rrobs

2 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

Evolution doesn't work by donning more armor.

You're thinking of pokemon.

 

You might be right, but I'm not sure. Ask an armadillo. 

1 hour ago, T-Bone said:

 

 

rrobs:

Thanks for the tip, but I don't think the Bible needs to be argued over. I'm not into apologetics.

T-Bone:

Yet you persist in trying to persuade others that you have made a valid point by your vague sweeping generalization of the Bible...at best this is vague apologetics.

== == == ==

rrobs:

…are you telling me you don't know the general message of the Bible?

T-Bone:

I was going to ask you what is your idea of the general message of the Bible – but I see you answered that in the next sentence.

== == ==

rrobs:

I think it says things generally go better when aligned with the Bible as opposed to going against it, which society for the most part, does.

T-Bone:

It seems you have a rather rigid and legalistic viewpoint of the Bible – perhaps you could give specific passages to back up your assertion; since your claim “it says” refers to the whole Bible – I think you’ll have to provide an exhaustive list of passages rather than proof-texting to establish what you are proposing…

...another thing that came to mind after I read your statement is Matthew 5:45 speaking of the benevolence of God to all – For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

== == == = =

rrobs:

All IMO, but I doubt I'm alone in my assessment. I'm also trying real hard to see how the methods of argument people make here are much different than mine. Other than being on flip sides of the coin, they seem pretty much alike.

T-Bone:

Perhaps you need to try a little harder to see the difference between your methods and many others here - because there is a BIG difference!.... Besides making vague sweeping generalizations and proof-texting (as mentioned above - although you very rarely provide any texts to prove a point) - you frequently appeal to ignorance by attempting to use other folks supposed inability to disprove your “conclusions” as proof of the validity of your conclusion.

I don’t recall that being a popular way to debate around here...once again the onus is on the one making a claim to provide scriptural support for the claim - then the ball goes back into the opponent's court to argue whether or not the passages cited are relevant to supporting the claim.

Another thing is the all-or-nothing tactic that you resort to when challenged. Case in point: in your reply to Twinky on October 6th you said “The statements I made need no clarification. Excuse me for saying it, but "they say what they mean, and they mean what they say," but that is really the best way I can put it. There are two kinds of people, those who believe what I said and those who don't. I do, others don't. Not much more to say about it.”

You refuse to negotiate or even acknowledge there’s other alternatives, options or the possibility that your idea is faulty – besides the fact that you refused to give scripture references for your assertions…and I could go on…but maybe you should think about these obvious differences between your methods and the others that you refer to.

== == == ==

rrobs:

The Bereans didn't demand Paul back up all his claims (Acts 17:11). They searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true or not. They were more noble than the Thessalonians who wanted to string him up.

T-Bone:

I think Paul’s usual strategy was to appeal to the Old Testament passages that proved Jesus is the Messiah. It seems kind of silly for you to suggest that we should let you off the hook so you don’t have to provide scripture references because the Bereans didn’t demand that of Paul.  You sabotage your own argument by admitting the Bereans did indeed search the scriptures (the Old Testament)  to see for themselves if what Paul said about Jesus the Messiah was true.

I dare say the Bereans are perhaps a good model of how to study the Bible…as The Moody Bible Commentary puts it – they approached Paul’s teaching with some open-mindedness, they were objective in their evaluation of his message, and they judged his message by the standard of scripture rather than preconceived prejudices.

Your posts have been a far cry from Paul’s method of argument as well…and I think it’s fair to say many posters here have tried to help you to clarify your message a-la-Berean style but you have consistently short-circuited the process by dodging simple requests for supporting scripture.

And another thing – when I said “This is NOT a Christian or religious website/doctrinal forum.” You replied with “I guess that is the crux of the matter. My mistake. Take care...” …Yet you continue to make the same mistake by expecting us to respond like an adoring congregation to a consummate preacher - - or to cut you some slack because you claim Paul’s Berean audience made no demands of him?....yeah and on that note - again it makes me wonder about those supposed two Christian websites that you said you posted the same paper - if you even did that...and if you did indeed post the same paper there I am curious about the responses....I am curious to see what kind of "Christian standards" those posters used in evaluating your paper.

got links ? 

I give up. Thanks for your insights.

