Is Obama the second coming of Jesus Christ or is he merely Christ-like?

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I made a clear initial distinction between what was generally true and the exception. It's implicit throughout the rest of the argument. There's no need to hedge my words every single time I bring it up when you already know what I think.

Or are you incapable of comprehending that without being spoonfed?
you're right, you should be allowed to switch back and forth between definitions and meanings at will as it may suit your argument. it would be unfair to hold you to consistent definitions and meanings as that would not bode well for the failure of an argument you are attempting to prop up on flimsy stilts.
 

nevyn

Member
i see canna was worried about the white supremacist. i was just kinda hoping the old fucker kicked the bucket.

I am an african, we tough little bastards, so sorry to disappoint you Buck, I will try harder to get shot in the face, just for you. Admit it that you missed me, I know you did, just come clean, I won't judge you, promise!

Canna, they only necklace black South Africans, it's reserved for them only, a cultural thing and all that. Whities just get shot.
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
i'm certain that jesus would be totally against taxes that feed the hungry and heal the poor.
That would certainly be consistent with Jesus' teaching and preaching throughout the gospel, since his focus is explicitly on individual altruism. On the other hand, there is never any endorsement of government action.
 

nevyn

Member
basically it's the way you try to position yourself as superior to others based on your arbitrary skin color. that's something a very insecure and feeble person would do.

Ahhhhh, I see, you want to come to africa for a week or two, I don't mind putting you up in one of my houses, I will take an inventory first just in case you run off with my stuff. You game?
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
you're right, you should be allowed to switch back and forth between definitions and meanings at will as it may suit your argument. it would be unfair to hold you to consistent definitions and meanings as that would not bode well for the failure of an argument you are attempting to prop up on flimsy stilts.
Switching...? So yes then, you're telling me you cannot apply an initial premise implicitly throughout a discussion. I'm sorry about that, I'll try harder to cater to your special needs in the future. You're already so confused about everything--I really do hate to make it even worse by not reducing things down to your level.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Switching...? So yes then, you're telling me you cannot apply an initial premise implicitly throughout a discussion. I'm sorry about that, I'll try harder to cater to your special needs in the future. You're already so confused about everything--I really do hate to make it even worse by not reducing things down to your level.
again, you said there are poor people, then you said there are no poor people, now there are poor people again.

contradicting yourself and then re-contradicting yourself is not good form.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Ahhhhh, I see, you want to come to africa for a week or two, I don't mind putting you up in one of my houses, I will take an inventory first just in case you run off with my stuff. You game?
sorry, i don't hang out with white supremacists.
 

nevyn

Member
i don't even associate with white supremacists, boy.
I will get one of my black brothers to hangout with you and protect you, come on, it's beautiful here and the woman are quite lovely, I will even give you spending money, you do rent and all that.
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
i mean, you even said he told people to pay poll taxes. i just don't see why you think contradicting yourself is good argument technique.
How is that an endorsement of government action? All that Jesus says is that paying the Roman tax is lawful, not a religious problem for Jews.

Maybe if we use a different example? A court in Massachusetts declared that upskirt photos were legal. That decision was not an endorsement of upskirt photos ("They're awesome, yeah, we support them 100%, go take them!"). Or do you disagree?
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
How is that an endorsement of government action? All that Jesus says is that paying the Roman tax is lawful, not a religious problem for Jews.

Maybe if we use a different example? A court in Massachusetts declared that upskirt photos were legal. That decision was not an endorsement of upskirt photos ("They're awesome, yeah, we support them 100%, go take them!"). Or do you disagree?
Isn't everything God's? Therefore isn't it technically mocking that you can't render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's if it's God's in the first place?
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
again, you said there are poor people, then you said there are no poor people, now there are poor people again.

contradicting yourself and then re-contradicting yourself is not good form.
You're being intellectually dishonest right now in pretending you weren't following the discussion. Let me refresh your sieve-like memory, from beginning to end:

Buck: "how can you be poor if you can heat AND cool your own food!?!"
Tokeprep: "I'll make this really simple for you: I'm not trying to say that at all."

(Caveat: You accused me of switching arguments and being inconsistent when I referred to my parents and misuse of resources. Looking back at the first posts, I actually made the point at the beginning of the discussion: "Relative to the American poor of the past, today's "poor" live in astonishing comfort, devoting substantial portions of their incomes to entertainment rather than survival..." Another example of your intellectual dishonesty in pretending that I'm being inconsistent. Also note the additional explicit distinction between poor and "poor").

Buck: "then you tried to massage the numbers and redefine what being poor is."

Tokeprep: "You know who is poor, Buck? The millions of people alive in this world right now who haven't eaten in days because they can't afford food. I think Jesus would be far more concerned with helping those people than with ensuring that the American "poor" get cell phone service and beer money."

I explicitly defined poor right there and distinguished from the second group of "poor" in every future post.

Buck: "the poor aren't poor."

Tokeprep: "The "poor" aren't poor. If you have a comfortable life you are not poor by the definition of the word. "Poor" Americans have exceedingly comfortable lives."

I explicitly distinguish between my use of the words yet again. You could possibly believe that I was saying hungry people have comfortable lives and should be grouped in with the "poor" given my explicit definition of poor as days of hunger in the previous post.

Buck: "the poor aren't poor. the 10 million+ children who go to bed hungry every night are not from poor families."

Tokeprep: "10 million children don't go to bed hungry every night. If you're food insecure for 1 out of 365 days of the year your household is considered "food insecure.""

Now I assert that you're overstating the number of poor in the United States (note poor, not "poor") by attacking your made up stat on hunger, which is entirely consistent with my earlier definition (people "who haven't eaten in days" versus "food insecurity" being defined as lack of food for any period during the year).

Buck: "i like how you are arguing that people who have to send their children to bed hungry are not actually poor."

Tokeprep: "I actually didn't say there were no genuinely poor people in the United States, by the way. I said most/the majority of the "poor" in the United States are not actually poor."

And here we are. Wow, that's actually a lot more damning for you than I thought it would be.
 
Last edited:
Top