(02-21-2022 02:03 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 12:35 PM)G-Man Wrote:  When did I say that I "decided" my "personal journey of faith should apply to 7 billion people"?

When did (and how are were you able to) discern that I wasn't prepared to give a defense for my faith?

What I said wasn't a personal attack on you about your own opinions. I was merely stating my disagreement about them.

One thing that seems to be typical with the majority of people I've met or communicated with, who are as into Bible Prophecy like you seem to be, is that they tend to be very quick to judge. Maybe it's a problem with being so sure they've got everything figured out "prophetically"? Or maybe being quick to judge, is just their personality and what attracts them to being obsessed about Bible Prophecy?

But I could be wrong about that last paragraph. And it's because I know that I don't have God-like abilities to discern what motivates others. But the things you state about others you disagree with, seem to indicate you really think you do.

That is the type of dishonest garbage I am talk about that you always pull in these threads.

You show up, make this completely personal attack on me, then cry foul when I call out the dishonesty of your attack. You do not engage in honest discussion of the subject, you don't engage in the subject AT ALL. You instead engage in completely dishonest attacks and make them very personal. Not some times, but every single time in these threads. You are not discussing the topic AT ALL, you are just attacking me. You literally have zero interest al all in the topic, you never do.

I did not remotely to pretend to have any god like ability to understand anything, and I did not remotely pretend to understand all aspects of Bible prophecy. In fact I am always quick to point out there are lot of future events we can't be 100% on, and we can't be militant and approach them as hard core doctrine nor should we divide up over them or attack each other over them. That's why you have never seen me attack people over their 2nd coming coming views, rapture views or anything about future events in prophecy and you never will.

But again this is not even about FUTURE events or dealing with future prophecy, this is about things that have already come and past. Bible prophecy in apologetics is not about future prophecy, its almost entirely about things that happened 2000+ years ago plus a few things from 1948. Things that give a strong witness to the divine truth of the Bible. Yet here you are dishonestly conflating the two in order to attack me and derail the thread. The thread is not about future events, stop pretending like it is.

The fact is you blanket attack everything I post on this subject and instantly make it very personal. You NEVER come to these threads and make a case for why non believers should consider the Bible, you just attack, attack, and attack and mock and make it personal. You just attack me, and attack the the entire idea of Biblical apologetics.

You never have a single positive thing to add, its just all negative every single time. Your not even willing to just stay out of the thread if you have nothing positive to add, you just have to come and go full on negative attack every single time.

You just show up and derail the thread, and here you go yet again. If you have no interest in the topic, then stop coming to the thread and purposely derailing it with personal attacks on me.

You even stalk me on the Memphis board in tiger Basketball threads, you just randomly pop up in basketball discussions and mock me for my faith in the Bible. You're a creepy little guy with a serious hair up his rear end over me.

Eric, please accept my apologies for not realizing my true intentions about these things I did which you just discerned my true reason for doing them, that I wasn't aware of as the reason why I was doing them, but you were.

For example, I didn't know that I blanket attacked everything you posted. I wasn't even aware I'd commented on any other post you've made in the entire Buckley-Vidal No Spin Room.

It sure would be nice if I could discern my true reasons for thinking or stating things, like you can discern them for me; and how comforting it is that there's someone who has never met me, but knows how wrong I am about my real motives and intents.

For example, I'd thought my initial comment in this thread (my first post that you straightened me out about that wasn't scriptural but just had to do with my personal experience) was based on Romans 1:20, which Paul used to state that people who claim they don't believe in God, had no excuse not to believe in Him (without having to be convinced by prophecy) based on it being self-evident in all that God has created--even apart from the Bible.

But you were able to correct me about my comment actually being all about my own personal journey, and not based on scripture at all.

And also, thanks for such a thoughtful response from you, in the manner (the words you used with such kindness) to let me know, by referring to a specific part of my temple where where Christ resides, about another discernment you know to be true, which I was blind about (although you'll have to forgive me for it, because I can't see myself as clearly down there, like you are able to).

