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

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

"How many lights,Picard?"

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

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

"How many lights,Picard?"

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Thx for the valiant effort, votivesoul, but that

explanation falls short of clarity. It doesn not yet explain what it means. Plz try

again.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Thx for the valiant effort, votivesoul, but that

explanation falls short of clarity. It doesn not yet explain what it means. Plz try

again.

It means Jediwill called you a Cardassian.

[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.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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

That about sums it up!

[jediwill83]

Good name? I got a horrible name. This isnt the Horrible Name and Reputation Club? Geez...I gotta read those membership cards more closely messing up my terrible reputation by hanging out with you good people. The nerve of me.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Good name? I got a horrible name. This isnt the Horrible Name and Reputation Club? Geez...I gotta read those membership cards more closely messing up my terrible reputation by hanging out with you good people. The nerve of me.

Thx for the laugh of the day, jediwill83. Humour such as yours will keep people coming back for more. God bless you.

[votivesoul]

Don,

I accused of you being either of the following:

A. Nuts
B. Intellectually Dishonest
C. An Intentional Falsifier or Deceiver
D. Running for Political Office

Do you want to know why? I shall tell you.

In Post #345, you wrote the following:

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).

Don, this thread is 37 pages long. The vast majority of the posts contained in this thread are of Esaias asking you questions and rebutting your espoused views, with sound exegesis of the passage in question, and of you attempting to redress his rebuttals. Yes, there are some other comments from other posters, which don't specifically address your views, including a few of my own.

But, let it also be known, that your early inability to properly format your posts turned many users away, because it became difficult for anyone to follow along, because your posts were jumbled up with quotes from other users. It has been a major challenge for everyone reading to tell where your arguments begin and end.

Now, that's no major mark against you as a person. And it speaks nothing of the validity of your views on 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. It just means you are/were inexperienced with the html codes of the forum, all of which is now moot because it seems you figured it out by the end.

Nonetheless, you have to recognize that those early issues (which were brought up to you more than once, with more than one user taking the time to try to show you how to properly format your posts) were a big turn off for anyone that would have otherwise cared to engage you. It was for me, for example.

Secondly, most of your posts are way too long and meandering, and are mere restatements of your previous posts. This also makes engaging with you distasteful, as trying to keep up with your prodigiously long posts is a challenge.

And perhaps even more germaine, you have shown a certain pettiness in trying to acclaim points to yourself because Esaias, or whomever, didn't do an itemized, word for word accounting of everything you've posted in this thread.

Esaias has been a proverbial tornado to your position, and your position has crumbled under the weight of his force. Now, just because a tornado might leave part of a wall, or some of a chimney still standing, doesn't mean the house wasn't demolished. But you cannot seem to recognize that fact.

Further, you have taken the time, more times than I care to count, to reply to Brother Benincasa with non-replies, which are still replies. And yes, no matter how coy you've been with me, you have also sent him private messages, although it seems you finally desisted in that matter.

What does this all mean?

It means either:

You are nuts, which is to say, colloquially speaking, mentally unsound and unwell, suffering from some kind of psychological distress or disease, or...

You are intellectually dishonest, unwilling to be truthful to yourself and others, about what has ACTUALLY transpired in this thread, or...

You are an intentional falsifier and deceiver, that is, someone who knows they are attempting to falsify (turn into a lie) the reality of the matter, in order to hoodwink anyone who might be reading along, or just skimming the thread, or

You are running for political office, which, as Esaiah pointed out, is like a Russian Nesting Doll, in that to run for office/be a politician, usually indicates a person is somehow all of the three: nuts, dishonest, and deceptive. Now, my writing that was an attempt at being a bit cheeky, but you couldn't take the joke, apparently.