The Heavenly Zion and Jerusalem. .....the Church

[Internet Theologian]

I couldn't care less about what you "feel." This is about the truth. Not about your "feelings."

And I couldn't care less about how you feel either. You feel my address was what you feel it was. I don't because truthfully it wasn't what you stated.

Now how do you feel about the nonsense he said? Was that 'truth'?

 

[TCassidy]

You feel my address was what you feel it was.

I don't "feel" anything about anything on the BB. I think about things but my emotions are not involved. I use reason and logic, not "feelings" to determine where I stand.

Now how do you feel about the nonsense he said? Was that 'truth'?

I don't feel anything about what he said. I think some was right and some was wrong. But I don't get all emotional about it.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I don't "feel" anything about anything on the BB. I think about things but my emotions are not involved. I use reason and logic, not "feelings" to determine where I stand.I don't feel anything about what he said. I think some was right and some was wrong. But I don't get all emotional about it.

Here's the thing. I see it. Others see it. It's there. It's been told numerous times.

It's not about lies that take place, or calling me blasphemous, saying that I deny creation, questioning of others salvation by the same, name calling by the same, that a brother is called an atheist by implication by. No, no, that is all overlooked.

It's about an illustration I used to show the asininity of a wooden literal interpretation that you take issue with. That's what's important. Not the other. That instead. It must be strained at. I must be drawn out over it. It and I am taken to task while the other is over-looked. That is a well known fact. That isn't feelings either, it is truth.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Here's the thing. I see it. Others see it. It's there. It's been told numerous times.

It's not about lies that take place, or calling me blasphemous, saying that I deny creation, questioning of others salvation by the same, name calling by the same, that a brother is called an atheist by implication by. No, no, that is all overlooked.

It's about an illustration I used to show the asininity of a wooden literal interpretation that you take issue with. That's what's important. Not the other. That instead. It must be strained at. I must be drawn out over it. It and I am taken to task while the other is over-looked. That is a well known fact. That isn't feelings either, it is truth.

Every word of this true. I have noticed this many times.

 

[TCassidy]

Here's the thing. I see it. Others see it. It's there. It's been told numerous times.

It's not about lies that take place, or calling me blasphemous, saying that I deny creation, questioning of others salvation by the same, name calling by the same, that a brother is called an atheist by implication by. No, no, that is all overlooked.

It's about an illustration I used to show the asininity of a wooden literal interpretation that you take issue with. That's what's important. Not the other. That instead. It must be strained at. I must be drawn out over it. It and I am taken to task while the other is over-looked. That is a well known fact. That isn't feelings either, it is truth.

You seem obsessed about things not on topic. Our discussion is about your claiming that his beliefs could result in the silly scenario of plucking out eyes and cutting off hands.

His understanding of the bible does not include doing any such thing and you know it. To say that is where his understanding leads is as wrong headed as claiming the Sovereignty of God must make God the author of sin.

You need to get over your tendency to try to nit-pick everything he says. He is not wrong all the time. Most of the time, maybe, but not all the time. And when you engage in such silly implications that he believes something he doesn't believe you only hurt your own credibility.

 

[Internet Theologian]

You seem obsessed about things not on topic.

I've followed YOUR lead on this topic.

Our discussion is about your claiming that his beliefs could result in the silly scenario of plucking out eyes and cutting off hands.

You merely don't understand my point even after I told you my intent. You're obsessed with not listening.

His understanding of the bible does not include doing any such thing and you know it. To say that is where his understanding leads is as wrong headed as claiming the Sovereignty of God must make God the author of sin.

Of course I know it. I never said it nor was it implied. I gave you the reason I stated it. Basically you're not accepting what I said and why I said it. That's wrong on your part. You want to go with how you feel about what I said. Others get my explanation. You don't want to. My intent was clear when I first expressed it.

You need to get over your tendency to try to nit-pick everything he says.

Nope. That's part of debate. Semantics. Nit-picking. He does it. You do it. All do it. I will continue to do it.

He is not wrong all the time. Most of the time, maybe, but not all the time.

Mostly wrong.

And when you engage in such silly implications that he believes something he doesn't believe you only hurt your own credibility.

My implication wasn't silly. Calling me blasphemous, denying God created the world, that is OK though.

 

[SovereignGrace]

You seem obsessed about things not on topic. Our discussion is about your claiming that his beliefs could result in the silly scenario of plucking out eyes and cutting off hands.

His understanding of the bible does not include doing any such thing and you know it. To say that is where his understanding leads is as wrong headed as claiming the Sovereignty of God must make God the author of sin.

You need to get over your tendency to try to nit-pick everything he says. He is not wrong all the time. Most of the time, maybe, but not all the time. And when you engage in such silly implications that he believes something he doesn't believe you only hurt your own credibility.

The reason why he used the plucking of an eye or the severing of an hand was to show the weakness in the wooden, literal interpretation of the bible. Yes, we all believe the bible, but there are many places where the literal, wooden interpretation hinders one's theological understanding.

 

[TCassidy]

My implication wasn't silly. Calling me blasphemous, denying God created the world, that is OK though.

It was silly. Believing in the superiority of the literal hermeneutic does not imply eye plucking nor hand severing. I believe in the superiority of the literal hermeneutic and still have both my eyes and both my hands.

Nor have I called you blasphemous nor have I even mentioned God creating or not creating the world. See the point? You are not taking to me. You are still whining about what he has said to you.

 

[TCassidy]

Yes, we all believe the bible, but there are many places where the literal, wooden interpretation hinders one's theological understanding.

Except nobody in this thread believes in the "wooden interpretation" of the bible. You are erecting a straw man argument, as I pointed out several posts ago.

 

[SovereignGrace]

It was silly. Believing in the superiority of the literal hermeneutic does not imply eye plucking nor hand severing. I believe in the superiority of the literal hermeneutic and still have both my eyes and both my hands.

Nor have I called you blasphemous nor have I even mentioned God creating or not creating the world. See the point? You are not taking to me. You are still whining about what he has said to you.

Oh puh-leeze!! Whining?? Srsly? Let someone tell you you deny creation...a pseudo atheist and see how you'd feel.

 

[SovereignGrace]

That was one of the reasons, the famed atheist, Madeline O'hare attacked the Bible and tried to get it banned from public schools--because of such asinine reasoning like yours. She did use that argument.

Let someone compare you to Mrs. O'Hare and see how you'd like it Bro. TC.

 

[TCassidy]

Oh puh-leeze!! Whining?? Srsly? Let someone tell you you deny creation...a pseudo atheist and see how you'd feel.

Yes. If he attacked you report the post. The Moderators will look at it and make an unbiased assessment from a neutral position.

 

[TCassidy]

Let someone compare you to Mrs. O'Hare and see how you'd like it Bro. TC.

Well, she's dead so I will probably come off pretty good.

And if you don't want to be compared to her, don't use her tactics.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Yes. If he attacked you report the post. The Moderators will look at it and make an unbiased assessment from a neutral position.

Since when?

 

[TCassidy]

Since when?

Since I have been a Moderator/Administrator. That would be from July 2000 with a not so brief hiatus.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Well, she's dead so I will probably come off pretty good.

And if you don't want to be compared to her, don't use her tactics.

Bro. IT's post was very cogent. You just disagree. But it was a spot on observation.

 

[Rob_BW]

Yes, we all believe the bible, but

 

[Internet Theologian]

It was silly. Believing in the superiority of the literal hermeneutic does not imply eye plucking nor hand severing. I believe in the superiority of the literal hermeneutic and still have both my eyes and both my hands.

Nor have I called you blasphemous nor have I even mentioned God creating or not creating the world. See the point? You are not taking to me. You are still whining about what he has said to you.

You're the one whining and being silly. And nit picking. And over-looking what really should be dealt with and instead targeting me over a mere illustration I used while obsessing over how wrong it was in your feelings.

Guess what? You're wrong. I explained why I used it and its valid. I'd use it again in the same scenario.

You may understand your literal view, but that doesn't make it his or his methodology. That is what is obvious. He's not you. He doesn't use the same literal definition as you. Stop making him out to be you, others see his error as well as me.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Bro. IT's post was very cogent. You just disagree. But it was a spot on observation.

Brother, no matter what a mod says it will be overlooked and they will all join in and gang up on others. It's called being deceitful and is an unjust judgement.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Bro. IT's post was very cogent. You just disagree. But it was a spot on observation.

Thanks for being honest about what I stated. Obviously one is bent to misrepresent my intent no matter how many times I tell him the intent. I must be lying and he must know my heart and mind.

I must be drawn out over my illustration over and over to ad nauseum! Biggrin