D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Make it go away.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
That made no sense. I read it several times, and can't believe it is actually in English.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
The amusing part is even becoming disturbing. There is such thing as too much of a good thing.
No, actually don't you remember saying:
Ok, how about this:
You are assuming that because there are non-verbal instances of denial, that means that all denials must be ongoing, that there must be repetition of the denial. that is false, for it does not follow that such is the case.
Also, you assumed that actions show true intent, and since you can deny through actions then only true intent makes a real denial. That is also a false conclusion, for just because denial can be by action does not mean that it must be "genuine denial" or heartfelt. Denial by action could also be a lie if you knew people were watching you, hence stepping on a picture of Jesus was used in Japan to show denial of Christianity. Does the truth of stepping on the picture make it more real than a verbal lie about denying Christ?
You are assuming that because there are non-verbal instances of denial, that means that all denials must be ongoing, that there must be repetition of the denial. that is false, for it does not follow that such is the case.
Also, you assumed that actions show true intent, and since you can deny through actions then only true intent makes a real denial. That is also a false conclusion, for just because denial can be by action does not mean that it must be "genuine denial" or heartfelt. Denial by action could also be a lie if you knew people were watching you, hence stepping on a picture of Jesus was used in Japan to show denial of Christianity. Does the truth of stepping on the picture make it more real than a verbal lie about denying Christ?
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Ironically the very qualities that others have said disqualifies me... go figure. I can't win either way, so I might has well tan some hide along the way.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Jaltus... that still didn't seem like English. It made no sense.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Nah, that's the postmillennial preterism.
Ha! Your hilarious! Your a joke! Show me my strawman!!!
Let's put it all on the table so I can expose your fraudulent accusations of me....
If a human denies Christ i.e.: a man remains dead in his sin that is the most serious error a person can make and he is destined for hell. I am assuming we all agree about that?
But that isn't what is up for debate!
What IS up for debate is....
What if you can thwart a wicked act and save lives by deceiving the wicked force? Even if it means you have to "act" that you deny Christ even though in your heart you truly do NOT deny Christ.
Do you really think God knows us so little He wouldn't know we were only thwarting the wicked act?
Is our relationship with Christ so shallow it's only based on mouthing words? Don't you think our heart and how we REALLY feel is what makes the "words" have meaning?
Jaltus your theology begs so many questions....
So.... again... out of monumental curiosity....
If a Christian actor/actress plays a part in a play or a movie in which he has to reject Christ as part of the play or movie is he risking his salvation?
Man, my point is that you are assuming a bunch of stuff.
1) Since denial can be nonverbal, even verbal denial must be ongoing in order to be real denial.
I think 1) is false. I think you assume 1) in your argument.
2) Actions show true intent.
I deny 2), saying that people can lie through action as well as through words.
3) Intent is what makes a real denial.
We are arguing 3) in the first place, which makes your assumption of it a circular argument.
Does that make sense? I really cannot make it any more plain.
1) Since denial can be nonverbal, even verbal denial must be ongoing in order to be real denial.
I think 1) is false. I think you assume 1) in your argument.
2) Actions show true intent.
I deny 2), saying that people can lie through action as well as through words.
3) Intent is what makes a real denial.
We are arguing 3) in the first place, which makes your assumption of it a circular argument.
Does that make sense? I really cannot make it any more plain.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Sorry, but all those numbers made it even more confusing. Knight on the other hand made a ton of sense. Perhaps you could borrow some 
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Such as the unfortunate souls who get to play Judas in all the Jesus films.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
And the hypothetical Christian in Knight's scenario truly believes in Christ and is lying so how can he be denying Him?
And you are assuming a theological argument there.. many believe that Judas lost his salvation. And some actor has to play Peter then doesn't he?
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
You are making no sense. A browse through James on the subject of the relationship between words and actions and the heart might help.