Christianity Today

@suzianne said
"Working out their own salvation"?

You endlessly claim to people like Rajk that doing "good works" doesn't earn anyone their salvation.

Now you claim that people can "work out their own salvation"?

Who are these unique people? Republicans? Can they BUY their own salvation too?

Jesus Christ is our salvation, not our works or our money; you rely on either of those you are going to come up short. Who said anything about anyone buying their salvation? I said we are all to do what we can with what we have; you have time, you have money, you care for the needs of those around you, you take care of them as you can. Republicans and Democrats are both political affiliations neither of them is more righteous than the other, both are worldly groups, and neither adds to or takes away from anyone’s righteousness, if you don’t have Jesus Christ you will die in your sins period, unless you go to Him, Jesus and Jesus alone is our Redeemer.

@kellyjay said
We are a thread called ”Christianity Today” talking about WL.

And, lest we forget, you have been assiduously dodging the OP of this thread, as well.

@fmf said
And, lest we forget, you have been assiduously dodging the OP of this thread, as well.

That is because Kellyjay puts his politics above his religion .
He belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ Hypocricists .

@kellyjay said
Yea, that is on me just read any posts prior to my own. Should I start looking for the one post you responded to in "A Former Jehovah Witness's Memoir" there are only 16 pages to choose from, how about "The Wisdom of Witness Lee" there are only 1215 pages to choose from, there has been chatter on the topic in "Christianity Today" there are only 89 pages to go through, how ab ...[text shortened]... got your context from was in "Did Jesus sin?" only 141 pages to look at.

You are a piece of work.

You interjected into a conversation between Sonship and myself 'directly' after I had provided the full quote and SonShip himself had provided the context.

You immediately accused me of putting words into Lee's mouth and not providing a quote or context. (Clearly demonstrating you had not read a single post in the thread before responding to mine).

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You interjected into a conversation between Sonship and myself 'directly' after I had provided the full quote and SonShip himself had provided the context.

You immediately accused me of putting words into Lee's mouth and not providing a quote or context. (Clearly demonstrating you had not read a single post in the thread before responding to mine).

Yes, and from what I saw that was exactly what you did, and as of right now I still feel that way. This is a public board people jump into and out of conversations all the time here Duke. I asked politely several times for the context, I even acknowledged you could be right but in order to know, I'd have to see the context, you didn't point to where it was, you simply said go there without me knowing where it occurred. This another Duke rule, before you can say anything about anything your required to read the whole thread and any other possible thread that may be the genesis of any conversation? I don't think so.

@kellyjay said
Yes, and from what I saw that was exactly what you did, and as of right now I still feel that way. This is a public board people jump into and out of conversations all the time here Duke. I asked politely several times for the context, I even acknowledged you could be right but in order to know, I'd have to see the context, you didn't point to where it was, you simply said ...[text shortened]... thread and any other possible thread that may be the genesis of any conversation? I don't think so.

The quote and context were literally 'right there' just a post or two before your own.

It is not my job to accommodate your laziness.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
The quote and context were literally 'right there' just a post or two before your own.

It is not my job to accommodate your laziness.

I would have known that how?

@kellyjay said
I would have known that how?

By reading the thread?


Look Kelly, you are the one stressing the importance of context. When you appear in a thread and respond to one post, without reading the posts that led up to it, it is you that run the risk of missing the context of the post you are responding to (which is what happened in this instance, and others).

@ghost-of-a-duke said
By reading the thread?

Or ask a friend for help, but I guess that one was a little to much, instead call me lazy or some of the other things you have said.

@kellyjay said
Or ask a friend for help, but I guess that one was a little to much, instead call me lazy or some of the other things you have said.

Refer to my edit.

@kellyjay said
Or ask a friend for help, but I guess that one was a little to much, instead call me lazy or some of the other things you have said.

Is 'lazy' worse than 'worthless,' 'ignorant,' or 'pond scum? '

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Is 'lazy' worse than 'worthless,' 'ignorant,' or 'pond scum? '

Did I call you pond scum? Ignorant is not an insult, it is a state of not having information.

@kellyjay said
Did I call you pond scum? Ignorant is not an insult, it is a state of not having information.

Did you read my edit? Do you agree with it?

'Look Kelly, you are the one stressing the importance of context. When you appear in a thread and respond to one post, without reading the posts that led up to it, it is you that run the risk of missing the context of the post you are responding to (which is what happened in this instance, and others). '

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Is 'lazy' worse than 'worthless,' 'ignorant,' or 'pond scum? '

You know, never mind, I know longer care what and why you said the things you did on that topic, it isn't worth the effort or grief getting past your justifying your need to hold back information.

@kellyjay said
Ignorant is not an insult, it is a state of not having information.

In which case laziness is not an insult, it is a state of not having energy.