Real quick though; one thing you say is definitely wrong. "You refuse to negotiate or even acknowledge there’s other alternatives, options or the possibility that your idea is faulty" I guess it must look that way (or you wouldn't have said it), but the fact is I have learned from things you've said. My thinking has evolved from all of this. Sorry if I've ruffled any feathers in the process. God bless.

1 hour ago, WordWolf said:

"Thanks for the tip, but I don't think the Bible needs to be argued over. I'm not into apologetics."

You are in a DISCUSSION forum. We DISCUSS things here. You can either dump links, post a bunch of bald claims then storm off indignant when asked to support them, or you can DISCUSS.  If you can't tell the difference between those 3, you're going to have a rough time in most DISCUSSIONS online. (Places where everyone just pats each other on the back for agreeing with each other don't really discuss- and IMHO aren't very healthy for a growing spiritual life.)  

"Come on now Rocky, are you telling me you don't know the general message of the Bible? I think it says things generally go better when aligned with the Bible as opposed to going against it, "

A)THAT'S the "general message of the Bible"?  

B) The Bible has a "general message"?    It's a codex, and I think each book of the book of books has a general purpose (message?)  and there's general points made. If there is a single, GENERAL message OVERALL, I'd be rather disappointed it was that one.   I think proponents of The Red Thread make a better "argument" for a "general message" that actually means something- and I'm sure you've heard at least a little of their supporting verses.

"The Bereans didn't demand Paul back up all his claims (Acts 17:11). They searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true or not."

You have the full text of what they discussed the whole time, and can prove that Paul made a bunch of claims and didn't support them from Scripture?

It seems to me that Paul was used to actually supporting his claims when he preached.

Acts 17:1-4. (KJV)

"17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:

2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few."

Acts 17:1-4. (NASB)

"17 Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.”

That was in Thessalonica. (17:1).   The main problem in Thessalonica was when the religious authorities stirred up a mob.

Acts 17:4-8 (NASB)

"4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women. 5 But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men from the market place, formed a mob and set the city in an uproar; and attacking the house of Jason, they were seeking to bring them out to the people. 6 When they did not find them, they began dragging Jason and some brethren before the city authorities, shouting, “These men who have upset the world have come here also; 7 and Jason has welcomed them, and they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.” 8 They stirred up the crowd and the city authorities who heard these things."

 

"The Bereans didn't demand Paul back up all his claims (Acts 17:11). They searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true or not. They were more noble than the Thessalonians who wanted to string him up."

A) You INFERRED that Paul didn't back up his claims when in Berea. Paul suddenly changed his presentation style radically?  And that without a verse saying so, and you just happen to know that anyway? 

B) The mob was the problem.  There were respectable Christians in Thessalonica as a result of Paul preaching and making sense to the Thessalonians.  Why do you think there ARE letters (plural)  to the saints at Thessalonica?  Some believed- and The Word says so-we just read that.

 

"I'm also trying real hard to see how the methods of argument people make here are much different than mine. Other than being on flip sides of the coin, they seem pretty much alike. "

I can only speak for myself. Everyone else can see the difference with what I just posted, and what you posted and I replied to (which now, at least, actually addressed some verses, which was, again, an improvement.)   Now you have a basis of comparison. Compare them side-by-side if needed.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I learned something from it. I left out the details that makes all the difference. Acts 17 is indeed not a valid basis for my argument. I'll always remember this post in my future studies. Sometimes I go too fast. Gotta slow down, especially in handling God's word. I wondered at myself for coming back to GSC when I was obviously the square peg. Now I think it was to learn what you just taught me. That's great! Thanks again! God bless....

16 hours ago, Rocky said:

Actually, it's not a dubious claim at all. It's a declaration that your argument is faulty. Which is fundamental to whether or not you have anything that can be responded to.

What general message of the Bible? You've made specific claims about the specific meaning of specific messages of the Bible apparently without understanding how to make a valid argument. If you'd like to bone up on the subject, you could start here. Or somewhere else, but it's important to understand the basics of logic and argument.

Thanks for the tip, but I don't think the Bible needs to be argued over. I'm not into apologetics.

