[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Most Favoured Player?[/quote]
Your guess is VERY close.
Most Favored Protestant. You’d have to go back several pages to see where Pat bestowed this status on KingKai. I believe it was after he “handed me my ass”
You know, you guys are sure all tweaked about this topic. I think my posts on it are now the least. We may conclude it’s not a big issue to use crass language as Pat has. But it is worth a little bit of discussion. So discuss away, or not. Feel free to blame it all on me when you’ve drawn some conclusions and are finished too. I’m pretty thick-skinned
This is what I don’t get. What is the attraction? I can cuss the fuzz off a peach and have. I’m good at it. I do not however do ti at all anymore. Not even the PG words. Not because I’m the holiest guy on earth, but because there’s no good reason TO do it and a bunch really good reasons NOT to do it. Why all this effort to defend something that is of absolutely no use at best and and a sinful abuse of a God given grace at worst? Why? Why all this formulaic hair splitting when it cost nothing to just not do it? There are sins that juice our flesh, carnality and selfishness to the boiling point providing mountains of temporary pleasure and gratification that at least give some perverse payoff to the indulgence. But cussing/swearing? WHAT makes it so precious that we are even having this conversation?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I’d rather have a filthy mouth than a purty mouth…[/quote]
Well, then I guess nicknaming you Nancy P is spot on.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-501563_162-4849452.html[/quote]
Can we then move on to ‘Yo mama…’ insults, then? [/quote]
That’s your style, not mine:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]WW3General wrote:
Sloth- You don’t want to know what gods love feels like? Or have you already found out?
It is Stockholm Syndrome you don’t have to be embarassed it happens.
I think it is funny that you can not even deal with me saying that about you on an internet thread, but you seem not to care at all that some little boy had to go through that in real life.
For the record-
Fuck- all religion (catholics too)
and all you catholic child molesting supporters.[/quote]
Oh yeah! I fucked your mom last night!.. LOL![/quote]
It’s from the thread Come On In and Have a Seat Over There, pg 1. Oh I know, you’re just giving as good as you get. [/quote]
Do you realize how much effort you are putting in to try and bring me down? If had any inking of the context, I was mocking him for doing that. He was losing an arguement with somebody else so his retort was that he fucked that persons mother last night… I was illustrating absurdity by being absurd. He got the message.
Is there no end to your pettiness?
Are you going to follow me around from thread to thread looking for me to “mess up” so you can bring it here and show everybody what a bad person I am? There are stalking laws you know…LOL!
What the hell is the matter with you dude? All I have asked from you is to bring up substantive topics to discuss… Not petty hate filled vomit with no basis in fact or reason. If you wonder why you have lost pretty much every argument it’s for that reason, you haven’t done your homework. You claim to be heavily educated, but you fill your pages with drivel…
I am so not impressed…[/quote]
We have discussed substantive issues here dude. Is Peter the first pope in the NT comes to mind. I know, YOU weren’t convinced of my position, so I lost that PETTY discussion, though SEVERAL people took part in it.
As I said several times before, I could care less about your language. Let’s just go back to the street rules YOU requested before and all will be well. When I have more time, I’ll probably be involved in a more substantive topic here. Feel free to comment in any way you want. IF you use crass language and “fightin words”, I reserve the right to answer with sarcasm. I hope you’ll take it like a man.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Hmm, well I respectfully disagree. There are many things that ‘enslave’ yet aren’t necessarily bad. I see these types of slippery slopes where a behavior or notion, several degrees removed from a core tenant is as still ‘bad’ but not implicitly so. Many things can fit that definition, and if you don’t check in with the core of the teaching such notions can get out of control.
Paul really appears to be invoking a moderation, rather than a condemnation of repeatative behaviours. There is a difference for instance of saying “Shit!” when you drop something and using a ‘colorful metaphor’ for every other word.
[/quote]
I don’t have much time, so just a few quick thoughts. This point was only one of several; it was not my primary point. I can agree that things like watching television, eaten chocolate, etc. are not inherently evil, but once you become enslaved to a particular thing, it IS evil for you. And with something like cussing, as you freely admit is the case for you at the bottom, it’s a bit of a habit already. In my experience and in the experience of many others, cussing is more difficult to quit, especially since the reasons why you generally cuss aren’t simply to tell knock-knock jokes, but either (1) to entertain others through derogatory or other crude statements (sexual suggestive remarks, sexual jokes, etc.), or (2) to attack people. In other words, we use swearing mostly in the wrong contexts ANYWAY. Once you start swearing, it becomes harder not to swear in those contexts. In other words, once you allow yourself too much leniency in an area, it becomes difficult to control yourself in other areas.
This last statement is false (except, apparently, in the case of Mr. Chen). There are host of cultural and sociological factors that dictate what words people think are taboo AND how people respond to them. In our world, we are terrified of germs, so there are things we won’t touch and will actively yell at other for touching. In a different part of the world, where they have no conception of germs, the same taboos don’t apply. The point is, our reaction to certain things (like cuss words) is socially determined. Tirib doesn’t CHOOSE to be offended; he (like many of us) has grown up in a culture that has INGRAINED IN US the notion that we SHOULD be offended by those words. Consequently, even if they are just words, in THIS society and THIS culture, they ARE offensive.
What I meant by getting caught up in, or leading to legalism, is putting so much emphasis on the rules that you ignore why they are there and in the end, no matter how little the violation.
I think this is a bit of a fuzzy issue, from my point of view, I don’t see cussing bad at all. To me it’s like a little spice or garnish to make language more interesting. If I did think it was a bad thing I would strive to eliminate it. But I don’t. I enjoy it actually. I know when not to say them and in which company it’s less abrasive vs. more. So it isn’t an absence of control.
Could I stop cussing all together, sure if I put my mind to it, but I am not interested in that. We live in a world that is rife with evil. I tend to like to call things I as I see them, which in some cases requires the use of a few choice words…
As far as the admonition of being trusted in small matters vs. large. I mean really, what’s the implication of dropping the occasional f-bomb? Not much. Even in really sensitive company I don’t see the implication being that big.
I do believe the biblical admonitions refer to things like the little girl next door who like to play with my daughter. When ever she comes over, she fills her pockets with every piece of candy she can get her hands on and drink every Gatorade she can carry too.
In that case, I don’t trust her not one bit.
I guess the question really boils down to, can you trust a person who cusses with your life. And most unequivocally I answer yes. I am responsible for lives and they get the best care I can possibly provide.
Even if you expound cussing to it ultimate most vulgar point, at worse it’s a little unpleasant. If I am the biggest cusser in the world, and that’s the worst thing you could say about me, then I am doing really good.
And when comes to flaws, if you see this as one, it’s the least of my problems.
When it comes to say Matthew 25:14 - 30 for instance, it’s about trust. If you are trust worthy in small things then you are trust worthy in large matters. If you are able to forgive small trespasses than likely you will be able forgive large trespasses. If use your talents well in small matters, you will use them well in larger matters.
If you cuss a little, you might cuss more in larger matters. Ever try to push in an actuated rear brake caliper piston? If that doesn’t make you cuss like a sailor, nothing will. Big deal…
In the end you do know this all this was, was another dig, or attempt to by Chen to bring me down, right? It has no real value, it’s just another attempt to bring me down based on minutia. [/quote]
Hey, EVERYONE on here can see what Chen is doing. His last couple points have definitely been petty, personal attacks, whether with the “Holy Father” thing or with his questioning of your moral credentials, and I don’t like it. I think it’s absolutely wrong. We ALL have our weaknesses and you don’t disprove someone’s beliefs by pointing out where you think they are in the process of sanctification. That’s not just intellectually fallacious; it’s spiritually oppressive. And frankly, if he is going to respond to you with intentional sarcasm BECAUSE you swear and attack him back, then he is being extremely hypocritical in questioning YOUR moral standing. The attitude is more important than the particular form the attitude takes (“G” rated sarcasm vs. cussing). I too would LOVE to move this thread back into the realm of substantive discussion, as it was originally intended.
That being said, I do reserve the right to disagree with something substantive, i.e., whether or not swearing is morally significant, an issue which both you and Brother Chris chimed in on. My point, once again, is that any behavior that becomes uncontrollable should be scrutinized, and the reason is that, once you start letting something else control YOU, it becomes harder for you to control other things. Once someone starts regularly allowing themselves to admire the hotties on the street, it becomes harder to stop doing that, and it can lead to other things (porn, for example). That’s why the “little things” DO matter. That was my point. On the most banal and basic level, this is why we know that children who like to kills small animals will likely one day enjoy doing the same thing to humans.
