|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Judging one another, in scripture and in general | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
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:
judgement of christianity, belief, faith, and mens' hearts is GOD'S. not yours. not mine. not faith's, and not the pharisees. ..I take it that you didn't lick that idea off a stone.
"according to my book" doesn't mean squat, because god makes the call. you do not. you don't even get a vote. 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.
Another case of "Reading-R-Us"
yes, iano. please try to read more carefully. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
..I take it that you didn't lick that idea off a stone. i don't lick stones. i have some idea of where they've been.
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. you fail to see the obvious flaw in your logic. of those "certain things" that manifests itself is compassion and acceptance of others: not condemnation and judgement. by judging others as not christians, you have defined yourself as unchristian. and, if i were in a position to judge, i would say that you weren't. but you don't get the point. and neither does faith, apparently. christianity is not about deciding who's wheat and who's chaff, and certainly not about us making that decision. it's about acceptance, and hope, and compassion, and forgiveness, and charity. the message is nothing but good for all, and if you exclud people from it, you do nothing but pervert it.
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? knock yourself out. ned gave his opinion in the last thread -- and to no suprise, you misinterpretted what he said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
you fail to see the obvious flaw in your logic of those "certain things" that manifests itself is compassion and acceptance of others: not condemnation and judgement. 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.
if i were in a position to judge, i would say that you weren't. I'm not so reticent and in your case I don't know. I'm not sure...
the message is nothing but good for all, and if you exclude people from it, you do nothing but pervert it. 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.
knock yourself out. ned gave his opinion in the last thread -- and to no suprise, you misinterpretted what he said. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Can you point me to what I should be offering an opinion about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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. do make circular points in every thread? i'm starting to think that you do it to be funny. considering that my point was circular to begin with. you're just running the other direction. iano, go play god and create some rocks so big you can't lift them.
Allowing them them fool others into thinking what they say Christianity is is what Christianity is. Hell no. ahem, i think christ gets some say in what christianity is and is not. and christ says "don't judge." and he rails against the pharisees for excluding people.
if i were in a position to judge, i would say that you weren't. I'm not so reticent and in your case I don't know. I'm not sure... the point is, iano, i don't know a damned thing about your relationship with god. nor do you know anything about mine. so i don't get a say in yours, and you don't get a say in mine.
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. yes, and the lepers were already outside the temple. they were born there. it was still wrong for the pharisees to not let them in.
knock yourself out. ned gave his opinion in the last thread -- and to no suprise, you misinterpretted what he said. 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? his attention has been called to this thread. feel free to ask him what he meant by
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
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 agree Thanks for looking and not leaping. I'd wait for Arachs o.k.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Can you point me to what I should be offering an opinion about? yes. starting here
quote: quote: quote: i thought your opinion was pretty evident. iano thinks that you still agree with his point, and is somehow failing to understand your retraction on the grounds that he made a false distinction. in short, iano can't read. Edited by arachnophilia, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
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 thread Oh yeah.. the post in question:
NosyNed writes: writes: Oh, I should learn not to jump in with a flawed memory of events. Ok, I don't see how the contraction can be explained away then. Thanks for the thanks Iano but I think you have to withdraw it now. Your honour... Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Forgot to mention. You do not have to give a response either. It might not be something you want to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
iano, you left out the frowny-faces.
those are important.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
oh, i'm sure ned remembers. but dishonesy by way of omission is still dishonesty.
besides, he'd have to be really damned senil to not notice the post i made above that contains our conversation in its entirety, including formatting.
I trust he remembers his intention and is pondering more on the wisdom of commenting than anything else. answer not a fool...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
uh huh.
thanks for wasting thread space.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024