Can sinning can be overcome?

[reddogs]

Of course Jesus did not have the same carnal nature as us. That is absurd, He was God, are you saying God has a carnal nature? If God becomes incarnate does it really make since that the God part of Him is no longer in control. It is foolishness.

Now was Jesus tempted like everyone, was he tempted to rape and kill his mother, some people have that temptation and some even do it. What does James say about temptation:
So was Jesus tempted by his own evil desires? The answer to all this is really quite simple as the word tempted in Greek is the same as the word tested. So Jesus was tested and shown to be without sin.

So then Jesus death meant nothing as He did not take our place and become flesh with our same nature, that means Satan wins by default and Jesus really couldnt become like us and overcome sin, can that be..............

I think there are some serious problems with that line of thinking...


John 1:14
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Jim wrote:

The fact that the Bible says He was tempted in all points like as we are yet without sin also implies He had a nature like us as fallen men.

Kind of a silly argument. How many sins do you think you committed by the time you were 10 years of age. If Jesus had no sins at the age of 10 how similar could he be to the nature of fallen man? Even EGW says He had no bent to sin, and clearly from the book of James and from personal universal experience it is this bent to sin that is the underlying nature of man, therefore again how similar is that to Jesus.

By saying and believing Christ had a special ability beyond us to keep from sinning makes what He did less impressive for us as an example.

But clearly the Gospels present Jesus as with special ability, conceived by the Holy Spirit, should make the person pretty special. If Jesus came to be our example of how to live the perfect life and for the last nearly 2000 years no one has succeeded in doing it then He was a pretty big failure. If He came to show us the love, forgiveness and character of God, He was a marvelous success.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

So then Jesus death meant nothing as He did not take our place and become flesh with our same nature, that means Satan wins by default and Jesus really couldnt become like us and overcome sin, can that be..............

I think there are some serious problems with that line of thinking...


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&verse=14&version=9&context=verse

Truely an irrational comment.

 

[reddogs]

Jim wrote:


Kind of a silly argument. How many sins do you think you committed by the time you were 10 years of age. If Jesus had no sins at the age of 10 how similar could he be to the nature of fallen man? Even EGW says He had no bent to sin, and clearly from the book of James and from personal universal experience it is this bent to sin that is the underlying nature of man, therefore again how similar is that to Jesus.



But clearly the Gospels present Jesus as with special ability, conceived by the Holy Spirit, should make the person pretty special. If Jesus came to be our example of how to live the perfect life and for the last nearly 2000 years no one has succeeded in doing it then He was a pretty big failure. If He came to show us the love, forgiveness and character of God, He was a marvelous success.

John 3:6
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

He was both fully divine and fully human with all its failables, weaknesses and carnal nature......

Luke 24:39
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

 

[Jimlarmore]

But clearly the Gospels present Jesus as with special ability, conceived by the Holy Spirit, should make the person pretty special.

Jesus Christ as the Son of God was the most special man to ever walk the face of the earth, but as a man He was just like us in our so called bent to sin. Christ Himself said He couldn't do any of the works Himself but it was the Father working in Him.

If Jesus came to be our example of how to live the perfect life and for the last nearly 2000 years no one has succeeded in doing it then He was a pretty big failure. If He came to show us the love, forgiveness and character of God, He was a marvelous success.

He showed us the love of God and more. He was indeed successful in both catagories even though He was the only one to live a sinnless life in the last 2000 years His example was a pattern for us to live by and clearly showed us a path to salvation.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Adventtruth]

Jesus Christ as the Son of God was the most special man to ever walk the face of the earth, but as a man He was just like us in our so called bent to sin. Christ Himself said He couldn't do any of the works Himself but it was the Father working in Him.

So now you have Jesus with sinful flesh...this disqualifies His as the spotless lamb of God.

He showed us the love of God and more. He was indeed successful in both catagories even though He was the only one to live a sinnless life in the last 2000 years His example was a pattern for us to live by and clearly showed us a path to salvation.

So how can He have a sinless life and be like us Jim...Sinless means sinless...inward and out.

AT

 

[reddogs]

So now you have Jesus with sinful flesh...this disqualifies His as the spotless lamb of God.





