[Propianotuner1]

Re: Salutations

Friend, Mike Miller has already linked to materials showing you the error of your doctrine, and those materials contain abundant scriptural citations. I don't know what else to say.

And as far as I am concerned, the interpretation of those abundant citations is an abundance of nonsense. Are not all of the scriptures true? Did Peter then lie when he described apostasy? Which is where hermeneutic methods come in.

[Witch Hammer]

Re: Salutations

I have already given scriptural support that apostasy is a reality. What's more, merely quoting scripture as if that in itself is demonstrative, is a great fallacy considering how many heretical groups have done just that. Clearly people can take seemingly contradictory passages to come to all kinds of different conclusions. That is why the scriptures must be addressed with rigorous methodology.

As for "extraneous verbiage", I find it humorous that that very expression itself uses vocabulary that not everyone will understand. Clear and specific vocabulary is necessary for precision in complicated discussion.

Oh, I think the Bible is crystal clear, buddy. It is circumlocuitous nitwits like you who sow the seeds of misinterpretation, complication and division, leading...nay....goading countless souls into an eternity of screaming and moaning, wailing and gnashing teeth with charred flesh smoking, fat sizzling and popping, marrow melting and oozing from shattered, burning bones, brains boiling in skulls until they erupt like geysers from burned out eye sockets...forever and ever and ever and ever with no prayer for death's sweet release!

Stop trying to candy-coat Christ's innate fury, and maybe you'll actually save a few souls instead of effectively hurling them headlong into the lake of burning sulfur!!

[Propianotuner1]

Re: Salutations

Oh, I think the Bible is crystal clear, buddy. It is circumlocuitous nitwits like you who sow the seeds of misinterpretation, complication and division, leading...nay....goading countless souls into an eternity of screaming and moaning, wailing and gnashing teeth with charred flesh smoking, fat sizzling and popping, marrow melting and oozing from shattered, burning bones, brains boiling in skulls until they erupt like geysers from burned out eye sockets...forever and ever and ever and ever with no prayer for death's sweet release!

Stop trying to candy-coat Christ's innate fury, and maybe you'll actually save a few souls instead of effectively hurling them headlong into the lake of burning sulfur!!

Good one.

[Witch Hammer]

Re: Salutations

Good one.

[Didymus Much]

Re: Salutations

Good one.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact™ that you're wrong, how could the actions of a deity who leaves salvation as the prize in a lottery of contradictory belief systems be described as benevolent in any way?

I'm just trying to determine the nature of the god you worship.

Exodus 34:14 "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:"

[Witch Hammer]

Re: Salutations

Wait! The smoking gun that proves this man's falsehood was right in front of us this whole time, and I might have missed it but for Jesus having just removed the scales from my eyes! Curse me for a slow witted hamite!



Straight from satan's photoshop. A mockup of the devilish fiction that the atheists refer to as a "nebulae"....a supposed "thing" that exists "out beyond the firmament"!... In "outer space"!!

Heresy!

[Propianotuner1]

Re: Salutations

Leaving aside for a moment the fact™ that you're wrong, how could the actions of a deity who leaves salvation as the prize in a lottery of contradictory belief systems be described as benevolent in any way?

I'm just trying to determine the nature of the god you worship.

Exodus 34:14 "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:"

I believe in a simple soteriology/theology-of-salvation, which has no requirement that you perfectly understanding theology. There are only a few central theological truths that are actually necessary for salvation, discernible by any lay person.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Salutations

I believe in a simple soteriology/theology-of-salvation, which has no requirement that you perfectly understanding theology. There are only a few central theological truths that are actually necessary for salvation, discernible by any lay person.

Kindly post the Scripture that backs up your claim. We are not likely to blindly accept the word of a false Christian blasphemer.

[Propianotuner1]

Re: Salutations

Wait! The smoking gun that proves this man's falsehood was right in front of us this whole time, and I might have missed it but for Jesus having just removed the scales from my eyes! Curse me for a slow witted hamite!



Straight from satan's photoshop. A mockup of the devilish fiction that the atheists refer to as a "nebulae"....a supposed "thing" that exists "out beyond the firmament"!... In "outer space"!!

Heresy!

That's interesting given this:

Job 38:31-33


31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?
33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

Guess you folks don't know your bibles nearly as well as you would like to think.

[Witch Hammer]

Re: Salutations

That's interesting given this:

Job 38:31-33


31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?
33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

Guess you folks don't know your bibles nearly as well as you would like to think.

