The :God logic)

For discussing religion and related topics.

Re: The :God logic)

Post by Dredric1 on Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:10 pm
([msg=21215]see Re: The :God logic)[/msg])

radicool_systemite wrote:
No, it is not saying that you cannot have both at the same time, but then again, the issue isn't about having money, it's about how you get that money. It is saying that you will show who you love by who, or what, you give your time to. He says that you will love one and hate the other. Which do you hate, Dredric?


i hate the offects of greed and selfishness and people who have a lot of money love it and hate it a the same time
they love the benefits of being weathy and they often hate what their greed does to the people in their family but they usualy dont atribute it to themselves

which do i hate?
well i love GOD
and i dont have a lot of money so it is really an invalid question
if i loved money (and what you quoted from the bible is correct )
which i believe it is
i would hate GOD but, i dont.

However, preaching was not part of the job description when you were hired. This means that if you preach on McDonalds time, you are doing a DIFFERENT job to what McDonalds hired you to do, or, in other words, you are showing your contempt for them by expecting them to pay you while you do work that does not benefit them.

On the other hand, if you claim to be a Christian, and yet you go off to do work OTHER than preach the gospel, then in the same way you show your contempt for God by expecting his salvation while you do work OTHER than what he told you to do. I dare say that people who try to serve both masters end up fitting into the category of "luke warm" described in Revelation


A man named Job( j-O-b not job) lived in the land of Uz. He was an honest man innocent of any wrong... He was the greatest man of all in the east (wealthy)! One day the angels came to show themselves before the Lord God. Satan also came with them. - Job 1:1,3
_________________________
this verse describes Satan
_________________________
How are you fallen from heaven O Lucifer(Morning Star)
How are you cast down to the ground
you who weaken the nations. - isaiah 14:12
______________________________________________
Satan tested Job to try to prove to GOD that he would
curse God When his money was taken away
but Job prevailed.
______________________________________________
i believe you can be rich and serve God but it may be harder.

as for this one -"Whoever does not forsake all he has cannot be my follower."
if you desire the things that you own more than GOD you will follow your possesions

Is the verse talking about desire? For example, if the admin of this site said "anyone who does not properly log in cannot post on the forum" would you then go on to tell yourself that what he really means is that as long as you believe in your heart that you've really logged in, then yo don't need to actually log in? It's worded as a command. If you don't do it, then you don't get into the club.


desire?
the definition is : Strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen.
has nothing it do with believing in your heart.

and sweety pie Saviour?
your are way off track that has nothing to do with it.

Regarding your correction to Jesus; it sounds to me like you are adding an interpretation to what the verse is actually saying that takes the edge off.

i am not correcting Jesus
i called this the "GOD logic"
not the "dredric1 logic"
i do not intend to correct GOD
i was stating my interpretation
not adding anything

If you take the sting out of his teachings (i.e. it's only something you think about in your heart, as opposed to something you actually DO) then Jesus is saying here that the teachings are no longer fit for shit.


if you believe it in you heart you will DO it.

A good tree does not bear rotten fruit and a rotten tree does not bear good fruit likewise your
heart is known by your actions. - Luke 6:43 - 45 i summerized this
tree = heart
fruit = actions things you DO
you are not saved by actions


as for the next one - "Sell what you have and give it to the poor."
Jesus was conversing with a specific person called the rich young ruler
the rich young ruler put his riches as the most important things in his life
Jesus was testing him to see if he was ready to follow him.


This is one of the oldest tricks in the book for Christians who can't imagine what it's like to actually obey Jesus. How the hell can you say that you are prepared, as a Christian, to lay your life down, Dredric, when you spew crap like this? I don't mind getting a bit strong with you here because this message is taught all throughout the new testament; it's one of the single most important values in the Kingdom of heaven and it's like a slap in the face to hear you dismiss it so carelessly.

To the pharisees he said...
Luk 11:41 But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.


To his disciples he said...
Luk 12:33 Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.
Luk 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.


To the guests at a dinner party...
Luk 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.


To the rich he said...
Luk 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.


Oh, and don't forget about his followers after he was gone...

Act 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
Act 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need.


Act 4:34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
Act 4:35 And laid [them] down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.


Only for that one specific guy, you say? You sure do know how to put your foot in your mouth, Dredric.

_____________________________________
the above statements involving giving money to the poor are important
it is saying , i think, that you should not be GREEDY, SELFISH, DISHONEST, UNCARING

in reference to this -"When someone hits you on one cheek, turn to him the other."
a more correct interpertation would be
"When someone hurts you it is better for them to hurt you again than you to take revenge on them that is greater that they desurve"

I agree with the first part of your sentence, up until the part "that is greater than they deserve". , "feel free to use knives and guns if you feel the need to defend yourself; just don't stab or shoot the guy more than he deserves". No wonder the world laughs at Christianity.


my statement has two parts
it is an either or statment not an inbetween
im sorry it was confusing :?
you put in a middle ground somthing that originaly wasnt there
it is saying it is better to be hit twice that to hurt the person greater than they hurt you
greater than?
now what does that mean?
more? worse? over the top?

you twist my words to things that they dont mean
i will try to be more clear in the future

You come here challenging the whole forum by wanting to "help people" to understand that there really is a God, but when it comes to showing a really powerful example of his existence (i.e. a willingness for you to make some personal sacrifices) you suddenly lose your back bone and rely on guns and knives, as though that is the real truth that Jesus came to bring to the world.


real truth?
i never said that it was the real truth

Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned - luke 6:37

you do not know what i rely on and i will not attempt to tell you because
you will condemn what is say


and for the last one - 'When people tell lies about you and say all manner of evil against you for my names sake, rejoice
it is more correct to say - "It is better to rejoice than to curse them because in the end everyone will be juged accourding to what evil they have done"
so you would rejoice knowing that the person that hurt you would in the end be judged justly

You are a real piece of work, Dre. I quoted Jesus word for word, but it seems you feel you know better than him. The gospel according to Dredric: "don't be upset when people are nasty to you; instead rejoice in knowing that in the end they'll get exactly what they deserve!"


