|
Post by Grant on Jun 29, 2021 3:07:50 GMT -5
Self righteousness......who reposts people pumping up your own tyres..... How does one win when they start with a false premise.....š¤ Chuck, instead of trying to discredit Nathan or sidestep the issue, do you agree with the statements which Nathan has quoted? At the serious risk of falling on your own sword, can you even attempt to undermine the integrity deeply embedded in these statements? What is it about verity that is so appalling to your willingness to accept and believe? Are you related to Kent Hovind? It's obvious you're playing games with Nathan. Mocking would be a better word whether you deny it or not, unless you're as uneducated as he is and like him can't determine fact from fiction.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jun 29, 2021 3:14:02 GMT -5
Chuck, instead of trying to discredit Nathan or sidestep the issue, do you agree with the statements which Nathan has quoted? At the serious risk of falling on your own sword, can you even attempt to undermine the integrity deeply embedded in these statements? What is it about verity that is so appalling to your willingness to accept and believe? Are you related to Kent Hovind? It's obvious you're playing games with Nathan. Mocking would be a better word whether you deny it or not, unless you're as uneducated as he is and like him can't determine fact from fiction. I have said it before, I am here to entertain. This may suit some but not others. That comes with the T-shirt. Mocking or mirth? That's down to one's perception. Study the coypu. Are not its hind legs towards the rear of its body? Is not Chuck playing games with Nathan?
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Jun 29, 2021 3:16:34 GMT -5
I believe Chuck is being serious. You know Nathan is unable to discern the difference between when he's being played with and when someone is serious. He takes your posts seriously and uses them to feed his ego.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Jun 29, 2021 3:42:01 GMT -5
Self righteousness......who reposts people pumping up your own tyres..... How does one win when they start with a false premise.....š¤ Chuck, instead of trying to discredit Nathan or sidestep the issue, do you agree with the statements which Nathan has quoted? At the serious risk of falling on your own sword, can you even attempt to undermine the integrity deeply embedded in these statements? What is it about verity that is so appalling to your willingness to accept and believe? Are you related to Kent Hovind? No I don't agree with them. Please show me how Nathan wins hands down with Jesus being inside a hollow air-conditioned Venus with his meticulous research?. Related to Kent in what way?.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Jun 29, 2021 3:48:12 GMT -5
It's obvious you're playing games with Nathan. Mocking would be a better word whether you deny it or not, unless you're as uneducated as he is and like him can't determine fact from fiction. I have said it before, I am here to entertain. This may suit some but not others. That comes with the T-shirt. Mocking or mirth? That's down to one's perception. Study the coypu. Are not its hind legs towards the rear of its body? Is not Chuck playing games with Nathan? What Games?, maybe with the insect evidence being blown away.....
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jun 29, 2021 4:33:30 GMT -5
Chuck, instead of trying to discredit Nathan or sidestep the issue, do you agree with the statements which Nathan has quoted? At the serious risk of falling on your own sword, can you even attempt to undermine the integrity deeply embedded in these statements? What is it about verity that is so appalling to your willingness to accept and believe? Are you related to Kent Hovind? No I don't agree with them. Please show me how Nathan wins hands down with Jesus being inside a hollow air-conditioned Venus with his meticulous research?. Is this any more incredible than some of your way out 'Christian' interpretations and ideas? Whose ideas are the more dangerous?
Related to Kent in what way?. Blood!
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jun 29, 2021 4:39:57 GMT -5
I believe Chuck is being serious. You know Nathan is unable to discern the difference between when he's being played with and when someone is serious. He takes your posts seriously and uses them to feed his ego. Both Chuck and Nathan are being serious. Which is the more dangerous? Again, I must state that my business is to entertain. How individuals accept and respond to that entertainment is beyond my control. If I was to get taken up with the various ways people view my entertainment, I would be out of business. As with others, on this issue, my survival as an entertainer is gauged on majority approval. The real issue is not how Nathan takes my posts, but how others take Nathan.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jun 29, 2021 4:42:07 GMT -5
I have said it before, I am here to entertain. This may suit some but not others. That comes with the T-shirt. Mocking or mirth? That's down to one's perception. Study the coypu. Are not its hind legs towards the rear of its body? Is not Chuck playing games with Nathan? What Games?, maybe with the insect evidence being blown away..... No disrespect Chuck, but some of the things you come out with in response to Nathan and others, are so incredible that you just have to be playing games with people.....or......?
