I'll give ya a ride if you want. Just don't hitch with a stranger. My name tag will say b-r-a-m-b-l-e.
Thanks for the ride ((((Bramble)))))!!!
It's nice to be in company you love and trust!
God and my guardian angels could no doubt use a break; as many of the strangers in this world have gotten even stranger!
This beats the bus Bramble, I heard a lot of bad stuff about the back of the bus!!!
Hey, I heard there is another bus trip, heading the same way we are...Just maybe the right people with the right stuff can come together and clean it all up :)
"Come together" isn't that in a song ((((WhiteDove))))??? Beatles right???
God and my guardian angels could no doubt use a break; as many of the strangers in this world have gotten even stranger!
This beats the bus Bramble, I heard a lot of bad stuff about the back of the bus!!!
Hey, I heard there is another bus trip, heading the same way we are...Just maybe the right people with the right stuff can come together and clean it all up :)
"Come together" isn't that in a song ((((WhiteDove))))??? Beatles right???
:blink:
Right, But if I know John it probably applies to the Christian Family and Sex thread rather than here :blink:
My hands will be stuck safely to my minivan's steering wheel! Any 'Come together' will be a meeting of the minds! Perhaps a sharing of chocolate? Lattes? Pics of kids? No German Shepard weirdness! Though a nice pet German Shepard would be ok. My van is dog friendly.
I see that my remark about the back of the bus has engendered a wave of take offs
Do we really need forums where people are protected from inconvenient opposing views? And do we really think that "outsiders" can't contribute intelligently to a conversation?
I see that my remark about the back of the bus has engendered a wave of take offs
Do we really need forums where people are protected from inconvenient opposing views? And do we really think that "outsiders" can't contribute intelligently to a conversation?
You make a very good and sound point that many could easily agree with; as well as myself.
This only works well when we are able to decide to play fair and with respect for one another and our intentions and motives are clear and well defined.
A Good debate has rules and boundaries! A good and masterful debater's objective is not to attack and bring down another debater. The goal is to persuasively represent you side by
evidence!
Debate Rules and Suggestions
Advice on Debating with Others
Avoid the use of Never.
Avoid the use of Always.
Refrain from saying you are wrong.
You can say your idea is mistaken.
Don't disagree with obvious truths.
Attack the idea not the person.
Use many rather than most.
Avoid exaggeration.
Use some rather than many.
The use of often allows for exceptions.
The use of generally allows for exceptions.
Quote sources and numbers.
If it is just an opinion, admit it.
Do not present opinion as facts.
Smile when disagreeing.
Stress the positive.
You do not need to win every battle to win the war.
Concede minor or trivial points.
Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling.
Watch your tone of voice.
Don't win a debate and lose a friend.
Keep your perspective - You're just debating.
You need to be very polite when disagreeing with someone in English, even someone you know quite well.
With someone you know very well, you can disagree more directly.
Threads turn ugly here due to misunderstandings of intents and emotions, personal attacks, and the inability to just respect that other views have credence and
credibility and a right to be heard! Tactics of labeling and accusations are cruel distractors and not the proper tools of a debate.
There are many more people here who do not post; They read and assess our posts!
Isn't the point of a debate representing a side or a viewpoint to inform others in order to impact them with knowledge and wisdom in such a manner than they also feel free to add and
make the exchange a profitable, good and fair experience for All???
Tom, I'm not "decrying any fact" that someone is not a trinitarian. In fact, I could care less if they are or they aren't. Truly, I don't care. Your walk is not my walk. I worry about my relationship with God, I don't need someone else worrying about it for me, like back in TWI.
I respect you too, but I've noticed since you've returned, you've been reading a lot into people's posts that simply are not there. One person you totally pounced on and I still couldn't figure out for what.
You need to knock it off. I think you read way too much into my post. I stated my opinion.
I am not "decrying" if anyone believes in the trinity or not.
I see, that TWI grossly neglected to see, that Christ had a divinity to him.
