11 Aug 10
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywillI need some improvement in the area of being sure I understand exactly what someone has written.
[b]==================================
When I say things like, "The fact is that MANY do buy into it simply because they are lead to believe that 'little effort' is required on their part.
=================================
That may be true. But compare it to asking someone to marry you. Many a man and woman proposed marriage without real on my overlooking the significance of the word "likely" ?[/b]
Listen jaywill, you need a great deal more than "some improvement". It's evident that it is "asking too much for you to take the trouble to comprehend what others have posted before you go off on your little rants".
Here's an example of how just one topic has evolved thus far:
ToO: What's worse is it invites the worst in humanity which has been borne out in history time and again.
JW: First your accusation that justification by faith as a gift always brings out the worst in humanity in history is a lie.
Above you've taken my statement, rephrased it so as to change its meaning and then attacked it by calling it a lie.
ToO: If anything is a lie, it is your characterization of what I posted as saying "a gift ALWAYS brings out the worst in humanity in history is a lie". What I said was that it "INVITES the worst in humanity" which it does. Why the deceit?
Above I point out that your accusation is false and explain why. I point out that you're the one who is deceitful.
JW: "Is the accusation more unfounded then you accusing justification by faith as always bringing out the worst in man ?"
Above you ignore what I posted and repeat your accusation even though it is blatantly false. This shows what little regard you have for truth that you repeat your deceit even after having had it pointed out to you.
ToO: Do you even bother to read what others post? I also pasted my previous comment so that you could once again read how your accusation was false.
JW: I did not adaquately notice the little word "likely". Sorry.
Above you try to defend your self by saying that you "did not adaquately notice the little word 'likely'" which I didn't even use.
There are several other examples that I can point to, but I really have my doubts that you'll bother to comprehend what I've posted here.
What IS clear is that TRUTH means little to nothing to you. I'd think that someone who knows "Jesus Himself" as you claim would have an abiding reverence for truth which you clearly do not.
12 Aug 10
3 edits
What I said was that it "INVITES the worst in humanity" which it does. Why the deceit?
What profound "truth" are you expressing here ?
What does not "invite" the worst in humanity ?
Science "invites" the worst in humanity too ?
Money "invites" the worst in humanity too?
Books "invite" the worst in humanity also ?
Nation states "invite" the worst in humanity too?
Politics "invites" the worst in humanity too?
TV and radio "invites" the worst in humanity too?
The Internet "invites" the worst in humanity ?
Liesure time "invites" the worst in humanity ?
Country Music "invites" the worst in humanity ?
The United Nations "invites" the worst in humanity ?
Being born itself "invites" the worst in humanity ?
I don't know what profound truth you think you are stating.
Everything can be said to "invite" the worst in humanity.
Silly.
12 Aug 10
=================================
What IS clear is that TRUTH means little to nothing to you. I'd think that someone who knows "Jesus Himself" as you claim would have an abiding reverence for truth which you clearly do not.
===================================
Face it ThinkOfOne, an "abiding reverence for truth" does not mean we all take hook, line, and sinker your biased skepticism about the New Testament.
12 Aug 10
3 edits
=======================================
ToO: What's worse is it invites the worst in humanity which has been borne out in history time and again.
JW: First your accusation that justification by faith as a gift always brings out the worst in humanity in history is a lie.
Above you've taken my statement, rephrased it so as to change its meaning and then attacked it by calling it a lie.
ToO: If anything is a lie, it is your characterization of what I posted as saying "a gift ALWAYS brings out the worst in humanity in history is a lie". What I said was that it "INVITES the worst in humanity" which it does. Why the deceit?
==================================
That justification by faith has been borne out in history time and again to invite the worst in humanity is your lie. At best, your bigotted opinion.
And you have lied in the past in very devious ways by being careful NOT to state something.
In the past you spoke about the words of Jesus. But I could not get you to admit that you do not take all that the New Testament attributes as the words of Jesus. I am pretty sure that you exclude Acts and Revelation which contain words of the resurrected Jesus.
Your sneaky manner of holding this bias close to your vest is a form of lying. It is a lying by stealth and concealment.
Why didn't you do the honorable and honest thing to come out and say you don't take any words of Jesus in Acts and Revelation and maybe also John's Gospel as the words of Jesus ?
So lectures on morality from you will be taken with a big grain of salt.
