# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  The Logos and the Tao - split

## Sola_Fide

You can always spot a non-Christian religion because it will constantly seek to draw comparisons with other pagan conceptions of God.  True religion, on the other hand, always seeks to press the antithesis.   It always seeks to separate from this wicked generation and cast down anything that sets itself up against the mind of Christ.




> *2 Corinthians 6:14-16
> 
> Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial ? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God.*

----------


## RJB

> You can always spot a non-Christian religion because it will constantly seek to draw comparisons with other pagan conceptions of God.  True religion, on the other hand, always seeks to press the antithesis.   It always seeks to separate from this wicked generation and cast down anything that sets itself up against the mind of Christ.


The bible doesn't have the answers for everything.  The bible is devoted to ones spiritual life and relation with God.  Plumbers don't read the bible for fixing pipes, they read the bible for their relation with God.  They apprentice or go to a trade school for plumbing.

A computer programmer does not read the bible for advice for computer programing.  He'll learn from trade publications, schooling etc.  He may use the bible to program computers with a moral foundation.

As a licensed alternative physician, I've found the Daoist philosophy is key in vitalistic healing as Cartesian philosophy is in influencing in modern western mechanistic healing.

And no, I don't rely on that for salvation, but rather the Grace of God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The bible doesn't have the answers for everything.  The bible is devoted to ones spiritual life and relation with God.  Plumbers don't read the bible for fixing pipes, they read the bible for their relation with God.  They apprentice or go to a trade school for plumbing.
> 
> A computer programmer does not read the bible for advice for computer programing.  He'll learn from trade publications, schooling etc.  He may use the bible to program computers with a moral foundation.
> 
> As a licensed alternative physician, I've found the Daoist philosophy is key in vitalistic healing as Cartesian philosophy is in influencing in modern western mechanistic healing.
> 
> And no, I don't rely on that for salvation, but rather the Grace of God.


Yes, the Bible is completely sufficient to give a Christian man everything he needs for faith and life:




> * 2nd Timothy 3:16
> 
> All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.*


What worth does your (mod delete) philosophy have compared to the surpassing worth of God's own inerrant words?

----------


## moostraks

> You can always spot a non-Christian religion because it will constantly seek to draw comparisons with other pagan conceptions of God.  True religion, on the other hand, always seeks to press the antithesis.   It always seeks to separate from this wicked generation and cast down anything that sets itself up against the mind of Christ.


It always saddens me when certain folks abuse the knowledge they have been given to form a select club of gossips and ignore the verses that pertain to loving. You can't love your neighbor when you are looking down your nose and refusing to understand whom they are and what they believe about the world around them. 

When one so highly esteems their own knowledge and perceptions that they only associate with a select group that serves as an echo chamber so they can belittle others and elevate only their "friends", they have set themselves against the two greatest commandments. They set themselves against the directive they were given to love and have fashioned an idol in their own image which they worship and give it the title of god.

----------


## RJB

> What worth does your (mod delete) philosophy have compared to the surpassing worth of God's own inerrant words?


  LOL. Does a plumber learn to fix a pipe by reading the Bible?

Is making off the wall comments the only way you can get people to respond to you?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It always saddens me when certain folks abuse the knowledge they have been given to form a select club of gossips and ignore the verses that pertain to loving. You can't love your neighbor when you are looking down your nose and refusing to understand whom they are and what they believe about the world around them. 
> 
> When one so highly esteems their own knowledge and perceptions that they only associate with a select group that serves as an echo chamber so they can belittle others and elevate only their "friends", they have set themselves against the two greatest commandments. They set themselves against the directive they were given to love and have fashioned an idol in their own image which they worship and give it the title of god.


It saddens me (actually angers me) that you speak the name or Christ, but preach contrary to Christ's philosophy.   Christians have a certain way in which they encounter the unbelieving philosophies of the world...they utterly reject them and take them captive to the mind of Christ.  There is no fellowship of light with darkness:




> *2 Corinthians 6:14-16
> 
> Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial ? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God.
> 
> *

----------


## moostraks

> Yes, the Bible is completely sufficient to give a Christian man everything he needs for faith and life:
> 
> 
> 
> What worth does your (mod delete) philosophy have compared to the surpassing worth of God's own inerrant words?


I Corinthians 13:
      4Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Matthew 5: 43“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ 44“But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46“For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47“If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I Corinthians 13:
>       4Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
> 
> Matthew 5: 43“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ 44“But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46“For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47“If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


Par for the course for Moostraks.   She will post verses with no commentary and no attempt to make them relevant to the topic at hand.

----------


## moostraks

> It saddens me (actually angers me) that you speak the name or Christ, but preach contrary to Christ's philosophy.   Christians have a certain way in which they encounter the unbelieving philosophies of the world...they utterly reject them and take them captive to the mind of Christ.  There is no fellowship of light with darkness:


Galatians 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”

Galatians 5:13For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another

Matthew 5:43“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ 44“But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46“For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47“If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Luke 6:31“Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. 32“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33“If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34“If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount. 35“But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. 36“Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Galatians 6:2 Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4 But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another. 5 For each one will bear his own load.

7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9 Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary. 10 So then, [b]while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.

I don't selectively choose a verse or two to elevate myself and those who echo me whilst running around this subforum casting aspersions upon those who have different beliefs. Love even your enemies. How is love shown?

I Corinthians 13:4 4Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

----------


## moostraks

> Par for the course for Moostraks.   She will post verses with no commentary and no attempt to make them relevant to the topic at hand.


Are you not willing to let the Bible speak to you? I didn't need to add to what was posted because the verses addressed you sufficiently without my commentary.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Galatians 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”
> 
> Galatians 5:13For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another
> 
> Matthew 5:43“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ 44“But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46“For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47“If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
> 
> Luke 6:31“Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. 32“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33“If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34“If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount. 35“But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. 36“Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
> 
> Galatians 6:2 Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4 But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another. 5 For each one will bear his own load.
> ...


Your point?  I agree with all of this.  But what does it have to do with what we are talking about?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are you not willing to let the Bible speak to you? I didn't need to add to what was posted because the verses addressed you sufficiently without my commentary.


No they don't speak to me, because what I'm doing on this website is in a spirit of love for everyone.   How dare you accuse me of not loving!   I am a loving Christian man and everyone who knows me knows that I love almost to a fault.

----------


## RJB

Good post Moostraks.  If some people (such as 1 particular person on this thread) have such a hard time understanding and living this Biblical philosophy, it may be good for them to read up on the bible more before delving into anything else.

I'm off to work.  Have a good day.  




> I Corinthians 13:
>       4Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
> 
> Matthew 5: 43“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ 44“But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46“For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47“If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are you not willing to let the Bible speak to you? I didn't need to add to what was posted because the verses addressed you sufficiently without my commentary.


No they don't speak to me, because what I'm doing on this website is in a spirit of love for everyone..   How dare you accuse me of not loving!   I am a loving Christian man and everyone who knows me knows that I love almost to a fault.

----------


## moostraks

> Your point?  I agree with all of this.  But what does it have to do with what we are talking about?


Would be nice if you acted as though you agreed with it. Maybe you need to put what you agree with into action? 

I love the new heading for the subforum.

----------


## moostraks

> Good post Moostraks.  If some people (such as 1 particular person on this thread) have such a hard time understanding and living this Biblical philosophy, it may be good for them to read up on the bible more before delving into anything else.
> 
> I'm off to work.  Have a good day.


Hope you have a great day at work! Need to get busy here. Children to teach and dishes to do.  thanks for the positive post.

----------


## moostraks

> No they don't speak to me, because what I'm doing on this website is in a spirit of love for everyone.   How dare you accuse me of not loving!   I am a loving Christian man and everyone who knows me knows that I love almost to a fault.


They aren't speaking to you because you have already decided how you think you are going to show your "spirit of love". Again I will repost:
I Corinthians 13:
4Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Then I will pray that you will let the Spirit speak to you on how we show our love as is defined by this passage. 

Furthermore: 
Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.

17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God

----------


## moostraks

> (mod delete)


Now you are being ridiculous and incendiary. Why would you think you can change the subject to an argument over your misperceptions about my beliefs? You are lying about me again. Worry about your own backyard before trying to tidy up mine.

----------


## RJB

> No they *don't speak to me*, because what *I'm doing* on this website is in a spirit of love for everyone..   How dare you accuse *me of not loving!* *I am a loving Christian* man and everyone who *knows me* knows that* I love almost to a fault*.


So much for admitting to the Total Depravity of TULIP.  You have a hard time seeing any fault in yourself but great at seeing specks in others.  I admit I have a tendency to be quite a jerk towards you on this forum.  That's why I put you on ignore a lot, because I fall short on a hourly basis.  This post of yours has alerted me to my own arrogance.  So thanks, and I'll take another break from the computer.  

We all need to work on the things Jesus told us to do and admit to our shortcomings.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Now you are being ridiculous and incendiary. Why would you think you can change the subject to an argument over your misperceptions about my beliefs? You are lying about me again. Worry about your own backyard before trying to tidy up mine.


And I am not supposed to take offense that you misrepresent my intentions and call me unloving?   I should flag your post, and I think I will, for lying and misrepresenting me.  

What planet do you live on where the rules of this website don't apply to you as well?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So much for admitting to the Total Depravity of TULIP.  You have a hard time seeing any fault in yourself but great at seeing specks in others.  I admit I have a tendency to be quite a jerk towards you on this forum.  That's why I put you on ignore a lot, because I fall short on a hourly basis.  This post of yours has alerted me to my own arrogance.  So thanks, and I'll take another break from the computer.  
> 
> We all need to work on the things Jesus told us to do and admit to our shortcomings.


Total depravity does not mean that man is as evil as he could be.  Rather it means that every part of man, his totality, has been affected by the fall.

----------


## Nang

> They aren't speaking to you because you have already decided how you think you are going to show your "spirit of love". Again I will repost:
> I Corinthians 13:
> 4Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
> 
> Then I will pray that you will let the Spirit speak to you on how we show our love as is defined by this passage. 
> 
> Furthermore: 
> Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.
> 
> 17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God





> They aren't speaking to you because you have already decided how you think you are going to show your "spirit of love". Again I will repost:
> I Corinthians 13:
> 4Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
> 
> Then I will pray that you will let the Spirit speak to you on how we show our love as is defined by this passage. 
> 
> Furthermore: 
> Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.
> 
> 17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God


Love cannot be separated from truth.

It is not loving to suggest everyone can worship God any old way they want, or that we should just all get along no matter what one wants to believe.

 It is loving to tell them the message they must worship God in Spirit and Truth.

Using the Word of God as a battle-ax is not conveying truth, but usually an attempt to silence or kill the light of the gospel, with a thousand words.

In the very beginning, God created man and loved man and called him very good.  The first thing God gave Adam was moral limits, for his own good.  The words and instructions (commands) given to Adam from God manifest God's love for Adam.  This first revelation of the Law was holy, good, and meant as the preservation of life for Adam.

But Adam did not believe God's words, rebelled against God's words, broke the Law and commands given by God to him, lost his fellowship with God and received a death sentence.  And the rest is history.

I am sorry for the state of all things, but it cannot be denied.  We all have been affected by the fall, and no longer have any clue as to what true love is . . apart from the gospel of grace that reveals the love of Jesus Christ for His own.

So, we must be very careful to stick with this gospel message, if we hope to be able to show genuine love for others, for there is no other love known in this world, except that Christ has revealed to us.  And we must be very careful that we proclaim the message rightly.

It does no good to alter it, supposedly in the name of love, in order to make it palatable to all.  It must be admitted, many will not like the biblical gospel message, for Jesus told us clearly and plainly, that many love darkness more than His light.  John 3:18-21.

And for those who do not respond to the light, and have no interest in biblical truth, it does no good for them to hiss out threats that the gospel we teach is not loving enough, for they only condemn themselves.

It is so wonderful to proclaim God's truth as revealed in His Word, and have people respond . . with love in their hearts for the message of grace.  If love is not founded and established upon that basis, love is not known at all.

Sola_Fide is presenting a true, biblical, gospel message of grace found through faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, alone.  And it pains me to see others call him hateful.  He is proclaiming this message at greater personal cost than any even imagine, and he is defending truth with bravery.  But those who do not like this gospel, with malice, accuse him of wrong that is unjustified.  They do not recognize God's love in his message, so do not know love at all themselves.

Yet they demand he love them . . .no matter how much they despise him, find fault in him, and oppose him.

So he continues to give the message of love and grace, and they just pile on more.

It is not a pretty thing to observe.

----------


## moostraks

> And I am not supposed to take offense that you misrepresent my intentions and call me unloving?   I should flag your post, and I think I will, for lying and misrepresenting me.  
> 
> What planet do you live on where the rules of this website don't apply to you as well?


 I didn't call you anything, but put forth your actions  run contrary to the Scriptures posted. I posted Scripture to state what proper loving behavior is for a Christian. You are the one who stated you felt they weren't speaking to you. I asked you to read them again, and prayed you would be moved by them. Your behavior of name calling and promoting factions and strife and disputes I elaborated on through the use of Galatians. It is you who continued to cast aspersions about an unrelated issue to try and antagonize, just as your remarks over the Catholic Church were intended to bait people. Flag away. I am attempting to stay within topic and guidelines, and using documentation to reinforce my position. 

I do not find your constant self promotion of your specific beliefs that you smugly condemn others by and ridicule and belittle them to be within the boundaries of being kind and is arrogant, bragging, and seeking its own. Your divisive behavior which proudly crows about causing strife and seeking to promote factions is again addressed in the previously posted Scriptures.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I didn't call you anything, but put forth your actions  run contrary to the Scriptures posted. I posted Scripture to state what proper loving behavior is for a Christian. You are the one who stated you felt they weren't speaking to you. I asked you to read them again, and prayed you would be moved by them. Your behavior of name calling and promoting factions and strife and disputes I elaborated on through the use of Galatians. It is you who continued to cast aspersions about an unrelated issue to try and antagonize, just as your remarks over the Catholic Church were intended to bait people. Flag away. I am attempting to stay within topic and guidelines, and using documentation to reinforce my position. 
> 
> I do not find your constant self promotion of your specific beliefs that you smugly condemn others by and ridicule and belittle them to be within the boundaries of being kind and is arrogant, bragging, and seeking its own. Your divisive behavior which proudly crows about causing strife and seeking to promote factions is again addressed in the previously posted Scriptures.


And I told you that you are doing the most unloving thing that could be done:  teaching people idolatry.   I post all those verses back to you because you are being as hateful as possible.   Read Nang's post. Love CANNOT be separated from truth.  You are going to lecture me about love?  What?

----------


## Nang

> I didn't call you anything, but put forth your actions  run contrary to the Scriptures posted. I posted Scripture to state what proper loving behavior is for a Christian. You are the one who stated you felt they weren't speaking to you. I asked you to read them again, and prayed you would be moved by them. Your behavior of name calling and promoting factions and strife and disputes I elaborated on through the use of Galatians. It is you who continued to cast aspersions about an unrelated issue to try and antagonize, just as your remarks over the Catholic Church were intended to bait people. Flag away. I am attempting to stay within topic and guidelines, and using documentation to reinforce my position. 
> 
> I do not find your constant self promotion of your specific beliefs that you smugly condemn others by and ridicule and belittle them to be within the boundaries of being kind and is arrogant, bragging, and seeking its own. Your divisive behavior which proudly crows about causing strife and seeking to promote factions is again addressed in the previously posted Scriptures.




This post is loaded with personal accusations.  No amount of scripture references can cover this kind of animosity.

How or why do people think they can demand love from others, while failing to show love themselves?

I know the answers . . . they are found in my previous post.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This post is loaded with personal accusations.


I'm used to it by now.

----------


## TER

> You can always spot a non-Christian religion because it will constantly seek to draw comparisons with other pagan conceptions of God.  True religion, on the other hand, always seeks to press the antithesis.   It always seeks to separate from this wicked generation and cast down anything that sets itself up against the mind of Christ.


St. Paul on Mars Hill demonstrated to the pagans there that the god who they worshipped as the 'Unknown God' had revealed Himself and had come into the world in order to save everyone of them.  St. Paul was opening their minds to the truth that their religion knew in shadows yet had been revealed and fulfilled by Jesus Christ.  And many were converted.

----------


## moostraks

> This post is loaded with personal accusations.  No amount of scripture references can cover this kind of animosity.
> 
> How or why do people think they can demand love from others, while failing to show love themselves?
> 
> I know the answers . . . they are found in my previous post.


You and S_F are baiting. I posted verses (documentation) that I felt his position was wrong regarding his attitude towards those who do not toe the line of having the same belief structure as he does. To which S_F responded with a lie that I was a works salvationist.

----------


## moostraks

> And I told you that you are doing the most unloving thing that could be done:  teaching people idolatry.   I post all those verses back to you because you are being as hateful as possible.   Read Nang's post. Love CANNOT be separated from truth.  You are going to lecture me about love?  What?


