Can a Cucumber Pickle Itself Was a Sarcastic Response to a Childish Question

I told you I'm not commenting on that post anymore.

John Knight Nov 23, 2009, 11:06pm EST
"Sue,

I must say, that fellow you are talking about is a very silly sort, it seems to me . . . Trying to reason with unreasonable people for years on end, believing God needs him to do this and that, doesn't understand logic for beans . . . If I were you, I wouldn't have anything more to do with him ; )"

If you notice, I haven't since he wrote that post about me.

I should qualify that I'm not commenting on Mark's post anymore. The post to which I am referring that he wrote about me is not Mark's post and the he is not Mark. Of course, Mark's post was not about me, but I see the way people comprehend the written word here, so I need to qualify and define, and requalify and redefine, not that they will understand anyway, but at least I know I've done all I can for those who read what hasn't been written.

Hi Sue.......

As you may have noticed, I also excused myself from any further participation in that thread, though for entirely different reasons that yourself.

Each of us believe differently in many ways and I am simply not the sort of person to keep on beating a dead horse over and over, day after day, trying to get someone to agree with me, believe as I do, or even see or comprehend my choice of beliefs or personal point of view.

I would rather just bow out gracefully than continue to risk the very real possibility of offending someone or being offended myself.

I do not apologize for the way I personally see things or what I believe or what I do not believe, and it is not my job to convince anyone of anything, no more than it is their job to convince me.

But, let me say, that I am sorry that the discussion on the thread you refer to has led to such negativity and ultimately caused ill feelings between friends the way it apparently has.........

Hopefully, forgiveness and understanding will eventually emerge from what has unfortunately turned into an offensive mess........
.

I don't think that the discussion on the thread has led to any negativity or ill feeling among friends, but the reason I left the thread is because, as I said, "a reference [was] made that was one that I consider to be the one sin that cannot be forgiven." That was not at all anything personally directed at or to any other human being at all. You do know that there is a sin that is not forgiven and what that is, right? I was so appalled by the comment that I did not wish to further comment there. It had nothing to do with beliefs or differences of biblical interpretations among those I consider good connections here.

If that comment had not been made, I would have answered Mark's last comment right on that thread. Instead, I responded to it here because I was so disgusted with that comment that came from someone who is no connection of mine.

I believe I have read the exchange that you are referring to......

However, to me, it just seems like speculative stupidlity......

I would be interested in understanding more clearly how you see it, though.....

Well, if you do indeed know of what comment I speak, I don't think anyone should reduce that Holy Entity to merely some cosmological force because that Holy Entity is much more than that and it is blasphemous to do so. Maybe God considers it just speculative stupidity, and I hope so, but I didn't want to be a part of where it might lead either, if it might have lead to even worse.

Yes, I can see "where it could lead to" as being an extremely dangerous proposition, to say the least........

Thank you for realizing that, Berf. :) I'm still kind of shaken over it because it seemed so bold and irreverent to speculate so cavalierly though, in retrospect, from some other comments, I shouldn't have been so surprised, I guess.

Hmm . . . just stumbled upon this (thank Berf) . . . On the "sinning" aspect, (the only one I've actually figured out yet ; ) . . I think he may very well have sinned by omission, as is said. I can't speak for him, of course, but I don't imagine (after thinking about it) that he meant that the entirety of the Holy Spirit was mere force, energy, whatever. Something more like the Holy Spirit havening a detectable influence on the gravitational behavior of the cosmos . . . Sort of like a shadow, or wake, in the metrics of the space-time continuum.

That said, I was shocked when I read the words . . . and they happened to be the first words I read that time here . . . So, really, I hear ya Sue, I just suspect that we witnessed a man being clumsy, so to speak. more than a man speaking doctrine seriously. A sin, I say yes . . . unforgivable . . perhaps not ; )

Thank you for that, John, and thanks to Berf for pointing the post out to John. Certainly, I'd prefer not to discuss it further for reasons I left the other post, but I do appreciate the feedback that is somewhat comforting, and what I'd like to believe, but there is that perhaps that still concerns me, especially when it's interpreted as it was stated, and in the context of other comments that person made that seem anathema to faith to me.

I got an email that apologized for upsetting me and explained the comment as being only an answer to someone else that was not meant to diminish the power of God. I am happy for that, but I asked why ignorance had been feigned about the comment here. No answer. The only reason I mention this is in case you also get an email that explains the same. I also wonder why it wasn't in a ping so all might be able to see it. It's not as if he doesn't use pings because I've seen them.

Hi Sue,
Do you suppose that you have ever grieved the Holy Spirit?

-Mark

Absolutely not!

If I had thought so, Mark, would I be so concerned? One of the main reasons I think John decided to end his series was because he had asked me to speak more on the topic that involved that Person of the Trinity, and I told John that I was not willing to discuss it further because of the concern. I think John realized that without that component open to discussion, the whole series might be useless. I could be wrong, (you'd really have to ask John) but if you look at the last comments in John's last article in that series, it was then that John sent me an email to ask me to expound and I explained my stand to him in a return email. The series ended then.

