Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 3:01:12 GMT -5
Alternatively just decide for yourself which bits to take literally and which bits to treat metaphorically based on what is most convenient for you. If you don’t fancy selling all that you have and giving the money to the poor and would prefer to keep possession of all your worldly stuff then stick that one down as a metaphor. And if you really don’t fancy having your eye plucked out or your hand cut off then put those bits down as metaphors too. And if you’re embarrassed about the butchery of your God when you are trying to convince non believers of your God’s loving nature then put the slaughter of the Egyptian firstborn down as a metaphor as well. And if your non believing friends are pointing out the scientific impossibilities of Jesus rising from the dead and ascending up to the heavens and suggesting that these are merely stories with a meaning then be sure to put these down as literals lest the whole basis for your belief system falls apart. If fact why not go through the bible and pick out all the inconvenient and ridiculous bits such as talking animals and slave beating and raping and stoning and the stories of Lot’s wife and Adam’s rib and the bits about not taking two coats or not eating shellfish on the sabbath or meeting in the upper room and label them as metaphors leaving only the less inconvenient and ridiculous bits as to be taken literally. And if anyone challenges you on your authority to do this or accuses you of adopting an a la carte approach to Christianity then simply tell them that you talked to God and he told you which to treat as metaphors and which to take literally. And if anyone asks you for evidence of this tell them that he wrote these things down on a large stone which you happen to have misplaced rather conveniently. And when you are finished doing this why not engage in a spot of ‘word stretching’ where one goes through the bible bit by bit giving new interpretations to words in an attempt to make the biblical authors appear to have known things that they couldn’t possibly have known. For example take the word ‘day’ in the story for creation and reinterpret it as several million years. And after you’ve finished word stretching you can move into ‘scripture twisting’ whereby you reinterpret scripture to make it seem to say things that clearly aren’t there. For example you can do this if you don’t want people owning a television or women having a fringe. At the end of the day with enough imagination and religious conditioning the bible can say whatever you want it to say just as God can be whatever you want him to be. Matt10 you already tested me once on a whole bunch of verses whether they were literal or metaphor or both(you even tried to sneak in a few verses that were incorrect) and i passed with flying colors which then caused you to slink off with out much of say...that you are back complaining about it means you didn't learn anything from before.... You are misremembering. I didn’t slink off at all. I responded to you giving you credit for having taken the time to go through what was a rather long list. I’m not sure what else you were expecting me to say in response given that you had just confirmed my belief that believers simply pick and choose which parts of the bible they wish to take literally. However where you got the idea that you passed with flying colours is somewhat bemusing. It wasn’t a test. There was no pass or fail. There were no right or wrong answers other than in your head. What you did was just decide for yourself which bits to take literally and which bits to treat metaphorically which is exactly what I am suggesting above. Anyone could have done it. I could have done it myself. I could have put the resurrection story down as a metaphor and there is no reason why my view would be any less valid than yours. Don’t confuse getting credit for having taken the time to pick and choose which bits of the bible to take literally with having achieved some great victory. All you did was (helpfully) confirm my view that believers simply pick and choose which bits of the bible to follow literally and which bits can be set aside. It’s called a la carte Christianity. (Or making it up.) You certainly didn’t advance your case for what is written in the bible to be taken seriously. Quite the opposite in fact. Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 3:10:45 GMT -5
you already tested me once on a whole bunch of verses whether they were literal or metaphor or both(you even tried to sneak in a few verses that were incorrect) and i passed with flying colors which then caused you to slink off with out much of say...that you are back complaining about it means you didn't learn anything from before.... You are misremembering. I didn’t slink off at all. I responded to you giving you credit for having taken the time to go through what was a rather long list. I’m not sure what else you were expecting me to say in response given that you had just confirmed my belief that believers simply pick and choose which parts of the bible they wish to take literally. However where you got the idea that you passed with flying colours is somewhat bemusing. It wasn’t a test. There was no pass or fail. There were no right or wrong answers other than in your head. What you did was just decide for yourself which bits to take literally and which bits to treat metaphorically which is exactly what I am suggesting above. Anyone could have done it. I could have done it myself. I could have put the resurrection story down as a metaphor and there is no reason why my view would be any less valid than yours. Don’t confuse getting credit for having taken the time to pick and choose which bits of the bible to take literally with having achieved some great victory. All you did was (helpfully) confirm my view that believers simply pick and choose which bits of the bible to follow literally and which bits can be set aside. It’s called a la carte Christianity. (Or making it up.) You certainly didn’t advance your case for what is written in the bible to be taken seriously. Quite the opposite in fact. Matt10 like i said you slinked off without much to say. you thought i couldn't or wouldn't do it but i did and i was spot on...
