Why's Your Religion Better?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< I is apparent that you are of the mindset that I couldn’t ever possibly be right about anything. >>>[/quote]He’s not saying that you CAN’T be right about ANYTHING at all Jay. That’s not it. You are on an internet forum with hundreds of people watching and declaring that absolutely everybody in the history of the world has been wrong about the very foundations of the Christian faith.

YOU have set yourself a very VERY large task indeed for which the burden of proof is unquestionably on you. It is for YOU to show all of Christendom they’ve been foundationally wrong for 2000 years. You have failed… utterly. Which is not exactly your fault because NOBODY could make the case you are here propounding. There is no case to make. [quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Why would you state the exact same thing I did, but tell me I’m wrong in the process?[/quote] Jesus is not asking Nicodemus IF he is a teacher as you have suggested. He is affirming that he is and telling him that in that light he of all people should be getting what Jesus is telling him. KK is asking you an impossible to answer question from the standpoint of your position.

Jesus prohibition from calling anyone “teacher” occurs in the SAME sentence with His prohibition from calling anyone “father”. Yet He Himself addresses Nicodemus as “teacher”. This means there is a sense or senses to which Jesus is particularly referring when He tells His disciples not to address anybody other than God that way. Which happens to be the case and which is why the church universal since the dawn of this age has held that position. I’m gonna come down there and box yer ears already. =D How can you not see this?
[/quote]

PRECISELY. That completely sums up my point. Grammatically, only the latter half of the sentence (the second clause) is a question; Jesus AFFIRMS that Nicodemus IS a teacher of Israel in the first clause, then expresses surprise at the fact that he doesn’t know these things in the second clause. In other words, Jesus is not saying, “are you really a teacher of Israel, since you don’t know these things?” Rather, Jesus is saying, “You’re a teacher of Israel; how can you not know these things?” That’s the force of the Greek conjunction kai in this sentence.
[/quote]
I’m not arguing nuance, Kai. I readily agree that you are right in what it says, but follow it out logically. How can one be a teacher of things he does not know? How could it be that Nicodemus, as a teacher of God’s Word, didn’t know what Christ meant when He said you must be born again?

That would be like a trig teacher who doesn’t know the Pythagorean Theorem. How in the world would you teach trig if you didn’t know its concepts? Would you readily call that person a Trig teacher?

202

Why are religious people so violent?

203

I thinks it’s at least partially because, for the most part, violence and terror are the only ways to make people adhere to religion.

When the only tool in your box is a hammer…

204

From the movie Kingdom of Heaven, starring the dreamy Orlando Bloom.

"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. What god desires is here
[points to head]
and here
[points to heart]
and what you decide to do every day, you will be a good man - or not. "

205

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< I is apparent that you are of the mindset that I couldn’t ever possibly be right about anything. >>>[/quote]He’s not saying that you CAN’T be right about ANYTHING at all Jay. That’s not it. You are on an internet forum with hundreds of people watching and declaring that absolutely everybody in the history of the world has been wrong about the very foundations of the Christian faith.

YOU have set yourself a very VERY large task indeed for which the burden of proof is unquestionably on you. It is for YOU to show all of Christendom they’ve been foundationally wrong for 2000 years. You have failed… utterly. Which is not exactly your fault because NOBODY could make the case you are here propounding. There is no case to make. [quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Why would you state the exact same thing I did, but tell me I’m wrong in the process?[/quote] Jesus is not asking Nicodemus IF he is a teacher as you have suggested. He is affirming that he is and telling him that in that light he of all people should be getting what Jesus is telling him. KK is asking you an impossible to answer question from the standpoint of your position.

Jesus prohibition from calling anyone “teacher” occurs in the SAME sentence with His prohibition from calling anyone “father”. Yet He Himself addresses Nicodemus as “teacher”. This means there is a sense or senses to which Jesus is particularly referring when He tells His disciples not to address anybody other than God that way. Which happens to be the case and which is why the church universal since the dawn of this age has held that position. I’m gonna come down there and box yer ears already. =D How can you not see this?
[/quote]PRECISELY. That completely sums up my point. Grammatically, only the latter half of the sentence (the second clause) is a question; Jesus AFFIRMS that Nicodemus IS a teacher of Israel in the first clause, then expresses surprise at the fact that he doesn’t know these things in the second clause. In other words, Jesus is not saying, “are you really a teacher of Israel, since you don’t know these things?” Rather, Jesus is saying, “You’re a teacher of Israel; how can you not know these things?” That’s the force of the Greek conjunction kai in this sentence.
[/quote]<<< How could it be that Nicodemus, as a teacher of God’s Word, didn’t know what Christ meant when He said you must be born again? >>>[/quote]See now that’s a solid question AND you phrased it perfectly for the answer. Jesus isn’t asking Nicodemus the pharisee why HE didn’t’ know these things already. He’s chiding him for not understanding once he’d been told. A thing that Jesus spent half His time chiding everybody about. Including His own disciple sometimes. In the 22nd of Matthew He’s found straightening out the Sadducees as well telling them that they understand neither the scriptures nor the power of God. The point concerning you though is that you have a difficult time understanding the subtleties of language when writing about something you’ve read, and not just the bible, but don’t seem to really struggle that way when communicating your own thoughts. The symptoms of a deception my friend. [quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< That would be like a trig teacher who doesn’t know the Pythagorean Theorem. How in the world would you teach trig if you didn’t know its concepts? Would you readily call that person a Trig teacher?[/quote]In Matthew 23 Jesus told the people to obey the Pharisees because they sat in Moses seat (I actually don’t like the NASB for this verse. They appear to have rendered the active voice as middle there for some reason and it doesn’t seem to fit the context.) He said this right before He proceeded to pummel them for their hypocrisy. They, including Nicodemus, were occupying an office that was to be respected though they personally were not up the job. Nicodemus though turned out to be an exception. In short, Jesus was rightfully showing respect for their position while demonstrating to them how even they were missing the point of the very scriptures they were commissioned to uphold.

206

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< I is apparent that you are of the mindset that I couldn’t ever possibly be right about anything. >>>[/quote]He’s not saying that you CAN’T be right about ANYTHING at all Jay. That’s not it. You are on an internet forum with hundreds of people watching and declaring that absolutely everybody in the history of the world has been wrong about the very foundations of the Christian faith.

YOU have set yourself a very VERY large task indeed for which the burden of proof is unquestionably on you. It is for YOU to show all of Christendom they’ve been foundationally wrong for 2000 years. You have failed… utterly. Which is not exactly your fault because NOBODY could make the case you are here propounding. There is no case to make. [quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Why would you state the exact same thing I did, but tell me I’m wrong in the process?[/quote] Jesus is not asking Nicodemus IF he is a teacher as you have suggested. He is affirming that he is and telling him that in that light he of all people should be getting what Jesus is telling him. KK is asking you an impossible to answer question from the standpoint of your position.

Jesus prohibition from calling anyone “teacher” occurs in the SAME sentence with His prohibition from calling anyone “father”. Yet He Himself addresses Nicodemus as “teacher”. This means there is a sense or senses to which Jesus is particularly referring when He tells His disciples not to address anybody other than God that way. Which happens to be the case and which is why the church universal since the dawn of this age has held that position. I’m gonna come down there and box yer ears already. =D How can you not see this?
[/quote]

PRECISELY. That completely sums up my point. Grammatically, only the latter half of the sentence (the second clause) is a question; Jesus AFFIRMS that Nicodemus IS a teacher of Israel in the first clause, then expresses surprise at the fact that he doesn’t know these things in the second clause. In other words, Jesus is not saying, “are you really a teacher of Israel, since you don’t know these things?” Rather, Jesus is saying, “You’re a teacher of Israel; how can you not know these things?” That’s the force of the Greek conjunction kai in this sentence.
[/quote]
I’m not arguing nuance, Kai. I readily agree that you are right in what it says, but follow it out logically. How can one be a teacher of things he does not know? How could it be that Nicodemus, as a teacher of God’s Word, didn’t know what Christ meant when He said you must be born again?

That would be like a trig teacher who doesn’t know the Pythagorean Theorem. How in the world would you teach trig if you didn’t know its concepts? Would you readily call that person a Trig teacher?[/quote]

  1. By “follow it out logically,” what you really mean is make an inference based on what “common-sense” tells us about the meaning of Jesus’ statement. The problem is that “common sense” is not that common; it is a culturally-conditioned reality. It has been demonstrated time and time again that what one culture considers “common sense,” another culture deems completely illogical. For example, the Israelites in the 13th-6th centuries B.C. had no problem with the idea that God could JUSTLY destroy an entire town or nation for the sins of a few; for them, that was common sense, because they functioned under the assumption of dyadic personality (i.e., that each person’s identity was intimately bound up with and defined by their group, and that there was thus a reciprocal relationship between the individual and the collective). We today would not consider that common sense, however. Consequently, it is always dangerous to assume that the inferences YOU or I would make on the basis of OUR common sense would be the same as those made by the biblical authors.

