Pentecostal Man’s Glossolalia Echos NBA Rosters

LOL! Sularis, how do you think that you are going to redeem me? That's the funniest thing I've heard in years.

TP, now there is a joke that we both can laugh at!

MEE

 

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
An unsaved person--whether he or she have the name tag Pentecostal or otherwise, is just as unsaved as any heathen or pagan in this world. Unsaved = unsaved.
"The only mocking cited was against people who worshipped false gods." So? What is your point here?</font>[/QUOTE]

This:

How, DHK, does mockery work to correct these beliefs?

In this case, these people need to be corrected in Christian love, through prayer and careful guidance from the Scriptures. Mockery and open hatred are, at least in my experience, not Christian love.

Are you saved, DHK? Prove it. Am I not saved, DHK? Prove it.

And since you don't know which it is, you should use caution. Again, define what criteria you can use on an internet message board to determine the state of someone's soul.

 

LOL! Sularis, how do you think that you are going to redeem me? That's the funniest thing I've heard in years.

TP, now there is a joke that we both can laugh at!

MEE </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, I'm interested to see how Sularis will die for your sins...

Oh, wait, that's been done...

 

What blasphemous mocking do I hear!!

Seriously, for one who is so "sensitive" about mocking other's religious stances, then why are you not concerned about it yourself? Why do you engage in the mockery of Sularis, all the while maintaining that it is wrong. Who has the beam in the eye?

Even to suggest that Sularis could die for the sins of another is borderline blasphemy, and I think you know that. That is the worst kind of mocking, in that it involves mocking the crucified Lord of glory.
DHK

 

What blasphemous mocking do I hear!!

Seriously, for one who is so "sensitive" about mocking other's religious stances, then why are you not concerned about it yourself? Why do you engage in the mockery of Sularis, all the while maintaining that it is wrong. Who has the beam in the eye?

Even to suggest that Sularis could die for the sins of another is borderline blasphemy, and I think you know that. That is the worst kind of mocking, in that it involves mocking the crucified Lord of glory.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Context, DHK, context.

MEE was amazed that another human could redeem her. I agree. Only Christ's completed work on the cross can redeem.

Honestly, you should read things sometimes. Be sure and edit this post out, now, so you can be right, ok?

 

Oh MY Lord - tragic actually might have a sense of humour!

Oh wait never mind - he doesnt

The word redeem while ill-chosen still applicable of a sorts - read the verse about an returning an erring brother or in this case sister.

I felt that perhaps while your view of tongues is a little farfetched there does exist a small point of validity in it and that in all fairness that point should be brought out into its proper setting

I read your verses - I've read the whole thread - I think you havent read the other's people posts - but then again we can always degenerate into a - YOU didnt read this - NO you didnt read that!

Gee I always wondered what God the Jews purport to worship. I wonder about the titles God of Israel - His chosen people

One wonders where Christ was born - what nationality and what religion did He follow as He grew up?

Almost make ya think that they worship the same God - but for a glaring error in their doctrine they could be our brothers.

There were and are verses where "brothers" were insulted or mocked so but you will continue to ignore them so I see no need to repeat and elaborate on them at 3 in the morning

 

Personal attack?

I stand corrected.

I have no idea what you are saying here. Please allow me the courtesy of showing me where Christians openly mocked other Christians. No one, to date, has.

 

bump

 

Personal attack?

I stand corrected.

I have no idea what you are saying here. Please allow me the courtesy of showing me where Christians openly mocked other Christians. No one, to date, has. </font>[/QUOTE]I have not openly mocked other Christians.

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]Joe, you're beginning to be redundant. Yes, you did, in the originating post of this thread. Period.

 

I seem to be confused here. Who is the one who sounds redundant??

 

I seem to be confused here. Who is the one who sounds redundant?? </font>[/QUOTE]Personal attack? Thanks.

 

bump.

 

Those of you in cults, and endorsing cultic beliefs, need to turn away from Satan and turn to the true Jesus. Repent of false tongues, and blaspheming God by assigning those false tongues to Him. And repent of worshipping false gods, and repent of denying the Trinity.

 

Does this make you feel better, manchester? Is your assumption that you alone have figured out the "true path," a license to damn all others, dismissing their ancillary theologies as blasphemous parodies of the one True faith? Is this truly "Good News?"

"Repent," indeed. One can certainly define one's religion by what one should not believe, and in doing so build a nice, comfortable community of fellow believers unsullied by the dangerous influence of outsiders.

In fact, I would contend that this is what the Christian "faith" has degenerated into, a constant warring within ourselves over which set of tenets truly is fundamental to the faith. Thus occupied, we can safely ignore the rest of the world as it slides headlong into perdition.

I thank you for serving as my case in point.

 

So by the above statement in condemning manchester's well thought out post, you infer that you endorse the beliefs of those very cults that he has pointed out as heresy.
DHK

 

I would ask both in what way is manchester's post well thought out, and how have I endorsed any particular beliefs? I have, instead, rued this incessant lust that some have for condemning, condemning, condemning.

But, please, let us continue ignoring the points in favor of blank accusation, DHK.

 

His is a call to repentance. Repentance from the heresy of the cultic teachings of denying the trinity, and other such major doctrines. You say this is wrong, thereby inferring that there doctrines are to be tolerated and not condemned. Thus it sounds like that you agree with these heresies.
DHK

 

I would wonder at the use of the word "heresies."

Tongues, heresy? You've yet to prove this beyond the parameters of your own Scriptural interpretations, which rest upon no particular authority outside of yourself.

Oneness Pentecostalism, heresy? I would agree that the Trinitarian view of the nature of God is more in keeping with my own theological views; however, calling it "heresy" is, in my opinion, too easy.

To their great credit, Oneness Pentecostals have at least given thought to the nature of God, instead of simply regurgitating what the preacher tells them to think, which is more than one may say for the lion's share of the faith.

In any case, sir, it is no less a heresy to murder the spirits of those whose ancillary theologies differ from yours. I have issued my own call to repentance, which has been repeated and repeatedly ignored. It is a sad state of affairs when one loses the ability to see, isn't it.