Doctrine and Your Walk

[TLC]

So, that's the extent of your take away from it?

If there wasn't much effort in it, then perhaps it was your implied expertise on the matter and - not your saying "they're related-but-different words" (which you didn't say), but rather - your rather crass reference to phileo and coitas (as though speaking to Forrest Gump) that shortened it.  At least I said what it appeared as, even hedging it with if you actually believe that (not, as accused, "you're wrong and you're stupid".)

Fact is, I've made more than my share of mistakes before, for sure.  Been told I'm wrong and stupid for them, too... which might have been what gave me enough pause to re-think the matter a bit more thoroughly, and more carefully.  Frankly, I'm disappointed that you couldn't (or didn't want to) see past it and reflect on something of greater value or deeper substance.

If you portray yourself as (or pretend to be) an expert on a particular matter  (as you plainly did), is it some big surprise if or when someone of another opinion fingers you, rather than the doctrine itself?  Stand in front of the target, if you want.  But please, don't play the pity me, you're not nice, card if or when you take a hit. 

For the hours of my life I've previously already thought about this issue, I skipped the links for the sake of time (and lack of interest in chasing down more secular thoughts on the matter)... and, as stated in my last post, I'm done trying to present an alternate viewpoint here.  But show me where anyone (scholar or not) has given good, honest, and serious effort to research and discuss exact biblical distinctions between the words agapeo and phileo, and yeah... I'll go read it.  Because quite frankly, most of what I've seen or read (including the scholarly stuff) is incredibly selective, and leaves out certain "problem" verses, where they appear to be used interchangeably.

[WordWolf]

So, that's the extent of your take away from it?

You offered some nebulous "there might be another way to look at this" and "you might be wrong" and capped it off with "you're wrong and an idiot" with zero actual substance to it. It's like the much longer "Passing of the Patriarch" where cg went on for pages and pages as to how twi's bot failed but never getting into one actual thing the bot did or the bot failed to do.  So, yes, the extent of my take away from that was the "you're wrong, biscuithead"  thing.  If there was something of substance OFFERED, something to actually CONSIDER, that would have been a different story. If you had substance, you didn't present it.

If there wasn't much effort in it, then perhaps it was your implied expertise on the matter

I said I was an EXPERT in the subject?  I've studied it on a number of levels, a number of times. I don't consider that an "expertise" in the subject, but I DO have a broader perspective than the average twi'er, for example.  I've read books by non-twi'ers who also discussed delphia as well as the other mentioned words, for example.  If you have something to offer, feel free to bring it to the table. (I offered a few links in passing.)

How confident are you that I IMPLIED expertise, and you didn't actually INFER the implication?

Fact is, I've made more than my share of mistakes before, for sure.  Been told I'm wrong and stupid for them, too... which might have been what gave me enough pause to re-think the matter a bit more thoroughly, and more carefully.  Frankly, I'm disappointed that you couldn't (or didn't want to) see past it and reflect on something of greater value or deeper substance.

A) "Maybe you're wrong" isn't something of deeper substance. It's good to consider alternate viewpoints, but there needs to be some substance to support a position and not just its existence that makes it worthy of reflection. A poster here is CONVINCED Jesus Christ will appear and teach us out of the Orange Book.  I'm NOT spending a lot of time reflecting on that one because there's nothing to say "wait-this brings something to the table, and that something is...."

B) Getting me to consider the substance of something usually works when presenting the actual SUBSTANCE.  Calling me "stupid" is not a successful motivational tool to get me to see things your way, no matter what. I don't know why it worked for you, but there's a LOT of people who get turned off when an ad hominem attack is dropped into an intelligent discussion.

If you portray yourself as (or pretend to be) an expert on a particular matter  (as you plainly did),

Does anyone else besides him see this big "expert" thing he's claiming I presented in the last few posts?  Can someone quote exactly what I said and why it looks like I'm claiming to be an expert?  If I'm an expert in something, I don't tapdance about it-I say so outright.  So, if a third-party can see this, please chime in and show me what he's on about.

I skipped the links for the sake of time (and lack of interest in chasing down more secular thoughts on the matter)... and, as stated in my last post, I'm done trying to present an alternate viewpoint here.