That's my opinion, and, what I believed God showed me.
We are all individuals, he will show us in his time in various ways.
But don't read into post things that aren't there.
I know this subject gets people's emotions all riled. That's probably why it hasn't been discussed in the last couple of years.
Someone points out that non-Trinitarians don’t necessarily deny the divinity of Jesus. I’m encouraged. Geisha, you aver that everyone who ever lived has to either acknowledge that Jesus is Lord and God, or he is a liar and a lunatic.
Geisha: “It has happened to me more times than not. I hold a differing view--so I must mean "A" although I really said "B". It is a difficult mode of communication.”
Umm, you said it – all HAVE to confess either Jesus is God or a liar and a lunatic. It is in the record. I’ll produce it if you want. I’d rather not. All I really want to do is discuss who he is. But those are the only choices I’m given in this Trinity thread – by geisha.
So, I back out. After all, the thread is NOT “Who is Jesus,” but “The Trinity.”
So, where am I? Start a thread on “Who is Jesus,” and exclude Trinitarians? I’d rather hear what Sunesis has to say - & others – without people telling me that, if I don’t believe Jesus is God, then I just think that he is a “bro,” hey, mofo, what up, a liar, a lunatic. Talk about A or B! Life’s bigger & Jesus is bigger than your opinion of life.
So, I didn’t post. You know, I’d rather engage in discussion of who Jesus is, rather than discuss the Trinity as if it is the end all & be all. Am I allowed here to do that, or is that discriminatory?
I’m so pressured into being politically correct in my job. I won’t do it here.
The trinity a be all and end all? Considering it is a word used to describe the nature of God--just a word--than yes it is, but be that as it may.
You built a huge drama for yourself over a quick glance at what was said--twisted it --assigned it to SOMEONE ELSE--ME!! And did EXACTLY what I
said is done. AND why DID you jump all up in my husband's face on that other thread?? I am with Sunesis--Knock it off! I could care less if you believe in the
divinty of Christ.
Might make it awful hard to talk about who he is, but I am NOT stopping you from trying. I might even join you if my trinitarian stink can be abided.
Just to clarify a bit--The reasons those were the only two options he gives is--he doesn't even consider the other options as valid?? Given the bible and all. Most
sound bible teachers and great Christian thinkers(C.S. Lewis being one) don't entertain more gnostiv POV's.
No time, but I'm not ignoring anyone. Just a brief post which might get cut off quickly.
Hi Abi, I miss you.
geisha:
BTW--that was C.S. LEWIS I was quoting in the trinity thread, it wasn't me--I am not that smart--I just really love to read him
Even so, giving me the choice that either I believe Jesus is God or a liar and a lunatic doens't leave any room for discussion. Or are you just talking about CS Lewis's logic, but you don't subscribe to it? The former leaves room for discussion. The latter doesn't - unless I'm advocating that Jesus is a liar or a lunatic. Surely that much seem obvious - & is exactly why I wouldn't want to discuss who Jesus is with Trinitarians - unless I want the discussion to be all about whether Jesus is God or not - which is exactly what I wouldn't want. Any open thread then that I might start would, of course, devolve into a Trinity discussion. If I wanted that, I'd have entered into the Trinity thread.
Even so, giving me the choice that either I believe Jesus is God or a liar and a lunatic doens't leave any room for discussion. Or are you just talking about CS Lewis's logic, but you don't subscribe to it? The former leaves room for discussion. The latter doesn't - unless I'm advocating that Jesus is a liar or a lunatic. Surely that much seem obvious - & is exactly why I wouldn't want to discuss who Jesus is with Trinitarians - unless I want the discussion to be all about whether Jesus is God or not - which is exactly what I wouldn't want. Any open thread then that I might start would, of course, devolve into a Trinity discussion. If I wanted that, I'd have entered into the Trinity thread.