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Dec 30, 2020 3:19:52 GMT -5
You are misremembering. I didn’t slink off at all. I responded to you giving you credit for having taken the time to go through what was a rather long list. I’m not sure what else you were expecting me to say in response given that you had just confirmed my belief that believers simply pick and choose which parts of the bible they wish to take literally. However where you got the idea that you passed with flying colours is somewhat bemusing. It wasn’t a test. There was no pass or fail. There were no right or wrong answers other than in your head. What you did was just decide for yourself which bits to take literally and which bits to treat metaphorically which is exactly what I am suggesting above. Anyone could have done it. I could have done it myself. I could have put the resurrection story down as a metaphor and there is no reason why my view would be any less valid than yours. Don’t confuse getting credit for having taken the time to pick and choose which bits of the bible to take literally with having achieved some great victory. All you did was (helpfully) confirm my view that believers simply pick and choose which bits of the bible to follow literally and which bits can be set aside. It’s called a la carte Christianity. (Or making it up.) You certainly didn’t advance your case for what is written in the bible to be taken seriously. Quite the opposite in fact. Matt10 like i said you slinked off without much to say. you thought i couldn't or wouldn't do it but i did and i was spot on... Doesn't it say something in the Bible about 'self praise is not honour" or doesn't that verse apply to you @wally? Thank you for once again proving my point by "showing" your self righteous superiority !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 3:33:16 GMT -5
like i said you slinked off without much to say. you thought i couldn't or wouldn't do it but i did and i was spot on... Doesn't it say something in the Bible about 'self praise is not honour" or doesn't that verse apply to you @wally ? Thank you for once again proving my point by "showing" your self righteous superiority ! confidence in doing a good job is not superiority... i looked up(KJV) your phrase and each of the words and found nothing suggesting that however there were a few verses suggesting that we could attain honour if we obey God or do righteousness in his sight... if you have a verse i missed i would like to see it...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 3:36:17 GMT -5
You are misremembering. I didn’t slink off at all. I responded to you giving you credit for having taken the time to go through what was a rather long list. I’m not sure what else you were expecting me to say in response given that you had just confirmed my belief that believers simply pick and choose which parts of the bible they wish to take literally. However where you got the idea that you passed with flying colours is somewhat bemusing. It wasn’t a test. There was no pass or fail. There were no right or wrong answers other than in your head. What you did was just decide for yourself which bits to take literally and which bits to treat metaphorically which is exactly what I am suggesting above. Anyone could have done it. I could have done it myself. I could have put the resurrection story down as a metaphor and there is no reason why my view would be any less valid than yours. Don’t confuse getting credit for having taken the time to pick and choose which bits of the bible to take literally with having achieved some great victory. All you did was (helpfully) confirm my view that believers simply pick and choose which bits of the bible to follow literally and which bits can be set aside. It’s called a la carte Christianity. (Or making it up.) You certainly didn’t advance your case for what is written in the bible to be taken seriously. Quite the opposite in fact. Matt10 like i said you slinked off without much to say. you thought i couldn't or wouldn't do it but i did and i was spot on... It’s not at all like you said. I’ve just pointed out to you that I didn’t slink off and that there wasn’t much else to say given that you had confirmed my point. I suspect you are attempting to deflect here to avoid acknowledging the fact that you simply confirmed my rather uncomfortable point that you are an a la carte Christian who simply picks and chooses which bits of the bible you are going to take literally. You are no different to me in that respect. I just happen to take a more sensible approach as to what should be taken literally and therefore rule out things such as the ascent of Jesus up to heaven which is scientifically stupid and for which there is absolutely no evidence. Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 3:47:27 GMT -5
