Originally posted by @romans1009Thanks for reply, but your angry word salad doesn’t address this point...
Thanks for reply, but your angry word salad doesn’t address this point:
If you are the “natural man” referred to in 1 Corinthians 2:14 - and as an atheist, you are - how could you recognize whether someone has spiritual understanding?
So you acknowledge you don’t have spiritual understanding but can tell if someone else has it?
Good luck untwisting that illogical pretzel you’ve constructed.
No one is angry here unless you are.
Originally posted by @romans1009I find your assertion that you have some distinct "spiritual understanding" on a "different plane" that is anything other than mere rote-learned knowledge about your religion ~ which is then rather emotionally souped up by your certainty that your own assertions are true and substantiated by your rote-learned knowledge about your own religion ~ to be weak and not credible.
If you are the “natural man” referred to in 1 Corinthians 2:14 - and as an atheist, you are - how could you recognize whether someone has spiritual understanding?
So you acknowledge you don’t have spiritual understanding but can tell if someone else has it?
Originally posted by @romans1009You introduced the idea that someone is "angry", not me. I am not angry, far from it. Are you "angry"? Is that why you introduced the word into the conversation?
So having been busted on substance, you’re now going to retreat to this?
Originally posted by @romans1009Well, you know what I think your so-called "spiritual understanding" is, so I do not need to repeat myself.
My contention is Ghost could gain spiritual understanding in the ways I previously mentioned. He already has the intellectual capacity; he just doesn’t have what you refer to as “special knowledge,” but what is better described as “spiritual understanding.”
Originally posted by @fmfThis is just re-tossing a previously-posted word salad. Do you have anything new? At least throw some croutons in there.
I find your assertion that you have some distinct "spiritual understanding" on a "different plane" that is anything other than mere rote-learned knowledge about your religion ~ which is then rather emotionally souped up by your certainty that your own assertions are true and substantiated by your rote-learned knowledge about your own religion ~ to be weak and not credible.
1 edit
Originally posted by @romans1009It's unfortunate that you were unable to provide a substantive response. Instead, like usual, your response is largely comprised of parroting what you've been taught thus far in your limited experience as a Christian.
As I said earlier, your interpretation, imo, relies on disregarding or ignoring too much of the New Testament, and you’re substituting symbolic meaning to John 6:51 instead of the plain meaning that supports the rest of the Gospels and Paul’s epistles.
It makes much more sense to view the eating and drinking references not as Christ’s words, but Chris ...[text shortened]... came from.
Does Jesus’ practical teaching sound like the teaching of someone who was insane?
you’re substituting symbolic meaning to John 6:51 instead of the plain meaning that supports the rest of the Gospels and Paul’s epistles.
Actually it was Jesus who explained the metaphor. Perhaps if you had more experience as a Christian you'd understand how Jesus structures His teachings. Your understanding of the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry lacks any depth whatsoever.
For someone with your limited experience as a Christian, one would think that you'd approach the word of Jesus with much more humility than you do. Do you seriously believe that I don't speak with those with more than ten times your experience with Christianity? That have a much broader and deeper understanding of the Bible than you? That are more intelligent and better educated than you?
You're out of your depth. Evidently you're just too prideful to realize it. Merely copying verses out of the Bible does not give you depth of understanding. It never will. Learn the lesson of the Parable of the Talents.
Originally posted by @fmfLOL
You introduced the idea that someone is "angry", not me. I am not angry, far from it. Are you "angry"? Is that why you introduced the word into the conversation?
Busted on substance so you’re hoping to win a debate on whether I’m angry?
Ok. I’ll give you a consolation prize.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrr.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @fmfI have not seen or heard anything from you since you arrived here to suggest that there is anything supernatural about you or the way you think.
You are just someone using lazy rhetorical gimmicks to propagate his religion on a message board. I have not seen or heard anything from you since you arrived here to suggest that there is anything supernatural about you or the way you think.
You are like the people here around me who place great store on being able to recite verbatim great tracts from thei ...[text shortened]... ability to "grasp". Same goes for you and your “natural man" nonsense aimed at Ghost of a Duke.
And you think there is a 0% percent chance that it is because you lack spiritual understanding?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @thinkofoneThe irony here of course is that you are the one ignoring multiple texts in the Bible that directly contradict your doctrine. So if you are only going to accept the parts of the Bible that you like, what is the point of this discussion?
It's unfortunate that you were unable to provide a substantive response. Instead, like usual, your response is largely comprised of parroting what you've been taught thus far in your limited experience as a Christian.
[b]you’re substituting symbolic meaning to John 6:51 instead of the plain meaning that supports the rest of the Gospels and Paul’s e ...[text shortened]... give you depth of understanding. It never will. Learn the lesson of the Parable of the Talents.
Originally posted by @romans1009You keep asserting your faith in the same way over and over again, and you seem to think doing so substantiates your claim that Ghost of a Duke lacks the knowledge and discernment to understand what you choose to call "spiritual matters" while you, apparently, surprise surprise. do have the "knowledge and discernment" and the "understanding" to carry you to a "different plane".
This is just re-tossing a previously-posted word salad. Do you have anything new? At least throw some croutons in there.
If there is a sameness about some of my attempts to respond to this, it is because you are trying to put a very limited and simplistic truth-claim to me that may well work on your fellow believers, where your assertions about your sincere faith might have some traction as "evidence".
Hey FMF, how about you actually try to write down a short question that you want me to confront or even go to that page and take what you want me and ctrl-V it right in the thread.
I don't know what you are referencing.
I also don't know if ti is worth my time.
You got to open up, man, and then we will have a better idea of how to even deal with this.
We'll stop having like 100 page threads where half the pages are short quips of interrogative questions and flippant responses.
Let's see some actual, quality posts.
Quality, not quantiyt.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYou're the one who is too prideful to admit that your extremely limited experience as a Christian and the attendant lack of depth of understanding puts you at a real disadvantage.
The irony here of course is that you are the one ignoring multiple texts in the Bible that directly contradict your doctrine. So if you are only going to accept the parts of the Bible that you like, what is the point of this discussion?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerThis was a dud on page 3 and it's a dud here on page 10. Perhaps you are hoping that I will reprise my contribution to the 7-page discussion especially for you. I'd rather just agree to disagree thanks.
And you think there is a 0% percent chance that it is because you lack spiritual understanding?