A Checkmate Question ??

@dj2becker said
Asking you whether the reason of your bitterness is not maybe because you are handicapped doesn't mean that I believe all handicapped people are bitter even if you try to twist my question to mean that as part of your trolling.

You need to stop asking those sort of questions if you want to continue your facade as a person of faith.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You need to stop asking those sort of questions if you want to continue your facade as a person of faith.

Whether you think I am a person of faith doesn't even feature on my list of concerns.

@dj2becker said
Asking you whether the reason of your bitterness is not maybe because you are handicapped doesn't mean that I believe all handicapped people are bitter even if you try to twist my question to mean that as part of your trolling.

You said this: You’re not disabled/handicapped by any chance? That would explain a lot. And then you said this: I am simply pointing out that you spew an awful amount of vitriol against a faith you used to hold dear for decades. What happened FMF? Did you fully recover from the near fatal motorcycle accident? And then this: I am simply trying to understand where all your anger and hate is coming from. This is pretty much a definitive ad hominem. You were riffing on some notion you have in your head about "handicapped people", as you choose to call them.

@divegeester

Sonship, I’m growing impatient with your prevarications. And bored.

In the final analysis of this exchange, you once again lack the courage to put aside your vanity and tell me the truth.

While you do this you will never gain any respect from me, even if you valued it. Which you don’t.

I’m pretty much done here, unless you grow some balls.

Sorry to be blunt.

Am I suppose to be offended ?

Look again at this recalled recap of the ways in which I have sought to put your issue to rest. If it is not good enough for you, that's just too bad.

At this point I'd be interest to review the seven or eight times I replied with an intention to put the matter to rest.

I remember off hand saying such things as:

1.) You don't have to understand that much to be saved.
2.) You don't have to be that conversant on the nature of God in order to be saved by Him.
3.) I doubt that you could not be saved just because you do not use each and every kind of explanation or expression I use about the Trinity.
4.) Jesus taught His disciples that they will make mistakes as to who is a real Christian and who is not in Matthew 13. So don't look to me to be infallible about detecting who is and who is not.

These are some of the things I recall telling you over the years.
I haven't changed.

Reasonable readers, let me go through these few recalled points in the light of Divegeester's insistence of a binary Yes or No - is he saved if he does not agree to (general and vague) - my trinity teaching.

1.) You don't have to understand that much to be saved.

"But I INSIST on a Yes or a No" says Dive.
Well, I won't give you an unrealistic definite yes or no. I will give you -

You don't have to understand that much (about the three-oneness of God) to be saved.

2.) You don't have to be that conversant on the nature of God in order to be saved by Him.

"But I INSIST that you not answer that way. You have to give me a YES or a NO !"

Well, what you want and what you get may not be the same. And an answer I give you is ---

You don't have to be that conversant on the (three-one) nature of God in order to be saved by Him.

I don't really understand why you don't accept that.

3.) I doubt that you could not be saved just because you do not use each and every kind of explanation or expression I use about the Trinity.

Dive will say, "That doesn't do it for me. I need a 1 or a 0, a Yes or a No."

Sorry about that. I choose not to. Call it dodging if you must. But I would say to you or anyone -

I doubt that you could not be saved just because you do not use each and every kind of explanation or expression I use about the Trinity.

4.) Jesus taught His disciples that they will make mistakes as to who is a real Christian and who is not in Matthew 13. So don't look to me to be infallible about detecting who is and who is not.

Dive would say "Oh No you don't. I need to corner you so you have no way out. Give me that YES or NO."

Sorry, You want to say you won an argument? Say so if it makes you feel good. I choose to answer realistically as I did.

Jesus taught His disciples that they will make mistakes as to who is a real Christian and who is not in Matthew 13. So don't look to me to be infallible about detecting who is and who is not.


And a few other perfectly reasonable answers I have given you over the years. These I remember at the moment.

@fmf said
You said this: You’re not disabled/handicapped by any chance? That would explain a lot. And then you said this: I am simply pointing out that you spew an awful amount of vitriol against a faith you used to hold dear for decades. What happened FMF? Did you fully recover from the near fatal motorcycle accident? And then this: [b]I am simply trying to understand where ...[text shortened]... riffing on some notion you have in your head about "handicapped people", as you choose to call them.

An honest question is not an ad hominem. An example of an ad hominem would be when you claimed I was suffering from Autism. You did not ask me if I did.

@dj2becker said
An example of an ad hominem would be when you claimed I was suffering from Autism. You did not ask me if I did.

You announced that you were seeing a neurologist. Is that in order to get help with autism?

@fmf said
You announced that you were seeing a neurologist. Is that in order to get help with autism?

That was after you said I had Autism. The neurologist said I'm fine.

@dj2becker said
An honest question is not an ad hominem.

I haven't suggested that your question was "honest". That's you, now, in damage limitation mode. It was at best an "honest" ad hominem. You posted what you posted. You justified posting it in the way you did. It's clear from how you justified the reference to someone being "handicapped" that it was a calculated ad hominem.

@dj2becker said
That was after you said I had Autism. The neurologist said I'm fine.

If I had anything to do with you deciding to get checked out by a neurologist, and you got the all clear, then that's a good thing all around, isn't it?

@fmf said
I haven't suggested that your question was "honest". That's you, now, in damage limitation mode. It was at best an "honest" ad hominem. You posted what you posted. You justified posting it in the way you did. It's clear from how you justified the reference to someone being "handicapped" that it was a calculated ad hominem.

You should call things as you see them, I do. Your Autism reference is a sublime example of an ad hominem.

@dj2becker said
You should call things as you see them, I do. Your Autism reference is a sublime example of an ad hominem.

The neurologist gave you a clean bill of health though, so that's good.

@dj2becker said
You should call things as you see them, I do.

Do you still believe I am "handicapped"?

@fmf said
Do you still believe I am "handicapped"?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

@fmf said
The neurologist gave you a clean bill of health though, so that's good.

Still doesn't justify your ad hominem.