Come on now Rocky, are you telling me you don't know the general message of the Bible? I think it says things generally go better when aligned with the Bible as opposed to going against it, which society for the most part, does. All IMO, but I doubt I'm alone in my assessment. I'm also trying real hard to see how the methods of argument people make here are much different than mine. Other than being on flip sides of the coin, they seem pretty much alike.

The Bereans didn't demand Paul back up all his claims (Acts 17:11). They searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true or not. They were more noble than the Thessalonians who wanted to string him up.

Just curious, how long did it take you to complete that course on arguments you mentioned?

5 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

This is NOT a Christian or religious website/doctrinal forum.

I guess that is the crux of the matter. My mistake. Take care...

2 hours ago, Beguiled said:

1. Rrobs clearly cares more about lifting himself up (and failing) with what he feels is correct, true, righteous, et cetera (I agree with others in that it's repackaged dogma) versus actually having an intellectual conversation on the proposed social problem. Which, as others have stated, was clearly his failed attempt at disguising other motives with a current topic of the week.

2. As my students stay, don't feed the troll. All he cares about is the attention we are giving him. He is condescending and not a leader or a teacher. He most likely sees himself as both. But no rational person could read his responses and think he is either. 

3. Academia does not dismiss the bible, it is the bible that dismisses academia. What does that tell you? So again, I will talk to you (and not at you) when you learn how to have a conversation of give and take. You currently do not. You are ethnocentric to a degree I haven't seen in awhile. Is this part of your corps training or something? 

4. He reminds me specifically of this clip from Good Will Hunting. He is the blonde in a ponytail who thinks he knows more than Matt Damon but finds out that he does not. Seriously, watch this clip and tell me it's not a replication of what is happening in rrobs posts. 

 

What? A lot of unproven claims there.

I "clearly" lift myself up? You know my motives (1 Sam 16:7)? What other motives am I hiding? Did you see the post where I said I've learned something from GSC, where I said I do indeed need to provide documentation for what I say? Is that not trying to go half way and trying to discuss things lioke adults?  I know it's from VP (I think), but I can't help thinking that when you point a finger at me you are pointing 3 back at yourself. VP or the devil, that's pretty true (Rom 2:1). I've not once attacked anybody personally here. I've never questioned anybody's motives as you question mine. What is your proof for saying the Bible does not dismiss academia? I gave proof it does. Here it is again, 1 Cor 2:5 (academia = wisdom of men).

No corps, no WOW, just staff. I even skipped most Sunday services. Wasn't even in a twig at HQ. So you got that wrong also. How about you? When I worked there I said on more than one occasion  that the way corps was fairly robotic. It got back to LCM and I saw flames from his eyes after he threw his sunglasses onto the ground and broke them. I was surprised I didn't get fired, but I didn't. I guess they needed a pilot that bad.

So if I don't know more than you (which I never claimed I did)? Then you must know more than me? No ego there!

I'm ethnocentric? Are the cultures of Florida and California that different?

All I care about is attention? Really, you are sure of that? I sure as hell don't need attention/approval from GSC. Definitely you are barking up the wrong tree there.

I've failed? (Is 55:11). Just too much crap to even answer!

15 hours ago, WordWolf said:

Being fair and logical, I'd acknowledge that you've acknowledged that you need to support claims and statements, and not just toss them out baldly. In any discussion, that's necessary.  However, you didn't fulfill the minimum REASONABLE requirement.  You dumped a bunch of verse citations, and said that they cover "the central message." 

Anyone reasonable would expect the following.

[claim made]  "This matches Hekekiah 8:42, which says "[verse quoted.]

If it's a single verse, people might give you a pass on posting the text of the verse, especially if the meaning of the verse is obvious. If there's anything contestable, they're free to post the verse, point out the problem, and point out that failing to post the verse looks like you were trying to pretend there was a Scriptural basis for a non-Scriptural point, and used an irrelevant verse to conceal that, hoping nobody would check it. (vpw did that quite a bit when text-dumping- just look at his stuff on the manifestations in the Advanced Class, and you'll find a bunch without looking hard.) 

Even if I might agree with your points, or might match your thinking if I saw their basis, if you just make bald claims, then make bald claims that they have a Scriptural basis, I'm NOT going to take you seriously- and neither would most people. Don't think that's specific to either you, us, or this subject. That's pretty much what you find in MOST of cyberspace- providing it's a place of actual discussions. (Places where people trade insults and places where people just pat each other on the back won't look that way, either one.

