katellagen

Sighhswolf,

sighhswolf responds:
Good. Then you admit you have no justifiable basis for holding it. That really should settle the matter. But why do you continue to try to justify it?

I really can't respond in more detail due to time. I really am not sure it would do much good if I did. You really do simply seem determined not to be deterred from continuing on your pre-determined path to dispute the claims of Scripture on whatever grounds (or lack thereof) that you can, regardless of how selective you must be with the textual evidence; no matter how narrowly you must interpret it; no matter how much you must read into it; and no matter how much you must ignore in order to maintain your opinion. (I won't give you your quotes that confirm each of these statements, but you did say as much.)

As I said, it is not my point to change your opinion on the character of Scripture. However, I did think you might be able to see how the texts you cite are really a complimentary part of the narrative as a whole.

But incredibly, you've accused me of engaging in "selective reading", when the fact is that I take all of the Scripture, and read it in context, while it is you who isolates one passage here, and one other there, in order to "prove" your point. That is selective, and if you condemn it, condemn it in yourself. But I'm not the one engaging in it.

You have said that I've read into these verses. I have read nothing into those verses. I accept them exactly as they are. I am quite content to do so.

You have read into them. You have read something very important into them. You have read fear into them. Fear is not there. You have to put it there. It's not in the text. It is in your imagination. You come to the text with your agenda to debunk "the myth". You read the text. You insert fear. Then you say, "see, this says he was afraid." (But it is you, NOT the text that says it.)

Then you say, "if he was afraid, this contradicts his teaching elsewhere."

Then you say, "if he was afraid, he couldn't have been God."

Then you say, "if he was afraid, this contradicts other texts."

The only weapon you have to level these charges and reach these conclusions is that you say he was afraid. The major problem for your position is that it is YOU who say he was afraid. You brought that idea to the text - because of your "agenda". It was not there when you came to it, and it is not there now. It was, and is only in your imagination.

But beyond bringing your preconcieved and imaginary ideas to the text in order to further your agenda, you ignore all evidence to the contrary. Talk about willful ignorance! (which you have several times in reference to the "Christian's approach") If my tone indicates that I am appalled at your apparent lack of honesty here (which I've given you ample warning about), it is because I am appalled at you apparent lack of honesty here. And the only reason I'm even posting this is because I'm not sure if your blindness is all calculated and deliberate, or if some light of reason might actually break through to you. Your response or lack of it, to this post will settle the matter to my satisfaction.

Again, you said I read into the text something, but you have not indicated what. Indeed, you cannot because I have not. What I have done is looked at the verses in the context in which they are found. Seeing that what you assert was not there, I looked at the verses before and after them to see if there was any indication of fear there. There was not. What I found was exactly the opposite, which is what I indicated in my 1st, and 2nd, and 3rd responses to you.

I have come to a conclusion:

Regardless of what I might have otherwise thought based upon certain things I have read in the past, I am now convinced that Wolf believes Jesus to be the Omnipotent Lord over nature, the Victor over the Prince of Darkness, and the One who will dispatch the host of angels that will purge the kingdom, and cast all offenders into hell.

Unreasonable, you say? Why, not at all. Look at what he said:

There, you see? How can it be otherwise? He must believe it, he wrote it.

What's that you say? It contradicts everything else he has said? That's irrelevent! You can't make these things say what those other statements said. These clearly say he believes these things.

Huh? It doesn't say he believes it? Ridiculous. Why would he say it if he didn't believe it? I see no other way to read this than that Wolf has faith that these things are true.

Besides, you see, I'm sure Wolf has been covering over his deeply repressed knowledge of God. I know that his conscience has convicted him of his guilt and need for God's forgiveness. So when I came to this discussion, I knew I could find the chinks in his armor, everybody's got them. And I've got a "personal goal" with a "specific aim" to find them. In fact, there is evidence of weaknesses and chinks everywhere. And I came here with an "agenda" to expose those weaknesses and penetrate that armor, and reveal to him the futility of unbelief.

And look, he said it himself.

There it is. Plain as day.

Now he did say it didn't he?

What more evidence could you want? Wolf clearly believes and has faith in Jesus as depicted in these verses. Hallelujah!


As ridiculous as this is Wolf, it is exactly what you've done.

If I take your words in contest, it would be completely irrational and absurd to come to such a conclusion. It would be willful ignorance, and futile "faith". That is exactly what you are demonstrating, willful ignorance, and futile "faith".

When you quote John 7:1, and ignore the fact that it is merely setting the starting point for the narrative that follows; when you ignore the fact (even when repeatedly pointed out to you) that immediately after that text Jesus in fact went from his home region of Galilee, to Jerusalem (where He was supposedly afraid to go), and speaks openly and publically several times, during one of Israels major feast weeks, with major crowds, and in the presence of His enemies (who He's supposed to be afraid of); and you ignore the fact that in the same context it says twice that though they wanted to kill him they didn't because it was not yet His time ( which He knew), and you still want to assert the imaginary "fear" factor in order to attaempt to overthrow the Bible and Jesus, it's only resonable to conclude that you are being willfully ignorant and blinded by your self-admitted agenda. This is how it appears to me.

Don't get me wrong. You are perfectly entitled to such a choice. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that you're being intellectually honest or concerned to reach understanding in this matter, and don't present yourself as the objective rationalist, and please don't waste my time with this circular nonsense.

In all of my posts I have been very patient, respectful and careful to repond systematically - point by point; substantively - intereacting with the specific things you said, showing logical and factual errors, supporting my assertions; and considerately - giving you the benefit of the doubt as to your sincerity and intentions.

Your responses to me have been largely evasive - rarely interacting with what I'd said; circular and unsubstantiated - in spite of numerous requests for substantiation; but you have gradually and increasingly revealed and admitted your prejudice, and your agenda. And I'm sad to say that it does not seem to be in the interest of truth.

Given this, I'm afraid we have reached the bounds of reasonable and helpful discourse.

Peace

NOGO

Katellagen

I hope that you are working on my post.

Take care,
NOGO