The purpose of the thread was to start a conversation to argue over. Arguments are a good thing, that's how progress work

What you mean is dialect, argument is closed-minded, dialect is open-minded.

What you mean is dialect, argument is closed-minded, dialect is open-minded.

Funny that you try to teach me how to speak english while using words you don't even understand.
A dialect is a language (dialogue is the word you are looking for)

Edited 2/6/2016 01:54:45

I'm giving you building criticism, and you just try and belittle me. I faintly recall that you're a bigoted militant atheist who uses insults as rocket fuel.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dialectic

I'm sorry Hitchslap, but you just got wrecked by a dictionary.

I believe the Bible cover to cover, but unlike a lot of Christians, I actually understand the damn book. Those verses are explained differently from other translations, sometimes it requires more then one translation to FULLY grasp a verse and its meaning in the entire Bible.

I'm giving you building criticism, and you just try and belittle me

Yeah that was kind of uncalled for i agree. dialectic and dialect are too different things. An argument doesn't have to be close-minded. An argument is an exchange of diverging/opposite views. A dialogue doesn't have to be open-minded, there is just not this notion of diverging views embeded in the definition.


edit: you are calling me out for being rude, but when you know you are wrong, just admit it and move forward, dont link the definition of a different word in hope that i wouldn't notice, that's just wrong

I'm sorry Hitchslap, but you just got wrecked by a dictionary.

lol no. why do you think he gave the definition of dialectic instead of dialect?
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dialect

now you can say you're sorry, and mean it ;)

Edited 2/6/2016 02:15:13

Well to be fair on the link you posted for "Dialect" on the origin section it says: "Mid 16th century (denoting the art of investigating the truth of opinions): from French dialecte, or via Latin from Greek dialektos 'discourse, way of speaking', from dialegesthai 'converse with'

Technically he's not wrong and technically you're right. But I apologize for the mistake on my side for not seeing he linked the wrong word.

Technically he is wrong Jai, and there is nothing bad about being wrong, that's the best way of learning. Dialectic, dialect and dialogue all have the same origin, but they have different meaning, that's all. Anyway, that's really not that important

it will bring the End Times, in wich one third of the Jews will be converted to Christianity and the rest will be slaughtered and then eternally condemned to Hell.

Where the f*** did you get that from???

Technically he is wrong Jai, and there is nothing bad about being wrong, that's the best way of learning. Dialectic, dialect and dialogue all have the same origin, but they have different meaning, that's all. Anyway, that's really not that important

Also, if its "not that important" why did you falsely accuse him of misusing the world dialect in the first place?

Edited 2/6/2016 02:41:25

Where the f*** did you get that from???

From crazy christian fundamentalist like Kent Hovind

edit: and of course the crazy Bible verses that backs it

"In the whole land," declares the LORD, "two-thirds will be struck down and perish; yet one-third will be left in it." Zechariah 13:8
for more crazy stuff, read
http://www.gotquestions.org/end-times-Israel.html

why did you falsely accuse him of misusing the world dialect in the first place?

really?

Edited 2/6/2016 02:56:15

Exactly. Kevin Hovind is crazy. 90% of Christians haven't even heard of him.

Pls, if your going to try to slam Biblical interpretations, at least try slamming Biblibal interpretations that are taken seriously by the core Christian community, and not outcasts of questionable sanity.

ghay people make me think there checking me out.

In a few points in my life i punched gay people for checking me out. also telling them to leave, dont care dont reply.


ghay people make me sick

Exactly. Kevin Hovind is crazy. 90% of Christians haven't even heard of him.

Pls, if your going to try to slam Biblical interpretations, at least try slamming Biblibal interpretations that are taken seriously by the core Christian community, and not outcasts of questionable sanity.

sorry i hadn't time to edit before your post, i'll just copy/past it

edit: and of course the crazy Bible verses that backs it

"In the whole land," declares the LORD, "two-thirds will be struck down and perish; yet one-third will be left in it." Zechariah 13:8
for more crazy stuff, read
http://www.gotquestions.org/end-times-Israel.html

here is the time line:

There will be a mass return of Jews to the land of Israel (Deuteronomy 30:3; Isaiah 43:6; Ezekiel 34:11-13; 36:24; 37:1-14).

The Antichrist will make a 7-year covenant of "peace" with Israel (Isaiah 28:18; Daniel 9:27).

The temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem (Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4; Revelation 11:1).

The Antichrist will break his covenant with Israel, and worldwide persecution of Israel will result (Daniel 9:27; 12:1, 11; Zechariah 11:16; Matthew 24:15, 21; Revelation 12:13). Israel will be invaded (Ezekiel chapters 38-39).

Israel will finally recognize Jesus as their Messiah (Zechariah 12:10). Israel will be regenerated, restored, and regathered (Jeremiah 33:8; Ezekiel 11:17; Romans 11:26).

Also, i never said it was mainstream christian beliefs, that's not my argument. My argument is crazy holy books lead people to believe crazy thing. And btw in the US people who believe that are not an "outcast" group, its mostly evangelicals. I wouldn't be surprised if Ted Cruz believed in this shit

Wow... Hitchslap, your ignorance of what "mainstream Christian beliefs" are, is astounding.

oh well...my bad for ever thinking that you were here for anything else than trolling

Wrong again, go to page 7, the conversation started with me asking Norman this:[/quote
"Do you think that this rethoric,* the blaming of all the Jews for the death of Jesus * wich was professed for centuries in Europe, had a role in preparing the groundwork for the Holocaust? Do you think that it can be viewed as bible-inspired antisemitism, or is it harmless and happen to be a Holy Truth?"

Sure, that makes sense. Just like in all discussions, the conversation you were having with someone else three days ago on an unrelated topic is automatically relevant to ours...

For some reason you think that it's necessary to address this discussion you were having with some other dude three days ago rather than my post from earlier today, which doesn't make much sense to me to be honest. Like I said, it seems like a cop out.

But hey, maybe you're planning to address my post in three days while you're discussing the new Image restrictions with fizzer.

Edited 2/6/2016 05:48:32

Sure, that makes sense. Just like in all discussions, the conversation you were having with someone else three days ago on an unrelated topic is automatically relevant to ours...

Oh... i think there have been a misunderstanding, did you think we were having a private conversation? just the two of us?

Don't be naive, and read the whole thread if you want to understand everything people said on it and actually follow the conversation.

I have already addressed your post. Its funny that you think i didn't. But if you want to go over a specific point that you think i didn't adress, please do ask/tell.

We're not having a private conversation, but we're having a thread of discussion between the two of us in a public thread. That had evolved into something rather different by yesterday when you decided that for some reason, instead of addressing my post, you were going to quote it and then go off on some rant about all these evil verses in the new testament to avoid having to talk about hitler anymore.

Your logic doesn't really make much sense. Sure, you were discussing that with someone else three days ago, but that doesn't automatically make it relevant to the current topic from now.

In fact, what it seems like to me is that you're not interested in discussing the current topic anymore, which is totally fine, but don't try to switch the topic all of a sudden to something you were discussing with someone else three days ago. Just say that you're no interested in discussing this topic anymore.

Don't try to say again that this is somehow on topic please. I'm just working off of what you said yesterday, which amounts to that your not interested in discussing Nazi Germany anymore.

Nice dodge, exept I'm not talking about Nazi Germany, i'm talking the anti-semite propaganda the Church spread for centuries in europe