once agian
i called this the "GOD logic"
not the "dredric1 logic"
i do not feel that i know better
im sorry if what i said lead you to believe that i thought that
and id have to say that you are being nasty to me in some respects
and if you believe that maybe it is time to look a yourself instead of
judging others
it is a pitty that you feel that it is your need to twist and judge and condemn

i intended this topic to have lots of debates not acusational arguments
that degrade to acusing people of being unable to follow God
i wanted it to be more loving than crude.
i oppologize if i have offended you
i would like you to know that it was not my intent

i realy do want to help people if i am not helping anyone than i can stop
i didnt start this topic intending to look intellegent or logical i was just sharing my beliefs
i pray asking GOD to give me guidance
but if my ideas are not wanted than i will leave it as is and find other ways to debate

You've totally missed the point of "for my names sake". Jesus asked people to love one another. That means that IF people are acting "for his names sake" then they are acting in love. If others come around saying nasty things about those actions, then the Christians have a reason to be happy in knowing that the accusations are false; there is no real case against love. It could also acts as evidence that the Christians are probably doing something right, because the accusers will probably be reacting in that "normal human selfishness" that Orwell described so eloquently earlier, and feel convicted by the kind of love that Jesus came to teach.

It is definitely NOT a teaching about feeling justified that people who hurt us at some time in the past will "get what they deserve" for it.


you are missing my point in what i said
the above statement you made about love is actualy more correct
the code for the void exception between the ear brackets
Code: Select all
public static }void(exception x = new exception(null)){

ok my brackets dont realy look like ears.
if you didnt get that it means there is nothing(no brains) between your ears.
User avatar
Dredric1
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:29 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The :God logic)

Post by radicool_systemite on Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:25 am
([msg=21280]see Re: The :God logic)[/msg])

people who have a lot of money love it and hate it a the same time


What are you basing this assumption on, personal experience or interviews with people who have a lot of money?\

love the benefits of being weathy and they often hate what their greed does to the people in their family but they usualy dont atribute it to themselves


Perhaps you need to read the verse again, but Jesus didn't say any thing about the rich or poor in the verse in question. He said you cannot serve two masters, you cannot work for God and money at the same time without cheating on one or the other. Why are you throwing in this red herring about rich and poor?

which do i hate?
well i love GOD


Interesting. One almost gets the impression that you cannot bring yourself to simply say that you hate money. Do you often find yourself avoiding straight answer when dealing with these issues?

and i dont have a lot of money so it is really an invalid question
if i loved money (and what you quoted from the bible is correct ) which i believe it is
i would hate GOD but, i dont.


More red herrings. The verse did not directly talk about loving money, but rather, showing who we love by who we give our time to. There is a subtle difference there and it seems you've missed it again. Also, once again you've phrased the issue in terms of hating or not hating God, which is NOT the question I asked you and you know it...

A man named Job( j-O-b not job) lived in the land of Uz. He was an honest man innocent of any wrong... He was the greatest man of all in the east (wealthy)! One day the angels came to show themselves before the Lord God. Satan also came with them. - Job 1:1,3


Hey, by all means if Job is your savior and you want to follow him, then go ahead and keep serving money, but it seems more luke warmness for you to still go on calling yourself a Christian. However, I can tell you that Jesus will not be impressed with all your arguments about how many "good" rich people you can quote from the old testament.

In the same chapter as Matthew 6, Jesus goes on to give some supporting teaching to his radical "can't work for God and money" teaching. He says...

Mat 6:25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

Mat 6:26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

Mat 6:27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

Mat 6:28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

Mat 6:29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

Mat 6:30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, [shall he] not much more [clothe] you, O ye of little faith?

Mat 6:31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

Mat 6:32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

Mat 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Mat 6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day [is] the evil thereof.


Please note the verse in bold. Solomon is credited as being one of the wisest men in history, and also one of the richest. I'm surprised you didn't use him as your justification for holding on to your wealth, as so many do. However, Jesus bragged that his wisdom was far superior to that of Solomon. Go ahead and insert any rich person you want into the verse, and the outcome is still the sake. Jesus' wisdom is far superior. How long will you reject that?

Notice what he said. Consider the birds of the air and the flowers of the field. That is phrased as a command, not friendly advice. Why does he ask his followers to make such a consideration? It is specifically BECAUSE they do not work for money, and yet God takes care of them because they listen to his voice.

He says not to be afraid and worry about what you will eat, drink, or wear; all the world worries about these things, but you should NOT be like them. INSTEAD you should seek first the kingdom of Heaven. Notice that word first. The context is before food and clothing, and as a RESULT of seeking the kingdom, God will provide for you the things you need. So who is your provider, Dre? Job? Your job? Filthy lucre?

But even without that argument, there is another side to this sleazy argument from you...

Satan tested Job to try to prove to GOD that he would
curse God When his money was taken away
but Job prevailed.


In Job's case God allowed Satan to test job. HOWEVER, in your case, there is no Satan coming in trying to take your precious possessions from you. It is God himself telling you to prove your love for him by forsaking all those things. You are right that Job prevailed, and he probably would prevail again if he heard Jesus telling him to willingly forsake all his possessions. In other words, he would actually obey the teachings of Jesus if he had the opportunity to hear them. I find it offensive that you try to use the faith of a man like Job to justify your own rebellion against the teachings of the God you claim to follow.

desire?
the definition is : Strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen.
has nothing it do with believing in your heart.


Another red herring. The verse in question says "Whosoever he be of you that forsakes not all that he has, cannot be my disciple". You said something about desire and I asked you if this verse was really a general teaching about desire, or something more definite than that.

Your response? Pathetic. You say desire has nothing to do with believing in your heart, but that still does not explain what you are actually DOING with the teaching. The bottom line here is that, once again, you've side stepped the crux of the verse.

and sweety pie Saviour?
your are way off track that has nothing to do with it.


