ATS requires substance to open an OP but the members don't like it.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
the texts are the facts.

Claiming Bible verses are 100% factual is another good way to get your threads ignored.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Well....there is someone here crying about how no one wants to read their walls of text. For whatever that is worth.

Apparently the only way to digest that real meat of a wall of text is with a few rocks of self superiority in the gizzard.

LOLOLOL

INDEED!

I hope Chester learns to use the term "wall of text" more accurately.

As to long posts properly paragraphed . . . it is the art and skill of the writer to attract the reader--IF--the topic is at all worth a bother at all.

imho, if the topic is remotely worthwhile--and the reader is not attracted enough to the text to bother--it is the writer's fault.

Blaming the reader is like a rapist blaming the victim, imho.

Unfitting.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
I made use of the example of your use of the Bible as "evidence". The bible is not factual. It is strictly belief.

It is funny, you use a belief not formulated by yourself, but consider yourself a better. My beliefs are strictly my own.

Thanks guys I will take into consideration your suggestions and opinions.

when It comes to Biblical issues I rely upon the preserved word of God to present what they say and not what I say. For those words are God's words and not mine. So in using Biblical text to prove a point I compare spiritual things with Spiritual.

1Cor 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But we never want to give the impression that the word of God is our own words but simply try to get from the text what is said. So if a wall of text is what is needed to first show what it says then that is how it should be done and followed by as little of our opinions as possible.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And claiming that the Bible is a pile of human invented hogwash is a great way to get me to ignore the article or post written.

We each have our world views and constructions on reality that we hold as true and valid. Your opinion that claiming the Bible is full of facts is a great way to get the writing ignored is likely true for a number of seemingly spiritually challenged, acolytes in the RELIGION OF SCIENTISM. At some point, that's their problem, imho.

In terms of this thread . . . well presented, quality writing may attract even opponents WHO HAVE A FAIR-MINDED CAPACITY to consider evidence and argument that demonstrates some logical merit.

Those of such narrow rigidities that they prefer to trash things without examination . . . can just do without the offering of writing involved. Whether that will be significantly consequential in their lives will remain to be seen until the chickens come home to roost.

a reply to: BO XIAN

The Original Poster has a propensity to make block posts of Bible verses as if citing a history book.

The Bible is not a history book nor is it a reference book. Citing the Bible to prove the Bible is rather moronic.

a reply to: Tiamat384

it not being factual is your opinion and it is in opposition to my opinion.

So if you don't believe they are factual then you should not be involved in it. Unless you are saying your only reason to get involved is to boast your opinion over mine and distract from the OP.

At least that is what many do. they wont look at it form our or my view and consider the facts of my view. They only say First D = Debunk "it is not true or factual". then the second D = distract from the OP "we don't want to read a wall of text we just want you opinion". and for what to go the another D=demean "name call, which is just more distraction for the OP.

So if you want to engage me use the Text that is in the Wall to show that I am in error before distraction, debunking and demeaning you might get more of my attention.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I'm reminded . . . was told recently that in France--Paris, I think, was a public wall listing a lot of "facts" about ancient history and geography that proved the Bible wrong. They had to periodically cross so many of them off as archeology proved the Bible accurate in fact after fact--that the wall had to be taken down.

Of course the Bible is full of facts.

However, in terms of this OP, getting others to fair-mindedly consider those facts requires the best presentation and writing that we can muster. I don't always measure up but I earnestly try to.

Usually, in terms of Scripture--with tolerances so anemic for so many hereon--I try to minimize cut and paste posting of lots of verse content and use instead the key sentence(s). Sometimes I paraphrase and use the ref as that seems more fitting and more easily readable by a larger number of folks.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
No you made claim it is fact when it is not. "facts of my view". They are not facts, they are beliefs. Please understand this.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It is your OPINION that the Bible is not a history book or a reference book.

I and millions of others have fruitfully used it as both for decades and centuries.

However, repeatedly over the last 200 years when "experts" decried the Bible as inaccurate in this historic or that geographical or cultural point--they were later proven wrong in many hundreds of cases and the Bible was proven factually accurate to the tiniest detail repeatedly.

I agree that masses of Scripture text are likely counterproductive, however.

a reply to: Tiamat384

Your DECREE that they are not facts

has little to nothing to do with MAKING them unfacts.

FACTS stand on their own merit regardless of what Tiamat384 thinks or opines.

Chester John can learn to present what he has found to be and considers facts in better ways. That's a different issue.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
It is your OPINION that the Bible is not a history book or a reference book.

No, it is actually a fact to all but the most hardcore of Christians, the ones that cannot recognize that metaphor or allegory are sufficient and require it to be the Encyclopedia Britannica, On Species and General Relativity rolled up into one.

