Originally posted by FMFThe way you express your answer is clearly to avoid giving me a direct answer. A direct answer would either be a 'yes' or a 'no'.
I have answered it. I am not pretending anything. If you cannot discern that it is a point blank answer, expressed in the way I choose to express it, then that is a matter for you. Like I said, already: yes I believed Philippians 4:7 was real. Yes I believed Philippians 4:7 applied to me. Yes I believed in its content. Yes I believed what it said - specifically ...[text shortened]... ought and what I had been experiencing was lost when I lost my faith and my belief in the Bible.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFWhen you say you 'believed' it was real, does that imply that you no longer believe it was real and that it was not in fact real when you experienced it.
Here it is again:
[b]1. Did you ever experience 'the peace of God that surpasses all understanding' when you were a Christian. Yes/No?
Yes. I believed Philippians 4:7 was real. Yes. I believed Philippians 4:7 applied to me. Yes I believed in its content. Yes I believed what it said - specifically - was a real thing in my life.
2. If yes, when ...[text shortened]... ed on the Bible, including Philippians 4:7 ~ indeed, including any verse you might want to cite.
Either you believed it was real and it was in fact real or you believed it was real but it wasn't in fact real, so which do you now believe it to have been?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou are just taking the piss. I used to be a Christian and I held Christian beliefs. And now I am no longer a Christian and no longer hold Christian beliefs. Have you not read any of my posts in the last six months?
When you say you 'believed' it was real, does that imply that you no longer believe it was real and that it was not in fact real when you experienced it.
Either you believed it was real and it was in fact real or you believed it was real but it wasn't in fact real, so which do you now believe it to have been?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFWhen you say you experienced the peace of God that surpasses all understanding, which of these two options best describes your experience based on your current beliefs?
You are just taking the piss. I used to be a Christian and I held Christian beliefs. And now I am no longer a Christian and no longer hold Christian beliefs. Have you not read any of my posts in the last six months?
1. It was really the peace of God that you experienced.
2. It was an illusion.
Option 1 means your faith was in fact genuine, option 2 means your faith was not genuine. It is obvious that both those options can't both be true at the same time. So which was it? You can't have it both ways.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhen you say you experienced the peace of God that surpasses all understanding, which of these two options best describes your experience based on your current beliefs?
1. It was really the peace of God that you experienced.
2. It was an illusion.
Option 1 means your faith was in fact genuine, option 2 means your faith was not genuine. It is obvious that both those options can't both be true at the same time. So which was it? You can't have it both ways.
What an utterly moronic and/or disingenuous question which asks exactly the same thing for the umpteenth time!
So after all these discussions with an ex-Christian, after weeks and weeks, you would really have everyone believe that you still have absolutely no idea what it means to once have held genuine and sincere Christian beliefs and to now no longer hold those beliefs to be true?
You seem to take some kind of ludicrous delight out of demonstrating that it's literally pointless engaging you in a discussion.
Is it that you don't remember this Thread 170817 pages 17 to 22 - for example - or that you weren't actually reading what I was typing, or that you didn't understand it and are experiencing cognitive dissonance, or are you just taking the piss?
4 edits
Originally posted by FMFI think you know exactly what point I am trying to make and you are just trying to avoid the implications.
[b]When you say you experienced the peace of God that surpasses all understanding, which of these two options best describes your experience based on your current beliefs?
1. It was really the peace of God that you experienced.
2. It was an illusion.
Option 1 means your faith was in fact genuine, option 2 means your faith was not genuine. It is obvious t ...[text shortened]... didn't understand it and are experiencing cognitive dissonance, or are you just taking the piss?
Assuming 'the peace of God that surpasses all understanding' is something real that is bestowed upon those with genuine faith by a real God, there are two options about your past experience.
1. You really experienced the real peace of God bestowed upon you by a real God due to genuine faith.
OR
2. You experienced an illusion of peace that felt genuine at the time but it wasn't something bestowed upon you by a real God, because your faith was not real.
You know for a fact that those are the two options of what you really experienced. It is quite obvious to me based on what you have said, that you experienced option 2. If there is another option that I have missed feel free to point it out. As I see it those are the only two options and you can only pick one of them.
2 edits
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI think you know exactly what point I am trying to make and you are just trying to avoid the implications.
Assuming 'the peace of God that surpasses all understanding' is something real that is bestowed upon those with genuine faith by a real God, there are two options about your past experience.
1. You really experienced the real peace of God bestowed upon you by a real God due to genuine faith.
OR
2. You experienced an illusion of peace that felt genuine at the time but it wasn't something bestowed upon you by a real God, because your faith was not real.
You know for a fact that those are the two options of what you really experienced. It is quite obvious to me based on what you have said, that you experienced option 2. If there is another option that I have missed feel free to point it out. As I see it those are the only two options and you can only pick one of them.
This question has already been posed, discussed and answered. I even gave you a link. It happened only three weeks ago. And yet you are acting like you can't remember. You are boring. I think you are deliberately trying to be moronic and boring. I think it is an act you put on. Look at the link I gave you. If you don't understand my position or you simply just want to act as if you don't understand my position, then tough.
yeah you can obey laws it is reccomended to follow without meeting the lawmakers thus obeying them indirectly.
direct obedience is different, for that you must submit to the authority directly to be given an order to obey like any person who submits to a boss like a soldier or police officer to a commander.
