Spirituality
14 Jul 18
Originally posted by @caljustThink not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:34-37 KJV)
Came across this quote from Hans Küng at the Goedgedacht Inter-Faith Chapel near Cape Town:
"No peace among the Nations
without peace among the Religions.
No survival for our globe
without a Global Ethic"
Comments?
14 Jul 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneI've addressed each point you have brought up as far as I'm concern, but that is not saying
Please address my response to you prior to this one.
I've actually addressed the point you brought up. I may have missed, misunderstood your
point, I'll lay the fault with me not you. If there is point I have not addressed, if you do not
mind ask it again. If I did address it or not, I'll leave it to you.
14 Jul 18
Originally posted by @kellyjayRather than address the post that was in response to yours, you inexplicably responded to a post I addressed to Eladar,
I've addressed each point you have brought up as far as I'm concern, but that is not saying
I've actually addressed the point you brought up. I may have missed, misunderstood your
point, I'll lay the fault with me not you. If there is point I have not addressed, if you do not
mind ask it again. If I did address it or not, I'll leave it to you.
I suppose I could repost it here for you, but then you'd be missing the context of the post to which I was responding.
Not sure why you often refuse to take the time to understand and correct your mistakes.
14 Jul 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneWell, unless I know I've made a mistake why would I address it?
Rather than address the post that was in response to yours, you inexplicably responded to a post I addressed to Eladar,
I suppose I could repost it here for you, but then you'd be missing the context of the post to which I was responding.
Not sure why you often refuse to take the time to understand and correct your mistakes.
Everything I have seen as a point I have addressed, so show me my error, if I made one I
will address it.
Being vague on this isn't advancing this discussion.
14 Jul 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneThat you can decent if his point has merit. He does not answer to you and you do not have the ability to judge his statement.
What exactly about my post makes me "so self important and arrogant"?
You are beyond belief. I suppose all liberals suffer from self delusional importance.
14 Jul 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneWhat you are trying to do is justify the term Christian to automatically mean someone
Not sure what point you're trying to make.
Amongst Christians there is wide disparity as to what God's "ethical standards" might be. That's just a fact.
As such, it's clear that Christians are not of "one spirit". That's also just a fact.
It might help if you directly answer the question instead of talking around it:
<<Given that, how can God's "ethical standards" be reasonably determined?>>
right with God, that is not the case. Those that are right with God, are as I have said, are
right due to Jesus Christ, what they share is the Spirit of God within. You can call yourself
a Christian and not have Jesus in your life. You cannot be right with God without Jesus
Christ, it is as simple as that, nothing disjointed or incoherent about that.
There it is now directly responding to your post not someone else, the message is the
same. Christians are in one Spirit, not everyone who calls themselves Christian have
the Spirit of God.
14 Jul 18
Originally posted by @kellyjayOnce again, it might help if you directly answer the following question instead of talking around it:
What you are trying to do is justify the term Christian to automatically mean someone
right with God, that is not the case. Those that are right with God, are as I have said, are
right due to Jesus Christ, what they share is the Spirit of God within. You can call yourself
a Christian and not have Jesus in your life. You cannot be right with God witho ...[text shortened]... ristians are in one Spirit, not everyone who calls themselves Christian have
the Spirit of God.
<<Given that, how can God's "ethical standards" be reasonably determined?>>
15 Jul 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneWhen you read one in the Spirit what do you think is being said?
Once again, it might help if you directly answer the following question instead of talking around it:
<<Given that, how can God's "ethical standards" be reasonably determined?>>
16 Jul 18
Originally posted by @caljustit does not actually make that much sense.
Came across this quote from Hans Küng at the Goedgedacht Inter-Faith Chapel near Cape Town:
"No peace among the Nations
without peace among the Religions.
No survival for our globe
without a Global Ethic"
Comments?
Generally speaking, religion is a thin pretext for the increase of secular power. It is possible to find small riots and upheavals related only to "religious" purposes, but even here it will often involve some element of class warfare like that of the pogroms in the Ukraine in the late 19th and early 20th century.
It is just a very ahistorical statement that indicts religion as a source of evil.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @thinkofoneGood debate for you ThinkOfOne IMO
On Historical Evidence.
92 Debate - Kenneth Humphreys vs Gary Habermas - Was The Resurrection An Invention - 2008
16 Jul 18
Originally posted by @sonshipI'm genunely surprised you can't tell the difference between hostility and apparent hostility after having known ToO for so long. He did gift you a sub not so long ago.
Are the little sensational bombs you like to drop here less arrogant than the stuff ThinkOfOne writes ?