I get a lot more errors from one of my puters than from a book of the bible. If you think you are more truthful than what is covered in the bible then you are playing the role now of a demonic deceiver.
Yeah, yeah. If the facts don't back you up, you can always count on your opponent being a demonic deceiver.
Such insults no longer work on me, old friend. If you're going to use magic to intimidate your opponent, you'd best pick an opponent who believes in magic.
And Raf, please don't continue your deception with me. I can recall you saying or implying that I merely accepted the doctrines of the Way Mininisty. In reality I might be one of the people on the planet who have done the most to correct errant doctrines and replace it with truth. I even wrote an entire article in the 1980s on the fundamental error with the Way Ministry that of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and how they used unbiblical hierarchy of religious power to promote and try to enforce their deception. Here is a link to this article.
Yeah, yeah, so was I. I'm not impressed. You're using an old accusation to buttress nothing of an argument. So what if I once accused you of accepting a Way doctrine? You probably were. It's got nothing to do with the fact that Genesis has more errors than a third grader's calculus aptitude test.
Put up or shut up. Show me where I'm mistaken or go threaten someone else with goblins, demons and whatever other nonexistent forces you care to conjure.
Wait! I haven't been called a "fool" or a "dog returning to its own vomit" yet.
Why does the Bible get to say whatever it wants about atheists, but atheists are dishonest if they expect the Bible writers to know something that only an omniscient God could have told them?
P.S. I have no idea how many Way doctrines I defended in my time, but I imagine the number is quite high. Just saying, hardly an "accusation" when you think about it.
Yeah, yeah, so was I. I'm not impressed. You're using an old accusation to buttress nothing of an argument. So what if I once accused you of accepting a Way doctrine? You probably were. It's got nothing to do with the fact that Genesis has more errors than a third grader's calculus aptitude test.
Put up or shut up. Show me where I'm mistaken or go threaten someone else with goblins, demons and whatever other nonexistent forces you care to conjure.
There you go lying again about doctrines that I have accepted. Many doctrines that I have learned I have re-evaluated from the scriptures to see if what I believed was truth or error. If you don't see this then you are the equivalent of spiritually blind. Were you ever even in the way Ministry? There main doctrine of error was Lording over God's heritage through their unbiblical Way Tree hierarchy of Power. I corrected this in the article I just posted a link to.
Again if you don't see that the Way Ministry main doctrine of spreading their falsity with power and authority was their Way Tree Power Structure, then you are either blind to the fundamental problem or never participated with the May Ministry at least when I was involved in the 1970s and 1980s. I corrected this errant doctrine.
I am of the opinion that it wasn't the doctrinal minutia that damaged Way followers..Does it really matter whether there were 4 or 2 or 27 at the crucifixion? Or whether there were really 17 quasi-denials of Peter?
What damaged us (in my opinion) was a lifestyle that was centered around the magical powers of believing and SIT....to name just two. It instilled a mindset that, outside of discernible figures of speech, we were to accept everything as literally true (and then some). There was no room for individual critical thinking.
Genesis is a great place to re-examine the concept of inerrancy because the (apparent) flaws are so glaring.
WhatEVER. You are neither putting up nor shutting up. For God's sake, pick one!
Sounds like you are talking about yourself. In contrast, I also at least tried to correct an errant doctrine pertaining to Personal Prophecy with one of the way offshoots. They did not listen to me and eventually this resulted in a money losing lawsuit. To read this see the following text and click the link below it.
This is the post that Mark S did on an email that he sent to 3 board members in November, 2000
Doctrinal minutiae was AN issue. I'm not sure where it ranks. Like SIT, it was bait on TWI's hook. It allowed us to think we were masters of detail, and it masked how many details we were missing. Either The Way's definition of God breathed was in error, or the Bible is not God breathed. Personally, I choose B. But I can respect those who choose A, because at least they don't feel compelled to assassinate the characters of those who accurately show that, well shucks, there really are actual errors in this book.
Mark, that's wonderful, but waysider and I have repeatedly implored you to get back on topic, and you steadfastly refuse to do so. So, one more time, discuss Genesis and show me where my "errors" are not really errors, or shut up. Not hard. Stay on topic, or zip it.
