Ouija Board - Sold in toy stores.

[Lonny"Ruffeon"]

I don't speak or think in a "straightforward" way and don't advocate it for anyone else. What is there to be "straightforward" about which worries you so?

Concerning my faith, I am not answerable to you in any situation. What you believe about me is irrelevant to what I am. If you are unaware of that, it is a shame for you.

Matt 7:16 states "You will know them by their fruits...." I am afraid you are so wrong as to what people think of you regarding your faith.

I Cor 5:12 states "For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?" Brethren are to judge brethren according to their fruits.

Your fruits have gained you a reputation of being a "slippery seal" when it comes to answering a direct question. One then can only surmise that you are truly hiding behind a facade! I find usually people with a strong liberal slant, practice these techniques because they really don't have a defense and cannot truly "contend for the faith." Jude 3.

[Lonny"Ruffeon"]

What, that murderers are beautiful children of God? I'm not a fundamentalist so any question about "on which scripture" something is "based" by me is a question about something not of concern to me.

I know, but Methodists are supposedly a Bible-based Church. By your statement, am I to take it that you do not consider the Bible the final authority in matters of Christian faith? If you don't, then what you write is opinion and opinion means diddly squat! In discussing Christianity, the Bible must be the standard of authority because anyone can have an opinion and it was the Bible on which man based his Christian beliefs.

Of course you have no basis for that statement.

I believe your above statement just gave me a basis for stating you appear to have little knowledge of the Bible

We cannot when or if "God" "said" such a thing or not. But we can know this: a kingdom of heaven not thus would be a place of evil.

Again you use opinion and not scripture. Isaiah says, "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways, My ways', says the Lord.".

I am not sure if you will get this cultural reference but here in Brooklyn the proper response to such a thing is "I don't roll that way". I can elaborate if you like.

How can anyone have a truly meaningful discussion with you,if you have no standard other than your opinion by which to discuss a matter? A Christian debate will not be fruitful in this setting. You will think what you like and to the dogs with what God says!

Actually I have no particular "burden of proof" but I can humor you a little. Ambiguities affecting interpretation of the command "thou shalt not kill" include war, the death penalty, officers taking down a suspect, assisted suicide, etc. Anyone who tells you they know for certain what is correct in all these situations but has not done so personally each one, and very few of those, is overcome with smugness and hubris.

If you knew scripture, you'd know that the commandment really reads "Thou shalt not murder."

That is the Hebrew word meaning premeditate on the part of one individual toward another. War - God sanctioned the Jews to war to punish other nations - this is not to hate and murder. There are justified and premeditated wars. The premeditated are murder. Officers taking down a suspect is not premeditated but self-defense. Assisted suicide is murder as one is helping another to murder himself. So where is your ambiguity? Capital punishment was ordained by God in Genesis 8:6.

Who is this "us"? I will respond to you as an individual but you speak for no one but yourself.

Considering the other posts you received, and comments regarding you, no one seemed to mind my slip of "us" this time. Also considering you have used ambiguous tactics with some of the other people here, I didn't hear any complaints using us, but just in case I stepped on anyone else's toes, nothing sinister was meant by it.

[mossrose]

I don't speak or think in a "straightforward" way and don't advocate it for anyone else. What is there to be "straightforward" about which worries you so?

If you do not speak in a straightforward way regarding what you believe, then we have no reason to believe anything you say.

Concerning my faith, I am not answerable to you in any situation. What you believe about me is irrelevant to what I am. If you are unaware of that, it is a shame for you.

Actually, since I am a staff member of Tweb, you are answerable to me as to your beliefs. You have "Christian" in your profile as your faith, and therefore we need to know what you believe according to the Statement of Faith of Theologyweb found here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...sion_statement

If you do not hold to the points there regarding God and Jesus Christ and the Trinity, then you have no right to have the word "Christian" in your profile.

THAT is why we keep asking you what you believe, and if you cannot answer us, as you seem to keep refusing to do, then we will change your postbit to something else which more reflects your "faith".