And AGAIN, my point was that Paul says there's no excuse about not knowing the truth about God, in his first passage of Romans. It wasn't to attack anyone. It had just been (or at least, I'd thought it had been) my own interpretation of something that the Bible states about PROOF for God; that prophecies some may not agree about their meaning, don't need to be agreed about-- IF what Paul said was true.

(02-21-2022 03:21 PM)G-Man Wrote:  Eric, please accept my apologies for not realizing my true intentions about these things I did which you just discerned my true reason for doing them, that I wasn't aware of as the reason why I was doing them, but you were.

For example, I didn't know that I blanket attacked everything you posted. I wasn't even aware I'd commented on any other post you've made in the entire Buckley-Vidal No Spin Room.

It sure would be nice if I could discern my true reasons for thinking or stating things, like you can discern them for me; and how comforting it is that there's someone who has never met me, but knows how wrong I am about my real motives and intents.

For example, I'd thought my initial comment in this thread (my first post that you straightened me out about that wasn't scriptural but just had to do with my personal experience) was based on Romans 1:20, which Paul used to state that people who claim they don't believe in God, had no excuse not to believe in Him (without having to be convinced by prophecy) based on it being self-evident in all that God has created--even apart from the Bible.

But you were able to correct me about my comment actually being all about my own personal journey, and not based on scripture at all.

And also, thanks for such a thoughtful response from you, in the manner (the words you used with such kindness) to let me know, by referring to a specific part of my temple where where Christ resides, about another discernment you know to be true, which I was blind about (although you'll have to forgive me for it, because I can't see myself as clearly down there, like you are able to).

I have zero interest in yet another re-run of thread derailment you have played for years now whether its here, the political-religious forum or just creepily randomly stalking me on MT.ORG.

If for ONCE in your life you want to actually discuss the subject of the thread, I am more than willing to discuss it with you. I always have been, I always will be.

As already discussed, much of Pauls ministry was based on giving sound reasons for Christ through OT prophecy and Biblical apologetics, he spent considerable amounts of his time debating and engaging in nonbelievers (both Jew and Gentile) as to WHY they should believe in the gospel. He did not just ignore them and their questions just because he wrote God was self evident in creation.

Even if GOD is self evident in creation that in no way gives any reason to believing in Jesus over 1000 other false gods.

That is what Biblical apologetics is for, and that is what much of Bible prophecy is for. That is what the thread is about. How different examples of Bible prophecy give sound reasons and evidence that Christ was who He said HE was, and how the God of the Bible is the creator. Not allah, hindu gods, shiva, gozer or a gazillion other false gods that make such claims.

THAT is the question most non believers ask, why should they believe in Christ over any other God. Romans 1:20 does not remotely answer that question, nor is that the context of the verse. As Christians we need to be able to answer those questions and give sounds reasons, particularly since God went out of His was to give us so much material on the subject in scripture. That is exactly how the early church and the Apostles operated in spreading the gospel. They did NOT just say "God is self evident" and move on. That does not plant seeds of faith for the Gospel.

(02-21-2022 03:44 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  As Christians we need to be able to answer those questions and give sounds reasons, particularly since God went out of His was to give us so much material on the subject in scripture. That is exactly how the early church and the Apostles operated in spreading the gospel. They did NOT just say "God is self evident" and move on. That does not plant seeds of faith for the Gospel.

Yes, you are correct. And He also gave us the Apostles and Church Tradition to correctly interpret and understand the Bible and Salvation.

(02-21-2022 09:08 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 03:44 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  As Christians we need to be able to answer those questions and give sounds reasons, particularly since God went out of His was to give us so much material on the subject in scripture. That is exactly how the early church and the Apostles operated in spreading the gospel. They did NOT just say "God is self evident" and move on. That does not plant seeds of faith for the Gospel.

