Did I miss anything Curly?
Moderator: Community Team
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.

I stand in awe of your debating abilities.Gregrios wrote:I forget the question do to your desperation of your own opinion.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Did I miss anything Curly?
look at what I said about what his answer would be.Dancing Mustard wrote:What the hell are you talking about? That made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
That deserves to be quoted because of the sheer amount of truth it contained.jonesthecurl wrote:Gregrios has three (maybe four) resorts when in difficulty:
(i) You are entitled to your opinion (then shuts up)
(ii)Wow you're getting desperate (then shuts up)
(iii)Forgets you asked the question (e.g. Does the earth orbit the sun or vice-versa)
(iv)added to or substitued for one of the above,![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
Due to your lack of observation your mind has warped into the realm in which you roam.Dancing Mustard wrote:What the hell are you talking about? That made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
Do?Gregrios wrote:Do to your lack of observation your mind has warped into the realm in which you roam.Dancing Mustard wrote:What the hell are you talking about? That made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Better?Snorri1234 wrote:Do?Gregrios wrote:Due to your lack of observation your mind has warped into the realm in which you roam.Dancing Mustard wrote:What the hell are you talking about? That made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
Dancing Mustard wrote:No.
Despite now being correctly spelled; it still makes f*ck all sense.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
What question is it now?MeDeFe wrote:Greg, are you going to continue trolling or will you answer my earlier questions? I for one meant them quite seriously.
bumpjonesthecurl wrote:Gregrios has three (maybe four) resorts when in difficulty:
(i) You are entitled to your opinion (then shuts up)
(ii)Wow you're getting desperate (then shuts up)
(iii)Forgets you asked the question (e.g. Does the earth orbit the sun or vice-versa)
(iv)added to or substitued for one of the above,![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
I was referring to this post, it's on page 103Gregrios wrote:What question is it now?MeDeFe wrote:Greg, are you going to continue trolling or will you answer my earlier questions? I for one meant them quite seriously.
Oh wait. Let me guess.![]()
Was it, "Are dogs & cats of the same species?" or was it, "Does God cause hangnails?"![]()
Ahh, I give up.![]()
What was the question?
There are actually several questions there, I'd really appreciate it if you could try and answer them all.MeDeFe wrote:ok, so as you see it, faith is necessary for going to heaven, accepting god and obeying his commands is not enough. (I'm not going into the whole love-thing just yet, I know there's that as well)
To be almost brutally honest, I don't even know what this faith is really supposed to be. To me it looks like something along the lines of "My parents have told me god exists and they would never lie to me, everyone at the church has told me god exists and they should know what they're talking about, everyone I know believes in god. God has to exist, why else would everyone believe in him?" If you were to substitute 'Australia' for 'god', and 'geography class' for 'church' it wouldn't sound bad at all, but god is so improbable judging from what we can observe and the stories about him are so full of contradictions that I think it's something of a miracle that people believe in god at all.
Does that make me insincere? I don't see how, it just makes me a person who doesn't accept everything I'm told without questioning it. (And supposedly god is responsible for me being that way as well) For all you know everyone would be sincere if god were to prove his existence. Right now this distinction between 'sincere' and 'insincere' seems to be one of "believe what you're told about god without questioning it" and "ask inconvenient questions about what you're told about god". And btw, isn't god supposedly omniscient? Wouldn't he be able to tell whether a person is sincere or not anyway?
And wouldn't it be a short-term problem of people who previously did not believe? I mean, one generation later the proof will be there for everyone to evaluate from birth onwards. They could hardly be accused of being turncoats. And if it's such a big problem, well, just reincarnate everyone who wasn't already a believer at the time of the Proof and give them a fair chance or something.
