Did Jesus Christ Sin? (Poll)

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Teenaged
Teenaged

31764

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#301 Teenaged
Member since 2007 • 31764 Posts

[QUOTE="iowastate"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

I don't accept that premise. There are over 4000 Old Testament manuscripts or fragments. 25,000 New Testament manuscripts or fragments, thousands of lectionaries, numerous early Bible versions, and thousands of writings from the early Church leaders, that support the text we have today. In fact, the entire New Testament can be reconstructed, minus about a dozen verses from the writing of the early Church leaders, alone. This evidence supports the text we have today to an over 95% accuracy. The differences are mainly in punctuation and spelling and none of the differences affect any important Christian doctrine.

Here is some more information.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-corrupted.html

blackregiment

Sorry I can't accept a biased anti-Catholic web site as giving accurate evidence. It either either represents all Christians or no Christians - you can't pick and choose denominations.

That is your choice. You can also participate in the logical fallacies of poisoning the well and guilt by association if you choose to as well.

Have a nice day.

There are several choices in debates. Posting biased sources is one and another is not accpeting them as valid. I'll take the second as acceptable.

*Bon Jovi jams his guitar...*

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180251

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#302 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 180251 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

The question wasn't whether or not I'd do it, the question was to name a situation that could cause a rift with myself and I have done so. If I were to choose to kill the child, I would cause a rift with myself. Question answered.

tycoonmike

No you haven't. You have to do it to create the rift. Nonetheless, since you are doing the action then you are NOT disobeying yourself.

Even though to do so would involve disobeying my code or morals and, by extension, myself?

If you do an action then it's not disobeying though. Code and morals adapt to situations. For instance....killing is wrong. I think we agree on that but killing in self defense is not though it may cause you some discomfort that it had to be done.

Avatar image for Teenaged
Teenaged

31764

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#303 Teenaged
Member since 2007 • 31764 Posts

Here's a novel thought. no one asked you to "accept" anything.

...

blackregiment

So the opinion of others does matter to you....?

Yay!!!

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180251

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#304 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 180251 Posts

There are several choices in debates. Posting biased sources is one and another is not accpeting them as valid. I'll take the second as acceptable.

*Bon Jovi jams his guitar...*

Teenaged

You had me until you mentioned Bon Jovi.:(

Avatar image for blackregiment
blackregiment

11937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#305 blackregiment
Member since 2007 • 11937 Posts

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]He doesn't consider Catholics Christian....or so he told me....the reason I cannot fathom.

LJS9502_basic

Again you persist in making untrue statements. I have not said that Catholics are not Christians. You are confusing me with another poster, probably intentionally due to your continued hostility towards Biblical Christians. What I have said is that there is a difference in Biblical Christianity and the teachings and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. Even the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges this. Denominations do not matter. What is important is that one places their total trust and faith in Christ alone and His finished work on the cross for their salvation, and not in works or any Church, or man-made traditions.

I have also offered to debate you on this issue three different times and you have not accepted the challenge. The offer is still open. Make that four challenges now.

I have said on numerous occasions that there are many well-intentioned Catholics that love and are sincerely trying to serve the Lord.

Stop making things up.

Actually you have. The first time I encountered you in OT.:)

I've debated you in these threads. How strange that you think that doesn't count. I bolded what I consider to be a condescending comment.

Edit: By the way I only feel apathy toward Biblical Christians...so stop making things up.

Well, you are incorrect I haven't and my statement was not condescending, it was honest. You do seem to have a propensity for twisting one's words, however, so I can see how you would "deem" it condescending if that suits your purpose.

I understand why Wycliffe, the Waldeseans, and Tyndale, faced what they faced and why the whole reformation happened.

Let me know when you are up for that debate.

Avatar image for Teenaged
Teenaged

31764

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#306 Teenaged
Member since 2007 • 31764 Posts

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

There are several choices in debates. Posting biased sources is one and another is not accpeting them as valid. I'll take the second as acceptable.

*Bon Jovi jams his guitar...*

LJS9502_basic

You had me until you mentioned Bon Jovi.:(

What do you mean I had you?