Yes, you are correct. And He also gave us the Apostles and Church Tradition to correctly interpret and understand the Bible and Salvation.

Actually Jesus specifically rebuked relaying on the traditions of men over scripture. Traditions change in the course of one generation, much less over 2 millennia. We know for a fact many church traditions have changed and morphed multiples times over the last 2000 years.

When its comes to doctrine, we have no need of relaying on traditions of men when we have the entire NT which we KNOW has not changed.

Jesus specifically rebuked that very practice.

There is one single mention by Paul of following after traditions but that is a reference to the traditions he himself taught in the churches he founded. That was in the 50's AD before all of scripture was avaible in those earliest churches. We know based on the entire NT and all the early church fathers writings that Scripture has always been the final word of doctrine over tradition.

(02-21-2022 09:39 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 09:08 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 03:44 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  As Christians we need to be able to answer those questions and give sounds reasons, particularly since God went out of His was to give us so much material on the subject in scripture. That is exactly how the early church and the Apostles operated in spreading the gospel. They did NOT just say "God is self evident" and move on. That does not plant seeds of faith for the Gospel.

Yes, you are correct. And He also gave us the Apostles and Church Tradition to correctly interpret and understand the Bible and Salvation.

Actually Jesus specifically rebuked relaying on the traditions of men over scripture. Traditions change in the course of one generation, much less over 2 millennia. We know for a fact many church traditions have changed and morphed multiples times over the last 2000 years.

When its comes to doctrine, we have no need of relaying on traditions of men when we have the entire NT which we KNOW has not changed.

Jesus specifically rebuked that very practice.

There is one single mention by Paul of following after traditions but that is a reference to the traditions he himself taught in the churches he founded. That was in the 50's AD before all of scripture was avaible in those earliest churches. We know based on the entire NT and all the early church fathers writings that Scripture has always been the final word of doctrine over tradition.

Here's a good article for you that clarifies how you're incorrect regarding thinking that Church Tradition is the same thing as traditions of men if you're defining "traditions of men" in the negative sense of someone's own tradition being used to justify not doing what God teaches--which is to be avoided, as you say, but also a much different thing than Church Tradition--which is to be embraced.

Here's the article: https://www.goarch.org/-/tradition-in-th...dox-church

(02-21-2022 10:08 PM)G-Man Wrote:  Here's a good article for you that clarifies how you're incorrect regarding thinking that Church Tradition is the same thing as traditions of men if you're defining "traditions of men" in the negative sense of someone's own tradition being used to justify not doing what God teaches--which is to be avoided, as you say, but also a much different thing than Church Tradition--which is to be embraced.

Here's the article: https://www.goarch.org/-/tradition-in-th...dox-church

I'm just pointing out the obvious that there are multiple churches with different traditions they say are handed down by the Apostles, yet they all differ. They all insist theirs are the oldest, they all insist their traditions are the correct ones.

Whose traditions do we follow? The Coptics? The Catholics? The Orthodox? etc.

They all have hardened traditions that vary and oppose each other quite a bit.

There is only one way to "test" those traditions and that is against scripture itself. That is what the NT teaches, that is what Jesus teaches, and that is what the earliest church fathers taught in their writings.

(02-21-2022 12:35 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(02-16-2022 05:56 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:13 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(12-22-2021 11:50 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  God openly stated in the OT that He alone is God and there are no other gods, and that HE PROVES that is so by telling us the end from the beginning. He openly challenges other religions and gods to tell us the things that are yet to come, so we will know they are gods. He challenges them to PROVE they are who they say they are, as He does. Its a mocking challenge because He says they do not exist at all.

I don’t think God is all that much concerned about us not being able to recognize He’s the real deal without needing to compare himself to things that aren’t.

Instead, I tend to agree with Paul, that even the invisible attributes of God are clearly discernible to everyone who is willing to believe what they prove, all by themselves.

No need to invent new math, nor mock things that aren’t real to prove what’s already been proven.

