- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by divegeester
When you said "I think God wants me to..." It wasn't God urging you, it was actually just you, preferring to, wasn't it?
We walk by faith. And I have no intention to assume necessarily that God is not leading me so. I do pray much before and after posting usually.
You'll only get a "maybe" or "maybe not" on that question.
It is you who misrepresented your urging from God - by saying "I think God wants me to..."
No, I think I need to remind myself of Paul's words about God's economy being what is important.
" Even as I exhorted you, when I was going into Macedonia to remain in Ephesus in order that you might charge certain ones not to teach different things
Nor to give heed to myths and unending genealogies, which produce questions rather than God's economy, which is in faith." ( 1 Tim. 1:1,2)
If you wish let's just say I was reminded of this word. In principle Christian may be led off to teach insignificant things compared to God's OIKONOMIA - His economy which is in the realm of faith.
God's economy is the household management of His house. The compound word means something like "law of the house". The law of God's house is the operation of His dispensing and distributing Himself into man. And for this His triune nature is inextricably involved.
So I will talk more about the Trinity and how God's nature is related to His economy and the building up of His house.
If you do not wish to take my cautionary return to God's economy as a personal leading of the Spirit of God, fine. Take it merely as me being reminded of the Apostle Paul's reminder to Timothy that he charge other workers to give heed to God's economy (1 Timothy 1:3,4).
Genealogies there, i take as only a representative subject. It could be other subjects peripherally related to God's economy, which might be a distraction from living in the realm of faith.
18 Aug 16
Originally posted by divegeester"If a person rejects the doctrine of the trinity, does this preclude then from being filled with the spirit of Christ, and therefore, also from eternal life?"
My I assured question is not about further exegesis into the godhead. Can I ask you the question Suzianne, perhaps you will answer...
If a person rejects the doctrine of the trinity, does this preclude then from being filled with the spirit of Christ, and therefore (according to sonship's interpretation), also from eternal life?
Straight up answer to the question posed to me: No, of course not. But you already knew this; it should be apparent to anyone.
This being said, why do you spend seemingly every waking hour on this site bothering him with this question day and night? Are you concerned for your salvation? Do you really entertain the idea that this might be the case? I doubt it. You'd rather moan about this so constantly that everyone wishes you'd finally drop it and shut up about it. We know you don't take it seriously, all you are concerned about is taking someone who disagrees with you to task and forcing them, through sheer doberman-like tenacity and vehemence, to "take back" what they said about you. And THAT is the only point you want to make here. You're not even concerned with actually discussing this with him, you just want a "take-down" and that is ALL you care about. This is the kind of crap you used to do to GB, and it's getting rather sickening. And you talk the talk (without walking the walk) about promoting "debate and discussion" all the while you deny this to others. You've been on him for months about this now. This ONE LITTLE POINT that has ZERO to do with ACTUAL salvation, simply because all you are interested in is "taking-down" someone who generally disagrees with you often enough to offend your sense of self-importance and who manages to get under your rather thin skin. You also love to talk about the "horrible" behaviors and principles of other posters. Well, this is the one behavior of yours I find utterly horrible and repugnant. And that's why I speak out about it when I see it happening. The one thing I'd like to see you get through your thick skull is that IT IS NOT A "CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY" TO DISAGREE WITH YOU.
18 Aug 16
Originally posted by SuzianneWow! Has someone upset you Suzianne?
[b]"If a person rejects the doctrine of the trinity, does this preclude then from being filled with the spirit of Christ, and therefore, also from eternal life?"
Straight up answer to the question posed to me: No, of course not. But you already knew this; it should be apparent to anyone.
This being said, why do you spend seemingly every waking h ...[text shortened]... get through your thick skull is that IT IS NOT A "CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY" TO DISAGREE WITH YOU.[/b]
Originally posted by SuzianneHow on earth would I "already know" what your answer would be; do you think I'm psychic?
Straight up answer to the question posed to me: No, of course not. But you already knew this; it should be apparent to anyone.
As for it being "apparent to anyone", clearly it is not apparent to sonship as he finds himself completely nonplussed by the question.