So, what are you doing about the teaching, then?

i am not correcting Jesus
i called this the "GOD logic"
not the "dredric1 logic"
i do not intend to correct GOD
i was stating my interpretation
not adding anything


I don't like the smell of bullshit, Dre, especially not from a so called Christian doing his damnedest to make the teaching of Jesus of no effect. Just in case you feel I'm being too hard on you, allow me to quote your own words...

a more correct interpertation would be...

it is more correct to say...

it is probably better describe this way...


On at least three separate occasions you have blatantly corrected the word for word verses I posted. OF COUrSE they are your interpretations; that's the whole point and no one ever argued against that, but these "interpretations" of yours just happen to also be stated as corrections on what was already written. These examples do not include the less obvious attempts you've made to totally water down the other things Jesus said.

if you believe it in you heart you will DO it.


This is in reference to the "whosoever does not forsake all" verse. It's interesting that you've actually admitted to a need to actually DO something in reference to the commands of Jesus. Of course, this statement begs the question, what are you doing about it?

you are not saved by actions



Ah I see. For a second there, when you talked about "doing" I actually thought you might be starting to make some sense, but it seems it was all a lead up for yet another excuse to squirm out of exercising some spiritual discipline. Now your excuse is that we are not saved by actions. I guess that means you feel like you don't HAVE to obey Jesus, because that would be like trying to work your way to Heaven or something? I guess that means you can just do whatever the hell you want, and someday when God asks what you've done with your life you can poke him in the chest with your finger and lecture him about how we're not saved by actions. As long as you've SAID all the right things, it's all good, right?

the above statements involving giving money to the poor are important
it is saying , i think, that you should not be GREEDY, SELFISH, DISHONEST, UNCARING


Wow, Dre. You simply will not take Jesus at his word. In every situation you feel the need to insert your own interpretation so that, if Jesus says "sell what you have, give it to the poor, and follow me", you switch it all around to say "hey just don't be greedy, k?" Of course, the WAY of not being greedy is by ACTING on those teachings, but not for you...you've got it all worked out in your heart. A little clever re interpretation that sounds kind of nice, and hey presto, you get the pay off (i.e. salvation) while you don't have to apply any of the disciplines or do any of the work. But God isn't stupid. You can be sure that he won't be dishing out a reward like eternal life to people who cheated on the rules no matter how much you argue that he owes you forgiveness because of his son's sacrificial death.

im sorry it was confusing


I wasn't confused. I understood exactly what you were saying. Just because someone disagrees with you and rebuts your argument does not mean they've mysteriously misunderstood you.

you put in a middle ground somthing that originaly wasnt there


I notice you've conveniently left out what this "middle ground" is that I apparently "put in".

it is saying it is better to be hit twice that to hurt the person greater than they hurt you


I've already refuted that arguement. Simply repeating your original theory does not deal with what I said about it

greater than?
now what does that mean?
more? worse? over the top?


Hey, it's your word, not mine. I'm not the one who said it, so why are you asking ME what you meant to say? If there is any confusion here, it seems to be coming from you. I'm not in the habit of making other people's arguments for them.

you twist my words to things that they dont mean
i will try to be more clear in the future


Aside from the convenient lack of evidence to support your accusation that I twist what you say, I also find it interesting that you make that accusation at the same time that you also accuse yourself of being confusing. Well, which is it? Was I the one at fault for twisting your words or were you the one at fault for being confusing? This double mindedness is becoming very tiresome and I think it's a reflecting of your attitudes towards the teachings of Jesus, too, or maybe your attitude toward the teachings of Jesus that is causing all this other double mindedness?

real truth?
i never said that it was the real truth


Yeah, that's because it's NOT the real truth. Talk about twisting words. You've invented an interpretation that allows you to stab and shoot people as long as you can convince yourself that it's not more than they really deserve.

Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned - luke 6:37


More hypocrisy from you, Dre. Are you aware that you've just judged me as a judger and someone who condemns? Are you going to post a correction to yourself, now about not judging? I think I'd like to see that. Well, either that or an apology for applying one standard to me that you are not willing to apply to yourself.

you do not know what i rely on and i will not attempt to tell you because
you will condemn what is say


You know, you could have just said this at the beginning of your post and left it at that, but it sounds a bit hollow to respond to several of the things I wrote, and THEN at the very end take a potshot at mean ole' systemite who will just condemn what you say anyway. Would it be too much to ask for some EVIDENCE of how I've condemned what you've said? More than that, would it be too much to ask for some explanation as to WHY I was wrong for condemning what you've said?
User avatar
radicool_systemite
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The :God logic)

Post by Dredric1 on Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:36 pm
([msg=21339]see Re: The :God logic)[/msg])

What are you basing this assumption on, personal experience or interviews with people who have a lot of money?\

actualy i do know a lot of rich people
who when you talk to them it is evedent that my assumption is true

Why are you throwing in this red herring about rich and poor?


More red herrings. The verse did not directly talk about loving money, but rather, showing who we love by who we give our time to. There is a subtle difference there and it seems you've missed it again.


you claim that you can corectly interpret scripture
are you claiming to be GOD

i never claimed to be able to interpret scripture
i said this is my interpretation or this is my belief
but in your case you have taken it a step further

Another red herring. The verse in question says "Whosoever he be of you that forsakes not all that he has, cannot be my disciple".


Interesting. One almost gets the impression that you cannot bring yourself to simply say that you hate money. Do you often find yourself avoiding straight answer when dealing with these issues?


i did give you a straight answer with explainations
i thought you were logical enought to figure out that this :

if i loved money (and what you quoted from the bible is correct ) which i believe it is
i would hate GOD but, i dont


was saying i hate money and its effects
but GOD says that we are to pay tithe
so HE could not say that and tell us to have no money
but i believe that you can be rich and follow GOD

A man named Job( j-O-b not job) lived in the land of Uz. He was an honest man innocent of any wrong... He was the greatest man of all in the east (wealthy)! One day the angels came to show themselves before the Lord God. Satan also came with them. - Job 1:1,3


Hey, by all means if Job is your savior and you want to follow him, then go ahead and keep serving money, but it seems more luke warmness for you to still go on calling yourself a Christian.

