, you have to some degree an interpretation with what the text means. Gnostic. You might of course not be entirely sure what a biblical "day" is, but you have still interpreted the bible to not mean something, and likewise pass judgement on it's meaning. If you neither accept nor deny the interpretation of the bible which supports the idea of a 6 day creation, then you would be agnostic.

Ninja-Hippo

You therefore dismiss what they're saying as a creation of their own mind. You do not say that it is right. You do not say that it is wrong. All you do is point out that it is just their own creation which they have invented and extrapolated from a piece of writing which make no literal references to any of the things they discuss. Now, in doing so, you do not consider what the bible means or doesn't mean. All you are doing is pointing out that their assertion lacks authority because it is a creation of their mind, not a literal piece of text in the bible.

That is all i did. The pope saying that the bible says he is infallible is a creation of his own, not a line in the bible where this is dictated.

You cannot both not say an interpretation is wrong and then say that the interpretation isn't correct. You passed judgement.Furthermore, you are doing some major assuming that this was a creation of the pope's mind.

Literal is subjective.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Do you reject or in other words state that the Bible doesn't support the idea that the earth was created in 6 days? If so, you have to some degree an interpretation with what the text means. Gnostic. You might of course not be entirely sure what a biblical "day" is, but you have still interpreted the bible to not mean something, and likewise pass judgement on it's meaning. If you neither accept nor deny the interpretation of the bible which supports the idea of a 6 day creation, then you would be agnostic.

coolbeans90

You therefore dismiss what they're saying as a creation of their own mind. You do not say that it is right. You do not say that it is wrong. All you do is point out that it is just their own creation which they have invented and extrapolated from a piece of writing which make no literal references to any of the things they discuss. Now, in doing so, you do not consider what the bible means or doesn't mean. All you are doing is pointing out that their assertion lacks authority because it is a creation of their mind, not a literal piece of text in the bible.

That is all i did. The pope saying that the bible says he is infallible is a creation of his own, not a line in the bible where this is dictated.

You cannot both not say an interpretation is wrong and then say that the interpretation isn't correct. You passed judgement.Furthermore, you are doing some major assuming that this was a creation of the pope's mind.

Literal is subjective.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] No i wouldn't. There are literal words, and then there are meanings which you can extrapolate from those words which may differ wildly from person to person. If something literally says 'the sun is hot', that cannot really be challenged. If a person extrapolates from 'the sun is hot' that what it is REALLY saying is that the sun does not exist, you could easily say 'well i'm going to dismiss that because that's just your own formulation and not what it literally says at all.'

In doing so, i am offering no inference AT ALL of greater meaning or interpretation, but merely dismissing what someone else is saying as a creation of their own mind.

Ninja-Hippo

Even "literal" meanings are largely subjective. Furthermore, what seems "literal" to you very well isn't always what some else considers to be "literal."

The top of the page says that the thread is about the Koran burning getting called off. :P At least I'm sure we can agree that's a good thing, right?

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Do you reject or in other words state that the Bible doesn't support the idea that the earth was created in 6 days? If so, you have to some degree an interpretation with what the text means. Gnostic. You might of course not be entirely sure what a biblical "day" is, but you have still interpreted the bible to not mean something, and likewise pass judgement on it's meaning. If you neither accept nor deny the interpretation of the bible which supports the idea of a 6 day creation, then you would be agnostic.

coolbeans90

You therefore dismiss what they're saying as a creation of their own mind. You do not say that it is right. You do not say that it is wrong. All you do is point out that it is just their own creation which they have invented and extrapolated from a piece of writing which make no literal references to any of the things they discuss. Now, in doing so, you do not consider what the bible means or doesn't mean. All you are doing is pointing out that their assertion lacks authority because it is a creation of their mind, not a literal piece of text in the bible.

That is all i did. The pope saying that the bible says he is infallible is a creation of his own, not a line in the bible where this is dictated.

