Jadespring and 's/he-is-all-in-all'

[PureX]

Good point, Granite. So, Jade, is your god a vegasaurus AND a meatasaurus?

Well, if anyone could be both, it would be GOD, wouldn't it? *smile*

 

[Rimi]

Purex, you're a moron. The answer is NO. God could not be holy and a pedophile at the same time.

 

[Granite]

Purex, you're a moron. The answer is NO. God could not be holy and a pedophile at the same time.

I believe somebody needs to look up the word "sarcasm."

I mean, COME ON, guys.

 

[Jadespring]

I agree. Now, let's get back to the topic of this thread, shall we?
{/QUOTE]
It is the topic.

You still haven't explained what you mean by s/he-is-sll-in-all, nor have you offered any Biblical evidence God declares Himself as such. Literally, figuratively, metaphorically, spiritually or any other way you try to justify your belief about Christ.

I have. See above issues for problems in understanding on your end.

What's new? What's this? Like the 3rd time? Really now, if you didn't expect to talk theology on TOL, perhaps you should have chosen Yahoo to chat.

This isn't a talk Nin. It's you trying to come out on top using whatever tactics you can muster. Talking means exchanging of information. Now we're in the realm of pesonal attack and demonization.

No, your pagan justification wasn't missed. God isn't only wisdom, btw. So where did you cut and paste your talking point verses from?

Hmm more status play. Nice work. Never said he was only wisdom. And still the question isn't answered. You seem to be very good with the diversion thing.

Name one Protestant Church that uses the book of wisdom. You could name yours, but I think it's been fully disclosed you aren't protestant.

This whole protestant issue is really getting tiresome. By who's authority are you making this determination? Last I checked protestants didn't have a Pope to tell us what's what.

As for your mislabeling yourself for a second time, that's your fault not those who might think you are telling the Truth. Besides, the only person who seems to be getting upset about it is you.

Actually I'm not really. This whole exercise is taking on more of an amusing quality. Most of the time I sit here wide-eyed and incredulous at the whole thing.

Really? You've figured out I think you are fibbing about being a Christian and that you misrepresent my God? Cool! And it only took 2 threads

Wow, more word twisting again a look of incredulouness how ones mind works. Those words mean that to you? And I pretty much figured you didn't think I was Christian from your first post. I expect that you think this of a lot of people. You're brand of Christianity is pretty black and white. Though it would really help if you could make up a checklist that I can tick off so we can determine the issue once and for all.

I have no problem with your answer I think you are having trouble justifying your god being s/he-is-all-in-all while not allowing it to also be a transgendered child molester though. Here is where it behooves your, for your own sake, to rethink who your god really is. Either it really is "is all in all" or it isn't.

I don't have trouble justifying anything at all. My problem is trying to explain it in a way that you can comprehend and how to respond civily to an absolutely ridiculous and inane question.
I think you've made your point to all the people watching out there.

Let me say it this way...

My God wrote, with His own finger:

"You shall have no other gods before me.." and "You shall not make for yourself an idol..."

He got mad at His people for following baal, asteroth and molech. This means that my God really is not is all in all. He seperated Himself from those idols and the forms of worship they demanded.

Uhhh.....yeah. Okay. So what? He said that. I agree.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about all. I'm beginning to see where the problem lies here.

And you really have to get over this your God my God thing.
There is only one. They are the same thing. I thought this was one of the basics.

edited for format problem.

 

[Nineveh]

This isn't a talk Nin. It's you trying to come out on top using whatever tactics you can muster. Talking means exchanging of information. Now we're in the realm of pesonal attack and demonization.

Ok... so now back to the topic...

Hmm more status play. Nice work. Never said he was only wisdom. And still the question isn't answered. You seem to be very good with the diversion thing.

Wisdom is one attribute of God. Refering to it as "she" does not mean that one attribute defines who God is.

