Netanyahu Vows: ‘Hamas Will Pay’ for Boys’ Murder
Anger and Grief as Israeli Leaders React to Teens’ Triple Murder
Report: Abbas holding ‘frantic’ talks with US, EU
Subscribe to Israpundit Daily
Digest
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
@ honeybee:
I routinely answer all sorts of LEGITIMATE yes-or-no questions with a simple yes or no.
Shallow, thoughtless, or disingenuous ones, OTOH, stand a better-than-even-money chance of getting short shrift from me.
@ honeybee:
Oh? — show me where — and HOW — I did that.
dweller Said:
You equate the love of ice cream with the worship of the Almighty. Chocolate, Vanilla, or Strawberry.
dweller Said:
dweller Said:
You couldn’t answer a simple question with a simple yes or no answer if your life depended on it.
@ honeybee:
One could say the same of that procession of biblical characters he cited as his ‘loves.’
And that’s the problem. As I noted [above], he introduced a notoriously loose term — love — into the discourse, without bothering to DEFINE it. Without a definition (and a definition, moreover, from the party introducing the term), there is no way of proceeding w/ the reasonable assurance that everybody’s on the same page.
You should’ve been taking this up with him, not me.
@ honeybee:
You may ‘know’ them, Twinkie, but it’s not AT ALL apparent that you understand their
meaning.
Prevarication amounts to evading the truth by distraction.
But if you believe I’m evading the truth, then it follows that you must think you know what the truth IS
— in which case you would not merely KNOW ‘whether I would lie to you’
— but, moreover, you would know it precisely BECAUSE you had (as I noted above) a “witness to the truth inside you,” which “witness” testifies to the truth.
You have simply chosen to ASSUME that a refusal to provide a straight answer to a question must necessarily constitute conclusive evidence of prevarication or lying.
You know that it CAN betoken lying.
You do NOT know, however, that it must.
For all you know, e.g., it MIGHT indicate a principled refusal to inadvertently mislead; might indicate a responsible refusal to risk the possibility (or even likelihood) of one’s words being misunderstood.
@ yamit82:
Identify the ‘bullshit.’
{[Sigh.] That’s what I get for casting pearls before swine. . . .}
Love of truth demands that one not have heroes. So I don’t.
Would you have PREFERRED that I simply told you, flat-out, that hero-worship is for blockheads, boneheads & pinheads?
— Fact is that I had thought, at the time, to spare you — as I rather doubted you could handle that, up front.
I’m now SURE that you can’t handle it.
But I’m equally certain now that I still shouldn’t have spared you.
So far, in seven yrs (or more) of postings on this board, I’ve NEVER given you (or anybody else) a bubkis response.
Not once.
The bubkis has been, with rare exceptions, in your applying of yourself TO my responses.
dweller Said:
Your responds is total prevarication. I bet you didn’t think I new such big words , Sweetie.
dweller Said:
All those “things” a likes or preferences, not agape !!!
dweller Said:
A horse can pretty well find water on its own !!!!!!!!!!!! Sweetie
dweller Said:
Why should I consider Bull Shit??? From an intellectual pygmy and a dishonest one to boot?
Any horse or 4 legged beast has more intellectual honesty than you do. Probably smarter as well.
I didn’t ask you for a critique or an opinion on those I offered as my personal heroes and asked in that context who were yours.
So far as I have expected ‘Bubkis’ was your response. You have not replied as usual to a direct question and in the specific context which I supplied. If the context and question is too complex for your little feeble mind then it’s your deficiency and no one else.
@ honeybee:
Always. Is this [below] better?
Doesn’t matter what answer I give to your question — if you have no witness to the truth inside yourself, then you have no way of knowing HOW to take whatever answer I give you to such a question.
Actually, “the above” is simple common sense.
Regrettably, however, common sense isn’t as common as one might wish.
@ yamit82:
Did nothing of the sort. I can’t help it if your questions are sloppy & ill thought through. As usual.
