closing threads

[felix]

St. Worm,

I actually didn't see that you had mentioned my name in the thread "Knowing God through his Spirit" where you say I become "nasty when cornered" and that I name-call. That's blatantly false. The name-calling part for sure is false.

Now before you all go "not this again", it's not about driving home a point or being egotistical. This is not directed to anyone else; this is to let you all know where I am coming from. If I disagree don't take it as if I'm being nasty or mean. If these things come down as too cold and hard then I'm sorry. But admonishment, from me at least, has no partiality and no favorites. Friend or Foe, acquaintance or stranger...I try to speak the same to everyone. I at least get my message across whether it's positive or negative.

I am zealous for justice and righteousness. I am eager for truth. If I am wrong, I am quick to acknowledge that and embrace the truth. If I believe someone is wrong I am quick to correct. There should be no pride in these things, it should just be for the defending of the truth as there is always a war going on where Satan is sowing weeds with the wheat. Don't take anything I say as some nasty or bitter attack at anyone. I speak the same to everyone. I may mistakenly not show compassion or patience when needed however; this is something I need to work on. But anyways, I wanted to make that clear.

I know I can never be right all the time as I make a lot of mistakes. No one can always be right. So what it comes down to is not about being right but about being able to accept when we are wrong. Whether we admit our error publicly or not, deep in our heart we need to know the truth. It would actually go better for you if you did admit your error to another member. God exalts humility. But at the very least admit it to yourself.

moderators,

I understand the burdens you have to bear though I don't share them with you. We know we can give these to Jesus and He will be the true moderator. I hope the Lord can show you all the great blessings in watching over this board. I know that it's probably a harder task to watch the over-zealous bunch (maybe like me) but much grace and strength to you all.

felix, below are your words in the thread where I thought you exhibited some not so subtle name calling and meanness when you implied that EricH and others who do not agree with you are pharisees. You seem to have trouble seeing your own sins but easily finding them in others.

sw

from felix:

Hello,

The pharisees and scribes knew the scriptures very well but they did not know Jesus Christ. Can you explain how "the understanding of inspiration as stated above is not correct from a biblical perspective"? I do know 2 Timothy 3:16 but I do not believe this is talking about every word being inspired...

2 Timothy 3:16

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

However, this is not every single word individually...it is "scripture". If every word in and of itself is the inspiration then what about all the other langauges of the world? The hebrew and greek are translated into many langauges. If every word was inspired then the original inspiration of each word cannot be correctly conveyed in all these languages.

I would strongly disagree with this classic understanding of inspiration that you are refering to. I speak mandarin Chinese at home and the same versions of bible in English and Chinese have totally different word structures and syntax. There is no way to convey the same original "inspiration" of each individual word of the scriptures. I think anyone who translates or is bilingual can understand this. Yet in Chinese or English...the same scriptures in any translation is ultimately what the Lord teaches me and what I store in my heart. Sometimes the Lord leads me to read a verse in one translation and then in another. The Holy Spirit is the teacher.

With this in mind, I would like re-emphasize the dialogue of Sadhu Singh from above. The bolded parts are what I comment on which is italicized.

God the Spirit is the true author of the Bible, but

this does not mean that every word, taken on its own (many words have different translations in different languages so words taken on its own is not necessarily inspired like the words "the", "of", and even some nouns/verbs in English cannot possibly be translated word by word in different languages),

is holy or inspired. It is not the words in themselves,

but rather the meaning that is inspired. The language

used by those who wrote the books of the Bible was

the language of everyday (I believe we can examine this if we talk to a greek linguist who knows the history of the greek language), not the language of spirit.

Only when we make direct contact with the author,

that is, with God the Spirit, can the meaning become

clear.(in my experience, when I have prayed over a verse has God revealed many things to me) Just as many do not understand the Master, so

too, they can not understand his words. (this is true of the pharisees and scribes recorded in the gospels...there are still modern-day "phariseess" and "scribes" in the Church today who know the scriptures but do not know Jesus Christ)

"The pharisees and scribes knew the scriptures very well but they did not know Jesus Christ." This is a fact. You are accusing me of subtle name-calling by implicating things. You say I "seem to have trouble seeing my own sins but easily finding them in others". That's your judgement on me. I was not "finding sin in others". The fact the pharisees and scribes knew the scriptures very well yet did not know Jesus Christ is true. It was not directed at EricH. I mention the scribes and pharisees in support of the entire premise (dialogue of Sadhu Singh) which is very clear.

If you weren't accusing EricH or those who disagree with you then why mention pharisees and scribes in your response and defense of your position? EricH offered a widely accepted concept and then you bring out the pharisee label in response. Why not just own what you said and why you said it? It was no coincidence. You were quoting a fact but you obviously had a reason to quote it.

sw

That's simply what you personally think. So what you're thinking in regards of me is that I mention the pharisees and scribes to "name-call" (for lack of better word) those who disagree with me. Honestly, God as the witness of my mind and heart, these were not directed at anyone. This was for the entire premise (each word on it own in scripture being inspired vs. the meaning of scripture being inspired). It's pretty clear if you read everything together. I had mention this same thing before.