I just posted Bon Jovi because of the song "have a nice day" in response to BR's quote. :P

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180251

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#308 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 180251 Posts

Well, you are incorrect I haven't and my statement was not condescending, it was honest. You do seem to have a propensity for twisting one's words however.

Let me know when you are up for that debate.

blackregiment

I'm sure we can produce users that noticed that comment of yours.....or I go spend time looking into my posting history. Thus, even if you deleted it I would have it in a quote. When did you start posting in OT? I have lots of posts and I'd rather do it the easy way.

I don't twist anything. I see the motivations behind the words.

We have debated. I don't know why you want to twist that we haven't.:roll:

Avatar image for tycoonmike
tycoonmike

6082

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#309 tycoonmike
Member since 2005 • 6082 Posts

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No you haven't. You have to do it to create the rift. Nonetheless, since you are doing the action then you are NOT disobeying yourself.

LJS9502_basic

Even though to do so would involve disobeying my code or morals and, by extension, myself?

If you do an action then it's not disobeying though. Code and morals adapt to situations. For instance....killing is wrong. I think we agree on that but killing in self defense is not though it may cause you some discomfort that it had to be done.

It's not in self defense though. The child, on its own, did not threaten me. It's not as though the child held a knife to my throat. The consequence of its crying is what threatened me.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180251

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#310 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 180251 Posts

It's not in self defense though. The child, on its own, did not threaten me. It's not as though the child held a knife to my throat. The consequence of its crying is what threatened me.

tycoonmike

Well actually I wasn't using your example but in reality the child's crying...thus the child...threatened your survival. Survival is the most basic instinct for any animal.

Anyway I was hoping you'd notice the dichotomy between the theological definition and the general idea. Because they are different.

Avatar image for MarkSmith
MarkSmith

31168

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#312 MarkSmith
Member since 2002 • 31168 Posts

I don't know if he did or didn't. I just try to focus on his teachings, because I think they contain some great advice and moral instruction regardless of whether or not he was born of a virgin, risen from the dead, capable of walking on water, etc.

If any of his miracles really did happen, we still don't have any proof, so it would be no more logical to accept oral accounts of them than it would be to accept oral accounts of the miracles of Zeus or Thor.

Avatar image for esb1118
esb1118

2661

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#313 esb1118
Member since 2007 • 2661 Posts
If he existed, yes he did, he was just a man like any other... Darth-Caedus
You can't deny that Jesus existed whether you follow a religion or not.
Avatar image for blackregiment
blackregiment

11937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#314 blackregiment
Member since 2007 • 11937 Posts

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Well, you are incorrect I haven't and my statement was not condescending, it was honest. You do seem to have a propensity for twisting one's words however.

Let me know when you are up for that debate.

LJS9502_basic

I'm sure we can produce users that noticed that comment of yours.....or I go spend time looking into my posting history. Thus, even if you deleted it I would have it in a quote. When did you start posting in OT? I have lots of posts and I'd rather do it the easy way.

I don't twist anything. I see the motivations behind the words.

We have debated. I don't know why you want to twist that we haven't.:roll:

Look, I am not going to play your games. I try avoid responding to your comments when you come on threads and start making comments about Biblical Christians. Often, no one is even discussing the Roman Catholic Church and you start in on Biblical Christians anyway.

The bottom lie is this. If you want to debate, I will let you into the BBU as a member for the debate and we can debate dozens of issues regarding the differences in Biblical Christianity and Roman Cathoic teachings, all based on Scripture. Let me know when you are ready.

Avatar image for crazboy84
crazboy84

146

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#315 crazboy84
Member since 2009 • 146 Posts

Christ lived a life without sin, he could not of taken on the burden of mans sin if he himself had sinned because he is the only man who ever lived without sin.

Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#316 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts
Look, I am not going to play your games. I try avoid responding to your comments when you come on threads and start making comments about Biblical Christians. Often, no one is even discussing the Roman Catholic Church and you start in on Biblical Christians anyway.blackregiment
Oh, poor you. LJ is bullying 'Biblical Christians', whereas you would never complain about his denomination. Oh, wait, you do. All the time. You even have a thread devoted to it on your union.
Avatar image for MarkSmith
MarkSmith

31168

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#317 MarkSmith
Member since 2002 • 31168 Posts

Christ lived a life without sin, he could not of taken on the burden of mans sin if he himself had sinned because he is the only man who ever lived without sin.

crazboy84

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Avatar image for pianist
pianist

18900

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#319 pianist
Member since 2003 • 18900 Posts

And your choice of what reading material you post at GS also speaks to the nature of your beliefs as well. Here's a little snippet you posted earlier from some evangelism article:

"Preaching the gospel and defending the Christian faith is a duty and glorious privilege. While it can be intimidating at times, it is also easy. We minister in the full assurance of the absolute truthfulness of the Gospel and the bankruptcy of every other position, knowing that in Christ "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col 2:3)."

If you disagree with the assertion that you know the Gospel is absolutely true and that every other position is bankrupt, say so now. If you do not, it will provide yet another piece of evidence that you have no interest in discussion, only in forcing your belief system into the spotlight. In other words, advertising.

As for the union itself, one need look no further than here or here to see with absolute certainty that your union's primary intent is to evangelize. Even the very name of your union implies evangelism is the goal. The Christian WITNESS Union. Evangelism is purposeful religious advertising, with the primary goal being presentation of ideas, not the discussion of them. Further evidence for this simple fact can be found in the posting styIe of your members. Bible verses can be found in the majority of your posts, and they are not presented with the goal of discussion or interpretation, but rather as forceful validation of the claim that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Similarly, you very often post articles from such organizations as icr.org with no discussion or explanation. You don't have to say it directly, and I don't need to "know your heart" to understand exactly how you feel and why you are posting in OT. I also don't need to be especially astute to understand that you have no intention of engaging in meaningful discussion or consideration of any viewpoint but your own. Rather, your intention is to present your message as undebatable truth.

Answering questions and planting the seeds of faith would be perfectly fine if people came to your union of their own volition and asked those questions themselves. But you don't operate that way. You aggressively promote your religion by posting these evangelism threads (clearly defined as such by the disclaimer Crushmaster posts in his original posts) that masquerade as discussion topics to deviously avoid the anti-advertising guidelines presented by this site. And if you want to know why people find that irritating, you need look no further than the contempt you so very frequently demonstrate in your CWU posts towards those who oppose you and your beliefs.

So I'd really like to know, BR... how is it not PAINFULLY clear that your mission and your union's mission is to advertise Christianity, in contradiction to the TOS which forbids such advertising, and in contradiction to the new religious discussion guidelines which forbid the creation of topics which have a sole purpose of telling everyone who does not agree with you that they are wrong? Disguised as they may be, that is the intent. If it is not, then I challenge you to say, right here and now, that you acknowledge you may be wrong with respect to your understanding of Christianity or your interpretation of scripture. If you will not do that, then you are a liar when you claim you are interested in open discussion, which is what this forum is supposed to be about. You and your members creating threads that state "What God do you believe in? I know the God of the Bible is the one true God and know that the Bible is absolute truth" is akin to me creating a thread stating "What music do you think is the best? I know cIassical music is the best." There is no discussion to be found in topics such as these.

Now, onto the next little bit of business - the fact that you do not respect the new religious discussion guidelines. In addition to several threads that have been posted in the CWU since they were introduced, which all do nothing more than complain about the fact that GS finally decided to crack down on your union's blatant proselytizing, we have quotes like this:

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

If we are forced into silence, unless we accept and express in our discussions that all beliefs are equally valid, then we are being forced to disobey our Lord and Savior. I can tell you, this is something I will not do. blackregiment

Problem is... if you don't accept that you may be wrong and create threads to bluntly state you are right, you are willfully breaking the religious discussion guidlelines. Elsewhere, you state that you have no intention of breaking the TOS and will attempt to adhere to the new discussion guidelines. So which is it? Let me take a wild stab and say you are more concerned about the Lord and Savior than you are about the new religious discussion guidelines, which you oppose at every turn in the discussion threads regarding them in your union. You are correct that you are being "forced" to stop presenting your personal beliefs as fact through the repeated creation of these sorts of topics. The real problem lies in the very nature of what your union does, and the fact that its very purpose is in contradiction to the TOS's no-advertising rules. You can't avoid that.

