BananaBreath
Tame Ape
Regimented:
Daily
Location: Swinging from a Vine
Riposte: Lame |
quote:
In the other letter we have from Paul to the Corinthians
Paul writes a) that they wanted to give money and
If Paul wrote that they wanted to give money,
does that prove that they indeed wanted to give money? [jpholding: If BananaBreath begs the question, does that prove that he's right? No, it's just the blind Skeptical rah rah appeal to the greed of religionists and slick-haired televangelists. BananaBreath never explains how the text would read differently if Paul were telling the truth, in his opinion, which makes his commentary worthless bigotry.]
If
not, whats the probative value of stating what Paul claimed
they wanted? [jpholding: We can ask BananaBreath what sense it makes for Paul to tell these people they were eager to give if they actually were not. What in the world good does that do? If they were not desirous to give previously, and Paul is out for bucks this time he didn't get before, what the heck kind of fundraising tack is this? Now let's apply BananaBreath's "spin" from here on in to a secular charity like the United Way. They have smiling pictures of people they help -- ha! Sure they do! Those are all paid suckers; the money really goes to buy the President of United Way a yacht. How do I know this? Well, you've seen how money was mishandled during the 9/11 crisis, right? All those charities are the same -- they're fronts for sucker games. And when you get an appeal letter noting that you had previously given, there's no probative value whatsoever in it.]
Notice that what Paul says is not
factual. [jpholding: Watch now how BananaBreath manipulatively moves from "not factual" to "how did he know" and a series of dumb questions about things WE do not know, as though they "rub off" and make Paul himself ignorant -- not showing any "counter" facts but merely throwing a ragged blanket of doubt.] He says they were the first to desire. How did he
know what they desired? [jpholding: Gosh heck. They wrote letters. Paul visited them previously (he only spent a year and a half with them [Acts 18:11], gee, how would he know?)] Who was second to desire (the
Macedonians?)? [jpholding: What the heck difference does it make to the modern reader? Among churches there clearly had to be a group most desirous, second most, etc. -- just go down to your local mall where the schools are ranked for how much charity they each give and when. Is that so hard?] How did he know they were the first to desire? [jpholding: Gee. I guess Paul could not remember which church gave first. He didn't even know how to use a calendar or know what day it was. Wow, that was hard.  This is the kind of asinine counter-objection these people think has substance.]
Did they supply him with a written declaration of what they
desired? [jpholding: Since they wrote letters back and forth, they may well have; more likely though the matter was expressed in person while Paul resided at Corinth. Not that there's anything magical about it being in writing, in a day when 95% of the people could not read or write. What's BananaBreath think he's accomplishing here? It's nothing but vague attempts to foist doubt without grounds by setting arbitrary rules for what must prove that Paul is telling the truth. Maybe BananaBreath would like to have himself suspiciously questioned every time he so much as blows his nose: "Why did you blow your nose?" "My sinuses were full." "Baloney! You blew your nose to distract attention while you moved that vial of cocaine behind your back!" "What vial of cocaine?!?" "Ah ha, now you're denying it to cover up!" "Do you SEE a vial of cocaine?" "No, you hid it, that's why you pretended to blow your nose. I'll bet it's too well hidden to find now." "DID you see it?" "No, but if you had one, you're sure not going to let me see it, are you?" And so on. How much tolerance would BananaBreath have for that kind of "probative" questioning?]
quote:
b) that his goal was not to make them poor
But we do agree that his goal was definitely
not to make them richer - right? [jpholding: Wow, as far as anyone knows, it isn't the goal of United Way to make anyone richer either. Can you imagine some jerk discouraging giving to UW by saying, "We agree their goal is not to make anyone richer, right?" This is the sort of bull-oney these people think manages as argument?]
He just wanted them to
make perform an act of grace like the Macedonians and give all
they had. So that God would bless them. [jpholding: Blatant obfuscation and manipulation. It was not "all they had" but in accord with how they had been prospered.]
