A banned voice

[Fenris]

What a marvelous observation, thank you!

Uhm ok. In your new religion, you're partner with God.

I claim no authority, and don't need any against something which has no authority but the backing of the disobedient.

So everyone who disagrees with you is "disobedient". To you, to God, it's all the same.

How can I address irrationality when we can't even agree on the meaning of a number?

You keep flinging out math references, but they don't apply to the situation.

Plenty of precedent for word meaning is established, for instance Jesus plainly calling John (the baptist) Elijah.

No precedent exists to support mystery math. John can be Elijah, by the words of Jesus, but one is always one and three is always three; these are immutable quantities.

I don't know what "mystery math" is.

The distraction is provided by you in this aversion to the original matter in question; the presumed reality of everlasting torment.

I never claimed everlasting torment. I asked about the punishment of the wicked, which you refuse to address.

I agree!

But He also forgives everyone, so nothing matters.

I believe the truth stands alone, that it always makes sense, always lines up, can withstand any valid line of inquiry, and is inarguably superior to all falsehood by virtue of the clarity of reason inherent to the Source.

But I'm asking valid lines of inquiry, and you refuse to answer the questions.

Well if you go to a Lexus dealer and get mad that you can't find a Volvo, who's at fault?

You're not a serious person.

Three is not one. One is not three.

And yet.

How can you reconcile unforgiveness with love? They are mutually exclusive.

I don't love everyone. Do you?

You attempt to misdirect my reverence for God; all glory is His, and all I am and do is for Him.

Or how do you think it looks to serve God in truth and sincerity?

By not being pompous and pretending to have all of the answers, for one.

Alas, the hour grows late and the Sabbath is near. We can continue this conversation tomorrow night, if you haven't been beaten with the ban stick yet. In the meantime, I leave it to the Christian members here to defend Christian dogma.

[HappyServant]

Uhm ok. In your new religion, you're partner with God.

What else could "unity" mean?

Only what I bring from the storehouse is new, but I can also bring the old, just like Jesus said a scribe in service to the Kingdom would be able to do.

So everyone who disagrees with you is "disobedient". To you, to God, it's all the same.

I don't seek agreement, I seek the contention of those who assert lies for the express purpose of practicing truth.

So debating is a means of ascertaining truth through the application of reason which is expressed in words.

Does that make sense?

You keep flinging out math references, but they don't apply to the situation.

How do you support this statement when you are plainly saying, "the God who said He is one is actually three separate persons."

What supports your rationality?

If three persons, why does one have zero words attributed in quotation while the other Two are quoted extensively? That's a deep rabbit hole with all kinds of bombast required for obfuscation.

I don't know what "mystery math" is.

... 1 is not 3.

... 3 is not 1.

Making numbers something other than they clearly, plainly, observably are is delusion.

Trying to conflate them requires belief in nonsensical "divine mystery."

I never claimed everlasting torment. I asked about the punishment of the wicked, which you refuse to address.

The implications inherent to the direction you seek to take the conversation are a trap. I can't address an irrationality that is contingent on it's position within an enthymeme. I won't assume the validity of your foundations as would be necessary to proceed as you demand.

Besides, I'm not worried about the wicked anyway; God will deal with them.

But He also forgives everyone, so nothing matters.

He forgives those who ask, and few do, as most seem content with deception.

And everything matters. Everything has a reason and a purpose. The eternal components aren't going anywhere.

But I'm asking valid lines of inquiry, and you refuse to answer the questions.

You ask about punishment, I say that is beside the point, and you would tell me what my point is?

You ask awry.

You're not a serious person.

Levity is a gift of the Spirit.

I don't love everyone. Do you?

I'm working on that.

By not being pompous and pretending to have all of the answers, for one.

I pretend nothing. I don't have all the answers, hence the narrowed of topics for debate with which I opened this thread.

And your interpretation of my behavior is noted, thank you. I'll see if I can curb what you detect as pomposity in my words going forward. No promises, though.

Alas, the hour grows late and the Sabbath is near. We can continue this conversation tomorrow night, if you haven't been beaten with the ban stick yet. In the meantime, I leave it to the Christian members here to defend Christian dogma.

"If you can't beat 'em, ban 'em"

[HappyServant]

Alas, the hour grows late and the Sabbath is near. We can continue this conversation tomorrow night, if you haven't been beaten with the ban stick yet.

You know, you're right here. I agree with you on this aspect of proper Sabbath observation.

Validation check completed. Integrity verified. All systems go.

See you then and thank you for your time.

[ProDeo]

Do I sound delusional to you?

You sound like a JW.

[Athanasius]

I'm surprised he didn't wax poetic about pharmakeia. Oh well.

[RabbiKnife]

I'm surprised he didn't wax poetic about pharmakeia. Oh well.

Better living through chemistry…

[tango]

To summarize a position requires the omission of details, which is why I put forth all I did, making available all manner of points upon which any might contend.

Quote the Scriptures you would use against me and let's discuss them.

Or, you know, make a counter-point. To anything. Please.

It never hurts to, you know, refer to Scripture if you're using it to back a point. To regard a point as being true unless someone quotes a Scripture against it doesn't always lead to anything useful.

Did you know that on the day of Pentecost what the people were hearing was their own language playing from bright orange inflatable boom boxes that floated down from the heavens? You can't quote Scripture refuting this claim - Scripture only records that the people heard their own language - therefore it's true, right?