And finally, with respect to the negative attention your union receives:

We should, in all areas, follow Christ. Be it in how we talk, how we look, how we dress, what we think about, what we do - all things we do should be done in a Christ-like manner; a holy manner. And that, of course, includes suffering patiently and in silence. After all, we will be rewarded for it, if we do it for the right reasons. Crushmaster

(John 15:19) - "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."

A lot of Christian seems surprised when we face persecution for living like we should. But the Bible tells us to expect it! Crushmaster

I have no doubt that you, too, agree with this, because there's a Bible quote involved. Now, if you felt ashamed of your behaviour, you would stop doing it. So it stands to reason that you are not ashamed of your behaviour, but rather revel in and anticipate negative attention. In your discussion with SkylinePigeon, you subtly and repeatedly attacked her (as you are so want to do), finishing up by stating that you believe that you would be "convicted of believing in Christianity" but implying she would not be. And again, I don't have to be especially astute to realize that a big part of the reason you believe that is because you evangelize and "face persecution" while she does not.

So, do you not revel in the negative attention you receive? Do you not see it as 'proof' that you are right and your detractors are wrong, based on the Biblical verses that declare Christians should expect persecution?

As you have said time and time again, our beliefs do not determine reality. You're right. And so I don't care if you don't accept my premises. A simple examination of the evidence tells a person all he needs to know about you and the CWU. It's ironic that you so often cry foul and "PERSECUTION!" whenever your union is confronted for its disregard of the TOS no-advertising rules, because truth be told, if the CWU were peddling anything BUT religious beliefs, it would have been closed down almost immediately. Political correctness - the same political correctness that you so often malign - is why your union is still in business.

Avatar image for blackregiment
blackregiment

11937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#320 blackregiment
Member since 2007 • 11937 Posts

pianist,

You can "label" our sharing of and defending our faith "advertising" all you want, but that does not make it so. It is not advertising. Also we obey our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, not you.

The TOS clearly state that they want posters to be free to share their beliefs and discuss them, whatever those might be. That includes Biblical Christians. It appears to me that you seem to want to exclude Biblical Christians from having that same freedom to discuss and defend their beliefs. Biblical Christian in these threads have not told others that they are not free to share or discuss their beliefs.You are arguing against a strawman that you have created.

"We expect all such threads to be opened in a civil manner promoting and accepting discussion on all sides of the issue."

If anyone seems to be attempting to silence or exclude a group that holds certain beliefs from discussing their "side of the issue", them, it appears to be you.

Why is that?

1 Pe 3:15But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

1Pe 3:16Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

1Pe 3:17For itis better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

You mentioned something about being ashamed. Let me reassure you, I am not ashamed of the Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ.

Rom 1:16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Avatar image for pianist
pianist

18900

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#321 pianist
Member since 2003 • 18900 Posts

The bottom lie is this. If you want to debate, I will let you into the BBU as a member for the debate and we can debate dozens of issues regarding the differences in Biblical Christianity and Roman Cathoic teachings, all based on Scripture. Let me know when you are ready.

blackregiment

The ironic thing is that this would be a great discussion topic for here on OT, as opposed to the threads your union usually posts here. A debate which surrounds the differences between Biblical Christianity and Catholicism could generate interesting discussion. So why do it at the BBU?

Avatar image for Teenaged
Teenaged

31764

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#322 Teenaged
Member since 2007 • 31764 Posts

"We expect all such threads to be opened in a civil manner promoting and accepting discussion on all sides of the issue."

If anyone seems to be attempting to silence or exclude a group that holds certain beliefs from discussing their "side of the issue", them, it appears to be you.

Why is that?

....

blackregiment

No because you see the case is that those threads promote only "your side of the issue" and we dont like that. Just clarifying because you didnt get it right at first.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180251

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#323 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 180251 Posts

Look, I am not going to play your games. I try avoid responding to your comments when you come on threads and start making comments about Biblical Christians. Often, no one is even discussing the Roman Catholic Church and you start in on Biblical Christians anyway.

The bottom lie is this. If you want to debate, I will let you into the BBU as a member for the debate and we can debate dozens of issues regarding the differences in Biblical Christianity and Roman Cathoic teachings, all based on Scripture. Let me know when you are ready.

blackregiment

I didn't mention Biblical Christians you did. Stop projecting dude.

