2 edits
Originally posted by moonbusGod's sovereignty and human free will coexist in time. Decisions to accept or reject the person and work of Christ are mutually exclusive [no tertium quid or comfort zones in 50 shades of grey]; and this choice has consequences in both time and eternity. Anyone who mouths: "You gotta get saved too or you're going to hell". in an attempt to coerce your decision is at best uninformed and at worst an enemy of the cause of Christ, whose substitutionary spiritual death propitiated God the Father's Justice making reconciliation of man to God a reality. moonbus, it's a grace gift none of us can ever earn or deserve; all we can do is decide to accept or reject it. I for one respect you and your free will. -Bob
It is not the beliefs of A or B, but the attempt to proselytize, which C to Z find off-putting. If it just stayed at "I'm saved" C to Z would not take umbrage, but "I'm saved" all too often comes across as "You gotta get saved too or you're going to hell".
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead"I don't understand your footnotes." twhitehead, please isolate the specific footnote items which require clarification. Thank you.
I don't understand your footnotes.
Are you saying that you are only asking about people who are threatened and match your 'footnotes' criteria? If so, why restrict it so? Surely the most likely to feel threatened do not match all those criteria or are threatened by A and B's that do not match those criteria.
Or are you only interested in replys from th ...[text shortened]... n't match but wish to ignore them? Again, I am not certain why you would wish to restrict it so.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadOriginally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
I already did. Which part of my post did you not understand?
"If Person A..."
If Person A believes that God exists and Person B believes in the person and work of Jesus Christ
for his or her salvation and eternal life, why are some members of the population from Person C to Person Z
threatened to the point of covert or overt hostility by the beliefs of Person A and/or Person B?"
Originally posted by twhitehead
"The very first time I came to this forum was because I posted something in debates regarding the teaching of creationism in US schools under the guise of science. I was told to bring it here. I don't think I have felt strongly threatened by anyone's beliefs here.
So, when do I feel threatened by other peoples beliefs?
When their beliefs appear to be a threat to me, my friends/loved ones, my society, and yes, in some cases I do feel that threat although not from people in this forum.
I may still criticize beliefs for other reasons even when I do not feel threatened by them."
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 1)
OP Footnotes:
1) The "population" in focus literally encompasses both "real world" and "online message board" communities of equal peers;
2) It observes ground rules of civility with a spectrum ranging from 'live and let live' tolerance to polite discourse to lively discussion;
3) All members of this population respect the volitional free will of all others irrespective of their honestly held beliefs or lack thereof;
4) None seeks to willfully impose their beliefs on or to harm others, though are willing to articulate their own personal convictions;
5) The relevant line quoted by googlefudge is attributed to FreakyKBH as noted verbatim in the text of my site profile.
Thanks to each of you for your topic interest and thoughtful replies. Kind regards, Bob"
Originally posted by twhitehead
"I don't understand your footnotes.
Are you saying that you are only asking about people who are threatened and match your 'footnotes' criteria? If so, why restrict it so? Surely the most likely to feel threatened do not match all those criteria or are threatened by A and B's that do not match those criteria.
Or are you only interested in replys from those that match those criteria while recognising those who don't match but wish to ignore them? Again, I am not certain why you would wish to restrict it so."
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"I don't understand your footnotes." twhitehead, please isolate the specific footnote items which require clarification. Thank you."
Originally posted by twhitehead
"I already did. Which part of my post did you not understand?"
_______________________________________
Please indicate which specific footnote items you "don't understand". Thanks,
1)?
2)?
3)?
4)?
5)?
or all five?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI understand all five in isolation. I do not understand why you posted them ie what your subtext was. And I have asked several follow up questions so you can clarify, but you seem to have ignored those. Try answering my questions then maybe you will see what it is I did not understand.
Please indicate which specific footnote items you "don't understand". Thanks,
1)?
2)?
3)?
4)?
5)?
or all five?
Originally posted by twhiteheadThen reply to all five in isolation. 😏
I understand all five in isolation. I do not understand why you posted them ie what your subtext was. And I have asked several follow up questions so you can clarify, but you seem to have ignored those. Try answering my questions then maybe you will see what it is I did not understand.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadOriginally posted by twhitehead
I understand all five in isolation. I do not understand why you posted them ie what your subtext was. And I have asked several follow up questions so you can clarify, but you seem to have ignored those. Try answering my questions then maybe you will see what it is I did not understand.
"I understand all five in isolation. I do not understand why you posted them..."
Simply to clarify issues raised by FMF and googlefudge on page 1.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI think I will just have to give up trying to communicate with you. You appear to be more than capable of understanding English but do not wish to communicate with it most of the time.
Originally posted by twhitehead
"I understand all five in isolation. I do not understand why you posted them..."
Simply to clarify issues raised by FMF and googlefudge on page 1.
Originally posted by twhiteheadPlease ask the most significant question on your mind regarding any spirituality related topic; I'll answer it later today. Thanks.
I think I will just have to give up trying to communicate with you. You appear to be more than capable of understanding English but do not wish to communicate with it most of the time.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyAll I wanted was an answer to the question I asked in this thread. You would not give it, instead you feigned ignorance of what was being asked.
Please ask the most significant question on your mind regarding any spirituality related topic; I'll answer it later today. Thanks.
Why would I ask you the most significant question on my mind regarding any spirituality related topic? Would you be more honest just because the question was more significant? Or will you just enjoy playing me for the fool if the question is more significant?
Either way, I won't be asking.
Originally posted by twhiteheadtwhitehead, there's no benefit for you or me in being obstreperous; you've asked several questions already: please pick one.
All I wanted was an answer to the question I asked in this thread. You would not give it, instead you feigned ignorance of what was being asked.
Why would I ask you the most significant question on my mind regarding any spirituality related topic? Would you be more honest just because the question was more significant? Or will you just enjoy playing me for the fool if the question is more significant?
Either way, I won't be asking.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyEverything is about control and authority with you.
twhitehead, there's no benefit for you or me in being obstreperous; you've asked several questions already: please pick one.
You never give a strait answer to anything, and seldom answer anything at all.
Thus there is little point in talking to you.
