Works Relation to Salvation

[Gary K]

This is feeling intentionally cryptic. I'm trying to understand your position and now we've come full circle and you're intentionally repeating yourself which causes me to doupt sincerity as well as character which in turn discredits your position and feels like deflecting.

Let's not bring it to that, when I ask for clarity I'm asking you to expand on what was previously stated with less ambiguity I'm not asking you to use the verbatim words copy and pasted again which shouldn't have to be stated to be understood.

If you don't want to answer the question or you don't know how to just say so (or stop replying), I have greater respect for someone who admits to their limits or bows out, than I do with someone who seems to be trying some sort of filibuster move motivated at fatiging the conversation.

I don't see how I can be any less ambiguous. You're just so sure I think the opposite of how I think you get confused and can't understand what I say. Sorry. but I can't say it any clearer.

 

[Leaf473]

I don't see how I can be any less ambiguous. You're just so sure I think the opposite of how I think you get confused and can't understand what I say. Sorry. but I can't say it any clearer.

For what it's worth, Gary, my man...

I believe I've had the same experience that our brother @DamianWarS is alluding to. Something may be clear to us, but if the person we're talking to isn't understanding, one thing we can do is to give examples of what we're saying.

Perhaps you could give an example of tending to or saving a spiritual life, how it would be allowable on other days but not the Sabbath.

 

[DamianWarS]

I don't see how I can be any less ambiguous. You're just so sure I think the opposite of how I think you get confused and can't understand what I say. Sorry. but I can't say it any clearer.

Indeed, you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth and we just keep going in circles.

May we break Sabbath rest to save spiritual life?

That's such an obvious answer I couldn't believe you asked the question. No, we cannot break the Sabbath rest to do that. That is part and parcel of resting on Sabbath.

Your conclusion is we may not break Sabbath to do "that" (save spiritual life)

In response to viewing the spiritual over the physical than is not saving spiritual life/spiritual distress more valuable than saving physical life/physical distress

OF couse. What else could I have meant? Go back and read your questions to me and it will become obvious to you.

Your conclusion is saving spiritual life is more valuable than physical life

You've previously mentioned that it's not ok to break Sabbath rest to tend to spiritual life, but your responses here are to the contrary hence my need for clarification.

You're going to have to prove that because I don't believe it so I wouldn't say it.

You are rejecting that you said that it's not ok to break Sabbath rest to tend to spiritual life

Now you're refusing to clarify these inconsistencies stating you don't know how you can be more clear. At lot of your answers are context dependant and instead I saying something like "of course apples are yummy" you say "of course what else would they be" leaving the reading to infer the meaning based on how they understand the context. If the context is understood differently than these replies can become ambiguous even if that's not your intent or it's crystal clear for you but since you never clarified it keeps getting misunderstood which seems to be the case now.

 

[Gary K]

Indeed, you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth and we just keep going in circles.





Your conclusion is we may not break Sabbath to do "that" (save spiritual life)



Your conclusion is saving spiritual life is more valuable than physical life





You are rejecting that you said that it's not ok to break Sabbath rest to tend to spiritual life

Now you're refusing to clarify these inconsistencies stating you don't know how you can be more clear. At lot of your answers are context dependant and instead I saying something like "of course apples are yummy" you say "of course what else would they be" leaving the reading to infer the meaning based on how they understand the context. If the context is understood differently than these replies can become ambiguous even if that's not your intent or it's crystal clear for you but since you never clarified it keeps getting misunderstood which seems to be the case now.

I bolded a sentence in your post. All I have to say is prove it. I've never said it and don't believe it. I've told you this before so you must have a short memory.

 

[Leaf473]

There is no possible way that saving life on another day is less acceptable than on Sabbath. You have the same blindness brought on by being so sure you're correct that you cannot possibly understand another point of view, This last post of yours proves it.

Are you saying that because I suggested that giving examples is a way of improving communication I am spiritually blind?

I invite you to give some examples of saving life on the Sabbath that is acceptable

If you don't want to accept the invitation, that's fine

 

[Gary K]

Are you saying that because I suggested that giving examples is a way of improving communication I am spiritually blind?

I invite you to give some examples of saving life on the Sabbath that is acceptable

If you don't want to accept the invitation, that's fine

How am I supposed to say things that I don't believe? It's like I said you're so comvinced you're right that you think I'm lying to you. Yes, I think you are spiritually blind as I can see no other reason for you to think I would lie to you. We've communicated more than enough for you to know I'm honest.

 

[Leaf473]

How am I supposed to say things that I don't believe?

You're not. I thought that you believed that saving life on the Sabbath was acceptable.