Originally posted by FMFOf course we have discussed it and we differ on what 'real faith' is. You think that your illusionary faith was 'real' and I dont. In my post above I have laid out to you exactly what my views are on 'real faith'. If you think my view is incorrect, feel free to tell me why you think so.
[b]I think you know exactly what point I am trying to make and you are just trying to avoid the implications.
Assuming 'the peace of God that surpasses all understanding' is something real that is bestowed upon those with genuine faith by a real God, there are two options about your past experience.
1. You really experienced the real peace of God bestowed up ...[text shortened]... d my position or you simply just want to act as if you don't understand my position, then tough.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkStop taking the piss. If our long conversation on the thread below didn't answer your questions, then I no longer care. Like many others here, I find your forum act boring and I regret divulging any personal information to a disingenuous and dishonest poster like yourself, and I really don't care if your reason for it has got something to do with all the psychological abuse you suffered for 24 years, assuming that any of that stuff was true.
Of course we have discussed it and we differ on what 'real faith' is. You think that your illusionary faith was 'real' and I dont. In my post above I have laid out to you exactly what my views are on 'real faith'. If you think my view is incorrect, feel free to tell me why you think so.
You will one day run out of people to talk to here. When that happens, and you move on, I wish you well. I appreciate that you were just trying to get your jollies on a message board, but I find your modus operandi of question-ignore the answer-repeat the question-ignore the answer again-repeat ...ad nauseam etc. [punctuated by the regular ripcord questions] to be some of the most pointless and tedious jollies that I've ever seen anybody trying to get in this community, stretching back almost a decade.
You apologized for your unpleasant behaviour at one point ~ remember? ~ and that showed a glimmer of self-realization that was welcome ~ but even that turned out to be insincere and worthless.
Your daft persona has, I admit, exasperated me, just as it has exasperated about a dozen other regular posters who used to engage you ~ remember? ~ but who now steer clear of you. Forum regulars here who are interested in sustained in-good-faith discussion are not so numerous. You have been chewing your way through them as if they were disposable, and in unlimited supply, since you arrived.
I hope you get what you are looking for on the next web site you move on to, but I hope for your own sake you drop the moronic ignore-what-people-are-saying piss taking style.
Like I once said, trying to have a conversation with you is like trying to leave a message on an answer machine that just asks the same two or three questions over and over again but doesn't record what anyone says. I think it is a great pity that you seek to get your kicks in the way you do.
For your reference: Thread 170817
Originally posted by FMFIt seems each time you are faced with a question that you either can't or don't want to answer you resort to ad hominem attacks instead. Do you think that enhances your image as an honest and sincere poster?
Stop taking the piss. If our long conversation on the thread below didn't answer your questions, then I no longer care. Like many others here, I find your forum act boring and I regret divulging any personal information to a disingenuous and dishonest poster like yourself, and I really don't care if your reason for it has got something to do with all the psychol ...[text shortened]... you seek to get your kicks in the way you do.
For your reference: Thread 170817
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI suspect that what has happened ~ even down to you delivering this latest final disingenuous question [characterizing my exasperation with your behaviour as MY dishonesty!] ~ has been your objective all along. And i perceive you to have 'succeeded' with this objective with a whole string of regular posters in similar ways.
It seems each time you are faced with a question that you either can't or don't want to answer you resort to ad hominem attacks instead. Do you think that enhances your image as an honest and sincere poster?
Having said that, if what I said [which was my honest analysis rather than an ad hominem, by the way] results in you reining yourself in even just a little bit and behaving in a more genuine way, then that will be a positive outcome. No hard feelings. 🙂
Originally posted by FMFAccording to the Bible, Jesus is the author of my faith. If you claim to have had the same faith that I have, you have to agree that Jesus was the author of your faith, but clearly now you don't. And if Jesus was the author of your faith he would also be the finisher of your faith and you would still have it. So clearly he wasn't the author of your faith. Can we at least agree to that much?
Stop taking the piss. If our long conversation on the thread below didn't answer your questions, then I no longer care. Like many others here, I find your forum act boring and I regret divulging any personal information to a disingenuous and dishonest poster like yourself, and I really don't care if your reason for it has got something to do with all the psychol ...[text shortened]... you seek to get your kicks in the way you do.
For your reference: Thread 170817
3 edits
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkJesus may be the author of your faith but that faith alone would not give you eternal salvation. Faith alone without righteousness is dead and Jesus and all the Apostles said that. Here is one of dozens of such statements.
According to the Bible, Jesus is the author of my faith. If you claim to have had the same faith that I have, you have to agree that Jesus was the author of your faith, but clearly now you don't. And if Jesus was the author of your faith he would also be the finisher of your faith and you would still have it. So clearly he wasn't the author of your faith. Can we at least agree to that much?
Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto ALL THEM THAT OBEY HIM;
Eternal salvation is for those who obey Jesus.
You have repeatedly stated that you are saved by faith meaning that you get eternal life by faith alone.
No obedience is necessary for you.
Originally posted by Rajk999We are justified by faith and if that faith is genuine it will be accompanied by obedience to the commands of Christ. I have never claimed that obedience is not required.
Jesus may be the author of your faith but that faith alone would not give you eternal salvation. Faith alone without righteousness is dead and Jesus and all the Apostles said that. Here is one of dozens of such statements.
[b]Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto ALL THEM THAT OBEY HIM;
Eternal salv ...[text shortened]... d by faith meaning that you get eternal life by faith alone.
No obedience is necessary for you.[/b]