Alright, Ms. Dodger. That was the sentence in question, not the entire passage. Keep up!
"The rich pay all the taxes." Hyperbole.
|
Alright, Ms. Dodger. That was the sentence in question, not the entire passage. Keep up!
"The rich pay all the taxes." Hyperbole.
Hope you don't fall out of the tree, Mr. Cherry Picker.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
For that sentence by itself, I'll go with irony.
Oh please. Irony? You just can't admit it, can you? If he had said, "The poor, after all, pay all the taxes," then that would be irony. What he said was an exaggeration of what is already largely true. Hyperbole.
Hyperbole? you are the master of it
That was not the issue. The issue was about your view that being forced to pay for the poor by taxation was something I agreed to. My answer then and now is YES. To leave out the main issue is to lose focus. No one denies that taxes are the law and the law must be obeyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I have seen them and answered some, not all because they are really different quotes on the same topic. Answer one and you've answered them all. However, if you want me to answer one by one, I'll be glad to do it. But, and this is a huge "but", before you post them, first say precisely what your position is on the subject. The original subject that I objected to was your belief that anybody who did not accept Jesus went to hell for eternal punishment. I seem to recall you changed that slightly over time. Be that as it may, state your position and I will reply.Quote:
I will be happy to repost the 25 scriptures concerning hell I have posted three or four times before. Do you want to see them again?
Quote:
There are no outstanding questions on socialism or abortion I have not already answered.
Yes, there are. Socialism - you left it with health care not being a function of government. But didn't answer how you would manage it without regulation - my previous question.
Abortion - the issue was about the zygote and how, if it was human life as you maintain, why are you and other anti-abortionists not lobbying for a way to prevent a zygote from being destroyed during menstruation. Then the thread got hijacked by discussions on menstruation, etc., etc. We never got back to the question. Not your fault - it just happened that way. I forgot about it myself.
Here's the problem with that. I already answered that. It's at the bottom of my post #62 from yesterday. To say it again, you made the same offer and did not live up to it. Will you live up to it this time?Quote:
I'll engage in the "ask a question, and then answer a question" system of dialogue with you. You can ask first if you'd like, but you must pledge to answer the question that will come back at you.
Another one I already answered, which your comment agrees with! Read my lips - I never said it before because IT NEVER CAME UP BEFORE! Why is that so hard to understand?Quote:
You say it now. You never said it before I raised it as a question for you. ( fm Athos - To prevent confusion, this was about taxes)
Fat chance!Quote:
So I will be happy to accept your thanks for helping you clarify your views.
Here's a test question for you - reference the post(s) where I changed my views after a few weeks.Quote:
I'm also very happy to have you on record so you can't change your views a few weeks from now.
Tal can speak for himself. He sure as hell doesn't need me to speak for him. He does that quite nicely.Quote:
As to Tal's views
You answered none of them other than your contention that aionios means something less than eternal, a view held by a remarkably small minority. I never changed my view. People are judged and go to hell for sin.
The loss of a zygote in that fashion is not criminal any more than a stillborn child is. It is one thing for nature to take its course as it will with all of us eventually. It is an entirely different issue for a med professional to purposely kill an unborn child. This can easily be compared to a person dying of old age versus that same person being shot and murdered.Quote:
why are you and other anti-abortionists not lobbying for a way to prevent a zygote from being destroyed during menstruation.
You never cease talking about raising the taxes of others and how the wealthy supposedly do not pay their fair share. It is mighty strange that you never bothered to include yourself in that group who should have their taxes raised until I raised the issue. Very strange indeed, but at least you are now on record with it. Of course you support the Harris/Biden ticket which supports raising taxes substantially on the wealthy but not on you, and yet you have never been critical of that position. Strange indeed.Quote:
IT NEVER CAME UP BEFORE! Why is that so hard to understand?
I read your reply on post 62 and you are correct that I missed seeing it. However, first you say I didn't answer a question on hell, and then you say, " I seem to recall you changed that slightly over time." How did I supposedly change it "slightly over time" without answering it to begin with? At any rate, since I have answered it again just now, are you prepared for my question?
I'm not going to reply to your post # 106 - it's all repetitive nonsense. There's no point in going down that road again.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
This is how you changed it. In the beginning, I challenged you on your belief that those who did not accept Jesus would go to hell for eternal punishment. You supported that belief by saying "The Bible says so". Then the discussion went on with me asking you to put it in your own words. But you would never do that - always referring me to the Bible. Variations of this theme went on forever it seems until your failure to own up to your promise if I stated my belief. That's all noted in my post #62 which you have read, so I won't repeat it.Quote:
You say, " I seem to recall you changed that slightly over time." How did I supposedly change it "slightly over time" without answering it to begin with? At any rate, since I have answered it again just now, are you prepared for my question?