13 Aug 10
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyGrace is the language of The LORD.
[b]Grace is a foreign language...
Grace is a foreign language from day one out of the chute. It's simplicity underwhelms us. It's turnkey completeness offends us. We insist on getting out of the cabin to help push the jet. Earning the gift appeals to us. We crave a share of the credit.
......................................................................[/b]
Man is only semi-fluent at best.
13 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ChessPraxisMan has the potantial to understand "Gods" grace.
Grace is the language of The LORD.
Man is only semi-fluent at best.
(S)He will have to drop a lot of "intellectual wanderings" to understand this.
We, humans as a collective, have been living in the law of Karma. The way of the future is the way of grace.
This implies harmonious , trusting relationships. Also it imlpies that such an avenue is possible, as long as the people believe and ,above all, learn to stop blaming eachother for whatever problems that may arise.
Blame is a destructive, faithless human trait. It keeps us from realizing our true potential.
To diagnose problems in hindsight,(with 20/20 vision), is easy. Anyone can sit back and pick out the flaws.
I see blame everywhere.
True unconditional forgiveness is sadly lacking. That takes courage and faith. Something that most people just ppay lip service to.
The existensial angst , that we all go through, whether conciously or not, is the symptom of personal change as the ingrained beliefs are one by one discarded. Or at least thats what I reckon.
To 'bow before God' and accept people as they are is the only way to truly learn about spirituality. This (to me) implies the dismantling of the ego, which is that little voice that tells you to not take risks and to preserve the "surviving" mechanisms that have kept you trapped in this physiacal body.
13 Aug 10
Originally posted by jaywillI said the following in my latest post:
[b]=================================
What IS clear is that TRUTH means little to nothing to you. I'd think that someone who knows "Jesus Himself" as you claim would have an abiding reverence for truth which you clearly do not.
===================================
Face it ThinkOfOne, an "abiding reverence for truth" does not mean we all take hook, line, and sinker your biased skepticism about the New Testament.[/b]
"There are several other examples that I can point to, but I really have my doubts that you'll bother to comprehend what I've posted here."
Based on your responses, it's evident that this is the case.
You've ignored the germane points of the post and instead have focused on individual sentences that you've taken out of context in a desperate attempt to mount an attack. This response bears this out. Clearly when I spoke of you not having an "abiding reverence for truth", I was referring to your lack of reverence for the truth in formulating responses to my posts rather than your not accepting a "biased skepticism about the New Testament" as you've asserted here. Why do you continue to resort to twisting what I say in order to attack it? An individual with an "abiding reverence for truth" would not do this.
15 Aug 10
7 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAs stated above, lectures from ThinkOfOne on morality and practicing "an abiding reverence for truth" (or "the truth" which ever it happened to be), will be taken with a big grain of salt.
I said the following in my latest post:
"There are several other examples that I can point to, but I really have my doubts that you'll bother to comprehend what I've posted here."
Based on your responses, it's evident that this is the case.
You've ignored the germane points of the post and instead have focused on individual sentences that you've ta attack it? An individual with an "abiding reverence for truth" would not do this.
If you had such a huge degree of reverence for truth, you should have been more straightforward a long long time ago about the words of Jesus. Rather you sneakily led us on and concealed that you don't regard all words attributed to Jesus in Acts and Revelation as His words.
I don't even think about you being up front about this anymore.
For argument's sake let's say that you are right about "free salvation" inviting the worst in humanity.
Could you also say that the sexual / romantic attraction between a man and a woman, in history, has constantly borne out that it too "invites" the worst in human behavior?
Couldn't that case be made as well? Is the solution to systematically wipe out then, the sexual attraction between men and women ?
Ie. "Attraction between the sexes has consistenly invited out the WORST in human behavior. So let us rail against this attraction and avoid it and try our best to criticize it, educate people to its evils and eliminate it from our society."
Why do you not make a similar case ?
17 Aug 10
Originally posted by jaywillAs stated above, lectures from ThinkOfOne on morality and practicing "an abiding reverence for truth" (or "the truth" which ever it happened to be), will be taken with a big grain of salt.
As stated above, lectures from ThinkOfOne on morality and practicing "an abiding reverence for truth" (or "the truth" which ever it happened to be), will be taken with a big grain of salt.
