God is not disingenuous

travelah

Active member
Maybe rotting corpses can't believe any longer. And maybe everyone should start doing Christ, instead of doing themselves and one another. Oh I just might get in trouble for that one. LOL
Yeah, it was obscene and blasphemous. You should be removed but I'll let someone else worry about that. Adios.. you get on the very short list
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Yeah, it was obscene and blasphemous. You should be removed but I'll let someone else worry about that. Adios.. you get on the very short list
You need to get your mind out of the gutter, I meant it in being like Christ in the context of you doing you and me doing me and not in a sexual manner at all. And I am the one who said it, so I am the one who gets to say what I meant in the context I was saying it in. It would seem that the religious here got there very own "Cancel Culture" going on.
 

Chalcedon

Well-known member
You need to get your mind out of the gutter, I meant it in being like Christ in the context of you doing you and me doing me and not in a sexual manner at all. And I am the one who said it, so I am the one who gets to say what I meant in the context I was saying it in. It would seem that the religious here got there very own "Cancel Culture" going on.
Then you should say what you mean and mean what you say without ambiguity, slang, or any other thing that can be implied by your words.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Then you should say what you mean and mean what you say without ambiguity, slang, or any other thing that can be implied by your words.
I did say what I meant, but it could have been interpreted another way, but I didn't mean it in that way did I. And pretending I did is a strawman and form of lying in order to get me banned. People don't have to wonder where "PC culture" and "Cancelled Culture" came from, it came out of and was perfected in and by the religious in their so-called "churches". But this is what Christ says about the religious and those "churches".

He who is having an ear -- let him hear what the Spirit saith to the assemblies. `And to the messenger of the assembly of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the witness -- the faithful and true -- the chief of the creation of God; I have known thy works, that neither cold art thou nor hot; I would thou wert cold or hot.
So -- because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to vomit thee out of my mouth; because thou sayest -- I am rich, and have grown rich, and have need of nothing, and hast not known that thou art the wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked, I counsel thee to buy from me gold fired by fire, that thou mayest be rich, and white garments that thou mayest be arrayed, and the shame of thy nakedness may not be manifest, and with eye-salve anoint thine eyes, that thou mayest see.
`As many as I love, I do convict and chasten; be zealous, then, and reform; lo, I have stood at the door, and I knock; if any one may hear my voice, and may open the door, I will come in unto him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
He who is overcoming -- I will give to him to sit with me in my throne, as I also did overcome and did sit down with my Father in His throne.
He who is having an ear -- let him hear what the Spirit saith to the assemblies.' (Revelation 3:13-22)
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Logic and rationality is beyond my understanding and yours, just as the rational argumentation doesn't follow your beliefs.
You provide no proof of that

I accept the idea of eternal sonship
Really? I mean, you deny what would follow in rational argumentation.

as I stated I deny your understanding
 

armylngst

Well-known member
No just your understanding
You already crumbled in the face of a deductive logical argument, with verses cut and pasted in where they belong. You couldn't even deal with the premises, which is the only way to answer the argument given. You didn't even try. You had a meltdown instead.
 

armylngst

Well-known member
You provide no proof of that


Really? I mean, you deny what would follow in rational argumentation.

as I stated I deny your understanding
Um, you do like your paradoxes. In rational argumentation, it would mean that God had setup the plan of redemption long before He created the world, and had already chosen who Jesus was coming to save. I don't see how that I deny that, since I believe God chose the elect before the foundation of the world. Even Peter said that Jesus was foreordained before the foundation of the world, which means God had already known the way the world would go, before He spoke one word of Eve's curse. He already knew exactly how Jesus would enter the world, to the point that He told a priest that they would not die before they saw Jesus. If anything could have happened to Mary or even to Joseph, God lied.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
You already crumbled in the face of a deductive logical argument, with verses cut and pasted in where they belong. You couldn't even deal with the premises, which is the only way to answer the argument given. You didn't even try. You had a meltdown instead.
LOL

Your imagination is carrying you away

PS you just assumed

1 eternal sonship Refers only to the incarnation

2 Because something was planned if could not have been planned based on foreknoweledge

Sorry all you haver are assumptions
 

armylngst

Well-known member
LOL

Your imagination is carrying you away

PS you just assumed

1 eternal sonship Refers only to the incarnation

2 Because something was planned if could not have been planned based on foreknoweledge

Sorry all you haver are assumptions
You still have not answered the deductive argument I made. I understand you can't, but that just means that I have the sound answer for the argument at hand, and you do not.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
You still have not answered the deductive argument I made. I understand you can't, but that just means that I have the sound answer for the argument at hand, and you do not.
You understand nothing

You made several assumptions in your argument

1 eternal sonship Refers only to the incarnation

2 Because something was planned if could not have been planned based on foreknowledge
you have not proven your assumptions

so you have no argument
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
You understand nothing

You made several assumptions in your argument

1 eternal sonship Refers only to the incarnation

2 Because something was planned if could not have been planned based on foreknowledge
you have not proven your assumptions

so you have no argument
It refers to much more than the incarnation, it refers to the purpose of the incarnation, to redeem from sin. This world was created for a Redemptive from sin purpose through Christ. Everything was made for Him and that purpose Col 1:14-17

in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 and he is before all things, and by him all things consist
 
T

TomFL

Guest
It refers to much more than the incarnation, it refers to the purpose of the incarnation, to redeem from sin. This world was created for a Redemptive from sin purpose through Christ. Everything was made for Him and that purpose Col 1:14-17

in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 and he is before all things, and by him all things consist
Do you have an actual argument to make ?

all you have is an assumption that for some reason God chose to determine sin so he could determine its

redemption at least in part; leaving the other part with no redemption

None of which appears in the bible
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Do you have an actual argument to make ?

all you have is an assumption that for some reason God chose to determine sin so he could determine its

redemption at least in part; leaving the other part with no redemption

None of which appears in the bible
It's been made by me and others
 
T

TomFL

Guest
It's been made by me and others
Assumption is still assumption

Do you have an actual argument to make ?

all you have is an assumption that for some reason God chose to determine sin so he could determine its

redemption at least in part; leaving the other part with no redemption

None of which appears in the bible

to be noted you have in fact quoted no scripture
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Assumption is still assumption

Do you have an actual argument to make ?

all you have is an assumption that for some reason God chose to determine sin so he could determine its

redemption at least in part; leaving the other part with no redemption

None of which appears in the bible

to be noted you have in fact quoted no scripture
The point has been made by myself and others, you just ignore it.
 
Top