The Doctrine of Christ

Originally posted by checkbaiter
What Christians here disagree with as far as Rajk is his arrogance in stating that OSAS means that it is ok to sin or a license to sin. No one has said any such thing. God hates sin. We hate sin. What I have said is that a Christians salvation is secure.

What are the consequences in terms of your "salvation" if you continue to "sin"? Can you lose it or can you not lose it? If you cannot lose your "salvation", and it is "secure" regardless, then all your stuff about "God hates sin - We hate sin" sounds like bluster seeking to disguise a rather nonsensical philosophy.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
My opine on that is irrelevant. It would not help one way or the other. But I don't see how DG is wrong saying Rajk's interpretation is unworkable because it contradicts all of the scripture I just mentioned.

Quite frankly, these incessant attacks on rajk999 brings to mind a pack of ravenous wolves. I'm thinking that it might be helpful if someone like yourself were willing to "break ranks" and rein them in when they get out of control like DG has on this thread. Or do you think it improper for a Christian to do so?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Quite frankly, these incessant attacks on rajk999 brings to mind a pack of ravenous wolves. I'm thinking that it might be helpful if someone like yourself were willing to "break ranks" and rein them in when they get out of control like DG has on this thread. Or do you think it improper for a Christian to do so?

Every one here is their own person. I have no power over people. What they say is up to them. All I control is what I say.
You have still not responded to my comments.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Quite frankly, these incessant attacks on rajk999 brings to mind a pack of ravenous wolves.

Good grief,you sound like @Startreader. Get some perspective.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Every one here is their own person. I have no power over people. What they say is up to them. All I control is what I say.
You have still not responded to my comments.

I know that I haven't responded to your comments yet. Try to keep in mind that your post did not at all address my point and that I wanted to get this sorted first. Granted, it's taken much longer than I had anticipated.

Every one here is their own person. I have no power over people. What they say is up to them.

At best there seems to be a double standard here. You say this yet don't seem to extend this to rajk999. You seem more than willing to give your opinion about rajk999's behavior, yet you claim the above when it comes to DG's behavior. Evidently you don't really believe in the above or perhaps you believe that it only applies to those within your 'pack'.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I know that I haven't responded to your comments yet. Try to keep in mind that your post did not at all address my point and that I wanted to get this sorted first. Granted, it's taken much longer than I had anticipated.

[b]Every one here is their own person. I have no power over people. What they say is up to them.

At best there seems to be a d ...[text shortened]... ly believe in the above or perhaps you believe that it only applies to those within your 'pack'.[/b]

I said I agreed with DG, did I not?

Originally posted by divegeester
Good grief,you sound like @Startreader. Get some perspective.

Let's see. You pitched a hissy fit and made false accusations regarding rajk999's OP and demanded an apology saying "of which you still haven't had the integrity nor grace to apologise for". I called you on your false accusations and it seems that you haven't the "integrity or grace to apologise" that you expect of rajk999. Seems like you're the one in need of perspective.

Once again:
Let's piece together what rajk999 actually wrote:

The Doctrine of Christ.. the way I have interpreted it
.. has been described by the Christian community here as being:
- unworkable [Divegeester]

Seems to me that he DID speak of his interpretation of the Doctrine of Christ as being described as unworkable by you.

Not only that, he practically fell all over himself qualifying everything he wrote with things such as " if my interpretation is incorrect please advise", and "I'm paraphrasing, so if you did not say that in those words [or if the meaning is incorrect] then my apologies, and please state the necessary correct wording".

You pitched a hissy fit at this?

You seem to have become unhinged in your zeal to attack someone for daring to post things contrary to your dogma. Do you think you are being at all rational?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I said I agreed with DG, did I not?

You agreed with DG regarding the following? You believe that DG was right in accusing rajk999 of misrepresenting him and being "deliberately dishonest" in the OP.

You agreed with this tirade?

I have not said "the doctrine of Christ" is unworkable. I have said that your interpretation of scripture is unworkable.

This is the second time I've called you out for misrepresenting me on this topic and another poster has also done so. You are now being deliberately dishonest which doesn't sit well for you considering you are counting on your works to save you.
.
.
.. I called you out for your dishonesty in misrepresenting me twice, and of which you still haven't had the integrity nor grace to apologise for.

So much for works!

Seemed to me that you refused to comment on DG's behavior saying things such as: "My opine on that is irrelevant. It would not help one way or the other.", "Every one here is their own person. I have no power over people. What they say is up to them. All I control is what I say."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You agreed with DG regarding the following? You believe that DG was right in accusing rajk999 of misrepresenting him and being "deliberately dishonest" in the OP.

You agreed with this tirade?
[quote]I have not said "the doctrine of Christ" is unworkable. I have said that your interpretation of scripture is unworkable.

This is the second time I'v ...[text shortened]... person. I have no power over people. What they say is up to them. All I control is what I say."

I agree that his doctrine of Christ is unworkable because it contradicts much scripture. The rest I am not clear on.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I agree that his doctrine of Christ is unworkable because it contradicts much scripture. The rest I am not clear on.

What I've been trying to sort out are the points that I raised in the post you first responded to.

As I explained earlier as follows:

Not that I won't respond to what you've written here, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the point of my post.

So before I respond to your post, can you address the content of my post? Do you think that DG is being at all reasonable with his multi-post tirade against rajk999's OP? Do you think that, if anything, DG owes rajk999 an apology.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What I've been trying to sort out are the points that I raised in the post you first responded to.

As I explained earlier as follows:

Not that I won't respond to what you've written here, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the point of my post.

So before I respond to your post, can you address the content of my post? Do you th ...[text shortened]... irade against rajk999's OP? Do you think that, if anything, DG owes rajk999 an apology.

Never mind then. I don't see what difference what someone else has posted has to do with me.
I have to suspect you don't want to address my point or can't.
So we will leave it be.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Never mind then. I don't see what difference what someone else has posted has to do with me.
I have to suspect you don't want to address my point or can't.
So we will leave it be.

I don't see what difference what someone else has posted has to do with me.

What it has to do with you was explained here and in my subsequent posts:

Not that I won't respond to what you've written here, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the point of my post.

So before I respond to your post, can you address the content of my post? Do you think that DG is being at all reasonable with his multi-post tirade against rajk999's OP? Do you think that, if anything, DG owes rajk999 an apology.

In other words, I don't know what your post had to do with my post. But I was willing to address the contents of your post, so long as you addressed the contents of mine. Thus far, you've refused to address the contents of my post in any meaningful way.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I agree that his doctrine of Christ is unworkable because it contradicts much scripture. The rest I am not clear on.

What exactly about MY doctrine of Christ do you think is unworkable because it contradicts much of scripture?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let's see. You pitched a hissy fit and made false accusations regarding rajk999's OP and demanded an apology saying "of which you still haven't had the integrity nor grace to apologise for". I called you on your false accusations and it seems that you haven't the "integrity or grace to apologise" that you expect of rajk999. Seems like you're the one in ne ...[text shortened]... ne for daring to post things contrary to your dogma. Do you think you are being at all rational?

As I said, you sound like @Startreader.