Are trauma survivors too attached to their trauma?

@secondson said
Your 'excuse' is not understanding what hypocrisy looks like in action within the context of this thread, your textbook definition notwithstanding.

If something isn't hypocisy but you use the word hypocrisy to refer to it, then you are using the word incorrectly. You use it incessantly to mean something along the lines of 'Oh i don't like the stuff you've saying' or 'Oh I strongly disagree with you'.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

I think there is love to be found in that.

The love of God for man was demonstrated on the cross of Jesus Christ. That truth is absent from Rajk's lexicon. If Rajk truly loved 'non-believers' he'd be telling them about God's salvation through the death of His Son.

1 John 4:10
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Has Rajk ever told you that?

@fmf said
If something isn't hypocisy but you use the word hypocrisy to refer to it, then you are using the word incorrectly. You use it incessantly to mean something along the lines of 'Oh i don't like the stuff you've saying' or 'Oh I strongly disagree with you'.

Squabblebabble.

@fmf said
Regardless of how much you think you are seeing between the lines or how much you think others are missing stuff that's between the lines, when you use the word "hypocrisy", it almost always used incorrectly.

Your avatar, is the need for thick spectacles due to straining at gnats all day?

What's worse is why am I bogged down with you arguing over the meaning and application of a word?

The root of hypocrisy is relative to a person with two faces. They say one thing and do another. Then there are a myriad of applications based on context and intent.

Confront your own hypocrisy for a change.

@secondson said
Confront your own hypocrisy for a change.

I don't engage in hypocrisy and every time you say that I do, I think that you are using the wrong word and that you are referring to something else.

@secondson said
The root of hypocrisy is relative to a person with two faces. They say one thing and do another.

But I don't do this. I don't have "two faces". Nor do I "say one thing and do another".

@secondson said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

I think there is love to be found in that.

The love of God for man was demonstrated on the cross of Jesus Christ. That truth is absent from Rajk's lexicon. If Rajk truly loved 'non-believers' he'd be telling them about God's salvation through the death of His Son.

1 John 4:10
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Has Rajk ever told you that?

While your church doctrine is in the bible it is not preached by Jesus Christ. We have had this conversation many times before and your church indoctrination is so severe that it has removed your ability to see what Jesus is saying. You are therefore in a cult [just like dj2becker] unable to see the truth.

Jesus preached to many thousands and thousands, multitudes of people for several years about what one needs to do the get eternal life in the Kingdom of God. Please quote from the teachings of Jesus Christ where He said this.
The love of God for man was demonstrated on the cross of Jesus Christ.
Thank you. [Its not there so dont waste your time looking].

Your church preaches a doctrine contrary to Christ. Even your quote from the Epistle of John if read properly contains this statement about love and eternal life in the Kingdom of God ... For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. (1 John 5:3 KJV)

My focus is the teachings of Christ on how one can get eternal life. Your focus is removing the teachings of Christ that conflict with your faith only doctrine. This is hypocrisy of the worst kind... ie the professing of faith in Christ with the mouth and yet denying the essential teachings of Christ. This is the kind of hypocrisy that is punishable by damnation.

@secondson said

Rajk is Balaam reincarnated.

No, he isn't.

@dj2becker said
You are confusing me with Romans. Your memory is fried I’m afraid.

Amazing how FMF did that isn't it?

No wonder this forum has fewer and fewer contributing posters every year.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
No, he isn't.

It was a figure of speech.

@rajk999 said
While your church doctrine is in the bible it is not preached by Jesus Christ. We have had this conversation many times before and your church indoctrination is so severe that it has removed your ability to see what Jesus is saying. You are therefore in a cult [just like dj2becker] unable to see the truth.

Jesus preached to many thousands and thousands, multitudes of peopl ...[text shortened]... g the essential teachings of Christ. This is the kind of hypocrisy that is punishable by damnation.

Had this argument with you too many times.

Yours is heresy. I won't debate the teachings of scripture with a reprobate and liar.

@secondson said
Had this argument with you too many times.

Yours is heresy. I won't debate the teachings of scripture with a reprobate and liar.

More insults in the face of defeat. Jesus Christ never preached your church doctrine, and neither did the Apostles. Your doctrine was concocted by a lazy reprobate mind. Good works and righteousness which Jesus and the Apostles called good, is now turned upside down and considered evil. Your false doctrine was foretold by the prophets and your end will be damnation

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20 KJV)

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Rajk doesn't automatically condemn non-believers to eternal torment. I think there is love to be found in that.

Honestly, that is completely off topic.

Let us say that you believe someone's religious views are actually illogical/incorrect, but holding it against them as a social flaw and bringing it up as a weapon in non-spiritual discussion to serve a non-spiritual line of argument is improper.

I make this mistake, too, but that should not stop you from being a better man than I.

@secondson said
It was a figure of speech.

Then find better speech, especially when creating a thread encouraging better posting.

@secondson said
Had this argument with you too many times.

Yours is heresy. I won't debate the teachings of scripture with a reprobate and liar.

Can you justify either of those insults? Or did it just feel good to write them?

I don't always agree with what Rajk has to say, but he invariably says exactly what he believes. Where is the lying in that? Are people who interpret scripture differently to yourself liars?