Please respond to post 36.
@MadCornishBiker Said
It is not the challenging my beliefs that shows your desperation, it is your insistence on attacking me and the JW, passing on lies about them, and completely twisting things that they and I have said in order to do so that makes the desperation so clear.
Again, you are wrong - this is becoming a very bad habit of yours. I gave you multiple quotes with references that you are either too lazy or scared to check. That only speaks of you, it says nothing at all about me.
You have not the slightest comprehension of my motivation - if you did, you would not use words like desperation in attempting to describe them. You *may* use words like disgust, but that is not even close to desperate.
Would you suggest that I am "desperate" to prove Islam wrong? After all, I read the texts of Islam in order to understand this religion. Would you say that I am "desperate" to prove animal liberationists wrong? After all, I argued with them at length, and picked apart their arguments repeatedly, pointing out their inconsistencies. In other words, I do nothing with you that I have not done with others.
I debate ideas because I seek truth.
@MadCornishBiker Said If you forgot about me and them, as I have suggested before, and concentrated in the scriptural reasons for the beliefs that would be normal and not desperate.
Wrong again, as I do look at scripture, and repeatedly find your cult to be what it is - a cult full of liars and apostate frauds that have no honesty, decency or integrity. It is not unreasonable of me to point out examples of them acting without integrity - whether you like it or not is irrelevant.
@MadCornishBiker Said You cannot destroy the message because it comes from God, so you turn on me and them.
Actually, I have showed you to be wrong quite a few times, so, clearly you are not God, nor are you of God, nor do you speak as God, nor are you infallibly speaking as guided by some infallible "Holy Spirit."
@MadCornishBiker Said As someone else said, you can't argue with the message so you attack the messenger instead.
Yet again, you are wrong. How can someone that is infallible be simultaneously inerrantly wrong? It makes no sense. I may have to start calling you Pope MCB, as a Pope is the only other like you of which I am aware - self proclaiming infallibility on one hand, and being obviously wrong on the other.
I attack your message quite often, to be honest. You claim infallibility because "Holy Spirit" speaks through you, and I point out your errors. That is not an attack on you. And again, you constantly attacked me when we first started discussing this stuff ages ago - I can quote some of that for you too if you like. When you called me a dog, a swine, a liar, an apostate etc, all of this was fine and right and good apparently. Now that I give you back a little of your own medecine, you constantly sook about it.
You are reaping what you have sown.
@MadCornishBiker Said You see again you show your intention to twist what I say to mean more (or less) than it does, because that is what you want to think.
Once again, you are wrong. You really are not very good at this whole infallibility thing are you? Every time you assert something, you are wrong, so your false claim to being the infallible vehicle of "Holy Spirit" is a self evident fraud.
@MadCornishBiker Said Still at least this time you asked rather than just blustered as you so frequently do, but you loaded the question to try and elicit the answer you want to get.
You said - So you do not then, "test" the spirits - rather than - do you not? - That is what lawyers call a loaded question.
No, MCB, it is called a question. You said it does not matter if you even understand what you are given. This at the very least implied that you do not think critically about these 'revelations'. It was not an unreasonable question. Nor did I ask you to answer yes or no, or instruct you in any manner in which the question should be answered. There was nothing loaded in the question. I merely sought clarification.
@MadCornishBiker Said Of course I test the " the inspired expressions" to make sure they come from the right source, as you say, that is compulsory, and precisely what we have the bible for which is why I tell people on here and anywhere else I get the chance, to check what I say against scripture. Scripture is the final and only authority, wherever you get your information from.
Yet, you have admitted you are fallible, so your understanding could be wrong. Unless you are now going to do that typical JW thing of saying that you are a thing you say your not because you are even though you aren't... But, honestly, you have to admit you are wrong, yet again.
@MadCornishBiker Said God tells us to test it all out, and I trust Him to guide me through those tests.
Well now, that is just stupid reasoning. I trust "Holy Spirit" to tell me that "Holy Spirit" is always right because "Holy Spirit" is always right because I trust "Holy Spirit" to be always right because it says it is...
Nothing circular going in there at all...
@MadCornishBiker Said I am more than aware that Satan can read scripture also, and twist it as you do, just like he tried to with the Christ in the wilderness, but I also know that God will guide me to enough scriptures to prove beyond any doubt that the answer is the right one.
That is all well and good, unless the answers you receive are in fact, wrong, as they in fact are. We both know that you do not infallibly speak as "Holy Spirit" infallibly teaches you because you have been wrong. You are therefore wrong about the infallibility of "Holy Spirit" or you are wrong about your infallible reciting or conveying of the message "Holy Spirit" gives you.
Honestly, that should be the end of the discussion, and we should now be moving on to a new topic. Your infallibility is shot. Your infallible proclamation of an infallible "Holy Spirit" is shot. It's over.
You are wrong, you have lost, now please, can we move on?
Actually, it seems to me you place more trust in yourself than you do in God. If you trusted God you would not claim infallibility, even by proxy, nor would you use decontextualised scripture to support it.