I wanted you to say it. To acknowledge it. But why would you?
And here you go, "you have a limited vocabulary", what a laugh! You have zero idea. Just making noise.
The good man that turned bad out of necessity
- Thread starter Riven
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
And here you go, "you have a limited vocabulary", what a laugh! You have zero idea. Just making noise.
Then spend your time wisely. Don’t read or post to me.
His loss. I can help him with or without you.
Sounds like your loss, actually. People want to get a return on their provocations.
"Oh no, it's not for me . . . don't you want to help . . . that person?" It's another version of triangulation, which you do routinely.
What's interesting to me about this thread is the psychology that's on display.
I acknowledged that I knew another word, a synonym, for the word that you used.
There was no need for me to say the synonym you had in mind. Your meaning was clear without it.
***
Readers, this isn’t the first time that he has called me dishonest. You may not know that but he does.
One word is a limited vocabulary.
See above.
You not helping him is his loss, not mine.
You have your reward.
It wasn’t for me. It was for him. There’s only one reason why someone wouldn’t respond to a cry for someone to help someone else.
Does my answer to your question influence your decision whether or not to continue speaking to me?
If he has anything to say to me or ask me he is perfectly capable. You triangulate, I've seen that routinely from you.
No, not really. But then I hardly know whether to believe you or not. Whether this is truly your preference, or merely the appearance you want to project. Since I lack confidence in your veracity, it's not really a factor.
My not responding to the way you want is your loss, not his.
Parrot that all you like, but it doesn't change facts. If Riven wants anything from me he is perfectly capable to contact me. You are using this as a device, and you think I cannot see that? Seriously?
Last edited:
Then you’re playing a game.
You’ve already decided that I’m dishonest. Go with it.
You don’t know what to believe.
Nothing I say will change that. You’re playing to the crowd.
I’ve already told you that I can help him with or without you. If you don’t want to help him, then don’t.
The fact is that you’ve chosen not to help him.
Yes. He doesn’t think he needs anyone’s help.
“Man is better than God. God did nothing.”
He’s in trouble and doesn’t know it. He isn’t going to ask you for help.
You don’t want to know what I think. You wouldn’t believe me if I told you.
You asked if I wanted you to stop posting to me. I said no.
You can’t take no for an answer.
Will you take yes for an answer? What do you want to hear?
RLT63
Well-Known Member
No, I don't think Peter was the first Pope but I'm no expert.
Many of the things I learned about the Catholic Church (mostly negative) turned out to be wrong or greatly exaggerated
Last edited:
Thanks. The reason that I asked is because I’ve put forth the argument in another thread this morning, that the problem we’re discussing goes back to the mixing of the role of the church with the role of the state in the 4th century; the formation of the church-state. The Pope running the show (until the Protestant Reformation.)
The Just War theory comes from the Pope’s theologians, not from the New Testament.
It’s the church-state, not Peter, which said that it’s okay to kill your enemies and here are the parameters (which continued to be refined as time passed.)
Similar threads
