[quote]Fishlips wrote:
Do you think the boss is gonna say ‘Oh OK have it for me tomorrow’? Don’t think so. Your opinion on the subject was irrelevant and you will pay for that, nobody else. You were not incapable of figuring out what the boss meant and wanted.
God has set the standards for us and has the right to do so. To challenge it is not in our best interests.[/quote]
I will challenge whatever I damn well please thank you very much. I like your analogy, though. It’s just that the Boss and I would be disagreeing on definitions of stuff which would be like arguing over whether a grouping of four things should look like a symbol 4 or a symbol 3.
If we agree on the defintion of four things as being a 4, then the analogy doesn’t really apply.
Basically, I don’t let a book define stuff for me. You do. There’s nothing wrong with that, because we’re both right.
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote: stellar_horizon wrote:
What kind of T-Man do you hail yourself to be? makkun wrote:
The kind of T-Man that stands up against someone who resorts to an antisemitic tone when he’s not pleased with the answers of someone else, whom he “suspects” to be jewish. I hope I misunderstood you on that one, because that would massively suck.
Re-read my posts. I have no issues with Jews. I have Jewish friends that I speak with for hours on end every single week. I know religion is a highly sensitive topic, so I’m careful in the things I say and to avoid theology all together when conversing with them.[/quote]
Let me show you how I came to this conclusion; BTW, I will be happy to apologise, if proven wrong, or if I overreacted. It is not in my interest to slander you:
This is, I assume, a correct deduction.[/quote]
Here you are making the point that the person you are talking to is also another, implying deception.
Here you point out that you would stop talking to someone based on the fact that they do not share your belief system.
In short: “I think you’re a jew, and you are trying to deceive us - I won’t talk to you any more.”
Please tell me that I misunderstood you, then I will gladly apologise.
[quote]Secondly, I called nobody a liar.
If someone says something that can be proven false, then what they have said is a lie. If someone consistently tells lies, then they are a liar. Anyways, I’ve never called anybody on T-Nation a liar, so don’t slander me.[/quote]
Let me quote you:
Here you call Fishlips a liar - for not being able to answer your argumentation. Now last time I checked, someone who believed something was true, but was mistaken was … mistaken. A lie necessitates malevolence. With your “spewing lies” comment, you imply that.
Given your unlucky Jew post earlier, you clearly must see how people could mistake you. Relax - other people might have as strong a belief as you, and it would show respect if you only assumed they were wrong, but not liars.
[quote]makkun wrote:
As I said earlier, I know that mocking is perhaps not the right way of taking part in the discussion, but quite honestly, your holier-than-though attitude is indeed a bit overbearing at times; as is calling people liars when they don’t share your belief system.
What holier-than-though attitude? Have I proclaimed to be better than you or anyone else?[/quote]
Here, to Fishlips:
While the first is pretty condescending the second I have to see as a religious statement, which I cannot comment on. It shows your attitude though towards someone who does not see eye to eye with you.
And to Fishlips again:
Wow, I thought damning someone was for a deity or higher being. And the “poor common sense” line shows your accusatory style of debate and your view on other peoples’ viewpoints. It does though, quite clearly imply your looking down on other participants within the debate. Dare I say “holier-than-them”…?
You can be proud of it. It’s great - for you. I now people of faith(s) and they enjoy a fulfilled and peaceful existence. Good for them. Nothing wrong with. And - please do share it: It’s interesting and belongs here. Just don’t be so aggressive about it.
I don’t hate you. I just think your choice of words and your attitude towards others in this debate is overbearing and bordering towards insulting. It’s about the style, not the content. Your last statement directed towards me is a good example. Why do you imply hatred and wickedness? If you walk around and do this, be prepared to be criticised for it.
I quote again:
Here you imply that anyone who is not Christian is mistrusting and displays a twisted attitude on certain things. That’s a strong and quite offensive assumption. Don’t you see how this is coming over?
