Questions for Jgnat

by Shining One 151 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Shining One

Little Toe,
I have no idea what your phrase is suppose to mean. LOL
Rex
jgnat

Well, I understand Little Toe's phrasing quite well. His colorful language left an indelible image in my mind's eye.
Shining One

My Dear Jgnat,
Forget it. I've wasted enough time on you. You obviously desire the 'last word' above all.
Rex
Midget-Sasquatch

Shining One
I believe LittleToe simply means yo've got it the other way around. You're supposed to let the scriptures and their message in context, dictate/guide your actions. Not trying to pick stuff out of it to justify your actions.
I think Jgnat's calling in to question some teachings, and then seeking a higher moral alternative to it, is 100 times better than unequivocally following some of the 'moral' examples in the Bible.
Quentin

Give it your best shot, boy. Don't waffle and make idle threats. If you are going to challenge someone to a gunfight you better be able to pack more than a peashooter! LOL

Rex
Waffle is a breakfast food...I don't make threats, of any kind...didn't challenge you to anything, there would be no value in it, you like to argue for the sake of it, that's all that's there, nothing more...the only thing I pack is my clothes...
Shining One

Sasquatch,
>I believe LittleToe simply means yo've got it the other way around. You're supposed to let the scriptures and their message in context, dictate/guide your actions. Not trying to pick stuff out of it to justify your actions.

OK, and how am I NOT doing that? I have always stood on context. Apologia does not mean you warp the context to explain some question. What it means is to offer a possible explanation for a question that is brought up. The problem here is that people want to retain their prejudices that they 'bring to the table': i.e. The Watchtower taught us that all churches except them were in error so badly that only the Watchtower could be trusted to guide us to salvation. I absolutely dispute that contention, it was a crock then and it is a crock now.

>I think Jgnat's calling in to question some teachings, and then seeking a higher moral alternative to it, is 100 times better than unequivocally following some of the 'moral' examples in the Bible.

I agree that there are moral examples, pro and con, that is one of the great things about scripture. I dispute her contention that she can judge 'higher moral ground' by tossing out scripture that she doesn't agree with. She says she is not doing that but it is obvious to anyone unbiased that she is doing just that! If she is so flippant about the teachings of her 'alleged' Lord, it is a true contradiction to then claim to follow that Lord.
Rex
defd

Shining one
I do not understand 1/2 of the things little toes says so don t feel so bad. Maybe I am not as educated as he maybe or maybe I just dont take the time to really dig into what he says. It may be both.
LittleToe

...and oftentimes he would speak to them in parables. Riddle me this:
Tell me, if you can answer, what was the purpose of scripture? Does John 5 shed any light on the matter, for you? Further, how can it be that the law and the prophets are summed up in the two commandments?
Further still, if you have the mind for it, what does my name mean?
jgnat

