xjwsforChrist

Dear, dear Pup... first, thank YOU for giving me the benefit of the doubt (I think - LOL!) and allowing me (I think) to clarify. Second, I think it would depend on who you ask. Since I THINK (but I could be wrong) that you're asking ME... it kinda isn't. To wit:



Oooh, no. No "you are wrong" whatsoever. This wasn't about "right" or "wrong" for ME. It was about truth and not so much. Unfortunately, that is what this is often about, though: folks seeing things from a who's right/who's wrong POV. Versus what is accurate and what is not.



Now that part was correct; however, that you perhaps don't see that you do does not make you "wrong." Just not seeing that. Now, I understand that we all think we see ourselves in the light of truth as "as we truly are." That's not always accurate either, though, is it? If you go back and read what you posted, maybe as perhaps another might, you might see that although you may not INTEND to see it as a competition, you do. Hence, your words to the effect "here we go again," etc. I did not mean to imply that you saw it as a competition between YOURSELF and another/others, though. Not at all.



Yes.



Not quite. You may not think you were offended but your comment indicated otherwise. You stated: "I cringe a bit when...". When one "cringe's" one's body language shows they "don't like" what they see... or hear. Because... it's offensive to them. Adding two and two (that you cringe when you hear the term "false scribes" and since the term "false scribes" WAS used I have to assume you cringed... and did so because it was offensive), I would say you were offended. Not GREATLY perhaps... but somewhat, definitely. Now, that you are able to let it PASS, and only be offended for, say, a moment, is very plausible. But IN THE MOMENT, based on your comment, you WERE offended, even if only slightly.



Not quite. First, I am not sure I'm understanding your use of the word "hence," here. It suggests that you took MY words to mean "You are defensive, therefore, no one here mentioned... lack of faith." Now you COULD have meant, that you took my words to mean "You are defensive ALTHOUGH no one here mentioned... lack of faith." But that would still be inaccurate. You (apparently) took offense because some use the term "false scribes"... perhaps because of what the connotation means to YOU. NOT because no one mentioned anything about a lack of faith.

Follow?

Second, you left off the word "specifically." The statement was "No one mentioned... lack of faith... specifically." And as far as I can see, no one did... or really even alluded to such. Again, one simply explained what HER faith called for... and another took offense at that (and she did, let's make no mistake about that, please). I didn't see any comments to the one who did take offense... which is what I found interesting, particularly given the often... nevermind. Let's leave it. No benefit in going there.



No, not see you taking sides. See you not addressing both sides, is all. Which I find curious.



No, again. I did not direct that at you. Dear Char knows I directed that at her. That's why she responded to it.



That is true. Again, because while on the one had you indicate by your comments that you WERE offended (even if only slightly), you STATE that you were not. Which is true, luv? Both can't be, as they are in opposition of one another.

If the paraphrase is correct then I will respond. If I'm off then please type it again and I will try to respond.

Well, I did my best. I don't think it needs re-typing (and I am sure the rest of the board hopes not! LOLOL!), so if this will suffice, great. Either way, please do respond if you feel compelled to. I will do what I can to further clarify from that, if necessary.



LOLOLOL! Nahhhhh... you ain't that scary, horned Rottweiler though you may be - LOLOL!

Again, peace to you!

Your servant and a slave of Christ,

Shellama

Dear, dear Pup... peace to you, thank YOU for allowing me to clarify, and MY apologies to you for even needing to.

YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

Shellama

Lol this thread got all weird it seems

It may be that I'm the "lukewarm" person that is spoken about in Revelations that is neither hot nor cold so deserves to be spit out ;p

Admittedly I have a very encompassing and wide approach in my understanding of religion but that more than likely comes from my background of growing up in a mixed religion household and environment.

The recent exchanges perhaps show how easily intent can be misunderstood and further clarification may be necessary before a person can come to a conclusion

_________________
To fear me is to love me....

Not all of my discussions with people take place on this forum in the public threads

As for being offended, what is offensive, etc...

Dodgeball

_________________
To fear me is to love me....

(((Pups))))

(If you snub that hug, the baby will eat you again)

I don't think that is the meaning of that verse so as to apply to you ; )

Peace and love,

tammy

I fear that baby...

_________________
To fear me is to love me....

Well. Great, I suppose. Tammy calls my faith into question. Shelby doubts my truthfulness.

No. Let's be really truthful. Tammy says I lack faith. Shelby says I am not truthful.

But I mustn't take offence. Right? In other words, Tammy and Shelby, who, the latter, emphasises that "we", meaning a group that apparently, to Shelby, excludes me, and possibly in her mind, the Puppy, this "we" like truth, implying that I ( I don't think that this particular slur was cast against Hellpuppy too), only I am favoured with being called a liar.

But I mustn't take offence.

What? Do I have you right? If so, I'll give up, because we must be talking a different language. In my language truth means what it says. In my world, calling another a liar is a grave slur. One Member of Parliament is not allowed to call another a liar. It is deemed unparliamentary language.

All my life I have fought for truth, worked to bring understanding between people. When I've even tried to explain what the RC Church really thinks as opposed to what bigotry and rumour have caused you to believe the reaction of this aforementioned collective "we" has been overwhelming, objecting that I was (in one memorable post by one of the collective) trying to make you Catholic!

Bilge. Hogswash!

No point, then, in my even trying to reply, it seems.