Tom, I love Sundays! You seem to have a quandry here. Hope you can work it out. Please don't try and censor me with skewed logic or a straw man. There is nothing precluding you from posting anywhere you wish. Hit the ignore button when it comes to me. If you would like to post your views on the trinity thread--after all, it is what you think--not is it true--please do so. I invite you with a solem promise to IGNORE you.
This little drama is tiresome. If you don't like what I say--politely refute me. I don't mind. Just don't pounce and get nasty. OR ignore me.
We could however, be big boys and girls and not run from opposition. OR we could get some common ground. Here is what I just posted on the trinity thread--see if you can work within this framework. If not--sorry. BTW---this all smacks of censorship.
Having questions about something is different than having doubts about it. We all have questions. That does not preclude us from being accepted by Christ. Never.
It is a journey and none of us have all our doctrines in order even after we accept Him and He us.
A doubt can be different--we are unsure something is the way it is--a commitment doesn't spring from doubt. Giving ones life to Christ is a commitment.
A rejection is the clear indication that we have accepted the doubt. Questions-doubt-rejection--these are all different animals--it is good to examine our doubts
before they become flat out rejections. Our questions we bring humbly to Him to be answered in His time. That is what makes the journey so fun.
Please note: The following does NOT constitute censorship:
"Skewed logic" (if any)
"Strawman arguments" (again, if any)
"a Little drama"
... or, if I may be so bold, nothing else that Tom has posted. ... No Virginia, he has not. ... Why? Because:
1) Simply posting, no matter how 'dramatic', does nothing to censor anybody.
2) The only one who has the real power to censor anybody on this board is ... Pawtucket. And believe you me, if (when) _he_ censored you, ... you'd know it. ;)
Thank you very much for your time. We now return to our regularly scheduled whinin---err, ahh, posting as to the topic of What's the point of the Doctrinal Forum anymore.
Please note: The following does NOT constitute censorship:
"Skewed logic" (if any)
"Strawman arguments" (again, if any)
"a Little drama"
... or, if I may be so bold, nothing else that Tom has posted. ... No Virginia, he has not. ... Why? Because:
1) Simply posting, no matter how 'dramatic', does nothing to censor anybody.
2) The only one who has the real power to censor anybody on this board is ... Pawtucket. And believe you me, if (when) _he_ censored you, ... you'd know it. ;)
Thank you very much for your time. We now return to our regularly scheduled whinin---err, ahh, posting as to the topic of What's the point of the Doctrinal Forum anymore.
Hey Garth
Sorry, no fight from me--- I know that you are a pretty nice guy. So, just saying Hi--again hope all is well.
Geisha, your points are well-made, and I too am glad you're here.
Tom, your earlier posts really struck a chord with me, and I'm glad to see you "around" again. I for one would like nothing better than for you to simply tell your POV of who Jesus is, the nature of the Christ.
Tom, I'm not "decrying any fact" that someone is not a trinitarian. In fact, I could care less if they are or they aren't. Truly, I don't care. ...You need to knock it off. I think you read way too much into my post. I stated my opinion.
I am not "decrying" if anyone believes in the trinity or not [second time you said that - I never said you did, but, nevertheless - somehow, the trinity is the point of discussion - again].
I see, that TWI grossly neglected to see, that Christ had a divinity to him.
That's my opinion, and, what I believed God showed me [Oh, so do I sooo much, & I belive God showed you that which is why I would like to "talk" with the likes of you.
We are all individuals, he will show us in his time in various ways.
But don't read into post things that aren't there.
Oy, vey - okay about reading into posts things that aren't there - & I'm NOT trying to be rude, just trying to communicate as simply as possible to make a point:
What Sun posted:
Tom, I'm not "decrying any fact" that someone is not a trinitarian.
What Tom said:
Sunesis (whom I respect a lot in particular for sunesis about who Jesus Christ is – is decrying the “fact” that non–Trinitarians don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus.