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Jun 29, 2021 4:47:17 GMT -5
I believe Chuck is being serious. You know Nathan is unable to discern the difference between when he's being played with and when someone is serious. He takes your posts seriously and uses them to feed his ego. Both Chuck and Nathan are being serious. Which is the more dangerous? Again, I must state that my business is to entertain. How individuals accept and respond to that entertainment is beyond my control. If I was to get taken up with the various ways people view my entertainment, I would be out of business. As with others, on this issue, my survival as an entertainer is gauged on majority approval. The real issue is not how Nathan takes my posts, but how others take Nathan. Neither Chuck nor Nathan's posts are dangerous. Yours are though because they play on the vulnerable. You haven't once told Nathan you were joking but let him to continue to believe what you wrote is fact.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Jun 29, 2021 4:56:52 GMT -5
No I don't agree with them. Please show me how Nathan wins hands down with Jesus being inside a hollow air-conditioned Venus with his meticulous research?. Is this any more incredible than some of your way out 'Christian' interpretations and ideas? Whose ideas are the more dangerous?
Related to Kent in what way?. Blood!What is dangerous or not credible about suggesting Christ is trying to teach people to be less judgemental and exclusive to the point of acting less than human?. 10Ā So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius.11Ā When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner.12Ā āThese who were hired last worked only one hour,ā they said, āand you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.ā13Ā āBut he answered one of them, āI am not being unfair to you, friend. Didnāt you agree to work for a denarius?14Ā Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you.15Ā Donāt I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?ā16Ā āSo the last will be first, and the first will be last.ā - Matthew 20:10-16 www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew20:10-16&version=NIVWhy do religious people get so worked up about the suggestion of Grace, it always get a negative repsonse.......
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jun 29, 2021 4:57:58 GMT -5
Both Chuck and Nathan are being serious. Which is the more dangerous? Again, I must state that my business is to entertain. How individuals accept and respond to that entertainment is beyond my control. If I was to get taken up with the various ways people view my entertainment, I would be out of business. As with others, on this issue, my survival as an entertainer is gauged on majority approval. The real issue is not how Nathan takes my posts, but how others take Nathan. Neither Chuck nor Nathan's posts are dangerous. Yours are though because they play on the vulnerable. You haven't once told Nathan you were joking but let him to continue to believe what you wrote as fact. I point out dangers and you point out jokes. What may not be perceived by yourself as dangerous, may in fact be otherwise with other individuals. I think by now, my employment of joviality and humour are well known, especially to Nathan. In the past he has regularly pointed out and warned others about my common trait, though sometimes he has difficulty discerning when I am joking and when I am serious. Nevertheless he is far from naĆÆve about my posts. Just get him started about Dorothy Irvine, etc. Nathan believes what he wants to believe. It's as simple as that. If you think my posts are dangerous and play on the vulnerable, start a campaign to get me banned? If I agreed with your assessment I would ban myself!
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Jun 29, 2021 5:01:12 GMT -5
What Games?, maybe with the insect evidence being blown away..... No disrespect Chuck, but some of the things you come out with in response to Nathan and others, are so incredible that you just have to be playing games with people.....or......? Like this is the 3rd time of the accusation I am dangerous and yet your like Nathan, blown away insects....
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jun 29, 2021 5:01:32 GMT -5
What is dangerous or not credible about suggesting Christ is trying to teach people to be less judgemental and exclusive to the point of acting less than human?. I don't recall taking issue with such a statement. In fact I am unfamiliar with you having made it.
10Ā So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius.11Ā When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner.12Ā āThese who were hired last worked only one hour,ā they said, āand you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.ā13Ā āBut he answered one of them, āI am not being unfair to you, friend. Didnāt you agree to work for a denarius?14Ā Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you.15Ā Donāt I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?ā16Ā āSo the last will be first, and the first will be last.ā - Matthew 20:10-16 www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew20:10-16&version=NIVWhy do religious people get so worked up about the suggestion of Grace, it always get a negative repsonse....... I haven't a clue what you're on about. Of course we can have a debate about what grace actually is and its necessity for salvation?
