Good example of how jl distorts what others say.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
|
Good example of how jl distorts what others say.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Quote:
Athos routinely lies and distorts what I have said.
Talk about the kettle calling the pot black – this claim is breathtaking. I challenge anyone to compare his lies and distortions with my non-existent ones.
Quote:
I have corrected him on a number of occasions, and his consistent lying is why I just don't respond to him anymore.
His “correction” is simply repeating his bizarre statements about life after death. His not responding anymore is simply because he cannot admit to his sick belief about most of humanity going to hell for eternity.
Quote:
And I have certainly never said your quote from above or many of the ridiculous things he alleges.
Do you deny that you believe that unbelievers go to hell where they are punished for eternity? No, I didn't think so.
Quote:
From Talinman
I have no such faith in the words of ancient man, nor what he says others have said. I try not to judge those that do.
Would that JL thought the same way, at least re unbelievers going to hell for eternal punishment.
Quote:
There is salvation only in Christ.... For those who have never heard, I think that's why we should all be actively involved in spreading the gospel.
That's real big of you, JL. Tell me, how does that work for the millions that you and others don't get around to? How does that work for those who decide to stay in their own religion? How does that work for one of those unborn children you so love, when they grow up and become born children who don't believe like you do? How does that work for the millions who lived in past ages before Christ?
Quote:
I have no faith in the words of ancient man either.
But your Bible is written in those words of ancient man. Or do you deny that also?
Quote:
The word of God, however, is a different story.
Did God write the Bible? How did that work?
Quote:
Better make sure you have it right. It's the most important question you will ever face.
You just can't discuss this topic without a threat, can you? “Better make sure...”, OR ELSE.
Not only that, but the earliest manuscripts we have were written many years after the events described - time enough for errors, editing, adding and subtracting from the stories. No one knows how much was embellished.Quote:
From Wondergirl
It was ancient man who wrote down God's words and we no longer have those manuscripts.
And what do you do with that Bible? -- hold it high above your head as you shout out verses to passersby?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
"The very Bible that [I] know so little of"??? "and that [I] seem at times to nearly despise"??? GOOD GRIEF!!!!!Quote:
The very Bible that you seem to know so little of, and that you seem at times to nearly despise, is the book that contains the message that we preach. No Bible...no message.
I'm speechless upon reading this.Quote:
I can't imagine that you, being a Lutheran, would be so opposed to the core belief of Luther himself. “He [Christ] died for me. He made His righteousness mine and made my sin His own; and if He made my sin His own, then I do not have it, and I am free.”
Again, your prejudice displays itself. And you want to accuse me of bashing? Perhaps you need to hear the same lesson I gave to Athos about following your own advice before giving it to others.Quote:
And what do you do with that Bible? -- hold it high above your head as you shout out verses to passersby?
I asked you what you thought the gospel was. You wouldn't answer. All I can get from you is that you think we should have a personal connection made with people. I agree with that, but I still don't know what you believe the gospel message is.Quote:
I can't imagine that you, being a Lutheran, would be so opposed to the core belief of Luther himself. “He [Christ] died for me. He made His righteousness mine and made my sin His own; and if He made my sin His own, then I do not have it, and I am free.”
Quote:
I'm speechless upon reading this.
You giving lessons to anyone is laughable. Tell us about the lesson children receive based on your Bible who are unbelievers, and that WG described so well.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
She sure doesn't believe children who are unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment. But you do.Quote:
I still don't know what you [WG] believe the gospel message is.
Athos, what is your fixation on hell, Jesus told us to believe on him, therefore the issue of hell is resolved
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I don't have a fixation on it, JL has the fixation.
It's certainly resolved in my mind, but I wouldn't call believing the great majority of humanity is condemned to hell if they are not believers a resolution. I'd call it a sick mind.
Buddy, obviously you have decided the path you want to take, get over it and move onQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Since HC has been absolved of wrong doing can we turn to the dufus and his kids email uses, and security clearance issues? While we're at it did anyone catch the ruling on the dufus charities?
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Buddy, you failed to respond to my reply to you. What am I to think? Are you the same as jl on this subject?
Jl self-claims a life of educating the young. Don't you think it is important to identify his horror stories that he's poisoning the young minds with?
It's not something one gets over and moves on. Representing Christianity and Christ as some sort of monstrosity who creates people then sends them to hell for eternity is pretty weird, don't you think?
(Sorry, Tal. The issue is important to me.)
He might be as tired of your lying as I am.
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The idiot once proclaimed, "I WILL NEVER SETTLE ANY LAWSUIT!"
Since saying that, so far he has settled $27 MILLION worth of lawsuits calling him a fraud. Repeat - $27 MILLION.
His charity fraud spent tens of thousands on, get this, a PORTRAIT OF HIMSELF TO HANG IN ONE OF HIS CLUBS. Hard to believe, but true.
Put your big boy pants on and tell where the lie is when I report that you believe unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
We await your answer.
There is one. I have explained to you in the past, repeatedly, that I do not believe that children are held responsible. So you when you say I believe that, you are lying. Of course you can easily defend yourself by finding the quote where I said that.Quote:
She sure doesn't believe children who are unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment. But you do.
Here is another. Tal responded to a quote of mine. The quote was, "No one has suggested we bash anyone with anything."
He responded by saying, "WG did and I concur." The question concerned suggesting that we bash people. Tal said that WG did and he concurred, so WG suggested it, according to him, and he concurred. Now I know he misstated his reply. My answer was tongue in cheek, also known as humor to the humor impaired.
To you, of course, it was a "Good example of how jl distorts what others say." That was completely false.
And then of course was your comment that D.C. was "filled" with right wingers, which of course was a crazy comment, poorly worded at best. Rather than just learning to laugh at yourself a bit and admitting you were mistaken, you went off on a long diatribe that the problem was not with the writer, but with the reader not being able to ferret out your meaning.
And I'm asking myself, "Why do you bother to reply to this person?" It's senseless.
Still waiting on your reply to Matthew 25. I'll make a deal with you. When you respond to Matthew 25, then I'll reply to your post. Until then, we are too much like matches and gasoline. Not a good mix.
ONE? Now you're saying children are not responsible. Ok, how about an old lady working a rice paddy in China who never heard of Jesus? Is she responsible? How about any number of examples who never heard of Jesus? People from thousands of years ago? Need I go on? What about all those millions, maybe billions?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Baloney. If it were, you would have said something. You said nothing until you were caught.Quote:
My answer was tongue in cheek
You got that right.Quote:
To you, of course, it was a "Good example of how jl distorts what others say.
That was previously discussed and decided upon. You lost. We'll add sore-loser to your title.Quote:
And then of course was your comment that D.C. was "filled" with right wingers, which of course was a crazy comment,
That's not the first time you've said that. You've yet to live up to it. I wonder why? Could it be you're beginning to recognize how absurd your belief in hell for unbelievers is?Quote:
And I'm asking myself, "Why do you bother to reply to this person?" It's senseless.
Sorry, I'll never make a deal with someone who supports Trump. You probably read The Art of the Deal.Quote:
Still waiting on your reply to Matthew 25. I'll make a deal with you.
I'll respond when I respond. Rest assured, it won't be too much longer.Quote:
When you respond to Matthew 25, then I'll reply to your post.
Still saying "filled with" means "hardly any"? Strange.
I wait patiently.Quote:
I'll respond when I respond. Rest assured, it won't be too much longer.
Just to be clear on all of this, my goal on this board, and in life in general, is to attempt as best I can to point out the truth, especially truth in the moral and spiritual sense as found in the Bible. I accept it all as the Word of God for a variety of good reasons. Now others here don't, and that is their choice. But if someone says, for instance, that Paul was gay, I ask for scriptural support for that. If someone says gay marriage is fine or contends there is no hell, then I ask for scriptural support for those positions as well. If someone wants to respond, "I believe xxx and I don't care what the Bible says," then at least that is an honest reply, but to suggest you have the will of God on a subject and then prove unable to support that position with scripture is mistaken.
I do not desire to live in the place of saying that I believe in the parts of the Bible that agree with my beliefs, but reject the parts that don't. To do so places my opinions above the principles of the Bible, and I think that is incredibly arrogant. That approach has a cousin named "figurative". Now there are certainly scriptures that are to be taken figuratively, and the disciples actually pointed in John 16:29 (Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech.") But many people extend that principle to any scripture with which they disagree by casually, and frequently unthinkingly, describing it as simply figurative or metaphorical. In either case, we are back to placing our own opinions above those of the Bible. So for me, saying that I believe in what the Bible says is quite sufficient. It is not just "some old book" to me. If I believed otherwise, I would throw it in the trashcan. If it is not the Word of God, then it is useless.