I can imagine that I grieve Him many times each day.

-Mark

I can assure you that you do not many times a day unless you have done it once. After that, there's no going back, but one who has been truly saved cannot do so.

"I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." Mark 3:28-29

"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."
Matthew 12:31-32

Maybe I wasn't clear too. As I did state in this comment:

Sue B.© The Sting IS Worse Than the Buzz Nov 24, 2009, 12:15am EST
"Well, if you do indeed know of what comment I speak, I don't think anyone should reduce that Holy Entity to merely some cosmological force because that Holy Entity is much more than that and it is blasphemous to do so. Maybe God considers it just speculative stupidity, and I hope so, but I didn't want to be a part of where it might lead either, if it might have lead to even worse.

I just changed this to a friends only can comment post. If I had wanted to belabor this, I would have continued it on Mark's post.

I just want to add that I made it clear that I did not want to belabor this in an open thread. It should have been obvious, but apparently things that are obvious are many times either ignored or even sometimes purposely dismissed with lies.

How anyone might not recognize his own comment described, if I were you, Mark, would make me ask some tall questions. You're good at asking questions, and I am not saying you should ask them here, nor do I want you to, but do ask them. ( Pondering "methinks thou dost protest too much" might get you started with some very apt questions, if you catch my drift.)

I got an email that apologized for upsetting me and explained the comment as being only an answer to someone else that was not meant to diminish the power of God. I am happy for that, but I asked why ignorance had been feigned about the comment here. No answer. The only reason I mention this is in case you also get an email that explains the same. I also wonder why it wasn't in a ping so all might be able to see it. It's not as if he doesn't use pings because I've seen them.

Just received your email answering why you feigned ignorance. You said you weren't sure until you came to this post, but this post was where you said you didn't know to whom was being referred, so that doesn't make sense.
"Forgive and forget," you ask? I don't know what there is to forgive. I do see that there is a lot of confusion, if nothing else, in my interactions with you. I don't like confusion, especially when talking about the Word of God. I don't like it when people lie to me that they were joking when they were serious and then even have the nerve to ask the exact same question of someone else later on in the thread, the very question that they said they were joking about with me. (Think that had escaped me just because I hadn't mentioned it? I was just too disgusted to continue.)

There is a lot of confusion that surrounds you, Dennis, and that's something that is neither forgiveable nor unforgiveable; it just exists. Can I forget about the confusion? That would be foolish of me.

1 Corinthians 14:33 "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

. . . if only we were saints ; )


But seriously, he warned us of something very important, to my mind, when he spoke these words;

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother . . .
And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household . . .
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.


I believe it is expected that we differ, and advocate for what we think we understand, with some passion . . . but that we can, with patience and the sincere application of his counsel about treating even our apparent "enemies" with kindness, after the example of God Himself, maintain an acceptable degree of peace in this household we find ourselves.

If that were relatively easy . . . I think something might actually be wrong with His appraisals of His kids ; )

John, I don't think that verse has anything to do with the verse I cited or meant by citing it. It isn't at all a matter of differing for, if that were the case, I wouldn't wish to communicate with you or Mark about half the time. It's much more than that, and much different from that.

Is there any way that an atheist would find it difficult to believe that you or Mark are Christians? If an atheist finds it difficult to believe that someone is a Christian when speaking of biblical matters, there's something very wrong here. i don't even speak to atheists of the Word of God because they have no understanding, so if a Christian is in agreement with an atheist on biblical matters, the matters they're speaking of aren't even biblical, it would seem.

There are basic tenets of the Christian faith that are so basic that one either has faith to believe them, or one does not, and they separate those who are Christian from those who are not. There is no skewing of those tenets for a common ground with anyone who is not of faith. I am not speaking of things like whether or not one believes in predestination or free will. As I have stated and tried to explain, I believe they co-exist, but there are very few people I have ever come across who see this as I do, and that doesn't matter because it is not foundational.

I'm talking about saying things like God is superior to Jesus because that may be something that a Jehovah's Witness may believe, and that's just fine if one is a Jehovah's Witness and declares that he is, but not for a Christian. If Dennis were to tell me that he is a Jehovah's Witness, I would see some of the things Dennis has said completely differently.

I don't feel good that Dennis is not allowed to voice his opinion here, so I am reopening the thread to all, but I do not want to see any reference to the Third Person here, please. If I do, I will close it.

I have desserts to make now, and they aren't my balliwick so this is going to be my challenge of the day.
.

"If Dennis were to tell me that he is a Jehovah's Witness, I would see some of the things Dennis has said completely differently." I am one of Jehova's Witnesses.

You know, Dennis, when I wrote that comment to John, I was just using that as an example of one short thing you had said that I didn’t even need to go back to Mark’s post to find because I remembered it, and I remembered it because it is so blatantly and fundamentally antithetical to the Christian tenets that I had mentioned separated Christians from those who are not Christians in the preceding paragraph. As I wrote it to John, it occurred to me that thinking that God is superior to Jesus is a belief of Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, I did not at that moment think that you were. I just added that if you were to tell me you were a Witness, I would see things you had said completely differently. It was only when I reread my comment to John that I began to think that maybe Dennis really is a Jehovah’s Witness, and just as quickly thought, no, that couldn't be, could it?

The reason I didn’t want to think that you were is because I was still giving you benefit of doubt even though it was against my better judgment to do so because you had already shown yourself deceptive in your interaction with me on Mark’s post. Instead of thinking ill of you, I thought, no, if you were a Jehovah’s Witness , you would certainly not have misrepresented yourself by omission of that fact throughout hours of interaction when I clearly stated that there were axioms from which you were basing your arguments that were not the same as my axioms, and so we really could not proceed. At any time, you could have told me the source of that confusion and why you cannot possibly see things as I do. Instead, you chose to engage me in arguments that would never be able to get anywhere near the truth because the arguments were based on a lie, the lie that you perpetuated by allowing me and others to recognize you as a fellow Christian with the same basic set of beliefs that separate Christians from those not of their faith.

I gave you yet another chance on this thread, though unwittingly, because I didn’t know you were, but the chance was there for you to include in one of your emails that you were a Jehovah’s Witness when I told you about the confusion that I saw surrounded you. That confusion could easily have been dissipated by telling me that the reason we see things so differently is because you’re a Jehovah’s Witness and I am not. It was not until my comment to John that you finally decided to fess up.

When I first saw your admission in this comment, I went back to Mark’s post and reread your comments that screamed Jehovah’ Witness and in retrospect, wondered how I could have missed that. Now you have written a new post of your own where the first sentence in that post says that you made a comment on a thread where someone misinterpreted what you said and got upset. I didn’t misinterpret what you said at all. In fact, I understood it all too well though I didn’t label it as coming from Jehovah’s Witnesses initially. I just thought it was of Satan. That reference that you made that caused me to leave Mark’s post and the way you made it is exactly the way Jehovah’s Witnesses perceive that holy entity, as an inanimate force, so I misunderstood absolutely nothing, and you know I didn’t, yet you are selling that bullshit as your opening statement.

You wanted me to forget the confusion, huh? (Of course, you dared not specify what I was to forgive and forget lest that be too honest, but just wanted me to blanketly forgive you and wipe the slate clean so you could continue your deceit. It was I who had to define that there was nothing to forgive and that the confusion was what I saw you wanted me to forget.)

I told you that would have been foolish and it would have been. Had you confessed that you are a Jehovah’s Witness and apologized for hiding the fact, I might have been able to forgive you, but the only reason you chose to reveal this secret of yours is because I said I would see things you had said very differently. I guess you just didn’t know how differently, and when I made that comment a few hours ago, neither did I.

(I will not allow you to come back here and make any references to that holy entity, so you make one reference to that, and I will delete your comment immediately, and I do not delete people’s comments, but this is one exception I will make. I shouldn’t even allow you to make another comment here at all because you are conniving and cunning and will no doubt try to twist yourself into some gentlemanly aura and contort your way out of the web of deceit that is your throne. All I have to say is that those who are fooled deserve to be fooled, so don’t’ expect another reply from me.

Came across this by accident.

Not sure who is being referred to here and not interested in knowing. Just that I hope that I did not appear to be cramming my beliefs on others. Like Berf, "I do not apologize for the way I personally see things or what I believe or what I do not believe, and it is not my job to convince anyone of anything, no more than it is their job to convince me."

I have my reasons for my beliefs and as I have stated, I do not expect persons to agree with me.

I keep forgetting that people sometimes get offended when I integrate science with my faith; even viewing it as blasphemy. It seemed that the problem was indeed me, but I was not 100% sure until I read the comments again.

My son and I had quite a discussion about grieving the Holy Spirit a few weeks ago. He's 24 and quit going to church when he was 18. But he does still study and question, and when he asked me if our pastor had ever mentioned this or preached about it, I had to say no. Later I talked at length with the pastor about it, so I could further discuss with my son. I think that's one bit of the Bible that many people ignore or are not aware of.

It's good that you made him aware, Marilyn.

NB: Science that is true science will never conflict with the Word of God. Accurate knowledge that is gleaned through science will always be in accord with God's Word. If one believes that God is the Ultimate Truth, that earnest search for truth of the unknown will always yield results in accordance with His Word.

The issue is not specifically an association with science and religion. The issue is calling a force that is inanimate something associated with God. Of course, those who are of the Jehovah Witness faith do not believe in the Trinity as each Person of that Trinity being God, and that is the issue. That is their belief, but my belief is that all forces have been created by God, and though He may choose to manifest Himself in many ways, the personage of the Trinity remains intact and God remains the Creator and the controller of all forces. He is ONE God in three PERSONS, not God, Jesus only the man, and the Third Person, only the force without also maintaining each as a Person Who is God. Science is not antithetical to religion, but some religions are antithetical to God. I do realize that some people's faith is different from mine, and that is just fine, but do not suppose you know what I think just because you don't understand my faith and so have assumed that you think I think something that I do not think is true at all.

Wow.