ECT Trollphobia: the L'Abri doctrine of being open to questions

SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Danoh said:
Galatians 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Click to expand...

Paul knew from the beginning the eventual scope of his ministry. So?
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
2 Cor
12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
12:5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.
12:6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.
12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.



I know, I know, my 'approach' is off (somehow, yet it is undefinable)
 
D

Danoh

New member
SaulToPaul said:
2 Cor
12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
12:5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.
12:6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.
12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.



I know, I know, my 'approach' is off (somehow, yet it is undefinable)
Click to expand...

Sure is off.

In your obvious failure to follow the flow of Paul's thought; ending up at your own.

For I HAVE pointed this out BEFORE.

And look at how you ALWAYS soundbyte a thing as if that is supposed to prove your point.

You and I do not hold to the same views on these things. The result being that your sounbytes are no more going to cut it with me, than would pointing to someone and merely soundbyting the word "guilty" does, whenever any of your pals quickly jump their fool gun on such things.

Your verdict on one thing or another, STP, demands as much evidence presented to me or anyone else on here, as you demand of me or anyone else on here.

In other words, as I noted before, we are not even in the same page on that much.

And my apology to you if what I mentioned by Brackin may have led you to conclude I was attempting to discredit you.

I merely mentioned something of what he had noted about your take on a thing you had mentioned to him - towards my making my point to you.

If you assert a thing and someone says that you got it wrong, what are they actually saying?

Not this "it means what it says" of yours that you so often manifest you have read INTO another's words, rather, the question one might ask first - "what does the OVERALL flow their thought point to as to what is ACTUALLY being said by them?"

Brackin was basically stating that your approach on a thing he was talking about, was off somewhere.

The same thing I have found is still the case.

I have no animosity towards you.

None.

Why?

Rom. 5: 6-8 is why?
 
D

Danoh

New member
SaulToPaul said:
You need to learn to study out a thing properly.
Click to expand...

Given that just as various of your pals on here often prove, you also often prove your having been unable to understand where one poster or another is coming from (because your reading approach is obviously off somewhere), I seriously doubt your parroting my above back to me has any real weight behind it, coming from you.

I mean, I post my belief that you are obviously unable to see the obvious.

I give you the benefit of the doubt - due to my approach.

What do you post in return?

That I don't like what a passage says.

That is just dumb, on your part.

The dumbness your obvious mis-fire of an approach cannot but result in - your reading INTO a thing.

Fact is, I am fine with the passages, as they are.

My disagreement is with what I view as YOUR mis-interpretation of them.

And even that is not that big a deal.

For obviously at least we both hold to the basic fundamental that "Christ died for ours sins...and rose again for our justification."

Beyond that, you and I can not hope to see eye to eye on so many different things within the "MAD" you hold to, and vice-versa.

For we obviously so differ in study approach in many areas, that we might as well each be speaking in a different language.

So I give you a hard time about it.

But nowhere near how I deal with various of your pals on here.

You being one of the very few of your number on here I still have some respect for.

Along with other MADs on here I consider not of your group's number.

Doesn't mean I have to agree with your take on things.

Rom. 14:5; 5: 6-8.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Danoh said:
Given that just as various of your pals on here often prove, you also often prove your having been unable to understand where one poster or another is coming from (because your reading approach is obviously off somewhere), I seriously doubt your parroting my above back to me has any real weight behind it, coming from you.

I mean, I post my belief that you are obviously unable to see the obvious.

I give you the benefit of the doubt - due to my approach.

What do you post in return?

That I don't like what a passage says.

That is just dumb, on your part.

The dumbness your obvious mis-fire of an approach cannot but result in - your reading INTO a thing.

Fact is, I am fine with the passages, as they are.

My disagreement is with what I view as YOUR mis-interpretation of them.

And even that is not that big a deal.

For obviously at least we both hold to the basic fundamental that "Christ died for ours sins...and rose again for our justification."

Beyond that, you and I can not hope to see eye to eye on so many different things within the "MAD" hold to and vice-versa.

For we obviously so differ in study approach in many areas, that we might as well each be speaking in a different language.

So I give you a hard time about it.

But no where near how I deal with various of your pals on here.

You being one of the very few of your number on here I have still have respect for.

Along with other MADs on here I consider not of your group's number.

Doesn't mean I have to agree with your take on things.

Rom. 14:5; 5: 6-8.
Click to expand...

Obviously, your approach is off in this. Nevertheless, best to you and yours.
 
heir

heir

TOL Subscriber
Danoh said:
Given that just as various of your pals on here often prove, you also often prove your having been unable to understand where one poster or another is coming from (because your reading approach is obviously off somewhere), I seriously doubt your parroting my above back to me has any real weight behind it, coming from you.

I mean, I post my belief that you are obviously unable to see the obvious.

I give you the benefit of the doubt - due to my approach.

What do you post in return?

That I don't like what a passage says.

That is just dumb, on your part.

The dumbness your obvious mis-fire of an approach cannot but result in - your reading INTO a thing.

Fact is, I am fine with the passages, as they are.

My disagreement is with what I view as YOUR mis-interpretation of them.

And even that is not that big a deal.

For obviously at least we both hold to the basic fundamental that "Christ died for ours sins...and rose again for our justification."

Beyond that, you and I can not hope to see eye to eye on so many different things within the "MAD" you hold to, and vice-versa.

For we obviously so differ in study approach in many areas, that we might as well each be speaking in a different language.

So I give you a hard time about it.

But nowhere near how I deal with various of your pals on here.

You being one of the very few of your number on here I still have some respect for.

Along with other MADs on here I consider not of your group's number.

Doesn't mean I have to agree with your take on things.

Rom. 14:5; 5: 6-8.
Click to expand...
Someone really needs to set a word limit to your blathering. :yawn:
 
D

Danoh

New member
Right Divider said:
What's with all of his one sentence "paragraphs". His writing approach is way off.
Click to expand...

You're right about that. It is something I struggle with.

And but for the narrow minded, what drives that kind of thing has both its strengths and its weaknesses.

As is often the case with much in life.

Then again, I am not you and or various of your pals in the following either - you have each often taken personal issue whenever a thing is pointed out to you by anyone you have concluded is not of your number.

Which is narrow minded on your parts.

Rom. 5: 6-8.
 
heir

heir

TOL Subscriber
Right Divider said:
What's with all of his one sentence "paragraphs". His writing approach is way off.
Click to expand...
"Your reading approach is obviously off somewhere."

"The dumbness your obvious mis-fire of an approach cannot but result in - your reading INTO a thing."

Rarely, do any of them make sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top