The irony of the New York Times’ 1619 Project...

[Mountain Man]

The post you are replying to has NOTHING to so with saying "My God!" as an exclamation. And you know that.

This whole tangent was sparked when Bill the Cat said, "My God, you are ignorant..."

Sam falsely accused him of taking the Lord's name in vain -- which according to scripture would mean he is accusing Bill of claiming the name of Christ without repentance, so it's not an accusation to be made lightly.

And now here we are, three pages later, with you self-righteously browbeating your fellow Christians (asking me if I've forgotten who Christ is? Seriously?) and then trying to excuse your self-righteousness by suggesting that even if you're wrong, we should still take your "call to righteous behavior" seriously. And then you imply that nobody but you engages in introspection and prayer. I guess you're just that special, huh?

[Sparko]

That is a really, really wrerd reply to my post. Sometimes i really wonder how in the world you can derive from my posts the just plain crazy conclusions you come up with. That's why sometimes i get a little testy. I work hard to make sure I've made a valid and cohesive point abd it is all for naught because your not even trying to undrstand the point Im making anyway.

Jim

You and Sam have spent pages arguing with LPOT about this, citing studies and whatnot, all without any actual reason, since you have both made the statement that you never claimed the search engines were using racist algorithms.

So I am just accepting your answer that you never made the claim and since there is no actual evidence of the search engines using racist algorithms in real estate, then LPOT's initial point that she never experienced any racial bias when using real estate search engines stands as validated.

[oxmixmudd]

Yes I did and have you apologized for accusing your opponents of being racist simply for thinking the racist problem is overblown, for political purposes?

I can't really apologize for that, for several reasons.

First this is a difference of opinion about whether the comments issued implied racism. I can't apologize for holding a different opinion about the implications of the comments made.

Second, my opinion is that most of the comments that I would classify as racists are not issued with a conscious knowledge they have racist implications, and I respect that most of you regard racism itself as bad and unacceptable, and i have acknowledged that several times. So part of the problem here is that you can't understand the difference between 'a statement has racist implications' and 'you are racist'.

Third, people often hold racist views without understanding that is what those views are. So some of this - again - is an offense that I would classify some of your statements as racist.

IF we were more capable of having a discussion rather than everyone just lobbing off accusations, this would not be a necessary outcome. But as I see it, I tried to have a respectful discussion, and most of you would not have it. And though I will keep trying, any difficult dance requires both partners are trying to make it work.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

You and Sam have spent pages arguing with LPOT about this, citing studies and whatnot, all without any actual reason, since you have both made the statement that you never claimed the search engines were using racist algorithms.

So I am just accepting your answer that you never made the claim and since there is no actual evidence of the search engines using racist algorithms in real estate, then LPOT's initial point that she never experienced any racial bias when using real estate search engines stands as validated.

You can't go from not established to validated. Most of my arguments were based on the assertion there CAN'T be any bias, which is wrong. LPOT's can make a truthful statement if she says she never NOTICED any bias using real estate search engines. She may well have experienced bias (assuming it is there) but not noticed it. She can also say that if there is bias, it's not obvious. But that would be about as far as you can go. Nothing has been proved here in the absolute about whether it is, or is not present.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

I can't really apologize for that, for several reasons.

First this is a difference of opinion about whether the comments issued implied racism. I can't apologize for holding a different opinion about the implications of the comments made.

Second, my opinion is that most of the comments that I would classify as racists are not issued with a conscious knowledge they have racist implications, and I respect that most of you regard racism itself as bad and unacceptable, and i have acknowledged that several times. So part of the problem here is that you can't understand the difference between 'a statement has racist implications' and 'you are racist'.

Third, people often hold racist views without understanding that is what those views are. So some of this - again - is an offense that I would classify some of your statements as racist.

IF we were more capable of having a discussion rather than everyone just lobbing off accusations, this would not be a necessary outcome. But as I see it, I tried to have a respectful discussion, and most of you would not have it. And though I will keep trying, any difficult dance requires both partners are trying to make it work.