So how can He have a sinless life and be like us Jim...Sinless means sinless...inward and out.

AT

God does as He please, it is not for man to demand or require how He should be...

Romans 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Hebrews 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Hebrews 4:14-16 (in Context) Hebrews 4 (Whole

Hey AT, glad to have you back.....
Red

 

[Jimlarmore]

So now you have Jesus with sinful flesh...this disqualifies His as the spotless lamb of God.

Inheriting our propensities to sin is not a sin. Living in sin afflicted flesh is not sin either. By being like us He had an experiential base to know how being tempted by sin has effected us. If Christ used His divinity to keep from sinning then He couldn't know what it was like to be truely human and be tempted.

So how can He have a sinless life and be like us Jim...Sinless means sinless...inward and out.

AT

Sinless means you haven't sinned it doesn't mean you can't sin or that you don't have the propensity to sin. Christ had the full capacity as a man to sin as we do and that is what the Bible tells us. Yet we know He didn't sin. Satan knew this full well or he wouldn't have wasted his time taking Christ to the wilderness to tempt Him. Christ experienced the same battles with lust and other temptations as we have. He overcame sin by staying focused on the Father.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Jim wrote:

Sinless means you haven't sinned it doesn't mean you can't sin or that you don't have the propensity to sin. Christ had the full capacity as a man to sin as we do and that is what the Bible tells us. Yet we know He didn't sin. Satan knew this full well or he wouldn't have wasted his time taking Christ to the wilderness to tempt Him. Christ experienced the same battles with lust and other temptations as we have. He overcame sin by staying focused on the Father.

Wow! first of all the bible does not tell us that Jesus had the propensity to sin. Which may explain why this idea of Jesus having fallen sinful nature is really only a controversy in the SDA church. Most of Christianity dumped the idea long ago, and even when Edward Irving brought it up again in the early 1830's it did not last long.

Satan knew this full well or he wouldn't have wasted his time taking Christ to the wilderness to tempt Him.

Satan taking Christ to the Wilderness? Do you have a Bible Jim? Try this:

Matthew 4:1 TNIV • Read this chapter
[ Jesus Is Tested in the Wilderness ] Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted [ The Greek for tempted can also mean tested.] by the devil.
Luke 4 1 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, left the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, 2 where for forty days he was tempted

No wonder you don't like to read my articles Jim you must have a special Bible.

 

[OntheDL]

Satan taking Christ to the Wilderness? Do you have a Bible Jim? Try this:

No wonder you don't like to read my articles Jim you must have a special Bible.

It seems like you have a talent for belittling people. If you have any concern for Christ who was crucified for you and everyone else, you should be ashamed of your conduct.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

The shame of standing up for the Bible and truth, it is my curse. At least my reproofs have a sense of humor unlike the continual church lady type remarks of shame shame.

 

[NightEternal]

Christ had no propensities towards sin, He had no bent towards sin and He had NO SIN IN HIM. He was God in the flesh, born of the Holy Spirit, spotless and undefiled. The only thing he took upon Himself at the incarnation was our physical, human, flesh and blood appearance, prone to sickness, physical decay and innocent infirmities.

He did NOT take our fallen, sinful human nature with it's tendencies towards sin. That is utter blasphemy!

Christ succeeded where the first Adam failed, in the same nature Adam held before the fall.

Truly the TSDA's will stop at nothing as they denigrate and drag down our Lord to thier level in thier attempts to micro-manage the sin problem.

Disgusting. Apalling. But this is where sinless perfection theology ultimately leads and it is a terrible thing to behold. I have witnessed it time and time and time again in the church.

 

[NightEternal]

LOL, there is so much venom in you. You can hardly pretend.

The fact that this whole forum is bearing witness to the worst denigration of Christ possible in this thread and only two people have responded with disgust and outrage is a sad state of affairs. That more people are not showing venom in the strongest manner possible in response to your corrupt theology is even worse.

Venom is sometimes a good thing, and necessary. There is no pretending here at all. In fact, I am holding back how I really feel out of respect for this forum.

17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren...

Not one single, solitary place does it say here He had a sinful nature. Nowhere is it even implied except in your own imagination.