like i said you slinked off without much to say. you thought i couldn't or wouldn't do it but i did and i was spot on... It’s not at all like you said. I’ve just pointed out to you that I didn’t slink off and that there wasn’t much else to say given that you had confirmed my point. I suspect you are attempting to deflect here to avoid acknowledging the fact that you simply confirmed my rather uncomfortable point that you are an a la carte Christian who simply picks and chooses which bits of the bible you are going to take literally. You are no different to me in that respect. I just happen to take a more sensible approach as to what should be taken literally and therefore rule out things such as the ascent of Jesus up to heaven which is scientifically stupid and for which there is absolutely no evidence. Matt10 you never made that point when you slinked off. i suspect you didn't think i could/would do it and do it well and you did not know what to say....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 4:27:57 GMT -5
It’s not at all like you said. I’ve just pointed out to you that I didn’t slink off and that there wasn’t much else to say given that you had confirmed my point. I suspect you are attempting to deflect here to avoid acknowledging the fact that you simply confirmed my rather uncomfortable point that you are an a la carte Christian who simply picks and chooses which bits of the bible you are going to take literally. You are no different to me in that respect. I just happen to take a more sensible approach as to what should be taken literally and therefore rule out things such as the ascent of Jesus up to heaven which is scientifically stupid and for which there is absolutely no evidence. Matt10 you never made that point when you slinked off. i suspect you didn't think i could/would do it and do it well and you did not know what to say.... But you didn’t do it well. You simply did it. Any fool could have done it. You could have tossed a coin to get the answers. Heads literal, tails metaphor. It took me longer to compile the list than it did for you to do it. I’m at a loss as to what you think you did well. The only thing you did well was to prove that you were an a la carte Christian. There are two a la carte approaches to the bible. One is the sensible approach and the other the convenient approach. The sensible approach is driven by science and evidence and rationality and involves not taking the scientifically stupid stuff literally. It therefore rules out things such as the talking donkey. The convenient approach is driven by the need to maintain one’s beliefs and therefore requires some of the scientifically stupid stuff to be taken literally. Things such as the virgin birth and the raising of the dead after 3 days. It also allows the believer to disregard anything that is inconvenient. I take the sensible a la carte approach and you take the convenient a la carte one. Of course there is also the literal approach which is the opposite of a la carte. While the literal approach involves accepting a lot of very nutty stuff it is a much more consistent approach to take than the convenient a la carte approach. And in many ways a much more honourable one. I can respect people who take the bible literally more than those who pick and choose conveniently. Of the three approaches your approach is the least credible and the most man made because it neither accepts the laws of the God of Nature or the literal word of the Biblical God. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Dec 30, 2020 6:17:33 GMT -5
In truth, in fact in absolute truth, Matt 10's 'a la carte' labelling of some Christians is very appropriate. Though I have never thought about it before, the term most certainly describes trinitarians, in the very way Matt 10 portrays things (ie those who try to defend the illusionary concept).
My main objection with Matt's use of the term 'a la carte' is that for me this could destroy a good meal? Imagine having a meal in a nice restaurant and being offered the 'a la carte' menu? This (at least for myself) would provoke horrendous visions of the blasphemous trinity concept. Whatever fine fare that I had consumed up to that point is likely to be involuntarily regurgitated and most likely before I had time to make it to the mens' room?
