Jerusalem Patriarchs denounce Christian Zionism
9,648 Views |
237 Replies |
Last: 18 days ago by Zobel
Silent For Too Long said:
The only person who is resorting to childish argumentation is you, my friend. You are projecting very heavily.
I'm willing to bet large amounts of money I have a more thorough understanding of Church History then you do.
Your complete refusal to admit you were wrong screams volumes.
You still have made no point.
AgPrognosticator said:Severian the Torturer said:AgPrognosticator said:Silent For Too Long said:
Once again, I'm not part of a denomination.
So your argument is that the RCC and EO are all sinless saints?
The unbridled narcissm is incredible.
You just nailed everything wrong with RCC and EO. They believe their church is ordained by God and that no others are.
Precisely the pride-filled arrogance we are warned of throughout Christ's ministry.
They extend the perfection and inerrancy of scripture to their church and THAT is heretical.
It's really a disgusting worldview they prop up by saying "God created the church " and "it's ancient, so we must be right", while completely ignoring biblical truths and precepts espoused by Martin Luther and his contemporaries.
You can show them the error of their ways, and they still won't repent. This conversation resurfaces constantly on TexAgs, and it always ends the same.
We will always fundamentally disagree on the fact that their church is imperfect. They will never ever acknowledge the exclusive nature of their church was designed to line the pockets of their priests and institutions. It was NOT God's will or Christ's teachings that certain funky behaviors, ie, sacraments and liturgies, must be followed to be part of the Body of Christ, as asserted on this very thread.
The idea that Christ would imbue a sinful man with divine authority to establish and modify moral teachings for the entire world is itself heresy.
With all this said, I've NEVER opined that Catholics (or EO) are somehow "outside the body of Christ". The condescending views expressed toward individuals who believe every word of the Holy Bible are unacceptable and appalling.
As someone else said, I'll pray for your heart to be softened and awakened to the reality of the scripture. Know that your efforts in this thread do NOT glorify your God, nor do they advance the purposes of His Kingdom.
What about the biblical truths and precepts that Luther holds that are contrary to modern Protestant beliefs?
Also, everything you've stated is complete opinion founded on what you wish was true.
I can show you my churches which predate Protestantism by over 1000 years. Guess what? They're still Catholic today.
We don't have an argument about whether or not scripture's important, we have an argument on how scripture is interpreted. The first 1500 years of the church believed that the Apostolic Church preserved and guided the church as founded and commissioned by Christ. Then Luther came about and differed in a few beliefs. Then other reformers differed in other beliefs, and then other reformers differed in other beliefs.
What you have now is people claiming that every man himself's view of the Bible is equally inspired and true. It's ludicrous.
The idea that God would painstakingly work through the church to ensure that only his revealed scripture would be known as such, and then left his flocks to interpret that scripture in a million different ways is heretical, and insulting. God is not the father of confusion, Satan is. When I look at "Christianity" outside of the church; I see confusion.
Ah, yes. So ordinary men aren't allowed to interpret scripture. Instead, we have an obligation to follow the moral teachings of Pope Francis who opined that gay priests are totally acceptable. Alas, we must also follow the moral teachings of Pope in the 10th century which burned homosexuals at the stake! And, oh yes, we must also accept Pope Francis when he stated that all religions are a path to God!
But (clutching my pearls) we simply cannot let ordinary man read the Bible and decide what Jesus's words meant. THAT would be heresy
Pope Francis actually called gay priests "f***ots" right before he died and said there were too many of them in seminary.
I also don't think you have any idea of what the Pope actually does, given the examples you gave.
Secondly, change Pope Francis to Pastor Mark, or random sidewalk teacher. How do we know who has the actual authentic teaching?
AgPrognosticator said:Severian the Torturer said:AgPrognosticator said:Silent For Too Long said:
Once again, I'm not part of a denomination.
So your argument is that the RCC and EO are all sinless saints?
The unbridled narcissm is incredible.
You just nailed everything wrong with RCC and EO. They believe their church is ordained by God and that no others are.
Precisely the pride-filled arrogance we are warned of throughout Christ's ministry.
They extend the perfection and inerrancy of scripture to their church and THAT is heretical.
It's really a disgusting worldview they prop up by saying "God created the church " and "it's ancient, so we must be right", while completely ignoring biblical truths and precepts espoused by Martin Luther and his contemporaries.
You can show them the error of their ways, and they still won't repent. This conversation resurfaces constantly on TexAgs, and it always ends the same.