Furthermore, I was making the point that, except perhaps in the case of Mr. Chen (who chose to interpret your use of a word as having connotations he found offensive, regardless of what you actually meant by that word), people don’t CHOOSE to be offended by swearing. We Protestants don’t think matter is bad; but because certain words are considered uncouth and crass in our culture, and because they are used in contexts we find morally repugnant, many of us choose not to use them. What you say is your choice - I am not here to condemn you - but you can’t accuse Tiribulus or any other Protestant (except Mr. Chen) of CHOOSING to get offended by cussing. He didn’t choose to be offended any more than you choose to detest the thought of wearing lipstick.[/quote]
I have spent some time exposing what I consider Pat’s hypocrisy in complaining about me. That it’s necessary at all on a forum full of T-men is disappointing. Before you conclude I am being petty, may I suggest you go back and look at our exchanges on this thread, and note who started with the combative approach first, if it was me, I’ll apologize right here.
[ADD] The holy father address issue is not petty in the least by the way. I believe many protestants, and most baptists agree with my position. Protestants used to call him the “man of sin” if you recall. And as I’ve said before, I think it’s also definitely related to the issue of whether or not there should even be a “pope”. It’s why I brought it up in the first place. Do you not think this is a substantive issue?
[edited again for clarity]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Okay, but I don’t use those words in front of people. Just like I don’t talk to the homeless guy like he’s my thesis advisor. You have to respect people’s sensibilities. [/quote]Ya know why I believe you’re my brother Christopher, despite being joined to that abominable “Church”(big C)? You have an increasingly tender conscience in which is percolating godly sensibilities. I see it and I “feel” it, as subjective and mystical as that is. You keep defending yourself because you care what others think of you and more importantly you want to believe you are not offending God. As well both you should. Put away this ridiculous doctrine of grubby glossolalia and leave it behind you. You’ll feel good about it in the knowledge the Lord is pleased. (say what you want, but I KNOW this hitting a chord with you down inside where you really live.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:<<< Feel free to blame it all on me >>>[/quote]For the record I am most assuredly not doing that.
EDIT: I will say this though. I am still learning this lesson the hard way. The person who makes me slam my heart and mind shut the quickest is many times the one God is teaching me something through. Nothing and nobody in life is a waste to me if I gain something which I can use to make my life more pleasing in His sight. Even rabid frothing God hating heathen can be used for that purpose by God if my heart is attuned to His Word and leading.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Protestants used to call him the “man of sin” if you recall.[/quote]
This belies such insecurity.
Never, ever, at any time at all, ever, have I witnessed a Catholic Mass given to discussion of the state of grace or sin of another protestant denomination, representative or individual.
“Petty” doesn’t begin to describe it.
(N.B. Before the inevitable avalanche of defenses and justifications comes thundering down, let me add the caveat: for sins related to heresy or blasphemy, or other issues that stem from denominationalism.)
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Protestants used to call him the “man of sin” if you recall.[/quote]
This belies such insecurity.
Never, ever, at any time at all, ever, have I witnessed a Catholic Mass given to discussion of the state of grace or sin of another protestant denomination, representative or individual.
“Petty” doesn’t begin to describe it.
(N.B. Before the inevitable avalanche of defenses and justifications comes thundering down, let me add the caveat: for sins related to heresy or blasphemy, or other issues that stem from denominationalism.)[/quote]
I make a reference to this historical tidbit to make my point that the issue of whether or not there should be a pope is a substantive issue. But you are free to consider this historical practice petty.
Please recall that until Vat 2, protestants could not even be saved outside the RCC, although I doubt this fact was ever discussed at mass.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This is what I don’t get. What is the attraction? I can cuss the fuzz off a peach and have. I’m good at it. I do not however do ti at all anymore. Not even the PG words. Not because I’m the holiest guy on earth, but because there’s no good reason TO do it and a bunch really good reasons NOT to do it. Why all this effort to defend something that is of absolutely no use at best and and a sinful abuse of a God given grace at worst? Why? Why all this formulaic hair splitting when it cost nothing to just not do it? There are sins that juice our flesh, carnality and selfishness to the boiling point providing mountains of temporary pleasure and gratification that at least give some perverse payoff to the indulgence. But cussing/swearing? WHAT makes it so precious that we are even having this conversation?[/quote]
Oh with the Pharisee accusations again? Nice.
I find no joy in sin, I hate sin. It is one of the most repugnant things I can think of and none do I find pleasure in, not even the ones I have an inclination towards. I find no payoff, even perverse in indulging in any vice. Sorry if that is maybe you, but it certainly is not me.
Now being done with the serious part of the post.