Hebrews 5
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

This quote proves absolutely nothing for your case and does not say anywhere he had a sinful nature. You keep reaching but there is nothing to grasp.

If He had a sinless nature, would He have to learn obedience?
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Christ took a subordinate position to the Father when He became human. He did so to model an example of obedience and submission to God for us.

You expect me to extract from this verse that Christ took our corrupted, rebellious nature that is at enmity with God, indeed, is OPPOSED to the will of God, and provided us an example of how we can wring out the sinless nature of pre-fall Adam from a nature that is at war with God?

Absolute ludicrous reasoning. I guess next you will have us believing that a leopard can change its spots.

Christ was in harmony, complete, full and utter harmony with the will of God in every respect. This would have been impossible with a nature that is completely at odds with God's purposes.

The Jewish type demanded a spotless, unblemished lamb for the sacrifice. Saddling the Lamb of God with a sinful nature not only destroys the antitypical purpose, it renders our Lord Himself in need of a Savior.

Unbelievable.

_______________________________________________

 

[NightEternal]

Jim wrote:
Wow! first of all the bible does not tell us that Jesus had the propensity to sin. Which may explain why this idea of Jesus having fallen sinful nature is really only a controversy in the SDA church. Most of Christianity dumped the idea long ago, and even when Edward Irving brought it up again in the early 1830's it did not last long.

Not only that RC_NewProtestants, but the majority of SDA scholars and theologians abandoned this sinless perfection nonsense years ago. Desmond Ford, George Knight, Edward Heppenstall, Raymond Cottrell, Hans LaRondell, Steven Mosley, Frank Phillips, Martin Weber and Roy Adams were some of the main Adventist thought leaders to debunk and cast this idea into the trash heap where it belongs. Even Clifford Goldstein (hardly a paragon of liberal Adventist thought) calls it for what it is. HMS Richards senior himself had no part of it. Questions On Doctrine made it clear that Christ having a sinful nature is a heretical belief, which is in full harmony with the Reformation position. Leroy Froom also rightly claimed that those fringe elements who still hold to it are in the minority and against where the church stands in regards to Christ's divinity.

Sinless perfection is not even official church belief and never will be.

 

[Ptilinopus]

NightEternal wrote:
This is false. Christ had the sinless, unfallen nature of Adam before the entrance of sin.
Your conclusion is not remotely Biblical. It is based upon EGW alone.

-----------------------------------------

Your conclusion is correct NE - and supported both by scripture (John 14:30. "... the ruler (Prince) of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me.", among others), and EGW. Sadly, most who argue from EGW do so by interpreting some of her writings the way the desire, even when in overall context, another interpretation is possible. But EGW strongly supported the sinless nature of Christ.

I understand that not all accept her authority. But to set the record straight, I quote from Letter 8, 1895, as published in the EGW Comments section of the SDABC Vol.5 p.1128,9. She is referring to John 14:30, also Luke 1:31-35, 1 Cor. 15:22,45; and Heb.4:15.

"Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of his sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ wass the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.

"Avoid every question in relation to the humanity of Christ which is liable to be misunderstood. Truth lies close to the track of presumption. In treating upon the humanity of Christ, you need to guard strenuously every assertion, lest your words be taken to mean more than they imply, and thus you lose or dim the clear perceptions of His humanity as combined with divinity. His birth was a miracle of God; for, said the angel, 'Behold, thou shalt conceive in they womb, and bring forth a son,and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.'

"These words do not refer to any human being, except to the Son of the infinite God. Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points as man is tempted, yet He is called 'that holy thing'. It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points as we are, and yet be without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but lete every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such a one as ourselves; for it cannot be. The exact time when humanity was blended with divinity, it is not necessary for us to know. We are to keep our feet on the Rock Christ Jesus, as God revealed in humanity.

"I perceive that there is danger in approaching subjects which dwell on the humanity of the Son of the infinite God. He did humble Himself when He saw He was in fashion as a man, that He might understand the force of all temptations wherewith man is beset.

