We are works in progress. The means we choose determine the direction in which we head. The attitude we employ paints the daily journey.
No one has asked for proof, until now!
- Thread starter bybee
- Start date
We are works in progress. The means we choose determine the direction in which we head. The attitude we employ paints the daily journey.
doloresistere
New member
^that
Yup!
Righty O!
doloresistere
New member
You have no idea what people will or will not consider a witness. You can totally turn someone off with your behavior only to have that person respect you as a person later on after he gets to know you better and especially why you behave the way you do. We do not know why SOD behaves the way he does because he keeps his inner life and emotions very close to the vest. SOD's behavior is just an excuse for someone who already wants to reject the christian God. You cannot really make a true impact on someone until you become intimately involved with them.....when they know you warts and all.
Oh, I'm pretty sure Rusha will never consider him telling her that he will enjoy watching her suffer in hell is never going to be a compelling witness for her. I don't have to know why someone uses Christ as an extension of their malice to know they shouldn't and that repeatedly doing so speaks to a problem of character, even as I hold out hope that any who love Him can be reformed by Him.
I take your larger point though, about involvement.
doloresistere
New member
I am not excusing his behavior toward Rusha. I think it is disgusting. He obviously hates her. He will never be honest about that feeling though. I just don't think that his behavior is keeping Rusha from becoming a Christian. I think she might be saved anyway, regardless of her mental doubts about his existence. Doctrine does not save you. The modern christian cartoon character of God as an old man with a gray beard with a Son who looks like a pot smoking, wimpish, hippy is hard for the rational thinking, educated person to believe.
I don't think SOD impacts Rusha anymore than the ants she steps on the sidewalk do.
rusha has been rejecting the sacrifice of Christ for the six years she's been posting here.
my telling her to go to hell is my way of shaking the dust off my sandals at her
i hate her rejection of Christ's sacrifice
i hate the way she spits on the Cross
i hate the demons in her that control her and keep her from accepting Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior
Seriously, in regards to Christianity, SOD does not impact my view because I do not believe he is a Christian.
He is weak and pathetic and *needs* something to hide behind. His words are more insulting towards those who actually value Christ and genuinely believe in His sacrifice.
Correction: You hate yourSELF and project your insecurities and misery on the rest of us.
You are the only person here who repeatedly spits on the cross.
No SOD, I will not convert to your religion of Koban Worship.
Rusha I have never given Res any support in his attacks on you. In fact I have openly taken issue with them.
I would like to know what your designation of "other" means. I'm sure you have discussed this before but I simply do not recall.
Thanks.
It means *somewhere in the middle of Christian and Agnostic*. Outside of that description, I am really not interested in offering details of my trip down the altar as a child, my baptism, etc. on the public threads. To do so would just give a certain individual ANOTHER opening to take his hostility out on me.
Thank you. I wish you the best of everything.
rusha - do you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?
Demons have nothing to do with it. It's her own choice.
zippy2006
New member
Same old TOL I see!
A point of clarification:
If by "standing behind an accusation" one means "place a very high stakes wager on the veracity of the accusation," then I think they are mistaken. There are any number of things I believe. There are any number of things I believe about certain people, good and bad. Opting out of a high-stakes wager regarding those beliefs does not somehow incriminate me or entail that I am lying. It simply means that I do not consider myself sure enough to place such a wager, or that I am not especially interested in the prize of the wager. So you could say sod's refusal shows something, but you cannot in good faith say that it simply shows him to be a liar or a coward. The exchange is even somewhat comical to me:
TH: I am a lawyer.
Sod: I don't believe you. Prove it.
TH: I don't believe that you don't believe me. Prove it.
Sod: You're full of crap, else you would have proved it.
TH: You're full of crap, else you would have proved it.
A point of clarification:
If by "standing behind an accusation" one means "place a very high stakes wager on the veracity of the accusation," then I think they are mistaken. There are any number of things I believe. There are any number of things I believe about certain people, good and bad. Opting out of a high-stakes wager regarding those beliefs does not somehow incriminate me or entail that I am lying. It simply means that I do not consider myself sure enough to place such a wager, or that I am not especially interested in the prize of the wager. So you could say sod's refusal shows something, but you cannot in good faith say that it simply shows him to be a liar or a coward. The exchange is even somewhat comical to me:
TH: I am a lawyer.
Sod: I don't believe you. Prove it.
TH: I don't believe that you don't believe me. Prove it.
Sod: You're full of crap, else you would have proved it.
TH: You're full of crap, else you would have proved it.
Were you expecting cartoon avatars with overly large eyes? :idunno:
Same old TOL I see!
A point of clarification:
If by "standing behind an accusation" one means "place a very high stakes wager on the veracity of the accusation," then I think they are mistaken. There are any number of things I believe. There are any number of things I believe about certain people, good and bad. Opting out of a high-stakes wager regarding those beliefs does not somehow incriminate me or entail that I am lying. It simply means that I do not consider myself sure enough to place such a wager, or that I am not especially interested in the prize of the wager. So you could say sod's refusal shows something, but you cannot in good faith say that it simply shows him to be a liar or a coward. The exchange is even somewhat comical to me:
TH: I am a lawyer.
Sod: I don't believe you. Prove it.
TH: I don't believe that you don't believe me. Prove it.
Sod: You're full of crap, else you would have proved it.
TH: You're full of crap, else you would have proved it.
good to see you back zippy! :wave2:
and just as a point of clarification, one i have made in the past a number of times, my reason for refusing to take the wager as offered was that it would have resulted in town being forced to leave the site, an outcome that i don't think anybody wants to come to pass