Mark, that's wonderful, but waysider and I have repeatedly implored you to get back on topic, and you steadfastly refuse to do so. So, one more time, discuss Genesis and show me where my "errors" are not really errors, or shut up. Not hard. Stay on topic, or zip it.
I have not studied the book of Genesis enough to be a knowledgeable person on it. I am merely pointing out my desire and ability to correct doctrinal error. However, this always takes time and extra work.
I have not studied the book of Genesis enough to be a knowledgeable person on it. I am merely pointing out my desire and ability to correct doctrinal error. However, this always takes time and extra work.
No need to study the whole book all at once. Just pick one simple example of something that seems to be impossible but has a larger back-story. Ya gots ta start someplace, ya know?
Dandy! Let us know when you have something to contribute to this discussion.
Meantime, if you want to whine about something I might have said to you two, five or 10 years ago in the context of a completely different discussion, please feel free to start a thread in Soap Opera and I give you my word as a demonically influenced vomit - eating dog that I'll be happy to address it.
Actually, if I ever post a new thread here it would be regarding this new knowledge that I have studied. Obviously, this would be posted in the doctrinal forum. And Raf, please don't criticize and find errors with dogs now. I loooove doggies. Woof woof. Maybe if what is being preached by people like you regarding the theory of evolution is true I might be part doggie or part monkey. Maybe this is why I start my day eating a banana in my cereal. :P
I give you my word as a demonically influenced vomit - eating dog that I'll be happy to address it.
This was when you implied that dogs eat vomit. But then maybe like myself you also are part dog. Please let the doggie part of me have the final word in our debate.
No. The Bible calls Christians who abandon their faith dogs who return to their own vomit. So your complaint is not with me. Sorry.
Now I am crying. Does that mean just because I have faith in God and his Son Jesus Christ who I love that I don't get to relate to a dog? Well, I will do both anyway. Love the truth and doggies.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
137
24
35
25
Popular Days
Aug 2
50
Sep 12
15
Oct 4
13
Jul 30
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 137 posts
Mark Sanguinetti 24 posts
Bolshevik 35 posts
TLC 25 posts
Popular Days
Aug 2 2014
50 posts
Sep 12 2018
15 posts
Oct 4 2018
13 posts
Jul 30 2017
11 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
I thought I was quite clear in my post # 81: even your reply in post # 82 gave every indication that you knew I was providing only a list of books And just to verify I was going provide what you
Raf
Actually, you don't just get to say this and have it be true. That's arrogance. "My position is wise even if it makes no sense to you." Honestly, that's the definition of arrogance. Why demo
Grace Valerie Claire
Raf, I beg to differ with you; Demons do exist! I know one lives here in DC!!
waysider
This would be a good launching point for discussion.
Select something that appears to be an error (the flood account, for example) and compare it with the contrasting "truth".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Like like like like like
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
I get a lot more errors from one of my puters than from a book of the bible. If you think you are more truthful than what is covered in the bible then you are playing the role now of a demonic deceiver.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yeah, yeah. If the facts don't back you up, you can always count on your opponent being a demonic deceiver.
Such insults no longer work on me, old friend. If you're going to use magic to intimidate your opponent, you'd best pick an opponent who believes in magic.
Point out and correct my errors, or shut up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
And Raf, please don't continue your deception with me. I can recall you saying or implying that I merely accepted the doctrines of the Way Mininisty. In reality I might be one of the people on the planet who have done the most to correct errant doctrines and replace it with truth. I even wrote an entire article in the 1980s on the fundamental error with the Way Ministry that of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and how they used unbiblical hierarchy of religious power to promote and try to enforce their deception. Here is a link to this article.
http://www.christianherald.info/lordship-of-jesus-christ-page-1.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yeah, yeah, so was I. I'm not impressed. You're using an old accusation to buttress nothing of an argument. So what if I once accused you of accepting a Way doctrine? You probably were. It's got nothing to do with the fact that Genesis has more errors than a third grader's calculus aptitude test.
Put up or shut up. Show me where I'm mistaken or go threaten someone else with goblins, demons and whatever other nonexistent forces you care to conjure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The side discussion has been enlightening but I'd prefer to resume a discussion of Genesis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Wait! I haven't been called a "fool" or a "dog returning to its own vomit" yet.
Why does the Bible get to say whatever it wants about atheists, but atheists are dishonest if they expect the Bible writers to know something that only an omniscient God could have told them?