I and millions of others have fruitfully used it as both for decades and centuries.

And the world suffered for it.

However, repeatedly over the last 200 years when "experts" decried the Bible as inaccurate in this historic or that geographical or cultural point--they were later proven wrong in many hundreds of cases and the Bible was proven factually accurate to the tiniest detail repeatedly.

Read his other Original Post with the block quoted verses where he claims they prove something which is frankly unprovable. This is not the byproduct of a mind that has a healthy understanding of the Bible and its relevance as a reference/history book.

Sometimes reading long drawn out OPs cause me to skip through from boredom. Evidence to support almost anything can be found yet the parameters of the evidence can show something far from real. I run into that a lot. Misapplied evidence or evidence that can be applied to alternate applications is used all the time to show something unreal is real.

I do not like to make an OP that is backed by lots of evidence created by people who benefit by the evidence, it can cause meek people to not want to put input in that is different from what is accepted in society. A wall of evidence is not good in my mind, it humbles challengers who might know the truth.

But then again, I do not like starting threads because it attracts the debunkers who use evidence and practices to squash anything that is not accepted or contains evidence not accepted by the people who control the science.

How many people got their carreers in science squashed for saying something that a few years was proven to be real? It happens every single day.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Your title states "but the members don't like it." A massive never ending tower of Bible verse is not substance. Members do not like that. You could have picked portions of that and linked to freely available places on the internet that have the verses. You could have noted chapter and verse, most know how to look them up. You could have broken up parts of that with your own commentary.

There are so many ways you could have gone with what would have been an interesting topic to read and you picked the worst one. You still seem not to understand why.

You blame your prospective readers of wanting everything spoon fed to them. No. That is not the case. There are many of us that wish to avoid eyestrain, first and foremost- walls of text strain the eyes and cause one's brain to fight to understand the writer.

The main point of writing is to make a connection with your intended audience. You want to cause them to continue reading and to find your conclusion either interesting or factual. Walls of text do not cause your wanted outcome.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Boadicea

Guilty as charged... I have options and so do other members including you ....peace

Of course we have the option to move along, and I often do.

My point -- and frustration -- is not so much that a video is included in an OP, but that the commentary in no way addresses the substance of the video and the comments are therefore meaningless. I do not need to watch a video to respond to an OP's commentary. And ATS is all about the commentary. At ATS (or any discussion forum) video's are optional -- the commentary is not.

a reply to: BO XIAN
Proof they are facts? None. Well then they aren't. They are beliefs. Nothing wrong with beliefs, but with saying they are fact there is.

a reply to: Tiamat384

I have lived long enough and observed enough to know

that whether something merits a label of FACT depends on a lot of things.

And the whole notion of OBJECTIVE FACT has largely been dis-proven by extensive research in quantum physics as well as psychology.

And, we live in an era when massive and skilled coercive propaganda has changed what the public square now considers as factual. You seem to be a convinced champion of the new memes fostered long ago by the propagandists of the oligarchy as 'facts' . . . particularly since they bought out the major media in 1915-1917.

We live in an era when "scientific facts" have been repeatedly dis-proven--either by later science or by expose's on the shoddy and even corrupt 'scientific' articles to begin with.

Dr Chuck Missler has a number of videos on youtube PROVING conclusively from his extensive scientific background many of the facts presented in the Bible. Many of them were unknown before his research. A long list of them are soooo astronomically beyond chance as to be scientifically very conclusively facts and evidence of 'supernatural' intervention into this time/space dimension.

However, in terms of this OP, what goes as facts or is proffered as facts can suffer from poor presentation; poor references; poor argument or simply too much blather.

In my opinion, you tend to offer your opinions as facts when they are little to nothing more than opinions and rather emotionally laden opinions at that. That's your right. However, it is also the right of the reader to disdain, dismiss or ignore your postulations for a variety of reasons--just as it is your right to disdain, dismiss or ignore Chester John's for a variety of reasons.

I'm hoping that Chester John can learn enough from this thread to make his presentations of Biblical facts and resultant principles of living and growing spiritually and otherwise--that more people will consider them fair-mindedly.

a reply to: BO XIAN
No, facts do not alter because of quantum physics. Not historical facts. My opinion? What I'm saying is true....the bible is not fact.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I am not going to read an OP in its entirety when someone can't use simple paragraphs and punctuation to make their ideas readable. A wall of text just doesn't work in today's society where we have shorter attention spans than anytime in our history thanks to the media and entertainment industries.

I do think anyone posting a video should be required to summarize it. Many of us don't have the time nor interest to watch a 15min. - 2hr video. At least a summary will help posters decide if the video is worth the time to watch.