You are making false assumptions (that these words are bad, that they are sinful, that Christians don’t use them, &c.), I have only asked to prove your assumptions and I reject your assumptions until you can prove why a word is inherently bad. You turn around and accuse me of hairsplitting, of being too involved in the discussion and of indulging in non-gratifying vice (if cussing is really a sin, you sure haven’t cussed right if you haven’t gotten gratification). HA! Can I say non-sequitor? I’d rather go sit in silence and fast for 80 years and subsist on nothing but the Eucharist while I sit at the feet of the Lord and pray rosaries than sin.
And, to say that it is formulaic hairsplitting is accidentally fallacious as best, purposefully obtuse at worst. Only a modernist would consider making proper distinctions between two different things “hairsplitting.” There is a difference between ‘cussin’, and blaspheme and swearing.
Big difference. I’m surprised such a smart guy can’t get the difference. 
Now, since you don’t get it. Let me tell you what my grandmother told me, that applies to this situation: Keep the mother tongue in the kitchen, speak English in the office. Don’t be proud to be a common man.
Basically, speak your first language in the kitchen, but speak English in the world. If I would talk to my grandmother in English, that is disrespectful as if I didn’t learn English to speak with English speakers.
There is also a reason why there are two different kinds of Spanish, you don’t talk to a judge like a street vender and you don’t talk to a street vender like a judge.
Be all things to all men. From the observations of looking at the Saints, a Saint is not a man who is seen as holier than those around him by those who observe him. He never much attracts attention and does everything to avoid attention. A Saint is a man that is almost unnoticed because he makes the common man feel as if the Saint is even more common than himself. He keeps his holiness secret, while keeping the Gospel on a constant pedestal.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Okay, but I don’t use those words in front of people. Just like I don’t talk to the homeless guy like he’s my thesis advisor. You have to respect people’s sensibilities. [/quote]Ya know why I believe you’re my brother Christopher, despite being joined to that abominable “Church”(big C)? You have an increasingly tender conscience in which is percolating godly sensibilities. I see it and I “feel” it, as subjective and mystical as that is. You keep defending yourself because you care what others think of you and more importantly you want to believe you are not offending God. As well both you should. Put away this ridiculous doctrine of grubby glossolalia and leave it behind you. You’ll feel good about it in the knowledge the Lord is pleased. (say what you want, but I KNOW this hitting a chord with you down inside where you really live.
[/quote]
Not really, I don’t really care what others think about me. Too much effort. I care about what God thinks of me and how faithful I am to him. But otherwise…naw. However, the reason I make corrections is for the truth.
And, I believe glossolalia refers to speaking in tongues. Do you also believe that is sinful?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
And as I’ve said before, I think it’s also definitely related to the issue of whether or not there should even be a “pope”.[/quote]
Of course there should be a Pope. Jesus made it so. I guess someone forgot to read that part of their Bible this quarter.
Or, Unless you think you can improve on the Father’s salvific plans?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Please recall that until Vat 2, protestants could not even be saved outside the RCC, although I doubt this fact was ever discussed at mass.
[/quote]
What makes you think they can? Lol.
“extra ecclesiam, nulla salus” is an infallible statement. Meaning it was taught by a Bishop correctly by the Grace of God, assured by Jesus’ Holy promise to his Bride.
List of people who taught extra ecclesiam, nulla salus or outside the Church, no salvation:
Pope Pelagius in 585
the Fourth Lateran Council in 1214
Pope Innocent III in 1214
Pope Boniface VIII in 1302
Pope Pius XII
Pope Paul VI
the Second Vatican Council
Pope John Paul II, and
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Dominus Iesus (2000)
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Please recall that until Vat 2, protestants could not even be saved outside the RCC, although I doubt this fact was ever discussed at mass.
[/quote]
What makes you think they can? Lol.[/quote]
I read somewhere recently that we now have some hope.
Are you tryin to rile me up boy?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:“extra ecclesiam, nulla salus” is an infallible statement.[/quote]I agree. The “church” is not headquartered in Rome though. Or anywhere else on earth for that matter.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Oh with the Pharisee accusations again? Nice. >>>[/quote]I asked a question. I did not make any accusations of pharisaism Chris. I dunno man. You liked it better when I was burying you in demeaning sarcasm. I have done nothing but goof around with you a bit and have some serious discussion like this and you go off on me this way. I’ll tell you one thing for sure. This sooper dooper subjectively sanctified routine is going to blow up in your face the day it comes crashing in on you that ALL SIN IS MORTAL. One bite and “in Adam all died”. I’ve known you a little while now and I’m watchin you grow. It is exactly because you ARE one of His that the heartbreak that is loomin large in your future is gonna hurt as bad as it is. However you will emerge from that furnace a one man demon chasing hit squad. I am no prophet, but I really believe that these words of mine will echo in your ears though you’ve never actually heard me say them.