Well that's great that you have decided your personal journey of faith applies to 7 billion other people, but the fact is it does not and your comment is incredibly short sighted. Everyone comes to faith from a unique place with unique reasons.

...

Most people are going to have questions and want to know why they should believe in Christianity over a gazillion other religions or faiths. Instead of just coldly telling them "just because" you should be prepared to give them an answer and examples for why we can trust in the faith and the Bible.

THAT is what the NT mandates all Christians to do.

When did I say that I "decided" my "personal journey of faith should apply to 7 billion people"?

When did (and how are were you able to) discern that I wasn't prepared to give a defense for my faith?

What I said wasn't a personal attack on you about your own opinions. I was merely stating my disagreement about them.

One thing that seems to be typical with the majority of people I've met or communicated with, who are as into Bible Prophecy like you seem to be, is that they tend to be very quick to judge. Maybe it's a problem with being so sure they've got everything figured out "prophetically"? Or maybe being quick to judge, is just their personality and what attracts them to being obsessed about Bible Prophecy?

But I could be wrong about that last paragraph. And it's because I know that I don't have God-like abilities to discern what motivates others. But the things you state about others you disagree with, seem to indicate you really think you do.

But only God could discern others' motives who you don't know. And you don't know me. You've never met me. Yet you continue to state emphatically, as if they're certainty, things about me that you'd have to possess some special knowledge about, regarding how I'd act or what I'd do (and even whether, how much, and which parts of the Bible I have or haven't read--which you repeatedly have done in prior posts).

And I believe (my own conclusion) that you keep stating that the Bible proves things it doesn't, by jumping to conclusions about things it states, that can be understood several other ways then you insist there's only one way to interpret them (YOUR way). And that's not getting into your motives about why you do it, or whether you're lying about anything, it's just my opinion. Do you see the difference? I'm admitting something I'm observing and stating an opinion about IS only my own opinion--not some knowledge about you that only God could have.

And you don't understand how this type of insisting that your guesses about things (prophecies that aren't provable, motives of others when they disagree with you, or whether what they claim they've done is true) that are only your guesses--but that you insist prove things they don't, actually turns off a lot of people who might actually be open to Christianity, but aren't, because they're told they have to agree with things as if they're fact about "prophecy" you've imagined proves how the Bible is true, which they don't.

And then, you often claim you know peoples motives who try to explain that your conclusions are just that-- only YOUR own conclusions. Maybe they're right. Maybe they're not. But the Bible doesn't prove them as true. And you can't see this, evidently.

Anyone who objectively reads through your back-and-forth posts with Crayton in this thread, can see what I'm talking about. And no prophetic or omniscient knowledge is necessary to see it, nor is it some judgment against you. It's only your own words changing from first appearing to be welcoming to hear their opinion, and then things becoming "personal" for you, because they end up not agreeing with your conclusions. You state how Crayton has been "disingenuous". But it's NOT because he actually was lying about anything (or at least that's not anything anyone but God could know, if he were), but ONLY because he didn't come to the same conclusion you did about something you cannot prove is true, but insist is true, nonetheless.

It would be nice if someone could be able to disagree with you, Eric, and be able to point out how your conclusions aren't the same as their own, and you be able to view the conversation without resulting to taking someone's rejection of your conclusions so personally, and then needing/deciding (or being motivated by whatever it is that leads you) to respond by claiming they're lying.

It would be nice if you could realize you DO behave in this way. Others do, too. And sometimes I take things more personally than I should. But I don't ever see you admitting that you COULD be wrong about things, when you clearly could be wrong about them.

This post makes absolutely no sense at all other than I disagree with your forceful conclusions. G-man, dude, its ok to disagree but give facts or at least scripture than backs you up. You can't just say I disagree with the results.

I have learned that I am servant of God and nothing is impossible for God. I do not discount anything no matter how it may seem off unless there is scripture or evidence to refute what folks are saying.