Who stuck to the topic, and who resorted to rhetoric? With way more time on my hands than sense, I reviewed the thread for all personal criticisms. Those levelled at me by REX/OSO, and those I levelled at him. Do his stand up to scrutiny?
OSO/Rex's Criticisms of me
(Rex also told three contributors to quit hijacking the thread, though all three stuck to point.)
Labels
1. It is not being ashamed of the gospel as you evidently are. (I criticized deathbed conversions)
2. Your very train of thought applies directly to the naturalist establishment (I don't know who the naturalist establishment is)
3. You are pro-abortion. (no I'm not. I used pro-life extremists as an example of fanatical Christianity)
4. oh, you probably do not believe in sin, right? (we never got around to talking about that. Pure supposition)
5. ignore context and side with Bible-bashers (So the bible ain't perfect. I'm not slamming it against a wall.)
6. Oh let us see. AlanF and his tirades against belief in God seems to be a fairly recent example (AlanF by comparison is a compassionate man who includes rather than excludes. He and I may have different beliefs, but at the core there is a rationalism and a desire for justice that I find compelling. But I would rather hang with him than with someone who won't even address me until he's established what my "spiritual pedigree" is.)
7. When you used the word, 'inclusive' that just confirmed that you are a 'salt water' Christian with one notable addition: . (The word inclusive is not reserved for athiests. I was talking at the human level, as in, "Let's meet for coffee" type of inclusive, or JWD "Everyone Welcome" kind of inclusive. You assume so much with so little.)
8. you are not just 'lukewarm', you attempt to teach a false Christ and that makes you a danger to anyone truly seeking after salvation
9. Let me guess, Anglican? (wrong)
10. Maybe you are a renegade Catholic? (wrong)
11. Or maybe one of those U.C.C who claim to be so 'inclusive'? (wrong)
12. I can't wait to hear the feminazis howl now
13. (Speaking in Agnostaspeak) Oh, you're such a good Christian, Jgnat. You don't practice any part of Christianity that we disagree with. You agree with us, so we respect you! Those who people who take their faith so seriously are just offensive and bigoted." Is that how it is, Jgnat?
Debating Style14. You seem to have an agenda that 'paints all with a wide brush'! - (unsupported. OSO started the thread about my beliefs, not the other way around)
15. Have you read any mainstream commentaries on the verses in question - (appeal to higher authority)
16. do you rely totally on the ‘Jesus Seminar’ naturalists and Alan F style unbelievers for ‘honest’ conclusions? - (unfounded)
17. So, you ignore all relevant scripture that you disagree with personally? (unfounded)
18. straw man - You are using the straw man again - straw man my dear - Straw man? (it's only a straw man if it is a weak example)
19. Your question is facetious. (Rex doesn't want to answer)
20. don’t generalize and lump all evangelicals together - (I didn't, I provided examples. Providing examples is not generalizing)
21. You are obviously confusing 'inerrancy' with 'infallibility', that is your first stawman (I consistently used the term inerrancy. I still have not received clarification on this point)
22. seem to believe that fundamentalists always take scripture literally (No, I think OSO always takes scripture literally. I take this from his reaction to various scriptures)
23. stand against the presentation of the gospel and quote scripture while doing it. (Just because I deny the all doesn't mean I believe in nothing. I and several other posters have explained this.)
24. Rhetoric instead of substance. (I drew DIAGRAMS for goodness' sakes)
25. You have done nothing but dodge the original questions and scripture in the initial post. (How can I follow Christ yet call the bible fallible? I do. Live with it.)
26. Oh, will you quit with the grandstanding? (WHO started this thread, again?)
27. You've shown your own ignorance on scripture interpretation, well, its either ignorance or denial. (I quote it pretty darn good, though, don't I. Twenty years serving in an evanglical church will do that to a girl. How many times have YOU read through the bible?)
28. The only thing consistent about you is your inconsistency!
29. You really displayed an amazing array of assertions. (Each backed up with examples, I might add)
30. smoke screens to hide themselves from their opponents. This is what you are doing, you prattle on, ad nauseum, dodge and weave instead of answering the original, critical questions that I asked. (I drew DIAGRAMS for goodness' sakes)
31. If you condemn evangelicals you condemn the Lord you say you worship! (are Evangelicals and God the same thing?)
32. Your answers so far are simply an attempt to avoid the tough questions.
33. Instead of prattling on about how clever a debater you think you are (All I did was criticize your strategy.)
34. You want permission to fight dirty (for publicizing your PM's. Is it dirty to put your entire agenda on the table?)
35. since you cannot win by sticking to answering my questions This is one of many 'deflections'. You are not answering my questions. (I drew DIAGRAMS for goodness' sakes)
36. This is another deflection on your part. (About wanting the definition for factual)
37. You just cannot generalize. Context, context, context! (Ditto right back at you buddy)
38. Out of context again (two laws must override all others)
39. in order to be consistent you must accept those scriptures that describe God's holiness, wrath, judgment, grace, mercy and so on (only in your paradigm. This is not an either-or thing. You also admit that outdated scriptures must be interpreted in context of history.)
40. Again, this is another deflection. (That OSO/Rex also picks and chooses)
41. your answer is highly ambivalent. (siding with bible-bashers)
42. I am pointing out the contextual pillaging that you are guilty of. (God also has attributes of: holy, mercy, grace, wisdom, joy, peace, wrath, vengeance, anger, jealousy)(Rather general I'd say. Examples?)
43. You do not have the authority to question the infallibility of scripture. (Appeal to authority)
44. You are putting yourself on the throne and standing in judgment of God.
45. The specific has been layed before you again and again. (I drew DIAGRAMS for goodness' sakes)
46. You do not answer except in arrogance and the wild notion that you are somehow too clever for me (I drew DIAGRAMS for goodness' sakes).
47. You are refusing to be honest and admit that your Jesus is one that you have made up. (I drew DIAGRAMS for goodness' sakes)
48. Jgnat is evasive and clueless. You are either clueless or delusional.
49. Her future 'debate' with agnostics/atheists will be strictly 'claimed believer' versus non-believer. It would be much along the lines of a 'Bishop Spong vs Barry Lynn', (ACLU pres and Unitarian). It will be interesting but won't accomplish much. I suppose it will be a nice debate where Jgnat denies scripture, denies doctrine, and agrees with the opponents enough to get another 'pat on the back' (I love it when people make predictions for the near future. It's so easy to prove them wrong. I will be bookmarking this comment, you can count on it.)
50. Those who see reason (and admit it), can see that your faith is built on the 'shifting sands' of relativism.
51. I am sure you will have the 'last word' so go ahead. (You can count on it. Why let your accusations hang, on a thread dedicated to me no less?)
52. Talk about dishonesty! You pretend to 'teach' us how Christians should behave, then you deny the very basis for the beliefs that you claim to have! (Good thing for me the CMA doesn't disfellowship it's members, eh?)
53. She denies the scripture that is the BASIS for Jgnat's claimed belief in Jesus and you say, "very well said, jgnat"?
54. The anti-Christian crowd will pat her on the back. Those who will admit the truth of the matter will take note.
55. What do you use as a guideline to make YOUR own interpretation of God's word?
56. Why do you deny the very faith statement of your own church?
57. Who are you to declare any scripture as unbelievable and unreliable (not infallible)?
58. What is the basis for the 'law of love' when you ARBITRARILY deny the infallibility of scripture? (Is it arbitrary if I give examples? Except you keep calling my examples straw men)
59. The rest of your post smells very fishy and does nothing but speculates on my motives.
60. Speculation, and again you confuse inerrancy with infallibility. Your last question is a false delimma. (I have always used the word infallibility)
61. What's this, a 'cause and effect argument'?
62. Is this an 'appeal to the popular or are you trying to pin on me a genetic fallacy?
63. Don't snipe at me and carry on pointless coversations. There is no point in trying to 'save face' when you have already lost your whole posterior.
64. I dispute her contention that she can judge 'higher moral ground' by tossing out scripture that she doesn't agree with. She says she is not doing that but it is obvious to anyone unbiased that she is doing just that! (Generalities. When I give examples, Rex calls them 'smokescreen' or 'strawman')
65. If she is so flippant about the teachings of her 'alleged' Lord, it is a true contradiction to then claim to follow that Lord.
Expletives66. Who made you God? That is so arrogant and it is not at all loving or compassionate!
67. Yes, you are absolutely ‘stumbling others’ right into the pit of hell.
68. You refuse to be 'salt and light' and let the world shape you instead of letting Christ transform your mind and quicken your spirit.(no examples given other than calling the bible "unreliable" - rex's word, not mine)
69. self-righteously fooling yourselves that compromise in order to 'not be offensive' is somehow noble and correct (I haven't used the word compromise either)
70. Well, you are showing your true colors now, aren't you Jgnat?
71. are you too 'good' to observe and obey?
72. Are you sure you are not a refugee from the WT?
73. Just like a JW or Mormon, you worship a Jesus of your own making, a 'tickle the ears' falsehood that you have concocted. (unsupported)
74. Answer my charges, Gnat. You deny the doctinal statement of your alleged church. By denying scripture that you don't agree with, you deny the very foundation of the Christ you say you worship.
75. You are a charlatan, a wolf in sheep's clothing. Answer the charges Answer the charges Answer the charges
76. You set yourself up as a judge over God and that makes you so prideful that you are now idolatrous.
77. If a man speaks in the forest and no woman is there to hear him, is he still wrong?
78. Forget it. I've wasted enough time on you. You obviously desire the 'last word' above all. (On a thread dedicated to me? Oh yeah.)
jgnat