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jun 29, 2021 5:03:13 GMT -5
No disrespect Chuck, but some of the things you come out with in response to Nathan and others, are so incredible that you just have to be playing games with people.....or......? Like this is the 3rd time of the accusation I am dangerous and yet your like Nathan, blown away insects.... Do you agree that the warning to beware of false prophets is a warning of the dangers in listening to these people?
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Jun 29, 2021 5:06:12 GMT -5
You've been around a long time, mountain or is it opening act and no one to my knowledge has mentioned banning you.
Yes, it does seem Nathan choses to believe a post when it suits him. But you can see how he uses your post about him being well researched and educationed to his own advantage. It feeds his already disturbing traits.
I don't see your posts as funny at all. Like I said dangerous when Nathan uses them like he does
Chucks posts aren't childish sci fi like Nathan's, they are different to mainline beliefs but not dangerous. I don't understand chucks posts but as long as he does then I guess that's all that matters
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Jun 29, 2021 5:11:43 GMT -5
Like this is the 3rd time of the accusation I am dangerous and yet your like Nathan, blown away insects.... Do you agree that the warning to beware of false prophets is a warning of the dangers in listening to these people?
And there it is...... What not enough fire and brimstone for your liking? More accusation without insects.....
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jun 29, 2021 5:35:39 GMT -5
You've been around a long time, mountain or is it opening act and no one to my knowledge has mentioned banning you. Firstly I am not 'opening act.' I only post as 'mountain.' I rather suspect that Opening Act is someone like rational? Secondly, as you say, I have been around a long time (on this board) and no one has mentioned banning me. That's an indication of how dangerous my posts are!
Yes, it does seem Nathan choses to believe a post when it suits him. But you can see how he uses your post about him being well research and well educationed to his own advantage. It feeds his already disturbing traits. I have no jurisdiction over what others choose to believe or not. I am far from alone in having my posts highlighted by Nathan to suit his narrative. Sometimes in dealing with others and the way they project their views, we have to consider whether or not to treat them seriously. This can save us getting worked up over matters we cannot change and this is indeed something that is a lesson for myself as well as others. It can make all the difference.
I don't see your posts as funny at all. Like I said dangerous when Nathan uses them like he does Again this is your perception and you are entitled to it. If the entertainer was to be governed by the views of the minority, we would have no one to entertain us. If Nathan is seen circumspectly, there is no danger in how he uses anyone's posts, my own ones included. Goodness me, should we deem Ray Bradbury to be dangerous? Maybe we should, contextually? He is far more dangerous than Nathan. However, in my view, which I have well expressed in the past, one of the most dangerous doctrines is the doctrine of the trinity, because it projects a belief in a false God. The danger is in the deception.
Chucks posts aren't childish sci fi like Nathan's, they are different to mainline beliefs but not dangerous. I don't understand chucks posts but as long as he does then I guess that's all that matters Basically what you are saying is that Nathan's posts are NOT dangerous, on account of them being childish and science fiction? If Chuck's 'Christian' posts are different to what Christ and his Apostles taught and preached, then they are indeed dangerous.....very dangerous. I can cite appropriate verses from scripture to support this.
Perhaps we need to explore the term 'dangerous' in light of scriptural teaching?
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Jun 29, 2021 5:39:57 GMT -5
You've been around a long time, mountain or is it opening act and no one to my knowledge has mentioned banning you. Yes, it does seem Nathan choses to believe a post when it suits him. But you can see how he uses your post about him being well research and well educationed to his own advantage. It feeds his already disturbing traits. I don't see your posts as funny at all. Like I said dangerous when Nathan uses them like he does Chucks posts aren't childish sci fi like Nathan's, they are different to mainline beliefs but not dangerous. I don't understand chucks posts but as long as he does then I guess that's all that matters I am dangerous because I differ to mainline beliefs. Mainline beliefs say some people are in because of rituals and traditions, and those that dont practice those are out. That's pretty common across religion. And the results of this mindset is we can treat people differently or less than us because we are superior.... I suggest continously in my posts that the narrative of scripture is moving away from that not towards. The Hebrew people recognised this along time ago, sure they screwed up along the way just like any one does but the trajectory of the God and Christ character are away from that mindset......to understand this we need to study the Hebrew people to see what they were actually saying within the context of their time and culture not ours...... Sorry I can't communicate better š. Communicating what I think to people regardless if they accept it or not is difficult.....
