(April 27, 2016 at 1:55 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(April 26, 2016 at 4:25 pm)Brian37 Wrote: No, first off "respect" is a hollow cliche. It means, "Know your place" and "Don't bruise my ego"...... I never use that word.

Because you were never taught what respect is, just because you don't have any doesn't mean I don't, by the way respect means to honor.

GC

No, I know what it means when people use it, not what it should mean, which is why I don't use it.

GC "Because you were never taught what respect is". Yea, you raised me, you should know. OH THAT'S RIGHT, you didn't. 

No, you want me to take your meaning of that word, and since everyone hides behind for the reasons I said, it I don't use it. 

I say "value", and I do value those who treat me well. I value my mom, and my family and my friends. But claims as ideas don't deserve taboos. You get your claims picked on alot here, and when it gets rough you hide behind that word because looking in the mirror at your own bad logic is too difficult for you. It allows you to run back to the false comfort of your old unscientific book.

You know who else uses the word "respect"? Abusive parents, people who verbally and physically abuse their spouses, and dictators and terrorists. Why do they want respect? Because they don't like being challenged.

(May 3, 2016 at 5:59 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(May 3, 2016 at 5:55 pm)Losty Wrote: Yet you responded anyways

I just want to know if I can do Hammy in the turtle butt without being smited down by god

...do you need a cameraman?

Absolutely!

(May 3, 2016 at 9:23 pm)Losty Wrote:

(May 3, 2016 at 5:59 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: ...do you need a cameraman?

Absolutely!

But you have to wear a burqa with the eye holes covered.

(May 3, 2016 at 5:54 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(May 3, 2016 at 5:04 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Do you really want me to go back and dig up the post where you said "and you call yourselves brights" (in context, referring to posters here).  Actually, I don't need to do that, because I'm looking at it right now.

I did not deny I said that, and said I assumed that some here identified as such.

CD Wrote:Your explanation above is at odds with what you said.  You'd really rather backpedal from what you said, rather than admit you were wrong?

 I hope I have explained things to satisfy you.

GC

Are you or are you not admitting that you pulled that claim out of thin air?

I mean, that's kind of what it sounds like, but you couch your words with so much weaselese that one can never be sure.

(May 3, 2016 at 4:44 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(May 3, 2016 at 3:21 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:            LOL!!!!!  Telling Rocket he was never xtian.  Next you'll be telling me I wasn't either!!!  Cue the "no true scotsman" fallacy and the "but you never read it right" whine.

 Correct you were never a Christian.

GC

Dear sir, I am new to the forum, may I inquire as to what metric you are using to evaluate a persons salvation; specifically the one that you are basing this statement upon?  I have a small idea of what your scriptural basis may be for holding such an opinion, but it is in poor taste and denotes ignorance to make such an assertion.
I am sure your heart and intentions are in the right place.

GC believes that if you used to believe and don't now, then you were never a True Christian™. It's his convenient way of dismissing/ignoring anyone who used to buy into the same nonsense he does but was smart enough to extricate their brains from it.

(May 3, 2016 at 11:07 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: GC believes that if you used to believe and don't now, then you were never a True Christian™. It's his convenient way of dismissing/ignoring anyone who used to buy into the same nonsense he does but was smart enough to extricate their brains from it.

Sure seems like a lot of shouting.  I would wager GC's intentions are honorable.  I see he has been here for 6 years.  That has to take a heavy toll on someone.  Perhaps he should take a breather and look to Christ's ministry on earth, he truly had a way with people.   

There are some vulgar people here, but also some intelligent people that make strong points and can articulate their words well.  It is a humbling experience to come here and attempt to contend with them. Very few are well prepared to undertake this task .

I suspect he's referring to John 15:6... but the broader context is in Hebrews 6:4-6.

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Unfortunately, the verses don't say that a person was never saved. Verse 4 specifically says, "were once enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift", implying that they were saved, but are now considered unsaveable... and in a lot of trouble with God.

I am unfamiliar with any other verses that give an actual implication that a person who is no longer a believer was never in fact a believer. Perhaps I have missed something. I would be delighted to be enlightened.

(Edit to Add: He may be referring to the whole "no one can snatch them out of my hand" bit--I forget that verse. But I'm pretty damned sure it's referring to believers being unable to be saved through Jesus because of other Powers, not to it being impossible to have once been a believer and then cease to believe.)

(Second Edit: It occurs to me that the passages in Romans imply something different about people being able to be saved after walking away, but I fear that might spark a debate I honestly don't wish to have.)

(May 3, 2016 at 11:30 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote: Sure seems like a lot of shouting.  I would wager GC's intentions are honorable.  I see he has been here for 6 years.  That has to take a heavy toll on someone.

I've been here nearly as long. He hasn't changed.

Heh, yeah... I'm willing to give people a large degree of slack, if I believe their intentions are honorable.

Not this guy. No way. He is a bigot, plain and simple, who refuses to believe that we grasp what it is that he believes, and simply don't choose to agree with his conclusions (or, frankly, most of the things he considers trusted sources of information).