Sheshbazzar

I have been following this thread from the beginning and have read and reread the entire 15 pages and 360 posts and the 6 pages and 141 posts of the thread that this one was split off from.
As far as your accusation of me "jumping into the middle of the conversation with no prior knowledge of the discussion" my initial post in this thread was #234, the contents of which could not have been arrived at except by a familiarity with the foregoing material which prompted the observation.
This "conversation" has not been a private exchange between only you and Amaleq, as several others have posted repeatedly pointing out the errors that are in your narrative, in your reasoning, and in your willful distortion of the contents of the texts.
That you have continued to persist does not constitute an accomplishment of presenting us with a cohesive, sensible, or persuasive narrative.
Reading all of the foregoing, anyone with a grasp of language and sentence structure can detect that you are simply attempting to weasel out of the bogus statements that you made.
It is obvious that your present tact is persuading no one here of the integrity of your arguments.

My above observations will stand the test of investigation by the readers here.
The entire context of well over 100 posts taken in the sequence that they appeared prove beyond any shadow of doubt, that when you wrote;
NOTHING preceding, nor immediately following indicates any attempt to use "reverse logic", or that the statement was ever originally intended to be taken as an attempt to illustrate Amaleq's "error" by the employment of "his" logic.
Only latter, when your composition was called into question did you contrive to invent this totally crock-and-bull excuse to cover your ass, as is readily evident to anyone who cares to take the time to read these things through and in context.
Simply that you like to accuse others of "fallacy" in a lot in your posts, is not sufficient to provide a defense for the faults and fallacies of your own reasoning.
I wouldn't waste my time with sending PMs to you. We will deal with these matters here, in this thread, "in the light", in full view of any and all interested, in the forum and in the context that they originally arose.
Amaleq, or anyone else here, I encourage to continue to post your own views and arguments refuting the logical fallacies in dr lazer's "narrative" and posts.
But as for me, undestand, that I have no intention of letting go of the tail of this writhering snake-in-the-grass.

FinnHawk

REALLY? Long before the 12th-13th century?

"Christianization of Scandinavia came later than most parts of Europe. In Denmark Harald Bluetooth Christianized the country around 980. The process of Christianization began in Norway during the reigns of Olaf Tryggvason (reigned 995 AD-c.1000 AD) and Olaf II Haraldsson (reigned 1015 AD-1030 AD). Olaf and Olaf II had been baptized voluntarily outside of Norway. Olaf II managed to bring English clergy to his country. Norway's conversion from the Norse religion to Christianity was mostly the result of English missionaries. As a result of the adoption of Christianity by the monarchy and eventually the entirety of the country, traditional shamanistic practices were marginalized and eventually persecuted. Völvas, practitioners of seid, a Scandinavian pre-Christian tradition, were executed or exiled under newly Christianized governments in the eleventh and twelfth centuries."

Kharakov

I can picture that as well. sigh.

dr lazer blast

Guess I'll have to show you.

post 264
Amaleq makes an assertion that my narrative is not supported by the text.
post 268
Dlb continuing with the logic of amaleq text supporting assertion states:
post 271
amaleq states that we DO there was a reaction based upon the text.
post 273
DLB: proceeds to break it down word for word text for text using amaleqs position about the text and it is further clarified here

So in conclusion I suggest you stop being dishonest about you actually reading the posts because the assertion you made here

and the one you made here

is amply refuted when I made this assertion

in post 273.
So please once again, before you jump into the middle of the conversation, try to understand whats going on, and please actually read the posts and don't lie about it, thanks. (my guess is he is going to use a red herring fallacy and attempt to argue the posts I quoted, and ignoring the initial point that I was using amaleqs flawed logic all along)

Sheshbazzar

Going over each of those posts yet again, I strongly agree with Amaleq's responses, and find yours to be snide remarks usually lacking in any actual content, as for example in post #268
You admit that Amaleq's response here is "without a fallacy".
Yet his statement points out that her "joy" is a response to what she had heard from the angels (a fact which you have repeatedly denied) and further he points out the "inconsistency" that is apparent both in the original texts, and also in that cobbled together "narrative" that you are attempting.

In this case your response is a non-sequitur, as written, your snide response is actually supportive of Amaleq's reasoning rather than your own.
(and you really should learn to use a "spell checker" before posting)

Readers are welcome to examine this entire protracted fiasco, other posters have responded often in this thread, and as far as I can see near on to none have displayed any acceptance of your interpretations, conclusions, or claims.
Perhaps it is high time for a "show of hands" from these other posters and from the readers of this thread.
Yes, doc, you have -asserted- repeatedly that Amaleq's logic is flawed, yet the evidence indicates that the other posters here collectively find it to be YOUR "logic" that is seriously flawed and lacking.
The quotations that you provided above fully support Amaleq's position rather than your own, regardless of your late attempt to recast them as "employing Amaleq's ..logic"
That contrived ad-hoc explanation just don't wash, and I doubt that many here "buying it".

Readers, If you agree with dr lazer, and support his assessments and interpretations as being correct and accurate, feel free to express your support with a "Yea", :thumbs:
If you find his narrative, and arguments to be ill founded and unpersuasive, then enter your "Nay" :down:

thentian

Nay! :down:

Cudos to Amaleq for never having given up trying to explain to dlb the meaning of one simple verse!

dlb, you abandoned our discussion on the meaning of "... said nothing." without an explanation.

You have also failed to provide us with a narrative that contains all the things said by the persons mentioned in the relevant bible passages, as required by the rules, and as I have pointed out twice. But okay, maybe you need more time to do that.

So you have failed the Easter Challenge, in my humble opinion.

Lugubert

Yes, "Nay" :down:


The irony, coming from somebody who keeps complaining about fallacies. This quote alone would have been enough indication of the quality of dlb's reasoning even if I hadn't read the complete thread.

BTW, thanks, Amaleq and other untiring contributors.

Tars Tarkus

NAY, of course. Amaleq13's patience and tenacity are to be commended.

WVIncagold

:down:Nay
Although i can only read Amaleq's post because i gave up on DLB and put him on ignore for just the reasons everyone else have put forth on here. Thankfully Amaleq posted enough of DLB's nonsense with his replies. As usual DLB asserts without proof, followed by insult, questions your reasoning ability or education, twist and squirms when cornered, followed by a goal post shift and then repeats. No logic or proof is ever provided. Amaleq my hats off to you you have great patience when dealing with the arrogant unsupported assertions of theist.

gregor

Joining the "nay" dogpile.