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jun 29, 2021 5:41:04 GMT -5
Do you agree that the warning to beware of false prophets is a warning of the dangers in listening to these people?
And there it is...... What not enough fire and brimstone for your liking? More accusation without insects..... Study how the gospel was preached in the beginning. It contained two things: 1) A dire warning (fire and brimstone), and 2) A message of hope (how to avoid the fire and brimstone). Agreed plagues and locusts etc., were occasionally mentioned, so I had better add: 3) Insects!
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jun 29, 2021 5:43:32 GMT -5
You've been around a long time, mountain or is it opening act and no one to my knowledge has mentioned banning you. Yes, it does seem Nathan choses to believe a post when it suits him. But you can see how he uses your post about him being well research and well educationed to his own advantage. It feeds his already disturbing traits. I don't see your posts as funny at all. Like I said dangerous when Nathan uses them like he does Chucks posts aren't childish sci fi like Nathan's, they are different to mainline beliefs but not dangerous. I don't understand chucks posts but as long as he does then I guess that's all that matters I am dangerous because I differ to mainline beliefs. Mainline beliefs say some people are in because of rituals and traditions, and those that dont practice those are out. That's pretty common across religion. And the results of this mindset is we can treat people differently or less than us because we are superior.... I suggest continously in my posts that the narrative of scripture is moving away from that not towards. The Hebrew people recognised this along time ago, sure they screwed up along the way just like any one does but the trajectory of the God and Christ character are away from that mindset......to understand this we need to study the Hebrew people to see what they were actually saying within the context of their time and culture not ours...... Sorry I can't communicate better š. Communicating what I think to people regardless if they accept it or not is difficult..... Do you agree that 'if' what you believe and project is different from what Christ and his disciples believed and taught, then what you post is indeed 'dangerous?' Yes or no?
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jun 29, 2021 5:44:41 GMT -5
I am dangerous because I differ to mainline beliefs. Mainline beliefs say some people are in because of rituals and traditions, and those that dont practice those are out. That's pretty common across religion. And the results of this mindset is we can treat people differently or less than us because we are superior.... I suggest continously in my posts that the narrative of scripture is moving away from that not towards. The Hebrew people recognised this along time ago, sure they screwed up along the way just like any one does but the trajectory of the God and Christ character are away from that mindset......to understand this we need to study the Hebrew people to see what they were actually saying within the context of their time and culture not ours...... Sorry I can't communicate better š. Communicating what I think to people regardless if they accept it or not is difficult..... Do you agree that 'if' what you believe and project is different from what Christ and his disciples believed and taught, then what you post is indeed 'dangerous?' Yes or no? By the way, this applies to everyone!
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Jun 29, 2021 5:48:42 GMT -5
I don't think Nathan's or chuck's posts are dangerous. Trinity believers have the same feelings towards non Trinitiarns as you do towards Chucks posts and vice versa. I see Chucks posts as no more false than trinitarians and non trinitians see each others as false. I believe more in one side than the other but have no problem with those who do not see it as I do.
I see Chucks posts are harmless. New age if anything. Reminds me of Jesus words, He who is for me is not against me, comes to mind.