Not that you're decrying that people don't believe in the trinity, but decrying that non-trinitarians don't believe in THE DIVINITY of Jesus. THAT'S just not always true. If non-trinitarians are relagated to the ranks of those who believe that Jesus is just another bro, just another enlightened guy, a liar, a lunatic - then WHAT intelligent, never-mind gracious or REAL discussion can happen. Jesus is God, or, as Lewis ever so intellectually affirms, I'm a fool. THAT set up precludes any discussion of who Jesus Christ is above a jack-foot unless one believes in the trinity. No, I don't want to participate any discussion on those terms. Call it "smacking of censorship" if you want to geisha, but I call it - those who determine the terms decide the outcome - THAT'S truly the way censorship works. I don't agree to those terms - never will - call it what you will.
All censorship considerations aside, threads DO get hijacked. All I wanted to do is discuss who Jesus Christ is without those absurd dichotomies (God or lunatic, enlightened guy, bro) being foisted upon us.
anotherDan,
Tom, your earlier posts really struck a chord with me, and I'm glad to see you "around" again. I for one would like nothing better than for you to simply tell your POV of who Jesus is, the nature of the Christ.
Ay, yi, yi - okay, since you asked - I WOULD like to pursue it. Today, I started back to work - things are crazy busy, but I'll honestly try - I do have a seriously vested interest in discussing who my Lord & Saviour is.
Will do - might take till the weekend or next Mon. or Tues. Thanks to anyone who has offered encouragement or interest positive or negative.
Sunesis, I hope, after thought, this has cleared up the majority of perceived pejorative input between you & I.
Geisha, your second to the last previous post recognized some heart sensitivity that you perceived in my previous post & offered hope on your part that we might communicate on that basis. Your last post post was more simply about communicating hurt as a result of some of the things that I said.
I understand both. Please, if you will, I'd like to carry the first to fruition and resolve the second, but we can't do either right now. I recognize your spiritual beauty, & appreciate your heart's appreciation of my heart's desire to deal with things on that heart level.
Geisha, your second to the last previous post recognized some heart sensitivity that you perceived in my previous post & offered hope on your part that we might communicate on that basis. Your last post post was more simply about communicating hurt as a result of some of the things that I said.
I understand both. Please, if you will, I'd like to carry the first to fruition and resolve the second, but we can't do either right now. I recognize your spiritual beauty, & appreciate your heart's appreciation of my heart's desire to deal with things on that heart level.
AMEN BROTHER!! I may play theological smackdown on occasion--I learned from the best!! But I really love ex-way. You too--heck--I even love my enemies--and you are NOT on that list.
Peace and goodwill Tom. That is all I want to give. It is what we are made for.
C.S. Lewis' "choice" is, as so many are in the religious realm, false dilemmas (or trilemmas as Bullinger says). The number of choices are limited, and set up in such a way that the "wrong" choices are cast as foolish, evil or just plain dumb.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
5
6
11
7
Popular Days
Aug 9
18
Jul 7
15
Aug 10
14
Jul 8
6
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 5 posts
Sunesis 6 posts
Oakspear 11 posts
geisha779 7 posts
Popular Days
Aug 9 2008
18 posts
Jul 7 2008
15 posts
Aug 10 2008
14 posts
Jul 8 2008
6 posts
Popular Posts
geisha779
Hi Cman I love this post. It is thoughtful and honest. Can I talk with you a moment? Doctrine doesn't change, but you know what does? Our understanding of and the way we practice our faith. To have a
RainbowsGirl
Thanks for the ride ((((Bramble)))))!!!
It's nice to be in company you love and trust!
God and my guardian angels could no doubt use a break; as many of the strangers in this world have gotten even stranger!
This beats the bus Bramble, I heard a lot of bad stuff about the back of the bus!!!
Hey, I heard there is another bus trip, heading the same way we are...Just maybe the right people with the right stuff can come together and clean it all up :)
"Come together" isn't that in a song ((((WhiteDove))))??? Beatles right???