Taking money from
people who have worked hard for that money, without giving
them back something of (material) value impoverishes them. [jpholding: Try it on United Way and see how that appeal sounds: "The United Way takes money from people who worked hard for that money, without giving them back something of material value, and that impoverishes them." Maybe Paul should have given them little pins that said, "I HELPED FEED THE POOR IN JERUSALEM." Funny, there are local billboards that promoted giving to charity on the mere basis of how good it would feel -- no material return. I guess BananaBreath would slam them too. Better yet he just needs to stop begging the question and playing manipulation games.] If
what they are given is based on lies or non-factual
information (like, God will bless them), its called swindling. [jpholding: Though whether this is indeed "lies" or "non-factual information" (and that is as well, information that Paul KNOWS is non-factual; if he sincerely believed God would bless the people, that is a different matter) is something BananaBreath still hasn't proven, and never does. Instead, he repeats himself 10 different ways, which is also what this crowd thinks constitutes valid argumentation:]
Paul was excercising undue influence on a gullible crowd
that did not know any better. [jpholding: Mere assertion and begged question yet again. As for being gullible and not knowing better, the study of Wayne Meeks in The First Urban Christians has shown that Christianity was top-heavy, proportionately, in the area of intelligent, working class urbanites. These would be people who were LEAST likely to be gullible and not know better, though given his rate of question begging, BananaBreath would simply assume that these people MUST have been gullible and ignorant, because obviously, they were religious and they did give to Paul the rip-off artist.]
quote:
but that the Christians with more money would share with
those who had less, to bring them closer to financial
equality - see below:
And Paul personally distributed this money to
the poor? [jpholding: Acts tells us that Paul did personally bring the money to Jerusalem -- in line with normal procedure for the day, he would give it not personally to the poor, but to the Jerusalem church leadership. Note how BananaBreath yet again manipulatively plants a seed of doubt without justification -- setting the standard "personally" as though this were the only way that would be satisfactory.] Who were these "others" - the Macedonians who he had
already milked? [jpholding: Begged question of milking, repeated yet again after the manner of Nazi propaganda with no word of proof as yet.] Does it make sense to take the little that a
community has then praise them of being generous - then go to
the next community and ask them for money to help another
community? [jpholding: More begged questions and one-dimensional idiocy: "what little that a community has" (it's not as though they stopped earning after this one-time collection!); there is nothing here that does not make sense at all -- any more than it is senseless that United Way could praise a group for a generous donation, then turn around and ask someone else for one. If the need is not yet met, then a generous community can indeed be praised and then followed by another community. BananaBreath is inventing excuses, as though one could only praise a generous donation if it fully met the need.]
Why doesn't he clearly mention these other
communities? [jpholding: Why should he? What is the demand or need here to mention other communities at all? Does BananaBreath insist that the United Way should name all other donors anytime it singles one or more out for notice? This is just plain stupidity.]
Could you please provide a verse(s)
having Paul giving the money he collected from one community
to another (poor) community?
If you have none, how do
we know he gave other communities this money he perpetually
collected? On his word? [jpholding: Illicit shifting of the burden based on slander and speculation. There is one allusion to Paul's bringing the collection to the poor, in Acts 24:17: "Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings." Now let's ask whether he also demands the same burden of proof from United Way. Does he? No, this is just baiting and bigotry.]
quote:
The next passage, which is from 1 Corinthians just like
yours, shows clearly that the money collected was not for
Paul - he preached free of charge - see below:
Until you can prove that he indeed gave the
money collected to other needy communities, its reasonable to
believe that he cooly pocketed the whole loot.
A mans
gotta eat after all. [jpholding: Horse manure. What makes it "reasonable"? Is it "reasonable" to suppose that people who collect for charities at intersections "coolly pocketed the whole loot" because "a mans gotta eat after all"? How about that teen car wash for charity? It is doubtful that BananaBreath allows his paranoia to assume that any of these people pocket the "loot" (note here even the manipulative use of terminology) just because they need to sustain themselves. This is bigotry, pure and simple. It is begged questions out the wazoo. It is the sort of manure that passes for argumentation regularly on ignor.org, and these knuckleheads think I am being "chicken" for not showing up? More like, I don't want to smell and step in what the chickens leave behind.]
quote:
If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if
we reap a material harvest from you? 12 If others have this
right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the
more?
