andyc
New member
Someone who didn't understand the question.
ECT MADist thought for the day
- Thread starter andyc
- Start date
- Status
Someone who didn't understand the question.
andyc
New member
Might want to remind Paul not to side with such...
Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
musterion
Well-known member
Finish it.
Andy has rejected the truth, after multiple rebukes from many people here. Your misuse of Scripture to justify your own behavior is beyond hypocritical. Andy is your buddy. Okay. Got it.
Now that I've done what I'm supposed to, it's time to start practicing Titus 3:10 on you again.
Nope; you missed it.
Such questions often demand having to look at a thing through operative principles. This is their great value.
A smoker once asked me if smoking is spoken against in Scripture.
I answered them, not with a passage of Scripture; but in light of an opetative principle various passages not only operate from; but point to.
Your "democrat" remark just proves the obvious - to me at least - that you are operating from the wrong principle.
Thus, your biased conclusion.
Your every opposition on TOL is the result of that at work within how you look at things.
You are not off because the MADist says you are - you are off because where you look at things from is off to begin with.
Note how seemingly answerless my reply is.
Those ever clueless about the principles all things operate from always conclude what you just have.
The fact is that all things operate from within what is referred to as systems theory.
As such, they can be seen clearly only when their operating principles are identified.
There is the very core of your problem in perception.
I did not "finish it" because it still does not deny the obvious - Paul was agreeing with the valid point of one possibly lost.
I think in operating principles. They allow one to see more than one might otherwise.
Paul himself constantly thinks, asserts things in, and from operating principles.
andyc
New member
Ok
This little scenario could see you ditch MAD for good, so lets pursue it for the meantime.
Let's use Timothy as an example here. Jewish mother, gentile father. A really messed up situation for Bulinger, Feldick, STP, chickenman, john w and the gang. Timothy's mother was a Jew, which immediately makes her unclean every month, but the father is a gentile, and probably not a believer in Christ, otherwise Paul would have mentioned it. Does an unclean believer in Christ (a contradiction in terms) make the unbelieving gentile unclean? You'd probably say, probably not.
Then there's Timothy. He was probably a believer in Yahweh, as a result of his mother's influence, but when he was saved he would have become part of the BOC crowd, and separated from his mother. And so he now has the same faith in Christ as his mother, but all of a sudden, he's part of a different crowd. And so, if she's still menstruating, does his faith in Christ make him clean? If not, how can she be unclean?
Now, of course, the whole topic is nonsense, because faith removes the law for all who believe. But because MADists are not the sharpest knives in the draw, these stupid scenarios exist.
You began from a stupidity and ended at one as a result.
Feldick, STP, chickenman, and JohnW do not hold to the same beliefs in many key areas as Bullinger.
STP, chickenman, and JohnW do not hold to beliefs in key areas that Feldick holds to.
STP and chickenman hold to some beliefs that JohnW does not hold to.
Bullinger was Acts 28.
ALL the others in the above are Mid-Acts.
You began stupidly, and ended up stupidly as a result.
That is ALL you proved...once more.
I say this having attempted to give you the benefit of the doubt.
For I still benefitted from what was to you a fool speculation.
Systems thinking allows that where a fool sees only his own reflection.
andyc
New member
You don't understand that it's all a progression, which is why Tet classifies you as followers of Darby. It all began with him, and progressed to people like Bulinger, then people like Stam and so on.
People couldn't simply arrive at your views, because they would be laughed to scorn.
Think what you like, makes no difference to me.
andyc
New member
Tet is an idiot through and through.
You all are.
None of you understand the actual progression.
Because, as you proved in the above - as you all continue to prove - none of you look at a thing from within the higher level of abstraction that even systems theory has its origin in.
Yet there it is, in Darby's writing of how he came to understand his completeness in Christ BEFORE THAT led him to the Dispensational Distinction you morons remain clueless about.
And Darby was not the first to begin to recover it.
But as I recall; that idiot Tet, ignored that and went on once more from his fool cluelessness about where to actually look at another's assertions from.
You are, in short, just as incompetent as he at your task.
And apparantly it does make a difference to you, here you are; still bashing what you continually prove you are clueless about.
You fools refer to MAD as mud.
In reality, it is us playing in the mud when we even bother with your incompetence.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Oh, they are quite interested because the reward is to be a know it all. In contrast to Paul in Corinthians who 'determined to know nothing among you except Christ and him crucified.' Danoh is replete with his know it allness and how much he knows so much more than anyone here, and how we should all be bowing down to him because he knows so much more than anyone here could possibly know. I doubt he even needs what Paul said he knew exclusively.
And then because you are like that, you really enjoy calling people fools and scum and idiots. It reminds me of Mt 5 or 6 about 'raca' and 'fools' but that's for him to work out with Christ. I have no indication at all that he is interested in helping the lost and those without (Paul's) Gospel. I have no idea other than arrogance why he is in this effort at all. I have no idea what the practical or missional necessity of his theory is, except to exclude, and he does that extremely well.
So says the knucklehead who has Paul confused with Israel's mission - you.
No confusion at all.
Rom 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
Rom 9:2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
LA
Interplanner
Well-known member
I have no idea what you mean. If you know what you mean, you will be able to say it other ways. "Paul confused with Israel's mission." Hmmm. Paul is a person who eats, sleeps, etc. Israel's mission is what they were supposed to do when Messiah came. If your statement passes for clarity, fine. It does not for me.
Here...read this...slowly...
YOU...have...Paul...confused...with...Israel's mission...
- Status