Gods part and our co-operation...

[teresaq]

Teresa, if you continue to reply to mine and other posts with the sarcastic comment:

"thank you for sharing that"

I will have not choice but to report it to the moderators of this forum.

There is no need for this constant sarcasm and attempts to bait other members of the forum.

Mark

you do what you feel is best. and if you choose to see it as "sarcasm" so be it.

and when they tell me, keep sunday or go to jail or worse, i pray for the strength to follow God and not man, no matter what the intimidation or threat.

[John317]

Moderator to all on this thread:

Remember to attack only evidence and arguments, not persons. Keep away from personal attacks and personal bickering and arguments. Take those to the Private Messages. All posts that don't conform to this will be deleted or edited. Do not repost those posts that have been deleted and do not argue on the public thread with moderators decisions. Cooperate with the moderator or the thread will be closed.

Have a good time and play nice. Remember that everyone thinks they're right.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Teresa, if you continue to reply to mine and other posts with the sarcastic comment:

"thank you for sharing that"

I will have not choice but to report it to the moderators of this forum.

There is no need for this constant sarcasm and attempts to bait other members of the forum.

Mark

you do what you feel is best. and if you choose to see it as "sarcasm" so be it.

and when they tell me, keep sunday or go to jail or worse, i pray for the strength to follow God and not man, no matter what the intimidation or threat.

I kept making appeals to you.

But you kept responding with sarcasm (how it could be anything else I am not sure).

I have had no other choice than to report it.

It ruins the thread and just irritates and "winds people up".

It really is not necessary.

Mark

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

you do what you feel is best. and if you choose to see it as "sarcasm" so be it.

and when they tell me, keep sunday or go to jail or worse, i pray for the strength to follow God and not man, no matter what the intimidation or threat. [/quote']come to think of it where is the rule against "sarcasm" and if there is one how come those posts that are clearly sarcastic arent dealt with?

and please explain how you see it as being "baited"?

what is the "comeback" to "thank you"?

is it being accused of "sarcasm"?

just curious as to your reasoning process regarding this.

I will leave this with the moderators.

Mark

[John317]

I will leave this with the moderators.

Mark

Thank you, Mark. :-)

[Woody]

"Really?

We are to discard Jesus' teaching?

Who told you that?"

:-)

[Woody]

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

If we are not doing that, then we better examine ourselves whether we are in the faith or not, converted or not, indwelt by Christ or not, indwelt by the HS or not. [/quote']well if you believe you are living a "a life totally free from all self-seeking and self-love, pride, etc" and are perfectly sin-free, so be it.

personally i see where i lack and need to improve.

i have to be honest and say i do not envy your claim. God may not agree with any who make such claims. He seemed to have approved the publicans claim to being a sinner over the pharisees claim to sinlessness.

For the umpteenth time let me categorically state once again: As long as we are in this flesh, we will continue to make mistakes. But willfull/deliberate/intentional/"high-handed sins? 1 Jn 3 is too unequivocal for me. One cannot be or remain a citizen of the Kingdom while LIVING a life contrary to its principles.

As for "selflessness" as in NO self, I for one do not believe the Scriptures call for it. The commandment is: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. But if by "selflessness" you mean death of the "old self", the one that needs to be crucified with Christ, the "self" that thinks the world revolves around it, then, yes, that is what we will always be contending with as long as we have breath and will not shed it until glorification. The good news is that we don't have to allow the "old self" or sin to "reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. ....For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." Rom 6 ESV.

[John317]

Amen and amen!!

Short and right to the point. :-)

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that we should no longer serve sin.

The old man must be kilt!

The old man was killed Richard. :-)

Have you ever considered that this is "past tense"?

Mark

"Is crucified" is in the Greek aorist tense which according to Webster is: ao•rist \ˈā-ə-rəst\ n

[LL & Gk; LL aoristos, fr. Gk, fr. aoristos undefined, fr. a + horistos definable, fr. horizein to define — more at horizon] 1581 : an inflectional form of a verb typically denoting simple occurrence of an action without reference to its completeness, duration, or repetition

Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

For the umpteenth time let me categorically state once again: As long as we are in this flesh, we will continue to make mistakes. But willfull/deliberate/intentional/"high-handed sins?

im merely responding to what is said in the posts.

[Gerr]

Yours happen to follow immediately mine, so I took it as a response to mine.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

The old man was killed Richard. :-)

Have you ever considered that this is "past tense"?

Mark [/quote']

"Is crucified" is in the Greek aorist tense which according to Webster is: ao•rist \ˈā-ə-rəst\ n

[LL & Gk; LL aoristos, fr. Gk, fr. aoristos undefined, fr. a + horistos definable, fr. horizein to define — more at horizon] 1581 : an inflectional form of a verb typically denoting simple occurrence of an action without reference to its completeness, duration, or repetition

Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

i would have to agree that that is the best way to look at it, as on-going, "daily" as paul said.

[Woody]

Quote:

But willfull/deliberate/intentional/"high-handed sins? 1 Jn 3 is too unequivocal for me. One cannot be or remain a citizen of the Kingdom while LIVING a life contrary to its principles.

I know of no other way then to interpret this to say that any intentional sin is the UNpardonable sin.

I guess I could only HOPE that you continue to not mean what you say. But I do fear you actually mean it.