And if you cannot tell us what you believe, then the shame is on you. I am certainly not ashamed to speak of what I believe.

[Da Blonde]

If you do not speak in a straightforward way regarding what you believe, then we have no reason to believe anything you say.

That does not follow.

Actually, since I am a staff member of Tweb, you are answerable to me as to your beliefs. You have "Christian" in your profile as your faith, and therefore we need to know what you believe according to the Statement of Faith of Theologyweb found here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...sion_statement

If you do not hold to the points there regarding God and Jesus Christ and the Trinity, then you have no right to have the word "Christian" in your profile.

Actually I have rights which come from God, not from self-appointed "authorities".

THAT is why we keep asking you what you believe, and if you cannot answer us, as you seem to keep refusing to do, then we will change your postbit to something else which more reflects your "faith".

It does not matter what you do in that regard. If you feel a need to do such a thing, I certainly pity you.

And if you cannot tell us what you believe, then the shame is on you. I am certainly not ashamed to speak of what I believe.

If asked a thing directly I always answer. If asked via innuendo, as is frequently the modus operandi of the timorous, I am under no obligation to anyone.

[Da Blonde]

You simply do not support any of your assertions.

That, if so (I dispute that it is) makes me no different from any of you. Look at the above assertion of yours, for example. It is unsupported by anything at all.

[Da Blonde]

Maybe not, but she has to come clean sometime in her life. She can't hide behind unnuendo her whole life!!!

"Come clean" ? To whom? Certainly not to you. I am under no obligation to "come clean" to you, and the assertion otherwise is most UnChristian. And how, pray tell, have I hidden behind "unnendo"? Perhaps you are the one who needs to 'come clean".

[Da Blonde]

Matt 7:16 states "You will know them by their fruits...." I am afraid you are so wrong as to what people think of you regarding your faith.

I Cor 5:12 states "For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?" Brethren are to judge brethren according to their fruits.

Your fruits have gained you a reputation of being a "slippery seal" when it comes to answering a direct question. One then can only surmise that you are truly hiding behind a facade! I find usually people with a strong liberal slant, practice these techniques because they really don't have a defense and cannot truly "contend for the faith." Jude 3.

The scripture you have cited is not relevant to the discussion. Your assertion I have a "reputation" is unfounded. A "Facade"? What "facade" is this?

A "defense"? Sir, I am under no obligation whatsoever to "defend" against the soap bubbles you've thrown my way. That you feel compelled to make such weak defenses yourself is quite pitiful.

[Da Blonde]

I know, but Methodists are supposedly a Bible-based Church.

I don't know how you define "Bible-based" but that does not, in reasonable usage, translate to the literacism you propose.

By your statement, am I to take it that you do not consider the Bible the final authority in matters of Christian faith?

The Bible may indeed be by some measures "the final authority in matters of the Christian faith"? However, people are not. No one possesses any intermediate authority whatsoever between man and God.

You should sincerely exampine your need to pose to me a question of this sort: Sir, I did not say so, and as i did not, the question as phrased is entirely inappropriate.

If you don't, then what you write is opinion and opinion means diddly squat!

That does not follow. Your opinion is certainly in no regard superior to mine because you adhere to fundamentalism.

In discussing Christianity, the Bible must be the standard of authority because anyone can have an opinion and it was the Bible on which man based his Christian beliefs.

This does not refer to Christianity at all, but to a peculiar subsectuion of it, fundamentalism.

I believe your above statement just gave me a basis for stating you appear to have little knowledge of the Bible

There is no rational basis for that. I am sure my knowledge of such things exceeds yours in many aspects, in part because I am not bound by the political correctness which imprisons your mind.

Again you use opinion and not scripture.

Scripture is no argument; I am not a fundamentalist and I dispute your misuse of it.

Isaiah says, "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways, My ways', says the Lord.".

