[nolidad]

Webster's definition of self-serving: Serving one's own interests, especially without concern for others.

What part of this definition lends itself to think their is care or concern for others interests????

You were the one who threw this word out in accusation of the early disciples of Jesus and I have been trying to get you to show evidence other than your own subjective opinion as to why the writers were self centered and self seeking in their writings. You still keep trying to not answer that question Jerry, WHY??????????

[JerryLove]

What part of this definition lends itself to think their is care or concern for others interests????

The definition does not neccessitate a lack of care or concern; as you keep asserting it does.

The requirement of the definition is: "Serving one's own interests"; which the NT clearly does for its authors. If it does or does not have concern for others is not vital to the definition.

[Joel]

The requirement of the definition is: "Serving one's own interests"; which the NT clearly does for its authors. If it does or does not have concern for others is not vital to the definition.

Webster's definition of self-serving: Serving one's own interests, especially without concern for others.

Well we shall need to write to Websters and all others who write dictionaries and inform them that part of their definition which was included with a modifier to intensify that part of the definition is not a vital part of their definition. Why they included it in the first place to confuse the masses is beyiond me.


Still waiting for the obvious and clear evidence you use in determining the NT authors were self serving (with or without concern for others).

Still awaiting evidence (I will even settle now for some of your subjective commentary) on how the original disciples within 5 years of the "possible" death and resurrection of the maybe mu
ythman Jesus-- could convert tens of thousands of Jews in Israel to commit idolatry by giving their hearts and lives over to something they would hj
ave known was a myth. Or if He existed they would have known all the "miracles" were just a bunch of made up stuff.

To convince someone 3-20 centuries after the fact is fairly easy if it was all a hoax, history has a way of doing that sometimes, but to fool those who were contemporaries, who would hsave known the facts, and who were eagerly anticipating a great Messiah to arrive would be far more difficult.



But let us move on to something far more sinister about the accusations which you lob against Jesus and the first disciples (without any empirical evidence to back those charges up). From your charges so far at worst Jesus was just simply a character made up by Matthew Mark Luke JOhn et al. for self serving ends. At best Jesus was a real character, but His life was greatly embellished by the writers for their self serving ends.

This makes Christianity the greatest and cruelest hoax ever foisted upon mankind! It means that the writyers of the New Testament got togwether and willfully conspired to lie, deceive, cheat and place at great risk of physical and emotional harm tens of thousands of people for the purpose of serving their own selfish motives. They did not proclaim themselves Medssiahs asa all other false prophets have done, they did not proclaim themselves high prophets asa others, just eyewitnesses who spread a message to devote others to someone they made up!!

These would be men who make Hitler look like a Sunday school teacher in comparison! They have succeeded beyind their wildest selfish imaginations!! They have deluded billions down through the centuries! They also must have created a form of brainwashing no others have been able to match. For the followers of this either mythical messiah or created Christ all swear to have a personal relationship with this carpenters son from Nazareth!!! WOW would Jim JOnes, David Koresh, Stalin, Papa Devine, Brigham Young, and Charles Taze Russell have loved to get their hands on this ability!!

Still waiting for more than just "its obvious", "its clear" for you to show why your accusations have any merit to them.

[JerryLove]

Well we shall need to write to Websters and all others who write dictionaries and inform them that part of their definition which was included with a modifier to intensify that part of the definition is not a vital part of their definition. Why they included it in the first place to confuse the masses is beyiond me.

I realize that it is beyond you; and that's the scary part, because it's pretty readily understood by most first-grade children I know.

For example, in Webster's definition of "especially" their example is as follows:
"food seems cheaper, especially meats"

This does not mean "meat, and only meat seems cheaper". If someone wanted to say that, you would say "meat seems cheaper". You could conceiveably use "specifically" to accomplish what you seem to believe "especially" to mean.

Again, "I like apples, especially red ones" does not mean that I don't like green ones. Your inability to understand basic English makes having any discussion beyond this with you moot, as you won't understand the words anyway .

[rainoflove]

The word 'especially' in the definition would indicate that 9/10 cases, or the majority of cases, is without concern for others. So which one is it? Did the disciples have a self-serving interest with concern for others, or did they not have concern for others?

[JerryLove]

The word 'especially' in the definition would indicate that 9/10 cases, or the majority of cases, is without concern for others.

And from where do you derive this number? If I love apples, especially red ones, does that mean 9/10 times I only like red ones?

Did the disciples have a self-serving interest with concern for others, or did they not have concern for others?

The Bible eerved the ends of its authors; therefore the writing was self-serving. Weather it is true or false is not even at issue in this statement; even if entirely true, it is self-serving.