OK. So I at least got half way to approved posting procedures. But after all this why hasn't anybody told me where my post if off the mark? I know there is no obligation to do so, but if it's that bad, somebody could easily proved me wrong. This could have been settled 3 pages ago had somebody did that. A prosecutor can't just say, "He committed murder," and then have the jury declare the guy guilty. There has to be proof of some kind. I would think that anybody that disagrees with my post should explain why they disagree instead of just saying I offered no proof which is really a dubious claim at best anyway. Doesn't the general message of the Bible carry any weight? Does that general message align with my post or not? So again, where is my post off? If anybody can tell me chapter and verse where I'm off, then I will change my thinking on the matter. As it stands now, I still think the Bible says that a society that believes God is better than one does not believe in God. That is all I was trying to say. True or not true?

I don't feel we are trading insults. Just don't agree on some things.There's a difference.

20 hours ago, TLC said:

 

Throw stones at me if you must, but I'm going to say it anyways.... All the penitence in the world isn't actually what saves any of us. Matter of fact, I'm not persuaded it's even a necessary prerequisite for salvation.  Granted, it can (and perhaps often does) precede it.  But, not always.  Where does it say that Cornelius did? Or for that matter, Paul? And why is it not evident in Acts 16:30,31? Or Acts 17? Sure, it was part of Peter(and the 12)'s gospel.  But not so much, Paul's, when the real "change of heart" (i.e., repentance) came after salvation (not before it.)

I think you are right. Eph 2:8-9 says we are saved by grace, that it is a gift,  and not of works. I think repentance is works in the sense that it is something we do, not something God did for us. I myself have to repent or change my mind (metanoao). That's my job, not God's. God made me whole, not it's up to me to repent (or not, free will).

Probably more to it, but that's what I see for now.

No. That's why I said I was going off topic.

I was just suggesting a strategy that could work in all kinds of life's arenas other then physical confrontations. Maybe typically most arguments are won by beating the smaller opponent with a blunt object as you rightly suggested, but it may not work against said smaller opponent who knows the principles of kung fu and applies them in an argument. Maybe debate teams use a similar strategy sometimes. I don't know.

On the surface, you could say that David used Kung Fu against Goliath and he didn't do it by brute force. He'd lost that one if he did. Of course, the real reason he beat Goliath was because he trusted in God, so it's academic.

40 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

Typically, arguments are won by beating the smaller opponent with a blunt object. 

Going off topic for a second;

In the arena of physical fighting, usually the bigger and stronger defeats the smaller and weaker. I think that more or less aligns with your statement.

Tai Chi/Kung Fu was invented for the express purpose of changing that. Both are arts where finesse is used instead of brute force to enable the smaller and weaker to overcome the bigger and stronger. There may be some parallel there in the spiritual realm.

On 10/8/2017 at 10:20 AM, T-Bone said:

Ok rrobs, 

thanks for your timely response

Love & peace

T-Bone

 

All of this got me to thinking. People here are right, I should not just make claims without some documentation. So here are some of verses that inspired me to begin with, and the challenges I got at GSC made me look up more.

Ps 33:10-21, Ps 144:11-15, Ps 146:5, Prov 28:2, Prov 29:4, Prov 29:18, Ecc 10:16-17, 2 Chron 7:14

I believe that the central message of my original post can be justified by these verses. There are others probably, but this is a good start I think. It was really a good exercise and I think I learned something.

Take care...

16 hours ago, T-Bone said:

well...since you ask - before I formulate an explanation or just to see if what you say is true - I would need to see your posts on those sites as well as the response by others –  -

so, please be so kind as to provide links to your posts on the two Christian forums

also I’m curious to see if you have any credibility or validity issues on these two Christian  forums as well – and whether you actually did post the same paper there as you did here…

…if you don’t want to provide those links that’s alright…no big deal…I’ll just assume those instances are non-existent like the chapters and verses to support your assertions I identified…on the flip side – maybe I’ve misunderstood you here and maybe a “change of venue” might help me to give you a fair shake..

