|
|
 | | From: | (: Lawrence Meckan :) | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | 16 Jan 2005 13:57:04 -0800 |
|
|
 | Chuck Stamford wrote:
> "(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
> news:41ea56db$0$1039$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> > Chuck Stamford wrote:
> >> "(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
> >>
news:41ea542c$0$1049$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >>
> >>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
> >>>>news:41ea4df3$1_1@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>>I do not forget my master's words.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Then you have never known him, for it is clear to all that you DO
ignore
> >>>>what he has said.
> >>>
> >>>My job here is done. ;)
> >>
> >>
> >> The end of the snow job? Good. Bye now. Don't let the door hit
you in
> >> the
> >> butt on the way out.
> >
> > I have the truth, but you refuse to be set free by it.
>
> Which brings us full circle. You have a grain of truth....and those
ten
> pounds of fertilizer. Close the door will ya'?
No, Chuck, this brings us back to God.
Every time you chose to posit that whilst we were sinners, Christ died
for us as a sign of reconciliation, I will remind you that you deny
another's testimony to that very act.
lawrence
> Chuck Stamford
|
|
| | From: | (: Lawrence Meckan :) | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | 18 Jan 2005 15:21:53 -0800 |
|
|
| pedro wrote:
> (: Lawrence Meckan :) wrote:
>
>
> >pedro wrote:
> >
> >
> >>(: Lawrence Meckan :) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>pedro wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>(: Lawrence Meckan :) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Okay, fine. You tell me flat out that you've never said
anything
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>on this subject that would tend to cause a reasonable person,
who
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>had a good grasp of the English language, to think you have
been
> >>>>>>insinuating that this "reconciliation" between Abby and Mark
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>included them bringing at least some of their religious beliefs
into
> >>>>>>alignment. You go ahead and tell me that, Lawrence; no dancing
> >>>>>>around, no "lawrence speak"...and remember, I don't even NEED
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Google on this one!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>Consider yourself told.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>You're such a liar Lawrence. You've been trying your damnedest to
> >>>>convince Chuck and anyone that the 'reconciliation' involved
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>agreement on theological matters and beliefs.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Actually, ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/4wyf5
> >>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/69wdt
> >>
> >>
> >
> >What, Pedro ?
> >
> >You can't handle the truth, so you cut the text which shows *Chuck*
is
> >the one with the agenda of reconciliation = the same beliefs about
God.
> >
> >You'd make the National Enquirer and Hustler proud with your
> >'journalistic' habits.
> >
> >lawrence
> >
> >
> >
>
> The truth is that there was no theological reconciliation. You heard
it
> from me, but you ignored that.
I never said there was "theological reconciliation", EVER!!!!.
As I quoted from Chuck, before you snipped and call it waffle, it's
Chuck's arse (and now yours as well) on the line for mistaking
reconciliation *as* having the same beliefs. Theology means a
*knowledge and understanding* of God.
Reconciliation is concerning *right relationship*. Reconciliation
happened - God helped relationships be restored between Abby and Mark,
and Abby and myself. God restored right relationship between people.
Reconciliation is by no means the same thing, let alone mutually
exclusive with theolgy. This is basic logic and language comphrension.
> You heard it from Abby and you ignored that as well!
The reconciliation I speak about is *right relationship* aka
righteousness (according to Scripture), not having the *same* knowledge
and understanding and beliefs. How many more times do I have to say
this and it goes right past your deaf ears ?
Scripture teaches that Jesus reconciled the world to Himself. Now does
*everyone* in the world have the same theological understanding as Him
? Heck, no. Point proven.
> You can spin it any way you want, but you'll only be
> denying the facts. So stop wasting my time.. yet again!
Denying the facts ?
Fact: I stated "reconciliation" between parties involved. This is in
verbatim record.
Spin: Chuck put qualifiers on it (of which you ignore). You state
"theological reconciliation" as the proviso.
Fact: God convicted Abby of how she treated certain people
Spin: Numerous people deny that conviction (Chuck, Vera, and a few
fence-sitters)
Fact: Reconciliation happened
Spin: Vera and yourself are now sullying that reconciliation by
targetting Abby and flamebaiting her.
lawrence
|
|
| | From: | Mark T | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:39:03 +1100 |
|
|
| "(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote:
> I never said there was "theological reconciliation", EVER!!!!.
....
