deism

[spiritplumber]

Just checking if posting works. Other than that, hello!

My introduction is as such:

Name: Kay
Nationality: Italian
Residence: Texas
Faction: IEEE
Specialty: Data recovery, AI systems, robotics, networking
Religious affiliation: None
Spirituality: Deist
Favorite Ice Cream: Blueberry
Marital status: Single, prefer monogamous relationship
Sexual preference: Girls
Main goal on this forum: Try for the $10K prize. To clarify, I do believe in a supreme being; I however disagree with the conclusion of the 4-step proof that characterizes the supreme being in a very specific way (the supreme being of the Judeo-Christian tradition). If I can demonstrate a fallacy in the proof in that respect, do I still win? I ask because it's always good to know the rules of a game before playing.

[Churchwork]

If I can demonstrate a fallacy in the proof in that respect, do I still

Of course.

By the way, deism is false since a loving, holy and righteous God creates out of His glory and such glory is personal, interactive, and present. As well, He has purpose to walk with man made in His image (Gen. 1.26,27), that is, out of His perfection and glory. These attributes are seen only in the God of the Bible to the degree His redemptive work reveals which is unparalleled.

And Yes, lesbianism is a sin. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for this very reason.

[spiritplumber]

Deal. :)


And, most if not all people (including my parents and the doctor who helped me out into the world) agree that I'm a boy. This said, I dated a predominantly lesbian girl for a while... does that make me one? :P

There is no mention of lesbianism in the Bible, although male homosexuality is dealt with in several places. Whether it's fair to assume that female homosexuality is covered by the same mentions really is a discussion for when I'm more awake.

About deism being false... well, there really is no mention of it in the Bible, but it's pretty much a given that non-Judeo-Christian spiritualities or theological positions would be scripturally false.

[Churchwork]

And, most if not all people (including my parents and the doctor who helped me out into the world) agree that I'm a boy. This said, I dated a predominantly lesbian girl for a while... does that make me one? :P

There is no mention of lesbianism in the Bible, although male homosexuality is dealt with in several places. Whether it's fair to assume that female homosexuality is covered by the same mentions really is a discussion for when I'm more awake.

About deism being false... well, there really is no mention of it in the Bible, but it's pretty much a given that non-Judeo-Christian spiritualities or theological positions would be scripturally false.

Why do you have a girl's name if you are not female?

Your being awake hardly warrants a discussion of the matter since the Bible says woman was made for man as a "help meet" (Gen. 2.20), not for women.

There is mention of deism in the Bible, for is it not covered under this verse? "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20.3).

The purpose of the Bible is not to mention scores and scores of cults and adherents. It would take far greater than the size of the Bible to do that. Instead, the Word of God speaks truth to your spirit by the Spirit to strengthen your inner woman or inner man. Christians are not to inordinately analyze something for it would cause the person to lose their peace. Once something is shown to be false, further analysis can be quite vain.

[spiritplumber]

Why do you have a girl's name if you are not female?

"Kay" is gender-neutral... It's not my given name. Since English speakers tend to have a hard time with my given name, I just go by Kay in English forums because it's very hard to mispronounce or misspell something that's only 3 letters long.



Your being awake hardly warrants a discussion of the matter since the Bible says woman was made for man as a "help meet" (Gen. 2.20), not for women.


Help-meet, Hebrew: 'ezer ke-negdo i.e., "a help as his counterpart" = a help suitable to him), a wife. I have no argument that woman is man's complement; however, the context refers more to life's work than to sexual intimacy. I don't mind most Christians interpreting this combination as treating female homosexuality the same way they treat male homosexuality; in fact, while I disagree with said treatment, at least it's paritary.



There is mention of deism in the Bible, for is it not covered under this verse? "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20.3).


No. Deism is defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1941, as: "(From Latin Deus, God.Deity) The doctrine or creed of a Deist." And Deist is defined in the same dictionary as: "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason."

The closest thing to Deists that the Bible mentions are the Greek philosophers that Paul has the occasion to preach to at some point; the verse you quote is a command, not a mention... you could say that it covers all other religious beliefs, but even if you consider deism a structured religious belief, which is debatable, it can be argued (and it is argued by some, although I'm not one of them) that the Christian God and the Deist God are the same entity. It certainly IS argued by most proponents of all three religions that the Jewish God, the Christian God and the Islamic God are the same entity (in all three cases, it's the "God of Abraham").


Christians are not to inordinately analyze something for it would cause the person to lose their peace. Once something is shown to be false, further analysis can be quite vain.

This strikes me as a rewording of "Ignorance is bliss".... as an engineer, I can tell you that ignorance eventually ends up giving suboptimal results. I do agree that once something is shown to be false it's usually not worthwhile to keep studying it, however, this is not always the case; for example, science can demonstrate a lot of tribal beliefs to be false, but tribal/traditional medicine is actively studied by anthropologists just in case it found by chance something that medical science has so far missed.

This said, I agree that "inordinately" analyzing something (whether you're a Christian or not; what does that have to do with anything in this case?) is usually a bad idea; if you're analyzing something, it pays to be systematic.