You cannot both not say an interpretation is wrong and then say that the interpretation isn't correct. You passed judgement.Furthermore, you are doing some major assuming that this was a creation of the pope's mind.

Literal is subjective.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]That was in response to your post.....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Hey beans. Riddle me this. A person says that they are the brother of Jesus, and that they know this because of what it says in the bible. You ask them to produce where it says this, and they do so. The scriptures they give you do not mention anything to do with Jesus or his siblings, or anything even remotely related to the assertion this person is making.

You therefore dismiss what they're saying as a creation of their own mind. You do not say that it is right. You do not say that it is wrong. All you do is point out that it is just their own creation which they have invented and extrapolated from a piece of writing which make no literal references to any of the things they discuss. Now, in doing so, you do not consider what the bible means or doesn't mean. All you are doing is pointing out that their assertion lacks authority because it is a creation of their mind, not a literal piece of text in the bible.

That is all i did. The pope saying that the bible says he is infallible is a creation of his own, not a line in the bible where this is dictated.

Ninja-Hippo

You cannot both not say an interpretation is wrong and then say that the interpretation isn't correct. You passed judgement.Furthermore, you are doing some major assuming that this was a creation of the pope's mind.

Literal is subjective.

Then you don't reject the interpretation, but simply don't have an opinion on it. Ergo, neither agree nor disagree with that being what the Bible says, and the consequential church policies. A product of their own mind? Seems rather presumptuous.

...coolbeans90

Ah thanks for the clarification. My bad. Then you should stop paraphrasing since "nor have any clarity" is not a valid paraphrase of what I said. Its misleading. Having no clarity implies one does believe x, y or z but doesnt make it clear. Whats happening here is that a person doesnt believe in x, y or z (where x, y and z are formed opinions) and chooses to....-what is obviously the honest thing to do- simply disagree and not say that he does have a formed opinion (since after all, he doesnt). If those people shouldnt be argued, then neither should those who are skeptics (or profess to be) and ask for proof. Btw, where did I act that an answer to my post is out of the blue? I am really curious. You can have all of my watered ouzo. Tsipouro is better.Teenaged

No idea on Tsipouro.

Then if he doesn't believe in x, y, and z...he believes the opposite. If you don't believe...then you don't agree. Which means you disagree....because you find the opposite to be true.No idea on Tsipouro.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]Do you reject or in other words state that the Bible doesn't support the idea that the earth was created in 6 days? If so, you have to some degree an interpretation with what the text means. Gnostic. You might of course not be entirely sure what a biblical "day" is, but you have still interpreted the bible to not mean something, and likewise pass judgement on it's meaning. If you neither accept nor deny the interpretation of the bible which supports the idea of a 6 day creation, then you would be agnostic.Teenaged

Yes, the "literalists" are hypocritical in the sense that they claim to not extrapolate anything. There is some truth to all the above statements. I didn't reply because of that.

Meh finally, he got his moment, no need to go further.GazaAli

Then you don't reject the interpretation, but simply don't have an opinion on it. Ergo, neither agree nor disagree with that being what the Bible says, and the consequential church policies. A product of their own mind? Seems rather presumptuous.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]Meh finally, he got his moment, no need to go further.MaxPred2010

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]Do you reject or in other words state that the Bible doesn't support the idea that the earth was created in 6 days? If so, you have to some degree an interpretation with what the text means. Gnostic. You might of course not be entirely sure what a biblical "day" is, but you have still interpreted the bible to not mean something, and likewise pass judgement on it's meaning. If you neither accept nor deny the interpretation of the bible which supports the idea of a 6 day creation, then you would be agnostic.coolbeans90

Yes, the "literalists" are hypocritical in the sense that they claim to not extrapolate anything. There is some truth to all the above statements. I didn't reply because of that.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Then you don't reject the interpretation, but simply don't have an opinion on it. Ergo, neither agree nor disagree with that being what the Bible says, and the consequential church policies. A product of their own mind? Seems rather presumptuous.

