Originally posted by FMFOh, you bad ol puuty cat, there there, its not so bad, nor is it intended to be a personal insult, i truly believe you are delusional based on your claims and until you are able to quell these disquieting thought within me with anything remotely resembling evidence, am i not entitled to feel justified in my claims 😀
More personal insults. What a surprise.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo personal insults - followed by no apology. Some Christian, eh?
Oh, you bad ol puuty cat, there there, its not so bad, nor is it intended to be a personal insult, i truly believe you are delusional based on your claims and until you are able to quell these disquieting thought within me with anything remotely resembling evidence, am i not entitled to feel justified in my claims 😀
Originally posted by FMFOh great and illustrious one, you have uttered forth a meandering of statements for which you have provided no basis, is it not delusional to do so, is it insulting to bring this to someones attention, i say nay! on the contrary, you should be thanking me rather than begging for an apology. i have absolutely no problem in issuing forth an apology when i am in error, for i cannot see where it lays in this instance.
So personal insults - followed by no apology. Some Christian, eh?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTrying to create some link between disagreeing with you and not being able to take responsibility for my family?
Oh great and illustrious one, you have uttered forth a meandering of statements for which you have provided no basis, is it not delusional to do so, is it insulting to bring this to someones attention, i say nay! on the contrary, you should be thanking me rather than begging for an apology. i have absolutely no problem in issuing forth an apology when i am in error, for i cannot see where it lays in this instance.
Originally posted by FMFI never insinuated for one moment that you could not take care of your family, no not once, I merely stated that responsibilities make for sobriety, if you wish to infer that this is a personal attack on you then so be it, but i can assure you, there was no such impropriety intended, nor can you impute such!
Trying to create some link between disagreeing with you and not being able to take responsibility for my family?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou posted what you posted. You have a nasty streak for one who reckons himself to be so funny. I will not reply to any more of your posts.
I never insinuated for one moment that you could not take care of your family, no not once, I merely stated that responsibilities make for sobriety, if you wish to infer that this is a personal attack on you then so be it, but i can assure you, there was no such impropriety intended, nor can you impute such!
This darn thread is sixteen pages long, and still not a shred of evidence from Mr. FMF.
Here's how "debate" works, Mr. FMF:
Whomever makes a claim has the burden of proof.
Two rules of critical thinking:
1. Big claims require big evidences.
2. That which is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
For at least 95% of Christians, the Book of Revelation is canonical. So, for the Christian, the "default" position is that it really is canonical.
Jaywill and Robbie have written many, many detailed posts in this thread defending their position of why they think that the Book of Revelation is canonical. Now, of course you can reject everything they've said as just so much claptrap if you wish. But, unlike you, they are at least giving arguments for their position. After sixteen pages and a zillion (give or take) posts, you haven't cited even one reference to document your postion. (If I missed one, please let me know and I'll retract that last statement.)
This isn't even a debate. Jaywill and Robbie are constructing arguments, and Mr. FMF pretty much does nothing but answer questions with questions.
Everyone will be happy to know that I won't post on this thread anymore unless I'm asked a specific question, or if a mistake I've made has been pointed out so I can retract it.
Cheers,
Chuck
Originally posted by FMF============================
I said nothing of the sort. This dishonest debating style of yours is becoming incessant.
I said nothing of the sort. This dishonest debating style of yours is becoming incessant.
====================================
Okay. I retract that. You did not state that there were no scary warnings in Matthew. But I get the distinct impression that you have a "Matthew ... OK" verses "Revelation ... fanciful, difficult, fire and brimestone, prone to terrorize" attitude.
Be fair. Isn't that how you are coming across?
So I point out that Matthew has some sobering warnings also. Look at chapter 24. I don't know if the "Sermon on the Mount" is all you intend to accept from Matthew's Gospel.
To put it bluntly, Yea Revelation has some fire and brimestone judgments. But Matthew is not without sobering warnings of like nature.
But you know. I am happy that at least you accept Matthew's Gospel as the oracles of God.
For now, I'll take that. Good enough. I opened to the entire Bible gradually over a long course of time myself.
Maybe the day will come when you see Revelation as so sweet and precious a word of God as I now do.
Originally posted by gaychessplayerThat the Book Of Revelation is divinely inspired is a "big claim" and, to someone objective, it's preposterous a claim too. Jaywill is arguing his corner, Robbie just thinks he's funny and hurls insults. You say nothing at all. Jaywill cites his own belief as proof, asserts things and attributes them to me so that he can "disprove" them with quotes from the text itself. That which is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
Two rules of critical thinking:
1. Big claims require big evidences.
2. That which is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
Without Revelation as a last book of the Bible what might we know about the climax of God's salvation and human history ?
What would Christians take as a final word ? I think we would be left in the dark.
The book of Revelation is a conclusion and consummation of the divine revelation. I do not intend anyone to rob me of its prize.
Christ is consumate and final in Revelation. The New Jerusalem is a clear conclusion to all of God's activity throughout earth's history.
Those who are interested, I would like to open another thread on the Bible's conclusion in Revelation.
Who is for it ?
Originally posted by jaywillYou have repeatedly attributed claims and theories to me that I did not make. You appear to have done this so that you could slot into the text-quoting routines that remind me of my son.
I am not dishonest in this discussion.
I have no dishonesty to apologize for.