How sad.

[Woody]

Quote:

As for "selflessness" as in NO self, I for one do not believe the Scriptures call for it.

Quote:

Really?

We are to discard Jesus' teaching?

Who told you that?

:-)

[teresaq]

Yours happen to follow immediately mine, so I took it as a response to mine.

[pnattmbtc]

Moderator to all on this thread:

Remember to attack only evidence and arguments, not persons. Keep away from personal attacks and personal bickering and arguments. Take those to the Private Messages. All posts that don't conform to this will be deleted or edited. Do not repost those posts that have been deleted and do not argue on the public thread with moderators decisions. Cooperate with the moderator or the thread will be closed.

Have a good time and play nice. Remember that everyone thinks they're right.

We should use Private Messages for personal attacks and personal bickering and arguments? My goodness, I hope not! Why not just get rid of them altogether?

[John317]

Quote:

As for "selflessness" as in NO self, I for one do not believe the Scriptures call for it.

Quote:

Really?

We are to discard Jesus' teaching?

Who told you that?

:-)

Did anyone here either say or imply that we should discard Jesus' teachings? Your question is based on an unsupported assumption that Gerry means that we should discard Christ's teachings.

First it needs to be shown that Jesus in fact taught that "selflessness" or agape love is the equivalent of having no self. What is the evidence that this is what Jesus intended us to understand?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Moderator to all on this thread:

Remember to attack only evidence and arguments, not persons. Keep away from personal attacks and personal bickering and arguments. Take those to the Private Messages. All posts that don't conform to this will be deleted or edited. Do not repost those posts that have been deleted and do not argue on the public thread with moderators decisions. Cooperate with the moderator or the thread will be closed.

Have a good time and play nice. Remember that everyone thinks they're right.

We should use Private Messages for personal attacks and personal bickering and arguments? My goodness, I hope not! Why not just get rid of them altogether?

Good idea, and wish it happened that way, but the whole point of the rule is to keep those kinds of posts off the public threads. There are times when it's best for people to discuss personal differences and that's one good use of the PMs. If members feel they must say those kinds of things, they should realize that the public threads are not the place for them and that they will be deleted when they occur.

[Gerr]

Quote:

But willfull/deliberate/intentional/"high-handed sins? 1 Jn 3 is too unequivocal for me. One cannot be or remain a citizen of the Kingdom while LIVING a life contrary to its principles.

I know of no other way then to interpret this to say that any intentional sin is the UNpardonable sin.

I guess I could only HOPE that you continue to not mean what you say. But I do fear you actually mean it.

How sad.

No such thing even by intimation. If it helps to get that notion out, go back to 1 Jn 2:1-2 "My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." ESV

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness," 1 Jn 1:9 ESV.

[Guest]

Amen

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

We should use Private Messages for personal attacks and personal bickering and arguments? My goodness, I hope not! Why not just get rid of them altogether?[/quote']

Good idea, and wish it happened that way, but the whole point of the rule is to keep those kinds of posts off the public threads. There are times when it's best for people to discuss personal differences and that's one good use of the PMs. If members feel they must say those kinds of things, they should realize that the public threads are not the place for them and that they will be deleted when they occur.

I think I'd prefer to be attacked publicly, rather than privately, so there'd be a chance of the posts being deleted. It certainly seems to me that you, and the other moderators, have been exceedingly generous in not deleting posts.

[Guest]

To delete, or not delete. That is the question.

[John317]

Quote:

I think I'd prefer to be attacked publicly, rather than privately, so there'd be a chance of the posts being deleted. It certainly seems to me that you, and the other moderators, have been exceedingly generous in not deleting posts.[/quote']

With moderator's hat on:

But we have to consider visitors and the fact that most people would rather not be attacked or called names on public threads. If people feel that they will be unfairly and personally attacked whenever they post, they are unlikely to want to post. Usually people have no problem with their arguments being "attacked" but they do with name-calling and personal attacks.

Moderators can't please everyone nor should they try, because some people want posts left up while others want them deleted. So moderators simply have to do what they themselves believe is right.

There's an appeals process created for the purpose of solving problems related to the decisions of moderators. If you or other members believe that a serious injustice has been done by a moderator, use that appeals process.

Yes, moderators tend to be generous about not deleting posts. The reason posts are deleted is because they violate the rules or they cause the discussion to deteriorate in some significant way. Posts are not deleted simply because they express an idea or belief that the moderator doesn't agree with or like.

That being said, if you believe a post is attacking you personally, or in violation of other rules, let me or other moderators know, and we will be happy to look at them. The moderators' and administrators, of course, have the final say on whether to delete or edit; we can't debate or argue those issues every time a question about a post comes up.

[Robert]

As for "selflessness" as in NO self, I for one do not believe the Scriptures call for it.

I never said that there's "no" self....In heaven we will be individuals in God's image and likeness, but we won't be occupied with ourselves...our needs...our wants...or selfishness of any kind. We will live for others solely....Our minds...our motives will be centered on others....We will be the servant of all....We will live to serve....

You will have that love which seeks not her own, but another's wealth. [DA 439]

"In heaven none will think of self, nor seek their own pleasure; but all, from pure, genuine love [agape], will seek the happiness of the heavenly beings around them." [2T 132]