..sooooooooo....got links?

but you are asking the reader to do just that in a round about way - you are asking folks to disprove your statements yet you do not offer any proof of their validity - other than you saying so...you are expecting folks to assume you've already made a VALID point and then you expect folks to make a counterpoint to a non-existent point.

...."prove all things" and "be ready to give an answer to everyone that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you" come to mind - and it's along those lines that I think the onus is back on you to provide reasons for what you said - and to stick with the "rules" you yourself set up...you claim all that you said is in perfect alignment with the word - ok - so show me specifically by chapter and verse -

anybody can claim a particular doctrine is in perfect alignment and harmony with the word and even show verses to back it up....yeah, I have a small collection of systematic theologies that do just that - so step up to the plate and prove your case...

sorry to be so persistent on this but I'm curious if you were just spouting pat answers or if you have really taken the time, thought process and due diligence to declare such bold and authoritative sounding statements...that makes me think of a pivotal scene in Working Girl. Sigourney Weaver's character stole an idea from her assistant played by Melanie Griffith - and the stolen idea impresses the heck out of a CEO - enough so for a merger deal. The CEO asks Sigourney what was the inspiration for her idea but she fumbled around trying to explain a particular thought process she never had in the first place. Whereas Melanie could because it was her idea - and the CEO could tell...things worked out well for Melanie...not so much for Sigourney....

If you want to compare reading material...personally, I prefer reading authors who accurately and honestly document their references and provide logical arguments for a subject that I'm interested in. I don't need to hound them for more info if they've intelligently and honestly  laid out  their case - - how they clearly show from specific data how they arrived at a given idea...and really, a lot of my favorite authors on a variety of subjects tend toward overkill when it comes to documentation, references, etc...needless to say I've got lots to look into from their footnotes, references, further reading, bibliography, etc.

 

but the quickest solution by far would be for you to prove your point by scripture references - since you started the thread...I’m sorry but I’m not a fan of circular reasoning.

Very odd…as I said above - usually the onus is on the person making the claim, to provide evidence, documentation, or some fact to support their assertion.

- you do realize you made a lot of forceful and confident statements in your first post -  I just picked out a few for brevity's sake ; surely you must have SOMETHING to back up your statements – you’ve been acting so adamant and insistent that you do.

another thing - can you please define GSC speak ?

I believe what I posted.You seem not to. Let's just leave it at that.

16 hours ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:

What must you do to be saved??? REPENT!

I already did. That makes us brothers. Yeah!

45 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

Duly noted...so what you’re saying (what you’re admitting to) is that you cannot cite chapter and verse! In other words - you cannot back up...you cannot prove your assertions ( I referred to in my post) have any biblical basis !

The fact that you cannot leaves me with the conclusion that you are unable to do so. Perhaps you think it’s clever to dodge the questions - as if to indicate to others you intentionally will not cite chapter and verse - but I’m left to assume you’re trying to save face for repackaging old wierwillisms - and now want to avoid any challenges to your unsubstantiated nonsense.

By all indications you’ve demonstrated thus far on this thread - you lack both the ability AND willingness to carry on a meaningful and intelligent discussion on a thread that YOU started - and of all things by using the recent horrific tragedy of the Las Vegas mass shooting as a springboard for your drivel. That’s just sick and twisted in my book. Of course, that’s just my opinion.

The claims you made in the first paragraph are baseless and void of any validity, therefore the rest of your reply is without a valid basis. All I hear is nothing more than standard GSC speak. None of the replies have an original thought in them. How ironic is that?

1 hour ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:

Same crap, different decade, imo. rrobs is as bereft of critical thinking and as dense as dictor paul. Same condescending, superiority complex based upon genuine ignorance and lack of ability in any legitimate exegesis of "Da word". There are no "originals", remember? What principles of legitimate textual criticism and peer review did you follow? What are your "credentials" besides simply copying what "everybody else said"?

"Just the word", eh? Which version? All you have is versions of 500 year old translations of the 1550 critical Greek text (Stephens) translated into 17th Century English. Copies of copies of copies etc. 80% of all the knowledge available regarding Critical Greek texts, other versions of "Da woid", and MSS documentation and evidence have occurred since 1980! Are you even aware of those FACTS?

