Spirituality
08 Aug 14
Originally posted by FMFyou are not being asked what 'defilement of the flesh', means. A dictionary definition has already been provided for you. What you are actually being asked is how the principles and scriptures provided relate to smoking cigarettes and how else it may be interpreted. If you cannot understand what you are being asked how do you hope to formulate a reply?
One can quite rationally interpret the scripture as not referring to smoking if one interprets the term "defilement of the flesh" to mean things like sexual intercourse with children, cannibalism, female genital mutilation and so on. Do you think "defilement of the flesh" covers working in a coal mine, wading through sewage, cooking with wood in a confined space ...[text shortened]... w to interpret this piece of scripture and about how to apply it to their lives, just as you do.
Here it is for the third time.
How else might one view smoking cigarettes from the perspective of the principles and scriptures cited?
If you will not answer it this time then it is clear that you cannot engage in rational thought and purport to be a windy scourgebag.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWould you consider obesity a 'defilement of the flesh'?
you are not being asked what 'defilement of the flesh', means. A dictionary definition has already been provided for you. What you are actually being asked his how the principles and scriptures provided relate to smoking cigarettes and how else it may be interpreted. If you cannot understand what you are being asked how do you hope to formulate a r ...[text shortened]... ime then it is clear that you cannot engage in rational thought and are simply a windy scourger.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have demonstrated that you and I have different personal opinions about what the term "defilement of the flesh" can refer to or how it might apply in everyday life. I am not trying to change your opinion. I am demonstrating that you have an opinion about this piece of scripture that not everyone shares.
you are not being asked what 'defilement of the flesh', means. A dictionary definition has already been provided for you. What you are actually being asked is how the principles and scriptures provided relate to smoking cigarettes and how else it may be interpreted. If you cannot understand what you are being asked how do you hope to formulate a re ...[text shortened]... hen it is clear that you cannot engage in rational thought and purport to be a windy scourgebag.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOne might view it as not covered by the term "defilement of the flesh" for the reasons I have given by way of some examples. I do acknowledge and understand that your personal opinion differs from mine and that of some other Christians.
How else might one view smoking cigarettes from the perspective of the principles and scriptures cited?
Originally posted by FMFyou are slobbering
I have demonstrated that you and I have different personal opinions about what the term "defilement of the flesh" can refer to or how it might apply in everyday life. I am not trying to change your opinion. I am demonstrating that you have an opinion about this piece of scripture that not everyone shares.
Originally posted by FMFand have failed to address the question,
One might view it as not covered by the term "defilement of the flesh" for the reasons I have given by way of some examples. I do acknowledge and understand that your personal opinion differs from mine and that of some other Christians.
no more time wasted on windy scourge bags.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd with your catchphrase about "slobbering", you are deflecting. I am answering your questions head on and you are choosing, pointedly, not to engage what I am saying. It's no problem that our opinions differ. Indeed, our difference of opinion is demonstrating my point neatly.
you are slobbering
04 Sep 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePaul's letter to the Corinthians asserts that man's body is God's temple and should not be defiled.
what do you know about its Randolph Gandolph?
Let us see if you can think rationally, logically and reasonably seeing that the windy scourger himself failed to do so. here is the line of reasoning.
1. The Biblical principle is that a Christian should avoid anything which defiles the body or spirit.
let us cleanse ourselves from all defilemen ...[text shortened]... y a poor reader? uninterested in logic or reason? a windbag?
ironic all things considered.
Whether or not the use of tobacco, or using drugs, or overeating, or lack of exercise, or bad hygiene
qualify as defilement are matters of debate. But it's impossible to debate with someone who resorts
to constant name-calling and personal attacks instead of reasonable discussion.
I suggest you reread Paul's letter and note the part that admonishes the arrogant know-it-all.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have tackled your question head on. You seem, like a fair few religionists here, to have difficulty processing and engaging disagreement without either resort to circular logic or silly personal remarks. As you know, I feel you sell yourself short a lot of the time. Like I said, I understand and acknowledge your personal opinion about smoking cigarettes and I do see your reasoning behind it. If what you believe to be 'the word of God' as having helped you to give up smoking cigarettes, then I am happy for you, if giving up smoking cigarettes was indeed what you wanted to do.
and have failed to address the question,
no more time wasted on windy scourge bags.
Originally posted by HandyAndyI have provided a line of argument, references, citations, a scripture and principles, you may make reference to those Randolf Gandolph and save your whining for the general forum.
Paul's letter to the Corinthians asserts that man's body is God's temple and should not be defiled.
Whether or not the use of tobacco, or using drugs, or overeating, or lack of exercise, or bad hygiene
qualify as defilement are matters of debate. But it's impossible to debate with someone who resorts
to constant name-calling and personal attacks inst ...[text shortened]...
I suggest you reread Paul's letter and note the part that admonishes the arrogant know-it-all.