Job did not serve money
neither do i
where do you get the idea that i serve money

in regards to : Mat 6:25:34 and this
He says not to be afraid and worry about what you will eat, drink, or wear; all the world worries about these things, but you should NOT be like them.

these verses tell you to depend and rely on GOD
not to worry
there is a story about a wise man and a fool
the wise man built his house on the rock; in other words he relied on GOD
the fool built his house on the sand and it fell. fools rely on their on knowledge and skills and money
i believe that these verses are about reliance not necesarily weath
i defend this because that is what i am lead to believe
not because i rely on weath


Jesus' wisdom is far superior. How long will you reject that?

when have i said my wisdom is superior
it is not
i thought im made that clear earlier
once agian
i called this the "GOD logic"
not the "dredric1 logic"
i do not feel that i know better



Notice what he said. Consider the birds of the air and the flowers of the field. That is phrased as a command, not friendly advice.

this is an example not a command

"Consider"
the definition: take into account when making an assessment or judgment


Satan tested Job to try to prove to GOD that he would
curse God When his money was taken away
but Job prevailed.

In Job's case God allowed Satan to test job. HOWEVER, in your case, there is no Satan coming in trying to take your precious possessions from you.

i Job's case it would not matter if Satan tested him or not
the end result would be the same; he relied on GOD
you do not know if Satan is coming to take my possessions as you put it.
unless you were GOD or Satan

Your response? Pathetic. You say desire has nothing to do with believing in your heart, but that still does not explain what you are actually DOING with the teaching.

reread the parible of the trees barring fruit and maybe the parible of the ten virgins with the oil and lamps
if those paribles are true
than you are asuming that i am not DOING anything good

So, what are you doing about the teaching, then?

i am descusing with you on a forum
thats just one thing
I don't like the smell of bullshit, Dre, especially not from a so called Christian doing his damnedest to make the teaching of Jesus of no effect. Just in case you feel I'm being too hard on you, allow me to quote your own words...


a more correct interpertation would be...

it is more correct to say...

it is probably better describe this way...

these are snipits not enought to show the whole meaning
also if i havent made it clear enough for a logical person like you
that in these i am giving my best interpretation
an interpretation that i have gotten from study.
you even ommit it yourself
OF COUrSE they are your interpretations; These examples do not include the less obvious attempts you've made to totally water down the other things Jesus said.


if you believe it in you heart you will DO it.

this is my belief not quoted from scripture but the idea
is derived from it.
is there scripture that says "if you believe it in your heart you wont do it ?"
i dont think there is.

you are not saved by actions

Ah I see. For a second there, when you talked about "doing" I actually thought you might be starting to make some sense, but it seems it was all a lead up for yet another excuse to squirm out of exercising some spiritual discipline.
I guess that means you can just do whatever the hell you want, and someday when God asks what you've done with your life you can poke him in the chest with your finger and lecture him about how we're not saved by actions.


you arent saved by actions but if your heart is good you will bear good fruit
actions are byproducts not "tickets" to heaven

Those on the path are the ones who have heard , but the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts so that they may not believe and be saved - luke 8:12



the above statements involving giving money to the poor are important
it is saying , i think, that you should not be GREEDY, SELFISH, DISHONEST, UNCARING


Wow, Dre. You simply will not take Jesus at his word. if Jesus says "sell what you have, give it to the poor, and follow me", you switch it all around to say "hey just don't be greedy, k?" Of course, the WAY of not being greedy is by ACTING on those teachings, but not for you...you've got it all worked out in your heart. A little clever re interpretation that sounds kind of nice, and hey presto, you get the pay off (i.e. salvation) while you don't have to apply any of the disciplines or do any of the work. But God isn't stupid. You can be sure that he won't be dishing out a reward like eternal life to people who cheated on the rules no matter how much you argue that he owes you forgiveness because of his son's sacrificial death.
[/qoute]
you've got half the message but not the other half, i believe
i dont intend to cheat on the rules


im sorry it was confusing


I wasn't confused. I understood exactly what you were saying. Just because someone disagrees with you and rebuts your argument does not mean they've mysteriously misunderstood you.

you put in a middle ground somthing that originaly wasnt there


I notice you've conveniently left out what this "middle ground" is that I apparently "put in".

this is that middle ground that you put in.
just don't stab or shoot the guy more than he deserves".

i didnt say that i could judge what is more than they desurve.


it is saying it is better to be hit twice that to hurt the person greater than they hurt you


I've already refuted that arguement. Simply repeating your original theory does not deal with what I said about it

i didnt refute it i stated it so it would be clearer to you
but you say that you understand


you twist my words to things that they dont mean
i will try to be more clear in the future

I also find it interesting that you make that accusation at the same time that you also accuse yourself of being confusing. Well, which is it? Was I the one at fault for twisting your words or were you the one at fault for being confusing?

i didnt acuse myself i said sorry if i was confusing
considering the statement above being true is enough evidence of your twisting

real truth?
i never said that it was the real truth


Yeah, that's because it's NOT the real truth. Talk about twisting words. You've invented an interpretation that allows you to stab and shoot people as long as you can convince yourself that it's not more than they really deserve.

more evidence of your twisting

More hypocrisy from you, Dre. Are you aware that you've just judged me as a judger and someone who condemns? Are you going to post a correction to yourself, now about not judging?

your statements are proof of your judgementalness
i would be a hypocrit if you hadnt of posted judgmental statements
say that you are not judging.

you do not know what i rely on and i will not attempt to tell you because
you will condemn what is say


You know, you could have just said this at the beginning of your post and left it at that, but it sounds a bit hollow to respond to several of the things I wrote, and THEN at the very end take a potshot at mean ole' systemite who will just condemn what you say anyway. Would it be too much to ask for some EVIDENCE of how I've condemned what you've said? More than that, would it be too much to ask for some explanation as to WHY I was wrong for condemning what you've said?

and again more critisism.
the code for the void exception between the ear brackets
Code: Select all
public static }void(exception x = new exception(null)){

ok my brackets dont realy look like ears.
if you didnt get that it means there is nothing(no brains) between your ears.
User avatar
Dredric1
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:29 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The :God logic)

Post by radicool_systemite on Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:05 am
([msg=21353]see Re: The :God logic)[/msg])

actualy i do know a lot of rich people
who when you talk to them it is evedent that my assumption is true


I'm not surprised you get along so well with your rich friends. They probably just eat up all your convenient doctrines about how we don't actually have to obey Jesus when he says to sell or forsake all, as long as they believe they are not greedy in their hearts.

