@fmf saidWhy should I ask him?
Why don't you ask him? He has been stonewalling this kind of thing for years and years.
I am curious, why does the question of his belief on this tickle you so much?
@philokalia saidYou also thought Romans1009 was one of the best posters ~ in fact, THE best poster here out of those who posted high volume. Thanks for your evaluations. Very interesting.
Sonship is one of the best posters here, and he does it at a very high volume while being attacked & nit picked.
@philokalia saidIt's a debate and discussion forum. Two things, among many other things, that I find interesting are: [1] the effect that religiosity can have on a person's integrity in terms of intellectual and interpersonal behaviour, and [2] people who propagate morally incoherent creeds because of their superstitious nature [i.e. their belief in supernatural causality]. These things come together in discussions about this belief about torture and ideology and morality and - what often seems to me to be - unprincipled groupism.
I am curious, why does the question of his belief on this tickle you so much?
@fmf saidYou might actually want to consider that people do not want to engage with those who think they are just going effort trolls.
It's a debate and discussion forum. Two things, among many other things, that I find interesting are: [1] the effect that religiosity can have on a person's integrity in terms of intellectual and interpersonal behaviour, and [2] people who propagate morally incoherent creeds because of their superstitious nature [i.e. their belief in supernatural causality]. These things come tog ...[text shortened]... about torture and ideology and morality and - what often seems to me to be - unprincipled groupism.
Thus, when people choose to not interact with someone in a certain way it is not actually a dubious move meant to protect their ideology but rather just a choice to not get bogged down in another person's muck.
And that's healthy. No one should be subjected to trolls.
Indeed, you find these words in the mouth of our savior, and I think they sum up tthis sort of situation well:
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Matthew 7:6
Sometimes a person chooses to be standoffish or disengages not because the arguments are problematic but because the soruce of the arguments cannot be trusted to act in good faith.
@philokalia saidPeople can engage with whoever they want. It's also your prerogative to call people "trolls" if you so wish. One of the biggest, creepiest "trolls" this community has ever seen was Romans1009. I said so at the time. Go ahead: engage whoever you want and call people "trolls". It's the internet.
You might actually want to consider that people do not want to engage with those who think they are just going effort trolls.
@philokalia saidYou're right, maybe I should ignore other people's superstitious "muck" and ideologies sometimes. I am more active at certain times; less so at others. There are people I choose to not interact with too.
Thus, when people choose to not interact with someone in a certain way it is not actually a dubious move meant to protect their ideology but rather just a choice to not get bogged down in another person's muck.
@philokalia saidTheir silence or evasiveness or reluctance - these things are all part of the discourse. People can make of it what they want. People can make what they want of my stances and what I say and don't say.
Sometimes a person chooses to be standoffish or disengages not because the arguments are problematic but because the soruce of the arguments cannot be trusted to act in good faith.
I always 'act in good faith', so to speak, when I post here and I always have. I am candid; I am consistent; I take responsibility for everything I say - stretching back however many years you want; I don't reply in kind when I cop trash talk ~ like chaney3's, or sonship's or Suzianne's or Romans1009's earlier this year. People are well advised to 'act in good faith' and be true to themselves in a community like this.
@philokalia saidchaney3 is a "troll" when he's drunk. Romans1009 was a "troll" 90% of the time. Duchess64 is a "troll", I reckon. I agree that nobody should be subjected to those kinds of posters. Ah yes, but you rated Romans1009 as the best poster on the Spirituality Forum. I suppose one community's "troll", is another man's "best poster". But I agree in principle, no one should be subjected to "trolls".
No one should be subjected to trolls.
@suzianne saidYou’re hiding behind silly response and I will prove it. Let me ask you the same question and see if you know, from sonship’s replies, what his position is.
Yet again, even more dodging the answer.
Q. Does sonship agree with the position of his church’s statement of beliefs which I’ve posted in my OP. Yes or no?
@secondson saidSame question to you then.
@Suzianne
"Dodging the answer". Why didn't I think of that? 😉
Does sonship agree with his church’s statement of beliefs of not?
@philokalia saidThe statement of belief in sonship’s chirch regarding the qualification for salvation is absolutely unequivocal. It is written in the OP. If you are suggesting that the statement doesn’t mean what is written then you need to show very clearly how.
Not at all.
The small disagreement is whether or not Sonship believes such a thing needs to be in a statement of Faith for the Church, not whether or not it is relevant to personal salvation.
A statement of Faith does not have to literally be a manifesto on the Trinity, and what the relevance is...
... And believing that God's mercy is generally extended to non-Tr ...[text shortened]... at he needs to find a new church, or that he is breaking some big thing with his church.
Do you?
@philokalia saidBut you said Romans1009 was one of the best posters here and he was banned for being a creepy stalker who posted about children getting drunk and having sexual liaisons in pubs.
I do not understand what is debilitating.
Sonship is one of the best posters here, and he does it at a very high volume while being attacked & nit picked. I have no idea how he does it because, even now, we are seeing the 'torture' card pulled out -- a trope that has been red hot in this forum for months, and largely one of the reasons why my volume cut down.
Please read this post with an open mind and don’t let your dislike of me get in the way...
**********************************************************
I agree with FMF’s assessment on the previous page that the Local Church group is a cult and sonship is trapped in it.
Sonship is very forthright on most topics except this one (and a couple of others) about the link between salvation and a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity.
Having read the Local Church’s statement of belief in its entirety and having observed sonship’s behaviour on this topic for the last three years, I am absolutely convinced that sonship’s church is a cult. I say this in no forum spite, no debating angle, just pure observation.
Sonship’s posting is observed, it is watched over, I.e. he has a mentor of sorts. I have personally seen this person chip in on occasion, comment on sonship’s monologues in a coaching style and then the posts get deleted.
What we see in this thread is the culmination of three years of furtiveness by sonship around this topic of salvation being linked to a stated belief in the trinity.
It is my opinion that sonship doesn’t believe this...BUT HE CANNOT STATE IT BECAUSE HE’S IN A CULT! He is not permitted to openly disagree with the statement of belief.
Hence, 3 years of unequiocation, dodging obfuscation the question:
“Sonship, if I reject the teaching of the trinity will I be precluded from salvation?”
I am pretty sure every single Christian here would respond with something like“no, as long as you believe in the deity of Christ’s and his atoning sacrifice, you repent and accept Jesus as your saviour.”
Or words to that effect.
What the Local Church statement of belief says in my OP is an unequivocal answer to the question above. So why doesn’t sonship simply follow its direction?
Beware of the cults people. Beware of holding on harder to precious doctrines than you are to Jesus Christ.
Post script:
There is lot of reading on the internet about the controversies surrounding the “Local Churches”, the group’s doctrines and governance. I suggest those interested look for themselves.
Later and in another thread I would like to discuss modalism with sonship, and wether his church adopts that construct of the Godhead and wether he himself is in alignment with it.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@divegeester
I think you are really beating a dead horse.
But since I have both voluntarily linked to Statements of Faith and commented on your specimen of a Belief Statement from 1978, I REQUEST THAT YOU RECIPROCATE.
May we see a Belief Statement with the Christians that YOU have met with or meet with ?
Have you NEVER met with Christians with whom you could share some kind of Statement of Beliefs ?