SBG

I fully agree with this. Good call

cmar1965

Well, as is evident. I have complied. I have answered the vast majority of questions posed to me, by Trueblue and Chihuaua. They however, have ignored any return questions or answers and as mentioned before played the "avoidance" game. NO ONE Phil, benefits from avoidance, but that is all they tend to do. You would not stand for this type of avoidance by them on OTHER forums, so why is it OK in this one? WHY is it different?

I find it bizarre that many people on here, with professed "faitH" are searching or wanting to come to a "truth" as to the events of 911, when they themselves BELIEVE IN FAITH the spoonfed BS as to a "real' - walking/talking/sending pigs off cliffs, alleged "miracle worker", who's omnipotent, omnipresent etc...dad pre-ordained his alleged murder etc etc....

YOU guys in your "faith" make you just as bad as the plebs believing the "official" story as to 911, whom YOU all ridicule.

The "official" story of 911 is what will go down in history as being "official". That is just how the conformity works and you are all buying ONE brand of it, hook, line and sinker.

Certainly Phil, you do add volumous works as to vatican influence, based on the prior paganism ideals, mother/child etc and I agree, but you NEVER have in my interactions with you, brought forth ANY other information to show where YOUR own christian "faith" has allegedly come from.

So, if it is NOT from the catholic compiled work, circa 325CE, known as "the bible", where?

I suppose I am asking, which "holy bible" VERSION do you read as your "factual" point of reference?

That goes for you to little PUP and TB.

SBG

I was instructed not to preach, so Im out, may God pour out His Mercy and Grace upon you in your search for answers to your questions.
God Bless my friend.

Phil Jayhan

77, you have gotten the wrong spirit about what I requested. And it was not only to you but to Cmar as well. Preaching is bringing in fire and brimstone and God have mercy on your soul and all that stuff. I did however admonish you to polish your arguments, to refine them, to research things first hand, which takes much time, and to engage in a fair and open debate of ideas.

All I basically said is the way you were going about your arguments was wrong;

Paul admonished everyone believer to Persuade others of the truth...

And look at his speech on Mars Hill, in Rome! He didn't say anything in the least bit to be offensive, and didn't bring fire and brimstone and God have mercy on yoursouls and all that stuff. But he did, and quite successfully I might add, persuade many that the "Unknown God" was the Lord Jesus Christ. And I expect you to do likewise, without the 'preachy stuff' of fire and brimstone.

Paul said he admonished every man and woman, persuading them of a more excellent way. And did this through teaching about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I expect you to do the same. For every cheap question and cheap shot thrown at you, it will take 3 hours of research t answer them without cheap "outs" like fire and brimstone. Are you up to the challenge? I think that you are! If it is a "more excellent way" than can it not be done without the aid of fire and brimstone and phrases, so worn out with use, such as; "God have mercy on your souls...???"

Paul persuaded people of the truth. I cannot ever find a single example of him bullying people [Preaching] by the use of fire and brimstone type stuff. Look at his speech on Mars Hill, and how he artfully used what he had knowledge of, and persuaded people of the resurrection of Christ and the unfathomable and unending love of God, which he has toward us in Christ Jesus.

So I ask you to take up the debate, and rise to the occasion, and learn the things you need to know to be able to persuade people thusly. It takes more work, more research, but it is well worth the struggle.

Now, follow Paul's example, and go and do likewise!

cheers-
phil

__________________
Phil Jayhan 9/11 Blog | Phil Jayhan v666 Blog | Frederick Bastiats Audio of "The Law"

"In disquisitions of every kind there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasoning must depend." --Alexander Hamilton

SBG

Hey bro, I had to take a look at all the Fire and brimestone preaching I was said to have done, I didnt see any of that, I never mentioned souls going to hell, or anything, I did mention satan and how he likes to trick and decive folks. I spoke about how Jesus was real, and spoke about absolutes and truth. oh and I mentioned sin.
One thing easy going preachers dont talk about today is sin, people hate to talk about sin. We all know why but other than that Im not sure that I was preaching, I dont even have a degree and have never gone to a seminary.... that was a joke btw tryin to livein things up hey?

Phil Jayhan

My bad and my apologies. After a few days my memory remembered this different than you wrote it;

My apologies. But I still say to you to not give up, but simply to change a little bit your approach. Thats all.

cheers-
phil

__________________
Phil Jayhan 9/11 Blog | Phil Jayhan v666 Blog | Frederick Bastiats Audio of "The Law"

"In disquisitions of every kind there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasoning must depend." --Alexander Hamilton

SBG

I hear you brother.

stannrodd

LH ..77,

You seem to have a fixation on a particular definition of the word preach. Perhaps I used the wrong term when I made the moderator comment in this thread. But first please refresh your memory by re-reading this part of the PM that I wrote to you in the first place, in which I explained the point quite clearly to you.

This is the post I was referring to and to me it is verging on preaching. It was better, I felt, to give you the opportunity to participate here in a fair and more appropriate manner, and leave the post in tact as a gentle reminder to all.



Anyway, you chose to ignore this advice and continued in the same style, and are now challenging whether you were preaching or not. Please stay on topic and refrain from hijacking the thread with this self interest. I think we would all prefer it, if you dropped this line of discussion, and moved forward in a positive manner.

Neutral definition of Preaching .. To give advice in a tedious or obtrusive manner.

Now I'm preaching

Thank you
Stann

__________________
It riles them to believe
That you perceive
The web they weave ..
And keep on thinking free...

Graeme Edge

SBG

I think Phill already covered it buddy, thanks for your advice tho.
This reminds me of "Office Space" where you got 8 different people telling you the same thing, its a waste of forum space I would think. Its like one of those darn TPS reports.
Thanks a bunch Milton.... Thas my stapler.

cmar1965

Chihuaua,

Now the semantics have been discussed, how about you actually answer the questions I posed to you, rather than use the diversionary tactics you have been?

You make the extraordinary claim, so where is the evidence, other than the bible that "jc" EVER LIVED as a walking, talking, wooden-object making etc etc etc human "morph" of the "god" of Judaism?

Also, which versions of the bible are your chosen "TRUTH"? NIV? KJV? Which one?

THAT goes for Phil and Trueblue as well. Also TB, still waiting on your "take" on the Jung quotes you selected.

You quoting thise sentences out of context is just as bad as church heirachy pulling selected verses contextually out of sync, out of their butts to make some lame point, which has in the main ZIP to do with the entire context.

Perhaps, as you quite obviously have NO CLUE as to what was meant BY them, you could perhaps explain WHY you produced them?

The way I see it, ANYONE choosing to stick their head into a debate, should cover the content and answer Q's asked. I HAVE DONE THAT, but it seems no one else has. Debate is supposed to be Point made, rebuttle to point made, and not diversion of point or avoidance OF point, then other tangents off again, to take it even further off track.

The quote I posted earlier, actuallly SHOWS the reality. "Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits