16 Sep 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydHere is as good example of the smiley face disease.
Nothing. But what makes you assume that there were any toddlers alive at the moment the flood happened? 🙂 Couldn't there have been only people over the age of accountability when the flood occurred?
Ridiculous statement + Smiley face = Sensible statement
Well done Pinky. You win.
16 Sep 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI dont think you understand Dr S.
Do you think giraffes are generally more or less wicked than toddlers?
No giraffes died in the flood.
God knew the time of the flood was going to happen, so He must have made sure there was only one pair of giraffes.
You get it?
At the time of the flood there were only evil people and no animals except one pair each.
16 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister"Good plan , at some later date you can then claim I have "misrepresented" you , yes?"
Yes ,I know KM is stupid and deceitful ..blah blah..but all the time the core issues are not explored. I am the one who wants to go forward into exploring the discussion ,YOU are the one who is stalling.
Can you not come up with some other way of not answering the question? It would at least make it more interesting.
I guess you are not going the hell , one last try......
Do you believe in the active Father God that Jesus taught?
At a later date, when I claim that you have misrepresented me it will because you have as you have on this thread as this follows. Why the pretense that you haven't?:
Specifically we are talking about this statement that you made:
"The Jews were also stuck in the merit/salvation cycle (eg ToO)..."
I responded:
"I do not believe in the "merit/salvation" conceptual model of the Jews and what that usually entails. I believe that Jesus taught salvation through righteousness. I believe that Jesus taught salvation through transformation"
You responded:
"So do I. I just think it's Jesus that does the transforming via the Holy Spirit and not ourselves independently. It's a team effort initiated by grace through faith. But on the transformation issue we are agreement. I think we just disagree on whether it's God that does the transforming."
You responded:
"Yes , you did clarify that you were into transformation and not merit based salvation."
I responded:
"Not only did I clarify it on this thread, I've had to clarify it for months because you've repeatedly made similar false assertions on this topic."
For months now, you've insisted on being deceitful by misrepresenting my position.
Do you really want to insist on making stupid assertion after stupid assertion?
16 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI think you two lovers should get some professional help.... 😀
[b]"Good plan , at some later date you can then claim I have "misrepresented" you , yes?"
At a later date, when I claim that you have misrepresented me it will because you have as you have on this thread as this follows. Why the pretense that you haven't?:
Specifically we are talking about this statement that you made:
"The Jews were also s really want to insist on making stupid assertion after stupid assertion?[/b]
16 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf you remember the main problem I had with your position was that it was perfectionist in the sense that you seemed to say that only 100% transformation was acceptable.(not 99% )
[b]"Good plan , at some later date you can then claim I have "misrepresented" you , yes?"
At a later date, when I claim that you have misrepresented me it will because you have as you have on this thread as this follows. Why the pretense that you haven't?:
Specifically we are talking about this statement that you made:
"The Jews were also s really want to insist on making stupid assertion after stupid assertion?
It seemed that for you it wasn't enough that a man was in the process of transformation , it had to be completed to perfection before he could be accepted and saved by God.
There is also the issue of how that transformation takes place (God's grace versus human effort) and whether the Holy Spirit was involved at all.
Consistently you have claimed that ANY sin at all is just not good enough to be saved and that God therefore requires perfection. It's a logical implication of your previous statements.
It was this (and the fact that you are so anti -grace) that leads me to believe that you are into merit based salvation. You don't seem to believe that God is able to save by grace. But then if you don't believe in an active God then that's not possible for you anyway.
Do you see how this question is important? If you do not believe in an active God then such a God cannot save by grace , but then again how can one "love God with all your heart and soul and mind" if you don't believe he is even there?
Belief that God is there as an active , living Father is therefore essential to follow Jesus's central most important commandment. And since you seem more than slightly interested in the commandments of Jesus I ask you again...
Do you believe in the active , living Father God that Jesus preached?
(If the answer is no then why all this silly talk about Jesus and his commandments , as if you know so much about it. Unless you can answer yes to this question you have no authority to criticise others because you will have denied the central theme of Jesus's life , that we should love his Father and follow His will)
16 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterEvidently you do really want to insist on making stupid assertion after stupid assertion.
If you remember the main problem I had with your position was that it was perfectionist in the sense that you seemed to say that only 100% transformation was acceptable.(not 99% )
It seemed that for you it wasn't enough that a man was in the process of transformation , it had to be completed to perfection before he could be accepted and saved by G ...[text shortened]... e central theme of Jesus's life , that we should love his Father and follow His will)
16 Sep 08
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI'm not the one who is basing my whole position on the teachings and commandments of Jesus whilst at the same time seemingly denying the very existence of the Father God Jesus preached.
Evidently you do really want to insist on making stupid assertion after stupid assertion.
How dumb is that?
You have made the commandments of Jesus the cornerstone of your position.
But Jesus commanded and taught that we love his Father with all our heart and mind. Not only that , he taught that this was the greatest commandment.
However, I strongly suspect that you don't even believe that Jesus had a Father God. If you did you would just say so.
This makes a nonsense of your position because if you deny Jesus has a Father you deny him , it's his whole identity and message.
But hey , what do I know , I'm just a "liar" full of "stupid assertions".
Anyone looking at this exchange will have to ask themselves "hmmmm, I wonder why ToO just won't answer the question?"
I know the answer though. You are playing with and manipulating Jesus to make him into an axe to grind with Christians.
If you answer the question simply you will be exposed , and you can never allow that to happen because I don't think you even know what you are doing. I don't really expect an answer from you , I knew all along that you couldn't answer. I just wanted to watch you duck and dive and hope you could spot yourself doing it too.
So do you or do you not believe in the active Father God that Jesus commanded we should love?
16 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterEvidently you really want to continue to insist on making stupid assertion after stupid assertion.
I'm not the one who is basing my whole position on the teachings and commandments of Jesus whilst at the same time seemingly denying the very existence of the Father God Jesus preached.
How dumb is that?
You have made the commandments of Jesus the cornerstone of your position.
But Jesus commanded and taught that we love his Father with al ...[text shortened]... r do you not believe in the active Father God that Jesus commanded we should love?