  2. A teacher is a title given; it is not a state one attains by reaching a certain level of knowledge. Your Trig teacher example does not work, because (aside from the blatant historical anachronism) his status as teacher isn’t based on how much he ACTUALLY knows, but on whether or not he was hired and given authority by the school district to teach. You and I can question Nicodemus’ credentials all we want, but the fact is that, as “a Pharisee” and “leader of the Jews” (John 3:1), Nicodemus WAS a teacher, and Jesus affirms this fact. Jesus does not question Nicodemus status as a teacher; he simply expresses his incredulity at the fact that, DESPITE BEING A TEACHER, Nicodemus doesn’t know how someone can be “born again.”

And just to make this clear, you are once again displaying a tremendous level of hypocrisy in your very attempts to get around this particular problem of Jesus calling Nicodemus a teacher. How is it hypocritical, you may ask? Because you have argued that we should only follow “the plain sense of Jesus’ words.” Thus, since Jesus said call no one Father, you have said that it is wrong for us to address anyone (except for parents) as father, and you have refused to accept any explanations of that verse that don’t follow the “literal meaning” of those words. Thus, you have refused to accept the explanation that Jesus was just forbidding anyone from calling a person “Father” in the ultimate sense, i.e., as someone that they would listen to above God. Well, that’s fine, but then you have to apply the same hermeneutic here. And here, based on your reading of the “Father” forbiddance, you would have to admit that Jesus broke his own rule, because Jesus called someone “teacher” when he said, “call no one teacher.” No ifs, ands, or buts. You are being inconsistent.

207

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< I is apparent that you are of the mindset that I couldn’t ever possibly be right about anything. >>>[/quote]He’s not saying that you CAN’T be right about ANYTHING at all Jay. That’s not it. You are on an internet forum with hundreds of people watching and declaring that absolutely everybody in the history of the world has been wrong about the very foundations of the Christian faith.

YOU have set yourself a very VERY large task indeed for which the burden of proof is unquestionably on you. It is for YOU to show all of Christendom they’ve been foundationally wrong for 2000 years. You have failed… utterly. Which is not exactly your fault because NOBODY could make the case you are here propounding. There is no case to make. [quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Why would you state the exact same thing I did, but tell me I’m wrong in the process?[/quote] Jesus is not asking Nicodemus IF he is a teacher as you have suggested. He is affirming that he is and telling him that in that light he of all people should be getting what Jesus is telling him. KK is asking you an impossible to answer question from the standpoint of your position.

Jesus prohibition from calling anyone “teacher” occurs in the SAME sentence with His prohibition from calling anyone “father”. Yet He Himself addresses Nicodemus as “teacher”. This means there is a sense or senses to which Jesus is particularly referring when He tells His disciples not to address anybody other than God that way. Which happens to be the case and which is why the church universal since the dawn of this age has held that position. I’m gonna come down there and box yer ears already. =D How can you not see this?
[/quote]PRECISELY. That completely sums up my point. Grammatically, only the latter half of the sentence (the second clause) is a question; Jesus AFFIRMS that Nicodemus IS a teacher of Israel in the first clause, then expresses surprise at the fact that he doesn’t know these things in the second clause. In other words, Jesus is not saying, “are you really a teacher of Israel, since you don’t know these things?” Rather, Jesus is saying, “You’re a teacher of Israel; how can you not know these things?” That’s the force of the Greek conjunction kai in this sentence.
[/quote]<<< How could it be that Nicodemus, as a teacher of God’s Word, didn’t know what Christ meant when He said you must be born again? >>>[/quote]See now that’s a solid question AND you phrased it perfectly for the answer. Jesus isn’t asking Nicodemus the pharisee why HE didn’t’ know these things already. He’s chiding him for not understanding once he’d been told. A thing that Jesus spent half His time chiding everybody about. Including His own disciple sometimes. In the 22nd of Matthew He’s found straightening out the Sadducees as well telling them that they understand neither the scriptures nor the power of God. The point concerning you though is that you have a difficult time understanding the subtleties of language when writing about something you’ve read, and not just the bible, but don’t seem to really struggle that way when communicating your own thoughts. The symptoms of a deception my friend. [quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< That would be like a trig teacher who doesn’t know the Pythagorean Theorem. How in the world would you teach trig if you didn’t know its concepts? Would you readily call that person a Trig teacher?[/quote]In Matthew 23 Jesus told the people to obey the Pharisees because they sat in Moses seat (I actually don’t like the NASB for this verse. They appear to have rendered the active voice as middle there for some reason and it doesn’t seem to fit the context.) He said this right before He proceeded to pummel them for their hypocrisy. They, including Nicodemus, were occupying an office that was to be respected though they personally were not up the job. Nicodemus though turned out to be an exception. In short, Jesus was rightfully showing respect for their position while demonstrating to them how even they were missing the point of the very scriptures they were commissioned to uphold.
[/quote]

Lol I wish I knew Tirib was writing this before I wasted twenty minutes making a similar but less effective point. This is dead on.

208

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

  1. By “follow it out logically,” what you really mean is make an inference based on what “common-sense” tells us about the meaning of Jesus’ statement. The problem is that “common sense” is not that common; it is a culturally-conditioned reality. It has been demonstrated time and time again that what one culture considers “common sense,” another culture deems completely illogical. For example, the Israelites in the 13th-6th centuries B.C. had no problem with the idea that God could JUSTLY destroy an entire town or nation for the sins of a few; for them, that was common sense, because they functioned under the assumption of dyadic personality (i.e., that each person’s identity was intimately bound up with and defined by their group, and that there was thus a reciprocal relationship between the individual and the collective). We today would not consider that common sense, however. Consequently, it is always dangerous to assume that the inferences YOU or I would make on the basis of OUR common sense would be the same as those made by the biblical authors.

  2. A teacher is a title given; it is not a state one attains by reaching a certain level of knowledge. Your Trig teacher example does not work, because (aside from the blatant historical anachronism) his status as teacher isn’t based on how much he ACTUALLY knows, but on whether or not he was hired and given authority by the school district to teach. You and I can question Nicodemus’ credentials all we want, but the fact is that, as “a Pharisee” and “leader of the Jews” (John 3:1), Nicodemus WAS a teacher, and Jesus affirms this fact. Jesus does not question Nicodemus status as a teacher; he simply expresses his incredulity at the fact that, DESPITE BEING A TEACHER, Nicodemus doesn’t know how someone can be “born again.”

And just to make this clear, you are once again displaying a tremendous level of hypocrisy in your very attempts to get around this particular problem of Jesus calling Nicodemus a teacher. How is it hypocritical, you may ask? Because you have argued that we should only follow “the plain sense of Jesus’ words.” Thus, since Jesus said call no one Father, you have said that it is wrong for us to address anyone (except for parents) as father, and you have refused to accept any explanations of that verse that don’t follow the “literal meaning” of those words. Thus, you have refused to accept the explanation that Jesus was just forbidding anyone from calling a person “Father” in the ultimate sense, i.e., as someone that they would listen to above God. Well, that’s fine, but then you have to apply the same hermeneutic here. And here, based on your reading of the “Father” forbiddance, you would have to admit that Jesus broke his own rule, because Jesus called someone “teacher” when he said, “call no one teacher.” No ifs, ands, or buts. You are being inconsistent.[/quote]

And this is why I can’t take you seriously, Kai. You are educated well above your level of understanding.

The title ‘teacher’ does not make one a true teacher. Argue it any way you like. Same with ‘father’. If you believe we can call religious leaders ‘father’ because it’s just a title, I have some bad news for you.

209

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

  1. By “follow it out logically,” what you really mean is make an inference based on what “common-sense” tells us about the meaning of Jesus’ statement. The problem is that “common sense” is not that common; it is a culturally-conditioned reality. It has been demonstrated time and time again that what one culture considers “common sense,” another culture deems completely illogical. For example, the Israelites in the 13th-6th centuries B.C. had no problem with the idea that God could JUSTLY destroy an entire town or nation for the sins of a few; for them, that was common sense, because they functioned under the assumption of dyadic personality (i.e., that each person’s identity was intimately bound up with and defined by their group, and that there was thus a reciprocal relationship between the individual and the collective). We today would not consider that common sense, however. Consequently, it is always dangerous to assume that the inferences YOU or I would make on the basis of OUR common sense would be the same as those made by the biblical authors.

  2. A teacher is a title given; it is not a state one attains by reaching a certain level of knowledge. Your Trig teacher example does not work, because (aside from the blatant historical anachronism) his status as teacher isn’t based on how much he ACTUALLY knows, but on whether or not he was hired and given authority by the school district to teach. You and I can question Nicodemus’ credentials all we want, but the fact is that, as “a Pharisee” and “leader of the Jews” (John 3:1), Nicodemus WAS a teacher, and Jesus affirms this fact. Jesus does not question Nicodemus status as a teacher; he simply expresses his incredulity at the fact that, DESPITE BEING A TEACHER, Nicodemus doesn’t know how someone can be “born again.”