You changed the subject. (with a lie for that matter)

----------


## Bryan

Way too much here is outside the guidelines. Focus on ideas, not on each other.

Thanks.

----------


## moostraks

> Love cannot be separated from truth.
> 
> It is not loving to suggest everyone can worship God any old way they want, or that we should just all get along no matter what one wants to believe.
> 
>  It is loving to tell them the message they must worship God in Spirit and Truth.
> 
> Using the Word of God as a battle-ax is not conveying truth, but usually an attempt to silence or kill the light of the gospel, with a thousand words.
> 
> In the very beginning, God created man and loved man and called him very good.  The first thing God gave Adam was moral limits, for his own good.  The words and instructions (commands) given to Adam from God manifest God's love for Adam.  This first revelation of the Law was holy, good, and meant as the preservation of life for Adam.
> ...


You and S_F are promoting your mutual admiration society. 

Matthew 5: 43“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ 44“But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46“For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47“If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

You are to:
John 13:34 “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35“By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

He loved as while we were sinners with misconceptions. He was not arrogant and condescending but:

Mark 2:15 And as he reclined at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

As for your opinion on the Fall, well, that is another long running discussion, but I disagree with your particular position. That said, we know true love and is my belief that all have the light within them.

Romans 1: 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

We can turn from Him and make idols of our own beliefs:

Romans 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

But:
1 John 4:8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

My argument is therefore you can't love your neighbor when you are looking down your nose and refusing to understand whom they are and what they believe about the world around them.

And to act as though one need not know their neighbor but should preach at them and hurl insults and false allegations is counter productive and not evidencing the Love of the faith one is proclaiming to want to share.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Way too much here is outside the guidelines. Focus on ideas, not on each other.
> 
> Thanks.


Thank you Bryan. ALL of us here need to do this.  Focus on ideas, not each other.

----------


## Nang

> You and S_F are promoting your mutual admiration society.


Well, at least we do not have our own situational war-room.

----------


## moostraks

> Well, at least we do not have our own situational war-room.


 I am sorry you feel that way. I did not participate in that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I am sorry you feel that way. I did not participate in that.


But you have in the past.  You've conspired to get someone like me banned....someone who has spent several years in the liberty movement putting my blood sweat and tears into it.  

Why would I deserve to be banned from a grassroots website like this?  I'm trying to ATTRACT religious people like myself to this website and the ideas of freedom.

----------


## moostraks

> _
> This is the transcript of a talk delivered by Fr Damascene Christensen._
> 
> 
> 
> *Host:* Father Damascene, who, as I am sure you are all aware, is an Eastern Orthodox Christian monk, began his life as John Christensen, and was nominally introduced to Western Protestant Christianity as a child. By the time he began college, however, he believed that the highest spiritual reality was not a personal deity or God, but rather a transpersonal reality. 
> 
> He considered himself a Buddhist, specifically, in the Zen tradition, and he had various experiences, which he writes, included darkness, infinite nothingness, existing outside of space and time, where everything is now, and time has no meaning. Despite these experiences, there was still something missing in the soul. 
> 
> ...


My third child is working on Eastern civilizations this year. I think I might pick up this book for my reading and understanding. Sounds pretty interesting! Thanks for the great reads. I love the foreshadowing of the Faith from other cultures and seeing the continuity of His presence in His creation.

----------


## moostraks

> But you have in the past.  You've conspired to get someone like me banned....someone who has spent several years in the liberty movement putting my blood sweat and tears into it.  
> 
> Why would I deserve to be banned from a grassroots website like this?  I'm trying to ATTRACT religious people like myself to this website and the ideas of freedom.


Stop throwing accusations around. I don't even flag posts and I have repeated this to you numerous times. I want you to cease and desist your lies. When I have had a problem with you, I have been honest and told you what it was over. It usually involved what you have done today which is false allegations and manipulating.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But you have in the past.  You've conspired to get someone like me banned....someone who has spent several years in the liberty movement putting my blood sweat and tears into it.  
> 
> Why would I deserve to be banned from a grassroots website like this?  I'm trying to ATTRACT religious people like myself to this website and the ideas of freedom.



I'd like an answer to this Moostraks^^^

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Stop throwing accusations around. I don't even flag posts and I have repeated this to you numerous times. I want you to cease and desist your lies. When I have had a problem with you, I have been honest and told you what it was over. It usually involved what you have done today which is false allegations and manipulating.


You don't flag posts?

----------


## moostraks

> I'd like an answer to this Moostraks^^^


LOL! You gave me 5 minutes to respond? I answered you. Read it. If you check your rep, you will find, unlike what you have done, I have never even neg repped you. I say what I say in the open to you, and usually it is over the disagreement, like today, that I think you are too arrogant and judgmental towards those that disagree with you and you misconstrue or outright lie about my beliefs.

----------


## moostraks

> You don't flag posts?


NO! Do you believe me yet? I told you previously if you have gotten flagged for something you have said to me, it wasn't me doing it.

----------


## Nang

> I am sorry you feel that way. I did not participate in that.







Sure.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> NO! Do you believe me yet? I told you previously if you have gotten flagged for something you have said to me, it wasn't me doing it.


Well now that makes me wonder.  Who is doing it?  Eduardo admitted to it yesterday.  Who else is it?

----------


## TER

> My third child is working on Eastern civilizations this year. I think I might pick up this book for my reading and understanding. Sounds pretty interesting! Thanks for the great reads. I love the foreshadowing of the Faith from other cultures and seeing the continuity of His presence in His creation.


A wonderful idea!  The deliberate use by St. John the Theologian of the word _logos_ in his gospel was to draw in not only Jews who were aquainted with the Greek philosophical concept, but also all people of that time, Gentiles, pagans, etc, who understood the word _logos_ to mean the 'first principle of the Universe, or the Reason and Wisdom of God.'  St. John is borrowing an Ancient Greek philosophical term in order to evangelize to all people Who Jesus Christ is, the very Incarnate Logos of God, Who in the appointed time had come into the world in order to bring the Light of God and save us from the darkness.

The philosophical term Tao is the Chinese equivalent of the word _logos_, and if St. John had been preaching to the people in the Far East in those days, he undoubtably would have used the term Tao to evangelize to them in the hopes of bringing many to Christ and fuller knowledge of the Logos of God.

----------


## moostraks

> Sure.


Sure ?

----------


## moostraks

> Well now that makes me wonder.  Who is doing it?  Eduardo admitted to it yesterday.  Who else is it?


I don't know and it is between you and them.

----------


## Nang

> Well now that makes me wonder.  Who is doing it?  Eduardo admitted to it yesterday.  Who else is it?


Deborah K?

----------


## moostraks

> A wonderful idea!  The deliberate use by St. John the Theologian of the word _logos_ in his gospel was to draw in not only Jews who were aquainted with the Greek philosophical concept, but also all people of that time, Gentiles, pagans, etc, who understood the word _logos_ to mean the 'first principle of the Universe, or the Reason and Wisdom of God.'  St. John is borrowing an Ancient Greek philosophical term in order to evangelize to all people Who Jesus Christ is, the very Incarnate Logos of God, Who in the appointed time had come into the world in order to bring the Light of God and save us from the darkness.
> 
> The philosophical term Tao is the Chinese equivalent of the word _logos_, and if St. John had been preaching to the people in the Far East in those days, he undoubtably would have used the term Tao to evangelize to them in the hopes of bringing many to Christ and fuller knowledge of the Logos of God.


I have a problem with some of the books we see recommended by certain curriculum providers as they are seem antagonistic to the purpose of Love and the message of Truth. I see it as straining gnats rather than allowing the children to let certain judgments be left to Him. So I always am on the lookout for those writings that seek to see the Light in the world and find common ground with different cultures.

----------


## PierzStyx

C.S. Lewis wrote an entire book on this idea, that there were moral truths found in other modes of thought and belief that proved the universality of God's message. He talks about it in "The Abolition of Man."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> C.S. Lewis wrote an entire book on this idea, that there were moral truths found in other modes of thought and belief that proved the universality of God's message. He talks about it in "The Abolition of Man."


Who cares?   C.S. Lewis wasn't a Christian either.

----------


## eduardo89

> Who cares?   C.S. Lewis wasn't a Christian either.


Yes, he was. One of the greatest Christians of the 20th century, in fact.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes, he was. One of the greatest Christians of the 20th century, in fact.


No he wasn't.   He believed and taught several heresies:

*Did CS Lewis Go To Heaven?* 
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=103

----------


## eduardo89

> No he wasn't.   He believed and taught several heresies:
> 
> *Did CS Lewis Go To Heaven?* 
> http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=103


Pathetic.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Pathetic.


Pathetic?  Could you expand on that?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Pathetic.


Haven't S_F and several others quoted "Mere Christianity" in the past to make a point? IDR correctly...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Haven't S_F and several others quoted "Mere Christianity" in the past to make a point? IDR correctly...


No, I havent.  And why would I speak for anyone else?

----------


## eduardo89

> Haven't S_F and several others quoted "Mere Christianity" in the past to make a point? IDR correctly...


No, he's already condemned that book as satanic before.

----------


## RJB

> No, he's already condemned that book as satanic before.


  What?  I'm laughing and shaking my head.  All he does is gossip.

Some wouldn't recognize Christianity if the Bread of Life from Heaven was offered to them.


Don't let him troll you.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Love cannot be separated from truth.
> 
> It is not loving to suggest everyone can worship God any old way they want, or that we should just all get along no matter what one wants to believe.
> 
>  It is loving to tell them the message they must worship God in Spirit and Truth.
> 
> Using the Word of God as a battle-ax is not conveying truth, but usually an attempt to silence or kill the light of the gospel, with a thousand words.
> 
> In the very beginning, God created man and loved man and called him very good.  The first thing God gave Adam was moral limits, for his own good.  The words and instructions (commands) given to Adam from God manifest God's love for Adam.  This first revelation of the Law was holy, good, and meant as the preservation of life for Adam.
> ...


Salvation in Christ is based on the love of God and the love of man, and the willingness to obey God when He makes His will plain.  It is not based in the arcane knowledge of a secret handshake.  Love cannot be separated from truth, but those who preach the truth in hate have already separated love from truth; we are told to speak the truth in love.




> *Ephesians 4:14-16*
> 
> New American Standard Bible (NASB)
> 
> *14* *[a]*As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness *[b]*in deceitful scheming;*15* but *[c]*speaking the truth in love, *[d]*we are to grow up in all _aspects_ into Him who is the head,_even_ Christ, *16* from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together *[e]*by what every joint supplies, according to the *[f]*proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.


Even if a hateful person carries a right doctrine, they are not in the will of God.  If a given doctrine creates hateful people, then that doctrine, no matter how right-sounding, needs to be re-examined.  Even Jesus was so overcome after driving the moneychangers out of the Temple that He had to put it in the Gospel record.  There is a time to tear down and a time to build up.  Jeremiah the Prophet was called 'the weeping prophet' because he was so affected by the tearing down.  When tearing down becomes a joyful activity, then something is fundamentally broken, and the will of God is not being done.

I would reflect your own opening statement - inasmuch as you cannot separate the truth from love, neither can you separate love from the truth.  To do so is ungodly, for God is love.




> *1 Corinthians 13:1-3*
> 
> New American Standard Bible (NASB)
> 
> *The Excellence of Love*
> 
> *13* If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. *2* If I have _the gift of_ prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. *3* And if I give all my possessions to feed _the poor_, and if I surrender my body *[a]*to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.


It doesn't matter how much knowledge someone has, or even if they know the secret handshake; without love they are just so much noise.  

You point to the fact that someone is carrying a true message.  They would not be the first to speak truth without love, but when truth is spoken without love it is inevitably imperfectly related, and usually quite distorted in some fundamental and important way.  In this case, an important recognition of foreordination, and the distortion that a failure to match a specified and detailed understanding is the key to hell.  

When you try and divorce love out of the truth, no matter what comes out it will certainly not be according to the will of God.

----------


## TER

^  One of the best posts I have read in a long time.  Thank you Gunny for sharing this with us.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No he wasn't.   He believed and taught several heresies:
> 
> *Did CS Lewis Go To Heaven?* 
> http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=103


I agree.  I don't get the evangelical fascination with Lewis.  I've seen some quotes of his that were good, but he also said a lot of really awful things.  If you're going to read Lewis, read with LOTS of discernment.  I still need to read Mere Christianity for a friend that challenged me after I said Lewis was a heretic on the basis of one of the quotes in there.

Did CS Lewis go to heaven?  I hope so.  But if he did, it certainly wasn't on the basis of the faith that is revealed in what he wrote.  God could have saved him before he died and I hope he did.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, I havent.  And why would I speak for anyone else?


Even if you had I don't see why it would be relevant.  I haven't read the book in its entirety, but there is probably some stuff in the book that's good.  That doesn't discount the fact that Lewis taught works salvation, purgatory, and rejected Biblical inerrency.

----------


## eduardo89

> Even if you had I don't see why it would be relevant.  I haven't read the book in its entirety, but there is probably some stuff in the book that's good.  That doesn't discount the fact that Lewis taught works salvation, purgatory, and rejected Biblical inerrency.


CS Lewis didn't teach works salvation.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> CS Lewis didn't teach works salvation.


Yes he did.  He was a (mod delete) Anglican who believed in the infusion of grace theory that Rome teaches.

----------


## eduardo89

> Yes he did.  He was a (mod delete) Anglican who believed in the infusion of grace theory that Rome teaches.


The Church does not teach works-salvation, so please quit misrepresenting our beliefs. And please refrain from using the derogatory term "Romanist." Thank you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Infusion grace theory = works salvation.  Period.  Very simple formula.

----------


## eduardo89

> Infusion grace theory = works salvation.  Period.  Very simple formula.


That is completely untrue. Works salvation assumes that there is something we can do on our own to merit salvation. That has been completely condemned by the Church. We can do *nothing* to merit salvation. We are saved solely by grace.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That is completely untrue. Works salvation assumes that there is something we can do on our own to merit salvation. That has been completely condemned by the Church. We can do *nothing* to merit salvation. We are saved solely by grace.


Yet for some reason you are still a synergist.

I presume you think (I know you wouldn't say you know with 100% certainty) that Mother Theresa is in heaven and yet Adolf Hitler is in Hell.  Why?  What's the difference between the two?

----------


## eduardo89

> Yet for some reason you are still a synergist.


Because that is what is taught in the Bible.




> I presume you think (I know you wouldn't say you know with 100% certainty) that Mother Theresa is in heaven and yet Adolf Hitler is in Hell.  Why?  What's the difference between the two?


I do not know where either of those is, but seeing as how they lived their lives one accepted God and one rejected Him. 

We can be quite certain that Hitler is in hell, however, not only because of the crimes he orchestrated as Führer (he could have repented of those), but because he committed suicide.

----------


## RJB

> Infusion grace theory = works salvation.  Period.  Very simple formula.


Reformed philosophy = Antinomianism and hatred.  Period.  Very simple formula.

I don't believe your formula nor the one I posted above, but my false statement does reflect the inherent dishonesty in your "formula."  Simplistic statements like that are a shortcut to thinking.

----------


## Deborah K

> I am sorry you feel that way. I did not participate in that.


There's nothing with wrong with that thread.  It was out in the open for all to see, and as I stated in one of my posts there; it is sort of like self-policing; it is similar to what the early Christian communities would do when trying to deal with brethren who were sowing discord.  Nothing wrong with that thread at all.

----------


## moostraks

> There's nothing with wrong with that thread.  It was out in the open for all to see, and as I stated in one of my posts there; it is sort of like self-policing; it is similar to what the early Christian communities would do when trying to deal with brethren who were sowing discourse.  Nothing wrong with that thread at all.


I would have felt better if they were not banned at the point in time in which it was being discussed. I understand why it was discussed. I stated I was not involved as she was barking up the wrong tree to try and draw me out on whatever vendetta is going on right now with her and S_F towards others in the religion subforum.  I feel bad that someone thinks of it as us having a war room against them. It is a completely inaccurate portrayal of who we are as individuals as she should have ascertained by the fact that she wasn't shunned or ignored. If it were a real war room, we would have had some consensus of opinion and moved forward with action. 

And for my response, she says sure. Still wondering what that was supposed to me. Ah well. She wants to be as loveable as a porcupine and then act persecuted, then it is her choice. I asked for clarification and got ignored. Such is life.

----------


## Deborah K

> *I would have felt better if they were not banned at the point in time in which it was being discussed*. I understand why it was discussed. I stated I was not involved as she was barking up the wrong tree to try and draw me out on whatever vendetta is going on right now with her and S_F towards others in the religion subforum.  I feel bad that someone thinks of it as us having a war room against them. It is a completely inaccurate portrayal of who we are as individuals as she should have ascertained by the fact that she wasn't shunned or ignored. If it were a real war room, we would have had some consensus of opinion and moved forward with action.


It was spontaneous, and it was in one of their threads.  Don't feel bad that they want to believe there is a war against them.  They have said it is what they want:




> "My interpretation"?
> 
> Christianity is a WAR.  This is not my interpretation.





> Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post 
> 
> Of course they don't. They refer to Christians being at war with every false religion of man. Christians are in a spiritual war with Roman Catholics for example.
> 
> 
> 
> You're derailing my thread.  As is Nang.  Reported.


Nang's and SF's posts have been removed from above thread but she was in agreement with SF that Christians are at war with other Christians - only they don't consider them Christians.




> And for my response, she says sure. Still wondering what that was supposed to me. Ah well. She wants to be as loveable as a porcupine and then act persecuted, then it is her choice. I asked for clarification and got ignored. Such is life.


She was actually being pretty decent right before SF and FF returned.  Then she reverted back.  Now she likes to post vicious lies like the following:




> Most of us know why Deborah bumped this thread.
> 
> She liked talking about mushrooms . . .in the name of religion.


This is their M.O. - they correct - then go on the attack - then play the victim when they're called on it. 
As long as this kind of behavior exists on this forum, I intend to address it using every means necessary until it stops.  The forum has been turned into a cesspool, and it's time to drain it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I would have felt better if they were not banned at the point in time in which it was being discussed. I understand why it was discussed. I stated I was not involved as she was barking up the wrong tree to try and draw me out on whatever vendetta is going on right now with her and S_F towards others in the religion subforum.  I feel bad that someone thinks of it as us having a war room against them. It is a completely inaccurate portrayal of who we are as individuals as she should have ascertained by the fact that she wasn't shunned or ignored. If it were a real war room, we would have had some consensus of opinion and moved forward with action. 
> 
> And for my response, she says sure. Still wondering what that was supposed to me. Ah well. She wants to be as loveable as a porcupine and then act persecuted, then it is her choice. I asked for clarification and got ignored. Such is life.





> It was spontaneous, and it was in one of their threads.  Don't feel bad that they want to believe there is a war against them.  They have said it is what they want:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nang's and SF's posts have been removed from above thread but she was in agreement with SF that Christians are at war with other Christians - only they don't consider them Christians.
> 
> 
> ...




Pardon me, but Bryan asked you already to debate IDEAS instead of making it personal.  Please follow the forum guidelines.

----------


## Deborah K

My apologies.  Mods feel free to split the thread off.

----------


## moostraks

> Pardon me, but Bryan asked you already to debate IDEAS instead of making it personal.  Please follow the forum guidelines.


Says the guy who then asked me to tell him who was flagging him??? At least be consistent...

ETA and while we are at it, if you are playing flag on this, I sure hope you flag yourself and nang to be consistent as it was she who started the complaint there is a war room against you two to which I was trying to clarify as with your accusations I was not involved. Nice to see your display of non-censorship towards those whom you disagree since you only brought this up after you had your questions satisfied. This is pathetic even for you S_F.

----------


## otherone

> it is similar to what the early Christian communities would do when trying to deal with brethren who were sowing _discourse_.



+rep for the most ironic faux pas of the day!

----------


## Deborah K

> +rep for the most ironic faux pas of the day!


I'll fix it.  I do dat a lot.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Says the guy who then asked me to tell him who was flagging him??? At least be consistent...
> 
> ETA and while we are at it, if you are playing flag on this, I sure hope you flag yourself and nang to be consistent as it was she who started the complaint there is a war room against you two to which I was trying to clarify as with your accusations I was not involved. Nice to see your display of non-censorship towards those whom you disagree since you only brought this up after you had your questions satisfied. This is pathetic even for you S_F.



Again, this is another personal post.  Please adhere to Bryan's forum guidelines and talk about ideas only.  

Thank you,
SF

----------


## acptulsa

> He who takes upon himself the slander of the world
> Is the presence of the state.


Brings Jefferson, Harding and Paul to mind...




> He who takes upon himself the sins of the world
> Is the King of the World.


_He_ certainly endured enough slander during His mortal coil...

----------


## moostraks

> But you have in the past.  You've conspired to get someone like me banned....someone who has spent several years in the liberty movement putting my blood sweat and tears into it.  
> 
> Why would I deserve to be banned from a grassroots website like this?  I'm trying to ATTRACT religious people like myself to this website and the ideas of freedom.





> I'd like an answer to this Moostraks^^^





> You don't flag posts?





> Well now that makes me wonder.  Who is doing it?  Eduardo admitted to it yesterday.  Who else is it?





> Again, this is another personal post.  Please adhere to Bryan's forum guidelines and talk about ideas only.  
> 
> Thank you,
> SF


And you?

----------


## moostraks

> Again, this is another personal post.  Please adhere to Bryan's forum guidelines and talk about ideas only.  
> 
> Thank you,
> SF





> Why do you go on with someone who is clearly caught up in contradictions?  Why don't you have a discussion with someone who has a consistent Christian philosophy?





> Again....it's just another statement that displays you don't understand the concepts that we are talking about.   You're cracking yourself up over there with your little quips that you think are so clever, but the people who know what they are talking about are not responding to it because it displays a lack of understanding.


Again, S_F, like this??

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Again, S_F, like this??


You're making your posts personal again.  Please adhere to the forum guidelines.  

Thanks,
SF

----------


## moostraks

> You're making your posts personal again.  Please adhere to the forum guidelines.  
> 
> Thanks,
> SF


Just dealing with ideas here S_F. You are the one who brought forth the argument. I am just providing documentation to support my position. 

Matthew 23:3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4 They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5 But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men;

----------


## Christian Liberty

Why all of this nonsensical drama?

I can't speak for SF or Nang, but I don't think I've ever stated my opinion one way or another as to whether Deborah K is a Christian.  At the present time I don't know enough of what she believes to say with certainty.  I do know enough to know SF doesn't consider her a Christian, but so what?  Who cares?  As erowe1 pointed out awhile ago, if you respect the opinion of the person who is telling you they are concerned for your soul, than that would be something to seriously consider.  And if not, why would you care what they think about you that way?  Its really that simple.  Either you respect our opinions or you don't.  If you don't, there's no sense caring whether or not we think you're Christians or not, since as far as you're concerned, we are just nuts.  On the other hand, if you DO take our opinions seriously, than why not search the scriptures and your own heart when one of "us" (I use that term loosely) challenges the authenticity of your Christian faith?  Either way, getting offended is just silly and doesn't accomplish anything.

Christianity IS spiritual war, there's no way to debate that.  The Bible describes it that way, as Sola pointed out.  We might quibble over what exactly that entails, but getting on Sola just for saying Christianity is a spiritual war shows that you have a problem with the Bible as well as with him.  

Tread carefully when indicating such, and stop taking personal offense at things that aren't personal.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Just dealing with ideas here S_F. You are the one who brought forth the argument. I am just providing documentation to support my position. 
> 
> Matthew 23:3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4 They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5 But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men;


The religious leaders were fundamentally correct on moral issues, but they didn't believe the gospel and their hearts were wicked.  So, they didn't actually practice what they preached.  Jesus is saying to live a holy life, but don't do what the pretenders ACTUALLY do, which is unholiness.

I don't see how this relates to Sola_Fide at all.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You're making your posts personal again.  Please adhere to the forum guidelines.  
> 
> Thanks,
> SF


What happened to you Sola?  A few weeks ago you were more adament than anyone that those who appealed to the moderation were cowards, and now you seem to be doing so.  Did you just get sick of the one-sidedness of it all?  I did.

----------


## otherone

> Tread carefully when indicating such, and stop taking personal offense at things that aren't personal.


Or....?

----------


## Nang

> It was spontaneous, and it was in one of their threads.  Don't feel bad that they want to believe there is a war against them.


I cannot think of a better example of a group gathering together against three other people, during their absence due to a ban, to figure out how PERMANENTLY eliminate them from a web site (the instigators all act like they own.)

This was a hateful thread, and it there was any love to be found in it, others will have to point it out to me, for it is hidden from my sight.

I am surprised it still stands, for it is disgraceful.






> Nang's and SF's posts have been removed from above thread but she was in agreement with SF that Christians are at war with other Christians - only they don't consider them Christians.


I have posted that there is a spiritual war occurring, because the inerrancy and necessity of Holy Scripture (and thus the gospel of Jesus Christ) is being opposed.  IOW's the war has been declared by the enemy of God's Word.  Not by we three.  We are fighting a war, that we did not declare.








> This is their M.O. - they correct - then go on the attack - then play the victim when they're called on it. 
> As long as this kind of behavior exists on this forum, I intend to address it using every means necessary until it stops.  The forum has been turned into a cesspool, and it's time to drain it.


And this is your M.O.  Gossip.  Backbiting.  Desire to do harm and punish.  Get people banned or permabanned.

Here you show no embarrassment for your behavior at all, but swear to continue in your hatefulness . . . while the "group" lectures we three on how we should be more loving.

What a crock.  What hypocrisy.  How empty of godly ideas.  WAY too personal!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Or....?


Well, it depends on what you're talking about (there were two ideas in the quoted section.)  If people don't listen to the "personal offense" part, they're going to spend long portions of their lives being offended, which will likely lead to having miserable lives.  To each his own.  But again, I don't see why they would care so much.  Again... if you respect the person who is challenging the state of your soul, why wouldn't you examine yourself?  If you don't respect the person, why would it matter to you what they think at all?




> I cannot think of a better example of a group gathering together against three other people, during a ban, to figure out how eliminate them from a web site.


I can't either.  I've seen far worse moderation in other places than here, but never this much collusion (I wonder if this happened behind the scenes at TOL...)




> This was a hateful thread,


Yikes, I feel personally attacked, since I started that thread  Just kidding, of course.  In all seriousness, yeah, that was bad.




> and it there was any love to be found in it, others will have to point it out to me, for I do find any love in it.


Well, maybe the OP...  Oh wait, I wrote it, I should be more humble







> I have posted that there is a spiritual war occurring, because the inerrancy and necessity of Holy Scripture (and thus the gospel of Jesus Christ) is being opposed.  IOW's the war has been declared by the enemy of God's Word.  Not by we three.  We are fighting a war, that we did not declare.


Of course, they see it the opposite way (unlike my last two segments, this part isn't a joke.)  They see us as starting the war because they hold to the true Biblical doctrine.  Unlike them, I have no DESIRE to get them banned from the site, and I probably wouldn't even use the report button if it wasn't for the fact that other people were doing so (the neg rep button and a solid response is more than sufficient.)  We respect their right to compete in the marketplace of ideas, while they do not respect our right to do the same.  

Lest anyone think its just the "Calvinists" who are annoyed by the whole moderation thing, Terry expressed some frustration about it to me as well.  So, its not just us that see the problem.








> And this is your M.O.  Gossip.  Backbiting.  Desire to do harm and punish.  Get people banned or permabanned.
> 
> Here you show no embarrassment for your behavior at all, but swear to continue in your hatefulness . . . while the "group" lectures we three on how we should be more loving.
> 
> What a crock.  What hypocrisy.  How empty of godly ideas.  WAY too personal!


We may come across as harsh sometimes, but I think they have a heck of a lot more of it than we do.  Its not even close.

----------


## moostraks

> Why all of this nonsensical drama?
> 
> I can't speak for SF or Nang, but I don't think I've ever stated my opinion one way or another as to whether Deborah K is a Christian.  At the present time I don't know enough of what she believes to say with certainty.  I do know enough to know SF doesn't consider her a Christian, but so what?  Who cares?  As erowe1 pointed out awhile ago, if you respect the opinion of the person who is telling you they are concerned for your soul, than that would be something to seriously consider.  And if not, why would you care what they think about you that way?  Its really that simple.  Either you respect our opinions or you don't.  If you don't, there's no sense caring whether or not we think you're Christians or not, since as far as you're concerned, we are just nuts.  On the other hand, if you DO take our opinions seriously, than why not search the scriptures and your own heart when one of "us" (I use that term loosely) challenges the authenticity of your Christian faith?  Either way, getting offended is just silly and doesn't accomplish anything.
> 
> Christianity IS spiritual war, there's no way to debate that.  The Bible describes it that way, as Sola pointed out.  We might quibble over what exactly that entails, but getting on Sola just for saying Christianity is a spiritual war shows that you have a problem with the Bible as well as with him.  
> 
> Tread carefully when indicating such, and stop taking personal offense at things that aren't personal.





> The religious leaders were fundamentally correct on moral issues, but they didn't believe the gospel and their hearts were wicked.  So, they didn't actually practice what they preached.  Jesus is saying to live a holy life, but don't do what the pretenders ACTUALLY do, which is unholiness.
> 
> I don't see how this relates to Sola_Fide at all.



You seem to be out in left field as to what S_F and I are discussing so gonna reign it in and hope mods will split this discussion off of the Tao thread. S_F is baiting folks and then crying foul. He took this thread off topic and lied about me. I felt obligated to clarify. Nang then took it off topic.  Deborah came in and questioned a response I gave. I clarified. S_F then decides he is gonna draw blood and demand we follow Bryan's advice after he already disregarded it to call me out on his lies in his witch hunt. I pointed out his own posts on the argument doing this behavior he is crying about not just on this thread but others in this subforum. S_F is trolling to get people banned.

----------


## Nang

> You seem to be out in left field as to what S_F and I are discussing so gonna reign it in and hope mods will split this discussion off of the Tao thread. S_F is baiting folks and then crying foul. He took this thread off topic and lied about me. I felt obligated to clarify. Nang then took it off topic.  Deborah came in and questioned a response I gave. I clarified. S_F then decides he is gonna draw blood and demand we follow Bryan's advice after he already disregarded it to call me out on his lies in his witch hunt. I pointed out his own posts on the argument doing this behavior he is crying about not just on this thread but others in this subforum.* S_F is trolling to get people banned.*


*Speak for yourself.*

----------


## moostraks

> I cannot think of a better example of a group gathering together against three other people, during their absence due to a ban, to figure out how PERMANENTLY eliminate them from a web site (the instigators all act like they own.)
> 
> This was a hateful thread, and it there was any love to be found in it, others will have to point it out to me, for it is hidden from my sight.
> 
> I am surprised it still stands, for it is disgraceful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


S_F, gonna complain?

----------


## moostraks

> *Speak for yourself.*


I AM!

----------


## PierzStyx

> Par for the course for Moostraks.   She will post verses with no commentary and no attempt to make them relevant to the topic at hand.


The truth doesn't need commentary. Its obvious if you read them.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You seem to be out in left field as to what S_F and I are discussing so gonna reign it in and hope mods will split this discussion off of the Tao thread. S_F is baiting folks and then crying foul. He took this thread off topic and lied about me. I felt obligated to clarify. Nang then took it off topic.  Deborah came in and questioned a response I gave. I clarified. S_F then decides he is gonna draw blood and demand we follow Bryan's advice after he already disregarded it to call me out on his lies in his witch hunt. I pointed out his own posts on the argument doing this behavior he is crying about not just on this thread but others in this subforum. S_F is trolling to get people banned.


Honestly, I'd love to see the professional tattletales (no, I'm not talking about you, since you've stated you don't report posts) banned.  If Sola is brilliant enough to bait them into committing a bannable offense without getting banned himself, I'd honestly internet high-five him at this point.  Heaven knows its more than deserved at this point.  That said, I'm not certain that that is what he's trying to do so I'll let him answer for himself.  For what its worth, I don't endorse everything he writes.

----------


## Nang

> I AM!


No, you are excusing yourself and projecting your faults upon others.

Stop with the blame game, and this forum will settle right down.

You cannot keep stirring up trouble and blaming it on others.  It will not work.

----------


## Nang

> The truth doesn't need commentary. Its obvious if you read them.



When a person wields Scripture out of context, without proper application, but with a purely selfish motive, to make themselves look good,
and to make the other look bad, it is called ABUSE of the Holy Word of God.

Anyone, anywhere, at any time can quote scripture and make it say what they want it to say.

This is something every one of us must be very careful about not doing.

----------


## moostraks

> No, you are excusing yourself and projecting your faults upon others.
> 
> Stop with the blame game, and this forum will settle right down.
> 
> You cannot keep stirring up trouble and blaming it on others.  It will not work.


 
Sure.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The truth doesn't need commentary. Its obvious if you read them.


Can you please show even one place where Mormonism is "obviously" true in the Bible (And I mean the 66 book Protestant Canon, not the Doctrines and Covenants, Book of Mormon, or anything else like that.)

----------


## PierzStyx

> I'm used to it by now.


It is the damnable hypocrite that condemns their brother for the mote in their eye without seeing the beam in their own. If moostrack got personal, you haven't the right to condemn them for it because you do the same. This is why so many don't like talking with you SF. Its got nothing to do with your beliefs and everything to do with your actions/words. Your anger and the amount of animosity you're generating do not help the cause of Christ here but do it great harm in giving reasons people to harden their hearts against the gospel of Jesus Christ.