Of course, Jesus said that where our treasure is there will out heart be also and that by obeying his teachings we store up treasure in Heaven. So much for your convenient doctrines.

you claim that you can corectly interpret scripture
are you claiming to be GOD


Wow, not only have you avoided the question, AGAIN, but now you are accusing me of being God because I challenged you about YOUR interpretations. Seriously, I don't know just how hypocritical you can get. You imply that one thinking he can correctly interpret scripture is the same as claiming to be God. Does that mean you agree that you CANNOT correctly interpret scripture because you are not God? I don't normally engage in petty insults, but really Dre, your logic here is just plain stupid.

i never claimed to be able to interpret scripture
i said this is my interpretation or this is my belief
but in your case you have taken it a step further


Wow, it's not everyday I see someone contradict himself within two sentances. You don't claim to interpret scriptture. You just give your interpretation. Ummmm, hello? Interpretation of what? Scripture? If not then I wonder what the hell you've been talking about all this time as I can provide at least 10 examples of you giving your interpretation of scripture...not only that, but you actually giving what you felt was a MORE CORRECT interpretation. Stop these blatant lies, Dre.

Can you explain what this "step further" means?

i did give you a straight answer with explainations
i thought you were logical enought to figure out that this :

if i loved money (and what you quoted from the bible is correct ) which i believe it is
i would hate GOD but, i dont



was saying i hate money and its effects
but GOD says that we are to pay tithe
so HE could not say that and tell us to have no money
but i believe that you can be rich and follow GOD


I rebutted that argument of yours, Dre. I'm still waiting on a straight answer from you in response to MY response. So far all you've done is to avoid my argument by repeating your own argument over and over again. You can't bully your way through a debate by claiming that the other party is illogical just because they don't accept your point of view, no matter how many times you post it.

Job did not serve money
neither do i
where do you get the idea that i serve money


I get that idea because Jesus said not to do it and you've been trying your damnedest to ignore that. Every argument you make is an attempt to excuse, water down, or gloss over the discipline in the teachings of Jesus. Your love of money shines through in every attempt you make to defend it.

BTW, this is the THIRD time I'm asking you, but why is it so hard for you to say that you hate money? The context of this is Jesus' comment that people will love one and hate the other. I originally asked you which one you HATE, and your response was that you love God. That did not answer the question and I explained that to you and asked you AGAIN to answer the question. IN your latest response, you accuse me of being illogical and restate your tired old defense of money, but again there is no answer to my question. I'd say that's pretty clear evidence of where you heart really is.

i believe that these verses are about reliance not necesarily weath
i defend this because that is what i am lead to believe
not because i rely on weath


Hmmm, are you claiming to be God, Dre, cause this sure does look like an interpretation of scripture; the same thing you accused me of doing earlier as though I thought I was God to do something so strange. I don't want you to feel condemned, Dre, but you really do have the makings of a religious hypocrite through and through.

BTW, what leads you to believe that, if God says not to let a worry about food and clothing stop you from stepping out in faith and forsaking all, that instead what he really means is that you should "rely" on him while you continue holding on to all your possessions and your precious job working for money?

when have i said my wisdom is superior


You say it every time you interpret Jesus' teachings to mean something less than what it is actually saying. You've done that many times in this debate and I've pointed them out to you every time. It seems you've conveniently ignored the 3 quotes from you I posted where you blatantly stated that you had a more correct way of stating the verses in question.

Notice what he said. Consider the birds of the air and the flowers of the field. That is phrased as a command, not friendly advice.


this is an example not a command

"Consider"
the definition: take into account when making an assessment or judgment


In all seriousness, Dre, this really is one of those examples you asked for earlier, about how I know that you serve money. You see, Jesus is giving teaching about not spending our time to get more money, but rather spending our time to build the Kingdom of Heaven. Rather than explore the sense in what he is talking about, you make a really dumb argument that he's simply giving an example of something, rather than making a command.

I hardly know where to start...well, first of all it IS a command. If I tell you to consider what I am saying, it means I want you to do it. It becomes clearly obvious that you are hiding something when you try to argue against such simple logic. However, even within your excuse, that it is not a command but an example, there is still no logic because one simply asks, an example of what? And, is this example given for a reason? Like are we meant to FOLLOW this example?

The bottom line is that it is both a command and an example. It is a command to consider the example of the birds, but what you blindly overlook is that we are to consider the example of the birds BECAUSE they do not work for money and yet God feeds them because they listen to his voice. This is the rock that you refuse to build on.

a more correct interpertation would be...

it is more correct to say...

it is probably better describe this way...


these are snipits not enought to show the whole meaning
also if i havent made it clear enough for a logical person like you
that in these i am giving my best interpretation
an interpretation that i have gotten from study.
you even ommit it yourself


No, these are not "snippets", they are evidence against this comment you made earlier...

i am not correcting Jesus
i called this the "GOD logic"
not the "dredric1 logic"
i do not intend to correct GOD
i was stating my interpretation
not adding anything


But even with THIS contradiction there is ANOTHER contradiction, because along with your "innocent" interpretations you say this in your most recent letter...

i never claimed to be able to interpret scripture


but in the SAME post you say this...

...that in these i am giving my best interpretation...


One get's the feeling that you simply cannot be believed in just about anything you say on these issues. Rather than lashing out at me because you've been "hurt" by my criticisms, why don't you take some time to consider if there is any truth in them. For God's sake, Dre, the print in right there in front of you.


you arent saved by actions but if your heart is good you will bear good fruit
actions are byproducts not "tickets" to heaven


This is another one of those indicators pointing towards who you really serve, and since the general context of this debate is about Jesus' teachings on money then I think it's fair to say that you are more interested in serving money than you are in applying the teachings of Jesus.

