Felicity

Hey Nifty.....

Does the loooooong silence mean you cede the debate?

niftydrifty

of course not. my silence means I'd given up discussing this with you. sharing information and having a healthy debate is quite a bit different than what you have done here. post number 19 was really a doozy....

I respond directly to absurd statements you'd made about the church, and according to you, I am "muddying" the issue. I am "deflecting."

and "why the derisive tone," ... as if I am the only person here that's used one. as if I was the one that began using one here. as if I had used a derisive tone at all.

Felicity, I asked you for evidence. you gave none, other than the words of Christ. hasn't it been obvious that we have an honest difference of opinion here about what the words of Christ mean? isn't that what this debate ought to be about?

You say, "Are you suggesting the words of Jesus Christ aren't enough for a Christian to be convinced?"

LOL, no, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that I have a different opinion of what the passages mean. (just as "I am the bread" wasn't exactly literal.) and I'm also suggesting that you have no evidence to back up your opinion. hence these ridiculous tactics you employ.

it became clear in post #19 that you assume one meaning. RCC's doctrine comes first, and your beliefs follow.

the word for eat may be used in non-literal ways:

John 4:32-34 "But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him [ought] to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work."

chew on that, Ms. "I am well versed on this topic."

I hope you don't choke on it. I hope you find humility, and learn to be more objective.

__________________

Felicity

This is quite typical of your so-called "debate" style. Please take your own advice.

I did give specific evidence as to the "particular" word for "eat" that was used. It is not simply "eat" like the word we use in English--it is gnaw, chew, eat as in masticating specifically and can only be used to mean something literal. I'm sorry that you choose "to walk away" from the truth--just as those doubting disciples did in John 6. I hope you eventually come to recognize it, however.

niftydrifty

there is only one truth. but there are many facts:

• more than one word for "eat" are used interchangeably throughout John's gospel.

• you parrot a gazillion catholic apologist websites and somehow it makes you "well versed in the subject."

• Augustine of Hippo once wrote "believe, and you have eaten."

• "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing." - John 6:63

• You have no evidence that transubstantiation is real, other than your own misunderstanding.

• lots of stuff in the bible sounds literal, and lots of deluded people take it that way.

• etc.

post #19 was a doozy alright. I didn't think it was possible, but you've surpassed it here. just after I state (sincerely) that I hope you will find humility ... you go on to liken yourself, and your opinions, to Christ's message.

seek professional help immediately.

__________________

Felicity

Do you feel safe expressing your true thoughts in the Basement? Are you comforted by the fact that most casual readers can't see what you're really like? What a hypocrit. You may think I need "professional help,"--you need "spiritual help." Your comments in the basement were disgusting.

niftydrifty

yes, Lord.

ps. my post contained arguments. you dodged them, again.
pps. did I say anything that wasn't true?
ppps. your violation has been reported.

__________________

Stace

Moderator's Warning:

Normally, we don't step into Private Debates. However, I'm taking this opportunity to remind the both of you that normal forum rules are still in effect. Keep it civil, please, or your debate will be over.

__________________

Felicity

If the issue is "hypocrite."....you know...Jesus called some Pharisees a "brood of vipers." It's not wrong if it's right.

niftydrifty

I had given up on this pointless debate. Felicity, you brought me back into it, by asking if I had "ceded" it. I posted arguments in post #22. you didn't address all of them. you focused on only one point, and talked about my "style."

in post #24, I made more points that spoke directly to the topic. in your response, you addressed none of them, and instead spoke about what I did in another thread!

this is precisely why I concluded earlier that a "debate" with you is pointless.

thanks for nothing.

__________________

Felicity

You're welcome. I'm satisfied the record of evidence (on my part) and hostility (on your part) is adequate for the most basic reader to comprehend.