07 Oct 09
3 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterIf you can be honest with yourself, you'll know that much of what you posted here is just not true. This is who you've been and who you'll remain until you can give up your childish belief system.
Why do you fire off these bullets when you know you are avoiding the issues? I will let Renars and others judge for themselves who is avoiding what.
It's clear that you don't want to discuss the issues or thrash out the truth here. The problem is that it was always like this from the beginning. You could never deal with a challenge to your positio being irrational. Alas , it's something you can never do for fear of being exposed.
I know that the stalking will continue. It's a symptom of a deranged mind whose belief system has been threatened by the truth of the teachings of Jesus. The light of the words of Jesus can lead you out of your darkness. Following is a good start. Perhaps someday you'll come to read and comprehend them.
John 8:32-36
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, 'You will become free'?"
Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed."
John 15:7-11
7 "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples. 9 Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. 10 If you KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love."
John 14:21-24
He that hath MY COMMANDMENTS AND KEEPETH THEM, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him. Judas (not Iscariot) saith unto him, Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my words
Matthew 7:21-23
Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will tell me in that day,'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?' Then I will tell them,'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'
John 12:35-36
So Jesus said to them, "For a little while longer the Light is among you. Walk while you have the Light, so that darkness will not overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. 36 While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may BECOME SONS OF LIGHT."
Luke 6:46-49
46 "Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? 47 Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when a flood occurred, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. 49 “But the one who has heard and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house on the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great."
08 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe irony here is that we are actually in some ways not that far apart on things. When I read the teachings of Jesus you posted I agreed with them.
If you can be honest with yourself, you'll know that much of what you posted here is just not true. This is who you've been and who you'll remain until you can give up your childish belief system.
I know that the stalking will continue. It's a symptom of a deranged mind whose belief system has been threatened by the truth of the teachings of Jesus. Th nd immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great."
1) I share your dislike of hypocrisy
2) I agree that it's not enough just to mouth the words "Lord , Lord"
3) I believe that actions speak louder than words
4) I agree that righteousness is vital to the Christian life
5) I believe that the truth can, will and is setting us free.
We are not that far apart. Where we differ is in the extent to which we think things should be taken.
You interpret Jesus's words in a particular way for you that reads " if a man has not overcome sin completely then he is not righteous and cannot be saved ".
Me? I see nowhere where Jesus explicitly says this in these passages , I see only your interpretation of them and what YOU think Jesus implies. Can you understand this?
Now , it's only natural that different poeple have differing perspectives , so the discussion really should be "how can we know which interpretations are correct and which are not viable? ".
As soon as I ponder this question it occurs to me that Jesus also said many things that you have not included here. In Matt 6:9 he says that authentic Christian prayer should involve a daily confession of sins and an asking for forgiveness.
So what am I to do? You tell me that Jesus is saying one thing very explicitly (namely that we must overcome sin or not be saved) and yet I do not see him saying this explicitly - but I do see him say explicitly ..............................
Matt 6:9
This, then, is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
11Give us today our daily bread.
12Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.[a]' 14For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."
This immediately throws a spanner in the works of your theory. What am I to do? Pretend that Jesus didn't explicitly say this? That would be disingenuous surely.
My difficultly with you is that you make catagorical statements where you sound so sure of yourself but then I find something in Jesus' teachings that doesn't fit your neat jigsaw puzzle.
You then seem very very unwilling to discuss anything that doesn't feat this neat picture you have created. But there it is - you can't make it go away. You simply cannot explain why Jesus would ask Christians explicitly to ask for forgiveness for sins on a regular basis.
You know in your heart of hearts that you cannot squeeze this jigsaw piece in easily without looking a bit disingenuous. It would involve speculations and interpretations that can't be backed up.
The problem is then that you have created a rod for your own back by saying in effect....
a) we must respect what the teachings of Jesus explicitly say
b) we must accept his teachings and not interpret them away.
The other problem for you is that because you are so catagorical aboit things you are like the man who says "there are no mice in this room" . That creates a massive problem for you because no matter how many square metres of mice free space you point to , all anyone has to do is find one mouse and the games up.
So , ToOne , all I am saying is that Matt 6:9 is that very mouse in the room and yet you have been telling us all something else.
But I'm confused. How did the mouse get there? Is it not a mouse? If so , why not?
This would be a meaningful discussion would it not?
26 Oct 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou obviously haven't read this thread much. If you had you would see who was being logical and sticking to the issues and who was being personal and abusive.
I don't know. Maybe because you keep stalking him?
Also , if you took the time you would see a familiar pattern emerge. He gets himself boxed into a corner and then runs for cover. The "stalking" line he pursues is just convenient cover for his evasiveness , looks like he sold it to you quite easily.
27 Oct 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou obviously haven't read this thread much. If you had you would see who was being logical and sticking to the issues and who was being personal and abusive.
You obviously haven't read this thread much. If you had you would see who was being logical and sticking to the issues and who was being personal and abusive.
Also , if you took the time you would see a familiar pattern emerge. He gets himself boxed into a corner and then runs for cover. The "stalking" line he pursues is just convenient cover for his evasiveness , looks like he sold it to you quite easily.
I've read plenty, and yes it is easy to understand from such reading who initiated the personal attacks and tried to steer the thread off topic. This thread started with subjects broadly related to the cosmological argument and concepts of eternal entities, and ToO had contributed broadly relevant observations (e.g., that there seems to be a sort of dialectic symmetry between the person who claims that God is eternal, or necessary, and the person who claims that the universe itself is eternal, or necessary). And then, it was in fact you who attempted to hijack the thread with irrelevant personal questions like (from page 2) "Would you, [ToO], not like to pin your colours to the mast and say in public that you believe in the eternal Father of Jesus who created the world?" That these sorts of personal interrogations don't actually have anything substantive to do with the discussion at hand never stops you in your vendetta. And then, it was in fact you who continued to get personal in the proceedings on page 3 with remarks like "You do of course realise that [ToO] is not interested in a discussion , he just wants to pull your pud. He's a crusader on a mission - he has no interest in adult debating."
Well, if you think that ToO is not interested in a discussion, why do you keep trailing him from thread to thread, under the guise of trying to engage him in discussions? As far as I can tell, he's not averse to discussion and debate, per se; he probably just doesn't feel the need to engage with you every time you commandeer yet another thread for your personal inquisition. Quite a sane position on his part, given that you've been stalking him for, what now, 2+ years?
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28919
27 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelI'm stalking you. I'm just lying in wait until the right time. My dogs do the same with the squirrels - only they exhibit far more patience than I can with most of the self-serving, shallow, and dishonest drivel that fills these forums (of course they get one less squirrel in the world for their efforts and I only get to feel foolish.)
Having read all nine pages of this thread and been treated to such convoluted babble amongst,(I presume), christians, I feel like I have the right to comment.
Put simply: ToO-1,KM-0.
(I just wish I was 'stalked' so much),hee,hee
27 Oct 09
Originally posted by TerrierJackThnx-I feel loved again🙂
I'm stalking you. I'm just lying in wait until the right time. My dogs do the same with the squirrels - only they exhibit far more patience than I can with most of the self-serving, shallow, and dishonest drivel that fills these forums (of course they get one less squirrel in the world for their efforts and I only get to feel foolish.)
(No doubt a Moe Szizlack kind of love,hee,hee)
28 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneEveryone has a vested interest in the things they believe in or disagree with.
Birds? Cows? Apples? Oranges?
Creator? Created?
Your argument is irrational. It presupposes a "creator" and "created".
Evidently you are one of "those steeped in delusion because of a deeply vested interest in protecting their belief system. "
Since I define God as eternal it is one of God's qualities and I do not do that with
the universe, nor does anyone else that I'm aware of, or if they do it is a small
number of people. The leap that says they both must have a beginning is also
a leap to defend a 'deeply vested interest in protecting their belief system."
I'm not sure why you feel the need to tell me, that when I tell you the God I believe
in is eternal and the creator as part of His description you feel the need to say it
cannot be true, because the universe has a beginning.
Kelly
28 Oct 09
Originally posted by KellyJayWow. You resurrected this after quite some time passed.
Everyone has a vested interest in the things they believe in or disagree with.
Since I define God as eternal it is one of God's qualities and I do not do that with
the universe, nor does anyone else that I'm aware of, or if they do it is a small
number of people. The leap that says they both must have a beginning is also
a leap to defend a 'deeply veste ...[text shortened]... n you feel the need to say it
cannot be true, because the universe has a beginning.
Kelly
The leap that says they both must have a beginning is also
a leap to defend a 'deeply vested interest in protecting their belief system...I'm not sure why you feel the need to tell me, that when I tell you the God I believe
in is eternal and the creator as part of His description you feel the need to say it
cannot be true, because the universe has a beginning.
I never said any such thing. It seems like you're reading things into my posts that aren't there.
Like I said earlier:
"Seems like you've lost the thread of this discussion. If you care to continue, I suggest you reread from the beginning."
Try rereading the OP, my response to the OP, as well as our discussion thru page four. I had to look back at it myself.
Then let me know what you want to discuss.
28 Oct 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou state certain things that are subjective to you as if they are self evidently true. For example , "hijacking" a thread. What exactly is "hijacking"? If by this term you mean that someone is introducing a concept that takes the thread off topic then I think we are all "hijacking" threads all the time. You only have to look around to see how many threads have gone astray in completely different directions.
[b]You obviously haven't read this thread much. If you had you would see who was being logical and sticking to the issues and who was being personal and abusive.
I've read plenty, and yes it is easy to understand from such reading who initiated the personal attacks and tried to steer the thread off topic. This thread started with subjects broadly ...[text shortened]... ne position on his part, given that you've been stalking him for, what now, 2+ years?[/b]
You then quote some issues I brought up. Firstly I felt entirely justified in asking ToOne about his beliefs about the Eternal Father of Jesus because he is such a prolific quoter of Jesus. I found it strange (hypocritical?) that someone who is known for firing off quotes from Jesus about how we should live would at the same time seem to be doubting whether God exists at all in the way Jesus explicitly said He did. In a way one could say that this question was "personal" but it is not a smear as such , just a question of the integrity of his beliefs and how they fit together.
I just happen to think that someone who sees fit to quote Jesus publicly in such a provocative and challenging way should also be able to say publicly which of Jesus's core teachings he agrees with and which he does not. I use this tactic as a way of trying to get him and others to think - he uses personalising tactics to avoid answering questions - there's a difference.
When I said ToO was not interested in proper discussion , this is an issue that many other posters have recognised. My comments were , of course , cutting and phrased aggressively , but in essence accurate because he is known for dissappearing when things get rough. This was a bit personal but if you had read the whole thread why did you pick out only 1 or 2 things I said and none of the many personal comments ToO said? Virtually ALL of ToO's recent posts have contained comments about me or implied criticisms of my charactor - and none of them got anywhere near addressing the issues , whereas loads of mine stuck to the issues themselves. He even quoted me from a private message , which is a bit out of order to make public IMO , but even so if you look at it I was saying that I was committed to arguing with him logically and not personalising things. This I have done largely , the fact I made the odd mistake does not take away from the general pattern.
You see I'm not saying I'm perfect in these things. We all tap off one liners from time to time and get frustrated - but I don't see how you can deny that the overall pattern is of me bringing up a valid logical issue that is worthy of addressing and ToO avoiding that very issue by making it about me and not the teachings of Jesus.
If you want to know why I persist with ToO given that he is not up for discussion you would need to message me privately because going into it publicly would not be useful or constructive and would just take away from the issues.
At the end of the day I still want to focus on the issue I have raised , namely , the gross discrepancy between Matt 6:9 and ToO's interpretation of John 8:32. That's what I have tried to do here and 95% of my posts have been about this. I'm still raising this issue and all I'm saying is "look who is not here ".
28 Oct 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelOn what grounds do you make your ToO - 1 KM -0 assessment?
Having read all nine pages of this thread and been treated to such convoluted babble amongst,(I presume), christians, I feel like I have the right to comment.
Put simply: ToO-1,KM-0.
(I just wish I was 'stalked' so much),hee,hee
What do you think the debate was about? If it was about the discrepancy between the teachings of Jesus in Matt 6:9 and john 8:32 then I don't see how you came to this conclusion because he had nothing to say about it.
30 Oct 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe majority of the thread was not about the subject of the thread.
On what grounds do you make your ToO - 1 KM -0 assessment?
What do you think the debate was about? If it was about the discrepancy between the teachings of Jesus in Matt 6:9 and john 8:32 then I don't see how you came to this conclusion because he had nothing to say about it.
Its a silly title anyway since 'God' and'origon' are the same thing except for the spelling.
30 Oct 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelI know of no rule that says that threads must always finish with the same issue as they start with? Many threads go in many different directions. I'm wondering why you failed to pick up on ToO's complete inability to answer in any way the discrepancy between Matt 6:9 and his interpretation of John 8:32?
The majority of the thread was not about the subject of the thread.
Its a silly title anyway since 'God' and'origon' are the same thing except for the spelling.
As far as I can see all he did was to cut and paste some quotes from the NT or say that how pointless it was to discuss with me. The problem is that this can never be shown to be true because he just won't go there. Whatever you say about our exchanges only one of us was willing to put the whole thing to the test.