Avatar image for blackregiment
blackregiment

11937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#324 blackregiment
Member since 2007 • 11937 Posts

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

"We expect all such threads to be opened in a civil manner promoting and accepting discussion on all sides of the issue."

If anyone seems to be attempting to silence or exclude a group that holds certain beliefs from discussing their "side of the issue", them, it appears to be you.

Why is that?

....

Teenaged

No because you see the case is that those threads promote only "your side of the issue" and we dont like that. Just clarifying because you didnt get it right at first.

You are totally free to express your beliefs and defend them in these threads. No one is telling you that you cannot. If you choose not to, that is your decision. You cannot lay the blame on Christians for your choice not to express, discuss, and defend your beliefs.

Anyone can plainly see that the real issue is not a lack of freedom for others to express, discuss, and defend their faith, it is really about a desire to silence Biblical Christians that choose to share and discuss their beliefs.

Avatar image for blackregiment
blackregiment

11937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#325 blackregiment
Member since 2007 • 11937 Posts

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Look, I am not going to play your games. I try avoid responding to your comments when you come on threads and start making comments about Biblical Christians. Often, no one is even discussing the Roman Catholic Church and you start in on Biblical Christians anyway.

The bottom lie is this. If you want to debate, I will let you into the BBU as a member for the debate and we can debate dozens of issues regarding the differences in Biblical Christianity and Roman Catholic teachings, all based on Scripture. Let me know when you are ready.

LJS9502_basic

I didn't mention Biblical Christians you did. Stop projecting dude.

Have you penciled in a time for that debate yet, dude?

Avatar image for pianist
pianist

18900

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#326 pianist
Member since 2003 • 18900 Posts

pianist,

You can "label" our sharing of and defending our faith "advertising" all you want, but that does not make it so. It is not advertising. Also we obey our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, not you.

The TOS clearly state that they want posters to be free to share their beliefs and discuss them, whatever those might be. That includes Biblical Christians. It appears to me that you seem to want to exclude Biblical Christians from having that same freedom to discuss and defend their beliefs. Biblical Christian in these threads have not told others that they are not free to share or discuss their beliefs.You are arguing against a strawman that you have created.

"We expect all such threads to be opened in a civil manner promoting and accepting discussion on all sides of the issue."

If anyone seems to be attempting to silence or exclude a group that holds certain beliefs from discussing their "side of the issue", them, it appears to be you.

Why is that?

1 Pe 3:15But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

1Pe 3:16Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

1Pe 3:17For itis better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

You mentioned something about being ashamed. Let me reassure you, I am not ashamed of the Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ.

Rom 1:16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

blackregiment

I'm not going to waste any more time demonstrating how and why the CWU's activities are in violation of the TOS, nor will I point out the obvious differences between evangelizing and discussing. No one who is not a member of your union will fail to understand the truth in what I have posted. It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180251

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#327 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 180251 Posts

Have you penciled in a time for that debate yet, dude?

blackregiment

I'm generally in the religion threads....so we've debated. In addition, I'm sure we will again in the future. Why you persist in saying we haven't is beyond me.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180251

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#328 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 180251 Posts

I'm not going to waste any more time demonstrating how and why the CWU's activities are in violation of the TOS, nor will I point out the obvious differences between evangelizing and discussing. No one who is not a member of your union will fail to understand the truth in what I have posted. It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

pianist

Indeed. I concur avatar I know not....

Avatar image for Teenaged
Teenaged

31764

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#329 Teenaged
Member since 2007 • 31764 Posts

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

"We expect all such threads to be opened in a civil manner promoting and accepting discussion on all sides of the issue."

If anyone seems to be attempting to silence or exclude a group that holds certain beliefs from discussing their "side of the issue", them, it appears to be you.

Why is that?

....

blackregiment

No because you see the case is that those threads promote only "your side of the issue" and we dont like that. Just clarifying because you didnt get it right at first.

You are totally free to express your beliefs and defend them in these threads. No one is telling you that you cannot. If you choose not to, that is your decision. You cannot lay the blame on Christians for your choice not to express, discuss, and defend your beliefs.

