Parents try to perform magic by making Harry Potter disappear.

Actually, kbm, I had originally written "tips" but didn't really like the flow of that. So I deleted "tips" and wrote in "lesson" because I was thinking that it was really a condescending attempt at a lesson as opposed to a friendly tip. In doing so, I forgot context, was only thinking "tip" vs "lesson" and neglected to make it plural.

So, "That basketball game was littered with poor shootings" would be correct in your eyes? It is wrong - littered refers to incidents/examples of poor shooting...just as I was referring to incidients/examples of poor spelling.

 

rimmy, you are right in that "spelling" can refer to more than one error and "littered" does in fact refer to more than one incident. It is also true that "littered with poor shooting" is the correct way to use that sentence. So technically, your phrase is grammatical. However, it is somewhat misleading. I would have revised the sentence so that it wasn't so confusing. After all, I believe I just made one incorrect spelling error, so you are misleading the reader into thinking that there were a lot of spelling errors.

 

Also, rimmy, the so-called grammar lesson in my first response to you had nothing to do with correction. I only made the point because you seem to think that the phase Jesus as the messiah somehow implied that I was demoting him to every other earthly king or prophet who carried the same title. So in order to show you that there are worlds of difference between [the] messiah and [a] messiah I made the distinction explicted. You called that condescending, and maybe it was. But on the same note, it is very condescending to bring up the historical usage of the term messiah to make a point about how not to be narrow minded.

 

kbm,

As to your second post...you misunderstood. I was talking about Jesus the Christ (and the later "Jesus Christ"), with "the Christ/Christ" being a specific title that was often used as "the christ" with humans (just like lastold last names, too). I was just saying that there have been many "Christians" who never used that title. If you want to be all inclusive, then, you should not use it. Wasn't that cute of me? It was an exercise, nothing more.

You misunderstood and used it to try to talk "up" to me whie talking down to me.

 

Rimmy, explain it to me like I was six years old. You have a case of skotison. I always thought christians were human.

 

Your clumsy attempts at rhetoric do nothing to further your "side." Neither does your cute add-on statement.

If you don't understand then there is nothing I can do about it. The least you can do is come back with something better than "I thought christians were human." Use your brain - you can do it...otherwise there is no point in playing with you as it is too painful.

 

How did this become a debate about Christianity?

Max: There are some Christian groups who approach God in a much more non-theistic manner. Some of the mystic traditions bear as much of a resemblence to Taoism or other Asian religions as they do to traditional Christianity.

Still others accept that no single religion has the only right answer - Quakers, Unitarians, etc.

 

Interesting because your "broader" definition also forces monotheism on all Christians - statement 1.

if we are to speak of Jesus the Christ and his being the messiah. "The Christ," or "anointed one" was a title carried by earthly kings and prophets and is pretty synonomous with "messiah" as well - statement 2.

You, therefore, are relegating Jesus to the more worldly, human, and less divine stage - statement 3.

Maybe we should just speak in "old school" terms and speak of "truth" or "logos" or whatever...that even allows for the feminine or androgynous (self copulating, even) forms of "Jesus" throughout history - statement 4.

But all of this is only if you want to get extra picky in order to avoid being narrow-minded - statement 5.

.................................................................................................



Yup, these sentence seem related. At least, I understand the words.

In statement 1, my definition does not in fact force anything of the sort. You can believe Jesus was the messiah and still believe in the trinity.

[But it does kbm ...]

In statement 2, [my first piece of evidence kbm] the messiah equals other titles like "the christ" or "anointed one" which was also carried by earthly kings and prophets and it is synonomous with messiah as I said before but it bears repeating.

Statement 2 isn't evidence rimmy; it is just a statement of some random fact.

[Don't interrupt kbm! ... nevermind that I have not proved anything.]

In statement 3, you are relegating Jesus to the more human less divine.

[kbm confused concedes] Okay, well I guess I understand statement 3. I am not sure how it relates to statement 1 and 2, but oh well I guess I'm dense.

And for kbm it doesn't get any clearer in statement 4 ...

In statement 4, [time to make another statement to kbm; he needs one] maybe we should take the point of view of an earlier time and speak of the abstract jesus in abstract terms like "truth" or "logos." These terms even allow for the feminine or the androgynous abstract jesus.

[kbm says okay this must have something to do with statement 2; there are names here like "the christ" "the messiah" it must relate]

And now for the clincher kbm ...

In statement 5, [hahaha I love my handiwork] kbm get picky with me again and see don't I lay the smackdown on ya!

[Never rimmy you are the king]

 

kbm, you are a little odd, ya know. For some reason, that reminded me of math. I told you to try harder, but that was only in the insults, not in trying to turn my posts into math formulas, lol.

Hmmm...statement 1 had nothing to do with trinity...agreed - wasn't supposed to...only dealt with your use of "Jesus Christ."

Again, wow, you are right - statement 2 was not evidence...just "random" facts about the origins of the earthly "christ" title.

3 - relates to 1 & 2 because 1 establishes your usage and 2 establishes said usage's semantic history.

4. Just throwing out other, more broad, names that "Christians" have used for their savior. You know, the whole joke about "Jesus Christ" not being inclusive enough, since you told me in your first post to be more open? Duchampian delay?

5. No smackdown at all, see above. And you are supposed to insult, not compliment. I already know I am king (is that "the" king or "a" king?).

If x + y = z, then why is kbm so silly?

Did my math help you?

Do I need to break out my 15-point list again to show you some good starting points for rimmy insults?

 

Rimmy, this will be my last post in this thread. I know your glad about that. Or may you aren't. Who knows. I just want to point out a few things about your paragraph.

quote:3 - relates to 1 & 2 because 1 establishes your usage

Interesting because your "broader" definition also forces monotheism on all Christians

This sentence does not "establish" my usage. If you think it does then I feel sorry for you whenever you have to defend your doctoral thesis. You simply made a statement about what you thought my defintion meant. That is not the same as establishing a point. That is the reason I looked to your second statement for evidence.

In the rest of the paragraph, you are going off on one of your history lessons.

 

So you never used "Jesus Christ" in your post? That was all I meant.

Thesis is for a masters, dissertation is for a doctorate.

There, my last post...unless i start arguing with myself for no reason.

 

Ok bookworms, lets get at it again.

 

Man, who didn't say that the BBS was great theater!

Let me know when I need to go get some popcorn!