Ninja-Hippo

You claimed the bible didn't state the pope is infallible. You haven't substantiated that claim. At best, a stalemate.

Ninja-Hippo

Teenaged

Anyway guys, it has been an entertaining discussion, but I think I'm going to get some sleep. Good night.

Stop this, stop this.This thread has gotten entirely too silly. Sorry, but this amount of tomfoolery will not be tolerated. I say we transfer the conversation from alleged fallacies in religious doctrine to it's intended subject matter on the status of the Qu'ran burning event and opinions on that subject.

Got that? Right. Get on with it.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Only based on a misunderstanding of the point being made, which i've just cleared up....Ninja-Hippo

Not really. You specifically claimed that the Bible did not say something. Now you claim to not have an opinion. Yeah, and on that, I'll call checkmate.

I wonder, if I threatened to burn 200 bibles would the media even show up?

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Then you don't reject the interpretation, but simply don't have an opinion on it. Ergo, neither agree nor disagree with that being what the Bible says, and the consequential church policies. A product of their own mind? Seems rather presumptuous.

coolbeans90

You claimed the bible didn't state the pope is infallible. You haven't substantiated that claim. At best, a stalemate.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I'm not sure he agrees.....coolbeans90

Not really. You specifically claimed that the Bible did not say something. Now you claim to not have an opinion. Yeah, and on that, I'll call checkmate.

I kind of wish he would have gone through with it, but it is probably for the best that he didn't

I wonder, if I threatened to burn 200 bibles would the media even show up?htekemerald

[QUOTE="Baconbits2004"]Not sure if this has been posted or not... but: "Given what we are now hearing, we are forced to rethink our decision," Jones said. "So as of right now, we are not canceling the event, but we are suspending it."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/quran_burningAce6301

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]I wonder, if I threatened to burn 200 bibles would the media even show up?foxhound_fox

Of course it wasn't as big a deal as this, but people still cared.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Hooray! So after all this time we finally reach the conclusion which i said from the very beginning, like hours ago. :P I made no comment on the correctness of the interpretation; just that it is ONLY an interpretation. So with that cleared up, i made no inference and there was no check mate. Moving on...

Ninja-Hippo

You claimed the bible didn't state the pope is infallible. You haven't substantiated that claim. At best, a stalemate.

That requires your inference to state as such, and you have taken a position. That is that. I am done with this discussion.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Yup, he just did. :)Ninja-Hippo

Not really. You specifically claimed that the Bible did not say something. Now you claim to not have an opinion. Yeah, and on that, I'll call checkmate.

You called checkmate first mate. In retrospect, as i don't like to declare myself a victor due to obvious personal biases that I am not too comfortably able to say that I can distance myself from. My genuine apologies. But let's hold both of ourselves to the same standard now. Either accept the use of self declared checkmates, or don't.

You called checkmate first matecoolbeans90

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]I wonder, if I threatened to burn 200 bibles would the media even show up?Ninja-Hippo

Of course it wasn't as big a deal as this, but people still cared.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11255366

The pastor of a small US church who planned to burn copies of the Koran on the anniversary of 9/11 has cancelled his protest.

ToppledPillars

I think he should push forward with his plan.After all he has the right to do so.When a american flag or a bible is burned not much is said of it.Obama was one person who was at a flag burning thing and thats a fact.Yet he wants to jump down this guys throat for what hes doing.The troops are already in danger over there and many people in pakistan,afghanistan,and iran said that they would kill all jews and christians if this guy did this.

I say do it because he has the right regardless of anyones opinion.I'm gonna burn one tommorow too!

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]I wonder, if I threatened to burn 200 bibles would the media even show up?foxhound_fox

Did he really say that? I mean when they asked him he said he was protesting against extremist Muslim's.. Not Islam as a whole.. Now regardless of how ridiuclous his logic is, the point still stands..