There is Simply Too Much Evidence by Merwin

I will plant them, and not pluck [them] up.


This scripture (thank you Blue Letter Bible) introduces so much...

Jer 24:6 For I will set mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land: and I will build them, and not pull [them] down; and I will plant them, and not pluck [them] up.

And when seen in relation to its context...

Jer 24:5

Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel; Like these good figs, so will I acknowledge them that are carried away captive of Judah, whom I have sent out of this place into the land of the Chaldeans for [their] good.

Jer 24:6 For I will set mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land: and I will build them, and not pull [them] down; and I will plant them, and not pluck [them] up.

And then in relation to what Jesus said in Matthew,

Mat 24:32 ¶ Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh:

is extremely important regarding this.

Jer 24:6 For I will set mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land: and I will build them, and not pull [them] down; and I will plant them, and not pluck [them] up.

Jeremiah spoke at the time when Israel's sovereignty was being taken from them (please read all of Jer 24:). And they would not have their nation again except only as a tiny (100yr) exception from the Macabee rebellion.

In essence they virtually were not truly "planted" by God, until the whole world recognized their sovereignty via the United Nations vote and their own charter May 14, 1948.

What a miracle for them to have their National Identity intact from the time of Jeremiah.

And for them to be "planted" at such a time as this. You might ask... why? Why would this be significant?

When the prophet Daniel wrote of the last days this is one of the things mentioned...

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

With all the world travel and general mass transit of today... this would be a fair description of "...many shall run to and fro" that is on an unprecedented scale to the extreme. Not to mention that God saw fit to make Daniel mention it.

And though that is impressive, let us also note the Strong's* treatment for "increased", in the "knowledge shall be increased", and allow me to emboldened some of the Strong's that I find significant...

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) be or become great, be or become many, be or become much, be or become numerous

a) (Qal)

1) to become many, become numerous, multiply (of people, animals, things)

2) to be or grow great

b) (Piel) to make large, enlarge, increase, become many

c) (Hiphil)

1) to make much, make many, have many

a) to multiply, increase

b) to make much to do, do much in respect of, transgress greatly

c) to increase greatly or exceedingly

2) to make great, enlarge, do much

2) (Qal) to shoot

I particularly like the last one "to shoot" the obvious references are, a sling, an arrow, perhaps a catapult device. All with the common quality of having a projectile as stationary at one point, and immediately accelerated to the point of fatality in the next micro - instant.

It is said in common conversation revelations that have been given by the scientific community, that because of computers and people's close involvement with them, that what we have as information (increases) doubles, every five years and that this rate of increase is accelerating.

Maybe I am reaching... but I think not. For me, this clearly indicates where we are presently, with... "knowledge shall be increased".

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

And because of the running "to and fro", and because of "knowledge" having been "increased" like a shot... we have for the first time in history the ability to...

Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

This is the first generation in history that has the ability to accomplish and enforce these things.

And have this happen...

Rev 11:3 And I will give [power] unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred [and] threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

Rev 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.

Rev 11:7 ¶ And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

Rev 11:8 And their dead bodies [shall lie] in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

Rev 11:9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.

Rev 11:10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

Never before in history could these things have come to pass, whereby the entire planet could "You Tube" the spectacle to celebrate their deaths and wait to see if the prophecy came true.

Never before in history has God planted Israel (Judah the "tender young shoot") in the land as its own sovereign country and recognized by law, by every (willing or unwilling) country on the planet.

Never before in history could the signs mentioned by Jesus, especially in Matthew, have ever come to pass. "Wars rumors of wars", he said were just the beginning, the travail.

In the last one hundred years alone... in the extreme measurement of a single lifetime, there has been more genocide, more mass murdering of millions, more lives lost through two world wars, pestilence (more were killed by influenza following WWI than died in the war). More through countless conflicts, famine, floods (tsunamis and others), and earthquakes, than all the other thousands of years... multiplied five times over.

There are people alive right now who were alive when all this carnage happened.

And these are just "the beginnings", "the travail", the "birth pangs"... can anybody in good conscience deny this crescendo... this snowballing of events?