Are you saying that you believe that saving life on the Sabbath is not acceptable?

It's like I said you're so comvinced you're right that you think I'm lying to you. Yes, I think you are spiritually blind as I can see no other reason for you to think I would lie to you. We've communicated more than enough for you to know I'm honest.

No, I think you are honest. But there may be something else going on. You mentioned the possibility of early Alzheimer's. Is it possible you're accidentally leaving out a "not" here or there?

 

[Gary K]

You're not. I thought that you believed that saving life on the Sabbath was acceptable.

Are you saying that you believe that saving life on the Sabbath is not acceptable?


No, I think you are honest. But there may be something else going on. You mentioned the possibility of early Alzheimer's. Is it possible you're accidentally leaving out a "not" here or there?

Not was acceptable, is acceptable. Maybe it's possible I'm leaving out a not due to early alzheimers. I don;t think so as when I am discussing spiritual matters my brain is sharp due to God's blessing. Much sharper than normal.

I really think it's due to you having a blind spot due to being so convinced you're right as the Bible does not say what you believe it does. You're dependent on sinful theologians teaching you. I am not. That gives me the upper hand in spiritual thinking. I have never read a theologian and never will. If you understand the history of the human race you will understand that the theologians are the one who have always led the common man astray.

The Pharisees led the common Jews to reject Jesus. The Catholic priests and leaders led the Catholic people astray. The leaders of the Lutheran church were the ones who first came up with the God is dead idea. They got that from the rationalists of the French Revolution. That ideology led them to reject the idea of inspiration, miracles, etc.. by the time WW2 came along. (Read the book Tinker, Tailor, Pastor, Spy the story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was murdered by the Nazis near the end of WW2.)

I have access to an ebook on the subject of rationalism written by a Dutch Reformed minister and linguist from the 1800s. The rationalists today reject the divinity of Christ, all miracles, and the basics of Christian thought. There are among them people who claim to be Christians who say Jesus was a wandering Jewish comic who died and whose body was eaten by dogs, It's just as Satanic as the French .Revolution was. They have their own version of the NT called the Twentieth Century version and it teaches pure marxism.

Igot into this because of a discussion on women's ordination. One thing led to another and I ended up finding the modern day rationalists.

 

[DamianWarS]

I bolded a sentence in your post. All I have to say is prove it. I've never said it and don't believe it. I've told you this before so you must have a short memory.

This is your quote:

"No, we cannot break the Sabbath rest to do that."

Please clarify what this means. My understanding is you're saying we cannot break Sabbath rest to save spiritual life. (driven by my understanding of the context of "that"). Quoting your pervious words or bolding text is not clarifying. I am explicitly admitting I am confused by your posts so I need more information than what you've already provided to better understand what you're saying.

 

[Gary K]

This is your quote:

"No, we cannot break the Sabbath rest to do that."

Please clarify what this means. My understanding is you're saying we cannot break Sabbath rest to save spiritual life. (driven by my understanding of the context of "that"). Quoting your pervious words or bolding text is not clarifying. I am explicitly admitting I am confused by your posts so I need more information than what you've already provided to better understand what you're saying.

Odd how you didn't copy and paste what I said. I'd have thought you would have wanted proof of that.

I know you're confused. I also can't make things any clearer. I have never said we cannot break our Sabbath rest to save life. I haven't said that to you nor have I said that to Leaf473.

 

[DamianWarS]

Odd how you didn't copy and paste what I said. I'd have thought you would have wanted proof of that.

I know you're confused. I also can't make things any clearer. I have never said we cannot break our Sabbath rest to save life. I haven't said that to you nor have I said that to Leaf473.

I did copy and pasted your quote so I'm not sure what you mean by that. I've used the quote feature of CF for this same quote already but still you refuse to explain it further. Why can't you explain what you mean by it? It's not a setup, I genuinely don't understand what you mean by it nor do I understand why you refuse to explain it and are so defensive. This level of obstienence and gas lighting forces me to question your integrity and motivation behind these posts.

 

[Gary K]

I did copy and pasted your quote so I'm not sure what you mean by that. I've used the quote feature of CF for this same quote already but still you refuse to explain it further. Why can't you explain what you mean by it? It's not a setup, I genuinely don't understand what you mean by it nor do I understand why you refuse to explain it and are so defensive. This level of obstienence and gas lighting forces me to question your integrity and motivation behind these posts.

I never said that. Use the post number and post the entire post.

 

[Studyman]

You're avoiding

May we break Sabbath rest to save spiritual life?

How is mowing some random lawn, saving a spiritual life?

