1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Don, go find a pastor

[donfriesen1]

COMPILATION.

Evangelist Dominic Benincasa is a man who has great knowledge. He has

posted here on this thread 43 times. You may have noticed that he does not

contribute much of a Biblical perspective from this great knowledge. He does

not say much against the iv by way of reasoning or scriptural refutation. He

spends much effort, 32 of his 43 posts, only making comments about me.

The focus of his comments are about me and not scriptural views. We do not

learn from his posts what it is he believes of 1Co11. But four of his posts are

a congratulatory type, high-fiving another's vv points.


5 of his posts are commenting on the topic of the thread: 93, 146, 201, 276, 289.


What Dom has said/would say in support of the vv: (This assumes

this is his view because he 'Amens' Amanah and Esaias, who hold the vv.)

1. Says that Paul is a God-inspired writer, p93.

2. Says Paul says there should be no arguments about what he teaches,
p93.

3. Says what Paul teaches was a custom in all the current churches, p93.

4. Says Paul was giving instruction and not suggestions in 1Co11, p276.

5. Provides secular historical facts, p289.


Arguments Dom uses against the iv:

1. He says I write about then-current issues of secular modesty, p93.

2. Says the Gospel of Inclusion (the iv?) is winging it, p146.

3. Says I believe that Paul's views are Paul's opinions, p201.

4. Says I believe that if anyone disagrees with Paul that they can go on

their merry way, p201.

5. Says that I believe that God gives opinions to Man, p201.


Questions of reason and points left unanswered by Dom:

See p47 and p340 for many of my points which have not been addressed by

either Esaias or Dominic.



I conclude that Dom wants you to believe as he does just because he says

so. He has provided little of substance from reason or scripture to give

support that you should believe as he believes. Nor much of substance to

show the iv is wrong. He is capable to do much more but for reasons

undisclosed has chosen not to in this thread.

[donfriesen1]

As you can see, the main points of the instincts view haven't been

shown to be faulty or unscriptural by seasoned opponents. This is telling of

something. It would be hard to disprove truth using truth. That no arguments

from reasoning or scripture are used to disprove the instincts view, shows it as

truth. Thoughts presented as truth should be embraced and not rejected

without reason.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

As you can see, the main points of the instincts view haven't been

shown to be faulty or unscriptural by seasoned opponents. This is telling of

something. It would be hard to disprove truth using truth. That no arguments

from reasoning or scripture are used to disprove the instincts view, shows it as

truth. Thoughts presented as truth should be embraced and not rejected

without reason.

As we can see, Don is living in his own reality. "Haven't been shown to be faulty or unscriptural"? "No arguments from reasoning or scripture are used to disprove the instincts view"? Sure thing, Don.

[donfriesen1]

There you have it ladies and gentleman, brothers and sisters.

After waiting a long to give more time to do so, those who have great experience

and are prolific in their responses in many, many, many threads in AFF, (Esaias, Evang.Benincasa, Amanah) don't

have the ability or the desire, to refute by scripture or reason, the many points

of the instincts view I've presented. This is telling of something. Either the

instincts view is a scripturally founded view with logical arguments which are

not easily refuted, or those opposed to it (Esaias, Evang.Benincasa, Amanah)

won't take the time to properly refute it (or they can't because it has to them the

appearance of being irrefutable). In spite of this, they come up with deeply theological

comments like 'Wrong', which itself is telling of something. When truth

knocks on the door it is best practice to accept it or be seen as rejecting

truth. Either prove it wrong or accept it, is the best policy.

[votivesoul]

You're nuts.

Or, intellectually dishonest.

Or, an intentional falsifier and deceiver.

Or, you're running for political office.

[jediwill83]

"How many lights,Picard?"

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

"How many lights,Picard?"

jediwill83: You will have to enlighten us so we can discover what this means.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

You're nuts.

Or, intellectually dishonest.

Or, an intentional falsifier and deceiver.

Or, you're running for political office.

Thx for posting, Votivesoul. Welcome back.


'Or, your running for political office'? What in God's green

earth would elicit a comment such as that, Votivesoul? Certainly nothing I, a

Canadian, have ever said in posts. Wow!



See that user name. That's my real name. People can look

me up and come to my house. They could potentially throw rocks at my

house, when I don't hide behind the cloke of a pseudonym. My real name, as

published, keeps me careful because the scripture tells us to be diligent to

maintain a good name. If I had a pseudonym I might be tempted to do as

kids do when the car driver drives by some kids on the street they hate.

They stick

their necks out the window to say all sorts of mean things, knowing those on

the street won't get a chance to respond as they whiz by. Such is the nature

of the immature. If I had a pseudonym in AFF, I could mouth-off to anyone in

AFF without fear that it reflects bad on my name. OK - all those except those

who know me by both my real and pseudonym name. There's always some

like that. But either way, I try to live with a mature godly character and

wouldn't stick my head out the car to yell slurs, even when I could. Its not

ethical. It's not the Christian way. That's not what big boys do. They specify

what they think is wrong. Big boys give someone a chance to respond to any

real concerns. The immature speed by, yelling anything at all. Votivesoul

won't be revealing his real name anytime soon, I'm sure.



So, the poster Votivesoul does this: Speeds by, shouting some things without

specificying what his gripe is. This allows no room for discussions of wrongs

and rights, no theological, scriptural discussion. This does not allow for

rebuttal. This shows a brother who wants

all to believe that he is one in the right (but doesn't specify what this is) and

to make someone else look wrong (but doesn't specify what this is). 'Believe

me', Votivesoul indicates, 'just because I yelled something as I speed by'. We

have names for such as these. They have the same attitude as dictators and

don't you dare disagree with them. They'll get on their AFF anonymous soap

box and call you names. At least Amanah and Esaias use good logic and

scripture when they speak. God bless their methods but not

Votivesoul's

methods. He indicates 'Me over here on my anonymous soap box am right

about things just because my mouth is moving.

And you over there. You can shut up. You don't have a right to American

liberty.' And even normally mocking Evang. Benincasa has been known to

open the Book occassionally. Hi, Dom.



Plz, Votivesoul, do come back and share some

scripture to rebutt the points I

have made which you think are wrong. Good rebuttal is always welcomed.

But plz, no more drivel.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

You're nuts.

Or, intellectually dishonest.

Or, an intentional falsifier and deceiver.

Or, you're running for political office.

The last includes the previous three. Like Russian nesting dolls or something.