[nolidad]

Summary:-
specifically -
Detailed description:-
1 Dictionary Entries found
---------------------------
1) r :in distinction from others
Example: a program specifically for teenagers;he is interested specifically in poisonous snakes

especially - particularly, peculiarly, specially, specially
Detailed description:-
2 Dictionary Entries found
---------------------------
1) r :to a distinctly greater extent or degree than is common
Example: an especially (or specially) cautious approach to the danger

Here we have both definitions posted and we see they are not synonymous.

Me: I like apples, especially red ones.

According to you, in order for me to like an apple, it must be red... but that's not what the sentace means at all.

I am so glads you are not psychic--you really do suck at it for this is not what I said or mneant at all. If I wanted to say that you ONLY like red apples I would use the word specifically, if I wanted to say that you like red apples more than all other apples I would use the word especially. Oh Brainy one-- especially just simple means more than others- not to the exclusion of others.

By the way, are all your postings here just self serving?? If not why not?? at least you have a chance to defend yourself from the slings and arrows of others.

Still waiting for evidence to show that the writers were self serving.

Still waiting to see the evidence of conspiracy by the writers.

Still waiting to see the way they were able to mass seduce qand decieve their contemporaries.

Still waiting for evidence that Jesus may have just been a "myth"

Still waiting for the evidence that the gospels are intentional frauds.



[QUOTE]The Bible eerved the ends of its authors; therefore the writing was self-serving.[QUOTE]

If by their self serving ends it was to get people to give their life to Christ and serve and glorify Him, to live selfless lives in service to God and others and to try to reach others and save them from their lost state then I wholly agree. If yiou have other thoughts in mind, then in MHO tehey are but material for an enema.

[JerryLove]

Here we have both definitions posted and we see they are not synonymous.

And hence we are back to either your complete inability to read English sentances, or your simple inability to interact with the conversation.

Since I do not believe "especially" and "specifically" are synonymous; and since I expressely used them for their *different* meanings; either you completely failed to understand what I said, or your comment here is entirely non-interactive.

if I wanted to say that you like red apples more than all other apples I would use the word especially.

Well, you are reasonably close to the definition of "especially". Now let's see if you can hold on to your teniuos grasp of the language long enough to consider the following:

"Serving one's own interests, especially without concern for others."

So in our apple example: I like apples... and I really like red apples.
In our symantic example: Serving one's own interests is self serving, doing so without concern for others is really self-serving.

Oh Brainy one-- especially just simple means more than others- not to the exclusion of others.

So then you have changed your stance and now agree with me on what "self-serving" means? Does that mean you also finally udnerstand why the gospels are self-serving works?

By the way, are all your postings here just self serving?? If not why not??

It depends on weather I have a vested self-interest in the outcome. Since it makes no difference to me weather you come to understand or nor, I lack the prerequsite self-interest in the outcome so "no".

at least you have a chance to defend yourself from the slings and arrows of others.

The fact that you equate the factual statement that the Gospels are self-serving to "suffer[ing] the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune", further illustrates your complete failure to grasp the basic topic

If by their self serving ends it was to get people to give their life to Christ and serve and glorify Him, to live selfless lives in service to God and others and to try to reach others and save them from their lost state then I wholly agree.

Do you believe that they had a self-interest in people believing what they wrote? Apparently you do (as you just stated). Does this mean you finally accept that the writing is self-serving?

If yiou have other thoughts in mind, then in MHO tehey are but material for an enema.

Soapy water? Or are you one of those freaks trying to get a rush from a coffiee enema?

[Joel]

It depends on weather I have a vested self-interest in the outcome. Since it makes no difference to me weather you come to understand or nor, I lack the prerequsite self-interest in the outcome so "no".

So tell us how you know that the gospel writers weree seeking selfish interests.

This does not mean "meat, and only meat seems cheaper". If someone wanted to say that, you would say "meat seems cheaper". You could conceiveably use "specifically" to accomplish what you seem to believe "especially" to mean.

Since I do not believe "especially" and "specifically" are synonymous; and since I expressely used them for their *different* meanings; either you completely failed to understand what I said, or your comment here is entirely non-interactive.

OOPS!!!!

So in our apple example: I like apples... and I really like red apples.
In our symantic example: Serving one's own interests is self serving, doing so without concern for others is really self-serving.

[QUOTE]Serving one's own interests, especially without concern for others."
[QUOTE]

This is the definition of self serving--this is not the definition for self serving and REALLY self serving. Someone who is self serving is taking care of self ESPECially without concern for others. Your apple paralel doesn't work.