I have titled this... "There is Simply Too Much Evidence" and so there is, for this merely scratches the surface. More to come in... "There is Simply Too Much Evidence Two".


*Strong's... The most respected and well used source for transliteration of Hebrew and Greek.




Comments 33 comments

Captain Jimmy profile image

Captain Jimmy 6 years ago from WV

A lot of good scriptue!


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

Thanks Captain...


Chasuk 6 years ago

Everyone has different definitions and standards of evidence, apparently. One man's credulity is another man's faith. Still, thanks for the exegesis. It was illuminating.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

I suppose. thank you.


Chasuk 6 years ago

God took Israel's sovereignty away, but promised its eventual restoration. This restoration occurred twice, once following the Maccabean Revolt, and again when Israel declared independence in 1948.

In the book of Jeremiah, a few metaphoric verses about figs apparently predicted this outcome.

[By 2051, Israel's restored independence will have lasted as long as it did under the Maccabees.]

A verse in Matthew recalls Jeremiah's metaphor of figs to connect Israel's restoration with the last days of life on earth.

We learn about these last days through predictions in the books of Daniel, Revelations, and Matthew.

Daniel predicted global travel, mass transit, and our knowledge explosion.

John of Patmos predicted YouTube. He might also have predicted the United Nations, ecumenicism, and RFID chipping.

In Matthew, we are told of "wars and rumors of wars" and of "famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes" which are happening with ever-increasing frequency and deadliness.

All of this is undeniable evidence of the approaching Apocalypse.

Is that an accurate summary?


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

Does it really matter to you?


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

The answer to your question is no.


Chasuk 6 years ago

It matters to me in the sense that I am trying to understand your particular interpretation of Christian eschatology. I find a recap useful in aiding my understanding.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

As I said my friend your answer is no it is not an accurate summary.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

God took Israel's sovereignty away, but promised its eventual restoration. This restoration occurred twice, once following the Maccabean Revolt, and again when Israel declared independence in 1948.

((( No... in my estimation "The" restoration is the one that is occurring now. I emphasized this quite clearly I thought, by qualification of the U.N. recognition. As well as my used reference of the Maccabean "Rebellion" and that it had only lasted 100 yrs. no other nation at the time necessarily recognized this.)))

In the book of Jeremiah, a few metaphoric verses about figs apparently predicted this outcome.

((( I do not know what you mean by "metaphoric" certainly they are metaphoric but if are implying more than that I would need to know what you mean in your implication. And "...by this outcome." if you mean the restoration I refer to then yes... if you mean both, then no.)))

[By 2051, Israel's restored independence will have lasted as long as it did under the Maccabees.]

((( A newbie came to town and happened upon an old timer whittling at a park bench. Wanting to strike up a conversation, the newbie asked "Hi... you lived here all your life? The old timer did not look up from his work but answered simply "Not yet."

I have also qualified this assertion of mine in the Manifesto Wrap by stating something very akin to ...if occupation of the land by Israel ever stops or ends and they are dispersed again then this would not qualify for what is prophesied in Jeremiah. I am going to give you a "no" here as well, just because it seems right. )))

A verse in Matthew recalls Jeremiah's metaphor of figs to connect Israel's restoration with the last days of life on earth.

((( In my estimation... Yes.)))

We learn about these last days through predictions in the books of Daniel, Revelations, and Matthew.

((( No... not just there, but then I did say at the end that there was more to come, as there was too much to place here. )))

Daniel predicted global travel, mass transit, and our knowledge explosion.

((( No. I draw that correlation and again, I thought I made myself relatively clear. I guess not. )))

John of Patmos predicted YouTube. He might also have predicted the United Nations, ecumenicism, and RFID chipping.

((( I said You Tube and the other things John did not, and again it is I that drew what I still think is a valid comparison with what he inferred would be the case and what I know to be our present technology and I don't feel like looking up ecumenicism. So the answer again is going to be no. )))

In Matthew, we are told of "wars and rumors of wars" and of "famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes" which are happening with ever-increasing frequency and deadliness.

((( You are probably the only person I know who would attempt to refute this... my answer here is yes. )))

All of this is undeniable evidence of the approaching Apocalypse.