For one thing, despite your above blockquote, you did not ask who I loved “yeshu or saul of tarshit?”
Rather, you asked whom I loved “BESIDES” Jesus (and) Paul.
But more importantly, you didn’t define “love” when you asked the question.
I love eating ice cream.
I love riding horses.
I love climbing out of bed after a good night’s sleep.
I love discovering previous errors of mine.
All of those things give me various kinds of satisfaction.
Nu?
[Moreover, you asked your question after telling me that YOU “love” a bizarre collection of largely one-dimensional figures (even a badly flawed one) from the first seven books, and all of whom you characterized as “great Jews.”]
I could’ve just blown off your shallow, thoughtless question altogether. Could’ve simply ignored it entirely.
Instead, however, I patiently re-oriented the discussion so as to give you a chance to think about the implications of the question you’d posed.
And so doing, I drew the focus of your question away from the biblical characters you seem to identify with, and instead threw that focus back where it belonged — on YOU, who purport to “love” them.
If you are unwilling to TAKE that opportunity to consider what I said, then it’s your loss; I’ve done my part.
You can lead a horse to water. . . .
yamit82 Said:
With or without sour cream and allspice????????
dweller Said:
Do you ever edit what you write, the above is gobbeldy gook.
dweller Said:
“yeshu or saul of tarshit?”
You obfuscated and red herring’d your answer. As ususal.
@ yamit82:
You asked me a question (“Whom do you love”?).
I replied by noting you’d asked the wrong question
— that you SHOULD’VE asked, ‘what do you love?’
Then I answered THAT question.
I also showed WHY it was a more pertinent question than the one you asked.
It was a forthright answer.
If you don’t like it, that’s not my problem
— but yours.
Good luck dealing with it.
@ honeybee:
If I told you I wouldn’t, what good would THAT do you?
Doesn’t matter what answer I give you to that question — if you have no witness to the truth inside yourself, then you have no way of knowing HOW to take whatever answer I give you to such a question.
yamit82 Said:
A Goober Pea ?????????? I bet you don’t what a goober pea is ??////
dweller Said:
dweller and Truth is a serendipitous occurrence and even then he will try to reinvent the wheel according to his sick warped world view and of himself in that world….
One could say he is out of this world or mind.
dweller Said:
You are not known far and wide as a 5 Pinocchio blogger. Your nose is as long as (fill in blank)_______________!!!!! 🙂
dweller Said:
Would you lie to me!!!
@ honeybee:
You mean you don’t know?
Then if I told you, how would you know I was TELLING you the truth?
dweller Said:
And what the truth ?????????? Sweetie
@ yamit82:
Au contraire, I view what passes for Judaism as JUST as calcified and contrary to its original intent as both Buddhism AND Christianity have become.
Ameyn v’ameyn.
— Though it’s a pity that you DON’T take such observations seriously.
“Problem?” — what problem? identify it.
“What the Tanach demands,” according to whom?
(‘Hear, oh Israel: There is no god but Kahane, and Yamit is His prophet.’)
When YOU encounter the Burning Bush, come back & see me — and we’ll talk about it. Till then, quit hocking me a tchynik about Godly fear; the concept clearly eludes you. (What’s more, I think it eluded Kahane as well.)
You ask the wrong question. Not “who do you love,” but first & foremost
— ‘WHAT do you love?’
And the answer is simple & straightforward:
I love the truth; that has to come before anything and everything else.
If you love FIRST what is true, then your love for any person will LIKEWISE be true.
If, OTOH, your first love is not the Truth, then your love for a person — ANY person — will not be true, nor trustworthy. When storms come (as come they must), your love will buckle.
Guaranteed, or your money back.
@ yamit82:
They did nothing of the sort. Quite the contrary, they all died in the wilderness.
Of that entire generation which left Egypt, ONLY TWO INDIVIDUALS — Joshua bin Nun and Calev ben Yephunneh — ever entered Cana’an alive! (That’s why I said [above] that those who entered the Land were “the children of a slave people.”)