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
I could easily brag about my academic credentials while simulatenouesly bearing witness to the Truth of Christ. The reason I said what I said was because my arguments in this thread are specifically directed at other Christians. For someone to hail themselves as a Christian they initially do so by having faith in the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Having faith in Him means having faith in everything He said and did and following in all His ways.[/quote]
Yes, I understand that. But you are here also surrounded by people who do not share your views, and they have every right to take part. And as long as this is not your T-Nation only, be prepared for comment. And as it is T-Nation, be prepared for critical, sometimes weird and mocking comment…
I think we’ver covered that already. It’s a forum.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Why talk to me then? Let the donkeys play and ignore them.
Simply an attempt to reprimand you.[/quote]
WTF? Reprimanding me or anyone else here would require you being in some sort of higher position. You’re not. Criticise me, prove me wrong, and I’ll apologise or concede to your argument. Reprimand my … donkey (sorry, couldn’t resist ).
As said earlier, you are missing the point. I criticise your accusatory style. I went further and implied you were using antisemitic rhethoric in the way you “reprimanded” fishlips/coooz. If that makes me “low-class” (wow, haven’t received that before) “immature” (yeah, sometimes) “jerk” (not to my knowledge, but you never now). You seem to need to let of steam this way, so go ahead, call me names.
But “demeaning towards people of other faiths”, I would like you to prove.
[quote]makkun wrote:
You see, I don’t have a problem with your strong belief in your god. Having been a christian myself (off course not of the ONLY TRUE BELIEF you support), I remember how much that can mean to someone. But I find the righteousness you tend to display quite unnerving at times. And - I think you are wrong; but as it is not my place to criticise your belief, I will shut up on that one (and stay shut up). But your behaviour, I may criticise. That’s called debate.
Very well, debate my behavior, post my “unnerving” displays of righteousness. Accuse me in plain sight for all to see.[/quote]
Done.
Nope. Not necessary. And as my criticism concentrates on your style rather than the content, I can’t comment on the sin part anyway.
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Put simply, would two dedicated athletes waste time arguing about macronutrient calculations if one was a powerlifter and the other was an endurance runner? As these two different creatures would find no harmony when debating the physical, neither would a Christian and a non-Christian find harmony when debating the spiritual. makkun wrote:
Hm. That means you can essentially only speak with likeminded people. I think you missed an important point: Plurality is fun, entertaining and educating. We’re here in a forum where people with different views argue their points. And sometimes they crack a few jokes - even about religion.
Not true. I can speak with people more or less intelligent than myself. But I always humble my ego if I’m genuinely trying to learn something from a better educated source - there’s no room to act like a jerk. If I need to learn something about theology, I don’t act like a jerk when confronting the archbishop at my cathedral. If I need to learn something about nutrition, I don’t act like a jerk when confronting Chris or TC or Lonnie or anyone of the Biotest staff. It’s called having respect.
[/quote]
I agree. If my respect for others would allow it, I might reflect the same question back at you; but I won’t, as it is not my style to use personal insults.
I see you are trying to teach, but not really taking on other viewpoints (an essential requirement of learning). I might have overlooked some of your comments, but do I get the feeling from that, that you see your role here as an educator. And the TC comment kinda enhances that view.
Following your logic, you imply I should respect you for your superior (christian) theological knowledge. Based on that assumption, I have to decline respectfully. You are here as a forum member - just like me or JeffR. The moment, T-Nation gives you your own column, or feature article on religious issues, I will rethink that attitude.
I respect you as a dedicated and wellmeaning person. I merely think your attitude and style towards others is inapropriate, and you should dispense a little bit of the respect you wish for yourself on to others.
Just in this post alone - and this is only the first one you directed towards me - you called me: low-class (I really enjoyed that one), immature, jerk, demeaning, hateful, disrespectful and you implied that I have a certain wickedness. That’s an impressive record. The donkey I can’t count as an insult, they’re just too sweet.
Another good analogy, fish. But like I said before, this is a matter of what you allow to define you. Make no mistake – you have chosen to give over (in some way at least) what you deem as reality to a book and possibly a guy giving sermons. And once again, I want to say that you are not any better or any worse than those of us who don’t.
I think an even better analogy with the sky thing is for you to look up and say “blue”. Maybe someone else comes along and says “azure”. Then someone else comes along and says “sapphire”. Different words, but nobody is mistaken. It is just the different ways we express ourselves.
The way we run into problems is when your religion demands that you suicide bomb stuff and kill people. That’s not cool.
[quote]Fishlips wrote:
You’ve brought up a critical point - how could God have become human? Impossible! No mystery, he couldn’t. John 1:18 is very straightforward when it says no human has seen God at any time. Now don’t play with this scripture. It makes no distinction of the form God has at one time or another or any other technical details. It simply says what it says. No human has seen God, EVER. 1000’s of people saw Jesus. What conclusion must we come to then?
[/quote]
No one has seen God at any time except as he is revealed through his son who is in the bosom of the father.
The conclusion-Jesus is the revealed visible form of God. This doesn’t even take any creative interpretation. It’s probably the most straightforward verse confirming that Jesus is God incarnate in the entire bible.
makkun: You should have seen the post stellar wrote to me one page back before he edited it. It was avante-garde art in its own right. I wish he had left it up.
[quote]Fishlips wrote:
… Open question to atheists - how many feel the way they do because of religious people or the track record of religious activities as opposed to simply disbelief?[/quote]
I my case it’s a combination. Having been raised christian (lutheran), I started to doubt the church (and other christians) first after confirmation, when the spiritual preparation over almost 2 years wasn’t followed up within the community at all.
As I always saw my faith as something private and not to be discussed with others, who often tried to impose their views upon others (sic!), I felt more and more unhappy in the church community. I saw ritual as another main problem, so I started to stand back.
Then my church could not come up with a more positive outlook on homosexuality - it was not negative, but still to close to humanae vitae. That motivated me to leave the church - I’m not gay, but any institution that does not support love between consenting adults I could not be part of. Still I considered myself christian, bordering more and more on agnosticism.
After having left the church, studying other belief systems (taoism, buddhism and shintou), I found out that I felt no religious affiliation at all, so I turned from agnostic to atheist. The realisation that I did not believe in a god was a grand relief, and I have not regretted it yet.
This is my view, and I don’t have any problems with the multitude of various religious people surrounding me - but I am happy with my choice, as it has enriched my life tremendously.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Another good analogy, fish. But like I said before, this is a matter of what you allow to define you. Make no mistake – you have chosen to give over (in some way at least) what you deem as reality to a book and possibly a guy giving sermons. And once again, I want to say that you are not any better or any worse than those of us who don’t.
I think an even better analogy with the sky thing is for you to look up and say “blue”. Maybe someone else comes along and says “azure”. Then someone else comes along and says “sapphire”. Different words, but nobody is mistaken. It is just the different ways we express ourselves.
The way we run into problems is when your religion demands that you suicide bomb stuff and kill people. That’s not cool.[/quote]
I have made much mention of the importance of using ‘reason’. The scriptures remind Christians in many instances to use their 'power of reason’Rom 12:1, to ‘let their reasonableness become known’ Phil. 4:5, ‘to be reasonable, exhibiting all mildness’ Titus 3:2 etc. etc. You must agree that two reasonable, mild people could sort out that they were on the same page if they were simply seeing the same thing from two different perspectives or languages or what have you. But that’s not really the point. The important point is what if you are taking two NECESSARILY conflicting viewpoints on a matter that does indeed possess one final truth concerning it? One or or both of you have to be wrong. You can’t both be right on a matter that is not simply a matter of preference or opinion where you ultimately disagree.
Like either we were created by a supreme being or not. You have two legs or you don’t .(please don’t reply ‘what if I hide one behind the other to LOOK like one’, you know how I’m speaking here) Essentially one must have a real good reason for seeing the Bible as more than simply a book written by men.