I have my own struggles to deal with and don't believe in bashing those who are likewise struggling. On the other hand, if you name the name of Christ, then you should be able to defend your views scripturally. To point out morality as found in the Bible is not bashing. To ask someone to support his/her views is not bashing. To say that the plain and clear teaching of scripture is that Christ is the sole source of salvation for those who have faith in His lovely, wonderful and amazing name is not bashing.
As to politics, I view Trump and the repubs to be the lessor of two evils, so I will support him and them until something better comes along. I do not have great hope for that happening. The last "knights in shining armor" I saw on the political stage were Thatcher and Reagan, and even they had their warts. Most of it is an ugly power game. Genuine leadership is rare.
May I ask what that has to do with pointing out the flaws of others, and balking when they return that favor? Our faiths and the path we take to get there is between an individual and his God, as are his words, actions, and behavior. We each can only do as our spirits move us, so who cares if another thinks we move in the wrong direction or the wrong speed?
Your political choices suck though, but so what? You think mine suck too, and that's just the way it is, so deal with it, and so will I.
Fair enough. I try to contend for positions and doctrine and not so much attacking people, but I imagine I fall short at times.Quote:
May I ask what that has to do with pointing out the flaws of others, and balking when they return that favor? Our faiths and the path we take to get there is between an individual and his God, as are his words, actions, and behavior. We each can only do as our spirits move us, so who cares if another thinks we move in the wrong direction or the wrong speed?
I think that's why we get along. I admire your candor. I get irritated with people who won't answer simple questions and that frustration gets out of hand sometimes. It bothers me to try and interact with someone who gets so hypercritical and yet won't answer a simple question. With you, on the other hand, I always know where you stand, even if you are sometimes standing on my foot!!Quote:
Your political choices suck though, but so what? You think mine suck too, and that's just the way it is, so deal with it, and so will I.
Excuse me for that! I think you see me coming and put your foot in the way. 8D Or is it my jolly desposition you admire so much? 80
That HAS to be it!Quote:
Or is it my jolly desposition you admire so much?
No one here contends there is no hell. This is a perfect example of how you distort things. The contention has always been opposing your belief that UNBELIEVERS GO TO HELL FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That, of course, is your opinion.Quote:
We are back to placing our own opinions above those of the Bible.
Except for the bashing, which you do so well, this is all a red herring.Quote:
I have my own struggles to deal with and don't believe in bashing those who are likewise struggling. On the other hand, if you name the name of Christ, then you should be able to defend your views scripturally. To point out morality as found in the Bible is not bashing. To ask someone to support his/her views is not bashing.
This claim has been rejected by mainstream Christianity beginning with the Catholic Church in the 12th century.Quote:
Christ is the sole source of salvation
After three years of Trumpism, you STILL don't recognize a nutcase when he's right in front of you and proving his idiocy on a daily basis, well, it's mind-boggling. For someone so Bible-oriented, it's like you've sold your soul to the devil.Quote:
As to politics, I view Trump and the repubs to be the lessor of two evils
That is not true. Look up Sola Fide and see what you make of that. Might want to check out Acts 4:12 as well. Try reading the third chapter of Romans. Galatians 2:20. Many, many others. Read Peters sermon in Acts 2. Acts 3:14-16. Acts 5:31. The list could go on and on.Quote:
This claim has been rejected by mainstream Christianity beginning with the Catholic Church in the 12th century.
Matthew 25.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Of course, it's true.
(quoting Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, 16) states:This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spes teaches similarly on the possibility of salvation:
All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (22)This teaching is consistent with Jesus’ own teaching about those who innocently reject him: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin” (Jn 15:22).
Quote:
Look up Sola Fide and see what you make of that.
Gladly. It's Luther's famous principle that faith, not works, is all that is necessary for salvation. However, Luther managed to say that The Letter of James which states the opposite that "Faith without works is dead" is NOT part of the New Testamant.
It has little relevance to the present discussion.
I noticed you did not read nor reference the NT passages. I value them far more than any proclamation by the Catholic Church.
You left out part of what Luther and the reformers said. Faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone.
You specifically said that what I wrote about the Catholic Church was NOT TRUE. I specifically replied to your falsehood by documenting the position of the Catholic Church. What you value re the Church is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
This is part of your deflection/distraction/distortion. The topic is unbelievers and eternal punishment.Quote:
You left out part of what Luther and the reformers said. Faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone.
This was your quote. "This claim has been rejected by mainstream Christianity.." Now maybe you think the Catholic Church is mainstream. I don't.Quote:
You specifically said that what I wrote about the Catholic Church was NOT TRUE. I specifically replied to your falsehood by documenting the position of the Catholic Church. What you value re the Church is irrelevant.
I said, "You left out part of what Luther and the reformers said. Faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone." Again, that was in response to your quote above. So no, it is not a deflection or a distortion. It went to the very heart of your statement.
In addition, you claimed this was the case since the 12th century. Then you reference Vatican II which was 1959. Luther and the reformers were sixteenth century. The New Testament was first century.Quote:
This is part of your deflection/distraction/distortion. The topic is unbelievers and eternal punishment.
Matthew 25
The Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination on the planet. It is the largest in the USA. It is the oldest. But you don't think it's mainstream. Good grief! You're in a world of your own. You may not LIKE that it's mainstream, but that doesn't permit you to deny it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
These are not directly related. They are instances describing my points in rebuttal of yours.Quote:
In addition, you claimed this was the case since the 12th century. Then you reference Vatican II which was 1959. Luther and the reformers were sixteenth century. The New Testament was first century.
I.e., "Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus" (no salvation outside the Catholic Church) was the declaration of the Lateran Council (1204?). It began to be softened by questioning leading to the official position I've stated.
Thomas Aquinas wrote " "The answer to the first argument is that nothing inappropriate follows from acceptance of the fact that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, even someone reared in the woods or among brute animals; for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way. For if anyone thus bought up were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed,
So in the 12th century the official stance of the Catholic Church was that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church. This is part of what Luther responded to. How does that support your position that people could believe in virtually anything so long as they were good people?Quote:
I.e., "Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus" (no salvation outside the Catholic Church) was the declaration of the Lateran Council (1204?). It began to be softened by questioning leading to the official position I've stated.
Which basically says nothing to support your position. "Things which are necessary to be believed" is the important part. Even now, in the Middle East, there are documented cases of people seeing Jesus in visions and becoming Christians. If your position is correct, then the cross would be unnecessary. Why wouldn't God have simply said, "Believe in whatever and be good?"Quote:
Thomas Aquinas wrote " "The answer to the first argument is that nothing inappropriate follows from acceptance of the fact that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, even someone reared in the woods or among brute animals; for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way. For if anyone thus bought up were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed,
Again, the New Testament scriptures I posted rather clearly do not support your position. You really should read them. Romans 3 is the best treatment of the subject for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Where did you get this idea - that my position is that people can believe virtually anything as long as they are good people? This is a major distortion of yours.
IT PRECISELY SUPPORTS MY POSITION!! That's why I posted it. I thought you might not be able to comprehend the formal language, but I didn't think it was that hard. I was wrong. I underlined to make it comprehensible to you. That didn't work, either.Quote:
Which [the Aquinas quote] basically says nothing to support your position.
If they're documented, you should be able to give documentation. Of course, no such thing is documented "even now". And you call me a liar?Quote:
Even now, in the Middle East, there are documented cases of people seeing Jesus in visions and becoming Christians.
Unlike you, I don't speak for God.Quote:
If your position is correct, then the cross would be unnecessary. Why wouldn't God have simply said, "Believe in whatever and be good?"
I have read them from the first time this subject came up many months ago and I have refuted each one in terms of unbelievers and hell. They're still in your post history - go back and read them.Quote:
Again, the New Testament scriptures I posted rather clearly do not support your position. You really should read them. Romans 3 is the best treatment of the subject for me.
You're getting weaker in your replies. That Middle East "documented" vision of Christ and conversion takes the cake. You're really stretching with that one.
OK. First of all, why don't you calm down and try reaching inside and turning down the hatred knob some.
Here's one personal testimony from Youtube. There are quite a number of others. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUBrbSV5M3oQuote:
If they're documented, you should be able to give documentation. Of course, no such thing is documented "even now". And you call me a liar?
No, I don't think it did. Go back and read it again. But perhaps we can make all this somewhat easier. You keep referring to a position you hold. Maybe I'm not clear on what that is. You say that, "The contention has always been opposing your belief that UNBELIEVERS GO TO HELL FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT." I assume, then, that you believe that unbelievers (those with no belief or no faith) can be right with God, but perhaps that is wrong, so tell us what you believe about the process of getting one's sins forgiven and being in right standing with God. Or just tell it however you believe it. In other words, state your position. It would be much easier to go from there. I don't see how your position, at least as I understand it, fits in with the multitude of scriptures I noted, but let's see more clearly after you state your belief.Quote:
IT PRECISELY SUPPORTS MY POSITION!! That's why I posted it. I thought you might not be able to comprehend the formal language, but I didn't think it was that hard. I was wrong. I underlined to make it comprehensible to you. That didn't work, either.
Kettle, pot, black. Take your own advice.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yes, it did. Here it is again - just for you. Note the underlined section.Quote:
No, it didn't. Go back and read it again.
Thomas Aquinas wrote " "The answer to the first argument is that nothing inappropriate follows from acceptance of the fact that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, even someone reared in the woods or among brute animals; for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way. For if anyone thus bought up were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration
Quote:
OK. Here's one personal testimony from Youtube. There are quite a number of others.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUBrbSV5M3o
YouTube?? You consider a person who made a YouTube video as documentation? In any case, your claim was a VISION from Jesus, not a DREAM. Big difference, doncha' think? Note distortion here.
You are correct.Quote:
You say that, "The contention [my] has always been opposing your belief that UNBELIEVERS GO TO HELL FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT."
I believe that unbelievers do NOT go to hell for eternal punishment simply because of their lack of belief.Quote:
I assume then that you believe that unbelievers can be right with God.
I have stated it many times. It is that I do not believe what your position is. Very simple. Otherwise, what my position is in regard to hell, eternal punishment, and believers/unbelievers is irrelevant. That's another topic. Start that topic if you wish. Some may be interested in giving an opinion.Quote:
In other words, state your position.
You understand it quite well.Quote:
I don't see how your position, at least as I understand it
As far as the "multitude of scriptures" you have offered as proof, I have answered each and every one (save Matthew 25 - I don't remember that one prior, but it too will be answered shortly)Quote:
[How does it] fits in with the multitude of scriptures I noted, but let's see more clearly after you state your position.
Athos, duck it all you want, the Scripture is clear, Jesus declared he is the only way, you can accept it, or reject it, but you have no excuse because you have been told
You people are amazing. When someone doesn't buy your act, you immediately threaten them with hellfire. Why do you hate humanity so much? Don't lay it on Jesus - he loved humanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I am not threatening you, as I said take the message or do the other thing. Yes Jesus loved all of us enough to lay down his life for us, he paid the price we could not, so I don't hate humanity, just the attitudes of some peopleQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Of course you are. Here are your words - "You can accept it [Jesus being the only way], or reject it, but YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD"Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
No excuse? Why would I need an excuse? What for? What happens if I reject it (Jesus being the only way).
Athos I abore circular arguments. let me put it this way Jesus loves you, there is nothing as sad as unrequited loveQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
You wingers ever consider it's not a rejection of Jesus that's the issue, but a rejection of your fundamentalist zeal that's the turn off for MANY? Not even all Christians go along with your version of what's considered Good Orderly Direction. I respectfully submit that quietly MOST don't.
I've never run across anyone as afraid to go on the record with a position as you are. So your position is that you don't like my position? How strange. Perhaps you are running from the call of Christ?Quote:
I have stated it many times. It is that I do not believe what your position is. Very simple. Otherwise, what my position is in regard to hell, eternal punishment, and believers/unbelievers is irrelevant. That's another topic. Start that topic if you wish. Some may be interested in giving an opinion.
It is still an interesting question that you have not answered. If people can be in right standing with God outside of faith in Jesus, then why did Jesus have to die on the cross? Why not just let everyone have the same route to God (whatever you believe that to be) that lies outside of faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross?
I will admit JL, most times I do not either, and its more a technical approach that turns me against what you are professing. That and your obvious disdain and dismissal for anything that doesn't fall in lockstep with what you are putting forth. That and your zeal for hitting people over the head with your bible! A thing you seem most comfortable with.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It's not the words of ancient man I argue against, it's the words and actions of modern men I have a problem with.
I'm not sure what you mean by "hitting people over the head". I quote scripture and present reasons for believing. How else should it be done?Quote:
I will admit JL, most times I do not either, and its more a technical approach that turns me against what you are professing. That and your obvious disdain and dismissal for anything that doesn't fall in lockstep with what you are putting forth. That and your zeal for hitting people over the head with your bible! A thing you seem most comfortable with.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:59 PM. |