As for your example, how about letting both of them in? Maybe cut down a little on the rations and draw lots about who gets to sleep on the couch and it'll work.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
I am not sure where you are going with this. Obeying his commands, is not really any part of salvation. The obediance is a manifistation. Our actions are mearly a result of our thoughts, beleifs and emotions. This is why James points out that it isn't our deeds that save us. You see this in many people who accept Christ, there isn't always an immediate change in all their actions, but as you see people really start beleiving and spending time reading/praying/etc, you see the actions change. As for the acceptance, I am not so sure how you could accept God, and not have faith. I think the two are linked. You see, faith is defined as "A) allegiance to duty or a person B) belief and trust in and loyalty to God, (2): complete trust". I am going ot leave this here, since the rest of your stuff was also on faith, I hope to cover the rest as I keep going.ok, so as you see it, faith is necessary for going to heaven, accepting god and obeying his commands is not enough. (I'm not going into the whole love-thing just yet, I know there's that as well)
That is not faith in God at all, that is faith in your parents, teachers, preacher, or whoever. As a Christian, if you do not question what is taught in classes, or from the pulpit, then you are putting your faith in the wrong thing. Assuming that all Christians only beleive because their parents told them so, is rather insulting. You see, thing is, that when you start seeing the personable God, you start to question the stuff that your teachers, or your friends, or the school books told you. I have met enough people, and seen enough things in my life, that right or wrong, true or false, there is something about the words of Jesus, that have tha abilty to change peoples lifes. I think that is what the faith is all about.To be almost brutally honest, I don't even know what this faith is really supposed to be. To me it looks like something along the lines of "My parents have told me god exists and they would never lie to me, everyone at the church has told me god exists and they should know what they're talking about, everyone I know believes in god. God has to exist, why else would everyone believe in him?" If you were to substitute 'Australia' for 'god', and 'geography class' for 'church' it wouldn't sound bad at all, but god is so improbable judging from what we can observe and the stories about him are so full of contradictions that I think it's something of a miracle that people believe in god at all.
Just as I said before, insincere no, it means you are inteligent, and capable of questioning. That is a good thing. Blindly accepting is not good, in fact much of what is preached in the NT, is very much telling people to question what they are told, and to test it against what God says. The question comes down to what you test it against. That my friend, is something that I can't answer for you. We all have different berameters, so to say. My barameter is much of my own experiances, what I have seen, what I have lived through. Under that test, it is pretty easy for me to say without a doubt, that there is a least a power in this world, that is beyond science, and beyond what human ability.Does that make me insincere? I don't see how, it just makes me a person who doesn't accept everything I'm told without questioning it. (And supposedly god is responsible for me being that way as well) For all you know everyone would be sincere if god were to prove his existence. Right now this distinction between 'sincere' and 'insincere' seems to be one of "believe what you're told about god without questioning it" and "ask inconvenient questions about what you're told about god". And btw, isn't god supposedly omniscient? Wouldn't he be able to tell whether a person is sincere or not anyway?
I am not sure what you are getting at here, a little more explanation, and I will sure try to give you something (but what I give you, is worth about what you paid for it.And wouldn't it be a short-term problem of people who previously did not believe? I mean, one generation later the proof will be there for everyone to evaluate from birth onwards. They could hardly be accused of being turncoats. And if it's such a big problem, well, just reincarnate everyone who wasn't already a believer at the time of the Proof and give them a fair chance or something.
I am going to assume, this is about just letting everyone into heaven, and how it is that God chooses who goes into heaven? If it is, I will do my best to give you something there, it will be a very long post, it gets into a quite a lot of theology, and so forth. In a nutsell, God cannot be in the presence of evil, he gave us and the angles the gift of choice, through that choice, sin entered the world, sperating us from God. The only way back in the presence of God, is to be sinless, which is impossible, for this God gave us a path in which we can choose to accept that grace, and that will allow us our sins to be clensed, allowing us back in Gods presence. (way over simplified, so much so, that it probably doesn't answer anything, but I didn't want to just leave you with nothing).As for your example, how about letting both of them in? Maybe cut down a little on the rations and draw lots about who gets to sleep on the couch and it'll work.
But Gregrios implied that God couldn't tell if you were sincere.dewey316 wrote:
God is ominscient, and he is the only one who can tell who is sincere or not, when it comes to their faith. I sure as heck cannot tell you about Gregrios faith nor yours.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.


are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.