If Jesus couldn't keep HIMSELF out of trouble...

[Sky Dancer]

You aren't a perfect stranger.

I told you, I loathe liars, I loathe hypocrites.

If you are one, then I loathe you.

I'm sorry to hear you say that. You loathe yourself then. I've showed you a number of places where you've lied about what I've posted. I'm not sure you even do that on purpose. I think you interpret what I've written instead taking my words at face value.

You say you're a Christian, but you hate me for my views. You don't follow Jesus teachings in any meaningful way that any of us can see.

It's not good to hate yourself.

I don't hate you Allie. You help me work on my patience, and I appreciate you for that. I appreciate your humanness.

I wish you the best place in heaven.

 

[Hidden_Mystery]

Hi Wonky Pundit,

...how do you expect him to save you?

This seems like a fatal theological flaw if ever there was one.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
Can you explain how Jesus, trouble and being saved are connected?

Thanks

HM.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Hi Wonky Pundit,

...how do you expect him to save you?

This seems like a fatal theological flaw if ever there was one.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
Can you explain how Jesus, trouble and being saved are connected?

Thanks

HM.

It stands to reason that keeping yourself out of physical peril is necessary before you can save even your own soul, much less billions of others.

If you have a logical way to resolve that dilemma, I'd love to hear it.

 

[AllieBaba]

You aren't a perfect stranger.

I told you, I loathe liars, I loathe hypocrites.

If you are one, then I loathe you.

I'm sorry to hear you say that. You loathe yourself then. I've showed you a number of places where you've lied about what I've posted. I'm not sure you even do that on purpose. I think you interpret what I've written instead taking my words at face value.

You say you're a Christian, but you hate me for my views. You don't follow Jesus teachings in any meaningful way that any of us can see.

It's not good to hate yourself.

I don't hate you Allie. You help me work on my patience, and I appreciate you for that. I appreciate your humanness.

I wish you the best place in heaven.

 

[daveman]

Nor should you, but this should be interesting. I doubt that you'll ever follow through, but I'll PM you an email address you can use.

You really shouldn't doubt me when I say I'll do something. You just wind up looking silly.

I sent you the email, so you can stop talking and start doing.

It's funny -- you don't even see the arrogance in that, do you? No, you just issue orders and expect everyone to hop to it.

You'll get them when you get them. But I've attached a condition:

Let's see your resume. Quid pro quo. You don't get a free ride.

Anyone who thinks it's impossible for grown-up individuals to be anything other than conservative is delusional. Delusional individuals aren't grown up.

Where did I ever say only conservatives are grown up?

I do not. I demand only civility - except of course in places like the Flame Zone, where you fail miserably.

This is one of those instances where you're confusing your opinion for fact.

I guarantee you can't point to one instance of this in the political forums.

Why are you moving the goal posts? You don't get to do that. The OP of this thread is an example of you confusing your opinion for fact.

And you don't? Why the double standard?

I think I'm smarter than demonstrably dumb people. Not everyone.

And so far, it's all because you're a liberal.

What you think my ideology is is moot, since I've already proved you wrong.

Another instance of you confusing your opinion for fact.

That's simply not good enough.

Difference in politics don't give you license to act like a complete boor whenever you feel like it. Everyone else here knows that, except for a handful of zealots. So if my demand for civility isn't good enough for you, too bad.

You demand what you do not offer yourself. So bugger off.

 

[daveman]

Hi Wonky Pundit,

...how do you expect him to save you?

This seems like a fatal theological flaw if ever there was one.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
Can you explain how Jesus, trouble and being saved are connected?

Thanks

HM.

It stands to reason that keeping yourself out of physical peril is necessary before you can save even your own soul, much less billions of others.

If you have a logical way to resolve that dilemma, I'd love to hear it.

As has been repeatedly explained to you, there is no dilemma. Jesus' purpose on Earth was to be the perfect sacrifice, the Lamb of God.

 

[AllieBaba]

He has no desire to understand. It's a bait thread, has been from the beginning. The mod agrees and thinks it's funny, or it would be in the romper room where it belongs.