We will always fundamentally disagree on the fact that their church is imperfect. They will never ever acknowledge the exclusive nature of their church was designed to line the pockets of their priests and institutions. It was NOT God's will or Christ's teachings that certain funky behaviors, ie, sacraments and liturgies, must be followed to be part of the Body of Christ, as asserted on this very thread.
The idea that Christ would imbue a sinful man with divine authority to establish and modify moral teachings for the entire world is itself heresy.
With all this said, I've NEVER opined that Catholics (or EO) are somehow "outside the body of Christ". The condescending views expressed toward individuals who believe every word of the Holy Bible are unacceptable and appalling.
As someone else said, I'll pray for your heart to be softened and awakened to the reality of the scripture. Know that your efforts in this thread do NOT glorify your God, nor do they advance the purposes of His Kingdom.
What about the biblical truths and precepts that Luther holds that are contrary to modern Protestant beliefs?
Also, everything you've stated is complete opinion founded on what you wish was true.
I can show you my churches which predate Protestantism by over 1000 years. Guess what? They're still Catholic today.
We don't have an argument about whether or not scripture's important, we have an argument on how scripture is interpreted. The first 1500 years of the church believed that the Apostolic Church preserved and guided the church as founded and commissioned by Christ. Then Luther came about and differed in a few beliefs. Then other reformers differed in other beliefs, and then other reformers differed in other beliefs.
What you have now is people claiming that every man himself's view of the Bible is equally inspired and true. It's ludicrous.
The idea that God would painstakingly work through the church to ensure that only his revealed scripture would be known as such, and then left his flocks to interpret that scripture in a million different ways is heretical, and insulting. God is not the father of confusion, Satan is. When I look at "Christianity" outside of the church; I see confusion.
Ah, yes. So ordinary men aren't allowed to interpret scripture. Instead, we have an obligation to follow the moral teachings of Pope Francis who opined that gay priests are totally acceptable. Alas, we must also follow the moral teachings of Pope in the 10th century which burned homosexuals at the stake! And, oh yes, we must also accept Pope Francis when he stated that all religions are a path to God!
But (clutching my pearls) we simply cannot let ordinary man read the Bible and decide what Jesus's words meant. THAT would be heresy
That's not in the Bible. Did you just refer to some man made institution to define a heresy? Or did the holy spirit tell you directly that it was a heresy. Who said someone can't read the Bible?
Did you just get here from the past?!!!
That's amazing.
I have so many questions. From what medieval century do you come from traveler?
Let's also remember that 99% percent of Europeans couldn't read German either. Latin was the language of the empire and then the Catholic Church.
CrackerJackAg said:Silent For Too Long said:
The only person who is resorting to childish argumentation is you, my friend. You are projecting very heavily.
I'm willing to bet large amounts of money I have a more thorough understanding of Church History then you do.
Your complete refusal to admit you were wrong screams volumes.
You still have made no point.
I've made several points. The fact that they flew over your head is a you problem.
Silent For Too Long said:CrackerJackAg said:Silent For Too Long said:
The only person who is resorting to childish argumentation is you, my friend. You are projecting very heavily.
I'm willing to bet large amounts of money I have a more thorough understanding of Church History then you do.
Your complete refusal to admit you were wrong screams volumes.
You still have made no point.
I've made several points. The fact that they flew over your head is a you problem.
I'm sure you think so.
So who is properly continuing the TRUE FAITH, EO or RCC?
CrackerJackAg said:Silent For Too Long said:CrackerJackAg said:Silent For Too Long said:
The only person who is resorting to childish argumentation is you, my friend. You are projecting very heavily.
I'm willing to bet large amounts of money I have a more thorough understanding of Church History then you do.
Your complete refusal to admit you were wrong screams volumes.
You still have made no point.
I've made several points. The fact that they flew over your head is a you problem.
I'm sure you think so.
Again grow up.
Let's not muddy the waters here. First, let's all agree it's definitely not modern dispensationalist evangelicals.
Silent For Too Long said:
So who is properly continuing the TRUE FAITH, EO or RCC?
Yes
Silent For Too Long said:CrackerJackAg said:Silent For Too Long said:CrackerJackAg said:Silent For Too Long said:
The only person who is resorting to childish argumentation is you, my friend. You are projecting very heavily.
I'm willing to bet large amounts of money I have a more thorough understanding of Church History then you do.
Your complete refusal to admit you were wrong screams volumes.
You still have made no point.
I've made several points. The fact that they flew over your head is a you problem.