Jim

“You’re not a racist, but....”

Thanks for a perfect example of why you get the reactions you get around here.

[oxmixmudd]

This whole tangent was sparked when Bill the Cat said, "My God, you are ignorant..."

Sam falsely accused him of taking the Lord's name in vain -- which according to scripture would mean he is accusing Bill of claiming the name of Christ without repentance, so it's not an accusation to be made lightly.

And now here we are, three pages later, with you self-righteously browbeating your fellow Christians (asking me if I've forgotten who Christ is? Seriously?) and then trying to excuse your self-righteousness by suggesting that even if you're wrong, we should still take your "call to righteous behavior" seriously. And then you imply that nobody but you engages in introspection and prayer. I guess you're just that special, huh?

Oh good grief! I didn't imply anything like what you are saying. Again - do you have a conscience? It would appear not.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

Oh good grief! I didn't imply anything like what you are saying. Again - do you have a conscience? It would appear not.

Jim

Yeah, you did, but as always, everyone is at fault, but you.

[Mountain Man]

Oh good grief! I didn't imply anything like what you are saying.

Yes, you did. The fact that you think you have the authority to lecture us on the finer points of introspection and repentance (asking me if I've forgotten who Christ is? Seriously?) suggests that you think far more highly of yourself than is warranted.

This has become so typical for you that I'm no longer even shocked by it, just wearied.

[Charles]

Yeah, you did, but as always, everyone is at fault, but you.

Let's see what he posted of in this very thread:

[...]And yes, that means when I have falsely accused someone, or when I have gotten angry at the wrong person here, or when I have not taken the time to understand what someone was really saying.

In the end, we ALL take God's name in vain at one point or another, and so we ALL need to look inwardly to understand how our own actions, words (written and spoken), and even our thoughts detract from the great, holy, and merciful name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.


And to ALL of us here posting on TWEB - this might be a good time to re-evaluate how our words written here reflect on who God is, and how they speak of Christ to those looking in on our conversations.



Jim

[Charles]

This confirms my suspicion that you didn't carefully read the essay.

Thanks for playing, Chuck.

As opposed to you I don't make a claim that I cannot support by a quote from the text refered to.

It is pretty easy to understand this message "Because of the greatness of the name of God, any use of God's name that brings dishonor on Him or on His character is taking His name in vain." It is pretty obvious why you would want to create an idea that you cannot support about the text saying something different. It says more than what is in the quoted part. It says nothing that contradicts it.

[Mountain Man]

As opposed to you I don't make a claim that I cannot support by a quote from the text refered to.

It is pretty easy to understand this message "Because of the greatness of the name of God, any use of God's name that brings dishonor on Him or on His character is taking His name in vain." It is pretty obvious why you would want to create an idea that you cannot support about the text saying something different. It says more than what is in the quoted part. It says nothing that contradicts it.

Come on, Chuck... I've gently nudged you in the right direction. I was hoping you would reread the source and maybe go, "Oh, right..." But this seems to be one of those cases where you need a swift kick on the backside rather than a gentle nudge.

Here's the part you quoted:

Because of the greatness of the name of God, any use of God's name that brings dishonor on Him or on His character is taking His name in vain. The third of the Ten Commandments forbids taking or using the Lord's name in an irreverent manner because that would indicate a lack of respect for God Himself.

This is what immediately follows, which surely you would have seen if you had carefully read the essay instead of skimming it for an out-of-context pull quote:

In the Old Testament, bringing dishonor on God's name was done by failing to perform an oath or vow taken in His name (Leviticus 19:12). The man who used God's name to legitimize his oath, and then broke his promise, would indicate his lack of reverence for God as well as a lack of fear of His holy retribution. It was essentially the same as denying God's existence.

And then in the very next paragraph:

Those who name the name of Christ, who pray in His name, and who take His name as part of their identity, but who deliberately and continually disobey His commands, are taking His name in vain.

And what did I say?

[Taking the Lord's name in vain] means to call yourself a Christian while living in disobedience. That is you are taking on the Lord's name as your identity in vain.

So, yeah, the source you cited, presumably because you thought it was authoritative, actually supports my position.

Q.E.D.

[Sparko]

You can't go from not established to validated.

Sure I can. I can accept LPOT's experience as a valid result, as well as my own. Since you never claimed they were actually doing any racial bias in searches, there is zero evidence that they are, except your and Sam's imaginations, which you are not even confident enough to admit to making the claim you keep arguing for but denying that you did.

Most of my arguments were based on the assertion there CAN'T be any bias, which is wrong. LPOT's can make a truthful statement if she says she never NOTICED any bias using real estate search engines. She may well have experienced bias (assuming it is there) but not noticed it. She can also say that if there is bias, it's not obvious. But that would be about as far as you can go. Nothing has been proved here in the absolute about whether it is, or is not present.

Jim

Please show me where she or I ever said there CAN'T be bias. I will wait here.

[lilpixieofterror]

Let's see what he posted of in this very thread:

I see the net nanny has to throw in his two cents. It’s too bad he refuses to say sorry for his false accusations and makes excuses for them while expecting others to take responsibility he himself doesn’t take.

[Charles]

Come on, Chuck... I've gently nudged you in the right direction. I was hoping you would reread the source and maybe go, "Oh, right..." But this seems to be one of those cases where you need a swift kick on the backside rather than a gentle nudge.

Here's the part you quoted:

Because of the greatness of the name of God, any use of God's name that brings dishonor on Him or on His character is taking His name in vain. The third of the Ten Commandments forbids taking or using the Lord's name in an irreverent manner because that would indicate a lack of respect for God Himself.

This is what immediately follows, which surely you would have seen if you had carefully read the essay instead of skimming it for an out-of-context pull quote:

In the Old Testament, bringing dishonor on God's name was done by failing to perform an oath or vow taken in His name (Leviticus 19:12). The man who used God's name to legitimize his oath, and then broke his promise, would indicate his lack of reverence for God as well as a lack of fear of His holy retribution. It was essentially the same as denying God's existence.

And then in the very next paragraph:

Those who name the name of Christ, who pray in His name, and who take His name as part of their identity, but who deliberately and continually disobey His commands, are taking His name in vain.

And what did I say?
So, yeah, the source you cited, presumably because you thought it was authoritative, actually supports my position.

Q.E.D.

This is almost too easy. BTC said "My God, you are ignorant..." Sam told him not to take the Lord's name in vain. Your reply was:

That's not what it actually means to take the Lord's name in vain. It means to call yourself a Christian while living in disobedience. That is you are taking on the Lord's name as your identity in vain.

And since you have not understood it properly, I will quote the text again:

Because of the greatness of the name of God, any use of God's name that brings dishonor on Him or on His character is taking His name in vain. The third of the Ten Commandments forbids taking or using the Lord's name in an irreverent manner because that would indicate a lack of respect for God Himself.

This is opposed to what you said. Since you gave a much narrower interpretation limiting it to be only to "call yourself a Christian while living in disobedience." That is your opinion. The text claims it is much more than that which you disagreed with. Pretty easy to see.

[Bill the Cat]

This is almost too easy. BTC said "My God, you are ignorant..." Sam told him not to take the Lord's name in vain. Your reply was:



And since you have not understood it properly, I will quote the text again:



This is opposed to what you said. Since you gave a much narrower interpretation limiting it to be only to "call yourself a Christian while living in disobedience." That is your opinion. The text claims it is much more than that which you disagreed with. Pretty easy to see.

Lots of modern interpreters have expanded this verse to include colloquial phrases, but the Jews considered only the name YHWH as sacred, and that alone was the name you were to remember not to invoke without the authority to do so.