I can understand your doubts but hopefully the following will take those away. You say " was quoting a fact but obviously had a reason to quote it". The reason for it was to support the premise between the words of Sadhu Singh vs. the classic understanding of inspiration. (though the scribes knew the words of scripture very well, they did not know the true messiah Jesus Christ) That was the reason for me quoting it. It is not to put someone down or direct personally to anyone as you may be thinking. I was never attacking EricH personally but the doctrine or concept of classical inspiration. If you still have doubts about my intentions I know that we can both believe that God is the almighty and righteous judge of everything.

As far as what I may have done wrong in my responses to people is that I need to be more gentle if I disagree with something or be more considerate of people's feelings. I should probably be more conscience of being tactful.

[germanJoy]

Benny Hinn.... ....eww!

micen2, this was just Nebula's reply to my "humorous" reaction of SW's wrong "judgement" that I read Benny Hinn's bible. The truth is I neither personally knew Benny Hinn nor ever read any of his writings. I saw him once or twice on T.V. praying for the sick but do not know much about him.

germanJoy

Edited July 10, 2006 by germanJoy

[Smalcald]

I have posted on a variety of forums. I personally respect the quick and efficient closing of threads. I don't think warning works because it means the moderators have to become judges deciding who should be warned. We all have a hard time seeing outside of ourselves. Thus a bright line rule of simply closing a thread that becomes too argumentative or personal I think is a good policy and rule. That way we all know the rule, we don't have to cry foul all of the time about why this guy got warned and I didn't etc, also it removes the perception of bias from the moderator.

I think the moderators are doing a good.

I think we will find unfortunately that it may be impossible for us to discuss some topics, but I could be surprised.

[other one]

It seems to me that some people start arguments and escalate them just to get threads closed.

[germanJoy]

Mark, I personally find it all right if the moderators decide to close the thread. It is their own discretion and I do accept it without resentments. My only regret is not having the opportunity to clarify the statement I made that was obviously misinterpreted by the one involved. When I used the word "moron", I intentionally chose the pronoun "us" which apparently included myself. My statement was: "let us neither be morons nor unbelievers but let us be christians." I have not intended in my heart either to exclude the person involved as being a christian or to exclude myself from not being a moron.

I do not know whether this is just what they call "mentality or cultural differences" but whatever it is, it could only be simply miscommunication or perhaps confusion.

Nevertheless, I am honored to know that you find my arguments interesting. Your posts are inspiring, too!

By the way, who is Benny Hinn?

Be favored and be blessed in the Lord,

germanJoy

Just for the record germanjoy, the following statement, which you conveniently left out, was made by you with regard to the term "moron""

"Sorry to tell you I venture to say that even a moron will be able to recognize its improbabilities."

This was said with regard to my disagreement with your interpretation of the parable. You also engaged in name calling. Why not just admit it and move on instead of playing innocent?

sw

Worm, I missed this one...got caught up with our heated discussions on the other thread which was closed again.

These were the records of how the moron was used.

You claimed that the 5 VIRGINS were unbelievers in the parables.

In the first parable Jesus is talking about believers versus unbelievers, not classes of believers.

This was my response:

Can you ever imagine an UNBELIEVER (one who REJECTS Christ) as a VIRGIN waiiting for her Bridegroom, Jesus Christ Himself? Sorry to tell you I venture to say that even a moron will be able to recognize its improbabilities. Let us be neither morons nor unbelieving but as mature christians, let us recognize that all 10 Virgins in the parable are BELIEVERS. Why? firstly, they were VIRGINS (pure and clean; washed by the blood of the Lamb). Secondly, they carry LAMPS (lthe ight of Christ shines through them). Thirdly, the 5 prudent had flasks of OIL (they were continuously in-filled with the Holy Spirit) while the 5 foolish had NO OIL (they refused to be filled with the Holy Spirit). And you know the rest of the story!

I disagreed and pointed out that these virgins can in no way be unbelievers (who rejected Christ) simply because they were "pure" virgins waiting for Jesus Christ. My argument was on an objective mode, not subjective. I was focusing on the correct interpretation of the Parable. I never treated you here as the subject, neither as a person nor as a believer. The Parable was my subject, the center of my message. Basing on this analysis, I tried to take a moron as an example of someone who will be able to comprehend that it is impossible for an an UNBELIEVER to wait for Jesus Christ. My intention was to convince you that THERE IS NO WAY to miscomprehend this parable. The moron was NEVER in my mind and in my heart intended to be DIRECTED at you but was just used to end up any contentions. Even if I have to stand up at the judgement seat of Christ now, I will hold on to the truthfulness and the sincerity of my words.

As for my own standard of understanding, to call names is to directly or indirectly say: you are a moron or you are like a moron or you are similar to a moron, etc. I cannot accept a wrongdoing which I have not done or be guilty as charged.

Nevertheless, I am sorry that you felt attacked by my words. Please forgive me on the injuries I caused. I hope this smily can cover-up my shortcomings.