Eric has provided numbers which I have not delved into to agree or refute because I'm mostly lazy and his work on it looks thorough. But, if I was able to find scripture or evidence then he would be forced to examine my rebuttal.

I'll give one example of where there is an incident in the Bible that really flies past most including myself on the importance of being baptized in the water and the spirit. Philip is told by the spirit to head south out of Jerusalem where he will be instructed. Doesn't take long and Phillip sees and hears an Ethiopian Eunuch reading Isaiah 53 about a lamb being led to slaughter. Phillip asks him if he understands and his reply was no I am in need of instruction. After studying for a while the Eunuch asks what must I do to be saved. Phillip responds by saying you must be baptized. Here is the part that shows God is present. The Eunuch says here is water and they both left the chariot and the rest is biblical history and the Eunuch leaves rejoicing in the spirit.

Think about it. They are in the middle of the desert and there just miraculously happens to be water. I have researched the area and there is no water to be seen on any map. Bottom line is either our eyes will be opened or we will be closed minded. At the very least have something as to why you disagree.

(02-21-2022 10:08 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 09:39 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 09:08 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 03:44 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  As Christians we need to be able to answer those questions and give sounds reasons, particularly since God went out of His was to give us so much material on the subject in scripture. That is exactly how the early church and the Apostles operated in spreading the gospel. They did NOT just say "God is self evident" and move on. That does not plant seeds of faith for the Gospel.

Yes, you are correct. And He also gave us the Apostles and Church Tradition to correctly interpret and understand the Bible and Salvation.

Actually Jesus specifically rebuked relaying on the traditions of men over scripture. Traditions change in the course of one generation, much less over 2 millennia. We know for a fact many church traditions have changed and morphed multiples times over the last 2000 years.

When its comes to doctrine, we have no need of relaying on traditions of men when we have the entire NT which we KNOW has not changed.

Jesus specifically rebuked that very practice.

There is one single mention by Paul of following after traditions but that is a reference to the traditions he himself taught in the churches he founded. That was in the 50's AD before all of scripture was avaible in those earliest churches. We know based on the entire NT and all the early church fathers writings that Scripture has always been the final word of doctrine over tradition.

Here's a good article for you that clarifies how you're incorrect regarding thinking that Church Tradition is the same thing as traditions of men if you're defining "traditions of men" in the negative sense of someone's own tradition being used to justify not doing what God teaches--which is to be avoided, as you say, but also a much different thing than Church Tradition--which is to be embraced.

Here's the article: https://www.goarch.org/-/tradition-in-th...dox-church

This is definitely a false suggestion. Man made traditions within any organized religion have slowly decayed what the original church intended. I could point out so many but I would have to write a small book. This is a facetious attempt on your part.

(02-25-2022 08:48 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 10:08 PM)G-Man Wrote:  Here's a good article for you that clarifies how you're incorrect regarding thinking that Church Tradition is the same thing as traditions of men if you're defining "traditions of men" in the negative sense of someone's own tradition being used to justify not doing what God teaches--which is to be avoided, as you say, but also a much different thing than Church Tradition--which is to be embraced.

Here's the article: https://www.goarch.org/-/tradition-in-th...dox-church

This is definitely a false suggestion. Man made traditions within any organized religion have slowly decayed what the original church intended. I could point out so many but I would have to write a small book. This is a facetious attempt on your part.

Did you even read the article? It's pretty clear if you did, that "man's tradition" isn't the same as Church tradition, or the tradition of the Apostles who taught the early Church what was correct doctrine, before any part of the New Testament had been written.

Before the Gospels, and before Paul's letter to the Thessalonians, you had the Apostles teaching people what it meant to be a Christian, and establishing how to conduct themselves in relationship with other Christians. Obviously there were traditions they adhered to in how they conducted what happened in meetings whenever believers assembled together.

You can argue that the other types of traditions are errant, too, if you want. But they're definitely not all one and the same things.