I'm sure you think so.
Again grow up.
I'm sure your fat little girlfriend is blowing up your ego and telling you how smart you are but it's not looking good or translating here on the field.
Severian the Torturer said:Silent For Too Long said:
So who is properly continuing the TRUE FAITH, EO or RCC?
Yes
Correct
CrackerJackAg said:Severian the Torturer said:Silent For Too Long said:
So who is properly continuing the TRUE FAITH, EO or RCC?
Yes
Correct
Lol. Complete ignorance of Church History on display.
Your schism is well documented, despite your current tribal alliance
Silent For Too Long said:CrackerJackAg said:Severian the Torturer said:Silent For Too Long said:
So who is properly continuing the TRUE FAITH, EO or RCC?
Yes
Lol. Complete ignorance of Chrch History on display.
Your schism is well documented, despite your current tribal alliance
Correct
It's a Schism more Clerical in nature and not in regards to Faith itself. You know the Pope wanting to be the boss and all. The Faith and Apostolic legitimacy of the Catholic Church are not in question.
My guess is that you probably were unaware of that despite your amazing knowledge of Church history
You yourself are making quite the "display" of yourself.
I think you're missing the point of what they're saying.
There are differences and similarities. They're rejecting reducing the differences into a binary over the true faith.
I think you can make a strong argument that this is not true. However, those differences are much, much recent than the schism of 1054 itself. Casual review of history shows that schism aside praxis in east and west were extremely aligned for centuries.
Also, a break in communion isn't itself indicative of a difference in faith. Various orthodox communities have broken communion for other reasons (not saying this is good).
There are differences and similarities. They're rejecting reducing the differences into a binary over the true faith.
I think you can make a strong argument that this is not true. However, those differences are much, much recent than the schism of 1054 itself. Casual review of history shows that schism aside praxis in east and west were extremely aligned for centuries.
Also, a break in communion isn't itself indicative of a difference in faith. Various orthodox communities have broken communion for other reasons (not saying this is good).
And yeah I'm definitely going to side with Rome, warts and all, over "the samaritans are the true faithful people of God". Just sayin.
Zobel said:
And yeah I'm definitely going to side with Rome, warts and all, over "the samaritans are the true faithful people of God". Just sayin.
I never said that, so now you are lying to try to score internet points.
Very Christ like of you.
Literally you "Samaritans are THE ORIGINAL "CHURCH" who stayed faithful to THE ORIGINAL Theology."
Zobel said:
I think you're missing the point of what they're saying.
There are differences and similarities. They're rejecting reducing the differences into a binary over the true faith.
I think you can make a strong argument that this is not true. However, those differences are much, much recent than the schism of 1054 itself. Casual review of history shows that schism aside praxis in east and west were extremely aligned for centuries.
Also, a break in communion isn't itself indicative of a difference in faith. Various orthodox communities have broken communion for other reasons (not saying this is good).
OK, so how much is one allowed to disagree before it's too much?
Not for me to decide. I'm not a bishop.
Zobel said:
Literally you "Samaritans are THE ORIGINAL "CHURCH" who stayed faithful to THE ORIGINAL Theology."
They are. That doesn't make them right, or the best. Its merely an accurate description of the facts
The Samaritans hold to the least altered version of the Abrahamic Covenant, up to the point where they don't consider anything written after The Torah to be scriptures. This is an easily verifiable fact.
Zobel said:
Not for me to decide. I'm not a bishop.
So you are relying on other men to make this distinction for you?
Look, I'm really not trying to be overly difficult. I'm trying, rather poorly admittedly, to illustrate that it's turtles all the way down. I encourage everyone to devote their lives to living the most righteous alignment with The Holy Spirit that they can. But have the humility to understand the limits of yourself and your personal faith tradition.
Also, don't call other faith traditions ******s and spend 5 pages stubbornly doubling down on your poor choices. Nothing and about CJ's posting brings anyone closer to God.
This is a revealing exchange, then.
For starters, there is an identity relationship between "church" and "people of God" in the scriptures. They are the same concept, buried under translation accretion. This is why ancient peoples immediately understood that to become a Christian was to no longer be their old ethnicity / people group, and that Christians themselves constituted a people. And, further, that this people group was the same people of God as Israel. I've provided multiple scriptures to this effect. So when you say "Samaritans are the original church" it is not a misrepresentation for me to say that is identical to saying "Samaritans are the true people of God". There can be no multiplicity, and so "original" and "true" are also one and the same.