And, to be fair, mine.
My criticims of OSO/Rex
Labels
(none)
Debating Style
1. your arrogant presentation of "Christianity" does more harm
2. you claim I cannot be a REAL CHRISTIAN without slavishly following every word in the bible.
3. Oh Shining One, you HAVE elevated the bible to God-head
4. It's no fun shooting fish in a barrel.
5. His arrogant proclamations are mind-blowing for sure, but I think the result is clarity, not chaos.
6. The only thing consistent about you is your inconsistency!
7. Assume nothing about me, ask!
8. you have to talk to me! That takes time. And listening skills. I think I have established that oshiningone neither takes the time or interest in those you preach to to hope for any kind of meaningful discussion.
9. As soon as you resorted to name-calling, oshinignone, you had admitted defeat.
10. your debating skills need work.
11. you assume on faith, oshiningone, that white always wins. This explains your overweening arrogance when you launch your first offensive.
12. When cornered, resist the tempation to "call on authority"
13. When cornered, never resort to name-calling.
14. Your posthumous declaration of victory don't wash. You haven't "proved" a thing.
15. You deflect direct questions with a fuzzy answer.
16. You start off aggressive, then try and undo the damage later. Too late, buddy.
17. You label me, then attack the label. Who says I ascribe to the whole set of any group's beliefs?
18. Research your opponent before you make assumptions about them.
19. You do not anticipate, or prepare, for an effective counterattack.
20. You are fighting the wrong enemy.
21. If you want to be a worthy Christian apologist, get better at it!
22. I rest my case. You think the bible is GOD.
23. You play fast and loose with language, OSO.
24. Then you better get rational and right quick, OSO. There are rules around rational debate. You break them all.
25. Once you answer these I will go back and cover yours. Though yours read more like accusations
26. Your attack is more scattershot than sniper. Scattershot results in unintended casualties.
27. But we have not yet established that you use reason in your arguments.
28. Is this an interrogation until I 'cave' or are you genuinely interested in my point of view?
29. If I challenge a faith founded on the bible you think I am denying God. You have put the Bible in the place of God.
30. You will take a literal interpretation the scriptures as translated in modern day over direct observation. Thank you.
31. You should know that words, once out of the gate, cannot be taken back. You must live by the fruit of your lips as must I.
32. you muddy the waters with rhetoric
Expletives
33. I now realize I am debating with an idiot of collossal proportion
34. Oh Shining One
35. o-shining-one
36. oshiningone
37. oso
38. We'll ignore the requirement for a personality transplant right now.
39. Shining One can spell.
40. I don't think OSO is capable of conceding. If he did, his god would die.
41. I think this thread is much more like the song that never ends.
42. Are you drinking?
43. That covers it. You're drinking. Or snapping. Or both.

Questions for Jgnat

Share this