If your position NOW is "People are judged and go to hell for sin" - that is about as far as you can get from the original stated belief of yours. It makes no mention of accepting Jesus and is so wishy-washy as to have no real meaning at all.
You ask "Are you prepared for my question?" If you stick to issues, any issues under the sun, and not personal details, I'm always prepared for your question. All the members here are free to provide any personal details they want, but are not required to give them at the request of another. Fair enough?
ALL have sinned (Romans 3:23), so all are going to hell?Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
I thought you knew your Bible better than that, WG. Read the next three verses for your answer.
Oh, but I'm cherry-picking to emulate my hero cherry-picker.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Athos I have not changed my belief or answer. Hell is the judgement for sin. Are you ready for a question?
Weak weak reply WG, but at least you have your answer.
I've already described (more than once) what your belief was as originally stated. Are you denying that your belief then was that those who did not accept Jesus are going to hell for eternal punishment? It's OK if you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
If you have re-thought that position and changed it to "Hell is the judgement for sin" I have no problem with you changing it. Your latest definition avoids several key elements of your original - to wit: punishment, Jesus, and eternal. Actually, that's far better than the original.
As I explained above, I'm always ready for any question from anybody. Here's what I wrote.
You ask "Are you prepared for my question?" If you stick to issues, any issues under the sun, and not personal details, I'm always prepared for your question. All the members here are free to provide any personal details they want, but are not required to give them at the request of another. Fair enough?
Have at it.
I haven't rethought or changed anything, but I do think I see the source of your confusion. You regard the two statements to be mutually exclusive. They are not. They are actually complimentary. It can be easily seen in the statement, posted repeatedly, of Jesus in John 16. "Unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins." Now what shall they die in? Their sins. And what is the solution for that? "Believe that I am He." So you can see that sin causes death, which is to say judgement and separation from God, and a belief in Christ leads to life and forgiveness. They are two sides of the same coin. The same concept can be easily seen in John 3:18 as well. "18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the [f]only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil." It can also be seen in Mt. 25. "46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Who goes into eternal judgment? Those who Jesus convicted of sin. Who goes into eternal life? The righteous. And how do we become righteous? Through faith in Christ.Quote:
If you have re-thought that position and changed it to "Hell is the judgement for sin" I have no problem with you changing it. Your latest definition avoids several key elements of your original - to wit: punishment, Jesus, and eternal. Actually, that's far better than the original.
That bothers me. It seems that you are saying that you will answer a question, but you will not be required to do so. Well, I'm not interested in that. We must mutually agree to participate.Quote:
All the members here are free to provide any personal details they want, but are not required to give them at the request of another. Fair enough?
relying of selective translation there Jl
Nonsense. Do you want to see your original statements?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I knew you would find a reason to back out. We've been here before and you backed out then. Do you want to see that. too?Quote:
That bothers me. It seems that you are saying that you will answer a question, but you will not be required to do so. Well, I'm not interested in that. We must mutually agree to participate.
There is another example of the complimentary nature of those two ideas that occurred to me tonight. From John 3 we read the account from Exodus of the deadly serpents. They were sent by God in judgement upon Israel for sin. He also had an image of the serpent put on a pole, and anyone who looked upon the serpent was spared from death. Now you can't really say they were dying because they failed to look at the serpent. They were dying because they had been bitten by a serpent. If they failed to avail themselves of God's means of rescue, and so died, it could not be said to be directly from that failure. Death came from the serpent, but the two ideas are certainly related. One, in fact, occurred in response to the other.
Jesus applied that lesson to Himself. When we look upon Him in faith, we are spared from judgement. Judgement concerning what? Judgement concerning sin.
Sure.Quote:
Do you want to see your original statements?
I'm backing out of nothing. If you are willing to obligate yourself, then I'm all in. Are you willing?
Wow. What a well reasoned, thoughtful, and intelligent response.Quote:
Nonsense
Quote:
Originally posted by Athos:
Nonsense
It perfectly dovetails with your nonsense about serpents.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Just in case you failed to see it.
"I'm backing out of nothing. If you are willing to obligate yourself, then I'm all in. Are you willing?"
You can back out, of course, at any time you want simply by saying so.
That's only half true. The issue concerned having your taxes raised. You have now agreed that you are willing for that to happen. I anticipate seeing those times when you advocate for that outside of a question from me. I suspect I'll be waiting a while, but time will tell.Quote:
That was not the issue. The issue was about your view that being forced to pay for the poor by taxation was something I agreed to. My answer then and now is YES. To leave out the main issue is to lose focus. No one denies that taxes are the law and the law must be obeyed.
"I am absolutely, positively, and completelyWILLING to pay higher taxes."
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:16 AM. |