'spider',

If you are going to start 'marshalling' the treads, in addition to pontificating them, you should remind yourself of the very clear 'religious forum rule' which preceedes the one you conviniently accused some of breaking. Here is the rule I'm pointing to :

"... Also, topics which are designated for response exclusively from one religion or belief system, or which may cause that type of polarization, will be deleted..."

This post for example, clearly invited people of various belief systems. 'Creativesoul' suggested this title:

"... Why my God is not jealous..." and ...

Wrote this in his opening post:

"... Simply put... jealousy stems from insecurity and or the desire to have what one does not have...
God is all...has all...and always will be...EVERYTHING...
No jealousy required!..."

Clearly a wide open field for all religious persuasions to reply, including fundamental apologetics presuppositionists such as yourself. And, clearly in conformity with the forum rules, which are against religious views 'exclusive' or 'polarization'.

Unfortunately, you 'spider', are rarely happy with simply stating your opinions amongst others. You must, in just about every religious post I have encountered you on, IMPOSE the single, and in the end, constipating views of the 'fundamental apologetics presuppositionists', and then resort to intolerance and personnal insults towards those whom don't agree with your unwavering 'presuppositions'.

Clearly in violation of the religiously 'exclusive' and 'polarizing' rules that we are all invited to adhere to, and respect.

Now, I'll be the first one to admit that I probably unintentionnally break some of the rules, some of the times, so I certainly will not be reporting people for having similar momentary lapses.

As for you 'spider', in my books, you break the 'exclusivity' and 'polarizing' rule with the consistency of a swiss watch.

I say dear friend,

'who are you to throw the first stone!!! ... at a couple of posters whom delight the thread with some humour, and constipation relief!!!'

And while I have no intention of reporting your obsessive 'rule-breaking-habits', it would be interesting to get your cooperation, such that we could hear from other religious convictions than the fundamentalist-apologetic-presuppositionist.

It would interesting for a change to hear from other religious convictions such as Christians, Muslims, Indhus, Buddhists, etc., and truly engage in a constructive and open, as opposed to, 'fundamental-apologetic-presupposed' constipated pontificating 'trap'.

Now, should you have no intention in making an effort to follow the rules which makes sense for all 'spider', maybe you should follow your own advice: "... it's a pretty good idea to just void the thread..."

If you wish to run a 'fundamental-apologetic-presuppositionist'
training camp, and self-appoint yourself as the 'presuppositionist-in-chief', do that. I'm sure your like-minded friends will join you.

That would be the honest and up-front way of applying your 'pontificating' talents, without illegitimately practicing such, against the rules, on these open and 'liberal' 'religion CHAT' public forums.

Even though this may seem harsh, I am writing in good faith to you spider. Deep inside, I trust you mean well. Your heart, I have little doubt, is in the best of dispositions. But your overall attitude and approach, IMO, in these forums, do you the greatest of disservice. The seeds which you might potentially sow, are brutally washed away by your intolerance and intransigeance. This is not a 'fundamentalist' bible inerrancy forum, 'spider', and for you to treat it as such is, IMO, a serious judgemental error.

This unanswered set of comments and/or questions is quite humorous in a backwards type of way... I try my very best to give everyone equal repect. Everyone in a debate or discussion deserves to leave with their dignity intact...

With that in mind...

spider, rambill, whoever else differs in opinion

The reasons...my reasons... for which I say that "my" God is not jealous still stand.

I have given some of these reasons and would/could give you more... IT IS the topic... and perfectly on topic

And "my" God allows his children harmless play... it nourishes the soul...







And he who chooses to point out only the most convenient forum rules because he ASSUMES that I am avoiding his latest questions and/or comments says this:

BY WHOM? Show me a Biblical scholar who doubts that the great comission is in the Bible. Don't change the subject, that's cowardly and dishonest.



THAT would be on top of what already has been several "digs" at my honor, courage and nobility...

Spider:

I never said or suggested that the great commission was not in the Bible...or that anyone else said so either... you are playing in a different "game" than I am... with all due respect.


Be careful directing traffic, because it does place you in the middle of it...SIR

voileazur and creativesoul, this is for you. Since you guys are too obtuse to realize what I was replying to. There is a lot of leeway in any thread, but talking about unicycles is just a tad bit too much off topic. I understand that Jess and ArtGurl don't enjoy this conversation, but that doesn't mean they should come into the thread and post nonsense.

voileazur,

Thank you for posting that nonsense. It's very nice of you to remind everyone that while you probably could add to any conversation, you choose not to.

Voileazur said...


Operative word "TOPICS". I didn't choose the topic and the topic isn't exclusive in any way. There is nothing in the rules that states that a poster can't espouse a single religion or belief system. Seriously man, get a clue.