Try posting ridiculous garbage like this about Obama's birth cert, or teachers, and see where it ends up.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The idea that the Bible SHOULD be read by everyone is arrogance, pure and simple.

Do you also view the idea that Shakespeare SHOULD be read by everyone as arrogant?

Do you find ignorance to be the best path in all situations?

Yanno...........I prefer Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching over the Bible.

It makes more sense.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hi Wonky Pundit,

...how do you expect him to save you?

This seems like a fatal theological flaw if ever there was one.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
Can you explain how Jesus, trouble and being saved are connected?

Thanks

HM.

It stands to reason that keeping yourself out of physical peril is necessary before you can save even your own soul, much less billions of others.

If you have a logical way to resolve that dilemma, I'd love to hear it.

Does it, now? Please explain to us, specifically, how "reason" dictates that physical safety for you is a necessity to be able to save others, physically or spiritually. You keep making this assertion, as though you're stating that water is wet, but the truth is that whatever undeniable, inevitable logic you think you see here is only visible to you.

As I pointed out in my earlier post, it seems obvious to ME, upon reflection, that saving others from anything actually has as its primary requirement a willingness to put yourself in jeopardy. How the hell do you save someone from danger, after all, from a safe distance? Even therapists, who are only "saving" their clients from mental and emotional trauma, still have to actually get in and muck around IN the trauma to do it.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single rescue scenario, from ANY sort of peril, which is executed by someone sitting in a reinforced bomb shelter or the figurative equivalent. Perhaps YOU could point one out to me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He has no desire to understand. It's a bait thread, has been from the beginning. The mod agrees and thinks it's funny, or it would be in the romper room where it belongs.

Try posting ridiculous garbage like this about Obama's birth cert, or teachers, and see where it ends up.

Oh, hell, try starting a similar thread about Buddha, or Mohammed, or any other non-Christian religious icon, and see how different the response would be.

Just make sure you have your asbestos undies on first.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Hi Wonky Pundit,



I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
Can you explain how Jesus, trouble and being saved are connected?

Thanks

HM.

It stands to reason that keeping yourself out of physical peril is necessary before you can save even your own soul, much less billions of others.

If you have a logical way to resolve that dilemma, I'd love to hear it.

As has been repeatedly explained to you, there is no dilemma. Jesus' purpose on Earth was to be the perfect sacrifice, the Lamb of God.

Once again, you're confusing your opinion with fact.

(You're just too easy! )

 

[Cecilie1200]

It stands to reason that keeping yourself out of physical peril is necessary before you can save even your own soul, much less billions of others.

If you have a logical way to resolve that dilemma, I'd love to hear it.

As has been repeatedly explained to you, there is no dilemma. Jesus' purpose on Earth was to be the perfect sacrifice, the Lamb of God.

Once again, you're confusing your opinion with fact.

(You're just too easy! )

Once again, you're dodging. On multiple levels.

First of all, the topic YOU YOURSELF chose for this thread was Jesus' purpose on Earth, as defined by Christian theology. It was NOT whether or not Christianity is fact or fiction in and of itself. Therefore, it is not a matter of opinion, dave's or anyone else's, that Jesus came to Earth specifically to die. It's a stone-cold fact that that is Christian theological doctrine.

The opinion here is actually YOURS, as regards the unsubstantiated assertion that complete physical safety is a requirement in order to rescue others.

And the fact that you are assiduously avoiding EVER having to explain or back up that assertion, choosing instead to respond only to the posts that most easily allow you to give breezy, insulting non-answers like "That's just your opinion, and you're too easy!" is being lost on no one. Even you have to realize what a vacuous poltroon you're revealing yourself to be.

 

[AllieBaba]

Hi Wonky Pundit,

...how do you expect him to save you?

This seems like a fatal theological flaw if ever there was one.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
Can you explain how Jesus, trouble and being saved are connected?

Thanks

HM.

It stands to reason that keeping yourself out of physical peril is necessary before you can save even your own soul, much less billions of others.

If you have a logical way to resolve that dilemma, I'd love to hear it.

No, it doesn't stand to reason at all. That's why MARTYRS in every religion are revered. Putting one in harm's way for the sake of your faith is pretty much the ultimate test of one's faith, and the supreme example to others....