Sure would be nice if the "alternate viewpoint" was presented with something of substahce to justify the viewpoint, otherwise it just looks like another unsupported claim. The GSC has seen MORE than its share of those.

But show me where anyone (scholar or not) has given good, honest, and serious effort to research and discuss exact 

biblical distinctions between the words agapeo and phileo, and yeah... I'll go read it.  Because quite frankly, most of what I've seen or read (including the scholarly stuff) is incredibly selective, and leaves out certain "problem" verses, where they appear to be used interchangeably.

So, you refuse to provide something, but I'm supposed to?  And I'm supposed to take it seriously?   Really-if you had something and posted a link, I'd approach it with all the seriousness it warranted. (i.e a site quoting vpw gets less consideration than neutral parties showing their work, and so on.)   If you think some verses APPEAR to show phileo and agapao as synonymous in usage,  feel free to post them or at least cite them. THEN we have SOMETHING specific we can discuss. Even if we end up disagreeing afterwards, at least we'd have gotten somewhere and looked at something.

[TLC]

13 hours ago, WordWolf said:

How confident are you that I IMPLIED expertise

You surely know that you did, so why ask me?  Fact is, you were (and still think yourself) such the savant, you quickly and completely blew off anything of substance that I might have said in my first post on the matter (which is undoubtedly why you're now claiming that I never offered anything of substance.)  Nothing I said had any substance, and showed lack any seriousness because I didn't provide links to somebody else's work or thoughts on it? (Which, if they did exist and I did reference, you would - even as you have done with others - fault my ability to see or think for myself about the issue.)  At least get real and honest with yourself, WW. 

[chockfull]

On 7/3/2017 at 0:06 PM, rrobs said:

Push and pull seem so common and ordinary in our experience of life that we humans think little of these forces. Most of us assume they are simple opposites. In and out. Back and forth. Force directed in one direction or its opposite. However whether something pushes or pulls something else, there is a difference. A couple of examples will illustrate.

Imagine pushing a ping pong ball on a smooth table with the point of a sharp pencil. The ball would always roll away from the direction of the push, first rolling one way then the other. Now imagine the difference, if you attach a string to the ping pong ball with tape, and pull it toward you. The string would always bring it directly towards you.

Another example from common experience occurs when pulling a trailer with a car. When your car is pulling the trailer uphill, you are pulling against gravity. The trailer can not push the car while going uphill. The trailer falls in line nicely behind your car. Now if you are driving downhill too slow, the trailer may begin to push the car instead of the car pulling the trailer. This produces a strong, unpredictable side to side force. Your trailer will begin to sway from side to side. If not corrected a violent crash will almost certainly result.

Our standing and state are like the car pulling the trailer. The car is your standing, the trailer your state. The same could be said for doctrine and your walk. The doctrine is the car, your walk is the trailer. To maintain order, the doctrine must pull the walk. Your walk will naturally line up with correct doctrine. However, the moment the walk begins to push the doctrine, order gives way to chaos. If left unchecked for some period of time, the doctrine will be forgotten and replaced by man’s reasoning. Walking a Christian walk is simply out of the question when that happens.

The Corinthians were letting their walk push the doctrine. They became so focused on being a “good Christian” that they forgot the things from the book of Romans. They were sincere but they didn’t realize that their walk was, in fact, contrary to that doctrine. It wasn’t long before the doctrine was basically gone. That is where the Galatians were when Paul wrote his epistle to them. Their walk had so warped the doctrine that the doctrine was corrupted to the point that it no longer lined up much at all with God’s word.  Religion and the denominations that thrive on that religion are the end of that path.

 

Bottom line: get the doctrine straight and the walk will naturally be lined up with the doctrine. Without a thorough knowledge of the doctrine, the walk will be nothing but vain attempts at self justification. Instead of trying to be a good Christian, look at what God has already made you. The only place to learn that is in the Bible.

Dumb and Dumber was a quaint movie that most humans chose to ignore, but it seems to offer an appropriate analogy on this thread.

Here in this clip, Jeff Daniels is fooled by Jim Carey, who to pull of a gag pretended to be asleep for 20 years.   Jim Carey is like your brain on stupid PFAL analogies.  You, like Jim Carey, can wake up after 20 years, and then say "gotcha".  Boy, you really did get us.  

See I can write analogies too.