----------


## moostraks

> When a person wields Scripture out of context, without proper application, but with a purely selfish motive, to make themselves look good,
> and to make the other look bad, it is called ABUSE of the Holy Word of God.
> 
> Anyone, anywhere, at any time can quote scripture and make it say what they want it to say.
> 
> This is something every one of us must be very careful about not doing.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It is the damnable hypocrite that condemns their brother for the mote in their eye without seeing the beam in their own. If moostrack got personal, you haven't the right to condemn them for it because you do the same. This is why *no one likes talking with you SF.* Its got nothing to do with your beliefs and everything to do with your actions/words. Your anger and the amount of animosity you're generating do not help the cause of Christ here but do it great harm in giving reasons people to harden their hearts against the gospel of Jesus Christ.


Really?  I rather like talking with SF even though we don't always agree.  I recommend against these absolute statements.

----------


## moostraks

> It is the damnable hypocrite that condemns their brother for the mote in their eye without seeing the beam in their own. If moostrack got personal, you haven't the right to condemn them for it because you do the same. This is why no one likes talking with you SF. Its got nothing to do with your beliefs and everything to do with your actions/words. Your anger and the amount of animosity you're generating do not help the cause of Christ here but do it great harm in giving reasons people to harden their hearts against the gospel of Jesus Christ.


It certainly hardens my heart dealing with it. I want nothing to do with the term Christian when people who display such hate use it to identify themselves.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What happened to you Sola?  A few weeks ago you were more adament than anyone that those who appealed to the moderation were cowards, and now you seem to be doing so.  Did you just get sick of the one-sidedness of it all?  I did.


I guess I'm just trying something new.  I mean, why should they not be held to the same standards everyone else is?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Really?  I rather like talking with SF even though we don't always agree.  I recommend against these absolute statements.





> It certainly hardens my heart dealing with it. I want nothing to do with the term Christian when people who display such hate use it to identify themselves.



These are more posts that violate the forum guidelines.  Please stick to ideas.

Thanks,
SF

----------


## Nang

> Salvation in Christ is based on the love of God and the love of man, and the willingness to obey God when He makes His will plain.  It is not based in the arcane knowledge of *a secret handshake.*


You must have a secret interpretation of this term, for I have no idea what you mean by it.  What are you talking about?





> Love cannot be separated from truth, but those who preach the truth in hate have already separated love from truth; we are told to speak the truth in love.


If this platitude is directed personally to me, you will have to provide a quote where I have preached the gospel in a spirit of hate.  Can you do this?






> Jeremiah the Prophet was called 'the weeping prophet' because he was so affected by the tearing down.  When tearing down becomes a joyful activity, then something is fundamentally broken, and the will of God is not being done.


Another innuendo.  Is this directed personally to me, also?  What words have I posted that causes you to so judge me?




> I would reflect your own opening statement - inasmuch as you cannot separate the truth from love, neither can you separate love from the truth.  To do so is ungodly, for God is love.


So where did I separate the truth from my gospel message of truth?  Please be specific, so that I can defend myself against these vagaries.





> It doesn't matter how much knowledge someone has, or even if they know the secret handshake; without love they are just so much noise.


What are you talking about?  "Secret handshake???" 




> You point to the fact that someone is carrying a true message.  They would not be the first to speak truth without love, but when truth is spoken without love it is inevitably imperfectly related, and usually quite distorted in some fundamental and important way.


You are repeating yourself.  Are you a politician?





> In this case, an important recognition of foreordination, and the distortion that a failure to match a specified and detailed understanding is the key to hell.


Let it all out . . . what distortion in regard to foreordination, are you referring  to?   (If that is your actual accusation . . I can't really make out the point you seen to want to get across.)




> When you try and divorce love out of the truth, no matter what comes out it will certainly not be according to the will of God.


Another repeat!  Please tell me when I have proclaimed the gospel truth with hatred.  

I know it has nothing to do with any discussion between the two of us, because I only tried once to respond to you and have intelligent discussion, but you never responded back to me, until now.

What gives?

What's your beef?

----------


## otherone

> These are more posts that violate the forum guidelines.  Please stick to ideas.
> 
> Thanks,
> SF


Is this post an idea?

----------


## moostraks

> I guess I'm just trying something new.  I mean, why should they not be held to the same standards everyone else is?





> These are more posts that violate the forum guidelines.  Please stick to ideas.
> 
> Thanks,
> SF


Matthew 23:3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4 They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5 But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men;

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Is this post an idea?


I think so, yes.

----------


## Nang

> I think so, yes.


It is definitely a proposition . . . and thus it qualifies, yes?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Matthew 23:3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4 They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5 But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men;


Yes.  The Jews would tie up men's consciences by teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.  They would create new traditions and new laws.  They would add to the pristine word of God....much like Rome has done today.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Can you please show even one place where Mormonism is "obviously" true in the Bible (And I mean the 66 book Protestant Canon, not the Doctrines and Covenants, Book of Mormon, or anything else like that.)



First of all, I love how I'm restricted from using the entirety of the Bible and instead only can use the altered Protestant Bible which took away form the word of God as it was originally constructed and is presently used by the Catholic Church.

Secondly, this is a silly challenge. Show me one place where the Bible, absent form the influence of the Spirit of God, _proves_ its own veracity. You can't, because just reading a text doesn't _prove_ anything, especially that the words within are God's commands and revelations. If that weren't the case then no reasonable person nor any reasonable argument would exist for people not believing in the Bible. It is the Spirit of God moving upon the mind and heart of the reader that testifies to the heart and mind that the Bible contains the words of God. And that is the guide I take for my life. 

The Holy Spirit has testified over and over again that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, ancient scripture of God's dealings with a group of ancient Americans, that God loves all people and preaches His gospel to them in their own tongues. The Holy Spirit testifies to me that Joseph Smith, when but a young boy of 14 prayed to God to know what church he should attend that God and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph in vision, told him his sins were forgiven, and answered that he should join no church for the fulness of the gospel had been lost from them all. The Holy Spirit testifies to me that Joseph Smith was visited by angels, given revelations from God, and called to be the first in a line of modern prophets. The Holy Spirit testifies to me that Joseph was lead to the ancient record that would become the Book of Mormon, that he translated by the power of God. It is the Holy Spirit that testifies that God has established His church upon the Earth in its fulness, and that the restored gospel of Jesus Christ goes forth to convert the world, with power to save the living and the dead. It is the Holy Ghost that brings me to a knowledge of Jesus Christ, my Savior and King. I know the Book of Mormon is true the same way I know the Bible is true, not because the infallibility of the text (because no work coming from the hands of man is ever perfect) nor because there is some obvious factual statement that places their veracity beyond debate, but because God the Father, through the power of the Holy Spirit has communicated to by heart, mind, and spirit that these things are true. And it is those truths, as communicated by God as personal revelation to me, that matter to me.

----------


## Nang

> Matthew 23:3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4 They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5 But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men;


Moostraks,

It is an offense for you to make accusations against Christians, by using the Word of God out of context.

You are inferring unwarranted behavior, without giving specific cause.

That is against the forum guidelines, right?

----------


## otherone

> Show me one place where the Bible, absent form the influence of the Spirit of God, _proves_ its own veracity. You can't, because just reading a text doesn't _prove_ anything, especially that the words within are God's commands and revelations. If that weren't the case then no reasonable person nor any reasonable argument would exist for people not believing in the Bible.


THANK YOU!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It is definitely a proposition . . . and thus it qualifies, yes?


Haha...yes.  And truth is an attribute of propositions only.  This simple understanding would clear up so much confusion in the world today.

----------


## otherone

> Moostraks,
> 
> It is an offense for you to make accusations against Christians, by using the Word of God out of context.
> 
> You are inferring unwarranted behavior, without giving specific cause.
> 
> That is against the forum guidelines, right?


Where?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> THANK YOU!


Bravo Pierzstyx!  The atheist of the board is cheering on your atheistic argument against the inspiration and inerrancy of God's Word.

----------


## otherone

> Bravo Pierzstyx!  The atheist of the board is cheering on your atheistic argument against the inspiration and inerrancy of God's Word.


He also claimed that Knowledge comes from the Holy Spirit, but you seem to have missed that part.  And I find your chiding insulting.

----------


## moostraks

> Moostraks,
> 
> It is an offense for you to make accusations against Christians, by using the Word of God out of context.
> 
> You are inferring unwarranted behavior, without giving specific cause.
> 
> That is against the forum guidelines, right?


Are you inferring I am not a Christian now? Want to start saying inferences are against the rules and start crying about it?

I formed a rebuttal to S_F's argument and posted documentation for my position. Refute it, with documentation then.

----------


## Nang

> Are you inferring I am not a Christian now? Want to start saying inferences are against the rules and start crying about it?
> 
> I formed a rebuttal to S_F's argument and posted documentation for my position. Refute it, with documentation then.



You formed no argument at all, but only posted an isolated verse from Matthew speaking of the Pharisees, to infer and thus accuse SF of the same.

That is disingenuous, immoral, and an abuse of the Holy Word of God . . . attempting to harm others with the Truth of God, instead of presenting decent argument, plus it is a failure to make any attempt to spiritually build a neighbor up in faith.

It should not be permitted, and in fact, I believe the guidelines forbid it.

----------


## otherone

> It should not be permitted, and in fact, I believe the guidelines forbid it.


Quoting the bible to make a point is verbotten?  Where?

----------


## eduardo89

> Quoting the bible to make a point is verbotten?  Where?


Nazi Germany, maybe.

----------


## Nang

> Quoting the bible to make a point is verbotten?  Where?


We are supposed to discuss ideas (and hopefully doctrines) on this Religion site.

We are NOT supposed to use verses from the bible as bullets to kill each other!

If you cannot see the difference, then it shows you have no ideas, either.

----------


## acptulsa

> You formed no argument at all, but only posted an isolated verse from Matthew speaking of the Pharisees, to infer and thus accuse SF of the same.
> 
> That is disingenuous, immoral, and an abuse of the Holy Word of God . . . attempting to harm others with the Truth of God, instead of presenting decent argument, plus it is a failure to make any attempt to spiritually build a neighbor up in faith.
> 
> It should not be permitted, and in fact, I believe the guidelines forbid it.


You think the guidelines prohibit quoting the Bible?

You think merely quoting the Bible and letting it stand, rather than trying to 'interpret' the snot out of it one way or another, is somehow disrespectful to the word of God?

You really think you can read her mind well enough to testify as to why she quoted the Bible?




> We are NOT supposed to use verses from the bible as bullets to kill each other!


You're afraid of the Word?  Can it harm the righteous?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> He also claimed that Knowledge comes from the Holy Spirit, but you seem to have missed that part.  And I find your chiding insulting.


You cannot separate the Word of God's inerrancy from the Holy Spirit's revelation.  Doing this is one of the main errors of the religions of men.  They think that the Spirit speaks to them in some other way than the Scriptures. 

Incidentally, both Rome and the Mormon Church separates the Holy Spirit from the Scriptures by saying the that Holy Spirit speaks directly to their leaders in their church.  This is the foundation of all kinds of heresy.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Nazi Germany, maybe.


USSR, too....all the UAE States, IIRC.

----------


## otherone

> We are supposed to discuss ideas (and hopefully doctrines) on this Religion site.
> 
> We are NOT supposed to use verses from the bible as bullets to kill each other!
> 
> If you cannot see the difference, then it shows you have no ideas, either.


You feel killed when bible verses are used against you in an internet debate?

----------


## Nang

> You think the guidelines prohibit quoting the Bible?
> 
> You think merely quoting the Bible and letting it stand, rather than trying to 'interpret' the snot out of it one way or another, is somehow disrespectful to the word of God?
> 
> You really think you can read her mind well enough to testify as to why she quoted the Bible?



Even most religious heretics give arguments along with using the Word of God.  Does either declare them right?  No.

The only hope Christians have on a Religious forum, is honest argument and scripture quoted with exegesis and with context.

Otherwise, you end up with a free-for-all (battle), devoid of any intellectual thought, effort, or reason given for faith, behind the posts.

----------


## moostraks

> You formed no argument at all, but only posted an isolated verse from Matthew speaking of the Pharisees, to infer and thus accuse SF of the same.
> 
> That is disingenuous, immoral, and an abuse of the Holy Word of God . . . attempting to harm others with the Truth of God, instead of presenting decent argument, let alone any attempt to spiritually build a neighbor up in faith.
> 
> It should not be permitted, and in fact, I believe the guidelines forbid it.


Romans 2:1 - 2:5

Now viewing scripture range from the book of Romans chapter 2:1 through chapter 2:5...

Romans Chapter 2
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

Btw: it was meant to clearly get across a point which seems to have flown right over your hypocritical head, S_F is being a hypocrite by calling out those who he has differences with whilst you and he post as you wish. It was specifically shortened to be read as it stands. There are those who make rules for others by which they themselves do not follow and bind others from responding in kind while they do as they choose. They do this for attention, of men. 

I am not attempting to harm anyone. I am responding to ridiculous arguments which you and your cohort have decided to utilize.

----------


## otherone

> You cannot separate the Word of God's inerrancy from the Holy Spirit's revelation.  Doing this is one of the main errors of the religions of men.  They think that the Spirit speaks to them in some other way than the Scriptures.


By what criteria is the Bible the Word of God?  What separates someone who reads it and believes, from someone who reads it and does not?

----------


## Nang

> You feel killed when bible verses are used against you in an internet debate?


The Word of God is conveyed to mankind, in order to save the soul . . . not to eliminate others.

If God does not want me to post on RPF, God will end my activity here . . . not Deborah, Moose, and the "group" . . . of which you are one.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Bravo Pierzstyx!  The atheist of the board is cheering on your atheistic argument against the inspiration and inerrancy of God's Word.


He is, of course, correct.

----------


## moostraks

> We are supposed to discuss ideas (and hopefully doctrines) on this Religion site.
> 
> We are NOT supposed to use verses from the bible as bullets to kill each other!
> 
> If you cannot see the difference, then it shows you have no ideas, either.


Y'all admitted it was an idea. I went with it as such and stated so, as an idea. Documented my response too...

----------


## acptulsa

> Otherwise, you end up with a free-for-all (battle), devoid of any intellectual thought, effort, or reason given for faith, behind the posts.


I haven't found the Bible 'devoid of any intellectual thought' and I find it takes a little effort to find the right passage to quote.  And a free-for-all is something that happens when Christian theology is debated without reference to the Bible.

----------


## Nang

> Romans 2:1 - 2:5
> 
> Now viewing scripture range from the book of Romans chapter 2:1 through chapter 2:5...
> 
> Romans Chapter 2
> 1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
> 
> 2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
> 
> ...


Can't speak for SF, but the only argument I have presented in the last few days, is that love cannot be separated from truth.

What is ridiculous about this proposition in your mind?

----------


## moostraks

> The Word of God is conveyed to mankind, in order to save the soul . . . not to eliminate others.
> 
> If God does not want me to post on RPF, God will end my activity here . . . not Deborah, Moose, and the "group" . . . of which you are one.


So, would this mean the Bible is not useful for correction and reproof?

2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

----------


## Nang

> Y'all admitted it was an idea. I went with it as such and stated so, as an idea. Documented my response too...



And I take note your responses have contained no love at all, to those you have answered the last couple of days.

Do you really think you can morally dictate to others, and fail to apply the same to yourself?

 Failure to do so is the actual definition of gross hypocrisy . . .

----------


## Nang

> So, would this mean the Bible is not useful for correction and reproof?
> 
> 2 Timothy 3:16
> 
> All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,


Of course, but where is your "correction?"

How are you teaching any of us here about how much you love us and want the best for us?

----------


## otherone

> The Word of God is conveyed to mankind, in order to save the soul . . . not to eliminate others.


This is your opinion, and I respect that, but understand, this is the "religion" forum, not the "christian" forum.  Maybe the mods will create a subforum if you ask?

----------


## moostraks

> Can't speak for SF, but the only argument I have presented in the last few days, is that love cannot be separated from truth.
> 
> What is ridiculous about this proposition in your mind?


And some slur about deborah and mushrooms, and some snark towards how everyone is out to get you, and how I am misusing the Bible to attack Christians (of which I guess I am not). These are the ones that come off the top of my head.

----------


## Nang

> This is your opinion, and I respect that, but understand, this is the "religion" forum, not the "christian" forum.  Maybe the mods will create a subforum if you ask?



WOW!  What an astute admission!

How many here do you think are Christian, and how many are just "religious?"

----------


## moostraks

> And I take note your responses have contained no love at all, to those you have answered the last couple of days.
> 
> Do you really think you can morally dictate to others, and fail to apply the same to yourself?
> 
>  Failure to do so is the actual definition of gross hypocrisy . . .


No love eh? I answered S_F's questions honestly. I attempted to offers words of condolence to you for feeling the outsider and clarify my position so there would be no hard feelings. For this, well you decide I am not entitled to use the Bible as I am not one of "you Christians".

----------


## Nang

> And some slur about deborah and mushrooms, and some snark towards how everyone is out to get you, and how I am misusing the Bible to attack Christians (of which I guess I am not). These are the ones that come off the top of my head.


You are being personal; not presenting ideas of how to reconcile our differences at all.