((( Here the answer is no... nothing is undeniable as evidence, you may deny it as much as you like. It is merely a PARTIAL presentation of what I think is a preponderance of evidence, that mutually supports one another. Just as I have a preponderance of evidence that you value fair play and as such I am duly impressed enough to make mention of it. Is it undeniable? Not at all, not in the least. )))

Is that an accurate summary?

((( Two Yes to seven No, the answer by preponderance according to my estimation is no. )))


Chasuk 6 years ago

Okay.

I ask that you kindly help me as I revise my summary.

Concerning the first part:

If I revise it like this --

"God took Israel's sovereignty away, but promised its eventual restoration. This restoration commenced in 1948, when Israel declared independence."

-- does it become accurate?

Concerning the second part:

((( I do not know what you mean by "metaphoric" certainly they are metaphoric but if are implying more than that I would need to know what you mean in your implication. And "...by this outcome." if you mean the restoration I refer to then yes... if you mean both, then no.)))

I implied nothing. Jeremiah used metaphoric language to predict the eventual, permanent restoration of Israel (the "outcome").

If I revise it like this --

"Jeremiah used the metaphor of figs to predict the eventual, permanent restoration of Israel."

-- does it become accurate?

Concerning the third part:

[By 2051, Israel's restored independence will have lasted as long as it did under the Maccabees.]

This was bracketed to indicate that it was an aside. In other words, it wasn't part of the summary.

Concerning the fourth part:

If I revise it like this --

"We learn about these last days through predictions in Daniel, Revelations, and Matthew, but also in other books of the Bible, which we will examine later."

-- does it become accurate?

Concerning the fifth part (i.e., Daniel's predictions):

((( No. I draw [those correlations] and again, I thought I made myself relatively clear. I guess not. )))

If I revise it like this --

"In your personal opinion, Daniel may have predicted global travel, mass transit, and our knowledge explosion."

-- does it become accurate?

Concerning the sixth part (i.e., the predictions of John of Patmos):

((( I said You Tube and again it is I that drew what I still think is a valid comparison with what he inferred would be the case and what I know to be our present technology. So the answer again is no. )))

If I revise it like this --

"In your personal opinion, John of Patmos may have predicted YouTube. He might also have predicted the United Nations, ecumenicism, and RFID chipping."

-- does it become accurate?

Concerning the seventh part:

((( Here the answer is no... nothing is undeniable as evidence, you may deny it as much as you like. It is merely a PARTIAL presentation of what I think is a preponderance of evidence, that mutually supports one another. Just as I have a preponderance of evidence that you value fair play and as such I am duly impressed enough to make mention of it. Is it undeniable? Not at all, not in the least. )))

I shouldn't have used the word undeniable.

If I revise it like this --

"All of this is compelling evidence of the approaching Apocalypse."

-- does it become accurate?

As for Matthew's predictions, I wasn't refuting, just summarizing.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

"God took Israel's sovereignty away, but promised its eventual restoration. This restoration commenced in 1948, when Israel declared independence."

((( YES )))

"Jeremiah used the metaphor of figs to predict the eventual, permanent restoration of Israel."

((( Jeremiah > metaphor = NO )))((( God > metaphor = YES )))

"We learn about these last days through predictions in Daniel, Revelations, and Matthew, but also in other books of the Bible, which we will examine later."

((( YES )))(?)

"In your personal opinion, John of Patmos may have predicted YouTube. He might also have predicted the United Nations, ecumenicism, and RFID chipping."

((( NO / John merely prophesied what God gave him I am the one that drew the connection that I thought was valid and I know I made this clear on the last round. I will not waste the efforts of either of us if you refuse to acknowledge the statements of clarification that I do make. And I still am not going to bother looking up ecumenicism, I don't care what it means, and on that specificity I can not answer. )))

"All of this is compelling evidence of the approaching Apocalypse."

((( No. This is merely partial... AS MENTIONED... and together with more becomes a preponderance of (What is for me) very compelling evidence. )))

""As for Matthew's predictions, I wasn't refuting, just summarizing.""