 

[Gary K]

I did copy and pasted your quote so I'm not sure what you mean by that. I've used the quote feature of CF for this same quote already but still you refuse to explain it further. Why can't you explain what you mean by it? It's not a setup, I genuinely don't understand what you mean by it nor do I understand why you refuse to explain it and are so defensive. This level of obstienence and gas lighting forces me to question your integrity and motivation behind these posts.

No. You did not copy and paste so that it would show as a copy and paste.

I finally figured out what you've been talking about. I had to reread the entire thread to find it. What you did was take that statement out of context. Here is the very next sentence.

No, we cannot break the Sabbath rest to do that. That is part and parcel of resting on Sabbath.

You are not very good at understanding context or you are deliberately twisting my words..

 

[Leaf473]

Not was acceptable, is acceptable. Maybe it's possible I'm leaving out a not due to early alzheimers.

I don;t think so as when I am discussing spiritual matters my brain is sharp due to God's blessing. Much sharper than normal.

Great! Then please explain the following exchange.

I extended you this invitation

I invite you to give some examples of saving life on the Sabbath that is acceptable

You responded with

How am I supposed to say things that I don't believe?

That indicates that you don't believe that saving life on the Sabbath is acceptable.

So I said

You're not. I thought that you believed that saving life on the Sabbath was acceptable.

Then you said this

Not was acceptable, is acceptable.

So something weird is going on there, Gary my man

I really think it's due to you having a blind spot due to being so convinced you're right as the Bible does not say what you believe it does. You're dependent on sinful theologians teaching you. I am not. That gives me the upper hand in spiritual thinking. I have never read a theologian and never will. If you understand the history of the human race you will understand that the theologians are the one who have always led the common man astray.


The Pharisees led the common Jews to reject Jesus. The Catholic priests and leaders led the Catholic people astray. The leaders of the Lutheran church were the ones who first came up with the God is dead idea. They got that from the rationalists of the French Revolution. That ideology led them to reject the idea of inspiration, miracles, etc.. by the time WW2 came along. (Read the book Tinker, Tailor, Pastor, Spy the story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was murdered by the Nazis near the end of WW2.)

I have access to an ebook on the subject of rationalism written by a Dutch Reformed minister and linguist from the 1800s. The rationalists today reject the divinity of Christ, all miracles, and the basics of Christian thought. There are among them people who claim to be Christians who say Jesus was a wandering Jewish comic who died and whose body was eaten by dogs, It's just as Satanic as the French .Revolution was. They have their own version of the NT called the Twentieth Century version and it teaches pure marxism.

Igot into this because of a discussion on women's ordination. One thing led to another and I ended up finding the modern day rationalists.

 

[Leaf473]

At the risk of jumping in uninvited, I too am confused about what's going on here.

First we have this post, quoted here in its entirety:

May we break Sabbath rest to save spiritual life?

Which is responded to with this, again quoted here in its entirety:

That's such an obvious answer I couldn't believe you asked the question. No, we cannot break the Sabbath rest to do that. That is part and parcel of resting on Sabbath.

Gary, the "that" which you say we cannot do refers to "break Sabbath rest to save spiritual life".

Again, something weird is going on.

 

[DamianWarS]

I never said that. Use the post number and post the entire post.

We are pretty deep talking about this yet you still are unwilling to explain yourself despite repeated atempts asking and I am still confused as to your meaning. I am no longer going to contribute to this digression, as I've sufficiently taken enough focus from this thread asking for the same thing. Since it seems this discourse isn't changing I can no longer see how it's responsible to continue in this path.

 

[Gary K]

We are pretty deep talking about this yet you still are unwilling to explain yourself despite repeated atempts asking and I am still confused as to your meaning. I am no longer going to contribute to this digression, as I've sufficiently taken enough focus from this thread asking for the same thing. Since it seems this discourse isn't changing I can no longer see how it's responsible to continue in this path.

So you ignore my post explaing all of the misunderstanding and just tell me you're not going to disuss this anymore?

 

[Gary K]

At the risk of jumping in uninvited, I too am confused about what's going on here.

First we have this post, quoted here in its entirety:


Which is responded to with this, again quoted here in its entirety:


Gary, the "that" which you say we cannot do refers to "break Sabbath rest to save spiritual life".

Again, something weird is going on.

You too. You ignore my post explaining all of the misunderstanding to keep complaining I said something I never said?

 

[Leaf473]

You too. You ignore my post explaining all of the misunderstanding...

Which post is that?

...to keep complaining I said something I never said?

I quoted your post in it's entirety, Gary It is what you said.