Originally posted by @galveston75He may come along to lecture you. But I doubt he'll want to discuss it with you in any genuine sense.
Well I'm here should sonship want to discuss it more.
Originally posted by @galveston75How would you define "debate and discussion" then?
I hate to disappoint most of you but I'm not here to argue with anyone.
Originally posted by @fmfMy definition would be to discuss and share one's thoughts and beliefs without it turning into rude comments. But then you'd probably want to argue about that definition? Who knows.....
How would you define "debate and discussion" then?
Originally posted by @galveston75What rude comments have I made to you on this thread?
My definition would be to discuss and share one's thoughts and beliefs without it turning into rude comments. But then you'd probably want to argue about that definition? Who knows.....
1 edit
Originally posted by @galveston75It seems like neither of you have the courage to do so. As everyone here who's been following things over the last decade knows, sonship doesn't think you JWs are "real Christians" and you think that only JWs - or people who espouse very similar beliefs - are "real Christians" ~ in other words, that doesn't include sonship. That you are dancing around each other in such a craven/self-righteous way is down to a lack of discursive courage, I reckon.
Again I'm sorry it bugs you so much that sonship and myself aren't discussing this topic.
2 edits
-Removed-As you can read in this thread, I’ve been prsssing sonship on a particular point which he is hoping around.
----------------------------------------------------------------
You are a liar there and a pompous self flatterer divegeester.
Even ThinkOfOne (with whom I have had much debate) noticed that you pressing your imagined repeated inquisition was to absurdity, it having been answered.
2 edits
Originally posted by @fmfIt can be defined as two things - debate, discussion.
How would you define "debate and discussion" then?
You are the one pressing that debate HAS to occur.
That is not the sense of the Forum rules I get in this instruction about Spirituality as a forum:
Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after.
See? No "Thou Shalt Always Debate" there.
Debate AND general discussion.
1 edit
Originally posted by @sonshipI am not much interested in your convoluted deflecting and dodging of what galveston75 claimed about your ideology, but I would be interested in your response - by way of discussion and debate - to what he said, which was: "The teaching of a burning place that wicked humans go to suffer forever is not a bible teaching but is from pagan religions of the past."
It can be defined as two things - debate, discussion.
You are the one pressing that debate HAS to occur.
That is not the sense of the Forum rules I get in this instruction about [b]Spirituality as a forum:Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after.
See? No "Thou Shalt Always Debate" there.
Debate AND general discussion.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by @fmfIf and When I choose to write To or Concerning Galveston75's comments (which I may or may not have read), I will do so. You will not dictate to me IF and WHEN that time has to be.
I am not much interested in your convoluted deflecting and dodging of what galveston75 claimed about your ideology, but I would be interested in your response - by way of discussion and debate - to what he said, which was: "The teaching of a burning place that wicked humans go to suffer forever is not a bible teaching but is from pagan religions of the past."
Clear?
Got it?
We have talked extensively about many things in the past.
Interested parties can go back many pages and see what we'd typically respond to one another.
Generally, I find that people who have the most problem with the teaching of eternal punishment are also people who under appreciate WHO it was Who died on the cross for us.
The Bible says it was God incarnate as a man.
I think I notice that often people who have not SEEN this revelation are often those who cannot conceive of an offense so great as to merit eternal damnation.
Exceptions exist.
FMF,
Now, this is what I really think about you. yes you (though you'd like to delfect me off to talk to galvaston). I think that deep in your heart you are expecting to go to some kind of punishment from God.
You see the Bible says that the FOOL has said in his heart "There is no God." That is "in his heart" rather than his public posture and outward persona.
I still have a little doubt in me that you really are a fool.
I don't think you are that fool.
So I suspect that you know that God is.
And I further have a suspicion that you know that in some way you are in trouble with God.
That's what I think about FMF. And you resent other human beings telling you of the Gospel message, period. The Good News is bad news to you. You're a deceived man, deeply so.
Gaveston has been away from the forum for awhile.
I assume that he's done some studying and is prepared to discuss or debate.
No big deal that I have to talk to him right away just because you want it that way.