((( I did not say you were refuting, I merely said you would be willing to do so, and I have read your objections previously, concerning this. Perhaps in my old age and too much study I missed that day when the word "refute" was discussed and I used it poorly in my reply.

And this was only part of my preface before I answered with a yes. [see below])))

In Matthew, we are told of "wars and rumors of wars" and of "famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes" which are happening with ever-increasing frequency and deadliness.

((( You are probably the only person I know who would attempt to refute this... my answer here is yes. )))


Chasuk 6 years ago

First (hopefully final) fix:

"In Jeremiah, God used the metaphor of figs to predict the eventual, permanent restoration of Israel."

Second (hopefully final) fix:

"This evidence is incomplete, but there is much more. The totality of evidence -- that as yet unshared, and that yet to be shared -- presents, in my opinion, very compelling proof of the approaching Apocalypse."

a few other matters...

In your clarification, you write, "I am the one that drew the connection," which seems to me the equivalent of expressing a personal opinion, but maybe I'm missing something.

As for Matthew's predictions of wars and natural disasters, I am saddened (though not surprised) that you know anyone who would accept them as evidence of prophetic utterances.

Ecumenicism concerns promoting unity between churches and religions.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

(((Yes sir I believe we are close enough.)))

As for Matthew's predictions of wars and natural disasters, I am saddened (though not surprised) that you know anyone who would accept them as evidence of prophetic utterances.

(((for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.)))

(((Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See [thou do it] not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.)))


Chasuk 6 years ago

The title of this article is "There is Simply Too Much Evidence."

This title contains an implication, though of what I fail to guess. However, there are only so many inferences that can logically be made.

I'll present a few of them.

1. "There is simply too much evidence to be denied."

You repudiated the use of denied earlier, but I don't know if you would repudiate it here, in a different context.

2. "There is simply too much evidence to be ignored."

3. "There is simply too much evidence to be concealed."

4. "There is simply too much evidence to be dismissed."

Each option, 1-4, has a different meaning, although sometimes the difference is subtle. The subtlety complicates my choice so much that I honestly don't know which to choose.

Maybe you will share with us which you meant, or provide your intended meaning if all of my guesses have been off the mark.

Whatever you may have meant, you focused on the abundance of evidence.

If you accept any pronouncement of Jesus as necessarily fulfilling the evidentiary criterion for predictive prophecy, then this article shouldn't have the word "evidence" in the title.

Obviously, Jesus' words were true in a factual sense. There have been wars, rumors of wars, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes. They may also have been true in a prophetic sense, but we can never know this because they provide us no test.

If you object that they do provide us a test, then I make the following prediction:

"Somewhere on this planet, a dog will chase a cat tomorrow."

By your standard, if this prediction occurs, I will have proven myself a prophet.

Wars, rumors of wars, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes were as inescapable as occurrences over the last two millennia as as dog chasing a cat is inescapable tomorrow.

Again, if you accept any prediction of the inevitable as prophetic owing merely to its source -- that source being Jesus -- then you should really omit the word "evidence" from the title of this article.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

I find your last entry somewhat disingenuous...

You seem to have maybe been too confused to come up with other possibilities. How about simply "Too much evidence"..?

You know like, "there is too many cars" or, "it is way too cold" or, "there is too much nit picking"

Too much for what? What are you getting at Merwin?

Do you really care Chas?

"Wars, rumors of wars, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes were as inescapable as occurrences over the last two millennia as as dog chasing a cat is inescapable tomorrow."

The criteria here should be extremely obvious, there has been more of this in the last * 100 years * than the "last two millennia" even if you were to double the carnage of the previous two millennia.

Let us say that Jesus knew about the 2 millennia of conflict etc. but found a last day, last generation, set of circumstances worth remarking about like it might be a sign... of sign-ificance. And let us further infer that His inclusion of this as a last times discourse was also significant.

Especially in light of Matt 24:3 ...Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Were you not busying yourself behind the curtain with pulling levers and screaming into the microphone Wiz, you could probably slow down long enough to acknowledge that.