Edited by RainbowsGirlLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Right, But if I know John it probably applies to the Christian Family and Sex thread rather than here :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RainbowsGirl
Oooooh Dear :o (((((WhiteDove))))!
Not that Come together!
The meeting of the minds and hearts "come together" to clean up figuratively the back of the bus. The wounded in heart and mind and in body and soul.
To endeavor to help them to heal or to understand,... to up gird them until such time they are recovered.
Done in and with the best of Their (the back of the bus people) particular abilities and intentions and Yours included of course!!!
Oooooh Dear :o (((((WhiteDove))))!
Not that Come together!
The meeting of the minds and hearts "come together" to clean up figuratively the back of the bus. The wounded in heart and mind and in body and soul.
To endeavor to help them to heal or to understand,... to up gird them until such time they are recovered.
Done in and with the best of Their (the back of the bus people) particular abilities and intentions and Yours included of course!!!
This is doubled?????
Help, Please !!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
My hands will be stuck safely to my minivan's steering wheel! Any 'Come together' will be a meeting of the minds! Perhaps a sharing of chocolate? Lattes? Pics of kids? No German Shepard weirdness! Though a nice pet German Shepard would be ok. My van is dog friendly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I see that my remark about the back of the bus has engendered a wave of take offs
Do we really need forums where people are protected from inconvenient opposing views? And do we really think that "outsiders" can't contribute intelligently to a conversation?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RainbowsGirl
You make a very good and sound point that many could easily agree with; as well as myself.
This only works well when we are able to decide to play fair and with respect for one another and our intentions and motives are clear and well defined.
A Good debate has rules and boundaries! A good and masterful debater's objective is not to attack and bring down another debater. The goal is to persuasively represent you side by
evidence!
Debate Rules and Suggestions
Advice on Debating with Others
Avoid the use of Never.
Avoid the use of Always.
Refrain from saying you are wrong.
You can say your idea is mistaken.
Don't disagree with obvious truths.
Attack the idea not the person.
Use many rather than most.
Avoid exaggeration.
Use some rather than many.
The use of often allows for exceptions.
The use of generally allows for exceptions.
Quote sources and numbers.
If it is just an opinion, admit it.
Do not present opinion as facts.
Smile when disagreeing.
Stress the positive.
You do not need to win every battle to win the war.
Concede minor or trivial points.
Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling.
Watch your tone of voice.
Don't win a debate and lose a friend.
Keep your perspective - You're just debating.
You need to be very polite when disagreeing with someone in English, even someone you know quite well.
With someone you know very well, you can disagree more directly.
Threads turn ugly here due to misunderstandings of intents and emotions, personal attacks, and the inability to just respect that other views have credence and
credibility and a right to be heard! Tactics of labeling and accusations are cruel distractors and not the proper tools of a debate.
There are many more people here who do not post; They read and assess our posts!
Isn't the point of a debate representing a side or a viewpoint to inform others in order to impact them with knowledge and wisdom in such a manner than they also feel free to add and
make the exchange a profitable, good and fair experience for All???
Edited by RainbowsGirlLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Thanks for this, RG:
Debate Rules and Suggestions
Advice on Debating with Others
Avoid the use of Never.
Avoid the use of Always.
Refrain from saying you are wrong.
You can say your idea is mistaken.
Don't disagree with obvious truths.
Attack the idea not the person.
Use many rather than most.
Avoid exaggeration.
Use some rather than many.
The use of often allows for exceptions.
The use of generally allows for exceptions.
Quote sources and numbers.
If it is just an opinion, admit it.
Do not present opinion as facts.
Smile when disagreeing.
Stress the positive.
You do not need to win every battle to win the war.
Concede minor or trivial points.
Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling.
Watch your tone of voice.
Don't win a debate and lose a friend.
Keep your perspective - You're just debating.
You need to be very polite when disagreeing with someone in English, even someone you know quite well.
With someone you know very well, you can disagree more directly.