P.S. I have no idea how many Way doctrines I defended in my time, but I imagine the number is quite high. Just saying, hardly an "accusation" when you think about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
There you go lying again about doctrines that I have accepted. Many doctrines that I have learned I have re-evaluated from the scriptures to see if what I believed was truth or error. If you don't see this then you are the equivalent of spiritually blind. Were you ever even in the way Ministry? There main doctrine of error was Lording over God's heritage through their unbiblical Way Tree hierarchy of Power. I corrected this in the article I just posted a link to.
Again if you don't see that the Way Ministry main doctrine of spreading their falsity with power and authority was their Way Tree Power Structure, then you are either blind to the fundamental problem or never participated with the May Ministry at least when I was involved in the 1970s and 1980s. I corrected this errant doctrine.
The Lordship of Jesus Christ
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
WhatEVER. You are neither putting up nor shutting up. For God's sake, pick one!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"And so it came to pass that Adam and Eve ate of the tree of inerrancy and a great darkness befell the earth.."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I am of the opinion that it wasn't the doctrinal minutia that damaged Way followers..Does it really matter whether there were 4 or 2 or 27 at the crucifixion? Or whether there were really 17 quasi-denials of Peter?
What damaged us (in my opinion) was a lifestyle that was centered around the magical powers of believing and SIT....to name just two. It instilled a mindset that, outside of discernible figures of speech, we were to accept everything as literally true (and then some). There was no room for individual critical thinking.
Genesis is a great place to re-examine the concept of inerrancy because the (apparent) flaws are so glaring.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Sounds like you are talking about yourself. In contrast, I also at least tried to correct an errant doctrine pertaining to Personal Prophecy with one of the way offshoots. They did not listen to me and eventually this resulted in a money losing lawsuit. To read this see the following text and click the link below it.
This is the post that Mark S did on an email that he sent to 3 board members in November, 2000
Mark S's Email
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Doctrinal minutiae was AN issue. I'm not sure where it ranks. Like SIT, it was bait on TWI's hook. It allowed us to think we were masters of detail, and it masked how many details we were missing. Either The Way's definition of God breathed was in error, or the Bible is not God breathed. Personally, I choose B. But I can respect those who choose A, because at least they don't feel compelled to assassinate the characters of those who accurately show that, well shucks, there really are actual errors in this book.
Mark, that's wonderful, but waysider and I have repeatedly implored you to get back on topic, and you steadfastly refuse to do so. So, one more time, discuss Genesis and show me where my "errors" are not really errors, or shut up. Not hard. Stay on topic, or zip it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
I have not studied the book of Genesis enough to be a knowledgeable person on it. I am merely pointing out my desire and ability to correct doctrinal error. However, this always takes time and extra work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
No need to study the whole book all at once. Just pick one simple example of something that seems to be impossible but has a larger back-story. Ya gots ta start someplace, ya know?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Dandy! Let us know when you have something to contribute to this discussion.
Meantime, if you want to whine about something I might have said to you two, five or 10 years ago in the context of a completely different discussion, please feel free to start a thread in Soap Opera and I give you my word as a demonically influenced vomit - eating dog that I'll be happy to address it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
demonically influenced vomit - eating dog
I wonder if there were 2 of that variety on Noah's Big Boat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Actually, if I ever post a new thread here it would be regarding this new knowledge that I have studied. Obviously, this would be posted in the doctrinal forum. And Raf, please don't criticize and find errors with dogs now. I loooove doggies. Woof woof. Maybe if what is being preached by people like you regarding the theory of evolution is true I might be part doggie or part monkey. Maybe this is why I start my day eating a banana in my cereal.
:P
Christian Universalism
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
When did I criticize dogs?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
This was when you implied that dogs eat vomit. But then maybe like myself you also are part dog. Please let the doggie part of me have the final word in our debate.
Woof woof.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No. The Bible calls Christians who abandon their faith dogs who return to their own vomit. So your complaint is not with me. Sorry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Now I am crying. Does that mean just because I have faith in God and his Son Jesus Christ who I love that I don't get to relate to a dog? Well, I will do both anyway. Love the truth and doggies.
Woof woof.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"We'll return to our regularly scheduled programming after this brief musical intermission."
ARF! ARF!
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.