Pup said: Lol this thread got all weird

And yes, Pup I completely agree. These issues have been debated over and over in the past months as you've said. Why anyone is continually appearing shocked at others' spirituality, after months of engagement here, is certainly baffling.

Chariklo said: So, we have a church filled with the Holy Spirit, (whose Personhood you and others don't acknowledge) and you and other individuals talking, each in their own head, to a spirit they assume is Christ but with no external verifying evidence.

That, Tammy, is not faith. That is deluded recklessness of the highest order. Sorry to say it, but it is.

Thing is Chariklo, you can't have been here all this time and read the supporting scriptural evidence, to not understand that we DO indeed acknowledge the personhood of the Holy Spirit as Christ? We've all explained again and again that we are not 'talking in our heads' ...And then to accuse Tammy, and by extension us all, of "deluded recklessness of the highest order" you must be aware, on the basis of your intelligence, that this IS an attack on others' faith? Surely?

These circular arguments are beginning to dominate the forum. People answer challenges with valid scriptural evidence, which is mostly ignored, questions are asked of the challenger but ignored, then, offence is taken with an apparent inability to recognise why, despite it being explained, again and again.

Not only is it getting wearisome, not only are people getting attacked and hurt, but it keeps on being repeated, over and over, despite all attempts and apparent intent and desire for peace. It is almost as if there is no 'hearing' of what's being said.

I find it all very very strange to say the least. Strange and getting to be a bit spooky...

Peace
Loz x

_________________
"This is my son. LISTEN to Him!"

Yes. It is getting wearisome. I am totally fed up with it.

I corresponded with Tammy before arriving properly here. We each expressed our beliefs on the Holy Spirit and each agreed that the other's different beliefs caused us each no problem. Tammy was the last person from whom I expected to find the prevailing attitude. I didn't expect it at all from any of you!

How many times do I have to say that it doesn't matter to me what each of you think? You are right, Loz, hardly anyone hears. Let me rephrase that for accuracy. Hardly anyone actively vocal here hears, except for two. Maybe three.

So scriptures are quoted. So? So what?

What matters is the behaviour, the arrogance, of those who presume to judge that my faith, for example, lies in men, not Christ, and further, that, against all evidence, I am not truthful, (as opposed to the collective "we"). In other words, playing them and us. In other words, deciding who is "in" the group, and who isn't.

You didn't like the judgementalism of the JW's. You don't like racism. I do not like this anti-Catholic prejudice, anti all organised religion stance.

I came here drawn by a group who shared an experience within the WT, not that mine was exactly deep in, but at least who knew what it was, and who appeared to combine that with a strong faith in and commitment to Christ.

Instead, recently, I find myself in a group every bit as rigid in its thinking and condemnation of those who take a differing view. People who can't even recognise that if you are talking silently with Christ, without voice, that's in your head!

For goodness sake! Wake up!

See, you've done it again, you've misinterpreted my words and ignored the issues that relate to your confrontations about others' faith? Your words that I've quoted to you above, ARE in fact a direct attack on OUR faith. They prove that YOU ARE IN FACT JUDGING US. You DID attack Tammy, just as you have attacked others, previously.

Now you say "scriptures are quoted, so what?" Which suggests that you don't give any credence to their validity when they support OUR faith, and yet this thread's arguments have been about YOU advocating believing those same scriptures, even when they go against the truth from Christ, and the love of God. You aren't being consistent or logical at all.

Why are you trying to play the victim? You came here knowing what Shelby and Tec believed, it has never been hidden from anyone. You've been assured repeatedly that our opinions re the RCC are not personal to you, no one can deny that adverse opinions to them are valid, even their own members, the scriptures that you're now holding up (or not) testify to these opinions. They're not based on rumour or bigotry they're facts, and you know this. Still, you insist, as your quoted words above absolutely show, that you are intent on attacking others' faith here. WHY? If you don't want to have your own RCC challenged? WHY?

Trying to engage in debate with you currently, feels like wading through treacle. When you have no answers you resort to accusing us of WT thinking. Yet another attack, and an insulting one, repeatedly.

I mean no disrespect but it's becoming impossible to follow along on a linear logical path. You simply refuse, and cloud everything with a denial of reality, even to what you've recently posted yourself. Very odd and very spooky.

Loz x

And it's you who insists it's WITHOUT VOICE, Chariklo, not us.

_________________
"This is my son. LISTEN to Him!"

Loz, your signature says it all. It's all about you.

Ughhh. What's the point?

Evasion tactics again. Very sad.

I'm not engaging in another personal insult war, it's not kind and it's not clever. So much for the fake apology.

Loz x

_________________
"This is my son. LISTEN to Him!"

Loz, Loz, the person who makes it personal is yourself. Only you.

I don't choose to interact with you any further.

Loz, Loz, the person who makes it personal is yourself. Only you.

Lol, that's rich coming from Chariklo the victim, but you'll deny that in the next five minutes won't you?

Loz ....moving on...who sees all the manipulative game playing for what it is...

_________________
"This is my son. LISTEN to Him!"

I have the codex Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus too.
What I find fascinating about them is WHICH books/letters the compilers viewed as authoritative.

As for the "differences" from modern bibles, it depends on which ones you are referring to ( the most differences are found in the KJV and that is because that version is based solely on the Textus receptus which was based ONLY on the "majorial texts" and which had NO access to the vaticanus or sinaiticus).