Judging one another, in scripture and in general

Are you judging here Mike? Judging Faith to be wrong?

If I weigh up the evidence according to the criteris of "what constitutes a Christian in my book". And a person easily fails all those criteria - does that mean they might still be a Christian according to my book? It seems if that were the case then I cannot be sure I am a Christian either for I cannot even judge myself according to those criteria. Which is patently ridiculous.

Failing God commenting on the matter himself (we couldn't even get Dawkins and Dembski here remember) I suppose you will be referring to a book too.Another case of "Reading-R-Us"

The book I suggested you would refer to is your own book - as in "In my book x,y,z" In being challenged about your book you might refer to 'gods book' for your support. As you do here presumably: ..I take it that you didn't lick that idea off a stone. If "When God calls and a person responds to that call then they become a Christian and certain things will manifest themselves..." is true then one might very easily percieve whether another patently hasn't responded to that call. Thus one is in a position to comment, to exercise their judgement. All one has to decide for themselves is, is that statement true - in order to comment. I thought it wouldn't be long until your self-declared reading comprehension skills would get hauled out. D'ya ever ask Ned his opinion?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Do you see the obvious flaw in your own logic: this limited notion is printed on the pages of your own book. There is no need to even swap stories: all a person needs to exercise judgement (to judge) is to hold that their own book is correct - it needs not anothers (yours for instance) stamp of approval.Compassion for one lost, yes. Acceptance that they are lost, yes.Standing by whilst they fool themselves into thinking they are Christians - compassion forbids it even to the extent of being 'tough'. (aa kind of a pr 26:5 motivation there)Allowing them them fool others into thinking what they say Christianity is is what Christianity is. Hell no. I'm not so reticent and in your case I don't know. I'm not sure... Stating that a person is not a Christian doesn't exclude them from a message they haven't gotten yet - if indeed that exercise of judgment is accurate. They would already be on the 'outside' so to speak. I take it that you have no problem in allowing him state whether his message was tongue in cheek or literal. I for one am curious. I'll bump it next time I see him knocking around. You do the same if you see him. Okay?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

A curious situation arose within the context of a recent thread which enabled you (by accident rather than design) to be an objective judge, jury and executioner w.r.t a particular sub-issue within the thread - which spreads beyond the thread and into general discussion between Arach and me. Very unusual at EvC to get something this resolvable.But it is not mine to call on my own. Arach would have to want to go there too. I'm prepared to risk it in order to have a particular debate approach dismantled (for I find it tiresome). But am quite happy to drop it if Arach doesn't agreeThanks for looking and not leaping. I'd wait for Arachs o.k.

A more simple way of phrasing it would be:I hold that that post was written tongue-in-cheek and Arach holds that it was to be taken literally.I read it one way and Arach another. Our ability to read is the sub-issue within the threadOh yeah.. the post in question: Your honour...Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Forgot to mention. You do not have to give a response either. It might not be something you want to do.

Ned doesn't strike me as senile Arach. I trust he remembers his intention and is pondering more on the wisdom of commenting than anything else.

On reflection Ned. Can we forget it? The result ain't worth it to me, whichever way it would fall. I'd prefer to put up with Arachs debate method. Like it's not that I even have to debate him if I don't want to!Thanks, sorry for the trouble.

Given that our relative strength in the reading department remains undecided by objective decision (something which you saw the need for as much as me here) can you now halt supposing objective superiority in that self-same department when we debate next?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I quite like the notion that objective superiority in reading skills remains an unresolved issue. Given that I haven't been claiming it makes it a win for me - relatively speakingAll without losing anything?There's poker for you.

Perhaps. But I doubt I'll hear arguments containing the implication "objectively superior reading skills" again after this.That is sufficient for me. Showing my hand gains me nothing. Were I to 'win' all that would achieve would be your nose getting stuck in a pile off shite. And vice versa were you to 'win'. Neither option strikes me as particularily desirable.A good poker player quits while he is ahead. Fools gamble everything

But then some gunslinger comes into town and holds up the joint!

Don't worry, the question asked was only tongue in cheek vs literal reading of your post. There are no chips left to play in that particular game.Pass the bucket of shite