Ok, well all this assumes that the Holy Spirit is in residence,
and as to your "you can't kill" thing,
I've already admitted that even though you
essentially violate the Spirit with this "exception,"
there would be cases in which killing
would be the Spiritual thing to do;
we even recog them, like universally?
"Put it out of its misery" etc.
Are all things lawful for you?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
And viola', just like that you reveal your premises.
"Murder" is just a human def of killing with intent,
so yes.
Fine. I'll take that as a 'yes'.
It doesn't matter what my premises are. I was asking two simple questions. You answered them both. They cannot both be true, but you say they are both true. Notice that the first one was not qualified in any way. It didn't say all things are lawful, except this, this, and this. It said all things are lawful. The second statement contradicted it. It is as if we are trying to believe that a box is empty, and there is an apple in the box. It's not the same as saying the box is empty except for an apple.
So there you have it, folks. Byrd believes contradictory things. And it is really messing him up. So much, that he doesn't even know it. He has no rational or logical basis for deciding what to believe. On this board somewhere, he has explicitly rejected logic, if I recall correctly. He decides what to believe using some other criteria, which he has (maybe) tried to explain to us, but (for me, at least) failed. Something about "wrong" or "right" premises, but without explaining how we can know which is right and which is wrong, other than mine are wrong and his are right. .
He may be beyond help.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
It doesn't matter what my premises are. I was asking two simple questions. You answered them both. They cannot both be true, but you say they are both true. Notice that the first one was not qualified in any way. It didn't say all things are lawful, except this, this, and this. It said all things are lawful. The second statement contradicted it. It is as if we are trying to believe that a box is empty, and there is an apple in the box. It's not the same as saying the box is empty except for an apple.
So there you have it, folks. Byrd believes contradictory things. And it is really messing him up. So much, that he doesn't even know it. He has no rational or logical basis for deciding what to believe. On this board somewhere, he has explicitly rejected logic, if I recall correctly. He decides what to believe using some other criteria, which he has (maybe) tried to explain to us, but (for me, at least) failed. Something about "wrong" or "right" premises, but without explaining how we can know which is right and which is wrong, other than mine are wrong and his are right. .
He may be beyond help.
Well actually , it is a qualified statement, "...but all things are not advisable," and even beyond that, one cannot read any Scripture in a vacuum except at their peril.
You think your premises are irrelevant here, when they are all that matter.
You say the second statement contradicted the first, when it did not?
I answered "yes" to both, so everything in the below is kind of moot, or I truly did miss something, lol.
(edit) oh, "They cannot both be true, but you say they are both true." says you.
If I came upon a dog, say, that had just been run over, obv wasn't going to live,
and I killed it to put it out of its misery, I would be murdering it.
But since that won't serve you, whose premises become so clear now,
trust that I am quite comfortable at "You don't read Scripture in a vacuum."
You can't find God with your intelligence; but you can use knowledge and wisdom, hmm...if you just want an apparent contradiction...now, you really think you want some witnesses here? Because I'm pretty sure I can get some, and I'm pretty sure you cannot get a single one.
Well actually , it is a qualified statement, "...but all things are not advisable,"
My question was not qualified. And the "qualifying" you cite from the scripture is not an exception, but an additional description of some of the things that are lawful. If something is not advisable ("expedient" and "edify" are used in the KJV), it does not make it unlawful.
Quote:
and even beyond that, one cannot read any Scripture in a vacuum except at their peril.
I'm not doing that. If the Bible makes a statement in one place, and it says something different elsewhere, I do not ignore it. You make one or the other say something other than what it says. I see them both for what they say, and see a contradiction. I do not twist scriptures. You do.
Quote:
You think your premises are irrelevant here, when they are all that matter.
You say the second statement contradicted the first, when it did not?
Quote:
I answered "yes" to both, so everything in the below is kind of moot, or I truly did miss something, lol.
(edit) oh, "They cannot both be true, but you say they are both true." says you.
Says logic.
Quote:
If I came upon a dog, say, that had just been run over, obv wasn't going to live,
and I killed it to put it out of its misery, I would be murdering it.
But since that won't serve you, whose premises become so clear now,
trust that I am quite comfortable at "You don't read Scripture in a vacuum."
You can't find God with your intelligence; but you can use knowledge and wisdom, hmm...if you just want an apparent contradiction...now, you really think you want some witnesses here? Because I'm pretty sure I can get some, and I'm pretty sure you cannot get a single one.
Will you bet your life on it? Yes or no?
No.
I don't have to bet my life on any such thing. I simply live my life, to the best of my ability. If you're going to bring Pascal's Wager into it, you must follow every religion ever invented, just in case!
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
.
Linear Mode