This is called a guilt trip. [jpholding: Shame, actually, since guilt did not exist in this culture. Other than that, a) I guess BananaBreath also objects to World Hunger using "guilt" in the form of pictures of starving children; b) He fails to note that where the Corinthians were concerned, Paul did NOT use the specified right (9:15), so this is a "guilt trip" to no purpose.]And it doesnt
mean he wasnt paid. [jpholding: 9:15 clearly says, "But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void."]
I have heard preachers who say to their
flock <wiping their sweaty brows with a white
handkerchief>:
"I toil very hard to make sure you
have spiritual nourishment and I am not paid any money for
that..."
A few minutes later, after a few solemn
graces, a container goes round and money fills it.
Doesn't mean a da** thing. [jpholding: Profanity as substitute for rational argument to cover random speculation and bald anachronism. BananaBreath thinks that just because HE saw this in modern times, that this applies to Paul. Not only is this countermanded by 9:15 -- the collection plate was NOT passed! -- it also begs the question of where that collection money went. If BananaBreath is going to play his game, we demand that he provide clear documentation that the preacher(s) took the money for themselves. Evidence by anecdote? Let's keep that burden of proof fair. And there is more bigotry of this sort to come.]
quote:
That verse means that if you benefit from what your teacher
taught you, you should go back and let him/her know and
thank him/her. It's not about money although I suppose you
could give your teacher a financial gift to show your
appreciation if you wanted.
Helen, you are beginning to sound like them
huh, huh. [jpholding: Begged question continues.]
Maybe one should then give them a goat then huh
? - I mean, given its not about money [jpholding: As shown, it is not -- "good things" never clearly refers to money.]
Paul, after
solemnly claiming he didnt want any money (and I can imagine
the spittle at the corners of his mouth as he said this),
advises them to give gifts as a sign of appreciation? [jpholding: Great mixup here, and this is where we will get into some detail. It was the Galatians of whom Paul advised gift-giving -- though notably, not to HIMSELF -- but the Corinthians to whom Paul said he didn't want their money. I can likewise imagine BananaBreath's face turning purple with jealous rage and anti-religious bigotry if we want to play that game. But let's take a closer look at what actually was happening when Paul interacted with his churches this way. A far more informed source than BananaBreath, Ben Witherington, in his Corinthians commentary (208-9) notes that the evidence shows that Paul refused support in Corinth and in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 2:5-9) and there is no evidence he ever accepted support for his own work (as opposed to for Jerusalem's poor). There was reason for this. There were itinerent teachers all throughthe Mediterranean, some of whom accepted fees or patronage, but others like the Cynics made their way by begging. (Let's hear BananaBreath beat his hairless chest over the Cynics, now, shall we?) Paul refused support precisely in order NOT to be identified with such people; in his day, it was the Sophists, not the Christians, who were famous for bilking people (maybe BananaBreath can start yapping about Sophists with sweat on their brows) and the Cynics turned to work and begging as a protest against such greed. This would give Paul reason as well to work at his tentmaking trade. One problem in Corinth was that at least one church, the one on Phillipi, sent Paul a gift anyway -- and when people in Corinth found out, they were upset. Why? Because it was considered an honor to give to someone like Paul, and they felt that they were being deprived of honor by not being asked to help. BananaBreath is way off the social scale here and has nothing but suspicions and slander backed by anecdotal non-evidence -- and one other thing he has:]
Aw, come on Helen, you dont think we are that
simple-minded do you? [jpholding: No. I think he's even more simple-minded, and bigoted besides.]
Report
this post to your mama | IP: Bogged |
 lying1_files/space.gif){kind=small}
[jpholding: That's right. We know who the real simpletons are here.]
Re: Was Paul (deliberately) lying?
 lying1_files/icon1.gif)