If I spoke to you yesterday and told you the exact minute you would wake up this morning. The exact minute someone would knock at your door. The winning lottery numbers for this week. All those things then proceeded to happen just as I said. Would you simply say, ‘Hmmm! What a flukey guy!’ Hardly! You would be wondering ‘Who the HECK was that?’ And you would certainly try and find me again.
The Bible is full of authentically confirmed and proven fulfilled prophecy right up to telling us the conditions we would be seeing in the world today and into the future. If you have a Bible read 2 Tim. 3:1-5 and tell me you don’t feel like you’re reading your morning paper. One point I’ve always found intriguing is Paul’s mention of ‘disobedient to parents.’ Did you know if a child was stubbornly rebellious the Jewish Law provided for it’s stoning?!
“In case a man happens to have a son who is stubborn and rebellious, he not listening to the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and they have corrected him but he will not listen to them, his father and his mother must also take hold of him and bring him out to the older men of his city and to the gate of his place, and they must say to the older men of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he is not listening to our voice, being a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city must pelt him with stones, and he must die. So you must clear away what is bad from your midst, and all Israel will hear and indeed become afraid.” (Deut. 21:18-21) We’re obviously not talking drunken 5 year olds which are still in need of much discipline but children old enough to be considered stubborn and rebellious and ‘a glutton and a drunkard’.
Now how common do you think such children would have been at that time with such a law? Dare I say very few. What have things become like just in the last few decades? Would you not say there’s a highly definite trend in this way. What would make Paul, some 2000 years ago, remark that as being a sign of the last days? Not just a lucky guess but an interesting little piece of evidence of divine inspiration.
[quote]Fishlips wrote:
You are quite correct about the sacredness of blood. You have also stated God inspired a measure of pagan beliefs. First, as I have been asked for proof, I would ask you to provide scriptural backing for your statements. I firmly believe you will find no such thoughts expressed in the Bible. To humor the thought though, if God inspired some pagan ideas and teaching them about blood to prepare them was so important then why did the pagans abuse blood so badly? They commonly drank blood in their ceremonies and rituals yet Jews would die if they did so.
You do realize God had worshippers before Jesus correct? Why would he command them(the Israelites) to have no contact with the nations around them? It was to keep them free from contamination by wrong ideas, idolatrous worship and depraved practices. (Jos. 23:6,7,12,13 amongst many others)
[/quote]
Yes, I agree with all of this. For the Chosen People to move backwards developmentally to the practices of the Pagans would be wrong. They had received the Law and eaten the Lord’s Passover.
In fact God only destroyed Pagan Nations when they were in a position where they could potentially contaminate the Jews. If he destroyed them for their rituals, rather than their potential to endanger the Jews, then he should have destroyed them all. To this extent, the Bible shows Gods power, and mercy on these people. He was very selective in destroying them.
I have asked you to show where God destroys Pagans for practicing their rituals-rather than for the sake of protecting the Jews from those rituals. If it was their rituals, then he could have easily removed them from the face of the earth before they ever came into contact with the Jews.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
You’ve brought up a critical point - how could God have become human? Impossible! No mystery, he couldn’t. John 1:18 is very straightforward when it says no human has seen God at any time. Now don’t play with this scripture. It makes no distinction of the form God has at one time or another or any other technical details. It simply says what it says. No human has seen God, EVER. 1000’s of people saw Jesus. What conclusion must we come to then?
No one has seen God at any time except as he is revealed through his son who is in the bosom of the father.
The conclusion-Jesus is the revealed visible form of God. This doesn’t even take any creative interpretation. It’s probably the most straightforward verse confirming that Jesus is God incarnate in the entire bible.
[/quote]
Mertdawg your reply embodies my rejection of your take on scripture. The scripture is very clear and simple and you summarily add your own idea, that is not in the scripture, and come to a ‘conclusion’. Your conclusion is like trying to jump over the Grand Canyon, little too far a leap.
If Jesus was at anytime or any form God, then this scripture is outright wrong. Seeing as the scripture is not wrong, then we are left with the idea that Jesus is God as being wrong.
The following words of the bible book of John ch. 14 are often trotted out to try and prove the Trinity. However an intelligent, simple look at them shows they do no such thing. (Where words are capitalized that is my doing, except for ‘YOU’.)
6?Jesus said to him: ?I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7?If YOU men had KNOWN me, YOU would have known my Father also; from this moment on YOU know him and have seen him.?
8?Philip said to him: ?Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.?
(If Philip felt he had literally just seen the Father, in Jesus, why would he ask this question?)
9?Jesus said to him: ?Have I been with YOU men so long a time, and yet, Philip, you have not come to KNOW me? He that has seen me has seen the Father [also]. How is it you say, ?Show us the Father??
A lot of comments from Jesus about the importance of KNOWING him aren’t there? If Jesus was actually God and was saying that to physically see him was to physically see his Father, to know him was irrelevant. Any ol’ passerby who saw Jesus, without even knowing who he was, had just physically seen God if that was what Jesus words meant. No, but obviously Jesus was not talking about physically seeing the Father but that when they came to the realization that KNOWING Jesus was to ‘SEE’ or KNOW the Father they wouldn’t ask to physically see the Father, being as it was unnecessary as they were ‘one’ in thought, objective and purpose. Take note that Philip and the others clearly did not think Jesus and the Father were the same individual, hence his question.
Here’s another clear scripture of God speaking to Moses. Let’s see how this one becomes contorted to not really say what it’s saying.
?You are not able to see my face, because no man may see me and yet live.? Ex. 33:20
People would have been dropping like flies on earth if Jesus was God.
[quote]Fishlips wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
You’ve brought up a critical point - how could God have become human? Impossible! No mystery, he couldn’t. John 1:18 is very straightforward when it says no human has seen God at any time. Now don’t play with this scripture. It makes no distinction of the form God has at one time or another or any other technical details. It simply says what it says. No human has seen God, EVER. 1000’s of people saw Jesus. What conclusion must we come to then?
No one has seen God at any time except as he is revealed through his son who is in the bosom of the father.
The conclusion-Jesus is the revealed visible form of God. This doesn’t even take any creative interpretation. It’s probably the most straightforward verse confirming that Jesus is God incarnate in the entire bible.
Mertdawg your reply embodies my rejection of your take on scripture. The scripture is very clear and simple and you summarily add your own idea, that is not in the scripture, and come to a ‘conclusion’. Your conclusion is like trying to jump over the Grand Canyon, little too far a leap.
[/quote]
What? I am completing the verse which you showed only in part.
No one has seen God at any time, except as he is revealed in his son who is truly God who is in the bosom of the Father.
You can argue over what the exact meaning of each and every Greek word of the Greek text means, but you would certainly need 2-3 times more english words to accurately translate this verse.
Even if you argue over the term “revealed” versus, say “shown; made known etc…” the precise form of the word used for son means LITERALLY the son of God who is himself truly God.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
You are quite correct about the sacredness of blood. You have also stated God inspired a measure of pagan beliefs. First, as I have been asked for proof, I would ask you to provide scriptural backing for your statements. I firmly believe you will find no such thoughts expressed in the Bible. To humor the thought though, if God inspired some pagan ideas and teaching them about blood to prepare them was so important then why did the pagans abuse blood so badly? They commonly drank blood in their ceremonies and rituals yet Jews would die if they did so.
You do realize God had worshippers before Jesus correct? Why would he command them(the Israelites) to have no contact with the nations around them? It was to keep them free from contamination by wrong ideas, idolatrous worship and depraved practices. (Jos. 23:6,7,12,13 amongst many others)
Yes, I agree with all of this. For the Chosen People to move backwards developmentally to the practices of the Pagans would be wrong. They had received the Law and eaten the Lord’s Passover.
In fact God only destroyed Pagan Nations when they were in a position where they could potentially contaminate the Jews. If he destroyed them for their rituals, rather than their potential to endanger the Jews, then he should have destroyed them all. To this extent, the Bible shows Gods power, and mercy on these people. He was very selective in destroying them.
I have asked you to show where God destroys Pagans for practicing their rituals-rather than for the sake of protecting the Jews from those rituals. If it was their rituals, then he could have easily removed them from the face of the earth before they ever came into contact with the Jews.
[/quote]
Think of Sodom and Gomorrah then mert. The only man the bible speaks of as faithful who lived there was Lot and the Israelite nation didn’t even exist yet. Yet God destroyed those cities for their depravity. Sex rites were part of their worship. God did destroy nations for their gross rituals. Their worship and their sinful lifestyles went hand-in-hand and that is discovered in virtually all pagan religions.
You are talking in circles. If it was there rituals which would later contaminate the Jews and they were destroyed for that potential then they were obviously destroyed because of their rituals. How do you not understand this?
Fishlips: I urge you to find a good, scholarly, non-religous commentary on the precise meaning of the Greek words in the bible. You have never read the bible. You have basically watched the movie, or looked at a child’s drawing of a bible story.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
You’ve brought up a critical point - how could God have become human? Impossible! No mystery, he couldn’t. John 1:18 is very straightforward when it says no human has seen God at any time. Now don’t play with this scripture. It makes no distinction of the form God has at one time or another or any other technical details. It simply says what it says. No human has seen God, EVER. 1000’s of people saw Jesus. What conclusion must we come to then?
No one has seen God at any time except as he is revealed through his son who is in the bosom of the father.
The conclusion-Jesus is the revealed visible form of God. This doesn’t even take any creative interpretation. It’s probably the most straightforward verse confirming that Jesus is God incarnate in the entire bible.
Mertdawg your reply embodies my rejection of your take on scripture. The scripture is very clear and simple and you summarily add your own idea, that is not in the scripture, and come to a ‘conclusion’. Your conclusion is like trying to jump over the Grand Canyon, little too far a leap.
What? I am completing the verse which you showed only in part.
No one has seen God at any time, except as he is revealed in his son who is truly God who is in the bosom of the Father.
So necessarily the verse is making a contrast between actually physically seeing the Father and how the Son ‘revealed’ him. The revealing was through knowledge and instruction not sight.
You can argue over what the exact meaning of each and every Greek word of the Greek text means, but you would certainly need 2-3 times more english words to accurately translate this verse.
So, in effect, you’re saying all the Bible translators decided to use as few words as possible rather than be accurate?
Even if you argue over the term “revealed” versus, say “shown; made known etc…” the precise form of the word used for son means LITERALLY the son of God who is himself truly God.
[/quote]
I agree almost completely, he is literally the Son of God. Let me ask you though, since the Father and the Son existed before humans and are actually one being, why did they make humans father and son and make them TWO beings? Wouldn’t they know how confusing that would be? Our minds have been designed by them to understand what a father and son are. A father gives life to a son. Now why would the same words be used to describe something so totally different where they are concerned?
To believe the Trinity idea put forth by the Council of Nicea is to completely distort and muddy the clear waters of Christianity.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips: I urge you to find a good, scholarly, non-religous commentary on the precise meaning of the Greek words in the bible. You have never read the bible. You have basically watched the movie, or looked at a child’s drawing of a bible story.
No one can see the face of God and live?
Name one person who saw Jesus who has not died.
C’mon mert. I have read the Bible more times, cover-to-cover, than you could imagine. You have to be kidding. What was the point of that verse I quoted? It could have said you can’t see John Doe’s face and live if it meant what you’re trying to say because they would have all died too. Get real! It’s talking about instantaneous death. Why was Moses HIDDEN IN A ROCK at that moment? It was because he physically could not see God and live through that moment.
Clearly you need to do some ‘real’ study of the Bible and not place the screen of your beliefs over the Bible when you read it.