A little refresher course never hurt anybody.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Tom, I'm not "decrying any fact" that someone is not a trinitarian. In fact, I could care less if they are or they aren't. Truly, I don't care. Your walk is not my walk. I worry about my relationship with God, I don't need someone else worrying about it for me, like back in TWI.
I respect you too, but I've noticed since you've returned, you've been reading a lot into people's posts that simply are not there. One person you totally pounced on and I still couldn't figure out for what.
You need to knock it off. I think you read way too much into my post. I stated my opinion.
I am not "decrying" if anyone believes in the trinity or not.
I see, that TWI grossly neglected to see, that Christ had a divinity to him.
That's my opinion, and, what I believed God showed me.
We are all individuals, he will show us in his time in various ways.
But don't read into post things that aren't there.
I know this subject gets people's emotions all riled. That's probably why it hasn't been discussed in the last couple of years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
The trinity a be all and end all? Considering it is a word used to describe the nature of God--just a word--than yes it is, but be that as it may.
You built a huge drama for yourself over a quick glance at what was said--twisted it --assigned it to SOMEONE ELSE--ME!! And did EXACTLY what I
said is done. AND why DID you jump all up in my husband's face on that other thread?? I am with Sunesis--Knock it off! I could care less if you believe in the
divinty of Christ.
Might make it awful hard to talk about who he is, but I am NOT stopping you from trying. I might even join you if my trinitarian stink can be abided.
Just to clarify a bit--The reasons those were the only two options he gives is--he doesn't even consider the other options as valid?? Given the bible and all. Most
sound bible teachers and great Christian thinkers(C.S. Lewis being one) don't entertain more gnostiv POV's.
BTW----It is the CLASSIC C.S. Lewis argument.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I do not like decrying
I prefer delaughing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
No time, but I'm not ignoring anyone. Just a brief post which might get cut off quickly.
Hi Abi, I miss you.
geisha:
Even so, giving me the choice that either I believe Jesus is God or a liar and a lunatic doens't leave any room for discussion. Or are you just talking about CS Lewis's logic, but you don't subscribe to it? The former leaves room for discussion. The latter doesn't - unless I'm advocating that Jesus is a liar or a lunatic. Surely that much seem obvious - & is exactly why I wouldn't want to discuss who Jesus is with Trinitarians - unless I want the discussion to be all about whether Jesus is God or not - which is exactly what I wouldn't want. Any open thread then that I might start would, of course, devolve into a Trinity discussion. If I wanted that, I'd have entered into the Trinity thread.
Gotta go
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I've missed you as well, Tom. I hope you'll stick around for a while.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Tom, I love Sundays! You seem to have a quandry here. Hope you can work it out. Please don't try and censor me with skewed logic or a straw man. There is nothing precluding you from posting anywhere you wish. Hit the ignore button when it comes to me. If you would like to post your views on the trinity thread--after all, it is what you think--not is it true--please do so. I invite you with a solem promise to IGNORE you.
This little drama is tiresome. If you don't like what I say--politely refute me. I don't mind. Just don't pounce and get nasty. OR ignore me.
We could however, be big boys and girls and not run from opposition. OR we could get some common ground. Here is what I just posted on the trinity thread--see if you can work within this framework. If not--sorry. BTW---this all smacks of censorship.
Having questions about something is different than having doubts about it. We all have questions. That does not preclude us from being accepted by Christ. Never.
It is a journey and none of us have all our doctrines in order even after we accept Him and He us.
A doubt can be different--we are unsure something is the way it is--a commitment doesn't spring from doubt. Giving ones life to Christ is a commitment.
A rejection is the clear indication that we have accepted the doubt. Questions-doubt-rejection--these are all different animals--it is good to examine our doubts
before they become flat out rejections. Our questions we bring humbly to Him to be answered in His time. That is what makes the journey so fun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Please note: The following does NOT constitute censorship:
"Skewed logic" (if any)
"Strawman arguments" (again, if any)
"a Little drama"
... or, if I may be so bold, nothing else that Tom has posted. ... No Virginia, he has not. ... Why? Because:
1) Simply posting, no matter how 'dramatic', does nothing to censor anybody.