Where is your "correction" or loving desire that we can be friends?

----------


## otherone

> WOW!  What an astute admission!
> 
> How many here do you think are Christian, and how many are just "religious?"


I don't know what you mean by "just", but you realize there are people here of all faiths?

----------


## Nang

> No love eh? I answered S_F's questions honestly. I attempted to offers words of condolence to you for feeling the outsider and clarify my position so there would be no hard feelings. For this, well you decide I am not entitled to use the Bible as I am not one of "you Christians".


News flash:  I do not feel like an "outsider."  No such thing for those of us who abide in Christ.

Identifying those who think they are "insiders" is to expose egos, and attitudes of deliberate opposition and hatred, instead of truly loving neighbors as oneself.

----------


## Nang

> I don't know what you mean by "just", but you realize there are people here of all faiths?


Being a Christian is not the same as just being religious . . .

----------


## otherone

> Being a Christian is not the same as just being religious . . .


I don't understand what that means.  But you understand that this forum is for everyone, of all faiths?

----------


## Nang

> I don't understand what that means.  But you understand that this forum is for everyone, of all faiths?


I have a question for you . . .

If Bryan developed a sub-forum just for Christians, and left the Religion forum open to all faiths, which forum would you want to post in?

----------


## otherone

> I have a question for you . . .
> 
> If Bryan developed a sub-forum just for Christians, and left the Religion forum open to all faiths, which forum would you want to post in?


Why?

----------


## moostraks

> You are being personal; not presenting ideas of how to reconcile our differences at all.
> 
> Where is your "correction" or loving desire that we can be friends?


You fluffed me off with:




> Well, at least we do not have our own situational war-room.





> I am sorry you feel that way. I did not participate in that.





> Sure.





> Sure ?


Crickets....

Then:




> *Speak for yourself.*





> No, you are excusing yourself and projecting your faults upon others.
> 
> Stop with the blame game, and this forum will settle right down.
> 
> You cannot keep stirring up trouble and blaming it on others.  It will not work.


Then:



> Moostraks,
> 
> It is an offense for you to make accusations against Christians, by using the Word of God out of context.
> 
> You are inferring unwarranted behavior, without giving specific cause.
> 
> That is against the forum guidelines, right?


So you want me to do what for you now?

----------


## Nang

> Why?



Because you suggested it be done.  

Which forum would you feel more comfortable posting in?

----------


## otherone

> Because you suggested it be done.  
> 
> Which forum would you feel more comfortable posting in?


That would depend on the topic?

----------


## Nang

> So you want me to do what for you now?


Stop hating me and opposing my attempts to witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

----------


## moostraks

> News flash:  I do not feel like an "outsider."  No such thing for those of us who abide in Christ.
> 
> Identifying those who think they are "insiders" is to expose egos, and attitudes of deliberate opposition and hatred, instead of truly loving neighbors as oneself.


Oh dear persecuted one, outsider was referring to you complaining about there being a war room:




> I cannot think of a better example of a group gathering together against three other people, during their absence due to a ban, to figure out how PERMANENTLY eliminate them from a web site (the instigators all act like they own.)
> 
> This was a hateful thread, and it there was any love to be found in it, others will have to point it out to me, for it is hidden from my sight.


You really like to create your position and then shift like sand don't you?

----------


## Nang

> That would depend on the topic?


O.K.  So you would participate in both forums according to topic.

That is a good and right answer.  Kudos!

What would you do if there was a topic in the Christian forum you disagreed with?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You fluffed me off with:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You keep making personal posts.   Please follow Bryans rules and stick to the issues.


Thanks,

SF

----------


## purplechoe

Nang admitted in one of her posts a couple of months back that she enjoys trolling this forum. I'm starting to lose respect for Bryan and the mods here for allowing this person to keep posting here especially on such a sensitive topic as religion and spiritual beliefs...

----------


## Nang

> Oh dear persecuted one, outsider was referring to you complaining about there being a war room:
> 
> 
> 
> You really like to create your position and then shift like sand don't you?


Moose,

I recommend, in love towards you, to enjoy a hot bath and a glass of wine or a hot cup of tea. . .

 It will do wonders for your negative disposition!    LOL!

----------


## moostraks

> Stop hating me and opposing my attempts to witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ.


This is the religion forum. I am not going to stop responding because you want your way. I am not hating on you and have attempted to respond kindly. It seems as though the only way a kind response can be achieved in your opinion is by being silent or agreeing with you. Good luck with that cause I don't like the Reformed beliefs.

----------


## otherone

> O.K.  So you would participate in both forums according to topic.
> 
> That is a good and right answer.  Kudos!
> 
> What would you do if there was a topic in the Christian forum you disagreed with?


Disagreed with?  That would depend.  If the topic was "The RC Church leads to Atheism", I might post.  If it was a discussion about particular dogma, I have no interest.

----------


## moostraks

> Moose,
> 
> I recommend, in love towards you, to enjoy a hot bath and a glass of wine or a hot cup of tea. . .
> 
>  It will do wonders for your negative disposition!    LOL!


I don't drink and bathed earlier.

(And after 8 children tea this late well...let's say I won't sleep for long...)

----------


## Nang

> Nang admitted in one of her posts a couple of months back that *she enjoys trolling this forum.* I'm starting to lose respect for Bryan and the mods here for allowing this person to keep posting here...


DO NOT make claims like this without backing up with a link that exactly quotes me saying so.

----------


## moostraks

> You keep making personal posts.   Please follow Bryans rules and stick to the issues.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> SF


Why are you choosing to only accuse me S_F? Is it because I am to be scorned? Ridiculed? Humiliated? Because I am not a Christian?(in your opinion)

----------


## Nang

> I don't drink and bathed earlier.
> 
> (And after 8 children tea this late well...let's say I won't sleep for long...)


Ha!  OK, I sympathise . . . was wanting to help you let down a bit and relax about all this stuff.

You know, impersonal arguments online tend to build their own steam on both sides of any argument, and go beyond being human.

----------


## otherone

> You know, impersonal arguments online tend to build their own steam on both sides of any argument, and get beyond being human.


WELL SAID!!!
And just so ya' know, SF is gonna give you a hard time that an atheist praised you....

----------


## RJB

> I don't drink and bathed earlier.
> 
> (And after 8 children tea this late well...let's say I won't sleep for long...)


Make it a chamomile then

----------


## moostraks

> Ha!  OK, I sympathise . . . was wanting to help you let down a bit and relax about all this stuff.
> 
> You know, impersonal arguments online tend to build their own steam on both sides of any argument, and get beyond being human.


Well, probably isn't coming across as well since you have come late to the party between S_F and I, but I am fine. He and I lock horns and I know he feels contempt for me. I cannot change my beliefs just because he doesn't like me. So I hold my ground and speak my mind.

----------


## moostraks

> Make it a chamomile then


Well it's not a caffeine thing ya see. Lol!

----------


## otherone

> Well it's not a caffeine thing ya see. Lol!


_Reporter:  "Bob Dole....boxers or briefs?"
Bob Dole: "Depends..."_

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Nang admitted in one of her posts a couple of months back that she enjoys trolling this forum. I'm starting to lose respect for Bryan and the mods here for allowing this person to keep posting here especially on such a sensitive topic as religion and spiritual beliefs...


Please follow the site guidelines and stop making personal posts.   Stick to the issues.

Thanks,
SF

----------


## Natural Citizen

> _Reporter:  "Bob Dole....boxers or briefs?"
> Bob Dole: "Depends..."_


Heh. That's pretty good.

----------


## moostraks

> _Reporter:  "Bob Dole....boxers or briefs?"
> Bob Dole: "Depends..."_


Hahahaha, not there...yet

----------


## Nang

> WELL SAID!!!
> And just so ya' know, SF is gonna give you a hard time that an atheist praised you....


Nah . . . SF is not against atheists being friends and interacting with Christians.

Right now, SF is concerned with fair play and decent posting parameters being established and upheld on RPF, as am I.

It is very discouraging to take a Christian stand and then be censored, because others oppose your view only with raw emotions and ad hominem hurled against your person, instead of presenting decent intellectual and scriptural arguments based on ideas, and studied biblical doctrines.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> These are more posts that violate the forum guidelines.  Please stick to ideas.
> 
> Thanks,
> SF


How did my post violate the forum guidelines?  Did you flag it?




> You cannot separate the Word of God's inerrancy from the Holy Spirit's revelation.  Doing this is one of the main errors of the religions of men.  They think that the Spirit speaks to them in some other way than the Scriptures. 
> 
> Incidentally, both Rome and the Mormon Church separates the Holy Spirit from the Scriptures by saying the that Holy Spirit speaks directly to their leaders in their church.  This is the foundation of all kinds of heresy.


I don't necessarily deny that the Holy Spirit could speak directly to an individual.  Such revelation would have to be individual (not corporate) in nature, and it also could not contradict scripture in any way.



> Nang admitted in one of her posts a couple of months back that she enjoys trolling this forum. I'm starting to lose respect for Bryan and the mods here for allowing this person to keep posting here especially on such a sensitive topic as religion and spiritual beliefs...


Where?  Link?



> DO NOT make claims like this without backing up with a link that exactly quotes me saying so.





> Please follow the site guidelines and stop making personal posts.   Stick to the issues.
> 
> Thanks,
> SF


You're going to be doing this a lot

----------


## moostraks

> Right now, SF is concerned with fair play and decent posting parameters being established and upheld on RPF, ...


If that were true he would have pointed out your off topic posts as well. Yet, he did not.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I guess I'm just trying something new.  I mean, why should they not be held to the same standards everyone else is?


Yeah, I agree.  I was kind of thrown out when you quoted one of my posts as a rule breaking post though, considering I wasn't attacking you and I was never part of the "more moderation" clammer anyway

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why are you choosing to only accuse me S_F? Is it because I am to be scorned? Ridiculed? Humiliated? Because I am not a Christian?(in your opinion)


Why are they choosing to ban, censor,  and freely ridicule me?  Is it because I am a Christian and God's Word convicts them of their sin?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If that were true he would have pointed out your off topic posts as well. Yet, he did not.


So do we agree that both sides should stick to the issue like Bryan said?  Or are you going to continue to make personal post after personal post?

Why can you not stop with the personal posts?  Why is that so hard?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why are they choosing to ban, censor,  and freely ridicule me?  Is it because I am a Christian and God's Word convicts them of their sin?


Probably...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So do we agree that both sides should stick to the issue like Bryan said?  Or are you going to continue to make personal post after personal post?
> 
> Why can you not stop with the personal posts?  Why is that so hard?


They can't debate you on the issues because they know just as well as you do that you know far more of the Bible than they do.  Most of these people won't even come to terms with the fact that people who don't believe in Jesus Christ before they die will g to hell, yet they claim to be Christians who know and believe God's Word.  Even that very basic point is highly controversial here.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Is it because I am a Christian and God's Word convicts them of their sin?





> Posts should not promote negativity in collectivist mindsets that view humans as members of groups rather than individuals.


Please follow the site guidelines and stop making personal posts.   Stick to the issues.

Thanks,
NC


Heh. I'm just screwing with you, S_F.

We'd do well to refrain from becoming overly hypocritical though.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Please follow the site guidelines and stop making personal posts.   Stick to the issues.
> 
> Thanks,
> NC
> 
> 
> Heh. I'm just screwing with you, S_F.
> 
> We'd do well to refrain from becoming overly hypocritical though.


LOL!  Christianity isn't collectivist, it includes ALL types of people.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> LOL!  Christianity isn't collectivist, it includes ALL types of people.


Why does it have to be about Christianity?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> They can't debate you on the issues because they know just as well as you do that you know far more of the Bible than they do.  Most of these people won't even come to terms with the fact that people who don't believe in Jesus Christ before they die will g to hell, yet they claim to be Christians who know and believe God's Word.


Please follow the site guidelines and stop making personal posts.   Stick to the issues.

Thanks,
NC

----------


## moostraks

> So do we agree that both sides should stick to the issue like Bryan said?  Or are you going to continue to make personal post after personal post?
> 
> Why can you not stop with the personal posts?  Why is that so hard?


 You ignored that suggestion when it was inconvienent to your purpose. You selectively choose who is being personal and should be silenced so it serves your agenda. Actions speak volumes. You admitted you are making an issue yet demand I let you speak while I am to remain silent. Why are you selectively enforcing your position? Can you not be consistent?(questions are rhetorical)

----------


## moostraks

> They can't debate you on the issues because they know just as well as you do that you know far more of the Bible than they do.


Sure, that's it...I think you might need to wipe your nose FF.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You ignored that suggestion when it was inconvienent to your purpose. You selectively choose who is being personal and should be silenced so it serves your agenda. Actions speak volumes. You admitted you are making an issue yet demand I let you speak while I am to remain silent. Why are you selectively enforcing your position? Can you not be consistent?(questions are rhetorical)





> Sure, that's it...I think you might need to wipe your nose FF.



Again,  please follow the site guidelines and stop making personal posts.   Please stick to the issues.


Thanks,
SF

----------


## RJB

> Stick to the issues.
> 
> Thanks,
> NC


People keep saying "Stick to the issues."

This thread was split due to drifting from the issues.  So what are the issues of this split thread that people need to stick to?

----------


## moostraks

> Again,  please follow the site guidelines and stop making personal posts.   Please stick to the issues.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> SF





> Wrong.  The body of Christ is redeemed PEOPLE.  You have to be spiritually blind to not see this in the Bible.


Stop using me as bait for your fishing expedition. Your obsession with me is disturbing and perverse. I am not prohibited from responding to you and your packs accusations. This whole thread is off topic since it has been split, so looks like you can no longer play that card.

I noticed you were capable of off topic false allegations about me and yet when corrected offered no apologies but were strictly concerned that I give you the information you seek. Know them by their fruits it is said. So now what would that mean? Hmmm....

----------


## Sola_Fide

> People keep saying "Stick to the issues."
> 
> This thread was split due to drifting from the issues.  So what are the issues of this split thread that people need to stick to?


I don't think that there should be personal posts at all...no matter what the thread is.  Bryan has made it clear. So let's stick to the issues please.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Stop using me as bait for your fishing expedition. Your obsession with me is disturbing and perverse. I am not prohibited from responding to you and your packs accusations. This whole thread is off topic since it has been split, so looks like you can no longer play that card.
> 
> I noticed you were capable of off topic false allegations about me and yet when corrected offered no apologies but were strictly concerned that I give you the information you seek. Know them by their fruits it is said. So now what would that mean? Hmmm....



In the Bible, is the church a building? Or is it people?

----------


## moostraks

> People keep saying "Stick to the issues."
> 
> This thread was split due to drifting from the issues.  So what are the issues of this split thread that people need to stick to?


Ironically S_F and nang made the argument that sticking to the issues was an issue. Yet I am apparently not allowed to post without S_F spamming me.

----------


## moostraks

> I don't think that there should be personal posts at all...no matter what the thread is.  Bryan has made it clear. So let's stick to the issues please.


No, the pattern of the posts being made are spamming those of a select belief structure while allowing others to say as they wish.

The word you is personal and went after a different poster who disagreed with a belief structure point supported by "reformed" philosophy.

----------


## moostraks

> In the Bible, is the church a building? Or is it people?


Why should I answer this question when I spend time to do so and you just ignore my responses, or make derogatory comments about me as a person , and ignore any evidence I present to the contrary? 

Why should I engage in discussion when intellectual dishonesty is the backbone of the arguments?

----------


## RJB

> In the Bible, is the church a building? Or is it people?


Is that the issue of this thread or another thread?

----------


## Terry1

> Well, it depends on what you're talking about (there were two ideas in the quoted section.)  If people don't listen to the "personal offense" part, they're going to spend long portions of their lives being offended, which will likely lead to having miserable lives.  To each his own.  But again, I don't see why they would care so much.  Again... if you respect the person who is challenging the state of your soul, why wouldn't you examine yourself?  If you don't respect the person, why would it matter to you what they think at all?.


This is true FF.  I have no respect for Nang at all.  I could care less what she says about me, but it's those that I do care for and the things that she accuses them of that do bother me.  She baits, she accuses, she stalks people's threads and posts and she's very hateful and condescending to them and then wonders why people look at her the way that they do.  




> I can't either.  I've seen far worse moderation in other places than here, but never this much collusion (I wonder if this happened behind the scenes at TOL...)


I was actually curious enough to do a search on Nang and read some her posts over at TOL and saw that she did the exact same thing on that site that she's doing here.  So why isn't Nang posting on TOL any longer FF?  What did she do over there to want to come to a political site that held none of her interests and views here other than this religion forum.  Nang hops from forum to forum attacking the Catholics--there's nothing new here except the fresh meat at RPF's for Nang to chew on.  Should we keep feeding this sickness?

Here's just a sample of Nang's MO here on TOL, http://www.theologyonline.net/forums...t=70922&page=8 

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...t=95236&page=8

Also, the owner and moderators of TOL are hideous anti-Catholic establishment pub $#@!s who are mostly Calvinists or open theists who are dumber than a box of rocks.