If you want a lesson spider, you have been given one...by me


Throughout these threads, including this one, I have stated where the differences in our beiefs lie... AFTER listening not only to yours, but also, at times, listening to your comprehension of mine... or rather, lack thereof...

He who speaks without listening, THAT is his folly.

CreativeSoul said...


"Questionable origin"...questioned by whom?

"widely disputed"...disputed by whom?

Just admit you were blowing smoke and let's move on. That verse is not questioned or disputed. You might not like it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the Bible.

spider said:

voileazur and creativesoul, this is for you. Since you guys are too obtuse to realize what I was replying to. There is a lot of leeway in any thread, but talking about unicycles is just a tad bit too much off topic. I understand that Jess and ArtGurl don't enjoy this conversation, but that doesn't mean they should come into the thread and post nonsense.




When in all actuality spider, you DO NOT KNOW what they enjoy or do not enjoy... you ASSUME...

I welcome that lightheartedness... and it seems at the time, they were on their way out anyway, no one else was here then!

I didn't say you were off topic and I don't believe anyone else did. YOU assumed that I was talking about you, but as I already have shown, I was talking about Jess and ArtGurl. Drop the persecution complex man and move on. It's not becoming.

Not to belittle your opinion on this matter, but instead to better understand why you have come to this concluison, it leads me to ask this question:
If God is/was NOT omniscient, and could not look "down the road of man's existance", why did He send Jesus? Since the central "theme" (for lack of a better word) of the bible is that Jesus went to the cross to die for all the sins of the world - why did He have to do that if God did not already know that there would be no one on earth worthy of the rightiousness of this selfless act? Being limited within the time constraints of man (His having to wait to see what man chooses) That would mean he did not know if there would be someone worthy of the sacrifice on the cross. Therefore His choice to send Jesus was merely guessing, or showing a serious lack of patience. I don't think this logic is unreasonable, and most of the conclusions are seriously contradictory to my understanding of the power and rightiousness of God. So I ask...
Is God omniscient - or is He not? (Referencing the God of the bible that is)



I suppose that has it's validity - though it becomes a difficult task to reason out inconsistancies between other versions of "truth" that have hit print. I would ask again though - if you think their are other viable sources to learn the truth about God/Jesus, what does that do to your credibility of the bible itself? How do you discern for yourself the parts of the bible that are the truth - and what is not? For surely, the logic of man is not the logic of God as a given premise. For this would bring God down to the level of man. In which case, He would just not be God.



I would also suggest that when you hear of another's "interpretation" of what God is or isn't - and it doesn't ring true in your mind, that you search out the source of their claim, and discern for yourself what it says. If the bible is inerrant - as it claims for itself, than there is usually something "more" to be investigated behind an inconsistancy in what should be determined as truth. Since by your own admission you have found your life to be effected by Jesus - and He claims to be the "Way, the truth and the light", then you must (well you don't HAVE to, but....) reason out for yourself whether His claim is to be trusted - or not. According to Jesus - the words of the Old Testament are truth. So either He is who He said He was - or He was a liar. In which case - no matter how beautiful His words would have sounded - there's no foundation on which to build trust in anything He said if it is up to us to figure out when He was right, and when He was wrong.

Look spider,

the entire set of gospels has been under scrutiny for many many years, with nearly every true author being questioned... and the placement of the great commission has and still is in question... who and/or when it was inserted... just because I refuse to ablige your request to research it further, does not make it any less true... that it has been, in fact, questioned...

It is the basis for much of Christianity... especially the evangelists... such as yourself

You have got to be kidding me Spider!

What Jess and I did was the equivalent of others saying "Hi so and so in the middle of a thread" ... or you getting kisses on the cheek earlier in this same thread from feral.... oohhhh

It was brief and no one was here ... and we knew that creativesoul would not mind the humour...

Why you have chosen to single Jess and I out is evident ...

And I have been active in this conversation from the beginning ... your assumptions about me are you own and not based in any fact whatsoever.

That's not so becoming either.

I would like to know what you base your criteria on to claim that Carlton Pearson is in fact a Christian? And why tou think that I (being one of the 2+ billion, billion Christians you are refuring to) agree with you? You have used this statement of Spiders to somehow discredit what he said - however your statements show a serios lack of support. In the same way that you do not consider Lee Strobel to be a representative of the Atheist population - those Christians who have examined Pearson's beliefs disqualify him in the same way you disqualify Strobel. If you want us to have respect for your claims, then support them like you did with Strobel. Why are you right in claiming Pearson is a Christian, and Spider wrong?

Anyone who believes that the gospels are not under scrutiny by theologians and scholars from all over the world is obviously a delusional and uneducated person.

Spider preaches a LOT but he never practices what he preaches.

Then again maybe he does!

He never preaches the teachings of Jesus, he seems to focus solely on the hate and bigotry from the Old Testament. All the stuff that Jesus denounced and changed.