For two, "theology" is knowledge of God. God doesn't change, so knowledge of God can only grow in amount, or be incorrect. Any change by negation or change of established knowledge is inherently false. By this understanding, being in possession of "original theology" implies truth. So again, when you say "Samaritans stayed faith to THE ORIGINAL theology" you are making the same claim as I characterized, that they are the "true faithful."
For three, you seem to be under the impression that somehow possession of old texts = "original theology". I don't know why you think that, but it seems really important to you.
Lastly, your claim is actually wanting in facts. I already addressed this above. The oldest manuscripts we have are the dead sea scrolls, which support different parts of multiple manuscript traditions, and reveal explicit theological modifications in the Samaritan Pentateuch, particularly in things which can be identified as "theology". So whatever you're using to qualify "least altered" is irrelevant if the theology itself has been altered.
For starters, there is an identity relationship between "church" and "people of God" in the scriptures. They are the same concept, buried under translation accretion. This is why ancient peoples immediately understood that to become a Christian was to no longer be their old ethnicity / people group, and that Christians themselves constituted a people. And, further, that this people group was the same people of God as Israel. I've provided multiple scriptures to this effect. So when you say "Samaritans are the original church" it is not a misrepresentation for me to say that is identical to saying "Samaritans are the true people of God". There can be no multiplicity, and so "original" and "true" are also one and the same.
For two, "theology" is knowledge of God. God doesn't change, so knowledge of God can only grow in amount, or be incorrect. Any change by negation or change of established knowledge is inherently false. By this understanding, being in possession of "original theology" implies truth. So again, when you say "Samaritans stayed faith to THE ORIGINAL theology" you are making the same claim as I characterized, that they are the "true faithful."
For three, you seem to be under the impression that somehow possession of old texts = "original theology". I don't know why you think that, but it seems really important to you.
Lastly, your claim is actually wanting in facts. I already addressed this above. The oldest manuscripts we have are the dead sea scrolls, which support different parts of multiple manuscript traditions, and reveal explicit theological modifications in the Samaritan Pentateuch, particularly in things which can be identified as "theology". So whatever you're using to qualify "least altered" is irrelevant if the theology itself has been altered.
Silent For Too Long said:Zobel said:
Not for me to decide. I'm not a bishop.
So you are relying on other men to make this distinction for you?
Look, I'm really not trying to be overly difficult. I'm trying, rather poorly admittedly, to illustrate that it's turtles all the way down. I encourage everyone to devote their lives to living the most righteous alignment with The Holy Spirit that they can. But have the humility to understand the limits of yourself and your personal faith tradition.
Also, don't call other faith traditions ******s and spend 5 pages stubbornly doubling down on your poor choices. Nothing and about CJ's posting brings anyone closer to God.
No, and this is the point. My faith is not rooted in people, it is rooted in Christ Himself and promises He made. Those promises are carried through time by men - as is all human knowledge; we derive very little of our knowledge independently. But they are carried through time by men in a public way, openly, with their teaching recorded and attested to in a way that is independently verifiable and historically available. Today more than ever.
Within that tradition there is a hierarchy of responsibility and authority. That is as true of the Christian church as it was in the time of Moses. Moses' authority is validated by Yahweh in the OT and by Yahweh in the person of Jesus Christ in the NT. The structure of the church is inherited from the structure of ancient Israel, it is a continuation.
I don't rely on men to "make a distinction" in a vague sense. Much like Moses, God gives bishops real authority to loose and bind. What they say goes, just like what Moses said went. So if a bishop says "this is the line" then that truly is the line. I don't have that authority, or the responsibility to it. I won't have to answer to God for that - they will.
Nowhere, not once, does the scripture advocate for what you're saying. It does NOT say to go and decide for yourself. But repeatedly we're told to submit to those in authority, the authority structure is assumed just as much for us as it was for those under Moses (e.g., 1 Cor 16:16, Heb 13:17, 1 Thess 5:12-13, 1 Pet 5:5, Eph 5:21, Phil 2:29). Not everyone is a teacher, or a prophet, or an apostle. Not everyone is a deacon or a presbyter or a bishop.
You're acting as if there's just poof, a bunch of faith traditions and you just kind of have this vague personal responsibility toward them. Again, not your fault - modern person formed by modern presuppositions. But that's utterly foreign to the mind of the scriptures. You join yourself to the Apostolic faith, you place yourself under true obedience to them, and in humility to submit to the faith. To be shaped to something IT has to be hard, and YOU have to be soft.
Because I practice the faith handed down once for all to the saints, there is no limit. It is not my "personal" faith tradition. It doesn't belong to me. It's of Christ, taught to the Patriarchs who knew Him, to Moses who spoke to Him face to face as a man does to his friend, to the Prophets to beheld Him, to the Apostles who met and touched him, to St Paul who encountered Him on the road, and to all the fathers and Christians before me who lived the life in Christ. This is the One Faith, and there is no other. Any other is false. There is no "limit" to this faith, because to live this faith is Christ.
As for CrackerJackAg, dunno. In modern parlance "******ed" any worse than "brood of vipers"? Is it worse than saying you wish those who teach things like this would go the whole way and castrate themselves? It is a horrible teaching that has lead to uncounted deaths. Im not sure any insult you could heap on the teaching or those teaching it is unwarranted.
What's interesting is we have a teaching that is flatly unscriptural and denies the teaching of the NT of Christ as sole heir, and that is resulting in thousands and thousands of deaths. Your concern is... that someone said mean words about people?
The SP, DSS, and LXX align more with each other then the MT. The SP is clearly less altered then the MT.
But that's not really the point. The mere fact that is, in the Samaritan's faith, nothing should have been added after The Torah is the point. They have faithfully maintained that original orthodoxy.
When a core pillar of your defense of your faith tradition is the age it has been adhered to, the fact that the Samaritans faith tradition is way older then yours is relevant.
But that's not really the point. The mere fact that is, in the Samaritan's faith, nothing should have been added after The Torah is the point. They have faithfully maintained that original orthodoxy.
When a core pillar of your defense of your faith tradition is the age it has been adhered to, the fact that the Samaritans faith tradition is way older then yours is relevant.
After reading several back & forth on this thread I really think Bishop Barons homily is really on point.
Here are the scriptures for the day:
Here are the scriptures for the day:
I don't follow the Masoretic Text, so go talk to a KJV absolutist or something.
But their Pentateuch is wrong and has been altered in error. Christ affirms this with his exchange with the woman at the well.
Who cares how hard they have held to a false teaching? The litmus test is not lack of change in and of itself, it is fidelity to truth.
And again, your facts are not correct, their tradition is not older than mine, because mine goes back to Abraham.
But their Pentateuch is wrong and has been altered in error. Christ affirms this with his exchange with the woman at the well.
Who cares how hard they have held to a false teaching? The litmus test is not lack of change in and of itself, it is fidelity to truth.
And again, your facts are not correct, their tradition is not older than mine, because mine goes back to Abraham.
One thing being wrong doesn't make other things being wrong, right.
And, once again, both the RCC and EO have way more blood on their hands then any Protestant tradition. You can't have it both ways.
And, once again, both the RCC and EO have way more blood on their hands then any Protestant tradition. You can't have it both ways.
Silent For Too Long said:Zobel said:
Not for me to decide. I'm not a bishop.
So you are relying on other men to make this distinction for you?
Look, I'm really not trying to be overly difficult. I'm trying, rather poorly admittedly, to illustrate that it's turtles all the way down. I encourage everyone to devote their lives to living the most righteous alignment with The Holy Spirit that they can. But have the humility to understand the limits of yourself and your personal faith tradition.
Also, don't call other faith traditions ******s and spend 5 pages stubbornly doubling down on your poor choices. Nothing and about CJ's posting brings anyone closer to God.
Yes, it is painfully obvious that you believe in a "it's turtles all the way down" philosophy.
You are inconsistent and contradict your own logic. Within minutes, you say something and then say that you never said that. I'm not sure you know what you believe or what you have even said at this point.
Zobel is a better person than I am for still attempting to engage with you.
Or he is just sick and enjoys playing with you pointing out that you're just wrong. :-)
I see you're unable to make an argument without ad homs. This here is known as the tu quoque, "you also".
Either defend dispensationalist position, or discredit it. Pearl clutching at mean words is empty rhetoric.
And you skipped 90% of my post defend that all that really matters here is your sensibilities about how mean his words were. OK. If that's what matters to you, have at it.
All the "zomg the RCC and EO so bad sola scriptura" bros have quoted, as far as I can tell, zero scripture supporting their points. Just vibes and turtles and nonsense about the Samaritans having the real truth.
Either defend dispensationalist position, or discredit it. Pearl clutching at mean words is empty rhetoric.
And you skipped 90% of my post defend that all that really matters here is your sensibilities about how mean his words were. OK. If that's what matters to you, have at it.
