Please quote any post in this thread made by a person who believe in a literal hermeneutic who practices, recommends, or endorses eye plucking and/or hand chopping. Thank you.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Heavenly Zion and Jerusalem. .....the Church
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
- Status
Please quote any post in this thread where I have whined about somebody being mean to me or saying unkind things about me. Thank you.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
You mean address your straw man of deceit? I'll pass.Please quote any post in this thread where I have whined about somebody being mean to me or saying unkind things about me. Thank you.
So, in other words, you can't quote any such post? I thought not.You mean address your straw man of deceit? I'll pass.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Nope. There are no 'in other words' or such a post. Your argument is you erecting a straw man then arguing from that straw man. Your debate skills are exhausted and that is all you have left.
So you admit you can't support your charge. That's okay. I really didn't expect you to. You were all upset and posted without thinking.
It's just an example.
Not much point in speaking on that until we resolve Revelation, though.
God bless.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Believe me, there is no such thing as being upset over the asinine behavior of BB and of you in this household.So you admit you can't support your charge. That's okay. I really didn't expect you to. You were all upset and posted without thinking.
Then why the emotional tirade?Believe me, there is no such thing as being upset over the asinine behavior of BB and of you in this household.
And we see it employed quite often in Scripture. But, again, we look at the teaching that derives from what the figure represents. The Beast is a great example. Seven heads and ten crowns. Not literally the seven heads of a beast and literally ten crowns, but, they are used to represent realities.
Now, we are told the seven heads are kings, five have fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come. I see these as representative of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece (five have fallen), Rome (one is), and the final world Empire (is yet to come) that will be in power when that final "head" rears it's head.
We can't say these are all kings of Rome, can we?
God bless.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
How would I know why you act that way????? It's up to you to explain yourself and your tirades, not me.Then why the emotional tirade?
Truth? Are you sure about that?
Here we are on page 16, past post #320. But this all started when you responded to a post by SG which he posted sometime after 10:00 pm MDT yesterday. Your response was less than two hours after mid-night, on page 11, over 100 posts ago, and you are still whining and complaining about things you cannot prove to be true. And yet you say or claim: "It is the truth," when it is not. You have fabricated lies and then whined and complained about the things that you have made up.
Let's consider some of it:
Here, this is your post:
http://www.baptistboard.com/threads...rusalem-the-church.98427/page-11#post-2211718
Which says:
SG was speaking of
Psalms 50:10 For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.
--You make a suggestion that somewhere on earth there is a hill of cattle which belongs to Satan?
Where would that be? How would Satan get them, or did he create them? Do you know of a hill of cattle that belongs to Satan? Or, are you just mocking God's word (and that is blasphemy if true).
So, what is your point here, IT? Would you care to explain the mockery of God's creation?
And thus you evoked an answer from here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/threads...rusalem-the-church.98427/page-12#post-2211872
If you were inferring or "stating" that God created his cattle, and Satan create his cattle, then why should I not be offended. And yes, it is blasphemy. For the life of me, I can't understand this mockery of the Word of God. Any mockery of the Word of God is blasphemous IMO. Look up the definition: blasphemy = insulting God.
Now where did I even imply anyone on this board is an atheist. Perhaps I should demand an apology for that one, if you can't prove it, and I am sure you cannot.
I used grammar to try and prove a point. I used the word "atheist" and compared it to the word "amillennialist." Comparing words is not a sin, and in no way suggests that one is an atheist.
I could have used: acardia, amoral, agnostic, asexual, etc. It was an example that went right over your head, as if you have no comprehension of the English language.
I never said you denied creation. I suggested that you believed that Satan also created. Your post suggests this.
Did I question your salvation? No.
All fabrications! Nothing to prove. Just whining and complaining. Why not start to debate instead of carrying on with all this nonsense.
Okay. I reviewed the reported post. Even though the offended party is not the one who reported it, I still went back and reviewed the thread. Here is what I found.
I don't have a problem with that statement, obvious sarcasm wielded to make a point.
To which DHK posted:
But he did not call Internet Theologian a blasphemer. He said what he posted was blasphemy.
Had Internet Theologian actually believed what he was posting was a fact then I would agree, it is blasphemy. But, again, it seems obvious to me it was sarcasm.
In a subsequent post Internet Theologian explained:
So, here is my ruling. DHK misunderstood Internet Theologian's sarcasm to be a genuine blasphemy. In that he was in error. After being corrected he ought to have offered an apology for his failure to understand the intent of the post. So far he has not done so.
But on the other hand Internet Theologian might consider not taking himself so seriously. Be willing to overlook such incidents in the interest of peace between our brothers and sisters in Christ.
So, DHK, the ball is in your court. Offer the right hand of fellowship to Internet Theologian and let this go.
Internet Theologian, accept the right hand of fellowship from DHK and let this go.
I will wait 4 hours. At midnight Texas time I will close this thread. If anyone wants to continue a cordial discussion of the OP please feel free to open a new thread.
The Great And Powerful Wizard Of Oz Has Spoken! (Meant in jest. Not to be taken as a claim of wizzardly power or participation in occult practices.) Wink
To which Internet Theologian replied:
It seems obvious to me this response was made in jest, not withstanding God owning the cattle on a 1000 hills does not preclude Him from owning the cattle on other hills.
I don't have a problem with that statement, obvious sarcasm wielded to make a point.
To which DHK posted:
I think DHK over reacted to the post, perhaps not recognizing the sarcasm used to reinforce the point.
But he did not call Internet Theologian a blasphemer. He said what he posted was blasphemy.
Had Internet Theologian actually believed what he was posting was a fact then I would agree, it is blasphemy. But, again, it seems obvious to me it was sarcasm.
In a subsequent post Internet Theologian explained:
That seems to me to be a statement that Internet Theologian had no intent to blaspheme but was using sarcasm, in the form of what he calls "figurative language," in order to drive home his point. He goes on to say:
That too seems to support Internet Theologians contention the comment was not intended to be taken seriously.
So, here is my ruling. DHK misunderstood Internet Theologian's sarcasm to be a genuine blasphemy. In that he was in error. After being corrected he ought to have offered an apology for his failure to understand the intent of the post. So far he has not done so.
But on the other hand Internet Theologian might consider not taking himself so seriously. Be willing to overlook such incidents in the interest of peace between our brothers and sisters in Christ.
So, DHK, the ball is in your court. Offer the right hand of fellowship to Internet Theologian and let this go.
Internet Theologian, accept the right hand of fellowship from DHK and let this go.
I will wait 4 hours. At midnight Texas time I will close this thread. If anyone wants to continue a cordial discussion of the OP please feel free to open a new thread.
The Great And Powerful Wizard Of Oz Has Spoken! (Meant in jest. Not to be taken as a claim of wizzardly power or participation in occult practices.) Wink
I promises all mods admins I will NEVER report another post. I don't care if p@orn is posted on here, someone takes His name in vain, someone denies bible inerrancy, Pauline scriptures are not inspired, someone questions another's salvation. I will not report it.
I evidently will not do any good. And that's sad.
I evidently will not do any good. And that's sad.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Your avatar would be perfect for that!
Sorry, I forgot to hit enter!
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Reporting does nothing but send a response to the inmates who run the asylum.I promises all mods admins I will NEVER report another post. I don't care if p@orn is posted on here, someone takes His name in vain, someone denies bible inerrancy, Pauline scriptures are not inspired, someone questions another's salvation. I will not report it.
I evidently will not do any good. And that's sad.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
I love you man! BUT, you cannot call what a person said as blasphemous without calling the person the same, and that was his intent. Not to mention his past track record of lying about others.
Yes, and I said he was wrong.I love you man! BUT, you cannot call what a person said as blasphemous without calling the person the same, and that was his intent. Not to mention his past track record of lying about others.
That would be me.
- Status