Nor could those children of the slaves have BECOME a free people while separated ENTIRELY from a normal existence as they were in the wilderness. You don’t learn to ride a bicycle without having a bicycle to ride on. The bullfighter does not learn to face the bull unless & until he is in the ring with the creature.
The Children of Israel could not even begin to learn the meaning of freedom till they’d come in off the desert and confronted the Land as it existed when they arrived.
What ‘national institutions’ are you talking about??? — There was NO nation as yet; no ‘Am Yisrael’ — only Bnai Yisrael. Hence, the era of the Judges — when “every man did what was right in his own eyes.”
It would be a few hundred years yet before the rudiments of a nation would begin to coalesce
— and then, only because the Philistine threat made the squabbling (and sometimes mutually warring) Hebrew tribes gradually realize that only by abandoning their petty bickerings to form a nation would they likely even survive.
A collection of blueprints does not a castle make. They may be necessary to its ultimate construction — but of themselves they are insufficient to generate the product. The work, the sweat, the grit — all with an EYE to the blueprints — this was all yet to come.
“Assumptions”? What assumptions?
Nonsense. I have not now — nor have I ever had — any problem WHATSOEVER with our Jewish national revelation.
I have very SERIOUS problems, on the other hand, with your recurring attempts to HARNESS the Jewish national revelation to your demagogic and unmistakably pathological, personal agenda. You are absolutely not to be trusted in that regard.
Don’t have any “yesu beliefs narrative” that could BE screwed up. (Don’t even know what it means to have a “yesu beliefs narrative”.)
But then, while you CLEARLY have “narratives” for all sorts of matters, I don’t have much use for narratives generally. Narratives of any sort usually signal that the narrators have axes, of one stripe or another, to grind. And the sound of grinding axes has a funny way of drowning out the truth.
@ yamit82:
You imply (more than imply) that the present generation in Israel are the same weaklings that entered the Land some 33 centuries ago. They aren’t; the circumstances are vastly different.
Duh!! Who told you that you had 10 fingers & 10 toes?
The commandments, yes.
But not every COMMAND is a commandment. Those are two different words (though they share the same root) — and two different concepts.
— Viz., not every Direct Order delivered in a specific set of circumstances constitutes a commandment throughout ALL TIME & ALL SPACE, like the Dibrot.
You ALSO purport to believe that God — who clearly had plenty to say — suddenly went silent less than 1000 yrs later, and that the cat’s had His tongue ever since.
The truth is, yamit, that you don’t even know that “every word and concept” which was written 3350 yrs ago is still written — let alone, still “relevant & binding.” The very NOTION that what has come down to us today is all there ever was is an enormous assumption, and no more than that.
@ yamit82:
It is HE that is responsible for His intentions. When His intentions entail vengeance, that vengeance is INDEED His — and nobody else’s. .
You’re kidding yourself, bubbeleh. I refuted each-&-every instance that you offered; it’s all down there in black-&-white. You have only to read it. The conclusion is compelling & inescapable:
— Vengeance is the exclusive possession & prerogative of an Infinite Mind — the private turf of an omnipotent and all-wise (and avowedly jealous) God.
So far, your claims to the contrary score you one large — and very empty — goose egg.
Not many words at all. When a post of mine is lengthy, it’s usually because 40-60 percent of it (or more) consists of blockquoted comments incorporated INTO the post for the purpose of maintaining continuity of the thread which may extend over multiple pages here.
The fact is that it truly AINT so. But I offered in each instance AMPLE reasoning to show WHY it aint so.
“Sources?” — “Jewish sources?”
— And what did those Jewish sources derive THEIR conclusions from? SOMEBODY had to have done some reasoning there.
Either that, or they received Guidance of a sort that you don’t acknowledge as real…
Whenever you pull that “Jewish sources” line, Yamit, you are merely announcing that you’re too lazy to do your own reasoning — and this is your weasily way of admitting it.
Translation: I do my own thinking. (Fancy that!)