Also, on a personal note: I wasn't attempting to be facetious. It'd be nice if you could reply without stating you know my motives for posting something. Another person on this board does that consistently, and it's rather annoying. And in return, I'm not going to claim I have some God-like ability to know WHY you did or didn't state something you think is true (even if I don't agree), or to state that I could ever know this, as if it were a fact, when no one but God could possibly know.

(02-26-2022 06:09 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(02-25-2022 08:48 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 10:08 PM)G-Man Wrote:  Here's a good article for you that clarifies how you're incorrect regarding thinking that Church Tradition is the same thing as traditions of men if you're defining "traditions of men" in the negative sense of someone's own tradition being used to justify not doing what God teaches--which is to be avoided, as you say, but also a much different thing than Church Tradition--which is to be embraced.

Here's the article: https://www.goarch.org/-/tradition-in-th...dox-church

This is definitely a false suggestion. Man made traditions within any organized religion have slowly decayed what the original church intended. I could point out so many but I would have to write a small book. This is a facetious attempt on your part.

Did you even read the article? It's pretty clear if you did, that "man's tradition" isn't the same as Church tradition, or the tradition of the Apostles who taught the early Church what was correct doctrine, before any part of the New Testament had been written.

Before the Gospels, and before Paul's letter to the Thessalonians, you had the Apostles teaching people what it meant to be a Christian, and establishing how to conduct themselves in relationship with other Christians. Obviously there were traditions they adhered to in how they conducted what happened in meetings whenever believers assembled together.

You can argue that the other types of traditions are errant, too, if you want. But they're definitely not all one and the same things.

Also, on a personal note: I wasn't attempting to be facetious. It'd be nice if you could reply without stating you know my motives for posting something. Another person on this board does that consistently, and it's rather annoying. And in return, I'm not going to claim I have some God-like ability to know WHY you did or didn't state something you think is true (even if I don't agree), or to state that I could ever know this, as if it were a fact, when no one but God could possibly know.

The obvious point you don't want to admit to G-man is that those traditions Paul and the Apostles taught before NT scripture were then written down as scripture for the very purpose of keeping them whole for future generations. They knew those churches they founded would slowly corrupt themselves and dissolve given time, AND THEY DID. They knew wolves would come in and corrupt al those traditions and teachings, so the Holy Spirit led them to write the NT so they would be preserved for the generations to come.

You seem to think you and your denomination has some God like ability to avoid corruption and cultural changes over a 2000 year period from the other side of planet earth and yet understand the exact traditions laid down in 34 AD based on word of mouth and tradition.

That is why we have the Bible. Jesus spoke in some parables, Revelation used some symbolic language, but the other 99% of the NT is straight forward teaching, its not written in code or some secret symbolic formula. From Acts, to Pauls letters, to John, Peter and James letters its all straightforward teaching. It doesn't take special knowledge from a special group of men to discern, all it takes is a willing mind and heart to open themselves up to what it says (separate from their denomination or preconceptions) and then read it and study it consistency. We are not required to be perfect in all things and understanding, we are just asked to study scripture and guard against being mislead by false teachers and traditions of men. How can you guard against that if it based on traditions and not scripture? lol

The basic doctrines of how we are saved, why we are saved, what salvation is, how we worship, how we live as Christians, none of those things are difficult to discern in scripture. In fact they are incredibly easy.

Its only becomes difficult when you have to force them to fit your denominational traditions, then it becomes incredibly difficult and confusing. Then you end up twisting scripture in countless way in order to make it better fit you denominational traditions and boxes. Most people just give in at that point and just blindly follow whatever their denomination tells them. If anyone has questions they have to point them to someone else because they can't explain it and really don't understand it. That is what you end up doing in most cases. You can't really explain or defend your positions very well so you always have to point to other peoples work and hide behind that.

Man you have got to be kidding me.

There you go again totally derailing the thread with a completely different topic and completely changing the subject yet again.