So then you have changed your stance and now agree with me on what "self-serving" means? Does that mean you also finally udnerstand why the gospels are self-serving works?

You forget that the term WITHOUT is in the definition!!! That means someone who is self self serving is caring about numero uno without an uncommon and high disregard for the concerns of others--it means they are really really selfish.

If by their self serving ends it was to get people to give their life to Christ and serve and glorify Him, to live selfless lives in service to God and others and to try to reach others and save them from their lost state then I wholly agree.


Do you believe that they had a self-interest in people believing what they wrote? Apparently you do (as you just stated). Does this mean you finally accept that the writing is self-serving?

This is whart I wrote and I will agree--if their self serving goal was to get people to worship and serve the resurrected, glorified Son of the Living God and to place others needs above their own, then yes the gospels and epistles are self serving documents. Just as I beleive you have self serving motives for writing all you do on these threads. You are trying to make certain points . In this you are self serving

The fact that you equate the factual statement that the Gospels are self-serving to "suffer[ing] the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune", further illustrates your complete failure to grasp the basic topic

Will there ever come a time when you satop twisting my words to try to get them to mean what I did not say???


If you agree that what I said are the motives of the NT writers was there self serving interest then I guess that question is answered.

However I am still waiting to see evidence of conspiracy on the part of the writers to decieve and defraud individuals.

Still waiting for the evidence that the NT is an historically inaccurate document.

Still waiting for the evidence that Jesus maybe just a "myth" at worst or just a carpenters son turned itinerant preacher at best.

Still waiting for your commentary on the techniques used by the apostles to deceive thousands of contemporary Jews into beleiving in miracles that did not occur, a resurrection that did not take palce, and a messiah who is no messiah.

[JerryLove]

So tell us how you know that the gospel writers weree seeking selfish interests.

What makes you think I claimed the interests were selfish? I said merely that they were their own. The writers had an interest in / desire to validate thier religion; and the Gospels serve to validate their religion. The books serve an end (validating Christianity) which the writers promoted; hence they are self-serving.

You forget that the term WITHOUT is in the definition!!! That means someone who is self self serving is caring about numero uno without an uncommon and high disregard for the concerns of others--it means they are really really selfish.

After "especially", so something which serves your own ends without regard for others is an especially good example of self-serving.

This is whart I wrote and I will agree--if their self serving goal was to get people to worship and serve the resurrected, glorified Son of the Living God[...]

This is why I'm still baffelled anyone would argue that the Gospels were not self-serving. The writers had a goal to provide validity for and spread their faith; the gospels served those ends.

You are trying to make certain points . In this you are self serving

If I have a personal goal / motivation that was driving me. IOW, if I were trying to covert people to my religion, you might be right.

There is a "reasonability" aspect to the definition... break it down too far, and you could call every action "self-serving".

If I think that you won't like the taste of strawberry ice-cream and I tell you; I was not self serving. If I want to eat your strawberry ice-cream, and I tell you I don't think you will like it, then even if I think it is a true statemnt, it is also a self-serving statement (as my self-interest is in getting you to not eat the ice-cream so I can)

It's in the mechanics self-interest to get you to have him fix something on your car, even if he sincerely believes the reasons why you should. It is not in his self-interest to suggest what music you like to listen to in your car, even though he may want you to agree with him on it.

Will there ever come a time when you satop twisting my words to try to get them to mean what I did not say???

And what, exactly, *did* you mean when you referred to "slings and arrows"?

If you agree that what I said are the motives of the NT writers was there self serving interest then I guess that question is answered.

Do you agree that they wanted to validate and spread their belief (we'll ignore *why*, as it's an entirely seperate argument).

[rainoflove]

And from where do you derive this number? If I love apples, especially red ones, does that mean 9/10 times I only like red ones?

You're avoiding the question, and trying to argue symantics. The point is that you've indicated their are two self-serving ends, one is selfish and the other is not.

The Bible eerved the ends of its authors; therefore the writing was self-serving. Weather it is true or false is not even at issue in this statement; even if entirely true, it is self-serving.

You've still avoided the question. Did the apostles have self-serving interests, where they had no concern for others or were their interests self-serving with concern for others. Were they selfish self-serving reasons or not?

What are the 'ends' you are referring to? Why do you think the authors of the Bible wrote what they did? To accomplish what?

Rain

[JerryLove]

You're avoiding the question, and trying to argue symantics. The point is that you've indicated their are two self-serving ends, one is selfish and the other is not.

No, there is one definition of self-serving; the one where the act in question advances a self-interest. Weather there is regard for others or not is not material... The "question" has been addressed from post 1.

You've still avoided the question. Did the apostles have self-serving interests, where they had no concern for others or were their interests self-serving with concern for others.

It does not matter weather they had concern for others. I don't know weather they had concern for others. I don't care weather they had concern for others. Is this a clear/concise enough response?

What are the 'ends' you are referring to?

The writers had an interest in / desire to validate thier religion - Today, 07:51 AM
The writers had a goal to provide validity for and spread their faith; - Today, 07:51 AM
they wanted to validate and spread their belief - Today, 07:51 AM
that they had a self-interest in people believing what they wrote - Yesterday, 04:18 PM
The gospel serves the authors interest in sperading the beliefs contained therein.
Paul's testemony serves Paul's interest in getting others to do what he told them to do in his writings (by giving him a source of acuthority though his assignment by God). - 10-07-2003, 02:22 PM

Shall I repeat it another half-dozen times? Will that help?

[nolidad]

This is why I'm still baffelled anyone would argue that the Gospels were not self-serving. The writers had a goal to provide validity for and spread their faith; the gospels served those ends.

This is where you miss the point of the gospels entirely. You see Christians who are sincerely seeking to honor God--need nothing to validate their faith. the Gospels were not written to validate their faith. The gospels were written becuase the writers faith had alreeady been validated and the letters written to appeal to others to hsare in the eternal glory that the writers had attained through Faith in christ. You will see we spread the gospel not n an attempt to validate our faith, but in obedience to the one who loves us and calls us.

It does not matter weather they had concern for others. I don't know weather they had concern for others. I don't care weather they had concern for others. Is this a clear/concise enough response?

But slef serving intertest BY DEFINITION involves a very heightened self of disregard for others. If someone is promoting something but that something involves care and concern for others BY DEFINITION it cannot be self serving.

Webster's definition of self-serving: Serving one's own interests, especially without concern for others

Once again if someone is advancing a philosophy, religion, idea, what have you- and it has concern for others then it cannot be self serving--unless you wish to redefine the term self serving.

By the way seeing as you disbeleive in the gospel accounts as historically accurate-- I am still waiting for you to produce the evidence that the writers of the New Testament conspired to deceive, defraud and lie to their fellow citizens and then the Roman Empire.

Still waiting for the evidence that the writers had no regard for the care and concern for others so that they really would be slef serving.

Once again--self serving neccesitates an unusually high and wanton disregard for others. Please show how the writings fit that definition.

What makes you think I claimed the interests were selfish?

Because you accussed them of writing with self serving ends and self serving is unusual selfishness. by definition.

After "especially", so something which serves your own ends without regard for others is an especially good example of self-serving.

I am glad you finally see this. So please show how the writers wrote without regard for others.

[JerryLove]

This is where you miss the point of the gospels entirely. You see Christians who are sincerely seeking to honor God--need nothing to validate their faith.

So you believe that, to someone you are trying to bring into the fold, your beliefs about Jesus would appear valid if there were no story of Jesus?

You are, again, putting rhetoric over basic logic.

But slef serving intertest BY DEFINITION involves a very heightened self of disregard for others.

No, that is not true by defintion at all; hence why the "especially" is required.

If someone is promoting something but that something involves care and concern for others BY DEFINITION it cannot be self serving.

Of course it can. For exmaple, I can run a NPO which feeds hungry children; and I can encourage donations to that NPO. These donations cares and concerns for others (hungry children) but is also self-serving (as that's how my paychecks get made). Agian, you fail basic English which is, again why attempting any "real" discussion with you is nigh-on pointless.

Once again if someone is advancing a philosophy, religion, idea, what have you- and it has concern for others then it cannot be self serving--unless you wish to redefine the term self serving.

OK, so it wasn't self-serving for Korresh, or Manson, or Jim Jones, or Joseph Smith, or Mohammed, or Oral Roberts convinved people the were God/God's messenger? Of course it was, as it advanced their personal goals.

Once again--self serving neccesitates an unusually high and wanton disregard for others.

So you keep asserting in wanton violation of the English language.

Because you accussed them of writing with self serving ends and self serving is unusual selfishness. by definition.

Same assertion, same wanto disregard for English.

I am glad you finally see this. So please show how the writers wrote without regard for others.

Did I say they were the "especially" good example of self-serving? No, I just said it was self-serving. "wanton disregard" is not a requirement... this is really basic English.

[pullmychicken]

Someone might have already said this but:

The accounts of Jesus's life were written approx. 25-100 yrs after his life. people critisies the gospels sccuracy becasue of this, but compare wiht Julius Ceasear all the accounts we have of his life were written 900 years after he lived.