Matt dude, do you mind seeking an alternative description to 'a la carte?' For some it carries too much risk!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 8:53:23 GMT -5
In truth, in fact in absolute truth, Matt 10's 'a la carte' labelling of some Christians is very appropriate. Though I have never thought about it before, the term most certainly describes trinitarians, in the very way Matt 10 portrays things (ie those who try to defend the illusionary concept). My main objection with Matt's use of the term 'a la carte' is that for me this could destroy a good meal? Imagine having a meal in a nice restaurant and being offered the 'a la carte' menu? This (at least for myself) would provoke horrendous visions of the blasphemous trinity concept. Whatever fine fare that I had consumed up to that point is likely to be involuntarily regurgitated and most likely before I had time to make it to the mens' room? Matt dude, do you mind seeking an alternative description to 'a la carte?' For some it carries too much risk! Well you could go for “Pick’n’Mix” which you may recall was the name of the sweet counter at Woolworths prior to its demise. Or you could go for “Little Choosey” which was the name of a racehorse (and has sadly now also met its demise). Or you could just go for good old fashioned “Making It Up As You Go Along” which does exactly what it says. Or you could abandon the a la carte approach altogether and just go for the literal approach to the bible and then, rather than separating the literal from the metaphorical, just indulge in a spot of scripture twisting to get around any bits you don’t like. If for example you don’t fancy plucking out your eye when it offends you, simply pluck out an eyebrow or an eyelash instead and then claim a mistranslation of the original text or that the scribe recording what Jesus was saying was hard of hearing. Whatever it is that works for you, go with that. As I pointed out previously the bible can say whatever you want it to say just as God can be whatever you want Him to be. If you want a God who looks positively on what you are doing in the bedroom and negatively on what your neighbour is doing you can have that. Or if you want a God who doesn’t mind you watching telly but only if it’s on an iPad (and not a television set), you can have that too. It’s really up to you. Remember God has created us in His own image and we can create Him in our own imagination too. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 30, 2020 9:02:15 GMT -5
In truth, in fact in absolute truth, Matt 10's 'a la carte' labelling of some Christians is very appropriate. Though I have never thought about it before, the term most certainly describes trinitarians, in the very way Matt 10 portrays things (ie those who try to defend the illusionary concept). My main objection with Matt's use of the term 'a la carte' is that for me this could destroy a good meal? Imagine having a meal in a nice restaurant and being offered the 'a la carte' menu? This (at least for myself) would provoke horrendous visions of the blasphemous trinity concept. Whatever fine fare that I had consumed up to that point is likely to be involuntarily regurgitated and most likely before I had time to make it to the mens' room? Matt dude, do you mind seeking an alternative description to 'a la carte?' For some it carries too much risk! You could always just order rice.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Dec 30, 2020 9:23:28 GMT -5
Whereas this thread started out with a subject about evil done in effort to expel demons I wonder if Plato had some understanding of these matters? Plato’s concept of evil anticipated that of Augustine’s. Plato believed that evil is not a substance; instead, it is a defective presentation of the Form. This understanding played a significant role in Augustine’s refutation of the Manichaean doctrine of evil. Not sure. . . maybe food for thought...
|
|
|
Post by openingact34 on Dec 30, 2020 10:08:51 GMT -5
In truth, in fact in absolute truth, Matt 10's 'a la carte' labelling of some Christians is very appropriate. Though I have never thought about it before, the term most certainly describes trinitarians, in the very way Matt 10 portrays things (ie those who try to defend the illusionary concept). My main objection with Matt's use of the term 'a la carte' is that for me this could destroy a good meal? Imagine having a meal in a nice restaurant and being offered the 'a la carte' menu? This (at least for myself) would provoke horrendous visions of the blasphemous trinity concept. Whatever fine fare that I had consumed up to that point is likely to be involuntarily regurgitated and most likely before I had time to make it to the mens' room? Matt dude, do you mind seeking an alternative description to 'a la carte?' For some it carries too much risk! Well you could go for “Pick’n’Mix” which you may recall was the name of the sweet counter at Woolworths prior to its demise. Or you could go for “Little Choosey” which was the name of a racehorse (and has sadly now also met its demise). Or you could just go for good old fashioned “Making It Up As You Go Along” which does exactly what it says. Or you could abandon the a la carte approach altogether and just go for the literal approach to the bible and then, rather than separating the literal from the metaphorical, just indulge in a spot of scripture twisting to get around any bits you don’t like. If for example you don’t fancy plucking out your eye when it offends you, simply pluck out an eyebrow or an eyelash instead and then claim a mistranslation of the original text or that the scribe recording what Jesus was saying was hard of hearing. Whatever it is that works for you, go with that. As I pointed out previously the bible can say whatever you want it to say just as God can be whatever you want Him to be. If you want a God who looks positively on what you are doing in the bedroom and negatively on what your neighbour is doing you can have that. Or if you want a God who doesn’t mind you watching telly but only if it’s on an iPad (and not a television set), you can have that too. It’s really up to you. Remember God has created us in His own image and we can create Him in our own imagination too. Matt10 The official term is Cafeteria Christian. It appropriately dispenses with the idea that any of the choices are appetizing, quality offerings that would be appealing to a sophisticated adult. Rather, the Bible offers you a choice of stale, partially rancid, mass produced slop which you half expect to cause an outbreak of food poisoning, but consume anyway.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Dec 30, 2020 10:09:18 GMT -5
~~ Apostolic fathers teachings about Demons/Giants:
(Genesis 6:4) There were Giants on the earth in those days, and also AFTERWARD, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore Children to them. Those were mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
~~ Justin Martyr (160 A.D.) The angels transgressed this appointment and were captived by love of women and they begat Children/Giants, who are called DEMONS.
~~ Athenagoras (170 A.D.) These angels, then, who have fallen from heaven, and haunt the air and the earth, and are no longer able to rise to heavenly things, and the souls of the Giants, who are the DEMONS, who wander about the world. Furthermore, certain angels who fell of their own free will, there sprang a more wicked demon brood, condemned of God along with the authors of their race. Their great business is the ruin of mankind. So, from the start, spiritual wickedness sought our destruction. Accordingly, they inflict upon our bodies diseases and other grievous calamities.
~~ Commodianus (248 A.D.) From the seed of the fallen angels and women, Giants are said to have been born. By them, arts were made known in the earth. They taught the dyeing of wool and everything that is done. When they DIED, men erected images to them. Yet, because they were of an evil seed, the Almighty did NOT approve of their being brought back from death when they had died. For that reason, they wander and they now subvert many bodies. And it is these whom the pagans presently worship and pray to as gods.
~~ Lactanius (303-313) The Giants who were born from the relations of angels with women were neither angels nor men, but had a MIXED nature---- were NOT admitted into hades when they died. Similarly, their fallen angels fathers had NOT been admitted into heaven, either. Thus there came to be TWO kinds of demons: One of heaven, the other of the earth. The latter are the wicked spirits, who are the authors of all the EVILS that are done. These wicked spirits were the inventors of astrology, soothsaying, divination, those production that are called oracles, the art of magic.
~~ Origen (225 A.D.) Now, of the wicked spirits, there is a two fold mode of operation. Sometimes they take complete and entire possession of the mind, so as NOT to allow their captives the power of either understanding or feeling. For example, this is the case with those who are commonly called "Possessed" whom we see to be deprived of reason. At other times, these evil forces use their wicked suggestions to deprave a conscious and intelligent souls with thoughts of various kinds---- Persuading it to do evil. Judas is an illustration of this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 14:16:49 GMT -5
you never made that point when you slinked off. i suspect you didn't think i could/would do it and do it well and you did not know what to say.... But you didn’t do it well. You simply did it. Any fool could have done it. You could have tossed a coin to get the answers. Heads literal, tails metaphor. It took me longer to compile the list than it did for you to do it. I’m at a loss as to what you think you did well. The only thing you did well was to prove that you were an a la carte Christian. There are two a la carte approaches to the bible. One is the sensible approach and the other the convenient approach. The sensible approach is driven by science and evidence and rationality and involves not taking the scientifically stupid stuff literally. It therefore rules out things such as the talking donkey. The convenient approach is driven by the need to maintain one’s beliefs and therefore requires some of the scientifically stupid stuff to be taken literally. Things such as the virgin birth and the raising of the dead after 3 days. It also allows the believer to disregard anything that is inconvenient. I take the sensible a la carte approach and you take the convenient a la carte one. Of course there is also the literal approach which is the opposite of a la carte. While the literal approach involves accepting a lot of very nutty stuff it is a much more consistent approach to take than the convenient a la carte approach. And in many ways a much more honourable one. I can respect people who take the bible literally more than those who pick and choose conveniently. Of the three approaches your approach is the least credible and the most man made because it neither accepts the laws of the God of Nature or the literal word of the Biblical God. Matt10 your opinion is noted but is not necessarily fact...it's too funny in fact....
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Dec 30, 2020 15:13:26 GMT -5
In truth, in fact in absolute truth, Matt 10's 'a la carte' labelling of some Christians is very appropriate. Though I have never thought about it before, the term most certainly describes trinitarians, in the very way Matt 10 portrays things (ie those who try to defend the illusionary concept). My main objection with Matt's use of the term 'a la carte' is that for me this could destroy a good meal? Imagine having a meal in a nice restaurant and being offered the 'a la carte' menu? This (at least for myself) would provoke horrendous visions of the blasphemous trinity concept. Whatever fine fare that I had consumed up to that point is likely to be involuntarily regurgitated and most likely before I had time to make it to the mens' room? Matt dude, do you mind seeking an alternative description to 'a la carte?' For some it carries too much risk! You could always just order rice. Yes Gene, and by the carte load too! Good thinking my man. By the way, are you planning on going to Leslie West's funeral?
