Spirituality
08 Aug 14
28 Aug 14
Originally posted by divegeesterI have changed nothing, your opinion in this regard is meaningless, you were telling us why in the case that i provided that cigarettes not being explicitly stated in scripture means that the argument to desist from them is not valid.
But earlier in this thread I challenged you when you tried to initially support Galveston and you said
[b]"I am not interested in anything than what is written in scripture"
But now on the previous page you are saying:
that something is not explicitly written in scripture is neither here nor there
You seem to be changing your opinion quite dramatically as you wriggle to support Galveston's "self certified opinion".[/b]
28 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesteryou were telling us why something not being explicitly stated in scripture has any bearing to its veracity, i provided an example, lets see you wriggle and squirm from this one.
Are you now being deliberately obtuse as a tactic? Those reading this are well aware that Galveston has not supported his self certified opinion that the tree of life was destroyed with the garden of Eden in Noah's flood. I'm contending with him because he hasn't supported it in scripture. That he has not claimed it was supported in scripture is irrelevant and actually obvious - because it isn't!
Keep trying.
28 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe issue is that Galveston has made a scripturally unsupported claim and won't back down from it. No one has claimed that he said it was supported in scripture, that is irrelevant and just you desperately trying to shift the emphasis.
there is nothing to get off the hook from, you are building a starwman argument, he does not hold that anything he said is explicitly stated in scripture, did he, in fact he even said that it wasn't, didn't he. Then one is left to wonder just what all your slobber and drool is about, isn't one. So you were telling us why if something is not explici ...[text shortened]... mething being explicitly stated, you will be telling us soon, why that's not the case, wont you.
Keep trying.
28 Aug 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo I wasn't.
you were telling us why something not being explicitly stated in scripture has any bearing to its veracity, i provided an example, lets see you wriggle and squirm from this one.
I'm calling out Galveston on making a false claim and adding to scripture, avoiding answering questions and being dishonest.
28 Aug 14
Originally posted by divegeesterno the issue is whether the veracity of a claim needs to be explicitly stated in scripture,i have provided an example that it need not be, you are slobbering, so when will you address the issue and tell us id an idea or a principle needs to be explicitly stated in scripture for it to have vale, if you refuse or cannot then we can dismiss your entire argument as being nothing more than slobbery drool, cant we.
The issue is that Galveston has made a scripturally unsupported claim and won't back down from it. No one has claimed that he said it was supported in scripture, that is irrelevant and you desperately trying to shift the emphasis.
Keep trying.
28 Aug 14
Originally posted by divegeesterno its not, tell us if something needs to be explicitly stated in scripture or not for it to have a certain veracity, your failure to address these questions being put to you is what is deflective and dishonest, all you can do is focus on personalities well you are not getting away with it this time, so you will tell us whether something needs to be explicitly stated in scripture or not and whether this has any bearing on the veracity of its claim.
No I wasn't.
I'm calling out Galveston on making a false claim and adding to scripture, avoiding answering questions and being dishonest.
28 Aug 14
Originally posted by divegeesterall you can do is focus on personalities, why don't you honestly address the question that is being put to you, you have evaded it now seven or eight times.
Robbie, you did this flapping in the "forum etiquette" thread? I remember you saying then that your were going to take the beating for him (or words to that effect). Are you again trying to be a Christ like martyr to protect Galveston?
28 Aug 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo it isn't, this is what you would now like it to be isn't it.
no the issue is whether the veracity of a claim needs to be explicitly stated in scripture,i have provided an example that it need not be, you are slobbering, so when will you address the issue and tell us id an idea or a principle needs to be explicitly stated in scripture for it to have vale, if you refuse or cannot then we can dismiss your entire argument as being nothing more than slobbery drool, cant we.
The issues is that Galveston has made a claim the the tree of life was real and is no longer on earth because it is actually dead - destroyed with the garden in the Noah flood. This is complete made up self certified opinion.
He is avoiding answering questions about it and has been dishonest in his reasons for doing so. You flapping and blustering here trying to deflect the subject does nothing for his or your credibility not to mention your religious organisation.
28 Aug 14
Originally posted by divegeesteryou were telling us why something not being explicitly stated in scripture has any bearing to its veracity, i provided an example, lets see you wriggle and squirm from this one.
No it isn't, this is what you would now like it to be isn't it.
The issues is that Galveston has made a claim the the tree of life was real and is no longer on earth because it is actually dead - destroyed with the garden in the Noah flood. This is complete made up self certified opinion.
He is avoiding answering questions about it and has been d ...[text shortened]... the subject does nothing for his or your credibility not to mention your religious organisation.
28 Aug 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm not talking about "cigarettes". So you concede that you are not making a "truth claim" about the fate of "The Tree of Life"?
Its an inference from scripture and a plausibility. so you were telling us how, given the example that I cited of cigarettes why their not being explicitly mentioned in scripture has any bearing on the veracity of the claim that their use is forbidden in scripture the Christian being counselled to refrain from anything which defiles the spirit or flesh.
28 Aug 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm interested in why Galveston lacks the forum integrity to come here and answer his own questions about his self certified opinions. Your motives for making yourself look ridiculous are of a side interest while we wait for him to come home from work, finish the decorating, walk the dog or whatever other excuse he has for is poor forum etiquette.
all you can do is focus on personalities, why don't you honestly address the question that is being put to you, you have evaded it now seven or eight times.
28 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have no issue with Jehovah's witnesses creating doctrine or principles without explicit scriptural support, you do it all the time. Most of the dangerous practices of your pernicious religious cult stem from this practice.
you were telling us why something not being explicitly stated in scripture has any bearing to its veracity, i provided an example, lets see you wriggle and squirm from this one.
28 Aug 14
Originally posted by divegeesterthe entire crux of your strawman argument is whether something needs to be explicitly stated in scripture Elmer, this has been proven not to be the case, i provided an example of that. seeing that you cannot refute it and keep slobbering and drooling about your obsession with the Gman it appears that you will not or cannot tell us whether something needs to be explicitly stated and we can simply dismiss your claims as unfounded, unsubstantiated and having no reality other than the hot air you invest in them. Thankyou, but we knew that already. You keep focusing on personalities and we shall keep addressing the issues.
No it isn't, this is what you would now like it to be isn't it.
The issues is that Galveston has made a claim the the tree of life was real and is no longer on earth because it is actually dead - destroyed with the garden in the Noah flood. This is complete made up self certified opinion.
He is avoiding answering questions about it and has been d ...[text shortened]... the subject does nothing for his or your credibility not to mention your religious organisation.
28 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterso you were telling us whether something needs to be explicitly stated in scripture for it to have any veracity to its claim, oh no you weren't because it doesn't need to be, does it, that you cannot bring yourself to say it is typical. we can now dismiss any of your claims on this basis as ludicrous until such times as you do address the issue. all you have is your empty opinions, devoid of substance and devoid of meaning. It has been my pleasure in pointing that out today, i could not have done it without you.
I have no issue with Jehovah's witnesses creating doctrine or principles without explicit scriptural support, you do it all the time. More of the dangerous practices of your pernicious religious cult stem from this practice.