And just to make this clear, you are once again displaying a tremendous level of hypocrisy in your very attempts to get around this particular problem of Jesus calling Nicodemus a teacher. How is it hypocritical, you may ask? Because you have argued that we should only follow “the plain sense of Jesus’ words.” Thus, since Jesus said call no one Father, you have said that it is wrong for us to address anyone (except for parents) as father, and you have refused to accept any explanations of that verse that don’t follow the “literal meaning” of those words. Thus, you have refused to accept the explanation that Jesus was just forbidding anyone from calling a person “Father” in the ultimate sense, i.e., as someone that they would listen to above God. Well, that’s fine, but then you have to apply the same hermeneutic here. And here, based on your reading of the “Father” forbiddance, you would have to admit that Jesus broke his own rule, because Jesus called someone “teacher” when he said, “call no one teacher.” No ifs, ands, or buts. You are being inconsistent.[/quote]

And this is why I can’t take you seriously, Kai. You are educated well above your level of understanding.

The title ‘teacher’ does not make one a true teacher. Argue it any way you like. Same with ‘father’. If you believe we can call religious leaders ‘father’ because it’s just a title, I have some bad news for you.[/quote]

This sounds more like a tacit admission he is losing the argument.

And being a lawyer, and knowing a little ‘theatrical’ Greek, does not make you a biblical scholar.

Does it not bother you even a little that you’ve been wrong about basically everything and your facts, for the most part don’t exist? That or they are so loosely based on real facts, that they barely resemble facts.

I liken the knowledge you’ve expressed about the bible, religion and St. Paul as more like reading conspiracy theories as news. The only person with a credibility problem is you.

210

[quote]StevenF wrote:
From the movie Kingdom of Heaven, starring the dreamy Orlando Bloom.

[/quote]

LOL! So it must be true!

211

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< And this is why I can’t take you seriously, Kai. You are educated well above your level of understanding. >>>[/quote]I’m educated well below my level of understanding and he n I understand this pretty much the same. I jist know I’ll be sorry for askin this, but what do you figure this means?[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< The title ‘teacher’ does not make one a true teacher. Argue it any way you like. >>>[/quote]What is it with you man? Hear once more please the Words of Jesus Himself from the 23rd chapter of Mathew’s gospel. "1-Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3-so practice and observe whatever they tell you-but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.” 2 seconds later He opens His flamethrower on them in the form of the eight woes. Please hear this next part. Please? The “seat” He here refers to is the word “kathedra” which etymologically simply means an object designed for sitting on and it is used that way a couple chapters earlier in Matthew 21 and in Mark 11 for the seats of those who were changing money in the temple (they were doing more than that, but that’s another story) However the way Jesus is using that same word here in Matt. 23 is clearly intended to convey the notion of authority. He’s not saying that their hypocritical hinies are literally ensconced in some literal seat that Moses once sat in. He IS saying that by virtue of office and position they DO have the authority to teach you AND you ARE bound to what they say EVEN THOUGH they themselves do not practice what they preach. They ARE teachers of Israel, unrighteous though they are. This is an easy one. Can’t you see how the vernacular usage governs the task of determining correct meaning? Especially when dealing with texts from the other side of the world 2000 years ago and beyond? I’m not beatin ya up Jay, I’m tryin to help ya.[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Same with ‘father’. If you believe we can call religious leaders ‘father’ because it’s just a title, I have some bad news for you.[/quote]He can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think he’s advocating calling religious leaders “father”. He is saying, as would I, that it isn’t the mark of the beast that you are making it out to be. Jesus is certainly NOT absolutely forbidding that anybody be addressed as either “father” or “teacher” so that is no ipso facto basis for declaring anathema on Catholics who do. That said, it IS inappropriate in my opinion the way they do it and I never would, but of all the things to blast Rome about… THIS? This deserves all this attention? I don’t believe it does.
This whole discussion about this the last couple days is merely a symptom or your stiff necked refusal to admit being wrong about ANYTHING. As I’ve said, being proven wrong is a good thing. It means you now have more and purer truth than you had before. Stop this schismatic campaign of elitist snobbery will ya please? The body of Christ could really use you.