All the "zomg the RCC and EO so bad sola scriptura" bros have quoted, as far as I can tell, zero scripture supporting their points. Just vibes and turtles and nonsense about the Samaritans having the real truth.
Just want to point out that Christ Jesus' take on the supposed oldest / true theology is they don't even know the God they think they're worshipping. "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews."
Silent For Too Long said:Zobel said:
Not for me to decide. I'm not a bishop.
Also, don't call other faith traditions ******s and spend 5 pages stubbornly doubling down on your poor choices. Nothing and about CJ's posting brings anyone closer to God.
Believe it or not I spend a good bit of my time converting and welcoming Protestants into the Orthodox Church. I've won over several people to Christ directly.
I donate time and money extensively to the Church, Orthodox societies and Mount Athos.
I am honestly quite lovely in person. I don't think any one dislikes me that I'm aware of and I'm thought of as courteous and generous. I'm fairly well known and active at a few Churches. I'm doing ok I think.
I still think American Christian Dispensationalist thought is ******ed. This is a forum to discuss religion and philosophy and you are taking it personal.
Defend your stance and have an a point one way or another. Stop worrying about your feelings and try to hide behind a hypothetical about what you think Jesus would say about my opinion and make your own statement.
Zobel said:
I see you're unable to make an argument without ad homs. This here is known as the tu quoque, "you also".
Either defend dispensationalist position, or discredit it. Pearl clutching at mean words is empty rhetoric.
And you skipped 90% of my post defend that all that really matters here is your sensibilities about how mean his words were. OK. If that's what matters to you, have at it.
All the "zomg the RCC and EO so bad sola scriptura" bros have quoted, as far as I can tell, zero scripture supporting their points. Just vibes and turtles and nonsense about the Samaritans having the real truth.
I haven't made a single ad hominem argument. You keep using words you clearly don't understand, while defending your bro when he made actual ad hominem arguments.
And you keep lying about the point I was making about the Samaritans, even after I explicitly stated that's not what I said
So lying and calling people ******s. This is how you defend your faith.
My friend, I think we've pretty clearly arrived at the end of the beneficial portion of this discussion.
Just to be clear, though, any time you address a person making an argument - for example, as you did here, here, here, and here - that's an ad hom. To be very specific, the argument in the last link, which is the form of:
"what you're saying about people having blood on their hands is invalid because I think your tradition also has blood on its hands" is textbook tu quoque.
I'm pretty sure I thoroughly understand all the vocabulary I've used here, and not only have I engaged with your discussion about the Samaritans in good faith and at length, I'm pretty sure I'm representing you in your own words. You certainly haven't backed off of any of your statements.
And, for the record, calling me a liar is definitely an ad hom.
I defend my faith the way I have here - which is appealing to my Faith, its teachings, the Holy Scriptures, and rooting all of that in a Christological framework. I am honestly not sure how to charitably describe what you're doing here, other than schoolmarming others about their choice in language and calling everyone prideful liars.
Shrug.
Just to be clear, though, any time you address a person making an argument - for example, as you did here, here, here, and here - that's an ad hom. To be very specific, the argument in the last link, which is the form of:
"what you're saying about people having blood on their hands is invalid because I think your tradition also has blood on its hands" is textbook tu quoque.
I'm pretty sure I thoroughly understand all the vocabulary I've used here, and not only have I engaged with your discussion about the Samaritans in good faith and at length, I'm pretty sure I'm representing you in your own words. You certainly haven't backed off of any of your statements.
And, for the record, calling me a liar is definitely an ad hom.
I defend my faith the way I have here - which is appealing to my Faith, its teachings, the Holy Scriptures, and rooting all of that in a Christological framework. I am honestly not sure how to charitably describe what you're doing here, other than schoolmarming others about their choice in language and calling everyone prideful liars.
Shrug.
The fact that you still won't admit what you did was wrong says all I need to know about your character. Your childish rhetoric only cements that opinion.
Something about a tree and the fruit it produces comes to mind.
Something about a tree and the fruit it produces comes to mind.
Featured Stories
See All
11:18
2h ago
1.4k
Norman trek figures to be difficult for momentum-infused Aggies
by Olin Buchanan
36:44
13h ago
2.7k
Scouting Report: Texas A&M at Oklahoma
by Tom Schuberth
21:51
15h ago
3.4k
Series Preview: No. 24 A&M faces veteran Penn squad
by Richard Zane
scd88
FINAL from Blue Bell Park: No. 24 Texas A&M 1, Penn 0 (Friday)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
3