> Lest anyone think its just the "Calvinists" who are annoyed by the whole moderation thing, Terry expressed some frustration about it to me as well.  So, its not just us that see the problem.


We do agree on that FF.  I don't believe in banning people for slights and I do believe that if anyone can dish it out, they should have broad enough shoulders to take it.  Nang is the one who started this war herself against the people of other denominations who don't share her beliefs.  She's not only done this here, but in other forums as well as I've revealed in that link.  I really want to be able to tell her where the bear $#@!s in the woods myself, but then found myself getting infractions for it.  So I'm trying to be careful about what I say with regards to her now.  

I don't like neg repping or reporting anyone for anything in reality because I feel that if anyone creates a situation of debate--they should be able to stand on their own two feet without whining to the mods, but then I found myself backed into a corner and in a position where the only way to defend myself was to do what was being done to me as well.  




> We may come across as harsh sometimes, but I think they have a heck of a lot more of it than we do.  Its not even close.


FF, you are the least offensive IMO and I understand why Sola says what he does too--he's believing that he's actually "loving people" by condemning them.  I can even over-look all of that too because you and Sola are supporters of the Liberty movement here and have been for a very long time.  It makes your other offenses much easier to bear in my mind, but Nang is another story all together IMO.  She's here only to confirm herself, mock, ridicule and have a place to vent herself for what she considers a pleasurable pass-time event.  She's made the statement that she's "a-political"--meaning she has no interest in politics at all.  All she wishes to do is to condemn the brethren that don't subscribe to her doctrine here.  She has no loyalty to this site or the people of it who don't share her religious beliefs.  

Please consider what I've said here.  I wasn't going to post at all for a while, but it is difficult reading and then resisting the urge to post.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This is true FF.  I have no respect for Nang at all.  I could care less what she says about me, but it's those that I do care for and the things that she accuses them of that do bother me.  She baits, she accuses, she stalks people's threads and posts and she's very hateful and condescending to them and then wonders why people look at her the way that they do.  
> 
> 
> 
> I was actually curious enough to do a search on Nang and read some her posts over at TOL and saw that she did the exact same thing on that site that she's doing here.  So why isn't Nang posting on TOL any longer FF?  What did she do over there to want to come to a political site that held none of her interests and views here other than this religion forum.  Nang hops from forum to forum attacking the Catholics--there's nothing new here except the fresh meat at RPF's for Nang to chew on.  Should we keep feeding this sickness?
> 
> Here's just a sample of Nang's MO here on TOL, http://www.theologyonline.net/forums...t=70922&page=8
> 
> 
> ...


Please follow the site guidelines and stop making the posts personal. 

Thanks,
SF

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why should I answer this question when I spend time to do so and you just ignore my responses, or make derogatory comments about me as a person , and ignore any evidence I present to the contrary? 
> 
> Why should I engage in discussion when intellectual dishonesty is the backbone of the arguments?


You're making the posts personal again.  Is a moderator even looking at this?

----------


## RJB

Lets stick to the issues folks.  The issue here is "what is the issue."   Anyone discussing any issue than specifically "what issue we shall discuss" shall be reported.

Thank you.

RJB LanceCaptain,  G.E.D., Extraordinaire, etc.

----------


## moostraks

> You're making the posts personal again.  Is a moderator even looking at this?


Thread is off topic. You made an issue of posting personal responses and yet do not do as you are requiring of me, So now why should I respond to your new issue when you won't address the previous ones and are being intellectually dishonest in your responses? Hope mods are watching the stalking, inconsistent spamming nature of the responses and the lies that were never rescinded.

----------


## moostraks

> Lets stick to the issues folks.  The issue here is "what is the issue."   Anyone discussing any issue than specifically "what issue we shall discuss" shall be reported.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RJB LanceCaptain,  G.E.D., Extraordinaire, etc.

----------


## RJB

> 


REPORTED!!!

----------


## moostraks

> REPORTED!!!


 No! Please no!!!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Thread is off topic. You made an issue of posting personal responses and yet do not do as you are requiring of me, So now why should I respond to your new issue when you won't address the previous ones and are being intellectually dishonest in your responses? Hope mods are watching the stalking, inconsistent spamming nature of the responses and the lies that were never rescinded.


Another personal post.   Are the moderators looking at this at all?

----------


## Terry1

> Please follow the site guidelines and stop making the posts personal. 
> 
> Thanks,
> SF


Beliefs are personal--there's no avoiding it, it's impossible in light of what's been said and who's been accused of being "hypocrites" and who the actual hypocrites are here.

----------


## moostraks

> Another personal post.   Are the moderators looking at this at all?


Tell me the story about liberty loving calvinism/reformed folks again who don't believe in censoring. I was so waiting for my education on it in the statue thread. I responded as you requested and

----------


## Terry1

> Another personal post.   Are the moderators looking at this at all?


Oh for crying out loud Sola--stop bothering the mods with this and stand on your own two feet here.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Beliefs are personal--there's no avoiding it, it's impossible in light of what's been said and who's been accused of being "hypocrites" and who the actual hypocrites are here.


Bryan, are you reading this?  ^^^

Apparently we have two posters who cannot help but make every post a personal attack on somebody. 

Why should they be above the rules of the moderation?

----------


## Terry1

> Bryan, are you reading this?  ^^^
> 
> Apparently we have two posters who cannot help but make every post a personal attack on somebody. 
> 
> Why should they be above the rules of the moderation?


LOL--why can't I follow my own good advice---I give up.

----------


## acptulsa

> You keep making personal posts.   Please follow Bryans rules and stick to the issues.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> SF


That's right, moonstraks.  When Nang attacks _you_, that's always germaine to the topic of the thread, but when you respond in kind to Nang, _that's_ personal.

Seems S_F is now not only the Omega, the last word, on what in the Bible is literal and what in the Bible is metaphor, but who is topical wherever she goes and whatever she says and who isn't.




> Bryan, are you reading this?  ^^^
> 
> Apparently we have two posters who cannot help but make every post a personal attack on somebody. 
> 
> Why should they be above the rules of the moderation?


Your arithmetic is in error.  This thread could never have stretched out to this miserable and terribly unproductive length with only two people on one side acting like Missouri mules.  To have a dance marathon like this requires at least a foursome.

As long as you're lawyering your Pharisetical way through the forum guidelines looking for an excuse to tell the moderators to smite thine enemies, you might look up the one on 'low value posts'...

----------


## moostraks

> LOL--why can't I follow my own good advice---I give up.


That is the goal. Petty is as petty does and unrepentant liars will have their day. Just another day of destruction it seems. Actions have consequences.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You must have a secret interpretation of this term, for I have no idea what you mean by it.  What are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this platitude is directed personally to me, you will have to provide a quote where I have preached the gospel in a spirit of hate.  Can you do this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL, speaking of taking posts about _ideas_ and making them _personal..._​

----------


## acptulsa

> LOL, speaking of taking posts about _ideas_ and making them _personal..._​


The Bible says it's O.K. if they do it.

And so do forum guidelines.

What, you missed that part?  Fool!  Idiot!  Can't you see it's Metaphorical!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> S_F, for someone who claims not to be without sin, you sure do chuck a lot of stones.


Huh?  Stop making these personal posts and talk about issues.   Bryan has already warned everyone about this.   Just please follow the site guidelines.

----------


## moostraks

> The Bible says it's O.K. if they do it.
> 
> And so do forum guidelines.
> 
> What, you missed that part?  Fool!  Idiot!  Can't you see it's Metaphorical!


Don't forget "you are blind" and any response to that is personal and against forum guidelines.

----------


## acptulsa

> Huh?  Stop making these personal posts and talk about issues.


Well, let's see.  This split is about Nang displaying her issues and attacking people, and you showing your control issues by telling anyone who defends themselves from her that _they're_ the ones being personal.  So, if we don't talk about anyone's issues, I don't know what there is _to_ talk about.  And, of course, your issues could hardly be other than personal to you.

So, I suppose the thread might as well be locked.  But I'd much rather you two be locked in it, so we can come help you chase your tails whenever we want, but you can't jack up any more of TER's interesting and educational threads.

----------


## Terry1

> That is the goal. Petty is as petty does and unrepentant liars will have their day. Just another day of destruction it seems. Actions have consequences.


Check out those links I provided in my previous post to FF, they'll explain a lot.  We're just fresh meat over here at RPF's for these Calvinists.  I think they believe they're internet evangelists or something--LOL  Their hatred for the Catholics is evident wherever they go.  Nang's been doing this for years, you'd think she have a lot thicker skin by now.  She lives to pick fights with those who don't believe as she does and has a loooooooong track record to prove it.

----------


## acptulsa

> ... you'd think she have a lot thicker skin by now.


That's the good thing about a political forum.  The liberals regularly come around and let you practice dealing with passive-aggressive behavior.

Nothing like having _professional_ victims to hone your technique on.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ah... so now you are accusing me of being insulting to women???  Wow.  I am going to flag this post as well because you are misrepresenting me once again.


I hate to do this Sola, but come on.  That's obviously not the point he's making.  He's saying (I'm not even saying that its accurate, I'm just explaining what he's trying to say) that you're doing a similar thing to someone who "corrects" a woman for calling him a misogynist.

Basically it goes like this:

Person A does something mean (allegedly) 

Person B calls him out on it

Person A says Person B should be nicer.

That was the point of the misogynist poster.  I don't think it really applies to you.  But in their minds it does.

----------


## eduardo89

> I hate to do this Sola, but come on.  That's obviously not the point *he's* making.  *He's* saying (I'm not even saying that its accurate, I'm just explaining what he's trying to say) that you're doing a similar thing to someone who "corrects" a woman for calling him a misogynist.
> 
> Basically it goes like this:
> 
> Person A does something mean (allegedly) 
> Person B calls him out on it
> Person A says Person B should be nicer.
> 
> That was the point of the misogynist poster.  I don't think it really applies to you.  But in *their* minds it does.


Please follow the site guidelines and stop making posts personal. 

Thanks,
Eduardo

----------


## acptulsa

> Please follow the site guidelines and stop making posts personal. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Eduardo


I'd double check with a real priest, but I figure that's good for a couple dozen Hail Marys...

----------


## eduardo89

> I don't hate Catholics.  I hate the Catholic Church.  I love the people who I believe are deceived. * I don't understand how this distinction is so hard to grasp.*


Perhaps it's your demeanour, language, rudeness, personal attacks, etc.

----------


## eduardo89

double post

----------


## Christian Liberty

I'm just putting out there that I'm going to start neg repping any of these "please follow the guidelines" posts from non-mods, no matter who's posting them.  Its just getting aggravating.  I understood the first couple of times Sola did it, but now its just getting annoying.  Sola, you're posting more "please follow the guidelines" posts than real ones.  Its making the religion forum a pain to read.  Let's all man up and start having real debates again.  Was much more enjoyable that way.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Perhaps it's your demeanour, language, rudeness, personal attacks, etc.


Maybe.  But a lot of people take "you aren't a Christian" as a personal attack, so I'm not sure how much of that is real and how much is in your head.

----------


## eduardo89

> I'm just putting out there that I'm going to start neg repping any of these "please follow the guidelines" posts from non-mods, no matter who's posting them.  Its just getting aggravating.  I understood the first couple of times Sola did it, but now its just getting annoying.  Sola, you're posting more "please follow the guidelines" posts than real ones.  Its making the religion forum a pain to read.  Let's all man up and start having real debates again.  Was much more enjoyable that way.


Please stick to discussing issues. Bryan has already warned everyone about this. Just please follow the site guidelines.

Thanks,
Eduardo

----------


## acptulsa

> double post


They've done it to you.  They've made you redundant.

FF has been working really hard at comity lately.  Credit where due, yes..?

----------


## Terry1

> I think Sola's mimicking how everyone else reacts behind the scenes.  I wish he'd stop doing it at some point though and get back to actually discussing issues.  Heck, I wish everyone would do that.  Bryan should fire all the mods.   ALL of them.  The number of real offenses are small enough that he should be able to deal with them himself if anything REALLY bad happens.  Most of the time they should just let things roll.  We can deal with them ourselves.  I occasionally use the report button because I'm annoyed at the people who have done it to me.  I'm mentally making tabs on anyone who says they don't use the report button, and I won't report them either.
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your links?
> 
> I don't hate Catholics.  I hate the Catholic Church.  I love the people who I believe are deceived.  I don't understand how this distinction is so hard to grasp.


I'm not focused on you FF, rather Nang and her baiting Deb, moos and others while accusing them of lies.  You know Nang has a long track record.  Those links are in that last post I made to you in this thread.  In fact if you read those links, you can't tell the difference as to whether Nang is here or posting at TOL.  She has the same MO of attacking the Catholics there as she does here just the same and has done this for years now.  How sad a life someone must have to do this for years on end.

----------


## eduardo89

> Maybe.  But a lot of people take "you aren't a Christian" as a personal attack, so I'm not sure how much of that is real and how much is in your head.


You wouldn't take it as a personal insult if I said you are not a Christian?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not focused on you FF, rather Nang and her baiting Deb, moos and others while accusing them of lies.  You know Nang has a long track record.  Those links are in that last post I made to you in this thread.  In fact if you read those links, you can't tell the difference as to whether Nang is here or posting at TOL.  She has the same MO of attacking the Catholics there as she does here just the same and has done this for years now.  How sad a life someone must have to do this for years on end.


I met Nang at TOL.  I've never had issues with her posting either there or here.  I was thrown off by the whole Servetus thing same as the rest of you, but other than that she hasn't really posted much that I've disagreed with, and certainly nothing that I've taken issue with.

Deborah deserves it at this point.  I've been trying to avoid getting into the nastier discussions here, but I don't fault Nang for any of her responses.  Deborah needs to calm down.




> You wouldn't take it as a personal insult if I said you are not a Christian?


No.  Why would I care?  I'd probably ask why you thought that, and have a discussion over it, but it wouldn't actually offend me anymore than your refusal to acknowledge my church as a church is offensive.

If I respected your opinion as to my spiritual state, I'd take it seriously.  If not, I'd just shrug it off as irrelevant.  What about this is so hard to understand?

Go ahead and tell me I'm not a Christian.  See how much I care.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This is true FF.  I have no respect for Nang at all.  I could care less what she says about me, but it's those that I do care for and the things that she accuses them of that do bother me.  She baits, she accuses, she stalks people's threads and posts and she's very hateful and condescending to them and then wonders why people look at her the way that they do.  
> 
> 
> 
> I was actually curious enough to do a search on Nang and read some her posts over at TOL and saw that she did the exact same thing on that site that she's doing here.  So why isn't Nang posting on TOL any longer FF?  What did she do over there to want to come to a political site that held none of her interests and views here other than this religion forum.  Nang hops from forum to forum attacking the Catholics--there's nothing new here except the fresh meat at RPF's for Nang to chew on.  Should we keep feeding this sickness?
> 
> Here's just a sample of Nang's MO here on TOL, http://www.theologyonline.net/forums...t=70922&page=8 
> 
> http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...t=95236&page=8
> ...


I'm taking this to PM.  Hold on...

----------


## eduardo89

> I met Nang at TOL.  I've never had issues with her posting either there or here.  I was thrown off by the whole Servetus thing same as the rest of you, but other than that she hasn't really posted much that I've disagreed with, and certainly nothing that I've taken issue with.
> 
> Deborah deserves it at this point.  I've been trying to avoid getting into the nastier discussions here, but I don't fault Nang for any of her responses.  Deborah needs to calm down.
> 
> 
> No.  Why would I care?  I'd probably ask why you thought that, and have a discussion over it, but it wouldn't actually offend me anymore than your refusal to acknowledge my church as a church is offensive.
> 
> If I respected your opinion as to my spiritual state, I'd take it seriously.  If not, I'd just shrug it off as irrelevant.  What about this is so hard to understand?
> 
> Go ahead and tell me I'm not a Christian.  See how much I care.


Please follow the site guidelines and stop making posts personal.*




Thanks,
Eduardo
(go ahead and neg rep me again if you wish)

----------


## acptulsa

> (go ahead and neg rep me again if you wish)


Damn it man!  Lead me not into temptation!

----------


## eduardo89

> Damn it man!  Lead me not into temptation!


I don't think I've ever received one from you.

----------


## Terry1

> I met Nang at TOL.  I've never had issues with her posting either there or here.  I was thrown off by the whole Servetus thing same as the rest of you, but other than that she hasn't really posted much that I've disagreed with, and certainly nothing that I've taken issue with.
> 
> Deborah deserves it at this point.  I've been trying to avoid getting into the nastier discussions here, but I don't fault Nang for any of her responses.  Deborah needs to calm down.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Why would I care?  I'd probably ask why you thought that, and have a discussion over it, but it wouldn't actually offend me anymore than your refusal to acknowledge my church as a church is offensive.
> 
> If I respected your opinion as to my spiritual state, I'd take it seriously.  If not, I'd just shrug it off as irrelevant.  What about this is so hard to understand?
> ...