2) The only one who has the real power to censor anybody on this board is ... Pawtucket. And believe you me, if (when) _he_ censored you, ... you'd know it. ;)
Thank you very much for your time. We now return to our regularly scheduled whinin---err, ahh, posting as to the topic of What's the point of the Doctrinal Forum anymore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hey Garth
Sorry, no fight from me--- I know that you are a pretty nice guy. So, just saying Hi--again hope all is well.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Damn! ... I'm losing my touch!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Geisha, your points are well-made, and I too am glad you're here.
Tom, your earlier posts really struck a chord with me, and I'm glad to see you "around" again. I for one would like nothing better than for you to simply tell your POV of who Jesus is, the nature of the Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Sunesis,
Oy, vey - okay about reading into posts things that aren't there - & I'm NOT trying to be rude, just trying to communicate as simply as possible to make a point:
What Sun posted:
What Tom said:Not that you're decrying that people don't believe in the trinity, but decrying that non-trinitarians don't believe in THE DIVINITY of Jesus. THAT'S just not always true. If non-trinitarians are relagated to the ranks of those who believe that Jesus is just another bro, just another enlightened guy, a liar, a lunatic - then WHAT intelligent, never-mind gracious or REAL discussion can happen. Jesus is God, or, as Lewis ever so intellectually affirms, I'm a fool. THAT set up precludes any discussion of who Jesus Christ is above a jack-foot unless one believes in the trinity. No, I don't want to participate any discussion on those terms. Call it "smacking of censorship" if you want to geisha, but I call it - those who determine the terms decide the outcome - THAT'S truly the way censorship works. I don't agree to those terms - never will - call it what you will.
All censorship considerations aside, threads DO get hijacked. All I wanted to do is discuss who Jesus Christ is without those absurd dichotomies (God or lunatic, enlightened guy, bro) being foisted upon us.
anotherDan,
Ay, yi, yi - okay, since you asked - I WOULD like to pursue it. Today, I started back to work - things are crazy busy, but I'll honestly try - I do have a seriously vested interest in discussing who my Lord & Saviour is.
Will do - might take till the weekend or next Mon. or Tues. Thanks to anyone who has offered encouragement or interest positive or negative.
Sunesis, I hope, after thought, this has cleared up the majority of perceived pejorative input between you & I.
Geisha, your second to the last previous post recognized some heart sensitivity that you perceived in my previous post & offered hope on your part that we might communicate on that basis. Your last post post was more simply about communicating hurt as a result of some of the things that I said.
I understand both. Please, if you will, I'd like to carry the first to fruition and resolve the second, but we can't do either right now. I recognize your spiritual beauty, & appreciate your heart's appreciation of my heart's desire to deal with things on that heart level.
Okay, for now?
Later & love?
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Geisha, your second to the last previous post recognized some heart sensitivity that you perceived in my previous post & offered hope on your part that we might communicate on that basis. Your last post post was more simply about communicating hurt as a result of some of the things that I said.
I understand both. Please, if you will, I'd like to carry the first to fruition and resolve the second, but we can't do either right now. I recognize your spiritual beauty, & appreciate your heart's appreciation of my heart's desire to deal with things on that heart level.
AMEN BROTHER!! I may play theological smackdown on occasion--I learned from the best!! But I really love ex-way. You too--heck--I even love my enemies--and you are NOT on that list.
Peace and goodwill Tom. That is all I want to give. It is what we are made for.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
I used to start doctrinal threads.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
C.S. Lewis' "choice" is, as so many are in the religious realm, false dilemmas (or trilemmas as Bullinger says). The number of choices are limited, and set up in such a way that the "wrong" choices are cast as foolish, evil or just plain dumb.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.