24 Apr 08
In both cases, those afflicted suffer from an inability to exercise socially warranted discretion. Rather, the afflicted are in the grip of an overpowering and misplaced desire to present something they are particularly fond of to others, despite the fact that others are uninterested in being presented with it, and despite the fact that the afflicted are surely aware that others are uninterested in being presented with it. Often, what is presented is ARTIFICALLY ENLARGED for emphasis, and the presentation itself is characterized by a marked urgency, rigidity, and immodesty. Objections by others as to the what is presented only serve to rekindle the enthusiasm of the afflicted. Both look forward to a second coming, and vote Republican.
24 Apr 08
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeWhat's after "se"?
In both cases, those afflicted suffer from an inability to exercise socially warranted discretion. Rather, the afflicted are in the grip of an overpowering and misplaced desire to present something they are particularly fond of to others, despite the fact that others are uninterested in being presented with it, and despite the fact that the afflicted ar ...[text shortened]... ndle the enthusiasm of the afflicted. Both look forward to a second coming, and vote Republican.
25 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree with you i tend to use the bible references but use a simpler way of saying it without loseing its meaning. I find it hard to understand some references to the point they make and im a christian.
And despite the fact that they firmly believe that the person they are quoting to has no hope of actually understanding the verses in question.
25 Apr 08
Originally posted by stokerIn my experience it goes like this:
I agree with you i tend to use the bible references but use a simpler way of saying it without loseing its meaning. I find it hard to understand some references to the point they make and im a christian.
Me: ...theological comment / arguement ...
Christian: Bible verses or simply references to them
Me: OK, I see, so you are saying ...what I understood from said verses ...
Christian: No, no, no, thats not what they mean at all.
Me: Oh? So what did I get wrong? And how could it not mean that?
Christian: You don't have a hope of understanding them unless you have the benefit of the Holy spirit guiding your thoughts. Become a Christian now and the light will shine on you!
Me: So why does Christian B. also disagree with you?
Christian: Well it takes years of study and still you can get it wrong and anyway Christian B is not a "True Christian" so it was the Devil telling him that.
Me: So why did you quote the verses in the first place?
Christian: Well I was hoping that the holy spirit would speak to you through them and you would be converted.
25 Apr 08
1 edit
i did agree with you to the point as they teach there own doctrine. tho i teach learn yourself by reading and debating, ive learnt somethings on this and other posts over time, but still find more info, having read the bible 5times and other books/gospels. Every time i read the bible something i looked over came out when reading it the next time. but i do feel your desire to know.
25 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is the key. It's the starting at a conclusion and arriving there through suppression of reason
Christian: You don't have a hope of understanding them unless you have the benefit of the Holy spirit guiding your thoughts. Become a Christian now and the light will shine on you!
and calling it Divine Inspiration that drives me the most nuts.
I had someone on this site consent that, although two mutually exclusive biblical stories are
reported by two Gospel writers, this did not constitute an error, just a 'different' recollection.
When asked how mutually exclusive recollections could both simultaneously be true, attention was
refocused on 'faith, believer, Spirit' and so forth.
Nemesio
26 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou missed this part:
In my experience it goes like this:
Me: ...theological comment / arguement ...
Christian: Bible verses or simply references to them
Me: OK, I see, so you are saying ...what I understood from said verses ...
Christian: No, no, no, thats not what they mean at all.
Me: Oh? So what did I get wrong? And how could it not mean that?
Ch I was hoping that the holy spirit would speak to you through them and you would be converted.
Me: Oh? So what did I get wrong? And how could it not mean that?
Christian: The verse doesn't say what you said. Let it speak for itself. Don't try to change the words by restating it.
Me: But restating in one's own words is widely accepted as being how to show understanding of the meaning of something. They teach this in elementary school through advanced conflict resolution courses for adults. Not only that, but this is a translated Bible. These aren't the original words anyway but some translater's interpretation.
Christian: You're trying to change the words. Pay attention to what the Bible says. Stop trying to tell yourself and me that it says what it doesn't say.
Me: You're not making any sense.
Christian: You don't have a hope of understanding them unless you have the benefit of the Holy spirit...
26 Apr 08
Originally posted by Pawnokeyholedespite the fact that others are uninterested in being presented with it
In both cases, those afflicted suffer from an inability to exercise socially warranted discretion. Rather, the afflicted are in the grip of an overpowering and misplaced desire to present something they are particularly fond of to others, despite the fact that others are uninterested in being presented with it, and despite the fact that the afflicted ar ...[text shortened]... ndle the enthusiasm of the afflicted. Both look forward to a second coming, and vote Republican.
I'm not sure that's true in either case.