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hi Wonky Pundit,



I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
Can you explain how Jesus, trouble and being saved are connected?

Thanks

HM.

It stands to reason that keeping yourself out of physical peril is necessary before you can save even your own soul, much less billions of others.

If you have a logical way to resolve that dilemma, I'd love to hear it.

No, it doesn't stand to reason at all. That's why MARTYRS in every religion are revered. Putting one in harm's way for the sake of your faith is pretty much the ultimate test of one's faith, and the supreme example to others....

Plus it's just not logical any other way. How do you save someone WITHOUT putting yourself in harm's way?

 

[Sunshine]

He has no desire to understand. It's a bait thread, has been from the beginning. The mod agrees and thinks it's funny, or it would be in the romper room where it belongs.

Try posting ridiculous garbage like this about Obama's birth cert, or teachers, and see where it ends up.

Oh, hell, try starting a similar thread about Buddha, or Mohammed, or any other non-Christian religious icon, and see how different the response would be.Just make sure you have your asbestos undies on first.

I would be interested to know why that is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He has no desire to understand. It's a bait thread, has been from the beginning. The mod agrees and thinks it's funny, or it would be in the romper room where it belongs.

Try posting ridiculous garbage like this about Obama's birth cert, or teachers, and see where it ends up.

Oh, hell, try starting a similar thread about Buddha, or Mohammed, or any other non-Christian religious icon, and see how different the response would be.Just make sure you have your asbestos undies on first.

I would be interested to know why that is.

Perhaps it's because we're more accustomed to it than most, and because our beliefs actually inhibit our reactions, unlike some other religions. Most Christians genuinely feel constrained to be nice far beyond what might otherwise be considered normal, and those Christians like me who don't feel that particular requirement still feel that being thin-skinned and jumping to a lawsuit or tattling to the mods or whatever every time someone looks at us cross-eyed is kinda whiny and inappropriate to a religion that claims to model itself after the most famous martyr in human history.

It's interesting to me to note that the same people who are constantly telling us how terrified they are of Christians' "nefarious" plans to "impose a theocracy" on them nevertheless confront, attack, and belittle Christians with a sublime confidence that they can do so safely and with impunity. It simply never occurs to them, as they're pontificating about the evil, divisive, violent nature of Christianity, that they will ever receive anything worse than a tongue-lashing from the one in a hundred-or-so Christians like me with the compulsion and will to stand up to them.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yanno.......I've got a question for you Christian types.......

It's been said that after Jesus was resurrected He went to India for a while.

Would you also accept the The Tibetan Book of the Dead as well? He was supposedly the author of it.

I mean.......if you accept the writings of His disciples, wouldn't you also accept the words of the Man Himself?

 

[uscitizen]

Yanno.......I've got a question for you Christian types.......

It's been said that after Jesus was resurrected He went to India for a while.

Would you also accept the The Tibetan Book of the Dead as well? He was supposedly the author of it.

I mean.......if you accept the writings of His disciples, wouldn't you also accept the words of the Man Himself?

Now you know that just works for white folks like Jesus was

 

[Sky Dancer]

Yanno.......I've got a question for you Christian types.......

It's been said that after Jesus was resurrected He went to India for a while.

Would you also accept the The Tibetan Book of the Dead as well? He was supposedly the author of it.

I mean.......if you accept the writings of His disciples, wouldn't you also accept the words of the Man Himself?

Jesus did not write the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Padmasambhava did in the 8th century, long after Jesus died.

 

[daveman]

It stands to reason that keeping yourself out of physical peril is necessary before you can save even your own soul, much less billions of others.

If you have a logical way to resolve that dilemma, I'd love to hear it.

As has been repeatedly explained to you, there is no dilemma. Jesus' purpose on Earth was to be the perfect sacrifice, the Lamb of God.

Once again, you're confusing your opinion with fact.

(You're just too easy! )

Not my fault if you choose to wallow in your ignorance. People are giving you the right answer, but since it disagrees with Wonky the Great and Powerful, it must be discarded.

You don't want debate. You want instant, unthinking agreement and affirmation.