Everyone has seen what Nang has said and done to Deb and moos in here--it's no secret.  Nang is getting far less than she's dished out in here and has every bit of it coming.  They're called *consequences*.

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't think I've ever received one from you.


So I can't do it again.

Rescued from temptation!  Thank you!




> They're called *consequences*.


'Vengeance is Mine,' saieth the Lord.  Don't know if He called dibs on consequences too...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Everyone has seen what Nang has said and done to Deb and moos in here--it's no secret.  Nang is getting far less than she's dished out in here and has every bit of it coming.  They're called *consequences*.


Deb needs to either chill out or find another place.  Seriously.  I'm just as ticked at her as Nang is.  I'm just trying really, really hard not to let it come out on the boards.  Even still, if Deb were to move on than so would I, much like I feel like the two of us have moved on.  I get really mad in the moment but I rarely hold grudges.

----------


## Nang

> Everyone has seen what Nang has said and done to Deb and moos in here--it's no secret.  Nang is getting far less than she's dished out in here and has every bit of it coming.  They're called *consequences*.


Your ugly rants produce _your own_ consequences, for they do not affect me, but they are certainly affecting you.

You seek to harm me, but you are only hurting yourself and RPF.

----------


## acptulsa



----------


## Terry1

> Your ugly rants produce _your own_ consequences, for they do not affect me, but they are certainly affecting you.
> 
> You seek to harm me, but you are only hurting yourself and RPF.


Pfft--I could care less what you think about me.  I do care about the way you're treating my brothers and sisters here at RPF's though--it disturbs me greatly and hurts me to see you treat them the way you have.

----------


## acptulsa

> I do care about the way you're treating my brothers and sisters here at RPF's though--it disturbs me greatly...


I hope you haven't mistaken _me_ for someone who gives a $#!+ how they treat me.  I'd hate to cause you unnecessary stress.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Pfft--I could care less what you think about me.  I do care about the way you're treating my brothers and sisters here at RPF's though--it disturbs me greatly and hurts me to see you treat them the way you have.


I could say the same thing about you with regards to your posts about Nang...

Who are your brothers and sisters in Christ, Terry?  What standard are you using?

----------


## acptulsa

> I could say the same thing about you with regards to your posts about Nang...
> 
> Who are your brothers and sisters in Christ, Terry?  What standard are you using?


Who said anything about 'in Christ'?

Didn't you know we're all posting from our family reunion?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You wouldn't take it as a personal insult if I said you are not a Christian?


No, I wouldn't.  Not in the slightest.  Because I am confident in knowing what Christianity it.  Aren't you?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm not focused on you FF, rather Nang and her baiting Deb, moos and others while accusing them of lies.  You know Nang has a long track record.  Those links are in that last post I made to you in this thread.  In fact if you read those links, you can't tell the difference as to whether Nang is here or posting at TOL.  She has the same MO of attacking the Catholics there as she does here just the same and has done this for years now.  How sad a life someone must have to do this for years on end.



Take your petty cat fight somewhere else.   When is Bryan going to get involved and stop this petty garbage?

----------


## acptulsa

> No, I wouldn't.  Not in the slightest.  Because I am confident in knowing what Christianity it.  Aren't you?


Nope.

Oh, I'm confident when I _feel_ it.  But when it comes to reliably _seeing_ it, I have confidence only in God.

----------


## moostraks

> I could say the same thing about you with regards to your posts about Nang...
> 
> Who are your brothers and sisters in Christ, Terry?  What standard are you using?


James 2:8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 

Luke 10: 29 But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

The Good Samaritan

30 Jesus replied and said, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and [c]beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. 31 And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, 34 and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.’ 36 Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands?” 37 And he said, “The one who showed mercy toward him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.”

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Nope.
> 
> Oh, I'm confident when I _feel_ it.  But when it comes to reliably _seeing_ it, I have confidence only in God.


You "feel" it?  That is irrational and absolutely anti-Christian.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> James 2:8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 
> 
> Luke 10: 29 But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
> 
> The Good Samaritan
> 
> 30 Jesus replied and said, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and [c]beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. 31 And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, 34 and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.’ 36 Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands?” 37 And he said, “The one who showed mercy toward him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.”



Why do hate your neighbors by teaching errors that are going to condemn yourself and them?  Why be so hateful?

----------


## acptulsa

> You "feel" it?  That is irrational and absolutely anti-Christian.


11.  Whensoever God loveth thee, thou shalt not feel it.

Thank you, Sola, for coming down the mountain with that missing tablet.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Take your petty cat fight somewhere else.   When is Bryan going to get involved and stop this petty garbage?


Just a few weeks ago you were calling people who appeal to the mods "cowards" and now you're doing this.  I liked the old you better




> 11.  Whensoever God loveth thee, thou shalt not feel it.
> 
> Thank you, Sola, for coming down the mountain with that missing tablet.


Feelings are fine if they CONFIRM what the Bible says.  If they go against what the Bible says, they are either of the flesh or of te devil and should be squashed accordingly.

----------


## moostraks

> Take your petty cat fight somewhere else.   When is Bryan going to get involved and stop this petty garbage?


Translation:



OH S_F, how is the research on the censorship issue going? Seems as though some methods are timeless.




> As an addition to the late order, in reference to the coming, or bringing in any of the cursed sect of the Quakers into this jurisdiction, It is ordered, that whosoever shall from henceforth bring, or cause to be brought, directly or indirectly, any known Quaker or Quakers, or other blasphemous heretics into this jurisdiction, every such person shall forfeit the sum of ₤100 to the country, and shall, by warrant from any magistrate, be committed to prison, there to remain, until the penalty be fully satisfied and paid; and if any person or persons within this jurisdiction, shall henceforth entertain or conceal any Quaker or Quakers, or other blasphemous heretics, (knowing them to be so), every such person shall forfeit to the country forty shillings for every hour's concealment and entertainment of any Quaker or Quakers, etc., and shall be committed to prison till the forfeitures be fully satisfied and paid. It is further ordered, that if any Quaker or Quakers shall presume, (after they have once suffered what the law requires), to come into this jurisdiction, every such male Quaker shall, *for the first offence, have one of his ears cut off, and he kept at work in the house of correction, till he can be sent away at his own charge. For the second offence, he shall have his other ear cut off, and kept at the house of correction as before said*. And every woman Quaker that has suffered the law here, that shall presume to come into this jurisdiction shall be severely whipped, and kept at the house of correction at work, till "she be sent away at her own charge; and so also for her coming again, she shall be used as before said. For every Quaker,* he or she, that shall a third time offend, they shall have their tongues bored through with a hot iron, and kept at the house of correction close to work till they be sent away at their own charge*. It is further ordered: That all and every Quaker, arising from among ourselves, shall be dealt with and suffer the same punishment, as the law provides against foreign Quakers.


http://www.hallvworthington.com/Penn...gtonBio-1.html

And they hunted down those who opposed certain reformer's demands and did just that...Probably makes some long for the old days of liberty loving believers, eh?

----------


## Terry1

> I hope you haven't mistaken _me_ for someone who gives a $#!+ how they treat me.  I'd hate to cause you unnecessary stress.


LOL--I love you too--no one escapes my wrath against those who mess with my brothers and sisters at RPF's.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You "feel" it?  That is irrational and absolutely anti-Christian.


Although I would have never used the word 'feel' with it having been so distorted by the 'feel good preachers,' you absolutely can sense the Holy Spirit, and since there is no specific word for that sense, 'feel' is as good as any other. When the Holy Spirit moves in me it affects every sensory input I have. A better word needs to be coined, since 'feeling' now comes with all the baggage of the 'prosperity gospelers' but until a better word is coined I use my discernment and perceive that acptulsa is NOT a prosperity gospeler.

----------


## Nang

> Just a few weeks ago you were calling people who appeal to the mods "cowards" and now you're doing this.  I liked the old you better


If censorship was never applied to any, you would have a point, but since censorship is being employed, the guidelines and rules MUST be upheld across the board and applied equally to all. . . otherwise you end up with a discussion site consisting of nothing but favored propagandists.

At this point, I feel very sorry for Bryan . . .

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Translation:
> 
> 
> 
> OH S_F, how is the research on the censorship issue going? Seems as though some methods are timeless.
> 
> 
> http://www.hallvworthington.com/Penn...gtonBio-1.html
> 
> And they hunted down those who opposed certain reformer's demands and did just that...Probably makes some long for the old days of liberty loving believers, eh?


Yuck. That's repulsive.  Thankfully, nobody here supports that.

----------


## Terry1

> I could say the same thing about you with regards to your posts about Nang...
> 
> Who are your brothers and sisters in Christ, Terry?  What standard are you using?


My brothers and sisters are not just those who reside in Christ, but also those of other beliefs and faiths that share my political views as well.  And knowing that Nang is wrong in her assessment of those who don't share her same beliefs by accusing them of being idolaters, hypocrites and worse, she makes herself the enemy and not me.  She has a long track record of abusing people and she needs to stop.

If someone tells someone that they believe that Jesus Christ is Lord--then who is anyone to accuse them of being anything other than a brother or sister in Christ?  What has Nang done since the day she subscribed to this forum?

----------


## moostraks

> Why do hate your neighbors by teaching errors that are going to condemn yourself and them?  Why be so hateful?


Personal attack. False allegation. No documentation. Feel better yet?

Just keep digging that hole. If you must base your argument on lies then whose your daddy?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If censorship was never applied to any, you would have a point, but since censorship is being employed, the guidelines and rules MUST be upheld across the board and applied equally to all. . . otherwise you end up with a discussion site consisting of nothing but favored propagandists.
> 
> At this point, I feel very sorry for Bryan . . .


I understand why Sola did it the first couple of times.  But now he's doing more of "this" than he is actually posting useful content.  And he's also done it to me a couple times even though I've never reported him or attacked him.  I assume he's just mocking the people who always use the report button, but he's overplaying the role, IMO.

That's just me though.

I don't feel sorry for Bryan at all.  He dug his own grave when he started screwing with the religion forum.  Let him lie in it.  I'll feel bad for him when he stops with the PC-crap.  One of the very few non-political things I agree with Terry on.

As I said before, Bryan should fire all of his moderators.  If he feels that there's more moderation that needs to be done than he can handle himself, he should lower the standards of moderation.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> My brothers and sisters are not just those who reside in Christ, but also those of other beliefs and faiths that share my political views as well.  And knowing that Nang is wrong in her assessment of those who don't share her same beliefs by accusing them of being idolaters, hypocrites and worse, she makes herself the enemy and not me.  She has a long track record of abusing people and she needs to stop.
> 
> If someone tells someone that they believe that Jesus Christ is Lord--then who is anyone to accuse them of being anything other than a brother or sister in Christ?  What has Nang done since the day she subscribed to this forum?


I get what you're getting at with the political thing.  I can't help but feel some kinship towards people who support liberty as well, no matter what else they believe.  People who support liberty are rare.  Christians who support liberty are rarer still.

But... Paul certainly accused people who claimed they were Christians of being liars when he wrote the book of Galatians.

----------


## moostraks

> Why do hate your neighbors by teaching errors that are going to condemn yourself and them?  Why be so hateful?


Exodus 20:16
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Ephesians 4:25 Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.

John 8:44
You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.


Proverbs 19:5 
A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will not escape.

You lied about me, with no apologies for your own personal gain. You continue to lie about my beliefs. Yet somehow you think I should be silent and let it go? Why the grudge? I am not going to lie down and take your abuse of my character.

----------


## Terry1

> I get what you're getting at with the political thing.  I can't help but feel some kinship towards people who support liberty as well, no matter what else they believe.  People who support liberty are rare.  Christians who support liberty are rarer still.
> 
> But... Paul certainly accused people who claimed they were Christians of being liars when he wrote the book of Galatians.


Paul also said that we will all see through the glass darkly in this life FF and that God is still able to make them stand understanding their love for Him.  Only God knows our hearts and those of others--we do not, therefore it's wrong to judge someone else based upon interpretation of the word.

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't feel sorry for Bryan at all.  He dug his own grave when he started screwing with the religion forum.  Let him lie in it.


Through no fault of his own, a man who believes in free speech has had people take advantage of that fact to move into his house and turn one of his rooms into a mud pit, and knowing he doesn't like mud, you nonetheless want him to lie in it?

Now FF.  Is that a Christian attitude?




> As I said before, Bryan should fire all of his moderators.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't feel sorry for Bryan at all.  He dug his own grave when he started screwing with the religion forum.  Let him lie in it.  I'll feel bad for him when he stops with the PC-crap.


I remember the Religion forums being a loving peaceful place of edification and the lifting up of God before some folks showed up and made the entire subforum about nothing else but condemning folks to hell. We will know them by their fruits. God said it, and I believe it.

----------


## Terry1

> If censorship was never applied to any, you would have a point, but since censorship is being employed, the guidelines and rules MUST be upheld across the board and applied equally to all. . . otherwise you end up with a discussion site consisting of nothing but favored propagandists.
> 
> At this point, I feel very sorry for Bryan . . .


You really amuse me Nang.  You bounce into this forum creating chaos and mayhem with your judgments upon the brethren, bearing false witness against them, treating them like dirt and then when they come back in defense of themselves and against you--you then run to Bryan to save you from the consequences of your own doing.

Aren't you just tired of being shunned and disliked by so many people?  Wouldn't it be easier just to be nice for a change and makes some friends, or does that sound too boring for you?

----------


## Nang

> therefore it's wrong to judge someone else based upon interpretation of the word.


With what else can we evaluate the teachings of others, except whether they speak according to the will and Word of God?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I remember the Religion forums being a loving peaceful place of edification and the lifting up of God before some folks showed up and made the entire subforum about nothing else but condemning folks to hell. We will know them by their fruits. God said it, and I believe it.


Jesus condemned people to Hell more times than He talked about Heaven.  What about His fruit?

----------


## Terry1

> With what else can we evaluate the teachings of others, except whether they speak according to the will and Word of God?


Because all of our interpretations are flawed to some degree or another Nang.  We don't know what is in the heart of another person or how much they love God or don't.  So this is why we're told not to judge others and love them.  Some people are harder to love than others--this is a fact, but the reward is not in judging them--it's in how we respond to them.  I am not a model for this either--LOL  I lose patience as we all do.  We all get offended and our feelings hurt too.  We all say things that we sometimes later regret--I do this a lot myself, but still I do know what's right and I try even though sometimes I fail.

I really don't want to dislike you as much as I do and I'm trying very hard to make you see that people here are forgiving and merciful and there's room for change in all of us--I have seen it here.  

No matter whether someone is protestant, Catholic, non-denominational or a lone believer praising the Lord in their homes---only God knows their hearts and whatever church that people attend is not always in indication that someone is not saved--only God knows this about anyone.  So if someone tells you that they believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and savior, we can not tell them otherwise, but accept them at their own word.  

If you want to argue doctrine--then debate the doctrine itself and don't accuse someone of being a heretic, idolater or hypocrite or unsaved, because even though their beliefs may not be in line what you perceive as truth--their hearts may indeed be right with God in their love for Him.

----------


## acptulsa

> With what else can we evaluate the teachings of others, except whether they speak according to the will and Word of God?


Your Honor, I object to this as being unresponsive.  The question was about judging others, not about evaluating lessons taught.




> Jesus condemned people to Hell more times than He talked about Heaven.  What about His fruit?


We've counted this up, have we?  What's the box score?

And do the four Gospels account for every word He ever spoke, do you think?

And what about His fruit?  Is it any of our business?

Oh, and just out of curiosity, are you by chance trying to convince us that...




> Vengeance is mine, saieth the Lord...


...isn't enough reason for us to hold your condemnation and the Lord's condemnation to different standards?

----------


## Nang

> Your Honor, I object to this as being unresponsive.  The question was about judging others, not about evaluating lessons taught.


If we evaluate the witness or teachings of any person, according to the will and spoken Word of God, depending upon the indwelling Holy Spirit as our Guide, and that person's witness and/or teachings oppose, contradict, deny, or defile the Holy Word of God, then we can judge them to be a FALSE TEACHER/FALSE PROPHET.

The second epistle of the Apostle Peter gives clear instruction to Christians to do such evaluation, in order to protect the church from false teachers and false prophets.

Have you never read II Peter 1:15 - 2:22 and such warnings in the book of Jude?

----------


## acptulsa

> If we evaluate the teachings of any person, according to the will and spoken Word of God, depending upon the indwelling Holy Spirit as our Guide, and that person's teachings oppose, contradict, deny, or defile the Holy Word of God, then we can judge them to be a FALSE TEACHER/FALSE PROPHET.


Don'tcha just HATE it when that happens?

----------


## Terry1

> If we evaluate the teachings of any person, according to the will and spoken Word of God, depending upon the indwelling Holy Spirit as our Guide, and that person's teachings oppose, contradict, deny, or defile the Holy Word of God, then we can judge them to be a FALSE TEACHER/FALSE PROPHET.
> 
> The second epistle of the Apostle Peter gives clear instruction to Christians to do such evaluation, in order to protect the church from false teachers and false prophets.
> 
> Have you never read II Peter 1:15 - 2:22 and such warnings in the book of Jude?