Sincerely serving Christ,

germanJoy

Edited July 13, 2006 by germanJoy

[other one]

GermanJoy said, just a thought from a person reading through these threads I would disagree with you.

Metaphysically you did call Worm a moron actually dummer than a moron:

["Sorry to tell you I venture to say that even a moron will be able to recognize its improbabilities."]

actually from your point of view if he does not recognize these improbabliities he is dummer than a moron for a moron would see this.

"Words mean things" and we should be careful how we use them........

[st. Worm]

Mark, I personally find it all right if the moderators decide to close the thread. It is their own discretion and I do accept it without resentments. My only regret is not having the opportunity to clarify the statement I made that was obviously misinterpreted by the one involved. When I used the word "moron", I intentionally chose the pronoun "us" which apparently included myself. My statement was: "let us neither be morons nor unbelievers but let us be christians." I have not intended in my heart either to exclude the person involved as being a christian or to exclude myself from not being a moron.

I do not know whether this is just what they call "mentality or cultural differences" but whatever it is, it could only be simply miscommunication or perhaps confusion.

Nevertheless, I am honored to know that you find my arguments interesting. Your posts are inspiring, too!

By the way, who is Benny Hinn?

Be favored and be blessed in the Lord,

germanJoy

Just for the record germanjoy, the following statement, which you conveniently left out, was made by you with regard to the term "moron""

"Sorry to tell you I venture to say that even a moron will be able to recognize its improbabilities."

This was said with regard to my disagreement with your interpretation of the parable. You also engaged in name calling. Why not just admit it and move on instead of playing innocent?

sw

Worm, I missed this one...got caught up with our heated discussions on the other thread which was closed again.

These were the records of how the moron was used.

You claimed that the 5 VIRGINS were unbelievers in the parables.

In the first parable Jesus is talking about believers versus unbelievers, not classes of believers.

This was my response:

Can you ever imagine an UNBELIEVER (one who REJECTS Christ) as a VIRGIN waiiting for her Bridegroom, Jesus Christ Himself? Sorry to tell you I venture to say that even a moron will be able to recognize its improbabilities. Let us be neither morons nor unbelieving but as mature christians, let us recognize that all 10 Virgins in the parable are BELIEVERS. Why? firstly, they were VIRGINS (pure and clean; washed by the blood of the Lamb). Secondly, they carry LAMPS (lthe ight of Christ shines through them). Thirdly, the 5 prudent had flasks of OIL (they were continuously in-filled with the Holy Spirit) while the 5 foolish had NO OIL (they refused to be filled with the Holy Spirit). And you know the rest of the story!

I disagreed and pointed out that these virgins can in no way be unbelievers (who rejected Christ) simply because they were "pure" virgins waiting for Jesus Christ. My argument was on an objective mode, not subjective. I was focusing on the correct interpretation of the Parable. I never treated you here as the subject, neither as a person nor as a believer. The Parable was my subject, the center of my message. Basing on this analysis, I tried to take a moron as an example of someone who will be able to comprehend that it is impossible for an an UNBELIEVER to wait for Jesus Christ. My intention was to convince you that THERE IS NO WAY to miscomprehend this parable. The moron was NEVER in my mind and in my heart intended to be DIRECTED at you but was just used to end up any contentions. Even if I have to stand up at the judgement seat of Christ now, I will hold on to the truthfulness and the sincerity of my words.

As for my own standard of understanding, to call names is to directly or indirectly say: you are a moron or you are like a moron or you are similar to a moron, etc. I cannot accept a wrongdoing which I have not done or be guilty as charged.

Nevertheless, I am sorry that you felt attacked by my words. Please forgive me on the injuries I caused. I hope this smily can cover-up my shortcomings.

Sincerely serving Christ,

germanJoy

GJ, as sinners we find ways to insult each other and still try to give the appearance of innocence and piety. Sort of like the studio wrestler who rakes the eyes of his opponent with a chain when the referee's back is turned and then gives an innocent look afterwards.

At any rate I think we all do what you did from time to time and I accept your apology.

sw

[germanJoy]

GermanJoy said, just a thought from a person reading through these threads I would disagree with you.

Metaphysically you did call Worm a moron actually dummer than a moron:

["Sorry to tell you I venture to say that even a moron will be able to recognize its improbabilities."]

actually from your point of view if he does not recognize these improbabliities he is dummer than a moron for a moron would see this.

"Words mean things" and we should be careful how we use them........

Hey, other one. I as the author of what I wrote was clarifying my position on what I REALLY meant of what I said. You as JUST the reader are not in the position of making a FINAL WORD of what I think I said or I implied what I said. Your view is your own view, no more no less, but that does not represent the TRUTH. I as the AUTHOR have revealed the TRUTH BEHIND MY WORDS and NOTHING, not even your imaginations, interpretations or intellectual reasonings, CAN CHANGE THAT. PERIOD!!!

Worm, thank you for accepting my apologies. I agree sometimes I use words incorrectly by not having a deep thought of its consequences. Well, I guess I am one who knows how to learn from my mistakes. I thank our Lord that I was given the chance to clarify this matter with you.

germanJoy