ECT Our triune God

[Lazy afternoon]

Hey Lon,

I just read the first two pages of your thread.

I needed a good laugh.

LA

 

[Lon]

If you do not inderstand spiritual adultery them you would not understand any other such term.

Spiritual adultery is not "sexual."

I do not care really but I simply pointed out that at least I am not a spiritual homosexual as you tried to make of me in your comments.

Homosexual is.

but then again I ought to know better to think that you would examine the term as you seem to be of the view that if one does not agree with you that they must be blind and uncommited to the Lord as you did say that did'nt you.

Are you a denominational churchman?

LA

You are correct. It is difficult not to assess such
1) when you don't seem to understand the difference stated above
2) when I politely asked (at least I assumed I did regardless of why you might have taken offense) you to change it and meaningfully readdress the thread in a way more suitable
3) and of course because of this:

Hey Lon,

I just read the first two pages of your thread.

I needed a good laugh.

LA

With such demonstrable inability, why would you think I'd care a whit what you personally thought? You are incapable of dialogue over serious matters to my estimation so far. I've declared that you and many like you espouse doctrines upon dimes rather than the high cost many of the rest of us paid for doctrine. Such will never suffice for us, and so, "Yes," I'd see both blind and uncommitted problems here. You are correct on that point.

Finally, if you read the first two pages, then you knew already you were asked not to post because this wasn't supposed to be a debate thread. Therefore, venturing here has a deserved feedback in appropriate response. Why you can't see that, I can't figure out.

 

[SovereigntyIsGods]

You prefer to treat my comment as coming from a filthy mouth instead of a judgment given me by the Lord concerning your spiritual manner, which you hide in many words of criticizm of my person, instead of your giving proper scriptural reasoning.

Go your way.

LA

I love when people pull the "it was given to me by God" card. I've never seen someone that was truly operating in the power of God need to vocalize that they are doing so.

 

[SovereigntyIsGods]

Hey Lon,

I just read the first two pages of your thread.

I needed a good laugh.

LA

There's the Spirit of God in ya! You're just filled to the brim huh??

 

[Lazy afternoon]

I love when people pull the "it was given to me by God" card. I've never seen someone that was truly operating in the power of God need to vocalize that they are doing so.

I am not afraid to state the case when Christ does point out to me the root cause of something.

Even Christ had to answer the question when the high priest asked Him a question in the name of the living God.

While I might have to be careful about doing that, others also have to be careful upon hearing of it.

LA

 

[Lazy afternoon]

There's the Spirit of God in ya! You're just filled to the brim huh??

You just revealed how you laugh, more like a mocking.

You probably know of no other kind.

LA

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Spiritual adultery is not "sexual."



Homosexual is.

You want to talk a bit. ok.

Spiritual homosexuality is not flesh homosexuality.

If Spiritual homosexuality is not mentioned in the christian community then it because so many are involved in it and they can not face what it is, neither have any intention of ceasing from it.

The practice is usually carried out by preachers who try to impress other preachers with their teachings and outward persona, so that men are into self gratification with each others carnal senses.

You have to consider why flesh homosexuality is on the rise.

It is because the flesh follows the spirit in the leaders of the country at most all levels of society, but hey don't talk about it, just call those who do mention it to have a filthy mouth hey.

You are correct. It is difficult not to assess such
1) when you don't seem to understand the difference stated above
2) when I politely asked (at least I assumed I did regardless of why you might have taken offense) you to change it and meaningfully readdress the thread in a way more suitable
3) and of course because of this:

You best read your own post to me again.

With such demonstrable inability, why would you think I'd care a whit what you personally thought?

Yet you expect others to care about what you think.

You are incapable of dialogue over serious matters to my estimation so far. I've declared that you and many like you espouse doctrines upon dimes rather than the high cost many of the rest of us paid for doctrine.

What I know, cost me much more than money, and your money bought RCC doctrine.

Such will never suffice for us, and so, "Yes," I'd see both blind and uncommitted problems here. You are correct on that point.

So you admit your judging another mans servant for not believing as you do.

Finally, if you read the first two pages, then you knew already you were asked not to post because this wasn't supposed to be a debate thread. Therefore, venturing here has a deserved feedback in appropriate response. Why you can't see that, I can't figure out.

So again you admit that you did load your post deliberately to be judgmental and insulting.

You are guilty as charged, and the Lord knows it, but you thought He does not see and will not show your spiritual problem to anyone,



I just now read it but I had forgotten that I ever had in the past.

I was amused at how many did post contrary to what you asked of them. It just went on and on.

What you wanted was an unhindered go at preaching your money bought doctrine, and others quite rightly objected as it is a public board.

LA

 

[Lon]

You want to talk a bit. ok.

Spiritual homosexuality is not flesh homosexuality.

If Spiritual homosexuality is not mentioned in the christian community then it because so many are involved in it and they can not face what it is, neither have any intention of ceasing from it.

The practice is usually carried out by preachers who try to impress other preachers with their teachings and outward persona, so that men are into self gratification with each others carnal senses.

You have to consider why flesh homosexuality is on the rise.

It is because the flesh follows the spirit in the leaders of the country at most all levels of society, but hey don't talk about it, just call those who do mention it to have a filthy mouth hey.

Its a theory. I don't share it but there you go. Regardless, you need to come up with different terminology. Get a good dictionary and do a couple of new words a week or one of those calendars that encourage vocabulary. It is not spiritual homosexuality. Homo = same Sexual = hormonal act involving specific flesh toward procreative endeavors.

Think of a better more accurate term or simply do as you've done this post, and just describe the problem. It goes a lot further than bringing up gross images in the rest of our minds. That was the trouble.

You best read your own post to me again.

Yet you expect others to care about what you think.

No, no and please listen again.
1) This thread was supposed to avoid this sort of thing so I'd think strong rebuttal to those against it would be expected
and 2) you used a term that I don't think any of us got. A few of us thought it vulgar. It still is though I believe you when you say you are trying to describe something else, but anything with "sexual" in the word is going to lose whoever you are trying to talk to. It is not the appropriate term for what you are trying to describe which is more akin to seeking the praise of men rather than the approval of God (man/woman pleaser and/or pride). Not what this thread is about, but at least I think I understand where you were trying to go.

What I know, cost me much more than money, and your money bought RCC doctrine.

I have an expectation which is this: anybody who goes against the main of Christianity on this planet should back it up with the tools (education) to do so. I know without doubt, if I actually went against the majority, I'd attain my theology doctorate to back up what God is telling me to say. Without it, it is about as a high school graduate trying to teach physics at the university level. Some of us worked very very hard to be sure we had a proper handle on scripture and we don't tend to pay much attention to those who are trying to teach us something they learned at home in a half an hour what we spent credit hours hammering out at great length.

So you admit your judging another mans servant for not believing as you do.

Yes, look above. I asked men with doctorates (they spent more than 10 years on their particular areas of teaching) about these things. I learned to read the original languages. I've bought and checked out dozens and dozens of source materials and books. You spent 20 minutes or so on a passage of scripture.

So again you admit that you did load your post deliberately to be judgmental and insulting.

Er, no. You are reading a bit into that statement.

You are guilty as charged, and the Lord knows it, but you thought He does not see and will not show your spiritual problem to anyone,

So of course He needs you to point that out to me, and Christ is no longer our mediator, but you?
Your britches seem to be quite a bit bigger than you seem able to fit, imho.

I just now read it but I had forgotten that I ever had in the past.

I was amused at how many did post contrary to what you asked of them. It just went on and on.

What you wanted was an unhindered go at preaching your money bought doctrine, and others quite rightly objected as it is a public board.

LA

No. Not quite. I'm tired of those without the degrees behind their names to back it up, asserting against the whole of the rest of Christianity about things they clearly and demonstratively know very little about. It is quite evident to the rest of us. So this thread was for us, who believe what we read in scripture, to encourage one another. That isn't contentious. Interrupting such is. I have refrained from posting in any thread on TOL that asks that certain kinds of posters refrain. It doesn't bother me a bit if arians and modalists have their own threads and ask me not to post in them. There is a MAD thread currently on TOL that asks for serious inquiries only. They also get waylaid by those who are against them but I've had no problem whatsoever leaving that Thread to Mid Acts Dispensationalists. I'm a Covenant Theologian so could cause them trouble there, but I respect and love a couple of them. I will fight battles God brings to me and not go out of my way looking for them on purpose.

 

[rocketman]

There's the Spirit of God in ya! You're just filled to the brim huh??

:chuckle:

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Lon,

You probably do not realize that many a pastor is trying to place their life in the congregation, so that they are false Christs.

Tell me Lon,

what qualifications did the apostles require for their ministry?

LA

 

[Lon]

Lon,

You probably do not realize that many a pastor is trying to place their life in the congregation, so that they are false Christs.

Tell me Lon,

what qualifications did the apostles require for their ministry?

LA

You are not an apostle. Because of that, you can make excuses but if you insist on being an expert in Scripture, credentials would back that up.

If I want to learn about Charles Dickens, I go to one who has studied him. Sure, somebody without a degree may know a bit, but the one who spent the money, I'm not having to guess about what he knows.

People greatly commited spend a lot of money and time to be accomplished at what they want to do and know.

 

[sholom]

You are not an apostle. Because of that, you can make excuses but if you insist on being an expert in Scripture, credentials would back that up.

If I want to learn about Charles Dickens, I go to one who has studied him. Sure, somebody without a degree may know a bit, but the one who spent the money, I'm not having to guess about what he knows.

People greatly commited spend a lot of money and time to be accomplished at what they want to do and know.

Your argument leaves out the King of Israel. You have more chutzpah than wisdom, boychick.

 

[meshak]

Its a theory. I don't share it but there you go. Regardless, you need to come up with different terminology. Get a good dictionary and do a couple of new words a week or one of those calendars that encourage vocabulary. It is not spiritual homosexuality. Homo = same Sexual = hormonal act involving specific flesh toward procreative endeavors.

Think of a better more accurate term or simply do as you've done this post, and just describe the problem. It goes a lot further than bringing up gross images in the rest of our minds. That was the trouble.



No, no and please listen again.
1) This thread was supposed to avoid this sort of thing so I'd think strong rebuttal to those against it would be expected
and 2) you used a term that I don't think any of us got. A few of us thought it vulgar. It still is though I believe you when you say you are trying to describe something else, but anything with "sexual" in the word is going to lose whoever you are trying to talk to. It is not the appropriate term for what you are trying to describe which is more akin to seeking the praise of men rather than the approval of God (man/woman pleaser and/or pride). Not what this thread is about, but at least I think I understand where you were trying to go.


I have an expectation which is this: anybody who goes against the main of Christianity on this planet should back it up with the tools (education) to do so. I know without doubt, if I actually went against the majority, I'd attain my theology doctorate to back up what God is telling me to say. Without it, it is about as a high school graduate trying to teach physics at the university level. Some of us worked very very hard to be sure we had a proper handle on scripture and we don't tend to pay much attention to those who are trying to teach us something they learned at home in a half an hour what we spent credit hours hammering out at great length.


Yes, look above. I asked men with doctorates (they spent more than 10 years on their particular areas of teaching) about these things. I learned to read the original languages. I've bought and checked out dozens and dozens of source materials and books. You spent 20 minutes or so on a passage of scripture.



Er, no. You are reading a bit into that statement.


So of course He needs you to point that out to me, and Christ is no longer our mediator, but you?
Your britches seem to be quite a bit bigger than you seem able to fit, imho.





No. Not quite. I'm tired of those without the degrees behind their names to back it up, asserting against the whole of the rest of Christianity about things they clearly and demonstratively know very little about. It is quite evident to the rest of us. So this thread was for us, who believe what we read in scripture, to encourage one another. That isn't contentious. Interrupting such is. I have refrained from posting in any thread on TOL that asks that certain kinds of posters refrain. It doesn't bother me a bit if arians and modalists have their own threads and ask me not to post in them. There is a MAD thread currently on TOL that asks for serious inquiries only. They also get waylaid by those who are against them but I've had no problem whatsoever leaving that Thread to Mid Acts Dispensationalists. I'm a Covenant Theologian so could cause them trouble there, but I respect and love a couple of them. I will fight battles God brings to me and not go out of my way looking for them on purpose.

Boy, you talk a lot but you dont seem to know very basic of Christianity. When you do that your lengthy talk is meaningless. It does not matter how much you think you are knowledgeable.

Christianity is not about talking the talk, it is about walking the walk, friend.

 

[Lon]

Your argument leaves out the King of Israel. You have more chutzpah than wisdom, boychick.

One-liners do not an argument make. See that black pot line of your's, kettle? Kind of ironic (or moronic as the case may be, for instance, it is most likely shalom, not sholom), no?

 

[Lon]

Boy, you talk a lot but you dont seem to know very basic of Christianity. When you do that your lengthy talk is meaningless. It does not matter how much you think you are knowledgeable.

Christianity is not about talking the talk, it is about walking the walk, friend.

Er, it is both and you are in the wrong thread.
I'm not too interested in your particular perspective because you've never, not once, captured my complete attention from the first two posts I've ever read from you.
You aren't on the TOL noticed list.

Squeeky is about the only non-trinitarian everybody knows on this board, and that more as a novelty of repetitive absurdity and special needs.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Er, it is both and you are in the wrong thread.
I'm not too interested in your particular perspective because you've never, not once, captured my complete attention from the first two posts I've ever read from you.
You aren't on the TOL noticed list.

Squeeky is about the only non-trinitarian everybody knows on this board, and that more as a novelty of repetitive absurdity and special needs.

You sure is a religious snob, of no qualifications from Jesus, only from man. You wasted your money.

LA

 

[sholom]

One-liners do not an argument make. See that black pot line of your's, kettle? Kind of ironic (or moronic as the case may be, for instance, it is most likely shalom, not sholom), no?

I'm saying you would have rejected Christ himself for having no degree, as Paul Silas did probably, under Gemaliel, fershtinkiner.
As he murdered the true ones.

And my name is not "peace unto you." Who is being moronic.
From what brain pool do you hail?

 

[student_ad_x]

subscribing :wave:

 

[Lon]

You sure is a religious snob, of no qualifications from Jesus, only from man. You wasted your money.

LA

And again, I'm beside myself wondering 1) why you are the one attacking me on my thread where I politely asked for none of these contentions and 2) wondering why you are the one appearing on the defensive.

Go back up and look. He didn't say a thing about the thread. He is just drive-by shooting at my character. Of course so are you, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised?

 

[Lon]

I'm saying you would have rejected Christ himself for having no degree, as Paul Silas did probably, under Gemaliel, fershtinkiner.
As he murdered the true ones.

Well then, by all means make sure you are martyred?
Please help me understand what kind of reasoning is going on in that mind.

And my name is not "peace unto you." Who is being moronic.
From what brain pool do you hail?

Apparently Hebrew isn't your strong-suit? Yeah, it could be Sholom (its a Hebrew word) but it is most likely Shalom. It doesn't matter so much about the vowels because these were added in to help with pronunciation and a best guess as to how words would have sounded.

So Shuh - loam in pronunciation could be spelled sholom similarly but shalom tends to be the accepted. If sholom appears in any other language, I'm not aware of it. So yeah, different brain-pools obviously.