Nang, what if you're wrong about the people you have accused?  What if you're wrong in your interpretation of the word of God?  What if you're wrong simply by being an unloving person who's lost their first love above all things?

Revelation 2:2 “To the angel of the church of Ephesus write,

‘These things says He who holds the seven stars in His right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands:  2 “I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars;  3 and you have persevered and have patience, and have labored for My name’s sake and have not become weary.  *4 Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love.  5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent
*

----------


## Nang

> I remember the Religion forums being a loving peaceful place of edification and the lifting up of God before some folks showed up and made the entire subforum about nothing else but condemning folks to hell. We will know them by their fruits. God said it, and I believe it.


I suspect a free-for-all romp got broken up . . . and concepts of liberty, free expression of speech, and tolerance, quickly escaped out the back door!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Jesus condemned people to Hell more times than He talked about Heaven.  What about His fruit?


Jesus is God, and He actually has that authority. Nevermind that your mind's eye has highly exaggerated the condemnation that was expressed. In _very_ few cases (I'm actually failing to recall any) did He condemn an individual, He condemned behaviors, such as hypocrisy, that lead to hell. 

He he did infer twice and state once that certain Pharisees were the children of hell, inferring once because they prevented people from entering eternity, and again an inference from 'the father of lies,' and later alone to the disciples an open statement that they are of their father who was a liar from the beginning. 

Most of the condemnatory language was around behaviors like being a whitewashed sepulcher, and how can such hypocrites escape condemnation?

The fruit of the Spirit is manifest, just as the fruit of the flesh is also manifest. We each choose which fruits to consume and produce. Those decisions are between ourselves and God. God will hold every one of us to account. 

Doctrines are the construction of men, and they can be idolized just as much as can wood, stone, and golden statues.

----------


## acptulsa

> I suspect a free-for-all romp got broken up . . . and concepts of liberty, free expression of speech, and tolerance, quickly escaped out the back door!


Don't overestimate yourself.  You couldn't drive those concepts out of here with the whole NSA helping you.

----------


## Nang

> Nang, what if you're wrong about the people you have accused?


What if you are wrong and will not hear the gospel proclaimed in your midst; blaspheming God by declaring His gospel to be wicked?

If you are going to accuse me of being a false teacher, you must be specific and post exactly where I have ever said something is not contained within, or opposes the Holy Scriptures of God.

Otherwise, stop and look to yourself, and whether your conduct is worthy of the gospel of Christ.  (Philippians 1:27)

----------


## moostraks

> Nang, what if you're wrong about the people you have accused?  What if you're wrong in your interpretation of the word of God?  What if you're wrong simply by being an unloving person who's lost their first love above all things?
> 
> Revelation 2:2 “To the angel of the church of Ephesus write,
> 
> ‘These things says He who holds the seven stars in His right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands:  2 “I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars;  3 and you have persevered and have patience, and have labored for My name’s sake and have not become weary.  *4 Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love.  5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent
> *


Ya know the little challenge S_F gave about liberty, censorship, and early American history woke me up to the errors of this puritanical, self-professed gatekeepers theory which are passing judgments based on self educated guesses. I mean I have read short summaries before which was why I knew there was problems with his statement but this was thorough. The website I ran across with the Quaker persecutions was graphic and detailed. (And finally explained about Quaker nude protests offered up by reformed folks on how nutty Society of Friends beliefs are) Thank goodness the Society was fond of their letters and journals. It will really wake a person up to what end some will go for their opinions and yet they never thought they were committing acts of the flesh. Oh, there were plenty who turned away the worse the punishments became but there were some hard core self proclaimed "believers" that stopped at nothing when they thought they were right.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> We've counted this up, have we?  What's the box score?
> 
> And do the four Gospels account for every word He ever spoke, do you think?
> 
> And what about His fruit?  Is it any of our business?
> 
> Oh, and just out of curiosity, are you by chance trying to convince us that...
> 
> 
> ...


Furthermore, Jesus was in a special position to do what he did-he was/is God in the flesh.

----------


## acptulsa

> If you are going to accuse me of being a false teacher, you must be specific and post exactly where I have ever said something is not contained within, or opposes the Holy Scriptures of God.


Been there, done that.

Didn't work.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I suspect a free-for-all romp got broken up . . . and concepts of liberty, free expression of speech, and tolerance, quickly escaped out the back door!


EXACTLY.  A bunch of people who loved their man-centered humanistic religions got the gospel of sovereign grace preached to them for the very first time.  It's expected that men and women who love their autonomy and vain wives tales would recoil at the gospel.

----------


## Nang

> Doctrines are the construction of men, and they can be idolized just as much as can wood, stone, and golden statues.


Here is the crux of your problem . . and apparently the reason you refuse to truly engage in spiritual discussion.

To deny doctrine is to deny the Word of God; wherein doctrine is revealed.

You think to worship God according to emotion, superstition, and consensus of mortal opinions, rather than living by faith in "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."  Matthew 4:4b

You have no true foundation.

----------


## moostraks

> What if you are wrong and will not hear the gospel proclaimed in your midst; blaspheming God by declaring His gospel to be wicked?
> 
> If you are going to accuse me of being a false teacher, you must be specific and post exactly where I have ever said something is not contained within, or opposes the Holy Scriptures of God.
> 
> Otherwise, stop and look to yourself, and whether your conduct is worthy of the gospel of Christ.  (Philippians 1:27)


Don't you believe in 5 points? If that's true then it can't matter. No one is stopping you from stating your case, just asking you to put forth what you believe and leave it at that. Seems as if that serves your purpose of getting it out there, which is what your responsibility or duty is according to said doctrines from what I recall.

----------


## acptulsa

> EXACTLY.  A bunch of people who loved their man-centered humanistic religions got the gospel of sovereign grace preached to them for the very first time.  It's expected that men and women who love their autonomy and vain wives tales would recoil at the gospel.


Quite so.

And it was rude of us to keep exercising said autonomy after you showed up, too.  We should have known that since you don't believe we have it, we shouldn't have used it in front of you.




> Here is the crux of your problem . .


Well, I'd explore the crux of _your_ problem for you, but I think I'll skip it.

I got problems of my own.

----------


## moostraks

> EXACTLY.  A bunch of people who loved their man-centered humanistic religions got the gospel of sovereign grace preached to them for the very first time.  It's expected that men and women who love their autonomy and vain wives tales would recoil at the gospel.


The Bible doesn't repulse me. Self adulation does.

----------


## Terry1

> What if you are wrong and will not hear the gospel proclaimed in your midst; blaspheming God by declaring His gospel to be wicked?
> 
> If you are going to accuse me of being a false teacher, you must be specific and post exactly where I have ever said something is not contained within, or opposes the Holy Scriptures of God.
> 
> Otherwise, stop and look to yourself, and whether your conduct is worthy of the gospel of Christ.  (Philippians 1:27)


I have looked at myself Nang and many times I don't like what I see.  Is that what you wanted to see from me?  I'll admit that I'm probably wrong more than I'm ever right with God--can you say the same about yourself? 

 What God knows about me still is that I don't give up trying to be a better person and that I do love Him and I believe that means more to God than our mistakes because we learn to overcome them through our repentance of them.

----------


## moostraks

> You think to worship God according to emotion, superstition, and consensus of mortal opinions, rather than living by faith in "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."  Matthew 4:4b
> 
> You have no true foundation.


 Where  do you get your basis for this type of accusation?  You know his mind and his faith? How omniscient of you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Personal attack. False allegation. No documentation. Feel better yet?
> 
> Just keep digging that hole. If you must base your argument on lies then whose your daddy?


If it is a personal attack to tell to you that you should love their neighbors,  why did you just do it to me?

Why are you being hypocritical?

----------


## Nang

> I have looked at myself Nang and many times I don't like what I see.  Is that what you wanted to see from me?  I'll admit that I'm probably wrong more than I'm ever right with God--can you say the same about yourself?


Of course I admit I am a sinner and I make mistakes and am subject to error . . but for years I have taught young people, and have learned to never speak or present doctrine without very carefully going to the bible, and comparing scripture with scripture, to make sure I don't teach wrongly.  There is severe penalty for so doing.




> What God knows about me still is that I don't give up trying to be a better person and that I do love Him and I believe that means more to God than our mistakes because we learn to overcome them through our repentance of them.


Well, I am willing to wait to see the results of your repentance . . .

----------


## Nang

> Where  do you get your basis for this type of accusation?  You know his mind and his faith? How omniscient of you.


Gunny's own words, where he said,


> Doctrines are the construction of men, and they can be idolized just as much as can wood, stone, and golden statues.

----------


## Terry1

> Of course I admit I am a sinner and I make mistakes and am subject to error . . but for years I have taught young people, and have learned to never speak or present doctrine without very carefully going to the bible, and comparing scripture with scripture, to make sure I don't teach wrongly.  There is severe penalty for so doing.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am willing to wait to see the results of your repentance . . .


LOL--"my repentance" eh Nang?  What about yours as well.  Will you stop accusing people and telling lies?

----------


## moostraks

> Why do hate your neighbors by* teaching errors that are going to condemn yourself and them*?  Why be so hateful?





> If it is a personal attack to tell to you that you should love their neighbors,  why did you just do it to me?
> 
> Why are you being hypocritical?


You are making false allegations of an unsubstantiated, undocumented nature. Whose your daddy S_F? If you have to resort to lies to make your point and you are looking to cause strife, then who is your master?

----------


## Nang

> LOL--"my repentance" eh Nang?  What about yours as well.  Will you stop accusing people and telling lies?


I do not lie, Terry.

----------


## moostraks

> Gunny's own words, where he said,


Seems like you need to stretch quite a ways to make those hefty accusations to elevate your own position. 


> Doctrine (from Latin: doctrina or possibly from Sanskrit: dukrn) is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine

Do you think idols are not made of church teachings?

----------


## Terry1

> I do not lie, Terry.


You do though--every time you accuse someone without proof and unless you know their hearts--that makes you a liar and accuser of the brethren.  In Gods eyes, for all the good you think you're doing--God is judging you for what you have done to the brethren and others.  

Even if by chance your interpretation of the word was correct, (which I don't believe you are)--that doesn't mean a hill of beans to God if you're so unloving, hateful and accusing of the brethren that God Himself will condemn you for that alone.  God doesn't care who's more biblically correct--what God cares about is how you treat others and equates that same love for others as the love you have for Him.  So if you're accusing the brethren--it's the very same as accusing God Himself.  That's something you need to think about as well.

----------


## acptulsa

> I do not lie, Terry.


But are you so perfect that you _always_ understand the truth, the _whole_ truth and _nothing_ but the truth?

Because, just for the record, I ain't.




> When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her Woman, where are those thine accusers?' hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> (John 8:10,11)

----------


## Nang

> But are you so perfect that you _always_ understand the truth, the _whole_ truth and _nothing_ but the truth?
> 
> Because, just for the record, I ain't.


I have decided to ignore your posts.

They are worthless and prove to be a waste of time and download.

----------


## acptulsa

> I have decided to ignore your posts.
> 
> They are worthless and prove to be a waste of time and download.


That couldn't be a kinder compliment if it came with roses.

When someone who likes to argue as much as you seem to do can't find any use at all for my posts, I almost get the notion that I _might_ be doing it right.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Here is the crux of your problem . . and apparently the reason you refuse to truly engage in spiritual discussion.


Doctrines come from men and devils. God deals in truth. Some doctrines are useful for frameworks and edification. Other doctrines are terribly destructive. All doctrines are methods of addressing and understanding the Truth, and God deals in truth. 




> To deny doctrine is to deny the Word of God; wherein doctrine is revealed.


The Word of God reveals Truth. Doctrines are our poor pathetic attempts to comprehend that Truth. 




> You think to worship God according to emotion, superstition, and consensus of mortal opinions,


You appear to have a very fertile imagination. 




> rather than living by faith in "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."  Matthew 4:4b


I am wholly and entirely grounded in the Word. As it happens, I have rejected ALL of the doctrines of men, and operate out of scripture and inspiration, exclusively. 




> You have no true foundation.


You should probably return to the scriptures and review what God has revealed concerning who judges the heart.

----------


## moostraks

> (mod delete).


So you dug deeper then. I am repulsed? This is news to me. Where is your documentation for this accusation? Is the Gospel not contained within the Bible now? Upon what do you make the claim that I am repulsed by Jesus and His sacrifice? Upon what do you base the claim I do not accept that Jesus died and redeemed His sheep? 

More lies. Shameless self promotion of your own ideology. Who is your daddy S_F? And how's that history thingie working for you.




> Having thus sacrificed two victims to their intolerance, these persecutors had done enough to satisfy even an extreme malignity, but not enough it appears, to glut their desires for blood. To add to the atrocities of the spectacle, even the remains of the sufferers were subjected to the revenge which characterized these proceedings. The bodies after hanging the usual time were cut down, and no pains being taken to prevent it, they fell violently to the ground, the skull of William Robinson being fractured by the fall. They were then stripped, thrown into a pit, and there left uncovered. Those who had been denied the request to provide coffins, and to give the remains a decent interment, fearing that the bodies thus exposed would be devoured by the wild animals which then infested the country, requested permission to erect a fence around the pit, but even this reasonable application was disregarded; and had not the hole been soon filled with water, the bodies would in all probability have been food for the beasts of the forest. To complete this wicked and disgusting business, the notorious Wilson, as a yet further exhibition of his malice, actually made a song on the two martyrs. For the cause of humanity and for the cause of religion, it is well that the pages of Anglo-Saxon history are not sullied by many such exhibitions of human malevolence. May it never be stained by a similar exhibition!


http://www.hallvworthington.com/Pers...ns/Part-3.html

When do you think they realized they went to far in their quest to keep pure the faith they had?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You do though--every time you accuse someone without proof and unless you know their hearts--that makes you a liar and accuser of the brethren.  In Gods eyes, for all the good you think you're doing--God is judging you for what you have done to the brethren and others.  
> 
> Even if by chance your interpretation of the word was correct, (which I don't believe you are)--that doesn't mean a hill of beans to God if you're so unloving, hateful and accusing of the brethren that God Himself will condemn you for that alone.  God doesn't care who's more biblically correct--what God cares about is how you treat others and equates that same love for others as the love you have for Him.  So if you're accusing the brethren--it's the very same as accusing God Himself.  That's something you need to think about as well.


I will agree that I perceived her claim against my beliefs as a lie. It was utterly false, and she wrote it as though it were true. I did not, however, make a federal case out of it because that is just their nature. It is how I expect them to behave.

----------


## Nang

> Doctrines come from men and devils.


What about the "doctrine of Christ?"  * II John 2:9-11*

Christians are to abide in this doctrine in order to have the Father and the Son.  

Christians are also instructed:

"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him."

Do you deny the *doctrine of Christ?*

----------


## Nang

//

----------


## acptulsa

> [5] And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.


..

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I have decided to ignore your posts.
> 
> They are worthless and prove to be a waste of time and download.


They really are worthless.  And I don't say that as an insult...they just have no value to the conversation at hand.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> ..


Your point?  

You are trying to twist John into denying the importance of propositional doctrine.  This is not what he's doing.  He is saying that loving one another is of critical importance, which it is.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I'd love to see 2 John 9-11 seriously discussed here, that would be an interesting discussion.

----------


## acptulsa

> They really are worthless.  And I don't say that as an insult...


Too bad.  This would be a greater compliment if you did.

But since the conversation at hand always seems to be, 'I'm right and you're an idiot to deny it,' it's compliment enough to say I add no value to that.

----------


## nayjevin

> I understand why Sola did it the first couple of times.  But now he's doing more of "this" than he is actually posting useful content.  And he's also done it to me a couple times even though I've never reported him or attacked him.  I assume he's just mocking the people who always use the report button, but he's overplaying the role, IMO.
> 
> That's just me though.
> 
> I don't feel sorry for Bryan at all.  He dug his own grave when he started screwing with the religion forum.  Let him lie in it.  I'll feel bad for him when he stops with the PC-crap.  One of the very few non-political things I agree with Terry on.
> 
> As I said before, Bryan should fire all of his moderators.  If he feels that there's more moderation that needs to be done than he can handle himself, he should lower the standards of moderation.


There's a place for criticism of moderation, and appeals process for moderator actions.  Within this thread it is off-topic, and unlikely to be addressed.  If one is truly interested in seeing a change to moderation policies and enforcement, one can raise those concerns in the appropriate place.  Doing otherwise is objectively suspect, and subjectively will not tend to get the desired response from the moderators whose behaviors one seeks to change.

----------


## acptulsa

> Doing otherwise is objectively suspect, and subjectively will not tend to get the desired response from the moderators whose behaviors one seeks to change.


A very elegant definition of 'lose-lose situation'.  I congratulate you.

----------