Anyone can plainly see that the real issue is not a lack of freedom for others to express, discuss, and defend their faith, it is really about a desire to silence Biblical Christians that choose to share and discuss their beliefs.

Hm, I dont want to repeat myself but you do remember my long post in a previous evangelising thread. I dont care if it was deleted for moderation; the point was for you to read it. My opinion on the evangelising efforts done in GS are all there. I am sure you read it and you know by now.

To sum it up like I have said many times (and of course not just me but many others before me) the threads do not promote discussion in the least. Care to remember a previous thread created where Crushmaster was setting restrictions as to who should post and what they should post?

Or the plenty times when you yourself first have turned the discussion about the users themselves and not the discussion at hand? Or many many other things.

But the point is that of course you cannot directly tell me to leave the thread because you know you do not have the power; no one has the power to throw someone out of a discussion so I find your response quite redundant.

(RED) Anyone? Wait that must be only about 5 people in GS in reality....

Avatar image for Head_of_games
Head_of_games

10859

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#330 Head_of_games
Member since 2007 • 10859 Posts
If he sinned, then he would not be Jesus "christ", just "Jesus". Therefore, it is logically impossible for the answer to your question to be no.
Avatar image for blackregiment
blackregiment

11937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#331 blackregiment
Member since 2007 • 11937 Posts

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

The bottom lie is this. If you want to debate, I will let you into the BBU as a member for the debate and we can debate dozens of issues regarding the differences in Biblical Christianity and Roman Cathoic teachings, all based on Scripture. Let me know when you are ready.

pianist

The ironic thing is that this would be a great discussion topic for here on OT, as opposed to the threads your union usually posts here. A debate which surrounds the differences between Biblical Christianity and Catholicism could generate interesting discussion. So why do it at the BBU?

So it will be just me, him and Scripture, one on one, without disruptive comments. It could be viewed by anyone that wanted to. It would go on for quite a while because there are well over a dozen or two areas we would cover.

Avatar image for Teenaged
Teenaged

31764

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#332 Teenaged
Member since 2007 • 31764 Posts

If he sinned, then he would not be Jesus "christ", just "Jesus". Therefore, it is logically impossible for the answer to your question to be no.Head_of_games
Do you know what Christ means?

Avatar image for ps3thabest
ps3thabest

524

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#333 ps3thabest
Member since 2007 • 524 Posts

Who knows. No one on here has met him.

Avatar image for battlefront23
battlefront23

12625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#334 battlefront23
Member since 2006 • 12625 Posts

No.

Avatar image for Teenaged
Teenaged

31764

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#335 Teenaged
Member since 2007 • 31764 Posts

[QUOTE="pianist"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

The bottom lie is this. If you want to debate, I will let you into the BBU as a member for the debate and we can debate dozens of issues regarding the differences in Biblical Christianity and Roman Cathoic teachings, all based on Scripture. Let me know when you are ready.

blackregiment

The ironic thing is that this would be a great discussion topic for here on OT, as opposed to the threads your union usually posts here. A debate which surrounds the differences between Biblical Christianity and Catholicism could generate interesting discussion. So why do it at the BBU?

So it will be just me, him and Scripture, one on one, without disruptive comments. It could be viewed by anyone that wanted to. It would go on for quite a while because there are well over a dozen or two areas we would cover.

Do you want me to announce the rounds and the hitpoints? :?

Avatar image for Head_of_games
Head_of_games

10859

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#336 Head_of_games
Member since 2007 • 10859 Posts

[QUOTE="Head_of_games"]If he sinned, then he would not be Jesus "christ", just "Jesus". Therefore, it is logically impossible for the answer to your question to be no.Teenaged

Do you know what Christ means?

As I recall it was a variation of of "Messiah". I don't think it was his real last name, but rather a title.
Avatar image for blackregiment
blackregiment

11937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#337 blackregiment
Member since 2007 • 11937 Posts

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Have you penciled in a time for that debate yet, dude?

LJS9502_basic

I'm generally in the religion threads....so we've debated. In addition, I'm sure we will again in the future. Why you persist in saying we haven't is beyond me.