There is an old saying that goes "if you throw a stick at a pack of dogs, how do you know which one you've hit"? Obviously, by the the one who starts yelping. See, I didn't say anything about good works being a ticket to heaven or anything even close to that. All I said was that Jesus gave standards which he expects his followers to adhere to. YOU are the one who brought in this thing about how good works are not good enough, and you've done it as another red herring.

It's another convenient doctrine to get away from actually DOING what Jesus said. If you can't convince the other party that Jesus didn't really mean what he said, then try to convince them that it doesn't matter anyway because no one can be saved by works. The trick is to speak out of both sides of your mouth so that in the end it all becomes meaningless. It works like this; a good tree produces good fruit, but in the end good works won't save you so just try to know in your heart that you are good. Well, sounds good, right? I mean, you can't argue with the goodness of trying to be right in our hearts! Of course the actual DOING part never gets done because Christians have become a bunch of do-goods "in their hearts".

i dont intend to cheat on the rules


More double speak. When I ask what you are DOING with the rules you glibly reply, "I'm chatting with you about them" which is a misleading answer anyway, in the context of not cheating on them, because even in this chat you are trying to convince me that your interpretation (i.e. don't worry about all that stuff, just be right in your heart) is better than the way Jesus said it (i.e. just do it!)

this is that middle ground that you put in.

just don't stab or shoot the guy more than he deserves".


i didnt say that i could judge what is more than they desurve.


Well then you have been confusing here, because at the same time you brag about defending yourself with guns and knives. Can you elaborate on how the two are compatible?

it is saying it is better to be hit twice that to hurt the person greater than they hurt you



I've already refuted that arguement. Simply repeating your original theory does not deal with what I said about it


i didnt refute it i stated it so it would be clearer to you
but you say that you understand


Ok, more confusion...You didn't refute what? Look more closely at what I said. I didn't say that I understood your restated position. I said your restatement does not deal with what I said about it. I do believe I am still waiting...

your statements are proof of your judgementalness
i would be a hypocrit if you hadnt of posted judgmental statements
say that you are not judging.


Ummmm, your right. I'm sorry for disagreeing with you earlier that you weren't being confusing because it's practically gushing out now. What are you talking about? How are my statements proof of my "judgmentalness"? YOU would be a hypocrit if *I* hadn't of posted judgmental statements saying that I am not a judge? Can you explain what that means?

It really is quite simple. You judged me to be a judge. Can you see how you've made a judgment about me, and thus have become a judge yourself, the very thing you are criticizing in me? I think what you should be more concerned about is whether or not these judgments being made are fair or not. I think I've provided heaps of evidence for my criticisms, but you have not.

and again more critisism.


So? Any criticism of Dredric is wrong in the eyes of God? I wonder what the limits are of this exemption you have to criticism. Like, if are caught out in a blatant lie, do you accuse people of being judgmental is they call you out on it? Or, if you run a red light or get a speeding ticket, do you accuse the police of being judgmental? OR is it only people who challenge you about obedience to the teachings of Jesus who fit into that category?
User avatar
radicool_systemite
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The :God logic)

Post by Dredric1 on Wed Apr 08, 2009 12:31 am
([msg=21387]see Re: The :God logic)[/msg])

actualy i do know a lot of rich people
who when you talk to them it is evedent that my assumption is true

I'm not surprised you get along so well with your rich friends. They probably just eat up all your convenient doctrines about how we don't actually have to obey Jesus when he says to sell or forsake all, as long as they believe they are not greedy in their hearts.


nope they dont like it but they dont critisize my beliefs and they are still my friends afterward

you claim that you can corectly interpret scripture
are you claiming to be GOD

You imply that one thinking he can correctly interpret scripture is the same as claiming to be God. Does that mean you agree that you CANNOT correctly interpret scripture because you are not God?


if i am relying on my own powers of it interpretation that statemnt is correct
but i ask God to show me the correct interpretation
this doesnt mean that it is perfect but i believe over time it improves

i never claimed to be able to interpret scripture
i said this is my interpretation or this is my belief


Wow, it's not everyday I see someone contradict himself within two sentances.


as it is written it is a contradiction your right
i meant to say:
i never claimed to be able to interpret scripture correctly
sorry i didnt proof-read my post
if i had i would have caught that
Can you explain what this "step further" means?

this is that step further
you claim that you can corectly interpret scripture




I'm still waiting on a straight answer from you in response to MY response. So far all you've done is to avoid my argument by repeating your own argument over and over again. You can't bully your way through a debate by claiming that the other party is illogical just because they don't accept your point of view, no matter how many times you post it.


i used the same argument because you used the same attack
and unless you have a different argument its not going to change
now isnt that logical
lol

Job did not serve money
neither do i
where do you get the idea that i serve money


I get that idea because Jesus said not to do it and you've been trying your damnedest to ignore that. Your love of money shines through in every attempt you make to defend it.

you act as if you know my personal life
i know myself and i know what you wrote on the post
your asumtions are falty
i dont claim to know your peronal life and the only One who knows, other that yourself, is GOd and your best friends

BTW, this is the THIRD time I'm asking you, but why is it so hard for you to say that you hate money?

i thought you were logical enought to figure out that this :


if i loved money (and what you quoted from the bible is correct ) which i believe it is
i would hate GOD but, i dont

was saying i hate money and its effects

Hmmm, are you claiming to be God, Dre, cause this sure does look like an interpretation of scripture; the same thing you accused me of doing earlier

i believe...
i am lead to believe...

that instead what he really means is that you should "rely" on him while you continue holding on to all your possessions and your precious job working for money?


you are using you BELIEFS about me to reinforce your BELIEFS about me


when have i said my wisdom is superior


You say it every time you interpret Jesus' teachings to mean something less than what it is actually saying. You've done that many times in this debate and I've pointed them out to you every time. It seems you've conveniently ignored the 3 quotes from you I posted where you blatantly stated that you had a more correct way of stating the verses in question.

again, you are using you BELIEFS about me to reinforce your BELIEFS about me
an interpretation is different from thinking you are superior
do i need to list the definition