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
What kind of T-Man do you hail yourself to be? makkun wrote:
The kind of T-Man that stands up against someone who resorts to an antisemitic tone when he’s not pleased with the answers of someone else, whom he “suspects” to be jewish. I hope I misunderstood you on that one, because that would massively suck. stellar_horizon wrote:
Re-read my posts. I have no issues with Jews. I have Jewish friends that I speak with for hours on end every single week. I know religion is a highly sensitive topic, so I’m careful in the things I say and to avoid theology all together when conversing with them. makkun wrote:
Let me show you how I came to this conclusion; BTW, I will be happy to apologise, if proven wrong, or if I overreacted. It is not in my interest to slander you: stellar_horizon wrote:
Fishlips, you’re Jewish aren’t you? You and Croooz. No wonder Croooz kept blotting out the “o” in God throughout his posts: “G-d”. I didn’t call him out on it, but I know that’s something Jews typically do so as not to profane God’s name. makkun wrote:
This is, I assume, a correct deduction. stellar_horizon wrote:
In fact, judging from your recent account and the few posts you’ve initiated on T-Nation, mostly on this thread, I have a strong intuition you’re one & the same person. I could be wrong but that’s besides the point… makkun wrote:
Here you are making the point that the person you are talking to is also another, implying deception.[/quote]
Mind you, I accused nobody of deception and admit “I could be wrong” in my association. Nevertheless, my intuition was wrong and I’ve already apologized for the blunder.
[quote] stellar_horizon wrote:
If you lack faith that Jesus Christ is the One and Only True God, then my dialogue with you is terminated. makkun wrote:
Here you point out that you would stop talking to someone based on the fact that they do not share your belief system.
In short: “[b]I think you’re a jew, and you are trying to deceive us - I won’t talk to you any more.[/b]”[/quote]
How the heck do you jump the gun and develop such an inference when I clearly reported above that I would stop talking to them about THEOLOGY. I talk with non-Christians about girls, cars, the weather, the news, how my day is going, etc. Refer back to my second quote on this post.
In short: “[b]I know you’re a non-Christian, so I’ll avoid any dialogue about theology with you as the topic may be a highly sensitive matter for both of us.[/b]”
*Review your statement and then contrast it with mine. Your statement drastically varies from what I expressed. Might want to be a little more cautious about the assumptions you develop.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Please tell me that I misunderstood you, then I will gladly apologise.[/quote]
I’ll be waiting for your apology.
[quote]Fishlips wrote:
If you have a Bible read 2 Tim. 3:1-5 and tell me you don’t feel like you’re reading your morning paper. [/quote]
“For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural? affection, trucebreakers, false? accusers, incontinent?, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady?, highminded?, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form? of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”
At what point in history could someone have read that and in no way think it applied to their own time?
[quote]doogie wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
If you have a Bible read 2 Tim. 3:1-5 and tell me you don’t feel like you’re reading your morning paper.
“For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural? affection, trucebreakers, false? accusers, incontinent?, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady?, highminded?, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form? of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”
At what point in history could someone have read that and in no way think it applied to their own time?
[/quote]
Thanks for your reply.
The qualities mentioned in 2 Tim. have always existed but never on the scale we see today. Hence my initial post about children’s disobedience to parents.
The writer himself didn’t think it applied in the sense he was writing it, for he said those conditions would exist in the last days not his present time.
Additionally it’s not just referring to the mean old guy down the end of the street with multiple vices that everyone knows about. It’s being mentioned because these characteristics of people would be widespread making conditions in society ‘critical’.
All the time people are now saying ‘what’s the world coming to?’ It would take someone blind to the reality surrounding us that the world(which encompasses the entire globe now)is going mad on a dangerous scale not seen before. When before the 20th century could the entire human race be wiped out in a matter of minutes by our weapons? Just a century ago people could live a lifetime and not see any substantial change in the world. Now we expect the worst everytime we put on CNN. And it’s not a matter of just being better connected through technology.
Our parents spoke of the good old days when people and things were not like they are now. So count them too.
The point is: people have never so regularly lamented and feared the state of human society as they do today and the bible(read also Matt. 24:1-14) clearly detailed these conditions nearly 2000 yrs. ago.