You seem to chronically do this. You pick apart grammar, subtle inferences, suggest this or that or some other plausible mistake, that will gain you some intellectual equity. All of this (again seems) to be an effort to take whatever credibility away from the body of the point being made by the person (me) that you disagree with, by utilizing these shenanigans.

You and I are probably the only two who are not completely bored with our exchange and I, am sorry to say, have lost most of my patience for this.

You should know what I speak of, the points I am making are not that far removed from your experience... but then you did turn your back on those experiences other than to vicariously snipe at it when an opportunity arises.

You take more equity, and equity that you might not be entitled to. I refer to your claims on being studied in all things regarding last days yada yada yada... or more correctly all things in general. This effort to intimidate your opponent with your learning that the repeated mention of smacks of an attempt to stop the mouth of your nay-sayer is below you, or at least it should be.

49 years of intense study! Okay... you win... I have only 59 years of sitting on my hands.

A person cannot write anything that you disagree with unless it is compiled perfectly?

Honestly..? I love you man but I really tire of your approach. You don't really discuss the body as much as you focus on the nits. You win, by citing your credentials, using words that I no longer wish to hunt down, you win by attrition my friend. "If I can't win any other way I'll baffle them with B.S." (again seems) seems to be your philosophy.

I get it... you don't believe. I know you don't believe. I have no problem whatsoever with your non-faith.

The problem you (seem)to have is being on the outside of faith, arguing against faith issues, and not being able to see that this would be a legitimate problem.


Roger Crigger 6 years ago

Cudo's my friend! This is an excellent article. The dialog after the article is a good lesson in the tactics and strategies of modern debate but in my opinion that's about it. I find it also quite disingenuous at many points... to state, (at least seriously) that one cannot see relevance to the fact that there has been more than twice as many Wars, rumors of wars, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in the last 100 years as has been in the last two millennia is either simply a prod or akin to the view of an Ostrich and further "debate" seems, at least to me, to be an endless endeavor and has very little to do with the meat and actual intent of the article itself.

As knowledge (not necessarily wisdom) increases so also the arguments AGAINST the reality that we are following, to the letter, a path written about, as a result of divine revelation. As a post thought to that last sentence, by the rules of engagement, I feel obligated to point out that the re-phrased question: "We learn about these last days through predictions in Daniel, Revelations, and Matthew, but also in other books of the Bible, which we will examine later." Is incorrect and in order for the debate to continue would need to be changed and addressed as such... There is no book of "Revelations", at least not one that I'm aware of. The book in the bible that "might" be being referred to in this comment "could" be the book of "Revelation" singular, not "Revelations", plural, inferring that the entire book is ONE singular revelation as opposed to many revelations which could, in theory, come from a number of sources as opposed to the ONE source that it in fact DID come from!

Of course you both know that I am just playing here... trying to get this whole debate thing down... It's kinda fun! In all seriousness though Merwin, I am fascinated by this Hub! Really helped to put things into better perspective for me personally. Thank you.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

Thank you Roger... honestly, I did not notice the plural of Revelation given by Chas, but then I wasn't looking for nits.


Chasuk 6 years ago

@CoauthorU: The subject of my previous comment was the inadequacy of your evidence as evidence. I tried to express this clearly and completely, but a consequence of my striving for completeness is apparently the flourishing of so much verbiage that my meaning is sometimes obscured.

Debate entails the deconstruction of grammar, the chasing of inferences, and the uprooting of mistakes where they are discovered. If it isn't debate we are engaged in, please let me know.

As for your personal attacks...

I have no credentials to cite, nor would I boorishly cite them if I did. I do cite personal experience when relevant. I could never support a claim of "49 years of intense study," so this isn't a claim I would ever make. I haven't studied since the moment I exited the womb. Yes, I have spent more time studying our subjects of mutual interest than most, but this has no significance outside of explaining my history. I believe that every man's history is important. Our history largely makes us who we are; your experience in Jurupa Hills presumably shaped you.

I address the nits only when, like termites, they exist in such abundance that they have weakened the body of the argument. The more nits, the longer it takes to exterminate them. This means that often I spend a disproportionate amount of time exterminating. However, I would rather address the body, and I do, after I have killed the nits.