Notice what he said. Consider the birds of the air and the flowers of the field. That is phrased as a command, not friendly advice.


this is an example not a command

"Consider"
the definition: take into account when making an assessment or judgment


In all seriousness, Dre, this really is one of those examples you asked for earlier, about how I know that you serve money. You see, Jesus is giving teaching about not spending our time to get more money, but rather spending our time to build the Kingdom of Heaven.

once again, you are using you BELIEFS about me to reinforce your BELIEFS about me
and again you claim to know what Jesus means
i post my beliefs so that other people can find things wrong with them than i reassess
my ideas
what i dont do is take advice from people who claim to read Jesus's mind


I hardly know where to start...well, first of all it IS a command. If I tell you to consider what I am saying, it means I want you to do it.

so in other words if you tell me to consider(the definition: take into account when making an assessment or judgment)
you want me to take into account your arguments when im making an assessment or judgment
which i did and thought them illogical

a more correct interpertation would be...

it is more correct to say...

it is probably better describe this way...


these are snipits not enought to show the whole meaning
also if i havent made it clear enough for a logical person like you
that in these i am giving my best interpretation
an interpretation that i have gotten from study.
you even ommit it yourself



But even with THIS contradiction there is ANOTHER contradiction, because along with your "innocent" interpretations you say this in your most recent letter...

i never claimed to be able to interpret scripture


i thought you already covered this and now you repeat
repeating doesnt get you anywhere.

One get's the feeling that you simply cannot be believed in just about anything you say on these issues. Rather than lashing out at me because you've been "hurt" by my criticisms, why don't you take some time to consider if there is any truth in them. For God's sake, Dre, the print in right there in front of you.

i did take them into consideration and thought them illogical
another repeat
you claim to know if im taking things into consideration
your logic for this is that if i had i would have found them logical
but i didnt
once again i find this argument illogical

you arent saved by actions but if your heart is good you will bear good fruit
actions are byproducts not "tickets" to heaven


This is another one of those indicators pointing towards who you really serve, and since the general context of this debate is about Jesus' teachings on money then I think it's fair to say that you are more interested in serving money than you are in applying the teachings of Jesus.

it is probably fair to say but that doesnt make it correct

There is an old saying that goes "if you throw a stick at a pack of dogs, how do you know which one you've hit"? Obviously, by the the one who starts yelping. [/qutoe]
unless you miss :lol: lol
that is a joke
dont take offence

See, I didn't say anything about good works being a ticket to heaven or anything even close to that. All I said was that Jesus gave standards which he expects his followers to adhere to.

and if you have a good heart you will adhere to the standards

It works like this; a good tree produces good fruit, but in the end good works won't save you so just try to know in your heart that you are good. Well, sounds good, right? I mean, you can't argue with the goodness of trying to be right in our hearts! Of course the actual DOING part never gets done because Christians have become a bunch of do-goods "in their hearts".

it works like that?
how do you know?
it might work like: if you have a good heart you'll have good works
yes there are probably alot of people using the "all you have to do is to believe that you have a good heart"
but i havent use that excuse like that
because i think it is false

i dont intend to cheat on the rules

When I ask what you are DOING with the rules you glibly reply, "I'm chatting with you about them" which is a misleading answer anyway, in the context of not cheating on them, because even in this chat you are trying to convince me that your interpretation (i.e. don't worry about all that stuff, just be right in your heart) is better than the way Jesus said it (i.e. just do it!)

no im seaking to find the truth and i may have help by people like you
but i doubt it cause all you do is tell me what i believe so you can critisize it
another repeat by me to defend against your repeat:

yes there are probably alot of people using the "all you have to do is to believe that you have a good heart"
but i havent use that excuse like that
because i think it is false

this is that middle ground that you put in.

just don't stab or shoot the guy more than he deserves".

i didnt say that i could judge what is more than they desurve.


Well then you have been confusing here, because at the same time you brag about defending yourself with guns and knives. Can you elaborate on how the two are compatible?

a thief might be killed while breaking into a house at night. then the one who killed him
is not guilty of murder -exodus 22:3-4


your statements are proof of your judgementalness
i would be a hypocrit if you hadnt of posted judgmental statements
say that you are not judging.


Ummmm, your right. I'm sorry for disagreeing with you earlier that you weren't being confusing because it's practically gushing out now.

its ok lol everyone makes mistakes
and i would be a hypocryt if you hadnt posted judgmental statements

It really is quite simple. You judged me to be a judge. Can you see how you've made a judgment about me, and thus have become a judge yourself, the very thing you are criticizing in me? I think what you should be more concerned about is whether or not these judgments being made are fair or not.

it is simple
if you didnt post judgemental statements i would be making a judging statement based on my belief of you
since you did it becomes fact not opinion



and again more critisism.


So? Any criticism of Dredric is wrong in the eyes of God? I wonder what the limits are of this exemption you have to criticism. Like, if are caught out in a blatant lie, do you accuse people of being judgmental is they call you out on it? Or, if you run a red light or get a speeding ticket, do you accuse the police of being judgmental? OR is it only people who challenge you about obedience to the teachings of Jesus who fit into that category?
[/quote]
being judgemental is when you base your judgement on opinion
the police officer saw you run the red light so he has proof.

p.s. it is like 10:30 and so i dont have time to proof read as usual
so if somthing doesnt make since i can explain later
the code for the void exception between the ear brackets
Code: Select all
public static }void(exception x = new exception(null)){

ok my brackets dont realy look like ears.
if you didnt get that it means there is nothing(no brains) between your ears.
User avatar
Dredric1
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:29 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The :God logic)

Post by radicool_systemite on Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:19 am
([msg=21404]see Re: The :God logic)[/msg])

Sorry Dre, but I think you've had your 1st and second (and third and fourth and fifth and sixth...) admonition. You've made it very clear that you are not interested in what I am saying OR in the lifestyle that Jesus lived so I don't see any point in wasting any more time. Thanks for the chat.
User avatar
radicool_systemite
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The :God logic)

Post by Dredric1 on Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:24 pm
([msg=21442]see Re: The :God logic)[/msg])

