Spirituality
29 Nov 18
@divegeester saidIronic coming from one of the most furtive posters in this forum.
If the questions posted to you this forum cause you to be furtive in your replies, what do you think that says about you and your beliefs?
I think a lot of users here try to hang one another publicly for small disagreements about the wording of things and huge extrapolations from the initial posts.... So people try to be careful in what they say, and that makes them seem furtive.
In a real sense, though, we are judging someone from afar when we make these accusations.
And that isn't good.
@secondson saidDo you have anything of substance to contribute other than your dislike for me?
Ironic coming from one of the most furtive posters in this forum.
@philokalia saidThis is a debate forum and I try very hard to bring specific topics into laser focus with the intention of driving unequivocal responses. I am more than happy for people to take the same approach with me.
I think a lot of users here try to hang one another publicly for small disagreements about the wording of things and huge extrapolations from the initial posts.... So people try to be careful in what they say, and that makes them seem furtive.
In a real sense, though, we are judging someone from afar when we make these accusations.
And that isn't good.
30 Nov 18
@divegeester saidSays you respond to talk rather than understand
If the questions posted to you this forum cause you to be furtive in your replies, what do you think that says about you and your beliefs?
30 Nov 18
@secondson saidWhat definition of "furtive" are you using when you claim this about divegeester?
Ironic coming from one of the most furtive posters in this forum.
01 Dec 18
@fmf saidThe same definition I used when I asked divegeester if he was being furtive in my last post in the compounded error thread.
What definition of "furtive" are you using when you claim this about divegeester?
The same definition divegeester used when he accused sonship of being furtive. The definition found in a dictionary. 🙄
@secondson saidWhat is the definition you are using? I suspect you aren't using it properly. divegeester is demonstrative, his ideas out in the open, he tends to be unequovical, candid, forthright perhaps to a fault. But "furtiveness"? Huh? What definition are you using? Type it here on this thread about "Furtiveness".
The same definition I used when I asked divegeester if he was being furtive in my last post in the compounded error thread.
The same definition divegeester used when he accused sonship of being furtive. The definition found in a dictionary. 🙄
01 Dec 18
@divegeester saidYou've accused me of disliking you before sometime ago.
Do you have anything of substance to contribute other than your dislike for me?
I think now that it's because you're projecting that sentiment onto me because that's how you feel about me.
You're not my favorite poster, and I am in disagreement with you on many levels, but I assure you that I have no negative feels toward you on a personal level.
I'm sure you're a perfectly respectable person in the real world.
01 Dec 18
@secondson saidThank you.
You've accused me of disliking you before sometime ago.
I think now that it's because you're projecting that sentiment onto me because that's how you feel about me.
You're not my favorite poster, and I am in disagreement with you on many levels, but I assure you that I have no negative feels toward you on a personal level.
I'm sure you're a perfectly respectable person in the real world.
01 Dec 18
@divegeester saidI do not think that you are actually doing that, though.
This is a debate forum and I try very hard to bring specific topics into laser focus with the intention of driving unequivocal responses. I am more than happy for people to take the same approach with me.
You are forcing the covnersation into specific sets of words that are not appropriate to the circumstance, and you are ignoring the nuances of others.
This is actually the exact opposite of the proper sort of focus that you should have in a discussion.
You are only focusing on your own perspectives and trying to cram everyone else's ideas into your own perspective. That is not how a debate should unfold.
@philokalia saidIn politics and in economics there can be much blurring of the edges in debate; in religion, where the stakes are eternal life in heaven or eternal life in hell, there cannot be any unequivocality whatsoever.
I do not think that you are actually doing that, though.
You are forcing the covnersation into specific sets of words that are not appropriate to the circumstance, and you are ignoring the nuances of others.
This is actually the exact opposite of the proper sort of focus that you should have in a discussion.
You are only focusing on your own perspectives ...[text shortened]... ng to cram everyone else's ideas into your own perspective. That is not how a debate should unfold.
Answers to questions about salvation qualifications, such as believing or not in the trinity (or any other doctrine) must always start with a YES or a NO, there can be no other way. A qualification or explaination may follow, but it’s YES of NO to start. Clear, unambiguous, no furtiveness.
What you see with sonship in the “calling out thread” is a Christian equivocating over an eternal life issue. There is no excuse for it and I’ll give no quarter over it.
When it comes to salvation it’s is always a YES or a NO.
@divegeester saidBut there remains within theology and religion a significant amount of complexity, correct?
In politics and in economics there can be much blurring of the edges in debate; in religion, where the stakes are eternal life in heaven or eternal life in hell, there cannot be any unequivocality whatsoever.
Answers to questions about salvation qualifications, such as believing or not in the trinity (or any other doctrine) must always start with a YES or a NO, there ...[text shortened]... or it and I’ll give no quarter over it.
When it comes to salvation it’s is always a YES or a NO.
How would demanding "yes" and "no" answers actually be so valid?