It's not your posts I see dangerous but the way Nathan uses them to promote his ego and continue believing what he does.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Jun 29, 2021 5:58:22 GMT -5
I am dangerous because I differ to mainline beliefs. Mainline beliefs say some people are in because of rituals and traditions, and those that dont practice those are out. That's pretty common across religion. And the results of this mindset is we can treat people differently or less than us because we are superior.... I suggest continously in my posts that the narrative of scripture is moving away from that not towards. The Hebrew people recognised this along time ago, sure they screwed up along the way just like any one does but the trajectory of the God and Christ character are away from that mindset......to understand this we need to study the Hebrew people to see what they were actually saying within the context of their time and culture not ours...... Sorry I can't communicate better š. Communicating what I think to people regardless if they accept it or not is difficult..... Do you agree that 'if' what you believe and project is different from what Christ and his disciples believed and taught, then what you post is indeed 'dangerous?' Yes or no? Define what "believe" means to you and what you think it means to me, and then define what you think I believe in your own words.... Yes in answer to your question, this is why I bang on about understanding the Hebrew people...... Sure I may be wrong, but no one seems to challenge what I say from a Hebraic perspective, only from a greek/western perspective which is all but foreign to Christ and his disciples and mostly is founded in doctrine introduced long after Christ by western men who never thought like the Hebrew people at all.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jun 29, 2021 6:03:42 GMT -5
Do you agree that 'if' what you believe and project is different from what Christ and his disciples believed and taught, then what you post is indeed 'dangerous?' Yes or no? Define what "believe" means to you and what you think it means to me, and then define what you think I believe in your own words.... This is best investigated through a case by case basis as matters are posted. This has already been done at some length, but if I hang around for a bit I will certainly engage where I see something that I believe to be false.
Yes in answer to your question, this is why I bang on about understanding the Hebrew people...... Sure I may be wrong, but no one seems to challenge what I say from a Hebraic perspective, only from a greek/western perspective which is all but foreign to Christ and his disciples and mostly is founded in doctrine introduced long after Christ by western men who never thought like the Hebrew people at all. This is your belief and not one which is shared by many others.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jun 29, 2021 6:10:36 GMT -5
I don't think Nathan's or chuck's posts are dangerous. Trinity believers have the same feelings towards non Trinitiarns as you do towards Chucks posts and vice versa. I see Chucks posts as no more false than trinitarians and non trinitians see each others as false. I believe more in one side than the other but have no problem with those who do not see it as I do. I see Chucks posts are harmless. New age if anything. Reminds me of Jesus words, He who is for me is not against me, comes to mind. It's not your posts I see dangerous but the way Nathan uses them to promote his ego and continue believing what he does. If people are teaching or preaching false doctrines then we have no alternative but to regard them as dangerous from a scriptural standpoint. However, a benign approach is often advisable. We are well warned about paying heed to false doctrines and teachings.
It seems your concerns about any danger in my posts are really out of concern for Nathan's well being rather than others. As far as others are concerned it appears any danger is non-existent from what you state below (except for Wally)?
Nathan's loony delusions are not tolerated by anyone on this board except Wally. That includes neither Trinity or non trinitians, Christian's or atheists or others. He's out on his own. There are some who mock him but he's not able to see through that and falls for it. All part of his inability to pick up on cues.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Jun 29, 2021 6:11:58 GMT -5
And there it is...... What not enough fire and brimstone for your liking? More accusation without insects..... Study how the gospel was preached in the beginning. It contained two things: 1) A dire warning (fire and brimstone), and 2) A message of hope (how to avoid the fire and brimstone). Agreed plagues and locusts etc., were occasionally mentioned, so I had better add: 3) Insects! What do you think fire and brimstone meant to these people?.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jun 29, 2021 6:13:27 GMT -5
Study how the gospel was preached in the beginning. It contained two things: 1) A dire warning (fire and brimstone), and 2) A message of hope (how to avoid the fire and brimstone). Agreed plagues and locusts etc., were occasionally mentioned, so I had better add: 3) Insects! What do you think fire and brimstone meant to these people?. The Wrath of God!
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Jun 29, 2021 7:40:37 GMT -5
Define what "believe" means to you and what you think it means to me, and then define what you think I believe in your own words.... This is best investigated through a case by case basis as matters are posted. This has already been done at some length, but if I hang around for a bit I will certainly engage where I see something that I believe to be false.
Yes in answer to your question, this is why I bang on about understanding the Hebrew people...... Sure I may be wrong, but no one seems to challenge what I say from a Hebraic perspective, only from a greek/western perspective which is all but foreign to Christ and his disciples and mostly is founded in doctrine introduced long after Christ by western men who never thought like the Hebrew people at all. This is your belief and not one which is shared by many others.
Could you explain why you think it's reasonable to ignore the writers viewpoint?
|
|