My intention is never to stifle debate, but to bring to it a greater rigor. My objective isn't winning, but to jointly arrive at a better understanding. That you think I would use bafflement as a debate technique is hurtful.

As for my vocabulary choices, I use the same words with you that I use in my everyday speech, or in emails and IMs to absolutely everyone. I don't pick my words for bafflement or to impress, but for precision. Words are tools in the toolbox of language. If I occasionally select the wrong tools for the job, my apologies.

@Roger: If it were true that there had been "more than twice as many Wars, rumors of wars, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in the last 100 years as has been in the last two millennia," then it would certainly be relevant within the context of CoauthorU's claim. However, his claim is factually misleading. Further, CoauthorU's claim isn't the same as Jesus' claim, and it was the adequacy of Jesus's claim as evidence that I was addressing.

Thank you for your input, especially for drawing my attention to the "Revelations" typo. I really, really hate typos.


Chasuk 6 years ago

@CoauthorU: I am particularly irked by your sentence, "I refer to your claims on being studied in all things regarding last days yada yada yada... or more correctly all things in general."

I make no such claims. I have expert-level familiarity with the subjects of philosophy, religion, literature, and my native language. I won't apologize for this expertise; it was hard-earned.

You and Roger both have vastly more knowledge than I do in many subjects. I have no doubt that your range of knowledge far surpasses mine. I unselfconsciously admit this. I am obsessive. I try to master any subject that especially interests me, but I fail more often than I succeed. If the subjects of my obsessions did not overlap, I would not have mastered any.

Being a master of a given subject doesn't mean that I am claiming absolute authority. It means merely that I have a firm enough understanding of a subject that it might allow me to teach it if the only qualification were knowledge.

I am keen to share what I know. My manner of expressing what I know is apparently arrogant. I feel no arrogance, but if that is how I am commonly perceived, then the effect is the same. I hope you believe me when I tell you that I feel superior to no one. I do know that I am intelligent -- it would be disingenuous to deny -- but that knowledge doesn't make me feel superior. The pride that I feel barely counterbalances my despair at failing at so many other things.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

My friend I mean you no harm... If, the nit picking is pure debate then I have no desire to engage therein. Please forgive my ignorance of the subtle nuances of the practices and please allow me to remain unburdened by them in the future they try my patience excessively.

This is not to say that I do not enjoy our "back yard" "shade tree" "cracker barrel" approach to discourse. And before becoming better acquainted with what it really means to "debate", my ideal of what it meant seemed good.

My preference evidently, is more along the lines of the mouth breathing, una-brow, knuckle dragging, sort... where we simply discuss the value of each opposing viewpoint without mincing about particulates.

For me, one does not have to go after where the comma is, to say that "I disagree with what was said and here is the reason why."

I try to avoid the microscope and the magnifying glass in favor of simply asking "what did you mean?" when I need clarification.

I might say... "I do not understand this or that can you paraphrase?" in order to grasp the body of what the person is saying to disagree or agree with that body, or the overall meaning.

I might even say (like you did in places), "here is what I thought you meant is this accurate?" but I employ this rarely. And when I do I would hope that it is received as graciously as it is meant, and hopefully it is not considered belabored.

I am not saying my way is right, it is merely what I am used to. For me what you are saying in your Hub, is relatively obvious and I have little problem navigating the meaning for the value of my reply, which generally speaks to the body of your meaning and I don't care that much about the tiny items, for I hope I am viewing your big picture.

And when I said I would pick apart your thing I read the other day... please do not think for a moment that my intention was to begin with the micro-analytical approach. Mine is more like, to study a paragraph or a set of paragraphs for the combined meaning and agree or disagree with it overall, then to pick out phrases or paragraphs of concern and address them.

This is what my ideal was for debate I love this approach. To be exposed to a point of view and share my view in response and to hear the ebb and flow of it even when written, for me has a romantic value, much like an epic adventure movie.

The nit picking for me is like two old movie curmudgeons arguing over credits at the end of a film.

I truly am sorry for the personal attacks, but it truly did feel disingenuous to me, and I did not understand the method.


Chasuk 6 years ago

I think I understand.

Please don't take this as a criticism, but what you describe as debate reminds me of the game that kids play in elementary school called "Show and Tell."

Debate, to me, is rewarding, but it isn't a pleasantry. I consider it a process in which two or more people jointly arrive at a better understanding.

If we haven't learned something new by the end of it, then we haven't been debating.

The process of debate has rules and formalities, just like the construction of a house does, and for the same reasons. We want the house to be sound when we have finished building it.

If I wanted only pleasantries, then I would restrict myself to topics such as favorite books or favorites films, where opinion matters.

But the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God aren't topics with conditional truths, so to explore them honestly and cogently requires familiarity with the thinking tools that debate provides.

I know that you believe in God, and I respect that belief.

Roger exultantly exclaims that belief at every opportunity. It gives him joy, and I'm happy for him. Most of the time, he stays firmly in his own domain.

You, however, frequently straddle domains. You try to have your faith and debate it, too, which truthfully doesn't work, if you are actually debating, instead of just half-acknowledging the standard tropes and idioms of debate.

There are no effective apologists except to those who already believe, because they all eventually realize what Søren Kierkegaard did, that belief is a leap to faith.

When you straddle these domains, I happily grab my toolbox of debating tools, because some part of me hopes that you have found in your toolbox some new shiny instrument that will allow you to be the very first to have your faith and debate it, too.

Now I am left with a conundrum. I will, of course, continue with my own hubs, but should I refrain from commenting on yours at any depth?

I am sorry for this misunderstanding. I am going to go write, which almost always grants me relief.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

Can you not learn a different approach..? You are evidently asking me to.

The differences between you and I is that you are more intelligent, you already are very familiar with my methods, and my form will lessen to a significant degree (I think) the amount of people that get pissed at you, when you employ a foreign (to them) dynamic.

From what I can gather so far, the "debate" methodology is much like another language. And I am sorry... with most of my life behind me than before me, I have neither the time, nor the inclination and evidently neither the patience, to learn it.

I do not have to know exactly... down to the micro measurement, the dimensions of the sharpness, where, and by who's hand the pin found its sharpness, to give nod to the point of it.

Most of our dialogue is of a nature that is more than tolerable, it is downright entertaining and enlightening at least for me.

These excursions into extreme analysis and dissection and re-dissection and redirection and over abundant process of elimination before you display what your counter point was, for this layman who did not understand the process... I found it insulting and boorish.

Now that I have had a glimpse into how that process works, I am happy to say, am no longer insulted, but am still worn down.

If debate is the only language whereby the meaning of your disagreements with my points (such as they are) can be voiced, then you have a conundrum indeed. For I would not have you stop commenting in depth, merely refrain from plumbing the depths of my comments a millimeter at a go, especially when trying to determine whether or not my simple little puddle, of appears to be water is wet.

I suggest to you that you understood well, the nature of my Hub and the spirit in which it was constructed, all by your assessment of its face value. I think you knew your first summary would be rejected by me.

I further suggest that if clarification of my values were needed, for the exchange, it could have been absorbed in a more graceful manner, without exposing either of us to further frustration.

My string of suggestions conclude with a possible solution to your enigma. I think what might be a helpful approach is to engage your opponent's assertions at the face value level. Do this while you have in your mind the deconstruction and examination of that value, and as you proceed in your exchange, do no overt dissections. Begin with your opponent's over all assertion, and voice your objections on that surface level it may be that your first impression was completely accurate and your rebuttal sufficient to win the day.

If on the other hand you see that your reply fell short of swaying your opponent you may need to dig a little deeper both in your portrayal as well as your appraisal of his or her meaning.

I would allow my opponent to render their end of the dialogue according to their comfort level in order to encourage a forthcoming posture from them. And all the while conducting an internal private investigation within myself.

If regular folks (like me, perhaps) are ignorant of the methods used then the method is like clanging brass a foreign language and therefore barbaric.