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Secondly, I called nobody a liar. If someone says something that can be proven false, then what they have said is a lie. If someone consistently tells lies, then they are a liar. Anyways, I’ve never called anybody on T-Nation a liar, so don’t slander me. makkun wrote:
Let me quote you:
It’s obvious by your failure to supply any credible evidence that you were simply spewing lies.
Here you call Fishlips a liar - for not being able to answer your argumentation. Now last time I checked, someone who believed something was true, but was mistaken was … mistaken. A lie necessitates malevolence. With your “spewing lies” comment, you imply that.[/quote]
That’s where false assumptions kick into effect again. If I thought Fishlips was a liar, I would have said, “Fishlips, you’re a liar”. I said no such thing. In your haste & bias, you taint my message. I even went so far as to define what I consider to be a liar, ie. someone who consistently tells lies. I pointed out that Fishlips lied in one post. If he creates a habit of telling lies, rest assured that I will label him a liar. Whether or not Fishlips said something false in a malevolent spirit, only God knows. Nonetheless, he did lie.
Main Entry: lie
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavonic lugati
intransitive senses
1:to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive 2:to create a false or misleading impression
transitive senses : to bring about by telling lies
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote: stellar_horizon wrote:
What kind of T-Man do you hail yourself to be? makkun wrote:
The kind of T-Man that stands up against someone who resorts to an antisemitic tone when he’s not pleased with the answers of someone else, whom he “suspects” to be jewish. I hope I misunderstood you on that one, because that would massively suck. stellar_horizon wrote:
Re-read my posts. I have no issues with Jews. I have Jewish friends that I speak with for hours on end every single week. I know religion is a highly sensitive topic, so I’m careful in the things I say and to avoid theology all together when conversing with them. makkun wrote:
Let me show you how I came to this conclusion; BTW, I will be happy to apologise, if proven wrong, or if I overreacted. It is not in my interest to slander you: stellar_horizon wrote:
Fishlips, you’re Jewish aren’t you? You and Croooz. No wonder Croooz kept blotting out the “o” in God throughout his posts: “G-d”. I didn’t call him out on it, but I know that’s something Jews typically do so as not to profane God’s name. makkun wrote:
This is, I assume, a correct deduction. stellar_horizon wrote:
In fact, judging from your recent account and the few posts you’ve initiated on T-Nation, mostly on this thread, I have a strong intuition you’re one & the same person. I could be wrong but that’s besides the point… makkun wrote:
Here you are making the point that the person you are talking to is also another, implying deception.
Mind you, I accused nobody of deception and admit “I could be wrong” in my association. Nevertheless, my intuition was wrong and I’ve already apologized for the blunder.
stellar_horizon wrote:
If you lack faith that Jesus Christ is the One and Only True God, then my dialogue with you is terminated. makkun wrote:
Here you point out that you would stop talking to someone based on the fact that they do not share your belief system.
In short: “[b]I think you’re a jew, and you are trying to deceive us - I won’t talk to you any more.[/b]”
How the heck do you jump the gun and develop such an inference when I clearly reported above that I would stop talking to them about THEOLOGY. I talk with non-Christians about girls, cars, the weather, the news, how my day is going, etc. Refer back to my second quote on this post.
In short: “[b]I know you’re a non-Christian, so I’ll avoid any dialogue about theology with you as the topic may be a highly sensitive matter for both of us.[/b]”
*Review your statement and then contrast it with mine. Your statement drastically varies from what I expressed. Might want to be a little more cautious about the assumptions you develop.[/quote]
Sure, anytime. That sounds acceptable. Nothing what you wrote on that post indicated it though to me. And your apology came after my post. So I stand by my view that you could have been misunderstood - and you were by me.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Please tell me that I misunderstood you, then I will gladly apologise.
I’ll be waiting for your apology.[/quote]
Glad that you didn’t mean it this way. Would have sucked. I hereby apologise for the false conclusion.
Also, you have not replied to my post. I’d love to hear what you have to say. It’s on page 9 just to help you find it. I’ve been slicing and dicing mert’s ridiculous reasoning all morning so my earlier post has been a little buried.
).