I have heard this creepy theological spill from you about 100 different times now, I'm not interested, its not biblical and I'm not debating it with you AGAIN.

If you want to talk about this subject YET AGAIN then go start a new thread about it. It literally has nothing to do with the topic here. Its just you trying to derail another thread I started with your unbiblical nonsense.

As always, your posts are 1000 miles long and 1 inch deep in scripture.

Fine, Eric. I apologize for somehow "derailing" your thread by responding to the post you just made in it, directly, and on point to how you deviated from your original post when you started talking about what scripture talks about regarding salvation. I didn't go down that path. YOU did.

But just don't derail my own thread when its first post is the same thing I just wrote. But feel free to disagree with it and post why you do. However, it sounds like you have no desire to prove how wrong it is.

Go ahead and feel free to continue with your "impossible" prophecies that continue to make out God to be someone He isn't.

(02-27-2022 12:23 AM)G-Man Wrote:  Fine, Eric. I apologize for somehow "derailing" your thread by responding to the post you just made in it, directly, and on point to how you deviated from your original post when you started talking about what scripture talks about regarding salvation. I didn't go down that path. YOU did.

But just don't derail my own thread when its first post is the same thing I just wrote. But feel free to disagree with it and post why you do. However, it sounds like you have no desire to prove how wrong it is.

Go ahead and feel free to continue with your "impossible" prophecies that continue to make out God to be someone He isn't.

With all due respect that is obviously a load of BS.

You were not remotely responding to the content my post, you just went off 10 different directions on your whacked out quack theology that is about as far away from scripture as we are Siberia.

We have already had that discussion multiple times, I have no interest in yet another tired rerun of your quackery.

(02-27-2022 12:27 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(02-27-2022 12:23 AM)G-Man Wrote:  Fine, Eric. I apologize for somehow "derailing" your thread by responding to the post you just made in it, directly, and on point to how you deviated from your original post when you started talking about what scripture talks about regarding salvation. I didn't go down that path. YOU did.

With all due respect that is obviously a load of BS.

You were not remotely responding to the content my post, you just went off 10 different directions on your whacked out quack theology that is about as far away from scripture as we are Siberia.

Well, here's the load of BS YOU stated that you now claimed my responding to it, wasn't "remotely responding to it" and derailed your thread:

"The basic doctrines of how we are saved, why we are saved, what salvation is, how we worship, how we live as Christians, none of those things are difficult to discern in scripture. In fact they are incredibly easy.

Its only becomes difficult when you have to force them to fit your denominational traditions, then it becomes incredibly difficult and confusing. Then you end up twisting scripture in countless way in order to make it better fit you denominational traditions and boxes. Most people just give in at that point and just blindly follow whatever their denomination tells them. If anyone has questions they have to point them to someone else because they can't explain it and really don't understand it. That is what you end up doing in most cases. You can't really explain or defend your positions very well so you always have to point to other peoples work and hide behind that."

But you already knew you did this. You do this a lot. My very first post in this thread was completely on topic, expressed an opinion, didn't disparage you in any way, and your response was to make a personal attack. You did the same with Crayton, when something he said didn't agree with you, too. But you already knew this. Feel free to do it again, if you'd like.

(02-27-2022 12:59 AM)G-Man Wrote:  Well, here's the load of BS YOU stated that you now claimed my responding to it, wasn't "remotely responding to it" and derailed your thread:

"The basic doctrines of how we are saved, why we are saved, what salvation is, how we worship, how we live as Christians, none of those things are difficult to discern in scripture. In fact they are incredibly easy.

Its only becomes difficult when you have to force them to fit your denominational traditions, then it becomes incredibly difficult and confusing. Then you end up twisting scripture in countless way in order to make it better fit you denominational traditions and boxes. Most people just give in at that point and just blindly follow whatever their denomination tells them. If anyone has questions they have to point them to someone else because they can't explain it and really don't understand it. That is what you end up doing in most cases. You can't really explain or defend your positions very well so you always have to point to other peoples work and hide behind that."