We have danced around the fringes on a few things but I am talking about getting into the heart of the matter, the real meat of the issue, without a lot of posts in between, so nothing is missed.

Avatar image for Teenaged
Teenaged

31764

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#338 Teenaged
Member since 2007 • 31764 Posts

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Head_of_games"]If he sinned, then he would not be Jesus "christ", just "Jesus". Therefore, it is logically impossible for the answer to your question to be no.Head_of_games

Do you know what Christ means?

As I recall it was a variation of of "Messiah". I don't think it was his real last name, but rather a title.

It means "the anointed".

This title of his only shows that there is divine influence in his person.

Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#339 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts

[QUOTE="pianist"]

I'm not going to waste any more time demonstrating how and why the CWU's activities are in violation of the TOS, nor will I point out the obvious differences between evangelizing and discussing. No one who is not a member of your union will fail to understand the truth in what I have posted. It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

LJS9502_basic

Indeed. I concur avatar I know not....

His previous avatar has had botox :P [spoiler] Okay, so it's just a younger picture D: [/spoiler]
Avatar image for blackregiment
blackregiment

11937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#340 blackregiment
Member since 2007 • 11937 Posts

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]No because you see the case is that those threads promote only "your side of the issue" and we dont like that. Just clarifying because you didnt get it right at first.

Teenaged

You are totally free to express your beliefs and defend them in these threads. No one is telling you that you cannot. If you choose not to, that is your decision. You cannot lay the blame on Christians for your choice not to express, discuss, and defend your beliefs.

Anyone can plainly see that the real issue is not a lack of freedom for others to express, discuss, and defend their faith, it is really about a desire to silence Biblical Christians that choose to share and discuss their beliefs.

Hm, I dont want to repeat myself but you do remember my long post in a previous evangelising thread. I dont care if it was deleted for moderation; the point was for you to read it. My opinion on the evangelising efforts done in GS are all there. I am sure you read it and you know by now.

To sum it up like I have said many times (and of course not just me but many others before me) the threads do not promote discussion in the least. Care to remember a previous thread created where Crushmaster was setting restrictions as to who should post and what they should post?

Or the plenty times when you yourself first have turned the discussion about the users themselves and not the discussion at hand? Or many many other things.

But the point is that of course you cannot directly tell me to leave the thread because you know you do not have the power; no one has the power to throw someone out of a discussion so I find your response quite redundant.

(RED) Anyone? Wait that must be only about 5 people in GS in reality....

Rather that use "drive-bys" and strawmen, why not address the points I made?

You are totally free to express your beliefs and defend them in these threads. No one is telling you that you cannot. If you choose not to, that is your decision. You cannot lay the blame on Christians for your choice not to express, discuss, and defend your beliefs.

Anyone can plainly see that the real issue is not a lack of freedom for others to express, discuss, and defend their faith, it is really about a desire to silence Biblical Christians that choose to share and discuss their beliefs.

Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#341 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts
If he sinned, then he would not be Jesus "christ", just "Jesus". Therefore, it is logically impossible for the answer to your question to be no.Head_of_games
...You make logic bunny cry.
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#342 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts
[QUOTE="Head_of_games"]If he sinned, then he would not be Jesus "christ", just "Jesus". Therefore, it is logically impossible for the answer to your question to be no.Funky_Llama
...You make logic bunny cry.

This thread as a whole must've given logic bunny a heart attack by now.
Avatar image for Elraptor
Elraptor

30966

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#343 Elraptor
Member since 2004 • 30966 Posts
A clarification was requested on the advertising issue. Evangelism threads are currently not treated as spam/advertising. Just like any other religious thread, however, threads aimed at evangelism are subject to the guidelines for religious discussion recently promulgated in OT. If you feel concerned that any given thread violates the ToU for any reason, the best course of action is to report the thread or seek advice from a moderator via PM or Ask the Mods (the latter is not a reporting board but does permit questions to clarify rules and policies). It is preferable to avoid discussing the issue directly with the topic creator(s). Thanks for reading.
Avatar image for Teenaged
Teenaged

31764

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#344 Teenaged
Member since 2007 • 31764 Posts

Rather that use "drive-bys" and strawmen, why not address the points I made?

