Mr. 5020 said:
Take a nap or something.Granite said:
I guess fool has more guts than most of you people.
I have been known to tilt at windmills before, but unlike Quixote I can see the windmill. If I believed that I could actually bring down the windmill I'd take a shot. I can't see me changing his mind, nor can I imagine him changing mine. If I'm going to waste my time I'll do it in a pleasant pastime. And yes, I truly hate telephones. I write because it gives me time to consider phrasing. If I speak personally to someone I prefer face to face so that I can read their expressions and body language. The question was raised in this thread as to why someone would think Bob led a cult or why they would consider him a child-abuser. I just added some information and a possible explanation for anyone who might actually wonder.Turbo said:
Frank Ernest said:
Delmar said:
Granite said:
allsmiles said:
This is not a discussion with him. It is totally open to his reading if he wishes, but this is a discussion between observers with different viewpoints. Several of you express Enyart's opinion for him in order to try and sway others to it. Others of us disagree and express the opposing positions (note plural) to cause those in the middle to think, and possibly to prevent them from following a theology we might see as misguided or twisted. I never expected to convince Bob that he's wrong, nor do I expect to convince you or the other mods. If you were to do so that would be great, but I see that similar to trying to convince Grand Ayatola Khomeni that he is wrong in Islam. It isn't my job to convince him; it is my job to present the evidence and allow the Spirit to do the convincing. Compare my quest here to Bob and his protests. He doesn't expect to convince those in charge that they are wrong, he tries to convince the observers that those in charge are wrong in order to weaken those he sees as being in error.Poly said:
Most discussions are.Morpheus said:
Really? It sounds very noble. :cloud9: I, for instance, would not recommend your theology to anyone but a socialist or communist. Would that be considered to "cause those in the middle to think and possibly prevent them from following a theology ... " etc.?
:darwinsm: Then why waste the time doing it? OH! That's right! I forgot about the unwashed "middle" and "cause to think", etc.
GA Khomeini is dead. I'm sure he is convinced by now.
I see! :idea: You are on a mission from the Holy Spirit. Bob and the mods are on a mission from ... ? Could it be SATAN? :rotfl: (I really don't appreciate even minor forms of blasphemy.)
Well, By Golly! Seems like everything's, well, normal, for a discussion and debate forum! I did like the moderate tone you used to formulate this. That is, until you put the force of GOD behind it. At that point, you became just another 'net nit with an axe to grind.
Look closely at the quote. First it says that "many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ". Nobody in this discussion has made that claim. Now if you are only referring to the portion about "any man deceive you" then you must consider that it may be you that has been deceived. I have considered the entire scripture in coming to the conclusion that Bob's preaching of hate is in conflict with not only the scriptures, but with the nature of God. One asked recently if hate was always wrong. To this I can add one more argument:Frank Ernest said:
It says that if we are led by the Spirit we are not under the law. Bob claims that Mosaic law should be valid for everyone today. Next it includes hatred in the list of works of the flesh. Hatred is always wrong because it is listed as one of the works of the flesh. Then it says that "those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God". It then continues saying, "those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." Two rather exclusive statements. Also note that those passions and desires of the flesh do not include love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control, because those are fruits of the Spirit. God has given us a huge window here into his very nature. I see huge conflicts with that nature in Bob's preaching.
You do implicitly, almost on a daily basis. I have never encountered a lie-beral who did not believe he was a reincarnation of Jesus in some way. You are no exception. Plus you called upon the Holy Spirit to do YOUR will, not the Father's. My grandfather referred to such folks as "moral highbinders."Morpheus said:
Considered and rejected as highly unlikely. :down: That can only be your hubris coming out.
Then you lose in the Biblical scholarship department. You obviously cherry-picked Scripture to find something you could interpret as agreement with your prejudicial notions about Enyart.
Ok. Not under the law as in subject to judgment. If one does not violate the law, one does not come under it. If one is led by the Spirit, then one will not violate the law and will not come under its judgment.
Would be tough to implement, but ok.
Quite so. Feel the heat yet?
You see huge conflicts because you read whatever you want to into Bob's preaching and it comes out "hate" which has become a favored theme of yours and other lie-berals.
I will not bother with the majority of your post since it only expresses your biases and has no foundation. As to the Proverbs quote, the keyword is "things". It is referring to sins that the Lord hates. That is not the issue since it is not hatred. Hatred is a condition of the heart. It is directed toward other people. A Christian can hate sin, but when he lets that hate become part of his nature and transfers it to people he has surrendered to the flesh. God does not condemn sinners to Hell because he hates them; he condemns sinners to Hell because they are arrogant, disobedient and have failed to surrender their will to His will.Frank Ernest said:
...God is.
Which means it's dead on and you can't deal with it. :up:Morpheus said:
Ok. You just double-talked your way through Proverbs. Tell me, are "hands that shed blood" possessed by a "person" or a "thing?" Does God condemn sin without condemning the sinner? How does that work, Mopey?
I pray that you will, someday, relieve yourself of that nasty habit.
I'm well aware of that. I am astonished that you are. :shocked: Your problem is that your will is not necessarily God's will. Nor can you manipulate the word of God to make it so.
AH! There you go. Mopey. False accusation by implication. When you get over this pseudoreligious mythology about liberals and :Commie:s being "good" while your conservative adversaries are "bad", You just might get a handle on what it means to be Christian.
