Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 22:44:59 GMT
But I'm not confused. You're the one asking questions. I'm the one actually giving answers. If you have any biblical evidence that contradicts my assertions, by all means, quote them here. I clearly defined historical as opposed to prophecy, in your pedantry and your explanation you revealed your confusion. <sigh> Does Gadreel have any Gadreel thoughts in which he believes I have misunderstood scripture? If so, let Gadreel speak in Gadreel's voice right now. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 21, 2018 22:46:36 GMT
It's not arrogance this time, Goz. The Bible unfolds for thousands of pages and over thousands of years. The plan evolves within it's context. In order to understand point Z, one must understand points A through Y. I don't care what Gadreel does for a living or what his spouse does for a livng. Gadreel has not proven that competence with me. So when he asks me to quote chapter and verse for a complicated idea like how God has sanctioned different paths for believers to follow based on what period of time those believers actually lived, I'm already a skeptic. Because anybody who truly understands the dynamic involved knows that it can't be framed by one chapter or even one book. It takes a holistic approach to scripture to understand why God stops dealing with the Church in the future and starts dealing explicitly with the Jews again. One needs to fully understand ages, covenants, prophecies, timelines and, most importantly, the varied and various reasons behind why the evolution occurs in the first place. The very fact that he would even question it led me to believe that quoting one section of scripture would not be convincing to him. Of course it is arrogance. It is arrogance that you dismiss another Christian/person's view because you say they couldn't possibly understand the complexities. May I remind you that this board is for 'discussion' and NOT exclusively for Bible study and MORE especially on your own rather preconceived terms and your arrogant viewpoint that YOU alone have cracked the code of what the Bible actually means and everyone else is too stupid to understand your meaning. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 22:50:04 GMT
It's not arrogance this time, Goz. The Bible unfolds for thousands of pages and over thousands of years. The plan evolves within it's context. In order to understand point Z, one must understand points A through Y. I don't care what Gadreel does for a living or what his spouse does for a livng. Gadreel has not proven that competence with me. So when he asks me to quote chapter and verse for a complicated idea like how God has sanctioned different paths for believers to follow based on what period of time those believers actually lived, I'm already a skeptic. Because anybody who truly understands the dynamic involved knows that it can't be framed by one chapter or even one book. It takes a holistic approach to scripture to understand why God stops dealing with the Church in the future and starts dealing explicitly with the Jews again. One needs to fully understand ages, covenants, prophecies, timelines and, most importantly, the varied and various reasons behind why the evolution occurs in the first place. The very fact that he would even question it led me to believe that quoting one section of scripture would not be convincing to him. Of course it is arrogance. It is arrogance that you dismiss another Christian/person's view because you say they couldn't possibly understand the complexities. But I didn't say that. I said I was skeptical. Words have meanings. This whole time I thought it was so Cupcakes could lampoon people and you could flirt with choir boys and talk about your butt. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 21, 2018 22:51:16 GMT
Hold on, have you just presented you argument as "he has to read heaps and heaps of stuff to understand" while just a minute ago you asked me to summarize what I presented in one sentence? wow, you are quickly losing cred buddy. Yeah, be honest: in all the questions you've asked me, have I ever not given you my own response? When have I ever linked to a page-long blog and asked you to read someone else's opinion on the matter? If you want to argue some point that I've made (which you seem to really like doing even though it isn't reciprocal), then make your argument. Don't ask me to read some page-long thing you didn't even write. Give me Gadreel or give me death. The issue with giving your own response is and always has been that it is your interpretation, and I see that interpretation as heavily flawed as you seem to err on the side of biblical infallibility. I however have presented arguments made by people with some scholarly knowledge of the subject to give my point some validity other than "I read this and came up with it all by myself' To be fair you may have, but as far as I can tell that is just evidence of delusion. But as you asked. Jesus taught radical inclusion, his message was redemption for all, this would point against your claim that his message was exclusionary. A benevolent God (which is what I believe God is) would also provide the possibiilty of salvation for all, otherwise the only conclusion is that he created a whole set of people that will be tormented for nothing other than the chance of their birth. It is the same argument that Jesus is the only salvation, that means all the people born prior to Jesus are doomed to torment as are all the people who have never heard of jesus. A loving god who wanted the best for his children would not do that. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 21, 2018 22:52:40 GMT
I clearly defined historical as opposed to prophecy, in your pedantry and your explanation you revealed your confusion. <sigh> Does Gadreel have any Gadreel thoughts in which he believes I have misunderstood scripture? If so, let Gadreel speak in Gadreel's voice right now. We are having two conversations, this pedantry one is about your correction of my comment about revelations, not scripture, not religious belief, just your pedantry and inability to read what I wrote. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 21, 2018 23:02:23 GMT
Of course it is arrogance. It is arrogance that you dismiss another Christian/person's view because you say they couldn't possibly understand the complexities. But I didn't say that. I said I was skeptical. Words have meanings. This whole time I thought it was so Cupcakes could lampoon people and you could flirt with choir boys and talk about your butt. Who are the 'choir boys' on here, of which you speak, disparaging my written utterances by being sexist? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 23:07:35 GMT
Yeah, be honest: in all the questions you've asked me, have I ever not given you my own response? When have I ever linked to a page-long blog and asked you to read someone else's opinion on the matter? If you want to argue some point that I've made (which you seem to really like doing even though it isn't reciprocal), then make your argument. Don't ask me to read some page-long thing you didn't even write. Give me Gadreel or give me death. Jesus taught radical inclusion, his message was redemption for all, this would point against your claim that his message was exclusionary. Okay, good, see, we're getting somewhere. I am not claiming against radical inclusion. I believe there is radical inclusion during the Age of Grace, which is the period we live in now and have been living in since Christ came to earth as Jesus. I am not in any way saying that Christ's message was exclusionary. I am saying there will come a time when there will not be any Christians left on earth who are saved by Grace. There will only be unredeemed sinners and Jews. It will be at this point that God will rebuke the rest of the world in favor of the Jews. It is at this point (and it only lasts seven years or less) that God will once again only deal with humanity through the conduit of the Jews, much like the period of time before the Age of Grace. He always has and He always will provide the method of salvation to people on earth who want it. It's just that in the seven year period of Tribulation, nobody will seek that salvation except the Jews. Jesus is the only salvation and his salvation extends to people born prior to his first coming on earth every bit as those who came after. If you think there are alternate paths to heaven other than Christ, there is a vast difference in our interpretation of scripture. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 23:09:56 GMT
But I didn't say that. I said I was skeptical. Words have meanings. This whole time I thought it was so Cupcakes could lampoon people and you could flirt with choir boys and talk about your butt. Who are the 'choir boys' on here, of which you speak, disparaging my written utterances by being sexist? I didn't say anything about choir boys disparaging your written utterances. And I don't think the choir boys are sexist. Neither am I. I love women. A lot. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 21, 2018 23:13:33 GMT
And this is why it will forever be pointless to talk about Revelation.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 21, 2018 23:15:35 GMT
Who are the 'choir boys' on here, of which you speak, disparaging my written utterances by being sexist? I didn't say anything about choir boys disparaging your written utterances. And I don't think the choir boys are sexist. Neither am I. I love women. A lot. Well, you prove yourself once again a pedant, and are not 'cute' or loveable in your wilful disingenuous reply to my concerns. What do you mean by your choir boy statement? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 23:26:21 GMT
<sigh> Does Gadreel have any Gadreel thoughts in which he believes I have misunderstood scripture? If so, let Gadreel speak in Gadreel's voice right now. We are having two conversations, this pedantry one is about your correction of my comment about revelations, not scripture, not religious belief, just your pedantry and inability to read what I wrote. I thought it was about my unwillingness to read your link. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 23:30:36 GMT
I didn't say anything about choir boys disparaging your written utterances. And I don't think the choir boys are sexist. Neither am I. I love women. A lot. Well, you prove yourself once again a pedant, and are not 'cute' or loveable in your wilful disingenuous reply to my concerns. What do you mean by your choir boy statement? I meant I think you have "a thing" for choir boys. Don't be so haughty with your "willful disingenuous reply to my concerns" tack. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. So I'm a "pedant," eh. What else am I, Goz? What other judgments do you want to pour out on me? |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 21, 2018 23:48:37 GMT
Well, you prove yourself once again a pedant, and are not 'cute' or loveable in your wilful disingenuous reply to my concerns. What do you mean by your choir boy statement? I meant I think you have "a thing" for choir boys. Don't be so haughty with your "willful disingenuous reply to my concerns" tack. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. So I'm a "pedant," eh. What else am I, Goz? What other judgments do you want to pour out on me? I think 'wrong' might cover it nicely! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 23:59:18 GMT
I meant I think you have "a thing" for choir boys. Don't be so haughty with your "willful disingenuous reply to my concerns" tack. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. So I'm a "pedant," eh. What else am I, Goz? What other judgments do you want to pour out on me? I think 'wrong' might cover it nicely! Well, I think you're a lovely person but I guess I was wrong.    |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 22, 2018 0:02:47 GMT
All thoughts are vengeful, they take one out of the moment. Therefore beliefs are still thoughts and takes one out of the moment. All there is, is the presence in the present. There is no mind, or thought or belief in this space of absolute awareness and clarity. Yes, ALL beliefs are delusional, until they reach beyond the thinking phase. I am actually quite heartened by what you wrote. Thanks.  |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 22, 2018 0:10:47 GMT
I think 'wrong' might cover it nicely! Well, I think you're a lovely person but I guess I was wrong. OK. Let us pedantarily (yes I make up good words) analyse this latest postulation on your part. You accused me of 'liking choir boys'. This phrase is open to interpretation. In what way are you asserting that I 'like choir boys'? Do I think that they look cute in their little surplices and have nice immature voices? Tend to sing nicely? ...or do you assert that I like them in a sexual way? You then propose that you thought that I was a nice person and now because of the sexual way that you propose that I 'like' choir boys, that through your INTERPRETATION of my liking choir boys that way, you have changed your mind. Despite your INTERPRETATION of my proclivities towards choir boys you have made a binding decision, without any relevant facts, that I am NOT a nice person. I could say to you... 'I don't 'know' any choir boys' and in your INTERPRETATION that could either mean that I have never met a choir boy in my life OR that I have never 'known' in the Biblical sense a choir boy ie that I claim not to have had sexual relations with a choir boy. So, I either am a good person or not on the basis of me liking or not...choir boys, in your view. What are the known facts.....? |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 22, 2018 0:16:09 GMT
We are having two conversations, this pedantry one is about your correction of my comment about revelations, not scripture, not religious belief, just your pedantry and inability to read what I wrote. I thought it was about my unwillingness to read your link. Like I say there are two threads of conversation we are a having at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 22, 2018 0:18:32 GMT
I thought it was about my unwillingness to read your link. Like I say there are two threads of conversation we are a having at the moment. Do you 'like' choir boys? Why not add a third? |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 22, 2018 0:21:14 GMT
Jesus taught radical inclusion, his message was redemption for all, this would point against your claim that his message was exclusionary. Okay, good, see, we're getting somewhere. I am not claiming against radical inclusion. I believe there is radical inclusion during the Age of Grace, which is the period we live in now and have been living in since Christ came to earth as Jesus. I am not in any way saying that Christ's message was exclusionary. I am saying there will come a time when there will not be any Christians left on earth who are saved by Grace. There will only be unredeemed sinners and Jews. It will be at this point that God will rebuke the rest of the world in favor of the Jews. It is at this point (and it only lasts seven years or less) that God will once again only deal with humanity through the conduit of the Jews, much like the period of time before the Age of Grace. He always has and He always will provide the method of salvation to people on earth who want it. It's just that in the seven year period of Tribulation, nobody will seek that salvation except the Jews. Jesus is the only salvation and his salvation extends to people born prior to his first coming on earth every bit as those who came after. If you think there are alternate paths to heaven other than Christ, there is a vast difference in our interpretation of scripture. How can that be if they have never heard of him? |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 22, 2018 0:22:53 GMT
And this is why it will forever be pointless to talk about Revelation. And yet many people do. |
|