You are totally free to express your beliefs and defend them in these threads. No one is telling you that you cannot. If you choose not to, that is your decision. You cannot lay the blame on Christians for your choice not to express, discuss, and defend your beliefs.

Anyone can plainly see that the real issue is not a lack of freedom for others to express, discuss, and defend their faith, it is really about a desire to silence Biblical Christians that choose to share and discuss their beliefs.

blackregiment

Huh? :? Is everything an attack to you? If we see that you dont respect us when we debate (something OBVIOUS in your condescending tone and attitude) then we are attacking you?

Then by that logic, you are "attacking" the admins and GS staff for refusing to comform to the new religious topic guidelines. See?

Yes I am free to express my beliefs while you have said that you will be ingoring me, you once implied that I only debate to bash your Christianity etc etc. Is that respectful? Sure I can still post here you would say but the same I say to you: you can post here, you just have to be careful with what you say because of the new religious topic guidelines.

Avatar image for blackregiment
blackregiment

11937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#345 blackregiment
Member since 2007 • 11937 Posts

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="pianist"]

The ironic thing is that this would be a great discussion topic for here on OT, as opposed to the threads your union usually posts here. A debate which surrounds the differences between Biblical Christianity and Catholicism could generate interesting discussion. So why do it at the BBU?

Teenaged

So it will be just me, him and Scripture, one on one, without disruptive comments. It could be viewed by anyone that wanted to. It would go on for quite a while because there are well over a dozen or two areas we would cover.

Do you want me to announce the rounds and the hitpoints? :?

It is not about that. It is about discerning the truth of God's revealed Word from the whole counsel of His Word.

Avatar image for Teenaged
Teenaged

31764

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#346 Teenaged
Member since 2007 • 31764 Posts

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Head_of_games"]If he sinned, then he would not be Jesus "christ", just "Jesus". Therefore, it is logically impossible for the answer to your question to be no.-Sun_Tzu-
...You make logic bunny cry.

This thread as a whole must've given logic bunny a heart attack by now.

The logic bunny is dead. 10 threads ago... >_>

Avatar image for Teenaged
Teenaged

31764

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#347 Teenaged
Member since 2007 • 31764 Posts

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

So it will be just me, him and Scripture, one on one, without disruptive comments. It could be viewed by anyone that wanted to. It would go on for quite a while because there are well over a dozen or two areas we would cover.

blackregiment

Do you want me to announce the rounds and the hitpoints? :?

It is not about that. It is about discerning the truth of God's revealed Word from the whole counsel of His Word.

You certainly make it obvious that it is about that. And what is that? A war, a conflict you want to win. Nice motive to debate and evangelise....

Avatar image for chessmaster1989
chessmaster1989

30203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#348 chessmaster1989
Member since 2008 • 30203 Posts

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

You are totally free to express your beliefs and defend them in these threads. No one is telling you that you cannot. If you choose not to, that is your decision. You cannot lay the blame on Christians for your choice not to express, discuss, and defend your beliefs.

Anyone can plainly see that the real issue is not a lack of freedom for others to express, discuss, and defend their faith, it is really about a desire to silence Biblical Christians that choose to share and discuss their beliefs.

blackregiment

Hm, I dont want to repeat myself but you do remember my long post in a previous evangelising thread. I dont care if it was deleted for moderation; the point was for you to read it. My opinion on the evangelising efforts done in GS are all there. I am sure you read it and you know by now.

To sum it up like I have said many times (and of course not just me but many others before me) the threads do not promote discussion in the least. Care to remember a previous thread created where Crushmaster was setting restrictions as to who should post and what they should post?

Or the plenty times when you yourself first have turned the discussion about the users themselves and not the discussion at hand? Or many many other things.

But the point is that of course you cannot directly tell me to leave the thread because you know you do not have the power; no one has the power to throw someone out of a discussion so I find your response quite redundant.

(RED) Anyone? Wait that must be only about 5 people in GS in reality....

Rather that use "drive-bys" and strawmen, why not address the points I made?

Oh dear, I laughed so hard :lol:

Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#350 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts

Rather that use "drive-bys" and strawmen, why not address the points I made?

blackregiment

Is this actually irony? I don't know. I'm probably wrong >.>