"The first Adam fell; the second Adam held fast to God and His Word under the most trying of circumstance, and His faith in His Father's goodness, mercy, and love did not waver for one moment. 'It is written' was His weapon of resistance,and it is the sword of the Spirit which every human being is to use. 'Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me' - nothing to respond to temptation. On not one occasion was there a response to his manifold temptations. Not once did Christ step on Satan's ground, to give him anu advantage. Satan found nothing in Him to encourage his advances."

Sound advice for us here. There are numerous other quotations that could be cited from EGW on the sinless nature of Christ. A few (in brief - check the ref for more detail):

"Christ did not possess the same sinful, corrupt, fallen disloyalty we possess, for then He could not be a perfect offering."--Manuscript 94, 1893 (published in SM3, p131)

"In the fullness of time Christ was to be revealed in human form. He was to assume the position of head of humanity by taking the nature, but not the sinfulness of man."--Letter 91, 1900, p. 6. (published in Manuscript Releases vol.9 p237.)

My point is simply that EGW does not teach or support a fallen sinful nature in Christ. Weakened and diminished by 4000-odd years of sin, yes, human, yes, subject to all the pain, misery and suffering like us, yes. But without our sinfulness. She also repeatedly states that Christ in temptation passed over the same ground the first Adam did - proving Adam need never have fallen.


​

 

[NightEternal]

Excellent Ptilinopus!

Unfortunately, if my past experience on this issue serves as accurate, none of this will sway the TSDA's one iota. They will stubbornly cling to thier Ralph Larson, The Word Was Made Flesh-inspired understanding no matter what.

Best to just leave them in the darkness of thier chosen falsehood.

 

[woobadooba]

NightEternal wrote:
This is false. Christ had the sinless, unfallen nature of Adam before the entrance of sin.
Your conclusion is not remotely Biblical. It is based upon EGW alone.

-----------------------------------------​

Your conclusion is correct NE - and supported both by scripture (John 14:30. "... the ruler (Prince) of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me.", among others), and EGW. Sadly, most who argue from EGW do so by interpreting some of her writings the way the desire, even when in overall context, another interpretation is possible. But EGW strongly supported the sinless nature of Christ.​

I understand that not all accept her authority. But to set the record straight, I quote from Letter 8, 1895, as published in the EGW Comments section of the SDABC Vol.5 p.1128,9. She is referring to John 14:30, also Luke 1:31-35, 1 Cor. 15:22,45; and Heb.4:15.​

"Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of his sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ wass the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.​

"Avoid every question in relation to the humanity of Christ which is liable to be misunderstood. Truth lies close to the track of presumption. In treating upon the humanity of Christ, you need to guard strenuously every assertion, lest your words be taken to mean more than they imply, and thus you lose or dim the clear perceptions of His humanity as combined with divinity. His birth was a miracle of God; for, said the angel, 'Behold, thou shalt conceive in they womb, and bring forth a son,and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.'​

"These words do not refer to any human being, except to the Son of the infinite God. Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points as man is tempted, yet He is called 'that holy thing'. It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points as we are, and yet be without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but lete every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such a one as ourselves; for it cannot be. The exact time when humanity was blended with divinity, it is not necessary for us to know. We are to keep our feet on the Rock Christ Jesus, as God revealed in humanity.​

"I perceive that there is danger in approaching subjects which dwell on the humanity of the Son of the infinite God. He did humble Himself when He saw He was in fashion as a man, that He might understand the force of all temptations wherewith man is beset.​

"The first Adam fell; the second Adam held fast to God and His Word under the most trying of circumstance, and His faith in His Father's goodness, mercy, and love did not waver for one moment. 'It is written' was His weapon of resistance,and it is the sword of the Spirit which every human being is to use. 'Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me' - nothing to respond to temptation. On not one occasion was there a response to his manifold temptations. Not once did Christ step on Satan's ground, to give him anu advantage. Satan found nothing in Him to encourage his advances."​

Sound advice for us here. There are numerous other quotations that could be cited from EGW on the sinless nature of Christ. A few (in brief - check the ref for more detail):​

"Christ did not possess the same sinful, corrupt, fallen disloyalty we possess, for then He could not be a perfect offering."--Manuscript 94, 1893 (published in SM3, p131)​

"In the fullness of time Christ was to be revealed in human form. He was to assume the position of head of humanity by taking the nature, but not the sinfulness of man."--Letter 91, 1900, p. 6. (published in Manuscript Releases vol.9 p237.)​

My point is simply that EGW does not teach or support a fallen sinful nature in Christ. Weakened and diminished by 4000-odd years of sin, yes, human, yes, subject to all the pain, misery and suffering like us, yes. But without our sinfulness. She also repeatedly states that Christ in temptation passed over the same ground the first Adam did - proving Adam need never have fallen.​

It was very wise of you to post this, for all to see the truth about what she really believed!