I’ve spent a good deal of time in prayer for you and I plan to spend plenty more. That’s an investment. I am not trying to tear you down.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
“extra ecclesiam, nulla salus” is an infallible statement. Meaning it was taught by a Bishop correctly by the Grace of God, assured by Jesus’ Holy promise to his Bride.
List of people who taught extra ecclesiam, nulla salus or outside the Church, no salvation:
Pope Pelagius in 585
the Fourth Lateran Council in 1214
Pope Innocent III in 1214
Pope Boniface VIII in 1302
Pope Pius XII
Pope Paul VI
the Second Vatican Council
Pope John Paul II, and
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Dominus Iesus (2000)[/quote]
I’ll try and dig up the article I read.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
I have spent some time exposing what I consider Pat’s hypocrisy in complaining about me. That it’s necessary at all on a forum full of T-men is disappointing. Before you conclude I am being petty, may I suggest you go back and look at our exchanges on this thread, and note who started with the combative approach first, if it was me, I’ll apologize right here.
[ADD] The holy father address issue is not petty in the least by the way. I believe many protestants, and most baptists agree with my position. Protestants used to call him the “man of sin” if you recall. And as I’ve said before, I think it’s also definitely related to the issue of whether or not there should even be a “pope”. It’s why I brought it up in the first place. Do you not think this is a substantive issue?
[edited again for clarity][/quote]
Man, I am really doing a poor job of communicating lately. These all-nighters are destroying me…
Mr. Chen, I understand what you are saying. I understand that, after you expressed your extremely negative view of the Catholic church in a perfunctory manner, Pat fought back. I get that. I am also not “blaming you for all of this.” What I don’t understand is why then you are trying to use his cussing and ad hominem responses to you as an negative assessment (implicit or otherwise) of his spiritual state, WHEN YOU ARE SARCASTIC AND RUDE BACK TO HIM. THAT’S HYPOCRISY. You stand equally condemned for fighting back, regardless of whether or not your insults were “cleaner” or “more spiritually pointed.” Your assertion, “we committed Christians read our Bibles all the time” was extremely rude and functioned rhetorically in your argument to put him down and cast a shadow over his arguments. That was wrong, not to mention fallacious - it’s debatable to what degree your Baptist spiritual maturity assessment test (i.e., how much do you read your Bible?) actually does indicate spiritual maturity, but the point is insignificant anyway because Pat’s spiritual maturity level has NO bearing on the validity of his arguments or the truth of his beliefs. More importantly, by making similar insulting remarks, even without all the cussing, you were every bit as mean to him as he was to you. I don’t care who you disagree with or if Pat attacked you first; I do care that, in response to Pat’s attacks, you publicly portray him as your spiritual inferior and impugn his moral standing when you engage in exactly the same sort of insulting behavior. His words were dirtier than yours, but you reciprocated with demeaning sarcastic remarks; THAT FACT, THE FACT THAT YOU RESPONDED BLOW FOR BLOW, COMPLETELY ANNIHILATES YOUR RIGHT TO ATTACK PAT’S CHARACTER. You have no ground to stand on. Jesus didn’t say, “turn the other cheek, unless their blow hurt a lot. Then smack 'em good!”
Do I think there should be a pope? I don’t believe Christ gave such power to determine doctrine (using that word loosely, BC) to any one person in the church. I don’t believe anyone should claim such power. I believe that the preeminence of the Bishop of Rome can be and is best explained along historical lines - the guy in charge of overseeing the church congregations in what was considered the most important city in the world at the time couldn’t help BUT become extremely powerful, and history has shown that people like strong, single leaders rather than bureaucracies and Senates and such. But I also don’t believe in making poor arguments to support your claims. I’m going to be transparent - LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS NEXT LINE IS OFFICIALLY ME STEREOTYPING, AND PROVIDING A VERY ACCURATE STEREOTYPE AT THAT: I would not be surprised at ALL if most BAPTISTS agree with you that the “holy father address” is a significant issue. I went to a baptist high school for two years and attended several baptist churches across the country, and the baptists I have known often LOVE arguments that could convince no one but themselves, arguments that reinforce their own beliefs without being capable of convincing any other reasonable person. Your arguments against the use of the term “holy father” meet that criteria perfectly - you offered no substantive exegetical support, and your entire thesis was based on a faulty view of language. My point is, you cannot play the numbers game on this one. Your argument has to stand on its own.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
I have spent some time exposing what I consider Pat’s hypocrisy in complaining about me. That it’s necessary at all on a forum full of T-men is disappointing. Before you conclude I am being petty, may I suggest you go back and look at our exchanges on this thread, and note who started with the combative approach first, if it was me, I’ll apologize right here.