No, we cannot bind the influence of the Pleiades or loose the bands of Orion...because those stars are set IN the firmament, dummy, not outside of it.Genesis 1:16-17

Given your mental handicap, I don't feel that it is sporting for me to keep publicly trouncing you like this....its getting kind of pathetic. I'll keep you in my prayers, sinner.

[Mike Miller]

Re: Salutations

Propianotuner1 , you have already been caught in lies. You stated originally that you back the teachings of Calvin. Yet, you then say, nope.



Leviticus 19-11 - "You shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another."

You are also a "Free Baptist" aka, a cult -

http://godsbreath.net/2009/12/03/church-of-christ-cult/

[Propianotuner1]

Re: Salutations

Propianotuner1 , you have already been caught in lies. You stated originally that you back the teachings of Calvin. Yet, you then say, nope.



Leviticus 19-11 - "You shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another."

You are also a "Free Baptist" aka, a cult -

http://godsbreath.net/2009/12/03/church-of-christ-cult/

Go ahead and find where I actually supported Calvin.

From Hammer:

No, we cannot bind the influence of the Pleiades or loose the bands of Orion...because those stars are set IN the firmament, dummy, not outside of it.Genesis 1:16-17

Given your mental handicap, I don't feel that it is sporting for me to keep publicly trouncing you like this....its getting kind of pathetic. I'll keep you in my prayers, sinner.

I guess we've got a guy who can't even understand the first few verses of Genesis, if that's what he thinks "firmament" is.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Salutations

I guess we've got a guy who can't even understand the first few verses of Genesis, if that's what he thinks "firmament" is.

This is a great point from the pedagogical point of view as it illustrates perfectly a common argumentative fallacy, the ad hominem. Instead of tackling the actual issue, the characteristics of the Firmament and the Biblical support thereof, this person decides to attack by character assassination. Thus, appeal to person or ad hominem. Why is it a fallacy? Because no matter Mr. Hammers qualifications or character, it is the actual (Scriptural) evidence that determines if he can understand the Bible or not (he can).

To avoid this fallacy, this person could simply present the data and the Scripture and not mock another person. This is the direct ad hominem. We'll look at the indirect ones in due course if necessary. Ultimately and fortunately, this will only benefit Mr. Hammer.

Matthew 5:11
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Propianotuner1]

Re: Salutations

This is a great point from the pedagogical point of view as it illustrates perfectly a common argumentative fallacy, the ad hominem. Instead of tackling the actual issue, the characteristics of the Firmament and the Biblical support thereof, this person decides to attack by character assassination. Thus, appeal to person or ad hominem. Why is it a fallacy? Because no matter Mr. Hammers qualifications or character, it is the actual (Scriptural) evidence that determines if he can understand the Bible or not (he can).

To avoid this fallacy, this person could simply present the data and the Scripture and not mock another person. This is the direct ad hominem. We'll look at the indirect ones in due course if necessary. Ultimately and fortunately, this will only benefit Mr. Hammer.

Matthew 5:11
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

There are some notions that I'm not willing to dignify with a response. As for the charge of ad hominem, that only applies if you are indeed making an argument. What's more, that is a hilarious criticism considering the ad homs spewed on this site, including those used by Hammer against myself in this thread. So who is guilty sophistry after all? It appears to be you and Hammer, monsieur.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Salutations

We'll look at the indirect ones in due course if necessary.

... that is a hilarious criticism considering the ad homs spewed on this site, including those used by Hammer against myself in this thread. So who is guilty sophistry after all? It appears to be you and Hammer, monsieur.

Now, Brethren, this is again a good example of a fallacy, this time the tu quoque (in many sources one of the indirect ad hominem types). Instead of assessing one's own misgivings, the opponent tries to avoid responsability by turning the accusation around. However, this does not remove the original ad hominem committed by this person at all. Certainly, it is quite possible to discuss the rhetoric of Mr Hammer separately (in his case, the apparent harsh language is necessary to guide sinners towards understanding their own depravity), but that is an argument does is irrelevant when it comes to the ad hominems of this poster.

Matthew 7:3
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Now, Jesus can say this, because He is above criticism and sin. For the others, the tu quoque is a fallacy. In addition, your previous statement included the assertion that the Firmament was something else than understood by Mr. Hammer. If this is the case, you should have discussed the Firmament and not Mr. Hammer. Similarly, over here, it is your ad hominem that was scrutinized. The guilt is not diminished by others doing the same thing. The situation is similar to the one where you could murder and sodomize boys because "the catholics do it also". Even if someone else does it, it is still wrong if you do it.

I'm curious if we'll see some other fallacies in the near future.



Yours in Christ,

Elmer