You are not "the Lord" - thus your citation here is another pathetic irrelevancy.

How can anyone have a truly meaningful discussion with you,if you have no standard other than your opinion by which to discuss a matter?

You have exactly the same standard.

A Christian debate will not be fruitful in this setting.

so, by the above statement, you have shown that to you Christianity is not a matter of faith but of political correctness!

You will think what you like and to the dogs with what God says!

As you do, when you violate Matthew 7:12 by addressing another in that unkind manner?

If you knew scripture, you'd know that the commandment really reads "Thou shalt not murder."

Who says I didn't know? You had no way to know what I believed in that regard or not. Moreover, it is worded differently in various editions. Even so, there is considerable disagreement as to what constitutes "murder".

That is the Hebrew word meaning premeditate on the part of one individual toward another. War - God sanctioned the Jews to war to punish other nations - this is not to hate and murder. There are justified and premeditated wars. The premeditated are murder. Officers taking down a suspect is not premeditated but self-defense. Assisted suicide is murder as one is helping another to murder himself. So where is your ambiguity? Capital punishment was ordained by God in Genesis 8:6.

These assertions are your opinions and nothing more. Christian theologians have disagreed about the minutiae of such things for two thousand years and they are unlikely to agree just because you state it.

Considering the other posts you received, and comments regarding you, no one seemed to mind my slip of "us" this time. Also considering you have used ambiguous tactics with some of the other people here, I didn't hear any complaints using us, but just in case I stepped on anyone else's toes, nothing sinister was meant by it.

Ah...so it is okay to bully another if no one notices it then?

I've used "ambiguous" tactics? How is that? One would think if they are ambiguous, then they aren't tactics.

[Jedidiah]

I find it amusing that Da Blonde uses the term "political correctness." Actually the fact that she uses it is not what is amusing, but the way in which she uses it. She is attempting to turn the concept in it's head and apply it to those who are not politically correct.

Political correctness applies generally to ideas or actions not in line with modern liberal though. Thus rejecting homosexual marriage is seen as politically incorrect. Other idea labeled politically incorrect are things like interpreting the Bible literally. I suppose PC involves opposition to anything that might be offensive so some large socially accepted subgroup.

Any one have any other reflections on this?

[Da Blonde]

I find it amusing that Da Blonde uses the term "political correctness." Actually the fact that she uses it is not what is amusing, but the way in which she uses it. She is attempting to turn the concept in it's head and apply it to those who are not politically correct.

Political correctness applies generally to ideas or actions not in line with modern liberal though. Thus rejecting homosexual marriage is seen as politically incorrect. Other idea labeled politically incorrect are things like interpreting the Bible literally. I suppose PC involves opposition to anything that might be offensive so some large socially accepted subgroup.

Any one have any other reflections on this?

I'm sorry but your assertions about the term "political correctness" are incorrect. While it is true the term originated as an ironic joke among the feminist left in 1977, it refers to any demand that everyone else either agree or shut up. That is the concept itself - it is an ideologically neutral term in and of itself. The right wing whines about the sort of things yoiu say, but they are no different.

"Modern liberal though" is a most diverse area. Attempting to narrowly define such things is always either an intentional or poorly executed plan to distort reality.

"Interpreting the Bible literally" is precisely the sort of thing politically correct folks use as a seeming litmus test to mask their fears that not all agree with them.

One could say for example that to say that when Christ said "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out" it means to do just that, if one is "interpreting the Bible literally". To say, "Oh, no, that's a metaphor" but to assert for example that the Adam and Eve legend is literally true, is merely to be selective and to advocate a set agenda devoid of principles.

[Lonny"Ruffeon"]

The scripture you have cited is not relevant to the discussion. Your assertion I have a "reputation" is unfounded. A "Facade"? What "facade" is this?

I don't believe one bit saying you have a "reputation" is unfounded. Others on this site have noted your answers too and have commented that you cannot be "pinned down". You won't give a straight answer. A "facade" only you know what facade you have made for yourself to hide behind. You won't let anyone in to know you for who you really are. Of what are you so afraid that you can't give an honest answer?