[ADD] The holy father address issue is not petty in the least by the way. I believe many protestants, and most baptists agree with my position. Protestants used to call him the “man of sin” if you recall. And as I’ve said before, I think it’s also definitely related to the issue of whether or not there should even be a “pope”. It’s why I brought it up in the first place. Do you not think this is a substantive issue?
[edited again for clarity][/quote]
Man, I am really doing a poor job of communicating lately. These all-nighters are destroying me…
Mr. Chen, I understand what you are saying. I understand that, after you expressed your extremely negative view of the Catholic church in a perfunctory manner, Pat fought back. I get that. I am also not “blaming you for all of this.” What I don’t understand is why then you are trying to use his cussing and ad hominem responses to you as an negative assessment (implicit or otherwise) of his spiritual state, WHEN YOU ARE SARCASTIC AND RUDE BACK TO HIM. THAT’S HYPOCRISY. You stand equally condemned for fighting back, regardless of whether or not your insults were “cleaner” or “more spiritually pointed.” Your assertion, “we committed Christians read our Bibles all the time” was extremely rude and functioned rhetorically in your argument to put him down and cast a shadow over his arguments. That was wrong, not to mention fallacious - it’s debatable to what degree your Baptist spiritual maturity assessment test (i.e., how much do you read your Bible?) actually does indicate spiritual maturity, but the point is insignificant anyway because Pat’s spiritual maturity level has NO bearing on the validity of his arguments or the truth of his beliefs. More importantly, by making similar insulting remarks, even without all the cussing, you were every bit as mean to him as he was to you. I don’t care who you disagree with or if Pat attacked you first; I do care that, in response to Pat’s attacks, you publicly portray him as your spiritual inferior and impugn his moral standing when you engage in exactly the same sort of insulting behavior. His words were dirtier than yours, but you reciprocated with demeaning sarcastic remarks; THAT FACT, THE FACT THAT YOU RESPONDED BLOW FOR BLOW, COMPLETELY ANNIHILATES YOUR RIGHT TO ATTACK PAT’S CHARACTER. You have no ground to stand on. Jesus didn’t say, “turn the other cheek, unless their blow hurt a lot. Then smack 'em good!” [/quote]
I can pretty much accept everything you’ve said here in principle. And I have already apologized for my sarcasm. In that same post, I also reiterated that I would talk honestly, and it might not be possible for me to consider him a brother in Christ, and I explained why. That was unacceptable to him, and he let loose with a few more “hatefilled” posts of his own. But that is his term, as I honestly don’t take any exchange here this way. So I am a “sad” case indeed. I must not be sarcastic, which I can live with actually, but it seems I must also always agree to his opinion of what it means to be saved, or any other matter.
Now, as far as making him out to be my spiritual inferior, I deny that intent. I did state in my apology we are both sinners before God, and that’s the only reason I’m on this thread. Bringing up how much we read our bible, had a context, though perhaps this good habit does not have direct bearing on the correctness of his post. Committed christians do read their bible daily, and that’s a habit that I learned long ago. It’s one of several habits a committed christian should have. Since when does my mentioning it impugn his moral standing. If he doesn’t have the habit, he should. To has own Master he must give an account though. I have never claimed that right. If I said I weight train 6 days a week, I am demeaning someone else who doesn’t? But I’m bragging though right? Granted, looking back I might have worded it differently, or expanded on the whole idea so there is no chance for misunderstanding. But for cryin out loud, what’s wrong with someone just asking- what do you mean by that? And hopefully not 2 weeks later either. It’s called give and take. Chris handles things like this, and we get along fine. Let’s have a little more of it on here, and everyone will profit. Except for our misunderstanding, no one on this thread, including Pat, has caused me any more than slight irritation, manifested with some sarcasm, and among men, in my opinion, it should pretty much just bounce off with a “well, well”.
Not just baptists. Plenty of protestants think using the term “father” as an address is against Christ’s prohibition. I understand you are not convinced, of course. My point was only it’s hardly a petty topic. Whether my argument was successful or not is irrelevant. I was not attempting to marshal an army of agreement from among ignorant baptists. (sarcasm here just to liven things up, and to show I actually take no offense at you lumping me in with said ignorant mass)