But you already knew you did this. You do this a lot. My very first post in this thread was completely on topic, expressed an opinion, didn't disparage you in any way, and your response was to make a personal attack. You did the same with Crayton, when something he said didn't agree with you, too. But you already knew this. Feel free to do it again, if you'd like.

You are not stupid G-man, the subject of that post was not salvation and salvation theology, its was tradition vs scripture as the final word on doctrines.

You purposely cut out 80% of the post just to make it look like the subject was about theological doctrines on salvation.

You are being totally dishonest and you KNOW you are.

(02-27-2022 01:20 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(02-27-2022 12:59 AM)G-Man Wrote:  Well, here's the load of BS YOU stated that you now claimed my responding to it, wasn't "remotely responding to it" and derailed your thread:

"The basic doctrines of how we are saved, why we are saved, what salvation is, how we worship, how we live as Christians, none of those things are difficult to discern in scripture. In fact they are incredibly easy.

Its only becomes difficult when you have to force them to fit your denominational traditions, then it becomes incredibly difficult and confusing. Then you end up twisting scripture in countless way in order to make it better fit you denominational traditions and boxes. Most people just give in at that point and just blindly follow whatever their denomination tells them. If anyone has questions they have to point them to someone else because they can't explain it and really don't understand it. That is what you end up doing in most cases. You can't really explain or defend your positions very well so you always have to point to other peoples work and hide behind that."

But you already knew you did this. You do this a lot. My very first post in this thread was completely on topic, expressed an opinion, didn't disparage you in any way, and your response was to make a personal attack. You did the same with Crayton, when something he said didn't agree with you, too. But you already knew this. Feel free to do it again, if you'd like.

You are not stupid G-man, the subject of that post was not salvation and salvation theology, its was tradition vs scripture as the final word on doctrines.

You purposely cut out 80% of the post just to make it look like the subject was about theological doctrines on salvation.

You are being totally dishonest and you KNOW you are.

You do this a lot. My very first post in this thread was completely on topic, expressed an opinion, didn't disparage you in any way, and your response was to make a personal attack. You did the same with Crayton, when something he said didn't agree with you, too. But you already knew this. Feel free to do it again, if you'd like.

(02-27-2022 01:53 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(02-27-2022 01:20 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(02-27-2022 12:59 AM)G-Man Wrote:  Well, here's the load of BS YOU stated that you now claimed my responding to it, wasn't "remotely responding to it" and derailed your thread:

"The basic doctrines of how we are saved, why we are saved, what salvation is, how we worship, how we live as Christians, none of those things are difficult to discern in scripture. In fact they are incredibly easy.

Its only becomes difficult when you have to force them to fit your denominational traditions, then it becomes incredibly difficult and confusing. Then you end up twisting scripture in countless way in order to make it better fit you denominational traditions and boxes. Most people just give in at that point and just blindly follow whatever their denomination tells them. If anyone has questions they have to point them to someone else because they can't explain it and really don't understand it. That is what you end up doing in most cases. You can't really explain or defend your positions very well so you always have to point to other peoples work and hide behind that."

But you already knew you did this. You do this a lot. My very first post in this thread was completely on topic, expressed an opinion, didn't disparage you in any way, and your response was to make a personal attack. You did the same with Crayton, when something he said didn't agree with you, too. But you already knew this. Feel free to do it again, if you'd like.

You are not stupid G-man, the subject of that post was not salvation and salvation theology, its was tradition vs scripture as the final word on doctrines.

You purposely cut out 80% of the post just to make it look like the subject was about theological doctrines on salvation.

You are being totally dishonest and you KNOW you are.

You do this a lot. My very first post in this thread was completely on topic, expressed an opinion, didn't disparage you in any way, and your response was to make a personal attack. You did the same with Crayton, when something he said didn't agree with you, too. But you already knew this. Feel free to do it again, if you'd like.

No need, we can just agree to disagree.