Seems to me all you're capable of is mindless regurgitation of whatever someone else has said before. You demonstrate the same lack of intellect, personal bias, and "private interpretation" dictor paul demonstrated. Lots of rambling preaching with no substance. Why do you waste your precious time here? Go to those other 2 sites and preach over there. Get your trophies and accolades over there. Here you're just another haughty, uneducated, misled, self-deluded ex-wayfer. Very boring and packed with errors. You may impress the Biblically ignorant, but you don't reach anyone here with your 50 year old ..... Same crap, different decade. TTFN.

What must I do to be saved?

11 hours ago, T-Bone said:

 

So…using your own criteria of chapter and verse – let us proceed…

...I’ll just limit it to a few select points since it appears your first post does exhibit such a flagrant disregard for documentation (citing chapter and verse) – which in turn leaves my line of inquiry rather repetitive…

== == == ==

rrobs:

The quality of life of a society is ultimately determined by the thoughts that each individual in that society holds in their mind.

T-Bone:

Please provide chapter and verse for your assertion.

== == ==

rrobs:

Those thoughts in turn are dependant on the things each individual is told by sources outside of ourselves.

T-Bone:

Please provide chapter and verse for your assertion.

== == ==

rrobs:

That is basic to life.

T-Bone:

Please provide chapter and verse for your assertion.

== == == ==

rrobs: 

The influence on our thoughts, and therefore our quality of life, by NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, Google News, et.al.  is nothing short of grossly underestimated. In fact, it would be fair to say it’s given no estimation whatsoever. But that doesn’t change the fact that 24/7 our minds are assaulted with words and images that definitely tend towards the things that make us full of anxiety, doubt, fear, and a general feeling of helplessness. That makes for a society with a low quality of life.

T-Bone:

Please provide chapter and verse for your assertions (this is referencing the entire above paragraph).

== == == ==

rrobs:

To reverse this each individual must change the diet upon which their mind feeds. Man’s philosophy, moral concepts, and their false religions are a poor diet indeed. All that unhealthy food  needs to be replaced by healthy food.

T-Bone:

Please provide chapter and verse for your assertions.

== == == =

rrobs: 

It is his divine power and his alone that gives us all things that pertain to life and godliness. We can realize that power only by having a knowledge of God. It sure won’t come via the TV, computer screen, or radio. Only God tells us how life should be. If you really want to do something positive to change the course of our world, study the Bible and start believing the things it says instead of believing all you hear on CBS. With a scripture centered change of mind, the quality of your individual life will take a turn for the better. The more individuals that do that, the better life becomes for society as a whole.

T-Bone:

Please provide chapter and verse for your assertions.

It would be quicker for you to provide chapter and verse that would disprove the post. It would be quicker because there are none! Believe what you want.

11 hours ago, Rocky said:

Nothing in any internet forum discussion suggests the reader is responsible for looking up anything to support the writer's claim(s).

You only saved yourself the time associated with making an actual argument worth any one's consideration.

Let's not "confine the discussion to what the word [not capitalized] says." You haven't established that The Word (if that is, indeed, what you are referring to) is the authority for what the Creator of Heaven and Earth actually means.

I didn't ask you, the reader, to support my claims. I asked to to show me where I'm off. So far nothing and I don't think there will be anything because what I said is in perfect alignment with the word. If you don't think so, then tell me where. Personally, If I read something and want to know more about the subject, I don't hound the author to give me more information. I find it myself if I'm that interested. But you appear completely uninterested in even considering if my post is valid or not. You seem to know it's not. That's your choice and you have every right to make such a choice. The onus is not on me to convince your. Just curious, what do you believe? I know it's none of my business and all that, so if I understand if you don't want to share it with me.

3 hours ago, Bolshevik said:

Participation trophy?

Sarcasm?

Redirection?

Boredom?

It's a virtual trophy I guess. Still, I got one and you didn't. But don't worry, you'll still get by.

1 hour ago, Rocky said:

 

Yet, you still don't seem inclined to provide ANY documentation of what, where or when those countless others said what you believe.

I thought I'd save you the time in looking for things that Luther, Wycliffe, etc said and give you a few quotes that would back up what I said in the post. Then I had an epiphany. Those guys are no more nor no less of a man than myself. As far as I can tell, you take the things I said as false. Fine. So why would you change your mind if they said the same things? So why bother with church history at all?

