A question of honesty

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
No one ever succeeds communicating information beyond what the hearer/reader has acquired the capacity to understand.

Edit Note: Which begins with a genuine desire to know.

Do you think self-identified Christians who have not acquired the capacity to understand the tenets of Christianity you propagate will "have eternal life"?

Originally posted by twhitehead
This has nothing to do with my comments in this thread. Are you just trying to change the topic?

[b]You kept telling me there was no starting point in space, and I couldn't seem to get you to understand I was talking about a starting point in time... not space.
Can you reference the thread, because I strongly suspect you are mischaracterizing wh ...[text shortened]... ty that time started at some point. I do dispute that there is good reason to think that it did.[/b]

I'm not trying to change the topic, I'm just not interested in talking with you about it.

Why didn't you just say 'I am talking about a starting point in time'?

I did, several times.

It was a year or so ago, so I'm not going to waste time or effort trying to find it. humy was backing you up and also ignoring the fact I was saying time and not space, so I suspect the two of you were simply jerking me around.

I've only said it once here and you did not presume I was talking about space. So this tells me you do understand the difference.

Originally posted by twhitehead
This has nothing to do with my comments in this thread. Are you just trying to change the topic?

[b]You kept telling me there was no starting point in space, and I couldn't seem to get you to understand I was talking about a starting point in time... not space.
Can you reference the thread, because I strongly suspect you are mischaracterizing wh ...[text shortened]... ty that time started at some point. I do dispute that there is good reason to think that it did.[/b]

I think I found the thread in question. It was at the Galaxy thread that started on
22 Jun '13 00:02

Here's one of my replies to humy (on pg 21) after he joined the discussion:

Originally posted by humy
That last statement indicates you don't understand after all:
There is no 'point' of origin were the singularity once was in space that the whole universe could be accelerating away from or accelerating toward or having any kind of relative motion or lack of relative motion from it and nobody who understand cosmology is claiming otherwise.
If you claim that was once and not any other point and therefore it is not a meaningful 'point' of origin.

Me:
You want to re-argue the "point" point?

You agreed the word rapid is a relative term. So I proceeded to my next point and you finally understood what I meant by 'point of origin'. Now you want to step back and re-argue the 'point of origin' point?

You can only keep an old fart busy for just so long... after a while the old fart gets tired of repeating himself.

"...it's not an origin in relation to space, it's an origin in relation to time."

This is priceless. I'll be going back to read more of it later.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I'm not trying to change the topic, I'm just not interested in talking with you about it.

Why didn't you just come out and say you didn't want to discuss it the first time round? Why did you instead go off on a tangent attempting to make false accusations about me?

It was a year or so ago, so I'm not going to waste time or effort trying to find it. humy was backing you up and also ignoring the fact I was saying time and not space, so I suspect the two of you were simply jerking me around.
And I suspect you are mischaracterizing what went on in the thread.

Originally posted by lemon lime
This is priceless. I'll be going back to read more of it later.

Let me help you out:

Originally posted by lemon lime
I goofed again.

You frequently confused space and time and were very unclear about what exactly you were trying to say.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You brought up the question of honesty, so perhaps it would be good if you could be honest about what your motives are so you could be trusted.

Ah, suddenly I see you more clearly RJHinds. You're still pissed about the OP aren't you; now I see why you are so keen to send me to hell. Tiny man.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You brought up the question of honesty, so perhaps it would be good if you could be honest about what your motives are so you could be trusted.

What "motives" to do what? Do you mean my motives for speaking out against eternal suffering? Try to be more coherent when swiping. 🙂

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
It's not a question of what we "deserve". We deserve nothing but have chosen to accept a grace gift which is eternal...

Earlier in the thread you continually refused to state whether or not you agreed with RJHinds, now you are saying "it's not a matter of deserves" you seem to contradicting his accusation that I "deserve to burn in hell for all eternity" for not believing the doctrine of eternal suffering?

So do you agree with him or not?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
No one ever succeeds communicating information beyond what the hearer/reader has acquired the capacity to understand.

Edit Note: Which begins with a genuine desire to know.

Oh I see, you are reticent express your views on eternal suffering and Hinds claim that I deserve to be in eternal hell because... I would struggle to comprehend you?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I suspect you are mischaracterizing what went on in the thread.

Lemon lime has been caught out lying on more than one occiasion; his tactic of talking around something rather than address it head on is becoming legendary. You can see from his interactions in the last couple of pages that when pressed on a matter he adopts the pose that he doesn't want to discuss the matter, has no interest in the topic or doesn't trust his correspondent enough to share his views. It's quite amusing, if a little frustrating at the same time.

Originally posted by divegeester
Earlier in the thread you continually refused to state whether or not you agreed with RJHinds, now you are saying "it's not a matter of deserves" you seem to contradicting his accusation that I "deserve to burn in hell for all eternity" for not believing the doctrine of eternal suffering?

So do you agree with him or not?

RJHinds, you and I agree on all topics and questions to the extent that our viewpoints are in alignment with the absolute truths revealed in the Word of God. His omniscience knows precisely where each of us is correct, in error or confused.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
RJHinds, you and I agree on all topics and questions to the extent that our viewpoints are in alignment with the absolute truths revealed in the Word of God. His omniscience knows precisely where each of us is correct, in error or confused.

I'm sorry my understanding limited.

Originally posted by divegeester
Oh I see, you are reticent express your views on eternal suffering and Hinds claim that I deserve to be in eternal hell because... I would struggle to comprehend you?

Originally posted by divegeester
"Oh I see, you are reticent express your views on eternal suffering and Hinds claim that I deserve to be in eternal hell because... I would struggle to comprehend you?"
________________________________________

Many who contribute to this forum have previously expressed their views on "eternal suffering" including the two of us:

"How can a God of love send anybody to Hell?" Thread 160245

"The Great White Throne Judgment" Thread 157295

We all "comprehend" biblical truth to the extent that our frames of reference are informed from doctrine already assimilated. In the Koine Greek of the New Testament "epignosis" [knowledge built upon knowledge] is used in this context rather than "gnosis" to describe the progressive building block nature of learning the Word of God with the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why didn't you just come out and say you didn't want to discuss it the first time round? Why did you instead go off on a tangent attempting to make false accusations about me?

[b]It was a year or so ago, so I'm not going to waste time or effort trying to find it. humy was backing you up and also ignoring the fact I was saying time and not space, so I s ...[text shortened]... mply jerking me around.
And I suspect you are mischaracterizing what went on in the thread.[/b]

And I suspect you are mischaracterizing what went on in the thread.

And I suspect you won't go there to see for yourself.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Let me help you out:

Originally posted by lemon lime
I goofed again.

You frequently confused space and time and were very unclear about what exactly you were trying to say.

I goofed this time too... the thread is called "Galaxy Riddle", not Galaxy.

I think maybe it's you who were confused. I don't know how you could have looked at the word "time" and thought you were seeing "space".