A truly loving God...

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What you can't seem to comprehend is that the question is a logical fallacy called a red herring. My telling you this is one of the corrections.

What part of "whether or not any given individual has overcome sin has absolutely no bearing on what Jesus meant when he said things such as 'Depart from me, ye who work iniquity' don't you understand?

Then ...[text shortened]... ant to admit it or not, you're a seriously long way from making a coherent argument.

It may be a red herring to you but for me and others its a vital question because if you have no personal experience of the subject you are talking about then your argument has a gaping hole in it. Your argument is intellectual only in nature and you cannot substantiate it with any personal experience.


If you have no idea what overcoming sin actually is for you but still feel that you can challenge others about what they should and should not be doing then to me that says something about the integrity of your position. You always see fit to challenge others but as soon as someone suggests you take some of your own medicine you baulk as if somehow it's not fair , when it's you that often starts the whole thing.

Originally posted by knightmeister
It may be a red herring to you but for me and others its a vital question because if you have no personal experience of the subject you are talking about then your argument has a gaping hole in it. Your argument is intellectual only in nature and you cannot substantiate it with any personal experience.


If you have no idea what overcoming sin actu ...[text shortened]... icine you baulk as if somehow it's not fair , when it's you that often starts the whole thing.

A red herring is a red herring is a red herring. It really doesn't matter if you choose not to acknowledge it.

To paraphrase what I've said before, "whether or not any given individual has 'personal experience' with overcoming sin has absolutely no bearing on what Jesus meant when he said things such as 'Depart from me, ye who work iniquity'".

I'm only pointing out how your brand of "Christianity" conflicts with the words of Jesus. The 'personal experience' of any given individual doesn't change this. It's not "my position", it's the position of Jesus. These are His words, not mine.

Matthew 7:21-23
Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will tell me in that day,'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?' Then I will tell them,'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm only pointing out how your brand of "Christianity" conflicts with the words of Jesus. The 'personal experience' of any given individual doesn't change this. It's not "my position", it's the position of Jesus. These are His words, not mine.

Why do you refuse to take ownership of the fact that this is just your position and your interpretation of Jesus?. The whole point of our debates is concerning what you feel to be the truth about Jesus and what I feel is the truth. What jesus actually meant is not affected by whether you have overcome or not , but what you THINK he meant adn whether I accept what you think he meant is affected.

Instead of admitting that you interpret Jesus in a certain way you blindly assume that there's only one way of seeing things (and that's the way you see it of course). The very verse you have quoted is open to interpretation and personally I think it doesn't totally mean what you think it means.

There are other differences between us. I place great emphasis on what Jesus tells us about the Holy Spirit , you seem not to , so logically you must be interpreting because you are selecting which verses to emphasize and which to downplay. You keep quoting Jesus as if everyone implicitly understands your interpretation as self evident when obviously it is not.

When anyone offers an alternative explanation or theory on it you dismiss it as a "brand of christianity" . But this is a truism really because for me it's you that has the "brand" of christianity and that is a fake rolex Jesus.

What you need to do is just own that you have your opinion and others have theirs and stop pretending you have an open and shut self evident case when you don't. You have to be prepared to back up your position with both scriptural exploration , logic and personal testimony. At the moment all you do is endlessly repeat the same quotes.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Why do you refuse to take ownership of the fact that this is just your position and your interpretation of Jesus?. The whole point of our debates is concerning what you feel to be the truth about Jesus and what I feel is the truth.

Instead of admitting that you interpret Jesus in a certain way you blindly assume that there's only one way of seeing c and personal testimony. At the moment all you do is endlessly repeat the same quotes.

Please. You've never directly addressed this quote other than to try to pawn it off as "something he said to the Pharisees", which you eventually admitted as something you just made up. The only thing your 'explanation' was missing was the "yeah, that's the ticket." The same goes for several other quotes like it. You instead kept throwing out red herring after red herring. I grew weary of chasing them.

Are you incapable of making an honest post?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Please. You've never directly addressed this quote other than to try to pawn it off as "something he said to the Pharisees", which you eventually admitted as something you just made up. The only thing your 'explanation' was missing was the "yeah, that's the ticket." The same goes for several other quotes like it. You instead kept throwing out red herring ...[text shortened]... ed herring. I grew weary of chasing them.

Are you incapable of making an honest post?

I admitted I made a mistake with the Pharisees thing in good faith and you jumped on it like some rabid dog on an injured cat. I have however offered other views on this quote despite my mistake. My view on this quote is that it is directed at those who a) get caught up in signs and wonders and forget the heart of the gospel and b) those who think that heaven can be bought by deeds and favours rather than received as a gift from God.

It's a funny thought process going on here though. I make a mistake and admit it and yet you talk about "dishonesty" when I made no attempt to cover up my cock up. You then interpret my mistake as something more devious and now here you are saying I'm being dishonest. (LOL)

Why do you see dishonesty , lies and red herrings everywhere? I'm pretty open really . If you ask me a question I will answer it. If I challenge I expect to be challenged back. If I think someone is asking me something as a red herring or a trick question I just answer it in the belief that through argument the truth will eventually out.

You however, seem to fear that something awful will happen if you answer a question. So maybe my question is a red herring , maybe it isn't , either way you can't really lose if you really live in the truth. Take a chill pill mate!

Originally posted by knightmeister
I admitted I made a mistake with the Pharisees thing in good faith and you jumped on it like some rabid dog on an injured cat. I have however offered other views on this quote despite my mistake. My view on this quote is that it is directed at those who a) get caught up in signs and wonders and forget the heart of the gospel and b) those who think that either way you can't really lose if you really live in the truth. Take a chill pill mate!