|
|
|
Post by speak on Dec 30, 2020 16:16:51 GMT -5
In truth, in fact in absolute truth, Matt 10's 'a la carte' labelling of some Christians is very appropriate. Though I have never thought about it before, the term most certainly describes trinitarians, in the very way Matt 10 portrays things (ie those who try to defend the illusionary concept). My main objection with Matt's use of the term 'a la carte' is that for me this could destroy a good meal? Imagine having a meal in a nice restaurant and being offered the 'a la carte' menu? This (at least for myself) would provoke horrendous visions of the blasphemous trinity concept. Whatever fine fare that I had consumed up to that point is likely to be involuntarily regurgitated and most likely before I had time to make it to the mens' room? Matt dude, do you mind seeking an alternative description to 'a la carte?' For some it carries too much risk! Ha ha worth a laugh.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 30, 2020 16:27:03 GMT -5
You could always just order rice. Yes Gene, and by the carte load too! Good thinking my man. By the way, are you planning on going to Leslie West's funeral? I don’t believe I know a Leslie West.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 30, 2020 17:19:16 GMT -5
You're on a slippery slope there Wally. When you start considering things in the Bible "metaphors", suddenly you'll find yourself being like fixit or Pragmatic and thinking that Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel are just metaphors too. And then you'll wake up one morning like Chuck and decide that God is just a metaphor. verses in the bible are literal or metaphor or both pray for the ability to discern which is which... And Wally decides which ones he needs to be metaphors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 17:25:14 GMT -5
verses in the bible are literal or metaphor or both pray for the ability to discern which is which... And Wally decides which ones he needs to be metaphors. God can give anyone the ability to discern that not just me...the more you study your bible, meditate on it, and ask God for help, plus understand 1900+ years of Christian understanding the easier it becomes...to bad you abandoned all that..
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 30, 2020 17:33:15 GMT -5
And Wally decides which ones he needs to be metaphors. God can give anyone the ability to discern that not just me...the more you study your bible, meditate on it, and ask God for help, plus understand 1900+ years of Christian understanding the easier it becomes...to bad you abandoned all that.. Incredible how devout Christians all arrive at the same answers. /snark
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 17:35:40 GMT -5
God can give anyone the ability to discern that not just me...the more you study your bible, meditate on it, and ask God for help, plus understand 1900+ years of Christian understanding the easier it becomes...to bad you abandoned all that.. Incredible how devout Christians all arrive at the same answers. /snark its called consistency...you should try it...
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 30, 2020 17:39:53 GMT -5
God can give anyone the ability to discern that not just me...the more you study your bible, meditate on it, and ask God for help, plus understand 1900+ years of Christian understanding the easier it becomes...to bad you abandoned all that.. Incredible how devout Christians all arrive at the same answers. /snark Like Wally and Nathan coincide in their theologies.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 30, 2020 17:39:57 GMT -5
Incredible how devout Christians all arrive at the same answers. /snark its called consistency...you should try it... Except you aren't all consistent with one another...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 17:41:50 GMT -5
its called consistency...you should try it... Except you aren't all consistent with one another... you just said we all arrived at the same answers now you say we don't which is it and try to be consistent...
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 30, 2020 17:51:56 GMT -5
Except you aren't all consistent with one another... you just said we all arrived at the same answers now you say we don't which is it and try to be consistent... You don't read critically.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 17:55:15 GMT -5
you just said we all arrived at the same answers now you say we don't which is it and try to be consistent... You don't read critically. i believe you don't either...good try though
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Dec 30, 2020 18:07:45 GMT -5
Yes Gene, and by the carte load too! Good thinking my man. By the way, are you planning on going to Leslie West's funeral? I don’t believe I know a Leslie West. Your misfortune Gene. Also he came from around your parts I think? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_West
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 30, 2020 18:44:50 GMT -5
Except you aren't all consistent with one another... you just said we all arrived at the same answers now you say we don't which is it and try to be consistent... ;) '/snark' indicates what preceded was sarcasm/snarky.
|
|