The self-confidence of thiests

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
No one can put you in a position where you need to lie. You've repeatedly done this of your own volition.

I did not lie. In order to lie I would have to know the facts. What I did was to make a transparent assumption about you not having overcome sin yourself (I assume this is what you are refering to?). I then said that I would take that as my working theory on you and you would be completely free to challenge it if I was wrong.

So working on the logic that you considered it a bad thing to be misrepresented or "lied" about I both waited for and asked for you to correct me and put me straight so that everyone would know that KM was wrong and ToO had actually overcome sin himself. What happened?
-----SILENCE--------

I saw no reason for you to not tell us all that you had overcome sin if that was the truth about you since it would strengthen your position immensely. Not only that you could also spread the truth compassionately and freely without 'payment' .

The problem is that in order to lie one has to know the truth. So if I knew that you had infact overcome sin and said you hadn't that's called a lie. But since I do not know (and you refuse to say) it cannot be a lie can it. For all I know I've hit the jackpot and you are sinning your trousers off every day.

I wonder really what you make of polticians who when asked to confirm or deny a fact do neither when you know that a confirmation and denial is perfectly possible.

So quash the "lies" once and for all , have you overcome sin? Yes is spelt Y-E-S and no is spelt N-O)

(BTW- I do wonder if you are married or something . I cannot believe you are because anyone trying to have a relationship with you would probably have knocked you off in your sleep by now)

Originally posted by knightmeister
I did not lie. In order to lie I would have to know the facts. What I did was to make a transparent assumption about you not having overcome sin yourself (I assume this is what you are refering to?). I then said that I would take that as my working theory on you and you would be completely free to challenge it if I was wrong.

So working on the log ...[text shortened]... have a relationship with you would probably have knocked you off in your sleep by now)

Misrepresenting my position by presenting your "educated guesses" as "fact" is a lie. You are well aware that you don't know if it's a fact, yet you portray it to be one.

You continue to demonstrate that you are incapable of rational thought.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Misrepresenting my position by presenting your "educated guesses" as "fact" is a lie. You are well aware that you don't know if it's a fact, yet you portray it to be one.

You continue to demonstrate that you are incapable of rational thought.

So what's your rationale for simply stating the fact as it is and putting the whole thing to bed in the first place?

What exactly do you need from me , Joesph , ephin , anyone before you will answer a simple question? Are we using the wrong font?

Maybe if you could just explain why you won't answer the question that would help. Why won't you answer the question?

Is it that irrational of me to speculate that it's because it's an awkward question for you? This seems to be the most likely explanation for your recitence. If the roles were reversed what would you be thinking?

My current working theory is that you haven't overcome sin yourself and so you can't share this because it will make you look silly and undermine your position. The closest you actually got to answering was when you said " whether any one individual has or hasn't overcome has no bearing on what Christ meant"

Such a statement is not likely to lead anyone to believe you have actually achieved the overcoming of sin and is far more likely to cause people to think the opposite - because otherwise why would you say this?

For me statements like this combined with your reluctance to answer all support the " not overcome" conclusion and I think most around here would conclude the same thing. If you had overcome you would be not so reluctant to answer - seem a reasonable conclusion to reach?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Because it can be dangerous. You can mess your mind up badly with, eg., Kabbalah or Tibetan buddhism. Also practitioners in some countries would keep things secret so as not to furnish public entertainment at an auto da fe. But now you can read about the secret traditions in any well stocked bookshop.

You can mess your mind up with Christianity. Look at millions of born again christian fundamentalists in the US and elesewhere - seriously you can mess your mind up with Christianity as any Christian who has endured a lonely retreat in a cave will tell you.

Aspects of Tibetan Buddhism are but a tool and like any tool can be used well or used badly - using a tool badly does not devalue the tool if used by one properly trained.

Originally posted by knightmeister
So what's your rationale for simply stating the fact as it is and putting the whole thing to bed in the first place?

What exactly do you need from me , Joesph , ephin , anyone before you will answer a simple question? Are we using the wrong font?

Maybe if you could just explain why you won't answer the question that would help. Why won't you a ...[text shortened]... ome you would be not so reluctant to answer - seem a reasonable conclusion to reach?

KM "Maybe if you could just explain why you won't answer the question that would help. Why won't you answer the question?"

Why do you pretend that you don't know the answer to this question? I've explained many times why I won't answer the question. I've also explained many times, why I don't think it possible to have a rational discussion with you.

Why do you continue to lie, tell half-truths, distort the facts, etc.?

You ask the question as if I'm being completely unreasonable, then later you supply the answer that I've given to you time and again. I believe it's a paraphrase, but it doesn't go against spirit of what I said.

This is really sad.

KM "The closest you actually got to answering was when you said ' whether any one individual has or hasn't overcome has no bearing on what Christ meant'"

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]KM "Maybe if you could just explain why you won't answer the question that would help. Why won't you answer the question?"

Why do you pretend that you don't know the answer to this question? I've explained many times why I won't answer the question. I've also explained many times, why I don't think it possible to have a rational discussion with ...[text shortened]... e individual has or hasn't overcome has no bearing on what Christ meant'"[/b][/b]

I know you have said that the reason you don't answer it is because you think it has no bearing on the teachings of Jesus , but I have pointed out that it does have a bearing on your position because if you have no personal experience of that which you preach then it's just a hollow intellectual exercise. If you have not overcome sin yourself then all your theorising of overcoming is just on paper only.

In any case , if it really did have no bearing why not just answer the question anyway. You seem to think it would be harder to type yes/no than it would be to spend many posts being obtuse, evasive and stubborn.

The problem with you from the beginning is that you play the game of superficially wanting a debate or discussion but when it comes down to it you aren't really interested in one. It's as if your agenda was to play games from the very start. I wonder if it's something you do unconsciously?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I know you have said that the reason you don't answer it is because you think it has no bearing on the teachings of Jesus , but I have pointed out that it does have a bearing on your position because if you have no personal experience of that which you preach then it's just a hollow intellectual exercise. If you have not overcome sin yourself then all nda was to play games from the very start. I wonder if it's something you do unconsciously?

It has no bearing because Jesus said what He said and He meant what He meant.

Jesus clearly and explicity states in several places and in several ways that righteousness is required for salvation.

Yours is a child's argument.

You continue to demonstrate the futility of trying to have a rational discussion with you.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
It has no bearing because Jesus said what He said and He meant what He meant.

Jesus clearly and explicity states in several places and in several ways that righteousness is required for salvation.

Yours is a child's argument.

You continue to demonstrate the futility of trying to have a rational discussion with you.

No yours is a child's argument because it's black and white and has no room for the complexities which only adults can embrace.

Jesus does state that righteousness is required but he also demonstrates an acceptance for the failings of humanity and recognises that "things that cause men to sin are bound to come".

So what do we do?

Your way is that of the child who is unable to reconcile two seemingly contradictory positions. Your solution is to rigidly edit out the bits you don't like.
Meanwhile the rest of us are left with the adult task of looking deeper and working with what Jesus actually presented to us warts and all , even if it is sometimes messy and unclear.

Originally posted by knightmeister
No yours is a child's argument because it's black and white and has no room for the complexities which only adults can embrace.

Jesus does state that righteousness is required but he also demonstrates an acceptance for the failings of humanity and recognises that "things that cause men to sin are bound to come".

So what do we do?

Your way is ...[text shortened]... t Jesus actually presented to us warts and all , even if it is sometimes messy and unclear.

You're like a child who continues to look for ways not to have to abide by the commandments of Jesus.

"Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord', yet you don't do what I tell you."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You're like a child who continues to look for ways not to have to abide by the commandments of Jesus.

"Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord', yet you don't do what I tell you."

There's a subtle difference between "looking for a way out" and recognising that humanity is flawed. Whilst I agree that one pitfall is to look for excuses , the other pitfall is perfectionism and lack of self acceptance. In the great on-going grace versus works debate (that will go on after we have finished) it seems you are only aware of the pitfalls on one side of the debate. God has seen fit to alert us to both.

For every person who seeks an excuse to sin you will also find someone trapped in fear and guilt and perfectionism. Such people think that God can only love them once they are perfected and they don't realise that God loves them first so they can be perfected.

By the way - do you perfectly abide by the commandments of Jesus? Is this "avoidance" you talk of something you have personal experience of? Or have you always perfectly followed?


If you see fit to call me a child then I think I'm entitled to ask you if you are a hypocrite or not.