I must say that you're consistent in that you have no reservations about "spinning" things without regard to truth. Like usual there's just too much here to try to set the record straight on all of it. Do you by any chance work in public relations for the Roman Catholic Church? Nah, just kidding. At least they're reasonably good at it.

Nevertheless, I have an answer to my question.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I must say that you're consistent in that you have no reservations about "spinning" things without regard to truth. Like usual there's just too much here to try to set the record straight on all of it. Do you by any chance work in public relations for the Roman Catholic Church? Nah, just kidding. At least they're reasonably good at it.

Nevertheless, I have an answer to my question.

You had the answer to your question long before we first started to exchange posts. You already knew that anyone who challenged you was going to be a liar. It's the default setting in your programme.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You had the answer to your question long before we first started to exchange posts. You already knew that anyone who challenged you was going to be a liar. It's the default setting in your programme.

Even this isn't an honest post. I have no problem with being challenged. I do have a problem with someone using distortion, half-truths and outright lies like yourself. Evidently that is so much a part of your program that you think nothing of it. You can't even be honest with yourself. Take your "time" threads for example. Your premises are so incoherent as to be ridiculous. Rather than accept that it's incoherent, you tell yourself and others that it's because of deficiencies in everyone else's thinking. Similarly instead of accepting that you distort, tell half-truths and lies, you tell yourself and others it's because I don't like being "challenged."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Even this isn't an honest post. I have no problem with being challenged. I do have a problem with someone using distortion, half-truths and outright lies like yourself. Evidently that is so much a part of your program that you think nothing of it. You can't even be honest with yourself. Take your "time" threads for example. Your premises are so incoherent and lies, you tell yourself and others it's because I don't like being "challenged."

I've read, following your suggestion, k's latest "time" thread.

Incoherent means "expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way" (New Oxford American Dictionary) - which is a subjective quality, since depending on the level of skill of the reader in parsing and interpreting information, text could be coherent or incoherent.

Seeing as you've already made a huge fuss in this post about needing me to put capital letters in my text in order to parse it - it seems highly unlikely that you'd cope with anything more complex than your own simplistic dogma (disagree with ToO = WRONG).

So, I think that you have again made a fool of yourself - I found k's thread perfectly coherent, I can only assume he did too, seeing as the text itself was coherent it seems unlikely that that was by chance, given the thought put into it - so you've just unwittingly (unsurprisingly, given the evidence) once again pointed out your inability to participate meaningfully in these discussions.

"Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses" my friend.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
So basically you are saying the bible should not be taken as a rational text at all?
How exactly do you choose what to or what not to believe?

you use reason.

first of all we discard all attempts of scientific explanations. god never intended to let the people who only knew to count to 1000 because they had 1000 sheep know that he created the world(universe) in 15000000000 and of course, that their world is not flat and the sun doesn't revolve around it. and of course, noah's flood and his family multiplying like rabbits after the flood? please let's get serious

after that is done, we have a bible as a history book and a book of moral guidelines.
some of the history we must discard as well because gideon might have kicked ass with his 300 spartans in the bible but perhaps the story was not really accurate(the israelites could have simply been outnumbered).
some of the morals we must discard as well, because although it may have been fun then to stone to death and adulterer and banish children born out of wedlock from church until their 10th generation, we have evolved and we dont do that anymore.

so no, you do not take all the bible for granted. and god invented the perfect way in which you figure out what you can use in your present society, it is called reason.

Originally posted by cpbrown
I've read, following your suggestion, k's latest "time" thread.

Incoherent means "expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way" (New Oxford American Dictionary) - which is a subjective quality, since depending on the level of skill of the reader in parsing and interpreting information, text could be coherent or incoherent.

Seeing as you've already ...[text shortened]... aningfully in these discussions.

"Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses" my friend.

Like I said earlier, you and KM seem to operate at about the same level, so this comes as no surprise. You might want to look at other definitions of coherence.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Even this isn't an honest post. I have no problem with being challenged. I do have a problem with someone using distortion, half-truths and outright lies like yourself. Evidently that is so much a part of your program that you think nothing of it. You can't even be honest with yourself. Take your "time" threads for example. Your premises are so incoherent ...[text shortened]... and lies, you tell yourself and others it's because I don't like being "challenged."

You find my time threads incoherent? The God of Jesus was most definitely eternal. Jesus would have understood my thread I'm sure.

My experience of you is that you do not participate once you are challenged but prefer to see challenges as a game. The way you do it is to initially just avoid the question in the unconscious hope that the other person will become frustrated. Of course that's what happens and then you use this frustration to your own ends to dismiss the other person as unreasonable in some way. It's a classic set up. Slam dunk every time.

Originally posted by cpbrown
I've read, following your suggestion, k's latest "time" thread.

Incoherent means "expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way" (New Oxford American Dictionary) - which is a subjective quality, since depending on the level of skill of the reader in parsing and interpreting information, text could be coherent or incoherent.

Seeing as you've already ...[text shortened]... aningfully in these discussions.

"Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses" my friend.

Thanks , I knew the thread was not easy but I know it wasn't incoherent.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Even this isn't an honest post. I have no problem with being challenged. I do have a problem with someone using distortion, half-truths and outright lies like yourself. Evidently that is so much a part of your program that you think nothing of it. You can't even be honest with yourself. Take your "time" threads for example. Your premises are so incoherent ...[text shortened]... and lies, you tell yourself and others it's because I don't like being "challenged."

I have no problem with being challenged. ---think of one----------


OK then , I challenge you to tell us what you think Jesus was refering to in his statements regarding the Holy Spirit and how we are to know the truth.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I have no problem with being challenged. ---think of one----------


OK then , I challenge you to tell us what you think Jesus was refering to in his statements regarding the Holy Spirit and how we are to know the truth.

Like you do so often, you've lost context here.