Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Post 297 is a double standard. If someone has a different take on a scripture, say 1 Peter 3:15, you just dismiss it out of hand. But we are just supposed to accept your meaning of it. You say you want me to respond with a scriptural argument then but apparently YOU get to define what the scriptures I am talking about mean? Double standard.See post 297.
I responded to those statements which seemed relevant.Nothing relevant here.
(See I can do it too, doesn't make it true)
No. You don't have to accept my take on that verse. That verse refers to a scenario that I never debated. Feel free to take whatever stand on it you please. Thus with respect to this thread, that verse constitutes a strawman because it has nothing to do with my posts on this thread.Post 297 is a double standard. If someone has a different take on a scripture, say 1 Peter 3:15, you just dismiss it out of hand. But we are just supposed to accept your meaning of it. You say you want me to respond with a scriptural argument then but apparently YOU get to define what the scriptures I am talking about mean? Double standard.
You know it took me some time but I've figured out exactly what you are, and what you are doing. There is a biblical word for what you are doing. One that I am not going to elaborate on here. I've actually learned quite a lot. Not from any theories you've put forth, but reading this has given me some greater insight into how the enemy works. So thanks for that.Strawman. 1 Peter 3:15 was already addressed. The primacy of conscience was also mentioned. Nothing relevant here.
Oh, so you ARE 100% certain of your salvation. And you ARE 100% certain of the gospel. That's odd, since you've been condemning me for an entire thread for postulating 100% certainty. You told me it was a self--created ideal that makes zero sense.
That would be 100% certainty. The very concept you condemned me for. This makes it difficult to respond to your post because I don't know how to take you. You seem to be equivocating.
Maybe what you're saying is that we can only be 100% certain of our salvation, we can never be 100% certain of God's specific will. But that flies in the face of much of the data.
As stated, 100% certainty isn't always 24-7 (except perhaps for Jesus) and not on all issues (even Jesus had limited knowledge on earth).
Uncertainty is possible. Obviously. And?
Look, 100 billion souls are at stake. If God is willing to give me 100% certainty on my OWN salvation, why would He not be willing to give me 100% certainty on how to most effectively reach out to 100 billion souls? You don't see that your position casts aspersions on God?
100% certainty appears to be His most effective messaging-tool. Why not put it to use? My position puts the blame on MEN - it claims that men lack 100% certainty for failure to align with God. YOUR position makes it look like God doesn't WANT to use His best tool. That insinuates, as mentioned earlier, that He doesn't much care about whether the 200,000 residents of Hiroshima live or die. Even if that soldier WANTED absolute certainty before dropping the bomb, God categorically refuses to help. Huh?
(1) He apparently doesn't care much for the 200,000.
(2) He apparently doesn't care much for the 100 billion.
Look, even if I'm WRONG about 100% certainty, there's too much at stake here. I still need to be sure - 100% certain - which approach is right, whether yours or mine. So even if I'm wrong, in principle I'm still right. THAT'S what I was referring to when I said that my deduction seems more compelling than yours.
Strawman. Conscience dictates, as I've stated repeatedly. No disagreement there.
However, conscience is often misinformed. For example traditional views might bias our conscience to feel obligated to evangelize even without 100% certainty. My posts here are a corrective to that error.
I appreciated the apology but then later you resumed in the same vein.
I focus mostly on arguments, not on personal attacks. I'm not aware of being abusive on this thread.
Good for you. Glad we're on the same side, facing a common enemy.You know it took me some time but I've figured out exactly what you are, and what you are doing. There is a biblical word for what you are doing. One that I am not going to elaborate on here. I've actually learned quite a lot. Not from any theories you've put forth, but reading this has given me some greater insight into how the enemy works. So thanks for that.
Relevant to what? Relevant to the thread? Or relevant to the bone of contention between us? I tried to respond to any argument relevant to that bone. If I missed something, feel free to point it out.So your response is relevant, mine is not? Double standard.
Again, wonderful. Glad to hear it.Surprisingly, this is truer than you even know.
I'm glad you did. It brought to light your equivocation on the concept of 100% certainty.So what did my responding to your argument accomplish?
1) You keep calling on me to respond to your postRelevant to what? Relevant to the thread? Or relevant to the bone of contention between us? I tried to respond to any argument relevant to that bone. If I missed something, feel free to point it out.
I do not accept 100% certainty as you have outlined it. You are twisting my words again.I'm glad you did. It brought to light your equivocation on the concept of 100% certainty.
Originally you made no disclaimers/qualifications. You categorically condemned it. Then later, after I challenged you at post 260, you finally admitted the validity of the concept of 100% certainty, at least with respect to salvation. I consider that a serious equivocation. And even if perhaps you didn't strictly equivocate, I'm glad that anyone monitoring this thread has now witnessed your advocacy of the concept. Enough said.I do not accept 100% certainty as you have outlined it. You are twisting my words again.
Yes. Uncertainty is possible. Where have I denied that? How is this kind of statement not a strawman?One can have confidence in their own salvation and still have uncertainty in their direction.
Incorrect. Just more twisting. You do not know what I meant better than I do.Originally you made no disclaimers/qualifications. You categorically condemned it. Then later, after I challenged you at post 260, you finally admitted the validity of the concept of 100% certainty, at least with respect to salvation. I consider that a serious equivocation. And even if perhaps you didn't strictly equivocate, I'm glad that anyone monitoring this thread has now witnessed your advocacy of the concept. Enough said.
Feel free to continue with the insults - meanwhile I'll stick to the arguments.
Question: Have you read even one chapter of the Bible? Ever?
So you didn't disparage 100% certainty? Ok, if you say so. But when I look at your post #24 for example, I can hardly be faulted for misreading you. You can accuse me of twisting all you like, but I thought I was reading you correctly.Incorrect. Just more twisting. You do not know what I meant better than I do.
No it's not. You categorically condemned my project which I defined as waiting upon God in prayer and praise. This left me in a state of absolute incredulity. To rephrase the question, if the 1st approach offended you, "Are you actually throwing out the whole Bible?"That is a personal attack that is WAY out of line.
See, there you go again. You condemning my entire project categorically.I stand behind everything I stated previously. What you are putting forth is harmful, unbiblical and a doctrine of one. Repeating it over and over and over proves nothing and changes nothing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?