Lewis - "To conclude... you must translate every bit of your theology into the vernacular. This is very troublesome and it means you can say very little in half an hour, but it is essential. It is also of the greatest service to your own thought. I have come to the conviction that if you cannot translate your thoughts into the uneducated language, then your thoughts were confused. Power to translate is the test of having really understood one's own meaning. A passage from some theological work for translation into the vernacular ought to be a compulsory paper in every ordination examination."

"When in Rome do as the Romans do..."

You are unique and rare and therefore precious.

We, the jugheads you are forcing yourself to communicate with, may not have eloquence but we do have our opinions that we feel are worth sharing... AND, we outnumber you millions to one, again, when in Rome...


Chasuk 6 years ago

I think I'm just going to take my toolbox and go home.

Yes, that was a joke.

No, I'm not going to ask you to learn new tricks.

I will try to abandon preliminaries and deal more immediately with the major points. This will turn most debates that we have into a bit of a parody from my perspective, but maybe I'll learn something from the process.

I'll talk to you later.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

Your preliminaries would not have the affect?/effect? of being as heavy handed and cumbersome for one such as I, if they were dispensed periodically and strategically throughout the exchange... camouflaged interrogation as it were in place of the third degree.

If debate were not a yawner for the general public they would be our "Survivor", "American Idol", "Biggest Loser" don't you think?


r-o-y profile image

r-o-y 6 years ago

I read your article with great intrest, and I agree most everything you wrote, but but there's one part I'm having problems with. I think you have Israel and the Jews confused,in psalm 78:59 the Lord rejected the Jews,also in the New testament Jesus rejscted them.saying the kingdom will be taken from the given to others. Israel was rejected not the Judah, the ture Jews the small remnant I think its like a 144000. most israeli are not jews not of Judah.


Chasuk 6 years ago

@CoauthorU: LoL. I'd rather have my nails filed with a chainsaw than watch "Survivor", "American Idol", or "Biggest Loser," but point taken.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

@ r-o-y...

How can Jesus reject Himself? He will always be Jewish. The first fifteen Popes were Jewish, (I am neither Catholic nor Jewish) What you speak of is replacement theology, whereby the prophecies that are targeted to the Jew is commandeered by certain sects of Christianity with the result that specific statements made by God identifying His chosen race becomes almost entirely symbolic.

While it is true that God deals in the symbolic, it is sparingly and if the Bible were reduced to THAT much symbolism in my opinion it becomes worthless.

I believe that references to the kingdom taken from them and given to others, God spoke of the kingdom of spiritual authority... which did come to roost in Jews and gentiles alike through and by, the Jew (Jesus), that lives as God within the heart of the believer. Gen 49:9

However, the promises given to the race of the Jews - for the race, will never be done away with.

Were those promises to somehow become "passed on" to anyone else, it is thereby turned into mere symbolisms, and that would make God a liar of convenience, and that is something that can never be.

Thank you for your input r-o-y. It introduced a subject I plan to deal with in detail... hopefully soon.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

hahaha survivor = NO / American Idol = yes / Bigges Loser = yes.


Chasuk 6 years ago

@CoauthorU: Judaism is a culture, an ethnicity, and a religion, but it isn't a race.

That's why we can have Ethiopian Jews and Chinese Jews without contradiction.

I hope this won't be construed as nitpicking.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

Hahaha Yes... it is nit picking, but I have to let it go, I just got my nit picker tag yesterday for the season that opens tomorrow.

Seriously..? There are familial promises to the descendants of Judah of which Jesus was one, I probably should not have used the term Jew for that encompasses that, and much more.

Thanks Chas.


Roger Crigger profile image

Roger Crigger 6 years ago from Northern Idaho

.... I'm sorry... What were we talking about? Full length feature box office smash hits have been constructed on less substance and dialog twists... Why not? Why not, keep these dialog strings and make a movie about a couple of guys who have never actually met, but who regularly tackle tough topics on a blog site... and end up accidentally solving all of the worlds major crisis' with ONE universal formula! Think of the possibilities! Ha! It's got the potential for a #1 best seller, (which of course would soon be followed by the box office 'Hit of the Season'"!


Chasuk 6 years ago

As long as they get Johnny Depp to play may part, I'm in.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working