Opinion of jmfcst

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Seems the guy tried to change himself into a living Bible. Other than that, which is something, and which can lead him to be annoying, doesn't seem to be a bad guy.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

So, basically, when you and I walk through scripture and allow the chips to fall where they may, we agree.  When you “refuse to accept” the way the chips fall, we disagree.  It’s a matter of the difference in consistency of our individual approach

You don't change. In short you say here "sorry guy, you're nice, but The Truth, it's me who got it, too bad for you". Every human being who doesn't acknowledge that what he says could be wrong, even if he is strongly convinced, he could say "ultimately, I could be wrong, I'm just a human being", especially when it comes to something as deep as religion, is disqualifying himself to my eyes.

As far as I know you're just a human being, right?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

So, basically, when you and I walk through scripture and allow the chips to fall where they may, we agree.  When you “refuse to accept” the way the chips fall, we disagree.  It’s a matter of the difference in consistency of our individual approach

You don't change. In short you say here "sorry guy, you're nice, but The Truth, it's me who got it, too bad for you". Every human being who doesn't acknowledge that what he says could be wrong, even if he is strongly convinced, he could say "ultimately, I could be wrong, I'm just a human being", especially when it comes to something as deep as religion, is disqualifying himself to my eyes.

As far as I know you're just a human being, right?

Actually, that's not what I am saying at all.  In fact, I don't even consider my differences with JSJ on these three issues to be a matter of interpretation.  In fact, on two of the issues he doesn’t even offer a scriptural proof, and on the other issue he offers a single verse. 

Rather I am saying that if this were a benign issue, JSJ could walk your through the scripture, tracing the issue from Old Testament to New Testament, allowing the chips to fall where they may, and be able to completely mesh his conclusion with scripture

Again, if this were a Geometry class, JSJ would have nice long well thought out proofs for his others doctrines.  But, his solutions to these 3 doctrines would be missing proofs altogether, even though his “textbook” has “fundamental” postulates and theorems covering these topics.  I’ve haven’t tried to condemn JSJ, rather I have tried to stir up some conviction within him to deal with the inconsistency of his approach.

---

Now, you and others may repeatedly claim that I must lack love because I refuse to “reason” without the fundamentals of my textbook, but I’m already aware of the story of how Delilah pestered Samson with the same argument until Samson played with fire to the point that he didn’t even realize he had crossed the line with God.  In the end, Delilah didn’t really love him anyway and Samson was subdued and had his eyes gouged out and became blind.

But, I am not like Samson; I am not going to give into the naggings of the world, even if the world concludes I don’t love her.  Because, in the end, it’s not the love of the world I am after.

Nah, nah, I don't reproach you a miss of love, debates are not about love, they are about arguments and respect, you didn't miss to both of these. If debates were about love here, that's a long time i would have left, getting bored.

Neither that i would interfere in the issues you have with JSojourner. It's just that when you responded him I saw something which is generally strong in you, at least for religion discussions, haven't monitored a lot what you can say on economy, being that it's seems to be hard for you, maybe impossible, to admit that you could be wrong on that realm or that something else you don't know could give you an other light on what you already know. You may strongly defend your points, but especially when it comes to something as dense as religion, the human being you are (if you're more than this tell me what you are please) has to impose himself the ultimate option that he could be wrong, even if he strongly believes in what he says, because he's just a human being. You can act the way you want, justifying it by your strong beliefs, but, the slightest would be that, in a debate, you admit that, ultimately, you could be wrong, we call it humility I think.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I don't know what to make of jmfcst, but he's rather Phil like in this thread in that he responds to all his critics......that I don't care for.......

I'm neutral.

but my responses are substantive, unlike Phil's   

Phil's were too, it's just that he went to use until the slightest available crumb of argument to make a whole bread. (well, if this is understandable) (anyways, that's not his thread here, that's yours jmf)

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

If I were to grade myself on this forum, I’d give myself negative marks in the area of decorum (I tend to purposely stir the pot), but high marks in the area of logical consistency. Which is obviously not a good mix when it comes to making forum friends. 

Héhé, it's a luck that I spoke about humility before... Well, to your credit you used the conditional temporal mode...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

If I were to grade myself on this forum, I’d give myself negative marks in the area of decorum (I tend to purposely stir the pot), but high marks in the area of logical consistency. Which is obviously not a good mix when it comes to making forum friends. 

Héhé, it's a luck that I spoke about humility before... Well, to your credit you used the conditional temporal mode...

are you EE? because I haven't heard that term since college

Nah, I'm French.

Well, conditional, "would", what's EE btw?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Just found it:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/EE