snowychap

I am afraid that is not true and you are not doing yourself or your 'word' justice by pretending otherwise. I'm sorry but I think your group is a great example of self-interested living. Many of your group have already said and implied that they are no longer of this world and as such bear no responsibility for what happens in or to it. And it is also saying that everyone is now free to be subjugated under other wordly domination and control, now matter how benevolent a (son of) god might try to make it appear. Sorry, did I miss the feature presentation? Hollywood is in the US. Channel4 is in the UK. Not this again. Whenever someone criticises anyone from your group, you believe that it is they who are at fault and not you. Sorry, I forgot that the perfect ones cannot err. I'm not going to be bending the knee or bowing to anyone which rather falsifies your proclamation. If a parent had spoken to me in this kind of made up English, it would have naturally lessened the effect of any message that he/she were trying to get across. I do not mean to misunderestimate you. :winkold:

It was nothing to do with ethnicity rather to do with religious association. I did not imply that you were chosen for any reason. I certainly did not imply that you were chosen because you were elite; it is rather that you viewed yourselves as an elite group because you thought you had been chosen. Should it not say it in your book? That is where you referred when originally explaining the significance of the 'renaming'. Please can you (and others in your group) refrain from this kind of patronizing approach to your responses (at least to me). We may disagree, discuss,debate and question but unless someone actually says that they do not understand then don't come out with the schoolteacher approach.

I'm still not sure what your problem or your question is. God gave me a new name and I received it. The question was about the muslim origin and its subsequent use in the context of 'the elite christian group' as per the first line quoted above. I have no problem with the name; it is a lovely name. Also, are we going to be renamed over and over according to the bible? Or just once?

It sounds like we're due to receive ONE new name. Not be renamed over and over depending upon the blowing of the wind. I may not be a 'bible man' but perhaps if you raised your head out of the thing you might be able to read what other people say, too. Do you not see that some might see a little irony in one of the few (48 or so) 'true' christians being given a new name which is a muslim name. To Clarry, this is not a jibe. It is a genuine question.

I directed my answer to the root of the issue. Perhaps this is what you did not understand. No, you did not. You used the opportunity of responding to a question asked to trot out your mantra about the judgement of the character of god, the marriage of the lamb, &c. and not as an opportunity to address the question(s) and the particular(s) at hand. Have you thought about a career in politics?

Is there not the possibility that the thought has simply asked the question, and your glance or look is simply an attempt to answer- and the answer could be 'no'? (this is getting very philosophical) I think that beth's approach to this question does not allow for people to be multi-dimensional in the same way that BOF's does. Beth, I am afraid that if something is a thought in your head it is yours however fleeting it may be. You accept that human beings have free will and from that I infer that you view this free will as an integral part of our humanity. Can you not see that at any time from the birth of the idea up until the actuality of the action which will transform that idea in to deed then a human being can exercise their free will in stopping this process. If thought is as bad as deed then there is no point in free will and no point in humanity except as an exercise in public backslapping for god. But that is where you are, isn't it? You have no need for the kind of free will necessary to make value decisions about things and to make moral judgements. You have 'let god in', have given up all responsibility for morality to his judgement and because of this believe that nothing that comes from you can be bad (even if it appears to be so to others) because it is god's will. Do you think that anything is bad? If so, where do you think its origin is? How can you judge extraneous events or thoughts to be good or bad when you have no concept of good and bad in yourself? Is it : we are perfectly good because we are part of god ergo you are all perfectly bad because you are not?

I am sorry if it is improper to ask this but what are you going on about?

That's what I thought and that is why I posted the following: Your post was a tangential response to my question, at best. Hanifa means true believer. Is that odd? It seemed odd that a Christian changing their name to represent who they truly are would choose an arabic and ostensibly muslim name.

Btw, is Hanifa not an odd choice of name for a christian?

Trinity_Tom and beth have been communicating in between all the foolishness. The reply to which you refer is her response to a post by him two pages back. Perhaps if her post is a response to a specific individual she could indicate that in future. How you can distinguish your (collective not specific to you) foolishness and the other foolishness is remarkable.

To whom is this post addressed or is it just a soliloquy? It certainly can't be my last post as it has sod all to do with what I was querying.

I am wondering about one thing about Michael. Edit: I am wondering about many things about Michael but one is the following: There are two possibilities: He has done something which we, outside your group, would regard as wrong and as such has 'offended' us and thus partly achieved his prophetical purpose as a 'sword'. In which case, job done. Why would you find it necessary to refute these charges as that would be counter productive? If he is not of this world and not to be judged by its morality then what would it gain you to defend something which need not (by your proclamation) be defended? or He hasn't done anything which we would view as wrong: in which case it's all a bit of a storm in a teacup and there is no necessity for anyone to refute erroneous charges. That would, though, mean that he were not doing his job of offending the outside world (except by way of deception and falsehood).

DYOR - how the heck would I know - do you think I hang around ER Gringo, no worries about missing it. As far as your recreational activities go, I couldn't comment. Though you could be a lawyer. :winkold:

Not sure you get to put in requests.

F***ed, I think. Michelsen. Just like the murdering, robbing, raping, beating, job/car/house/wife/kids-losing unbelievers. It is not about who you are, what you do or how decent you are it is about whether you believe ONE thing. And if you don't then you're not getting on the Ark even if you are twice or ten times the person that any of those with a ticket are. It's a theocracy not a meritocracy! :winkold:

Yep. Ex-Blackburn and West Ham now at Fulham. :winkold:

Gee, thanks! I'm assuming that DYOR means do your own research? Also, what are the stats on the ratio of deaths to users and whether the deaths are accidental?

Can we compare eggs with eggs, please?

You answer this from the context of your own lack of humanity. That is awfully gracious of him. Asking would suggest that I could prevent him from being god which is slightly bizarre and also illogical for if that is the truth, then I cannot prevent 'the truth'. If this is really true then the evil of the 'world cult' is also in and for love's sake. So to criticise those outside your group for those things upon which you frown is to be having a go at god himself, is it not? Next you'll start talking in terms of 'reaching bases'.

OF, they don't do entertainment! Although, sometimes, neither do Villa. :winkold:

Dear Pad (Brillo), It is a shame that you lacked the courtesy to reply to my questions about the insult and the single post when you returned to the site last night. I guess you lack any ounce of decency. Ah well, I really hope your personality is not as abrasive as your monicker implies and that someone somewhere loves you (on this earth rather than off/beyond it). This thread has been rather surreal and for the most part quite enjoyable but back to reality and the important stuff - must get ready to take in the Chelsea game.

Yes, really. But I think it is termed 'visiting with' rather than 'rallying in force'. :winkold: Worth a read but obviously only if you've got the time to spare. Do not put anything worthwhile in your life off in order to read it all.

BrilloPad, I wonder why you felt it necessary to insult me when you clearly are not on the strong city wavelength ? I refer to your reliance upon the monkeys theory (no foundation for the attribution btw and the Lear aspect is novel). Was it just to be argumentative or are you in the habit of joining a forum in order to effect single post unconstructive criticism?

Jolly good. I think the standard phrase is pissing in the wind or are you required to tone that down. Is the weak city theme now just to chuck out insults about the cerebral activity required to say something or read something. Ooh, look what I did there. I altered the name of something/somebody in order to have a go at something humorous. 'snowycrap' . In your style : shaddup you face. :winkold: No, really, it's always good to hear enlightened viewpoints such as yours.

Can I take it that you still don't get irony over the pond, then? :winkold: Will you be linking to my post from your website?