- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Your post has nothing to do with any of my previous ones. I have no idea what brought it up. Sound like just another dose of your inflammatory rhetoric.
Hi hoghead,
You must be born again from above.
Then they can begin to see the kingdom.
Philosophers and speculators walk in the dark.
Well, but, Nick, you know the show-stopper song, don’t you? “When you walk through the dark, hold your head up high…” Andre Rieu, the European version of Fiedler and the Pops, has an arrangement here, readily available on youtube, that will just knock your socks off. I started balling, just air conducting along with Andre and his Johann Strauss Waltz Orchestra. Thanks for reminding me. I’m going right to that site and give another listen right now.
Thanks for the compliment about my remarks being “witty.” However, they weren’t aimed at God, they were aimed at you. God already made me an offer, offered me a sense of humor, however that small may be, and it is, believe me. I’m just taking advantage of God’s offering here. When I run out of witty comments, then I’ll just yawn whenever your posts appear. I’ll keep on trying to be witty, just as long s=as God keeps tweeking my sense of humor here. When God says enuf, I’ll just yawn.
Yepper deppers, Nick. That’s why I just told you I step quickly way off the road when you come barreling down on your high horse.
Hi hoghead,
The vain musings of men are more attractive to many rather than hearing the voice of the Spirit.
Hello, Nick,
You’d be the one to know on that one, the expert on listening and providing only the vain musings of men, specifically yours. You are just having too much fun mocking and trying to embarrass those of the Christian faith.
Hi Miia,
If you’re willing to consider the possibility that “The Trinity” may be correct,
why not consider the possibility both views might be part of a bigger truth:(I explain this concept in the following thread…)
Trinity and non-Trinity
Thanks. I’ll take another look later.
Hi hoghead,
Your god is not of the bible but of the vain imaginings of foolish men.
Go back to the prophetic word.
Time is short.
HH, your posts are quite a blessing.
I think everyone’s a blessing in their own way, even if we don’t realize it:)
Hi hoghead,
If you go beyond a scriptural foundation into mystical speculation then you go beyond the blessing of our Father.
But most of the world do walk that way.
HH
Some of what Nick says is true even if he doubts the salvation of all but himself.
When he says that the Trinity is not true, he speaks correctly.
Please do not throw out the baby with the bath water.
Paul spoke the truth when he said:
“For us there is one God the Father”.
And if you replace the world ‘God’ in scripture with ‘Father’, it makes sense. Try replacing the word ‘God’ with ‘Trinity’ and watch the scripture fall apart.
God in scripture is the Father and for us he is our God. Are you one of us?
First commandment is to honour this God and have no other.
Jesus told us to not break the commandments and the first one is primary.
Hello, t8,
In a serious theological discussion, one main rule is that you do no demean the faith of your opponents or personally attack them in any way. When members don’t honor that rule, I’m through with them.
hoghead1,
That may be the rule of modern theology but I doubt it as reducing an absurdity is acceptable as is attacking the soundness or validity of an argument. Otherwise debate becomes vain as the rules reduce its purpose to nothing.
Attack on the person is a fallacy unless it is related in some way to the argument being way. Creditably is one acceptable attack such as you launched against the Lexicon and Interlinear Version on bible.com and the web in general is an example. In fact you were attacking the honesty of the website and perhaps by extension their faith.
Jesus attacked the person of Pharisees on repeated occasions but you attempt to set him above other human being as a result of your indoctrination in the Trinity. In doing so you forget that we are to follow him and do and he does.
Hello, Kerwin,
I don’t think you quite get the picture. Let me try and be clearer. In modern-day theology, the emphasis in on mutual respect and understanding, not condemnation. You can disagree all you want with someone. In fact, that is encouraged. However, you need to focus on the arguments, not take cheap shots are your opponent’s character. The problem in the past was that such disagreements led to all kinds of denunciations, persecution. Those who disagree are all possessed by the Devil, etc. The Protestant Reformers called the Pope the Anti-Christ, and the Catholic church responded by condemning all the Protestants to Hell, etc. Such has been the downside of religion. Unfortunately, strong residuals yet remain today. Above, you referred to my “indoctrination” into Trinitarian belief. Now that is being very disrespectful and flamming. What next? All us academics are effete intellectual snobs? You forget that one. OK, flame wars are fun and tempting. I can rear back and let you have it as being some sort of anti-intellectual redneck an then you can let me have it as being some sort of Pharisee, and on and on. However, that is totally counter-productive in a serious theological dialogue.
Next, about going to online sites for quick reads: Many sites really aren’t very credible. You should carefully check out the site, not just grab up material from it. For example, Wikipedia is OK for a quick read, but very, very superficial. Also, it has many citations that need careful editing and qualifications. Most professors I know, and I do this myself, encourage students to look to more solid sites and sources. Trying to muster up an argument based on a quick read on a biblical language you really don’t know is maybe OK for very informal presentation, close enough for Sunday-school work, but really doesn’t even begin to cut the mustard in any in-depth discussion, where it wouldn’t count for squat.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