Well debate helps me have what i think is a clearer prespective
and so even if i disagree with you on some things this doesnt mean that your arguments havent been
helpful and it is true what Memphis said that:

there will never be an end to this arguement within our greatgreatgreatgreat grand childrens life

and that is right but other people may benefit from our arguments whether you or i am right
but chances are you are right in some respects and i am right in others
allthough i dont think either of us is completely correct or will ever be

and i am sorry if i have insulted you or argued wrongly
also i forgive you if you did the same
so i hope everything is clear between you and me

p.s. this is off the topic but of what religion are you if you are which it sounds like you are from the knowlege of the bible
you presented
the code for the void exception between the ear brackets
Code: Select all
public static }void(exception x = new exception(null)){

ok my brackets dont realy look like ears.
if you didnt get that it means there is nothing(no brains) between your ears.
User avatar
Dredric1
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:29 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The :God logic)

Post by orwell84 on Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:25 pm
([msg=21443]see Re: The :God logic)[/msg])

Dredric1 wrote:you want to "free me"
and i want to free you
lol
and since we have opposing ideas
one of us is right


Honestly, I'm too lazy to respond to anything here but this. Well, not necessarily. We could both be wrong...and if you believe in religion, you are able to believe in the most far-fetched logical impossibility of all.
This isn't necessarily saying that religion isn't true; it just says it's not logical, which goes without saying. Whether you believe it's just because we can't understand the logic or because it doesn't exist, it's still not an area where logical thinking applies.
Mens et manus.
User avatar
orwell84
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The :God logic)

Post by Dredric1 on Thu Apr 09, 2009 8:41 pm
([msg=21481]see Re: The :God logic)[/msg])

orwell84 wrote:
We could both be wrong...and if you believe in religion, you are able to believe in the most far-fetched logical impossibility of all.


you think there is no GOD and
i think there is
it is realy a true or false question
so we cant both be wrong

also...
orwell84 wrote:And I hated it. I felt as though I was living for something other than myself


if there is no GOD then why did you feel as if you were living for somthing else, other than yourself

also if there is no GOD and you lived that way you would theoreticaly be living for youself

is it correct to assume that you were unhappy because of what other people thought you should live like

am i correct?

this is what i believe:
you see GOD accepts you as you are
and then if you are willing changes you into what HE wants you to become
the code for the void exception between the ear brackets
Code: Select all
public static }void(exception x = new exception(null)){

ok my brackets dont realy look like ears.
if you didnt get that it means there is nothing(no brains) between your ears.
User avatar
Dredric1
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:29 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The :God logic)

Post by radicool_systemite on Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:27 am
([msg=21615]see Re: The :God logic)[/msg])

I've basically ended my debate with Dredric on the basis that it was going nowhere, but I do feel there are some comments worth making regarding his approach to this debate for others looking on...

Well debate helps me have what i think is a clearer prespective
and so even if i disagree with you on some things this doesnt mean that your arguments havent been
helpful and it is true what Memphis said that:

"there will never be an end to this arguement within our greatgreatgreatgreat grand childrens life"


All throughout my debate with Dredric I felt that he was being dishonest and illogical in his arguments. For example, when I would directly quote a teaching of Jesus, Dredric would re interpret what was obviously being said. When I challenged him on that he would say that he was NOT correcting the teachings of Jesus. When I quoted him as having said, on three separate occasions, things like "a more correct way of putting it would be..." he simply ignored that. There are MANY cases of him doing that kind of thing.

Well here is another example. He talks about how he disagrees with me on somethings but that's okay because even those disagreements can help him think. So what are these things that he disagrees with me about, which help him to think? Apparently it has something to do with whether or not there really is a God, and he quotes Memphis to make his point that such arguments are useless anyway.

Of course, anyone reading the posts between Dredric and me would know that we were NOT talking about whether or not there really is a god, but RATHER, I was challenging Dredric as to his interpretation and APPLICATION of the teachings of the God he supposedly believes in. It is dishonest of Dredric to pretend that the discussion was about something else. In a situation where he was being asked to hear what he did not want to hear Dredrics bottom line was that Jesus didn't really mean what he said, and even still, "tickets to Heaven" don't come through being good so there is no need to even TRY to be good, especially in areas concerning money and material possessions. It's very convenient for him to now pretend that it was all just a silly theological debate about the existence of God.

and i am sorry if i have insulted you or argued wrongly


What an insincere apology. Dredric is sorry IF he insulted me? Well, did he insult me or not? If he did not insult me then there is no reason for him to apologize. If he did insult me, he should stop beating around the bush and just apologize for it. This kind of insincerity is not specific to church go-ers, but it sure does suit their desire to look like the nice guys without actually having to take responsibility for their actions.

It works on the basis of knowing how to speak out of both sides of the mouth. For example, Dredric accused me of thinking that I am God. This comes out of one side of his mouth. At the same time the other side of his mouth says "I'm sorry IF I have offended you". How convenient. Dredric gets off a pot shot at me for challenging him at the same time that he pretends to be the nice-guy-peace-maker dishing out apologies all around. In fact, he even feels the need to apologize to HIMSELF on MY behalf. Here is what he says...

also i forgive you if you did the same


Well, did I offend him or not? Or, is he saying he doesn't know if he was offended by me? This is just more of the same kind of double mindedness that expressed itself all through his earlier posts. Of course, he WAS offended by most of what I said to him and he let me know it, too. He said I was "judgmental" and that I made criticisms of him.

When I challenged him on teh hypocrisy of being judgmental in accusing me of being judgmental, he totally ignored that. When I challenged him to show where my criticisms were wrong or unfair, he ignored that. In the end Dredric simply did not like the idea that his God would make demands of him that were not particularly "comfortable". We all go through that at times and to varying degrees but Dredric was expressing a hypocrisy in this area that was very similar to what I know of what was recorded as having happened between Jesus and the pharisees. No wonder people shake their heads at the Christianity of today.

so i hope everything is clear between you and me


Hope is frail, but hard to kill.
User avatar
radicool_systemite
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


PreviousNext

Return to Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests