I believe I said good day to you sir. You called me a liar twice. Do not thread hump me. The question was "why not". The answer is "because". Clearly the condition of the because was not explored. That is my job on this side of this thread. Good day.
And twice you keep coming back. Want to try for 4 times? Please reference the specific posts wherein you allege that I have called you a "liar". Without such proof, then you are in fact misrepresenting what has been published on this thread. "because" is not a complete response. ... "because" standing alone does not show the 'reason' behind the "because". As stated before... Yeppir some people have good days others don't. Now if you are saying "good day" as an alternate way of saying "goodbye", then please don't bother responding to this posting. But wait... you have to respond to show me where it is that you allege that I called you a "liar".
I will not be dictated to. It was a different thread. Stop trolling. Stop humping my leg. No means no.
There is never a guarantee that you won't get caught. Make it a habit and the odds of you getting caught becomes greater. When you get caught you not only have to face consequences but you also lose respect. So the reason you don't steal the wallet is to practice being an honorable person even when you don't have to be. If you want to do business, deal with other people, your reputation is important.
That this excites you does not reflect negatively on me. You seem to be going for title of king troll. You win. I will now set you on ignore... which is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing shame, because you are a maniacally smart person. You attacked me personally, and now will not leave me alone... so you are a troll. This hurts me more than it hurts you. Yay... you won. Feel good?
Oh of course. Strangely enough, he thought the Jews were a proud race, while the Germans were weak. He thought human will was partly shaped by race.
Just because I have challenged your claims does not mean that I have attacked you... all I have sought is for you to support your claims in such a manner in which I might be compelled to accept those claims as true. At the same time, you attempt to place a label on me which is a matter of your perspective, but I am sure there are at least one or two on this forum that would disagree with you, subsequently that type of labeling is just an opinion. No! I don't like the idea of you leaving the conversation, but if that is what you are compelled to do, then do so, but I would rather you stick around and support your claims.
That is why I attempt to avoid making claims. I also don't like having to attempt to compel the mind of other people to see things as I see them (to agree with me). Everyone should hold those same expectations upon themselves.
Chill man. This forum had nothing to do with religion, and your sudden turn to christian bashing is unwelcome. I strictly asked others to give a secular POV on the issue, or if god were to be brought into the equation, then explain it thrpugh metaphysics. I have not mentioned god once in my arguments, so your ranting is quite unwelcome. Good day, and I hope people don't use this thread anymore to debate religion.
I disagree with the statement that you have no guarantee you wont get caught. Have you ever done something your "not supposed to" on a regular basis? I reckon I have on multiple things, yet to be caught. There is some pretty high odds society will either ignore your actions or turn a blind eye. We can't all be relevant in this world, 24/7.
You're stranded on an island with a stranger. You build a raft, but just as you finish the other man gets sick and dies. He asks you to take his diamond wedding ring back to his wife. Why ought you? Nobody knows the man even survived, let alone his ring, let alone that you made the promise to return it safely. Trying to justify "good" behavior as in your self-interest is, imo, not going to lead to an understanding of the "good" most people would be satisfied with. Even if it did, the result would be dependent entirely on the subjective preferences of the individual concerned.
I am not bashing Christianity, I am bashing "the church". Jesus did too. I didn't figure you would answer. "I will take the passive aggressive perspective that secular society has no morals and pretend this has nothing to do with religion." Stay classy.
You must be referring to the Jewish Synogogues. I personally don't remember reading anything about Jesus addressing any other church or churches other than that of the Jews.
That is because "the church" is not an establishment or building. We are the body of Christ. We are "the Church", and he bashed us pretty good too lol.
I seem to recall Jesus saying something to the effect of "..on this rock I will build my church." See those two words in the center of that phrase? "I will". That means that the 'church' Jesus was talking about did not exist at that time. However the Synogogue or place of worship for the Jews did exist at that time. Therefore, Jesus had to have been talking about the Jewish mode of worship or some other then existing mode of worship. NOT something that 'will' exist in the future. So, which 'church' or mode of worship (taking into consideration that Jesus was not talking about a building) was it that Jesus was talking about when you reference "Jesus did"?
Jesus had disdain for the temple worshipers and money involved in the church of the time. His church was built of followers not stone or wood. It is an abstracted concept. See 1 corinth 12 and romans 12.
I have read both of those books in their entirety. What specific point are you wanting to elaborate on from those particular chapters of those particular books?
Im on a tablet. It should be apparent. Pulling from memory. If you must belabor the obvious point you will have to wait.
Well, there are two primary subjects covered in those two chapters. 1: the uniformity of the body of Christ; 2: the various spiritual gifts. As pertaining to the uniformity of the body of Christ, it is well stated and IMHO easily understood among Christians. As regarding the spiritual gifts, they are numerous and without specifying a particular gift, it is a very broad subject. Now, No where in that/those scriptures does Jesus refer to the "church'. ... though it is inferred by the language. Also notice in verse 1 of Romans, he directs his comments to "Brethren" (seemingly those that are already adherents of the teachings that Jesus was dissiminating). He also includes an instruction in verses 1 and 2 (also at the end of the chapter is further instruction). In 1 Cor 12 verse 2 he makes reference to the brethren in the past tense as having been "Gentiles" with a mode of worshiping idols. But still no mention of a 'church'. So where are you going with that posting of Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12?