212

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
My entire history with my old friend Pat is public record on this site and there for the clicking to anyone so inclined. I will help if need be. I was called a liar, “sick”, “Hitler”, “twisted”, “stupid”, “retarded”, “insane”, had a picture of Charles Manson posted as a reference to myself, INCESSANTLY misrepresented, cursed and cussed out with foul language and so on. I NEVER ONCE reciprocated in kind. Anybody who knows me knows that I am fully prepared to document everything I say. I did not always handle everything regarding CatholicISM in as gracious a manner as I’d hoped, but as I say the record is freely available. Pat set me to ignore when I publicly caught him redhanded in one of his blatant falsehoods after he made it clear we would not be speaking privately. All this is still here for all to see as well.
I love the man, truly, and there’s a God in heaven who knows it is not mere talk when I say I pray the Lord’s blessing upon him.
Butler244, he’s all yours. [/quote]Seems like a great example of being poor in the spirit, brought to you by CalvinISM. [/quote]Might I prevail upon you dearest Christopher to further elucidate the point of this statement which has, much to my horror and dismay, escaped me? [quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]pat wrote:<<< you cannot lose it by your own will. You can hate God but you cannot lose it. There in lies it’s error. >>>[/quote]Absolutely false. NO proponent of reformed theology has EVER taught this. EVER. [/quote]Taught and it being the logical implication is two different things.[/quote]This statement is formally correct but wholly inapplicable in this case Chris.
[/quote]

Fraternal Correction…be poor of spirit. You jumped on the chance at showing Pat has attacked you. Wholly applicable. I’ve heard enough fundamental Reformed theology from Seminary to radio to be able to smh at people not understanding what they are teaching.

213

http://www.oltv.tv/id744.html

Because our liturgy is Heaven on Earth…literally, not figuratively…by literally, I mean literally.

Apply this link (link: Why Orthodox Men Love Church / OrthoChristian.Com ) to Byzantine Catholic and you get my point, as well.

214

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Fraternal Correction…be poor of spirit. You jumped on the chance at showing Pat has attacked you. Wholly applicable. I’ve heard enough fundamental Reformed theology from Seminary to radio to be able to smh at people not understanding what they are teaching.[/quote]

I wasn’t attacking tirib, it was actually the OP butler and his father that inspired my diatribe. Basically, I went on offense rather than playing perpetual defense. I didn’t want to sit here and try and prove how religious or faithful I am; in the face of attacks about how ‘weak’ my faith is.
In the end, all I was saying was “How dare you judge me, look at the crap you believe.”

215

This thread pretty much re-convinced me that converting to Judaism is the right thing for me.

216

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
This thread pretty much re-convinced me that converting to Judaism is the right thing for me.[/quote]
�?�?�¨�?�?�?�ª

dang, this was supposed to be Hebrew for God Bless…

217

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
This thread pretty much re-convinced me that converting to Judaism is the right thing for me.[/quote]

Seems to me that that should be a very personal decision and have nothing to do with the contents of this thread. Just my 2 cents.

218

[quote]setto222 wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
This thread pretty much re-convinced me that converting to Judaism is the right thing for me.[/quote]

Seems to me that that should be a very personal decision and have nothing to do with the contents of this thread. Just my 2 cents. [/quote]

I was being facetious.

219

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]setto222 wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
This thread pretty much re-convinced me that converting to Judaism is the right thing for me.[/quote]

Seems to me that that should be a very personal decision and have nothing to do with the contents of this thread. Just my 2 cents. [/quote]

I was being facetious.[/quote]

My bad, went over my head.

220

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Fraternal Correction…be poor of spirit. You jumped on the chance at showing Pat has attacked you. Wholly applicable. I’ve heard enough fundamental Reformed theology from Seminary to radio to be able to smh at people not understanding what they are teaching.[/quote]

I wasn’t attacking tirib, it was actually the OP butler and his father that inspired my diatribe. Basically, I went on offense rather than playing perpetual defense. I didn’t want to sit here and try and prove how religious or faithful I am; in the face of attacks about how ‘weak’ my faith is.
In the end, all I was saying was “How dare you judge me, look at the crap you believe.”[/quote]Can we start over Pat? I’m asking you to take me off ignore. Not so we can pound each other some more though I’m sure we still won’t agree. I don’t wanna be enemies. God’s been workin on my heart the last couple days. Regardless of what’s happened or why I have been harsh toward you and you left me no other way than this to ask you directly to forgive me and if we can see if we can talk again. Could somebody please quote this so he can see it?