So let's confine our discussion to what the word says. If you don't want to do that I understand. But if you do, please tell me from the word where anything I said is not aligned with that word. I'm not saying I got divine relation in that post, so maybe I'm missing something. If so, please tell me from the word. No Bullinger, pope, deacon, sociology professor, PHD, or any human source at all; just chapter and verse.

16 minutes ago, Rocky said:

 

Yet, you still don't seem inclined to provide ANY documentation of what, where or when those countless others said what you believe.

Any basic church history book has all you want to know.

I posted this same paper on two other Christian forums. Totally different response from that of GSC. All very positive. I even got a "trophy" on one site. Yeah me! That tells me it's not the content, but the one writing the content. Any other explanations?

26 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

Maybe this would be a good time to mention how serotonin levels in lobsters relates to where the abstracted concept of god comes from?

No, it wouldn't. Better to wait until it's all over.

1 hour ago, Twinky said:

Banging my head on a stone wall here.

I was attempting to respond to you, rrobs, unlike others here who have jumped on you.

My headache from banged head, and I, are now going away for the weekend.  Have fun not responding to others.

From you: So again, what, in practical terms, are you doing, rrobs? 

I might be dense, but that looks more like jumping than responding. In any case, I tried to answer you as honestly and graciously as I could. If I missed the mark, please excuse my ignorance. Have a nice getaway this weekend!

27 minutes ago, waysider said:

rrobs

 

You might find a more receptive audience if you had more to offer than a rehashed version of PFAL 101. We all heard this stuff, over and over,  too many times to possibly count. My advise? Read a book or two... get a hobby... volunteer at a local charity...Just do SOMETHING other than trying to make PFAL work. Because, quite frankly, it doesn't. 

I just finished reading A Tale of Two Cities for the second time. I have two hobbies, electronics and kung fu.  I'm a volunteer fire fighter. So now go back and read all my stuff. You should be more receptive now that you know I have secular side also. No?

As far as PFAL, I don't think I've said anything that countless others haven't said way before VP. I believe that the prevailing sentiment at GSC is that VP plagiarized everything. So just pretend that my sources comes from BW (Before Wierwille). I've been using the Bible as my source,  not PFAL. Maybe that will make it all more palatable?

The world does not, nor ever has, revolved around VP or TWI. I really think that many at GSC are more influenced by TWI than I am. It's as though VP and TWI shapes your every thought. You just can't seem to forget. I know there are reasons for that, and I'm truly sorry for any pain and suffering they may have caused you, but it' is nonetheless a mistake to paint everybody else with the same brush. Some people have indeed gotten over it and yet still believe the word. Why is that so hard to understand?

The funny part is that I sincerely did not realize I was posting in this forum. I've been posting in the doctrine section all along and that is where I meant to post this one. I just made a simple mistake. No big deal. "What must I do to be saved?"

31 minutes ago, Twinky said:

What I said, rrobs, was this:

So again, what, in practical terms, are you doing, rrobs?  In what way is the quality of your life and thus the quality of life of your society [community] effecting social change in your community?  Is it working?  How has your community improved?  Show us your faith, by its outworking.  By what you do.

You chose to quote a part of my own post.  But I quoted you (that's what you repeated) and then I asked you the above question.  Do please answer.

And DO NOT ascribe to me your take on anything other than the written word.  Most Christians use the written word as the basis for getting out there and DOING something for their society.  I don't care for fancy phrases.  I do care for living the way Jesus Christ has modelled, taught, lived.

Pretty sure Jesus' main message was to believe God. Good luck trying to emulate his life. You won't be able to. Remember, he never sinned. Unless you can say that you've never sinned, you have already failed in your efforts to emulate him.

I did answer your question by inviting you to come visit me and see for yourself. But if you can't do that I'll just say that to the best of my ability I keep God's word central in my thoughts. What good does that do society?

Deut 30:19,

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

The world as a whole chooses death. You (assuming you are born again) and I can choose life and we do that by believing the scriptures and acting on them.

Whatever light of the word shines in my heart (and yours) shines through the darkness of this world. If nobody believed the word, the world would be a dark place indeed. But fortunately, each community has some people who believe and act on God's word and that makes that community and the world as a whole a little less dark. To put it more succinctly,

Matt 5:14-15,

14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.