This whole protestant issue is really getting tiresome. By who's authority are you making this determination? Last I checked protestants didn't have a Pope to tell us what's what.

Protestants don't use catholic Bibles, either.

Actually I'm not really. This whole exercise is taking on more of an amusing quality. Most of the time I sit here wide-eyed and incredulous at the whole thing.

Fibbers react that way when confronted with the Truth, either that or they get mad.

Wow, more word twisting again a look of incredulouness how ones mind works. Those words mean that to you? And I pretty much figured you didn't think I was Christian from your first post. I expect that you think this of a lot of people. You're brand of Christianity is pretty black and white. Though it would really help if you could make up a checklist that I can tick off so we can determine the issue once and for all.

No, only the people who think God is s/he-is-all-in-all.

I don't have trouble justifying anything at all. My problem is trying to explain it in a way that you can comprehend and how to respond civily to an absolutely ridiculous and inane question.
I think you've made your point to all the people watching out there.

Don't say I haven't given you plenty of opportunity to explain what "s/he-is-all-in-all" in reference to Christ means. What does this make about the 5th ot 6th time you've evaded the question?

Uhhh.....yeah. Okay. So what? He said that. I agree.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about all. I'm beginning to see where the problem lies here.

I'm going to ask you to elaborate. I won't expect a reply though, just more bluster.

And you really have to get over this your God my God thing.
There is only one. They are the same thing. I thought this was one of the basics.

edited for format problem.

I do not know your god "s/he-is-all-in-all", and it's pretty obvious you don't know the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So yes, there is a difference.

 

[Granite]

Why do Christians reject the idea of any feminity within the godhead? At least that's the impression I get.

 

[Nineveh]

Why do you accept it?

 

[Granite]

Why do you accept it?

That I recall I didn't say I did or did not one way or another, Nin; maybe your mind reading trick is on the fritz.

I asked a question. That's all. Let's repeat:

Why do Christians reject the idea of any feminity within the godhead? At least that's the impression I get.

 

[Nineveh]

That I recall I didn't say I did or did not one way or another, Nin; maybe your mind reading trick is on the fritz.

You seem to have something to say on this thread so don't get testy when asked questions

I asked a question. That's all. Let's repeat:

Why do Christians reject the idea of any feminity within the godhead? At least that's the impression I get.

That idea is not promoted in Scripture. Your turn. Why do you accept that idea? Why do you feel Christians should?

 

[Granite]

You seem to have something to say on this thread so don't get testy when asked questions



That idea is not promoted in Scripture. Your turn. Why do you accept that idea? Why do you feel Christians should?

"That idea." Jeez. Can't even BRING yourself to say what you're talking about, Nin. Doesn't that strike you as a little odd?

I don't accept the idea one way or another. Considering I don't buy Christian dogma this shouldn't surprise anybody. But I am curious why Christians reject the ancient idea of the divine feminine, of the Sophia figure, and why the idea of feminity in the godhead seems so repugnant. I don't think there's much OPPOSING the idea; I just am interested in the psychology behind it.

 

[Jadespring]

Fibbers react that way when confronted with the Truth, either that or they get mad.

:kookoo: Whatever. Spin it as you, must however this is not a normal human reaction to lying. Not even sure where me fibbing about anything even came into this.
This arguement is wavering around so much that I can't keep up. The logic of thought is so odd.

So basically, you win. You are absolutely 100% right in everything you say and I 100% wrong. I don't even know why you evened bother to call this a conversation. Yeesh.
I'm sure this will leave you with a deep sense of satisfaction that yes indeed you are a good disciple, Bible policewoman or whatever you call yourself.
I have already answered you're questions. If you fail to understand them there is nothing I can do.
Now that we're in the realm of name calling. Ie Fibber et al. This "attack" is over as all semblemce of a civil conversation about difference in theology is a joke. This isn't about a discussion, it's about proving to yourself and the world that you are right.
Good Luck in your continued endeavors with this.

