Thread is starting to devolve into mud-flinging.
Knock it off, please, or I'm going to lock the thread. And I'd rather not do that, because this is one of my favorite topics.
Last post on this from me. I really do want to see him change, but I will not read anything from Clete now in thread. He can have the last words.
This is as close to an argument against anything I've ever said that I can remember you ever posting, which is why you're such a long standing member of my ignore list.
The fact that you like being there is the best reason you've ever produde to entice me to take you off of it.
No idea what you meant to type. DON'T take me off ignore. I put you on mine first. Again, if you weren't quoted or someone didn't tell me, I'd have no idea of your petty, immature, backstabbing. I DON'T talk about you behind your back in these threads because I simply don't read you. You aren't important to any conversation on TOL to me, not even for Open Theism questions BECAUSE you accuse first and learn, if ever, last. I'm a BETTER theologian than you. You don't even hang around long enough to hear half of the conversation, just the soundbytes you are interested in. You got this one wrong (again, see the link, Mr. Ignorant). Muz, Chickenman and a few others are better equipped to field any of the conversation, importantly, in a meaningful manner. You just shouldn't be taking potshots at me, behind my back. What kind of disdain do you have to have to even take me off ignore to do this kind of thing??? Especially when you are quite mistaken.
You're projecting, Lon. The reason you annoy me so much is precisely because I am passionate about what I believe and you're as sloppy and careless with what you say as it seems possible to be.
:sigh:
See here, you were/are wrong.
YOU are projecting. You know what ONE (1) kind of partial preterist is, likely from wiki or something. It isn't helpful in this case.
The fact that you think that discussions of theology ought not be approached in a dispassionate, rational manner is only evidence that you are incapable of doing it, not that it shouldn't exist or that there is some problem with the fact that I am capable of it.
See that 'fact' up there? It is 'subjective' to "just Clete." That, I believe, IS a fact.
The fact is, I caught you with your pants around your ankles and it's embarrassed you. The word preterist has a definition and you displayed, as I said, either a blatant ignorance of or a flagrant disregard for that definition, which is your typical mode of operation around here. You don't really seem to care what words mean. So long as you can make some wildly convoluted connection to it within the recesses of your over educated brain then you're perfectly fine with stretching the meaning of nearly any word to means whatever you want it to mean, which, of course means it means nothing at all.
As I've shown,
YOU are the one who is sloppy. Why didn't you just ask, or ask someone to ask 'what kind of preterist' I was, if it didn't fit your only knowledge of it? Were all your teachers/mentors this simpleton/simplistic? You don't have to be. Ask more, accuse less. It hurts YOUR image for having done it the wrong way. And, in a basal as well as unkind manner. I ask about your daily devotions because you are so full of salt and vinegar, no matter if you are wrong or right. It certainly could be against 'just me' but I've not seen it particular to me, but to all you converse with. You 'think' you've got answers and you really don't. You aren't read well-enough for that, as is clear even here. You cannot admit ignorance so will come up with something else, just like you did entering this conversation 'about' me. In IGNORANCE, you made an ignorant statement that wasn't factual, logical, or truthful at all. I have trouble ever showing you such things, so I simply leave you on ignore. Our conversations are ever unprofitable. I know my own actual prowess. -Lon
