Hey, at least he didn't suggest that you were 'humping his leg' such as our friend Rev (one of your most ardent defenders in this matter) did of our friend Woody!
His words were carefully chosen and they were blunt!
Again, if the doc's theology is correct (that should be the issue), then his descriptions would indeed be correct.
All else is just a 'straw man' constructed such that you don't have to take seriously his words of warning and impending doom!
respectfully,
Jean
If he were truly a saint - as he claims - he would not choose the words he did. His post is prima facie evidence that he is not correct, and your failure to condemn his words makes it clear where you stand. I am amazed you consider those to be carefully chosen words, for if you are correct they were carefully chosen for one, and only one reason. To be the most insulting words he could think of. They were clearly not chosen to actually reach someone. If you are correct, you only make it more clear how spiritually depraved he - and you - are.
patent
You are a disgrace to your profession, of course.
What exactly makes a Catholic a disgrace to the medical profession?
How does being Catholic make me an idiot who would rather go to hell? or Satanically screwed? or a superstitious religious dork?
How can you in good conscience defend the indefensible?
You are as much to blame as he for defending his indefensible behavior.
You know his behavior is gravely sinful, but in typical OP pride refuse even to apologize for his behavior.
And in typical OP fashion, he has not appeared here to defend what he claims to be defendable words.
you are idiots and cannibals to bootPlease explain for me exactly why those words were "carefully chosen" as you say, and exactly what those "carefully chosen" words were meant to accomplish. Also, please explain the "correct theology" that would make his "descriptions indeed correct" as you claim. I look forward to hearing what correct theology justifies calling someone a dork or an idiot, at the very least.It just makes you a stubbornly superstitious religious dork.
Awaiting your response,
patent
Actually, this all started when the_doc tried to claim that early Christians interpreted John 6:52-68 metaphorically, not literally.
When I posted irrefutable proof that the early Christians DID interpret John 6: 52-58 literally, the_doc said that he didn't give a fig what the early Christians all said. He also stated that the reformers corrected 1500 years of the early Christians' errors.
When he saw this was an untenable position, and that he was clearly losing (as usual) the debate, he resorted to ad hominem attack, invective, insult and slur.
However, if it excuses you from examining the Truth to think that his insults are nothing more nor less than an attempt to save my immortal soul, so be it.
I'm not called to be successful, I'm only called to be faithful.
Jean - you arent even a good liar - heres what the post said -
First, note that it was to you to whom I posted it, bwahahah
second, note I did not say woody was humping my leg (that would make you a liar)
And what was my beef then you ask? - It appears I was asking to be swayed with brotherly love instead of a "hammer". Oh look, you hypers are accused of same again - there seems to be a pattern of behavior here that is all too apparent for anyone with a with an ounce of discernment and understanding. You unfortunately walk in darkness.
The cross: A symbol, but of what? Posted by Revelation 911 to Jean Chauvin; ward smythe On Religion Mar 27 12:17 PM #322 of 415
Jean stated: This, my friend, for all the world to see, is quite juvenile arguing tactics. Obviously, you had not the FACTS to counter OP's statements regarding the intentional Jesuit deception on which Arminianism is based, so you resorted to name calling. How profound. It seems to me, that you have demonstrated you willingness to uses any attempt to change the subject of a discussion which is not going the way you wish it to go. I must, therefore, conclude that you have also intentionally misrepresented Mom's and OP's comments when you know full well, they have been explained in context
I replied: - Hey - he knows where Im coming from - Free Grace baby - Wesley made it quite clear - why I need to rehash it with a hammer wielding "christian" eludes me - but if you want to go there - we CAN play that pissing game all day if you want... in the end solving NOTHING - as he - (and apparently you) have no desire to discourse calmly and in a demeanor befitting the subject matter. As for misrepresenting thier comments - Its plainly apparent to all (with open minds) exactly what is happening here. - I came into that topic with an open mind, got dusted up a bit and ended by offering prayer - just as I did throughout the discourse.
Ive yet to see any real Christ like attitudes in trying to sway me as a "lost" brother - Instead the leg of Calvinism is humped like a frothing pinscher. C'mon - sway me with brotherly love - point being you can't - and for that I'll pray.
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time ;)
You owe me an apology for misquoting me