[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]My argument, as any reader can see in the above, is meant to call you out on yet ANOTHER one of your MANY inconsistencies (a charge which you still have been unable to answer). This is what you said on 7/05 at 10:14 am on page 9 of this thread…
Remember this? I’ve brought it up SEVERAL times. The point of the argument above is really simple - you brought up Job as a supposedly analogous situation to the experience of people throughout history of being deceived through the bible. You claimed that “The Father” allowed humanity to be deceived by the devil just like Job was tortured and deceived by the devil. The difference is, however, that you claim that “the Father” wrote the whole bible, including the vast majority of it which (in your view) deceives, so that makes “the Father” DIRECTLY responsible for the deception. In this case, “the Father” does not passively observe Satan’s work; based on your statements, “the Father” actually DOES Satan’s work. THUS, the two situations are NOT analogous. [/quote]
You have missed the entire point. The Father absolutely does not do Satan’s work. The Father warned us about Satan’s work through the Prophets, and revealed Himself to us through the teachings of Christ.
[/quote]
Okay, I’m asking for one solid answer, dude. Do you then admit that you have changed your mind since you said on 7/05 at 10:14 am on page 9 of this thread that, “The Father himself wrote the entire Bible through the hands of men?” It’s very clear that you realized you misspoke. Frankly, I understand what your point is NOW, but I don’t care what your point is NOW; MY POINT is that the statements you made earlier in this discussion are inconsistent with the claims you are NOW making.
Simple as that. You said “the Father” wrote the entire Bible; you said large portions of the Bible deceive; therefore, by implication, “the Father” deceives. So OBVIOUSLY, you either have to take back what you said before about “the Father” writing the entire Bible, or else admit that “the Father” deceives. This is simple logic.
[quote]JayPierce said:
[quote]What you did to that paragraph of mine was rude, especially since you don’t like people messing with your quotes. Remember when you told Chris on 7/16 at 7:48 am on page 11…
I’m at a loss. Can you really just not handle any argument longer than a sentence or two? That would explain your inability to consider context in your wild speculations about the meaning of individual verses of Scripture. Or are you just prepping for your cult leader status? Cult leaders have ALWAYS been good at selectively choosing and altering their opponents’ statements. If so, you are well on your way to become the next Joseph Smith.[/quote]
I try to boil your walls of text down to what’s relevant. If you were to understand what I’m trying to say, you’d understand that the rest of your post was unnecessary.
I did not add any words to your post to try and infer some idea other than what you were trying to communicate.
[/quote]
False - you ignored the second half of my argument, probably because (if you could understand it) you didn’t like being called out. You only took the summary statement that seemed to comport with your claims. That’s not boiling my statements down to what’s relevant; that’s taking my statements out of their context, just like you do with every single passage of Scripture you quote.
And I already understand what you are trying to say. I know you think your ideas are complex, Jay; I know you do. But I grew up in the church; I’ve sat through hundreds of sermons and bible studies. I’ve heard more insightful points and complex ideas spouted by teenagers in a youth group than you have said here.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINTS. What you don’t get is that you are too unsystematic in your thinking. There are holes and gaps ALL throughout your arguments. The point of MY arguments is that your claims lack the necessary foundation to remotely convince anyone, especially people more skilled and knowledgeable than you. That’s not an insult; that’s a fact, as is the fact that your only interesting points are the ones made by heretics nearly 2000 years ago.
[quote]
Cult leader? You give your money to listen to someone preach the teachings of someone who contradicted Christ. You believe them when they tell you that they use that money for God’s purposes. You believe that the man you call ‘father’ knows what THE Father wants you to do, and that’s put money in the plate, even though Christ told you to give to the poor. And you want to point fingers about cult leaders?!?!
I ask for nothing. I will continue to ask for nothing. It is our job to spread the good news, no matter who opposes it, and expect nothing in return. How do I know this is right? Because Christ said it.[/quote]
Lol seriously, man, you need to go to church. You really do. You wouldn’t say such embarrassingly inaccurate things if you were under the oversight of a solid pastor and heard the word preached properly each week.
THe man I call Father? I don’t call the pope Father - I’m not a Catholic. If you even just paid attention to other forums where you could maybe learn something about history and theology (like the Catholic Q & A), you would know that I am not a Catholic.
And if you went to church, you would know that the purpose of giving money to your local church is (1) to support the ministers and their ministry (Matt. 10:9-10) and (2) to provide funds to help the poor and destitute in the community. Believe it or not, the Catholic church is one of the most generous institutions in the world, but even the smallest local churches I know collect money to give the poor. My church certainly does. I am the pastoral assistant, and I know for a fact that my pastor gets NO paycheck from our small church because, as he has said, “that wouldn’t leave any money for the poor.” So my pastor works another full time job in addition to pastoring in order to support his family.