> Reconciliation is concerning *right relationship*.
This should settle the matter.
Is there anything that Pedrododo does not understand about these two simple
statements?????
|
|
| | From: | (: Lawrence Meckan :) | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | 18 Jan 2005 15:59:21 -0800 |
|
|
| I never said there was "theological reconciliation".
In the post you called waffle, I showed Chuck's initial reaction to my
suggestion of reconciliation. It's Chuck that added qualifiers, and you
seem to have mistaken those qualifiers for what reconciliation actually
means.
Reconciliation isn't the same thing as having the same understanding of
God, life and everything in two people.
Reconciliation is about getting back to a *right relationship*, as
Jesus himself is spoken of reconciling to the world, and the world has
a significantly different understanding of who God is and who Jesus is,
than Jesus himself. If reconciliation was what Chuck had specified in
his initial emotive call, and in the subsequent one where he considered
Abby possibly giving up her faith, that would also mean that Jesus has
now forced everyone to have the same understanding and perspective as
Him.
That hasn't happened, which means Chuck's definition doesn't conform to
Scripture by a long shot.
lawrence
|
|
| | From: | (: Lawrence Meckan :) | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | 18 Jan 2005 16:02:22 -0800 |
|
|
| I never said there was "theological reconciliation".
In the post you called waffle, I showed Chuck's initial reaction to my
suggestion of reconciliation. It's Chuck that added qualifiers, and you
seem to have mistaken those qualifiers for what reconciliation actually
means.
Reconciliation isn't the same thing as having the same understanding of
God, life and everything in two people.
Reconciliation is about getting back to a *right relationship*, as
Jesus himself is spoken of reconciling to the world, and the world has
a significantly different understanding of who God is and who Jesus is,
than Jesus himself. If reconciliation was what Chuck had specified in
his initial emotive call, and in the subsequent one where he considered
Abby possibly giving up her faith, that would also mean that Jesus has
now forced everyone to have the same understanding and perspective as
Him.
That hasn't happened, which means Chuck's definition doesn't conform to
Scripture by a long shot.
lawrence
|
|
| | From: | Chuck Stamford | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:36:05 -0800 |
|
|
|
"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
news:1105912624.661932.222730@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>> "(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
>> news:41ea56db$0$1039$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> > Chuck Stamford wrote:
>> >> "(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
>> >>
> news:41ea542c$0$1049$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> >>
>> >>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
>> >>>>news:41ea4df3$1_1@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>I do not forget my master's words.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Then you have never known him, for it is clear to all that you DO
> ignore
>> >>>>what he has said.
>> >>>
>> >>>My job here is done. ;)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The end of the snow job? Good. Bye now. Don't let the door hit
> you in
>> >> the
>> >> butt on the way out.
>> >
>> > I have the truth, but you refuse to be set free by it.
>>
>> Which brings us full circle. You have a grain of truth....and those
> ten
>> pounds of fertilizer. Close the door will ya'?
> Every time you chose to posit that whilst we were sinners, Christ died
> for us as a sign of reconciliation, I will remind you that you deny
> another's testimony to that very act.
You are truly unique. First you make some sweeping and ambiguous claim of
reconciliation between Abby and Mark. Then I point out to you the very
narrow limits of what "reconciliation" actually means in the state of
affairs you're expounding upon. You fire back that I have it all wrong;
that reconciliation doesn't mean total reconciliation of all beliefs. I
fire back with the argeement that you're right, it doesn't necessarily mean
that, and repeat that my objection to your characterization is more narrow
than any such broad and sweeping connotation of the word. You then
dissemble a little more, at which point I accuse you of trying to make it
seem as if Abby has changed her religious beliefs to align with Mark's,
because I think that's a dishonest characterization of what actually
transpired. You then FLATLY DENY you're making any such broad
characterization by the word "reconciliation"!
And now you making what you're talking about in using the word analogus to
the reconciliation accomplished by Jesus Christ??!! What broader example of
reconciliation could you point to?!!
You remain the most confused and conflicted person I know, Lawrence, and as
long as you are, you're not much more than wolf food. You simply won't
listen to anyone who truly has your best interests at heart in this
newsgroup. You only open your itching ears to those who would simply use
you, and toss you aside the moment you've served your purpose. You're a
lamb running to its own slaughter, and you break my heart.
God bless
Chuck Stamford
|
|
|
