The Structure of Romans

@chaney3 said
I'm interested.

He's not negative, like you.

I’m sure Sonship will be delighted to know you are his primary sponsor.

@divegeester said
I’m sure Sonship will be delighted to know you are his primary sponsor.

He brings a positive vibe to our forum, you don't.

@chaney3 said
He brings a positive vibe to our forum, you don't.

Perhaps you should ask him about the positive vibe associated with eternal torture.

@chaney3

He brings a positive vibe to our forum, you don't.

I'd be glad to converse with you on a serious level.
I think this thread is useful in taking the basic book of Christian belief Romans and at least identifying in which section various problems and issues are dealt with.

@divegeester

Ok, no probs.
Let’s wait and see who interested in your thread about stuff by another author.

If we were on a Disucssion Forum on say World Events and I used the term "Iron Curtian" or "Cold War" it is not necessary that I mention Winston Churchhill every single time.

If on a Psychology Board I mention "Ego, Id, Super Ego" it is not necessary that every time I mention Sigmund Freud as the perpetrator of these terms in that field.

If on a Science Forum I mention "Big Bang" or "Space / Time" it is not necessary that I constantly credit Fred Hoyle or Albert Einstein.

And on this forum if I mention "God's dispensing His life" or "God's economy" I do not have to credit Witness Lee at every turn.

If you think I am trying to impress readers, you are correct. I am trying very hard to impress readers. But I am NOT trying to impress readers that I Jack Wilmore (aka sonship) am SO VERY ORIGINAL. THAT is not what I derive any enjoyment from.

I derive enjoyment not from you thinking I am original, but from the readers grasping the TRUTH of what is being conveyed about the Bible. Now if you're not impressed or disagree strongly, that is OK. I tried. But I am not here asking you to be impressed with how original I can be.

Our dialogue has run its course. I am sorry that I have to end it with some unkind words. But I am tired of the rehashed complaints and going around in circles on peripheral stuff that you think detracts important matters I raise.

I will dodge you, ignore you, evade you, not read you, not care about what you contribute from this day November 17th, 2018. I cannot stop you from writing to me or about me here. Fine.

Goodbye Divegeester.

@sonship said
@divegeester

Ok, no probs.
Let’s wait and see who interested in your thread about stuff by another author.

If we were on a Disucssion Forum on say World Events and I used the term "Iron Curtian" or "Cold War" it is not necessary that I mention Winston Churchhill every single time.

If on a Psychology Board I mention "Ego, Id, Super Ego" it is not ...[text shortened]... er 17th, 2018. I cannot stop you from writing to me or about me here. Fine.

Goodbye Divegeester.

Stop pouting sonship.

As I said, let’s continue to wait to and see who interested in your thread about stuff by another author.

@sonship said

Our dialogue has run its course. I am sorry that I have to end it with some unkind words. But I am tired of the rehashed complaints and going around in circles on peripheral stuff that you think detracts important matters I raise.

will dodge you, ignore you, evade you, not read you, not care about what you contribute from this day November 17th, 2018. I cannot stop you from writing to me or about me here. Fine.

Goodbye Divegeester.

This is just more pouty sulllen excuse-mongering sonship. You already dodge, duck and ignore perfectly legitimate questions which I have put to you.

I am not the Christian promoting the idea of eternal torture of unbelievers by Jesus, and suggesting that this torture is his “perfect justice”.

I am not claiming that there are “beings on other worlds” witnessing the torture, nor I am not the one claiming that Jesus will be “glorified in the endless woe” of those being tortured by him.

I am not the one claiming that other people’s ideas which are contrary to my own, are “faeces” and that people who disagree with me have “diseased minds” of are ”lepers” or have “no more dignity than a cockroach” or being the “spiritual equivalent of having alcohol on one’s breath”.

I am not refusing to answer very simple yes/no questions about my beliefs because I am intellectually crippled with vanity and scared of the consequences of committing either way.

This is all you old chap.

So feel free to wheel away in your feigned indignation. My checkmate questions will still be here, waiting for when your feathers unruffle and your mood calms.

Thread update:

Kelly is ignoring Dive.
Sonship and I are ignoring each other.
Sonship is ignoring Dive.
Everyone is ignoring Becker.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Thread update:

Kelly is ignoring Dive.
Sonship and I are ignoring each other.
Sonship is ignoring Dive.
Everyone is ignoring Becker.

No altruism in sight 😛

@divegeester

Well, none of us are ignoring Chaney, which probably qualifies as an act of altruism.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
@divegeester

Well, none of us are ignoring Chaney, which probably qualifies as an act of altruism.

Haha. Fair.

Maybe it’s a sort inverted sign of respect to be ignored. To not be ignored sort of implies that you just haven’t go what it takes to get under someone’s intelectual skin.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

A Forum where people can all come and ignore each other ?

I haven't given up on you completely. Giving it a rest for awhile. Maybe a good while.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

A Forum where people can all come and ignore each other ?

I haven't given up on you completely. Giving it a rest for awhile. Maybe a good while.

I'm fine with that.

You don't feature among the top 20 people I enjoy engaging with in these forums.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

You don't feature among the top 20 people I enjoy engaging with in these forums.

Like, I'm suppose to be surprised ?