Thank you for you straightforward and enequivocal response. It's really not that difficult is it. 🙂
18 Aug 16
Originally posted by SuzianneYou seem to lack understanding of what this forum is for. This is a debate and discussion forum where people exchange and argue over spiritual ideas, concepts and their beliefs. It's not a knitting club.
This being said, why do you spend seemingly every waking hour on this site bothering him with this question day and night? Are you concerned for your salvation? Do you really entertain the idea that this might be the case? I doubt it. You'd rather moan about this so constantly that everyone wishes you'd finally drop it and shut up about it. We k ...[text shortened]... get through your thick skull is that IT IS NOT A "CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY" TO DISAGREE WITH YOU.
I've advised you dozens and dozens of times, if you are unhappy with my posting and feel that I am in breach of the sites posting rules, then you should alert my posts to the moderation team immediately. All this angry tub-thumping just makes you look like you can't controls your emotions.
Originally posted by SuzianneThis being said, why do you spend seemingly every waking hour on this site bothering him with this question day and night? Are you concerned for your salvation? Do you really entertain the idea that this might be the case? I doubt it. You'd rather moan about this so constantly that everyone wishes you'd finally drop it and shut up about it. We know you don't take it seriously, all you are concerned about is taking someone who disagrees with you to task and forcing them, through sheer doberman-like tenacity and vehemence, to "take back" what they said about you. And THAT is the only point you want to make here. You're not even concerned with actually discussing this with him, you just want a "take-down" and that is ALL you care about. This is the kind of crap you used to do to GB, and it's getting rather sickening. And you talk the talk (without walking the walk) about promoting "debate and discussion" all the while you deny this to others. You've been on him for months about this now. This ONE LITTLE POINT that has ZERO to do with ACTUAL salvation, simply because all you are interested in is "taking-down" someone who generally disagrees with you often enough to offend your sense of self-importance and who manages to get under your rather thin skin. You also love to talk about the "horrible" behaviors and principles of other posters. Well, this is the one behavior of yours I find utterly horrible and repugnant. And that's why I speak out about it when I see it happening. The one thing I'd like to see you get through your thick skull is that IT IS NOT A "CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY" TO DISAGREE WITH YOU.
Imagine if it wasn't just you who posts like this. Imagine if there were 2, 3 or 4 people posting the way you do.
Originally posted by sonshipYou seem to be attributing the fact that Suzianne has a different opinion from you to her gender.
Many Christian sisters are often more experiential and subjective and not as much into doctrinal analysis as brothers are prone to be.
I appreciate this sister's participation.
Originally posted by FMFThat is exactly what he's doing.
You seem to be attributing the fact that Suzianne has a different opinion from you to her gender.
Suzianne has an opinion on my question, and to her credit she has come out and stated it irrespective of it probably being contrary to what sonship is too timid to articulate; and sonship has patronisingly dismissed it as being driven by her gender not being particularly suited to researching scripture.
Extraordinary.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by divegeesterIts not sexist. i said "many". This leave plenty of room for there being exceptions.
What an extraordinarily sexist comment to make.
Sounds like you're just hunting for fault. If it is not one complaint, its another.
Besides "more experiential" is commendable about Christian sisters.
.
Originally posted by sonshipYou seem to be attributing the fact that Suzianne has a different opinion from you to her gender and then claiming it's OK because you've left "plenty of room for there being exceptions".
Its not sexist. i said "many". This leave plenty of room for there being exceptions..
Originally posted by sonshipIt is my contention that you hold some strange beliefs sonship; this sexism thing is just the curtain flapping open on another one. "Leaving room for exceptions" to your sweeping generalisation does not excuse you from stereotyping women as being less inclined to carry out scriptural research - a claim which is certainly not Biblically supported and is rooted in religious misogyny.
Its not sexist. i said "many". This leave plenty of room for there being exceptions.
Sounds like you're just hunting for fault. If it is not one complaint, its another.
Besides "more experiential" is commendable about Christian sisters.
.
I think Suzianne has been as frustrated with your prevaricating over my question about your apparent linking of salvation with acceptance of the trinity doctrine as I have been, and her post above is more representative of her wanting to draw a definitive line under it when you will not. Unfortunately her unequivocal reply does not match what you believe and you have decided to gently put her in her place with your insulting sexist post.
You can bleat all you like about my "complaints" sonship, I am commenting on what you post.