It never ceases to amaze me how radical fundamentalists can focus on the hate and bigotry of the Old Testament, spit in the face of Jesus, and then claim to be “Christians”.

Such irony!

Eljay:

I hope this answers all mentioned in your post...

<<<<<<< I believe that Jesus was "sent" to dispell that which was not supposed to be... to re-write the Law... and to live an honorable and forgiving existence to show mankind how to love, and display what the absolute depth of "pure" love meant... the strength of true forgiveness by which one would sacrifice their own life for the one(s) that he/she loved because of neverending and powerful "properties" that this kind of love brings.>>>>>>>

<<<<<<< God had lived through everything on this earth up until this time, and I do not believe that he/she had been satisfied with the human existence, as it had been lived. The calloused hearts that ruled this world, many of which had been fostered by much of this old "Law" >>>>>>>

<<<<<<< It is my belief that our God is omniscient... I simply do not believe that this includes that which cannot be known... that which has not happened. >>>>>>>

<<<<<<< God has instilled in me a love that I knew not existed... I had not been taught to use the love within me... the "vehicle" was Jesus Christ... and the "change" within me was and is a permanent one... the world only looks different if you look at it differently... God had given my sight "back"... the pure of heart that I had been born with... that I believe we all are born with.>>>>>>>

<<<<<<< As far as discernment goes... I read, listen, watch... that which leaves my heart bare... that which goes against the love that I know... that which does not fit in this puzzle... If the "source" is questionable... I leave it lay... For there has been no doubt, when that source is the truth of the light. >>>>>>>

creativesoul,



Fallacy: Burden of Proof


Gratuitous Assertion


creativesoul's gratuitous assertion / Burden of Proof fallacy...


No, it is not of questionable origin or disputed in the least.

Abracadabra,



Matthew 5:17


Keep it up and we might have to wonder if you have ever even seen a Bible.

Though I can't disagree with your principle here, Jesus did say "I came not to change the Law - but to fullfill it". I think there is a vast difference between claiming Jesus came to "change" the Law, rather than stop the Law from being mis-interpreted for the benefit of those who were in positions of leadership within Judiasm, and demonstrating, as well as teaching those who chose to listen to him - what the true spirit of the Law was. He did not "re-write" any of it.



Again - a matter of mis-represented interpretation.



But this still puts God within a time constraint. Is this what you believe? That God does not know the future? What does that say of the Prophets - or Jesus for that matter, for clearly Jesus spoke of the end times. If God doesn't know - how could He?



In all sincerity - this is wonderful. I suspect we may share a similarity in experience here.



And I would sense that you are a lifelong seeker of the truth. That is why I question your conclusion on God's not knowing the choices of man's free-will. It seems to contradict a central theme of biblical truth. So I wonder more why you have reached this conclusion, as opposed to your simply having made this decision. It was something I studied out in the earlier days of my becoming a Christian.

Evidently anyone who wishes to claim that they are a Christian is all it takes.

Look at Spider!

What gives him the right to claim to be a “Christian”?

He has confessed that he has self-studied the Bible! Not for all that long either! Yet you’d think he graduated from theology school as the high priest who speaks directly for God!

Yet, he’s nothing more than a self-proclaimed “Christian” with his own personal interpretation that he is trying to sell as the ‘gospel truth’!

This is one huge problem with Christianity. Somehow people got it in their heads that Jesus asked them to spread “the word”. They think this gives them a free license to ram their own personal interpretations down the throats of others! And they even base much of those interpretations on the Old Testament which Jesus obviously was changing!

Jesus taught to turn the other cheek and to show respect and tolerance to others. Yet people abuse Jesus by using him as an EXCUSE to peace things from the OLD Testament!!!

That’s not ‘the word’ that Jesus said to spread!!!

Jesus was talking about spread HIS WORD!!! Not the ideals of the old Testament which Jesus clearly changed!

Moreover, to spread the word of Jesus simply means to introduce other people to the Bible. It doesn’t mean to preach your own interpretations of what you think the Bible means over all!

This kind of abuse of Jesus is highly un-Christian-like if you ask me. I mean, when I was a Christian I would have denounce the methods and claims of Spider!!!

He’s trying to FORCE his OWN interpretations onto everyone else instead of allowing them to learn about Jesus on their own and come to their own conclusions!

He’s constantly dishing out personal insults and claiming personal foul all the time. Does that sound very Christian-like to you?

From my point of view, to support anyone who behaves this way as being a “Christian” is actually detrimental to Christianity itself.

If I were a Christian I would denounce his tactics as being un-Christian like.

I’m talking about what Jesus actually DID!

Not about what Matthew claims he said!

I’m well aware of the inconsistencies in Matthew’s writings thank you.