If you had such a huge degree of reverence for truth, you should have been more straightforward a long long time ago about the words of Jesus. Rather you sneakily le ...[text shortened]... ls and eliminate it from our society."
Why do you not make a similar case ?
If you had such a huge degree of reverence for truth, you should have been more straightforward a long long time ago about the words of Jesus. Rather you sneakily led us on and concealed that you don't regard all words attributed to Jesus in Acts and Revelation as His words.
Wow, you must really be desperate now. Do you really believe this a proper defense for your use of deceit? As I recall, during a discussion you tossed out a red herring regarding Acts and Revelation. I plainly explained to you that it was irrelevant to the discussion. There is nothing "sneaky" about not addressing every red herring that gets tossed out there. For you to characterize it as such is deceitful in and of itself.
I stand by my post:
The concept of a "free gift" came along well after Jesus no longer walked the Earth. If you look at the whole of the teachings of Jesus, that concept is antithetical to it.
So many buy into it because it is cheap and easy.
What's worse is it invites the worst in humanity which has been borne out in history time and again.
If you want to refute it, at least refrain from making unfounded accusations, rephrasing my statements so as to change its meaning so that you attack it, etc.
It'd also help if you bothered to comprehend what I've written before respond.
17 Aug 10
Grace is a foreign language...
'Grace is a foreign language from day one out of the chute. It's simplicity underwhelms us. It's turnkey completeness offends us. We insist on getting out of the cabin to help push the jet. Earning the gift appeals to us. We crave a share of the credit.'
......................................................................
Besides, the basic vocabulary is too simple: if, yes, thanks.
17 Aug 10
4 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne========================================
[b]As stated above, lectures from ThinkOfOne on morality and practicing "an abiding reverence for truth" (or "the truth" which ever it happened to be), will be taken with a big grain of salt.
If you had such a huge degree of reverence for truth, you should have been more straightforward a long long time ago about the words of Jesus. Rather you sneakily c.
It'd also help if you bothered to comprehend what I've written before respond.
Wow, you must really be desperate now. Do you really believe this a proper defense for your use of deceit? As I recall, during a discussion you tossed out a red herring regarding Acts and Revelation.
===================================== [/b]
The desperation appears to me to be coming from you. When you cavalierly dismiss an argument that you can't refute as a "red herring" that sounds desperate to me.
Now the facts as I remember.
You took a position that the words of Jesus reflect the true Gospel message. Furthermore the Apostle Paul corrupted and ruined the teaching of Jesus. Paul therefore you blame for ruining the pure message of salvation by works.
That was the essence of our previous debate. When I point out to you that the words of Jesus tell us that He personally appointed Paul to be a testifying apostle to Christ's Gospel, you had no rebuttal that I can remember.
Here are Jesus' words in Acts - "But the Lord [Jesus] said to him [Ananias] Go, for this man [Saul/Paul] is a chosen vessel to Me, to bear My name before both the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; For I will show him how many things he must suffer on bejhalf of My name." (Acts 9:15,16)
No rebuttal I recall about THESE words of Jesus. The impression I got was that you do not regard those as authentic words of Jesus. I tried in vain to get you to admit that your New Testament canonical words of Jesus apparently exclude ALL the words the NT attributes to Jesus.
This point you avoid. I suppose you hope people will just hear your general, non-specific and non-committal posture that you are REALLY only for the words of Jesus.
This is not a red herring issue at all. The more honest thing for you to have done instead of pretending that it was a non-issue, would have been to plainly come right out and admit that your concept of the teaching of Jesus excludes words taught by Jesus after His resurrection.
So I tried to get you to be straightfoward about your attitude about His resurrection. This subject to you dismiss as irrelevant. So I regard your posturing as being committed to the teaching Jesus while refusing to draw definite parameters around the subset of words attributed to Jesus, as stealth and deception.
And I regard your continued refusal to address this exclusion by calling it a red herring argument or irrelevant reveals your desperation.
=====================================
I plainly explained to you that it was irrelevant to the discussion. There is nothing "sneaky" about not addressing every red herring that gets tossed out there. For you to characterize it as such is deceitful in and of itself.
=======================================
You may have plainly said it is irrelevant. But you are plainly and totally wrong.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is not irrelevant to the total teaching of Jesus Christ. And the words spoken by Jesus AFTER His resurrection are not irrelevant to the basic contents of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Not only are you plainly wrong that Christ's resurrection and post resurrectio teaching is not germane to the essense of the Gospel message, but the DESPERATION you display to think it so, is not only deceptive towards you audience. It is SELF deceptive, which I probably worse.
====================================
I stand by my post:
The concept of a "free gift" came along well after Jesus no longer walked the Earth. If you look at the whole of the teachings of Jesus, that concept is antithetical to it.
======================================
This is simply you dusting off your old and favorite argument. This is your favorite issue. You are just dressing up the matter in slightly different cloths. At the end of the day the discussion will be the same as before.
It is another incarnation of WORKS for eternal salvation rather than BELIEF for eternal salvation.
Accompanyng this old argument will be your customary personal lectures on the morality of those who do not agree with you.
=============================
So many buy into it because it is cheap and easy.
What's worse is it invites the worst in humanity which has been borne out in history time and again.
====================================
My main point in response to this was firstly, I don't think the accusation is true.
At least the same could be said of SO MANY things that they "invite" the worst in humanity.
The same argument could be made for sexual attraction and love. It too, apparently from history, liturature, fiction and biographical, could be accused of inviting the worst in humanity. You probably don't feel to educate the Internet Public to stay away from attraction between the sexes because it invites the worst in humanity.
I don't think you have stated something so profound but rather biased.
====================================
If you want to refute it, at least refrain from making unfounded accusations, rephrasing my statements so as to change its meaning so that you attack it, etc.
It'd also help if you bothered to comprehend what I've written before respond.
====================================
Even to this very moment, this very moment, I regard your dismissing the RESURRECTION and post resurrection teachings of Jesus as "red herrings" as deceptive if you come here posturing yourself as some expert on New Testament Theology.
Right now I do not have time to fix typos in this post.
17 Aug 10
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywillJaywill, I really wish you were capable of having an honest discussion. As it stands, you keep showing that you are not. It's even pointless to point out your dishonesty. This latest post is just more of the same. You're like a child desperate to prove himself right, making ridiculous arguments without regard to truth. I'd suggest that you go back and read through this discussion, but I really doubt that it'd help. So I'm bowing out.
[b]========================================
Wow, you must really be desperate now. Do you really believe this a proper defense for your use of deceit? As I recall, during a discussion you tossed out a red herring regarding Acts and Revelation.
===================================== [/b]
The desperation appears to me to be coming from you. W ment Theology.
Right now I do not have time to fix typos in this post.[/b]
18 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf you say the resurrection is irrelevant to the gospel message you are a liar.
[b]Jaywill, I really wish you were capable of having an honest discussion. As it stands, you keep showing that you are not. It's even pointless to point out your dishonesty. This latest post is just more of the same. You're like a child desperate to prove himself right, making ridiculous arguments without regard to truth. I'd suggest that you go back and rea Jesus are not relevant, don't get mad with me because I expose you for what you are. A Liar.
I suggest you go back to the four gospels and figure out exactly what the GOOD NEWS was.
You are depending on obfuscation, short memories, evasion, and pretending to stand for the teachings of Jesus.
Go try your craft on some junior high sunday school kids. Go try it on some highschoolers coming out of an AWANA meeting.
If you come to me like you're an expert on the New Testament saying the Resurrection and post resurrection words of Jesus are not relevant, don't get mad with me because I expose you for what you are. A liar.
That is all.
18 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillWhen you've calmed down, try to be objective and read through our discussion. If you really put in an effort to comprehend what is being said, maybe you'll be able to see how much you twist things in order to make a point. Seriously. I think it might do you a world of good.
If you say the resurrection is irrelevant to the gospel message you are a liar.
I suggest you go back to the four gospels and figure out exactly what the GOOD NEWS was.
You are depending on obfuscation, short memories, evasion, and pretending to stand for the teachings of Jesus.
Go try your craft on some junior high sunday school kids. Go t elevant, don't get mad with me because I expose you for what you are. A liar.
That is all.
18 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI don't plan to "calm down" about your particular deceptive tactics.
When you've calmed down, try to be objective and read through our discussion. If you really put in an effort to comprehend what is being said, maybe you'll be able to see how much you twist things in order to make a point. Seriously. I think it might do you a world of good.
And your Mr. Innocent, full of reasonable composure routine is nice, but not impressive.