 

[Jadespring]

:doh:

I said ""fell' so to speak" in reference to a particular theological way of defining what happend in the Eden story. Not at all that we didn't fall. It's part of a larger theological argument, which I briefly described (still falling) Nuanced I know, so I can understand why at first glance why you would think that I said we didn't fall.

I will try to make it more clear next time.

 

[Nineveh]

:kookoo: Whatever. Spin it as you, must however this is not a normal human reaction to lying. Not even sure where me fibbing about anything even came into this.
This arguement is wavering around so much that I can't keep up. The logic of thought is so odd.

So basically, you win. You are absolutely 100% right in everything you say and I 100% wrong. I don't even know why you evened bother to call this a conversation. Yeesh.
I'm sure this will leave you with a deep sense of satisfaction that yes indeed you are a good disciple, Bible policewoman or whatever you call yourself.
I have already answered you're questions. If you fail to understand them there is nothing I can do.
Now that we're in the realm of name calling. Ie Fibber et al. This "attack" is over as all semblemce of a civil conversation about difference in theology is a joke. This isn't about a discussion, it's about proving to yourself and the world that you are right.
Good Luck in your continued endeavors with this.

Do I need to ask you again to explain it? Or are you going to act as if I haven't given you a fair shot at answering why you believe Jesus Christ is "s/he-is-all-in-all". I already know you won't discuss your belief about your god being "is all in all", because if it is, then it's also evil.

As far a fibbing goes, I think Army of One busted you flat out fibbing about what you said. And the only person you are snookering about you being a Protestant Chriatian is yourself. If you really think you are going to avoid discussing your beliefs here on TOL, take a note on this: this topic will come up again, it's inevitable.

 

[Nineveh]

I said ""fell' so to speak" in reference to a particular theological way of defining what happend in the Eden story. Not at all that we didn't fall. It's part of a larger theological argument, which I briefly described (still falling) Nuanced I know, so I can understand why at first glance why you would think that I said we didn't fall.

I will try to make it more clear next time.

To refresh the actual statement:

"We never fell. We only think that we did and created a whole story to do with that idea. It was our mistake. We have always been holy . We never 'fell' so to speak. We only think we did. Jesus came to liberate us from a 'guilt' and a primitive way of thinking that should have never happened.

Would you like to clear that up at this time?

 

[Nineveh]

I don't accept the idea one way or another. Considering I don't buy Christian dogma this shouldn't surprise anybody.

Ok, then if it doesn't matter to you, stop spamming this thread with irrelevant questions

 

[Granite]

Ok, then if it doesn't matter to you, stop spamming this thread with irrelevant questions

It's not irrelevant. That's the point (and I'd appreciate it if you tried to drop this smarmy know it all routine). Jade as she perceives God has no problem believing that feminity of some kind is part of the godhead. You reject the idea out of hand with a kneejerk response. Why doesn't Christianity even allow for the possibility?

 

[Nineveh]

It's not irrelevant. That's the point (and I'd appreciate it if you tried to drop this smarmy know it all routine). Jade as she perceives God has no problem believing that feminity of some kind is part of the godhead. You reject the idea out of hand with a kneejerk response. Why doesn't Christianity even allow for the possibility?

You said you really didn't care even though your question was answered. Not a whole lot of point to have scroll through there. Anyway, I hope jade is taking note on the folks who entertain such ideas against what is said in the Bible. So, for that, thanks, apostate

 

[Granite]

You said you really didn't care even though your question was answered. Not a whole lot of point to have scroll through there. Anyway, I hope jade is taking note on the folks who entertain such ideas against what is said in the Bible. So, for that, thanks, apostate

It wasn't answered. And nothing in scripture speaks against the concept; if anything it supports it to a certain point (wisdom is described as a woman).

 

[Nineveh]

Except everything refereing to Him as Him, He and Father, not to mention Christ is male. Your point was already brought up by jade and replied to.

 

[Granite]

:yawn: