Posted on 09/30/2009 11:46:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Not understanding God in either Testament isn’t advancing your argument in any way. Besides, no one mentioned anything about “erasing” anything...
try again...
trans-for-ma-tive
Wow...and look, another strawman! How shocking!
It’s not my definition of Christianity, it’s clearly what’s there plain to see in the New Testament.
He never will. And, he refuses reciprocity (that’s not very tolerant for someone who professes tolerance). I answered a question of his and, in return asked one of him. He didn’t like my answer and wanted to argue the point of my answer (again, not a great display of tolerance), but that’s fine - we can debate and disagree - but Buck W. refused reciprocity and would not answer my question, “It is Christ who is the judge as to who is, or is not, a Christian. Do you deny that?” Upon which, I informed Buck that either we treat with each other as equals, or else the whole process comes to a screeching halt, and I gave him the option to choose (see Post #127 and forward, this thread). There was some jigging and jiving for a few posts, but the upshot was that Buck could not tolerate a question that was not of his choosing, so he fled. It seems, then, that Buck must be the Master Inquisitor or he doesn’t play. Again, not a very tolerant attitude for one who so loudly trumpets his ‘tolerance.’
Judging from your past performance, Buck W., it appears that although you profess tolerance, you fall well short in the practice of it. One wonders (we all do) if there are other things that you profess which disappear over the event horizon when it comes to the practice of it.
I take that back- he actually did answer the question once by claiming he doesn’t need to ask Christ to forgive him because he was ‘baptized as an infant’, and ‘follows catholic doctrine’- in other words- He’s earnign his way to heaven, and doesn’t think asking Christto be savior is necessary for salvation- contrary to God’s word
Buck refuses reciprocity to Agamemnon, as well as to others. This is not unusual behavior for buck. On the contrary, it's just SOP.
One wonders (we all do) if there are other things that you profess which disappear over the event horizon when it comes to the practice of it.
I don't wonder, actually. It's pretty obvious.
Your demand for “reciprocity” is merely the application of a litmus test—you continue to make my point for me.
I do not deny the Christianity of the mainstream denominations that I have named many times before. Asking for my Christian bona fides is hardly a request for “reciprocity”.
I’m a Christian, and I don’t wear my faith on my sleeve for others to assess and evaluate. Similarly, I don’t deny the faith of others.
Unless, of course, they themselves deny. As you (pl) do.
Please verify your source.
[[Please verify your source.]]
First you verify if your demand is really a genuine demand, then verify that you really meant it, or if you just like making demands but never care about the demands being met- once you’ve done this- then verify that you still wish me to continue to verify my source, and IF I’m satisfied that you have met all my demands, I’ll think about verifying your demand- but no promisses mind you
What demand? I observed you refuse reciprocity. You had other options. One option – you ran away. Now you come slinking back, pretending you didn’t (run away).
”. . . is merely the application of a litmus test . . . ”
Don’t assume other people’s motives mirror yours. You merely make the first three letters of ‘assume’ out of yourself.
”you continue to make my point for me.”
Pretentiousness is such a sad spectacle. You should leave before you embarrass yourself further. The whole forum would be grateful and relieved. And, you need a ‘timeout.’
”I do not deny the Christianity of the mainstream denominations”
Litmus test coming.
”that I have named many times before.”
It is Buck W. who will determine who are, or are not, Christians. It is he who has inherited God’s mantle. Now we all understand: it was modesty that prohibited him from answering the question, “It is Christ who is the judge as to who is, or is not, a Christian. Do you deny that?” He didn’t want to confess, “yes, it is I.” All that embarrassing fuss would have been just too much.
”Asking for my Christian bona fides is hardly a request for “reciprocity”.”
Calling a duck a turkey won’t keep the duck from quacking. You sound like a (spit) politician. Redefining words to fit your agenda and to justify the unjustifiable. Are you sure you don’t go to the same church as Speaker Pelosi?
I didn’t ask for your boa fides. I asked, “It is Christ who is the judge as to who is, or is not, a Christian. Do you deny that?” You gagged on the answer. You leave me no option but to believe that you prefer that an institution, rather than Christ, define who is a Christian (again, there’s that litmus test you so scorn, yet so desperately need). That’s OK. I understand. You can con an institution . . . you can’t con Christ. Your religious beliefs don’t break my leg or filch my wallet. As I earlier said, I accept a person’s declaration that they are Christian. At the time you wanted to argue with me. Why, I can’t imagine.
”I’m a Christian, and I don’t wear my faith on my sleeve for others to assess and evaluate.”
No, you certainly don’t want to be subjected to the same scrutiny to which you subject others (does your mother know what you’re doing?).
”Similarly, I don’t deny the faith of others.”
Snort! Buuuuut . . .
”Unless, of course, they themselves deny. As you (pl) do.”
Litmus Test.
I know.
"I don't wonder, actually. It's pretty obvious."
I know. I was trying to be civil.
And you succeeded, as you usually do.
Put up or shut up.
Now that was a demand. See the difference?
“I observed you refuse reciprocity.”
You are missing the obvious reciprocity that is present in every exchange. I have denied no-one’s Christianity, except to assign cult status to the deniers, and I will continue to do so. I have not asked for verification of anyone else’s faith—therefore, I will not take the litmus test demanded of me. Besides, what will it show—that I’m not a literal fundamentalist? I’ve already told you that! That wouldn’t matter, though, as the cultists will dance around the fire claiming to have smoked that fact out of me.
Assuming that you dance, of course.
“It is Buck W. who will determine who are, or are not, Christians. It is he who has inherited God’s mantle. “
Really? By asserting the Christianity of Catholics? Sorry, pal, that’s not my call—Jesus has already made it. Perhaps you missed it. Do you really want to continue?
How bout you just shut up? Thank you ever so much- while you’re shutting up- do your own homework and click on my name, and go through my posts and you will see you were asked about whether or not you have accepted Christ, and your response was that you don’t need to because you were infant baptized
So you assert. The assertion does not prove the fact. Can’t “miss” what isn’t there. You refuse what you demand of others. It annoys you, I know, to be called a Liberal, as some do, but who can blame them? Like a Liberal, you seem to think you can declare reality by proclamation.
”I have denied no-one’s Christianity,”
except . . .
”except to assign cult status to the deniers,”
. . . where you do deny one’s Christianity, if they don’t conform to your demands. So after all, it’s Buck’s call as to who is or is not a Christian (and, for now, equally Christ’s call to make – see below. At least until the exigencies of the moment require further revision. Classic troll - and Liberal - behavior.
”and I will continue to do so.”
Of course you will. You have more brass than a marching band (more troll droppings).
”I have not asked for verification of anyone else’s faith—therefore, I will not take the litmus test demanded of me.”
Blatant denial of the patently obvious. Sniping from the shadows. Applying litmus tests, then pretending innocence. Refusing what you demand of others. Typical troll pathology.
”Besides, what will it show—that I’m not a literal fundamentalist? I’ve already told you that! That wouldn’t matter, though, as the cultists will dance around the fire claiming to have smoked that fact out of me.”
Actually, what some of the forum members have ‘smoked’ you out on is that you are a troll.
”Assuming that you dance, of course.”
I don’t jig your jive.
”By asserting the Christianity of Catholics?”
”I don’t wear my faith on my sleeve.” Really?! Oh, that’s right, just the faith of others whom you would feign defend.
”Sorry, pal, that’s not my call—Jesus has already made it. Perhaps you missed it.”
No, I haven’t missed it. Nor have others before me. So, after all the jigging and jiving, it develops that you do not deny that, “It is Christ who is the judge as to who is, or is not, a Christian.” (not, at least, until you choose to again deny at some later date). What took you so long? And, why? It’s that Master Inquisitor syndrome, we must assume, since you go to so much trouble to remain, troll-like, in the shadows.
”Do you really want to continue?”
Do you want me to?
“No, I haven’t missed it. Nor have others before me. So, after all the jigging and jiving, it develops that you do not deny that, “It is Christ who is the judge as to who is, or is not, a Christian.” “
Do you cast your lot with the rest of the group at FR that denies the Christianity of Catholics? If so, is it your position, based on the excerpt above, that Christ himself does not recognize the Christianity of that denomination?
“How bout you just shut up? Thank you ever so much- while you’re shutting up- do your own homework and click on my name, and go through my posts and you will see you were asked about whether or not you have accepted Christ, and your response was that you don’t need to because you were infant baptized”
No, I won’t “shut up”, but thank you for the offer. In lieu of any evidence, I shall assume that you can’t produce the post in which I claimed to follow Catholic doctrine.
And congratulations on finding the spell checker!
Justify your remarks and the rationale for associating them with the back quote you cite. What did I tell you (twice)? Why did you then have an objection, if you now seem to express approval?
[[No, I won’t “shut up”, but thank you for the offer.]]
Darn- Well I guess I’ll just have to poison the tea then
[[I shall assume that you can’t produce the post in which I claimed to follow Catholic doctrine.]]
Sure I can- but I’d rather watch you refuse to do any work after I told you how to go about finding it (and btw- can’t beleive you’ve forgotten your response already- it’s only been what? a Wekk?)- much more entertaining that way
[[And congratulations on finding the spell checker!]]
I didn’t- looking back- no wonder my post looked wiedr- I cvouldn’t read it
“Justify your remarks and the rationale for associating them with the back quote you cite.”
OK, but just for you! You posted this:
““It is Christ who is the judge as to who is, or is not, a Christian.””
Further, you have never acknowledged the Christianity of Catholics. Any casual observer would therefore ask the question.
But only you can answer.
No. Actually, you can answer as easily as I. The only thing preventing you is your own unwillingness to see anything but what you wish to see or to hear anything but what you wish to hear. Not surprising. Troll is as Troll does. Doing Troll. IS Troll.
What else did I tell you besides the quote you’ve cited? You were happy to seize upon it at the time, giving you, as it did, an opportunity to promote a dispute. Now, you’re happy to forget it, because you propose to use a similar point in promoting another argument. You’re consumed with seeing everything from the perspective of how you can fit it into your next quarrel. You have no interest in understanding the actual content or meaning of anything. As with every propagandist, you forget the last moment and ignore the next moment, for the sake of arguing the present moment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.