A "defense"? Sir, I am under no obligation whatsoever to "defend" against the soap bubbles you've thrown my way. That you feel compelled to make such weak defenses yourself is quite pitiful.

First of all, know your adversary, it's Mam, and since the Lord has put it on all of us to defend our faith, you have an obligation to God to do so. Jude 3. It is truly a shame that you ignore scripture as you do, as II Timothy 2:15 says you had better study your scripture if you want to be approved by God!

[Lonny"Ruffeon"]

"Come clean" ? To whom? Certainly not to you. I am under no obligation to "come clean" to you, and the assertion otherwise is most UnChristian. And how, pray tell, have I hidden behind "unnendo"? Perhaps you are the one who needs to 'come clean".

You will come clean one day, DaBlonde, on judgment day. You won't be able to hide on that day behind twists of phrases of the English language.

[lao tzu]

You will come clean one day, DaBlonde, on judgment day. You won't be able to hide on that day behind twists of phrases of the English language.

My ouija board says otherwise.

[Raphael]

My ouija board says otherwise.

That would be because you're using a Wedgie board.

[Lonny"Ruffeon"]

I don't know how you define "Bible-based" but that does not, in reasonable usage, translate to the literacism you propose.

I suppose to you the whole Bible is allegorical - nothing but a fairy tale.

The Bible may indeed be by some measures "the final authority in matters of the Christian faith"? However, people are not. No one possesses any intermediate authority whatsoever between man and God.

You should sincerely examine your need to pose to me a question of this sort: Sir, I did not say so, and as i did not, the question as phrased is entirely inappropriate.

How can the the Bible be "by some measures" the final authority in matters of the Christian faith? I never said people were. So why bring that up?

That does not follow. Your opinion is certainly in no regard superior to mine because you adhere to fundamentalism.

I'm not expressing opinion though, I expressed scripture to you which you could no take nor refute.

This does not refer to Christianity at all, but to a peculiar subsectuion of it, fundamentalism.

That is your opinion. No one has quoted a fundamentalist view so far as I can tell here. And even if one is promoted, if it is accurate than it stands.

There is no rational basis for that. I am sure my knowledge of such things exceeds yours in many aspects, in part because I am not bound by the political correctness which imprisons your mind.

You wish, my dear.

Scrpture is no argument; I am not a fundamentalist and I dispute your misuse of it.

How do I misuse it? Please tell me.

You are not "the Lord" - thus your citation here is another pathetic irrelevancy.

This is a ridiculous statement!!!

You have exactly the same standard.

No we don't have the same standards that is clear to all DaBlonde.

so, by the above statement, you have shown that to you Christianity is not a matter of faith but of political correctness!

This makes absolutely no sense at all crying Political Correctness. What a maroon!!!!

As you do, when you violate Matthew 7:12 by addressing another in that unkind manner?

PLease DaBlonde don't act the injured party now. You came to play with everyone else and knew it could get rough at times..I'm a pussy cat compared to what's on this web site.

Who says I didn't know? You had no way to know what I believed in that regard or not. Moreover, it is worded differently in various editions. Even so, there is considerable disagreement as to what constitutes "murder".

I gave you a fair answer to the above and you won't accept it sorry about that.

These assertions are your opinions and nothing more. Christian theologians have disagreed about the minutiae of such things for two thousand years and they are unlikely to agree just because you state it.

Oh please, it isn't that hard to figure out if your honest about it. God didn't make his book that difficult for man to find.

Ah...so it is okay to bully another if no one notices it then?

Oh, now you are feeling bullied by another woman, please DaBlonde, you aren't a child - you made your bed now you must lie in it!

I've used "ambiguous" tactics? How is that? One would think if they are ambiguous, then they aren't tactics.

I know I'm tired of your hiding behind a plethora of words.