|
|
 | | From: | vera | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:39:14 +0100 |
|
|
 | Br@dley wrote:
> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>> wrote in message
>> news:41ee0b07_2@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
>>> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>>> wrote in message
>>>> news:41ed9f2a$1_3@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
>>>>> 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!
>>>>>
>>>>> Chuck/Lawrence,
>>>>>
>>>>> Even though I haven't read all the posts in this (ehem)
>>>>> 'discussion' I have never understood Lawrence to mean anything
>>>>> other than the people in question reached a point of civility that
>>>>> in no way meant they were in agreement in their beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was tempted to post something about this a while ago as from the
>>>>> few posts I did catch it seemed you were both saying the same
>>>>> thing :) Perhaps it is helpful in such long-winded exchanges to
>>>>> summerise one's understanding of the points being discussed -
>>>>> what you are saying and what you think the other person is
>>>>> saying? It all seems to be getting a little too personal:)
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope you both have a blessed day,
>>>>
>>>> For my part, I'm saying that Lawrence, for whatever reason, has
>>>> made what happened between Mark and Abby analogous to what
>>>> transpired between Christ and the world. His is a four step
>>>> delusion:
>>>>
>>>> 1.) Mark and Abby have "reconciled"
>>>>
>>>> 2.) Reconciliation is coming into a "right relationship"
>>>>
>>>> 3.) We come into a "right relationship" with God when we are
>>>> "reconciled" to God through his Son.
>>>>
>>>> 4.) Therefore what Mark and Abby did is analogous to what Jesus
>>>> did for us.
>>>
>>> Umm, yes, and no. I can see the analogy but obviously (and I think
>>> Lawrence will agree) Christ's life/death/resurrection is way more
>>> important and significant event... but something with which we can
>>> (and should) model how we treat others.
>>
>> Yes, definitely. But it has to be MORE than just a model to have
>> anything to do with traditional Christianity. It doesn't matter
>> whether we're Protestant, Catholic, or non-denominational Christians,
>> if Christ's life, death, and resurrection are not historical REAL,
>> then as Paul says, we are among men the most wretched! So I think we
>> have to be careful in making analogies here. We're not taking some
>> aspect or moral from an ancient myth and applying to something that
>> happened between Abby and Mark (and Lawrence, but obviously, for me,
>> Lawrence and Mark present two decidedly different situations here).
>
> Christ -> those that needed salvation (all)
>
> Abby -> Mark
>
> ?
>
>>>> Let's forget for the moment that this is a VERY confused
>>>> theological view of the relationship between ANY Christian
>>>> believer, and ANY unbeliever (and that's exactly what Mark is when
>>>> he denies the deity of Jesus Christ, the nature of God, the plan
>>>> of salvation, the authority of the Bible as God's written word...I
>>>> mean, where do you want me to stop delineating the differences
>>>> between beliefs?!), and let's just focus on the fact that it IS a
>>>> theological view, and that Lawrence has claimed more than once
>>>> he's not arguing a theological view of what's happened.
>>>
>>> I think as long as your feel Mark is not a Christian and Lawrence
>>> does then there is very little point going onto any other
>>> discussion.
>
>> That's probably true. And if accepting Mark's "Christianity" is the
>> price of admission, I can't afford to.
>
> Don't know about everyone else, but I try to accept the person... not
> their beliefs.
So you would accept a person who believes it is good for him to rape your
wife?
>>> I'll take Mark's word that he is a Christian (as I take yours). I
>>> don't agree with all his views (and he mine) but he is searching and
>>> he is on a journey. Alas, he gets too side-tracked battling against
>>> those who show signg of being akin to the people who abused him.
>
>> I've understood for a long time now that Mark's stance on
>> conservative Christianity is emotionally driven.
>
> Nah, I'm a conservative.
I would not call you this. You do not show any sign of being a Christian at
all. You are a Tindall.
> Mark is intolerant of fundamentalists (ie.
> ultra-conservative).
>
>> However, I only have his version
>> of the abusive nature of anything he's ever suffered at the hands of
>> conservatives, and being a reasonable man, with a significant amount
>> of life's experiences under my belt, I reserve judgment on the truth
>> of his characterization of these events; the few I've actually seen
>> him describe. I've seen him say what isn't true in the past (we've
>> all done it, right?), and other than his own description of events, I
>> have no other facts to work with here, making it impossible for me to
>> know one way or the other. However, I DO know enough about him to
>> know it would be foolish to give him the benefit of the doubt in the
>> absence of facts. And, of course, should I ever come into possession
>> of actual "facts" in future that bear on the issue, I would be open
>> to modifying this complete withholding of belief (either way) I have
>> now.
>
> Sorry, none of that sunk in for me.
>
>> But I'd really like to address your first sentence above. It's most
>> interesting. You accept that I'm a Christian because I tell you I
>> am?
>
> On this forum with people I know a little better, basically yes.
>
>> I just want to know how far, and how consistently you take this
>> principle of identification.
>
> Only as far as this forum since it is limited in many ways.
>
> What is a campassionate approach to someone like Mark who is bordering
> on loosing all faith (largely in part due to abuse by
> fundamentalists)?
He cannot lose what he does not have.
> Damn him to hell shall we? I dare not.
Nobody would do so - but he IS in hell already if he does not turn to God.
That is not my idea, but God's.
> I accept his faith,
Why do you hate him so much?
> what little may be left,
There has nothing been ever. There cannot be anything left of nothing.
> and accept he is perhaps struggling
> on his journey.
Joking?
> I only hope I can help in some way (and I don't think
> telling him off or arguing is going to be constructive, do you? ps. I
> tried that already:). And in the end God is really the only one
> qualified to know Mark's inner faith (which is quite hard to get a
> glimpse of on a forum such as this where we tend to see many people's
> bad side). He's a darn site more honest about his struggle than most
> too.
Oh dear, oh dear.
Praise the Tindall!!!
Blame his victims!!!
Crucify all who believe in Jesus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hallelumark!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> vera >>>
--
>>> http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de :::
>>> http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/Israel.htm :::
|
|
| | From: | Mark T | | Subject: | Vera is a Tindall - PROOF! | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:04:21 +1100 |
|
|
| ">>> vera >>>" wrote:
> You are a Tindall.
You said we all come from Adam and Eve so therefore we are all related.
You are also a Tindall.
Welcome to the family, sister! ;-)
|
|
|