Too many people assume others to believe things that are actually foreign to what they really believe. This happens frequently in the case of Ellen White's rols as having been a prophet of God.

It is evident that Night has superimposed a belief on Ellen White that she did not even agree with.

 

[woobadooba]

Excellent Ptilinopus!

Unfortunately, if my past experience on this issue serves as accurate, none of this will sway the TSDA's one iota. They will stubbornly cling to their Ralph Larson, The Word Was Made Flesh-inspired understanding no matter what.

Best to just leave them in the darkness of their chosen falsehood.

So are you admitting to being wrong?

You did say that this idea of Christ having a sinful nature was based on Ellen White alone, thus implying that she espoused this teaching.

If you are wrong about this (which you are), don't you think you may be wrong about some other things too, such as the generality that all traditional SDAs believe that Christ had a sinful nature?

I am asking you right now to cease and desist from using TSDA so loosely. You are grossly misrepresenting what TSDAs really believe. Not all of them agree with what you claim they believe.

Does this make them Progressive? No.

It just simply means that you really don't understand what SDAs believe.

I'm tired of all of these Ellen White and TSDA bashing comments. Knock it off!

If you can't control your behavior then please do not post in this forum anymore.

Why don't you post something uplifting for a change, something that will actually give glory to God?

All I ever see you do in here is complain and insult people. This has got to stop!

 

[honorthesabbath]

Amen Woo--I'm so very tired of the mindless White bashers who only know about her from the anti-White web sites but have never actually read ONE book of hers. Thank you Woo.

 

[NightEternal]

So are you admitting to being wrong?

Not at all. I simply agree with the conclusions Ptilinopus presented.

You did say that this idea of Christ having a sinful nature was based on Ellen White alone, thus implying that she espoused this teaching.

It is and she did. I can give you hundreds of quotes where she advocates sinless perfection and Christ's sinful, fallen nature before glorification. Ralph Larson has documented many of them carefully in his book.

If you are wrong about this (which you are),

No, actually, I'm not.

don't you think you may be wrong about some other things too, such as the generality that all traditional SDAs believe that Christ had a sinful nature?

I never said they all did. But a great majority of them do.

I am asking you right now to cease and desist from using TSDA so loosely.

Okay, fine. I will use fundamentalists then. I have to have some term to use so people know who I am talking about, and TSDA is the most common.

You are grossly misrepresenting what TSDAs really believe. Not all of them agree with what you claim they believe.

Like I said before, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. It's really pretty simple you know.

Does this make them Progressive? No.

Too bad. They should be.

It just simply means that you really don't understand what SDAs believe.

I know very well what SDA's believe, thank you very much.

I'm tired of all of these Ellen White and TSDA bashing comments. Knock it off!

I'm sorry Woobadooba, did someone make you a moderator and not tell us about it? Because you certainly like to throw your weight around here as if you were one.

Regardless, I don't take orders from you, so I'll thank you for not barking at me.

I do not bash TSDA's I bash the beliefs they hold that deserve bashing.

As for EGW I have never bashed her on this forum and you have yet to produce one ounce of evidence that I have. I actually have been trying to defend her many times, but you seem to be oblivious to that fact and hellbent on labeling me as something I am not.

If you can't control your behavior then please do not post in this forum anymore.

I am not your child so please quit being so condescending and patronizing. You have no authourity here on this board so stop pretending you do.

Why don't you post something uplifting for a change, something that will actually give glory to God?

So ignoring issues and pretending they don't exist is uplifting God and wanting to discuss controversial issues facing the church is not?

Okay.

All I ever see you do in here is complain and insult people. This has got to stop!

I have done no such thing.

________________________________________________