[Churchwork]

Quick definitions (Kay)
name: A female given name (common: 1 in 1408 females; popularity rank in the U.S.: #272)
name: A surname (common: 1 in 12500 families; popularity rank in the U.S.: #1508)
No mention of a single male name.

There is no first names of Kay for males in the records, and you said your first name was Kay, though not your actual given first name at birth; and since last names are not gender specific, you were referring to a first name. You give no legitimate explanation for using the name, which you admit you ask people to call you. Either you are being deceitful about your gender as a lesbian or you are being deceitful using a woman's name when you are a man. Who can say, for we only have your words, which indicate your initial female name given.

The sexual intimacy of helpmeet (intimate succor) is most apt in the context. A few verses down: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (2.24). You do not become one flesh with the same sex. That would be a sin.

The reason you disagree with the treatment of equality, as expressed in the Bible, of why a lesbianism is wrong also, is because what is clearly said, which is quite reasonable, is not so reasonable to one without a renewed mind. Nonetheless, the solid proof stands, that lesbianism is also a sin because man did not make woman for woman. He is very clear. Ergo, the source of why this wrong is because God says so first in His Word. Very simple. Not so simple for the unregenerate.

"The doctrine or creed of a Deist," is no doubt the definition, but notice the source of the definition - a man, and a fallen one at that. It does not originate with God.

Take a look at your other definition: "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason." This definition is riff with errors. First, to say a God is to possibly suggest there can be more than one God, but we know this is not possible given the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm) which agrees with the Word. God reveals Himself as for example, the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible. This revelation enters first in the spirit of the believer, not in outward religion, so in this regard, I would hope you would agree.

You said "No" to "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20.3). Thus, you say there is a god above God. The 4 Step Proof shows this is not possible (see Step 4). Thus, we find that a deist will self-proclaim reason and evidences in nature, they do nothing of the kind, for these things help us know Christ is God. The light comes from God, not from nature or reason. Nature was created by God and reason is a faculty of the soul given to man made in His image (Gen. 1.26,27). When God breathed in His Spirit into the body from dust, He created a "living soul" (Gen. 2.7).

God has His commands, because of what emanates from His nature. This command is true given the gloriousness of God and His truth, thus it is in character with God's holiness. This command is the first commandment of the two tablets of God's Word, not merely a mention. Nothing in fact in God's Word is just a mention, because the 66 books of the Bible are the effulgence of the Son of God. Jesus is the Word (John. 1.1). Therefore, nothing is said as mere mention. For you to say it is not a mention, gives more power to the Word that nothing is merely mentioned.

You can not say this first commandment of the law can be applied to other religions because other religions reject Jesus as the only begotten Son of God. You are contradicting yourself. Christianity is not Judeo, in the sense that Judaism rejects Christ. However the Jews once believed as a people, and they will believe again of those that are the remnant. God will not forsake His promise to the Jewish nation to be the center of all nations. Never again will Israel lose her land. We are near the return of Christ probably sometime this century.

Though you or others try to say "that the Christian God and the Deist God are the same entity," this of course is illogical, since Jesus said, "He that is not with me is against me" (Matt. 12.30), and we see how they are against Him. You said that you would not be one of those that would try to make this argument, thus, you are against Jesus Christ and are going to hell for believing in your god of deism. You are indicating clearly two different beings, and you place yours above God of the Bible. Those who try to make this argument for the same, are also going to hell because the character of their god is clearly not the same as God of the Bible as I saw no mention of Christ being God: the sole sacrifice for sin and giver of eternal life. One's emphasis easily betrays them. We shall know them by their fruit.

This is a false statement, "It certainly IS argued by most proponents of all three religions that the Jewish God, the Christian God and the Islamic God are the same entity (in all three cases, it's the God of Abraham)." The reason it is false is because though men may claim Abraham, they actually reject Him, because they reject the perfect sacrifice for sin. Many false prophets there will be. They sure do contradict themselves.

Doing damage to your soul is "ignorance". Treating your body not like a temple is deemed as the false idea, "ignorance is bliss." Realize your wish is the evil spirit striking you, and your acceptance of it, when you disagree that inordinately activity is not wrong. How warped this idea is that you present. What is the truth of your mistaken assumption, again? If you perform mental gymnastics, it will do damage to your soul, because you move ahead of God's leading for your life (which you already do exalt yourself above God since you have not entered into the new creation). This produces sub-optimal results in all fields, not just engineering. For example, if someone does a work which causes him to make too many mistakes because of crowding his mind with too much knowledge in the work, this is an example of Satan gaining a stronghold in his mind to agitate his flesh. This is actually how you come across. I can sense you stirring your flesh with unsound reasoning; then, I have preceded to show it paragraph after paragraph.

You missed the essential point about inordinate activity. I did not say things can not be studied in detail, but that more often than not it is a waste to do so after you know the truth, because such work is apportioned to only a few, whereas most people undertake something in vain. God gives gifts accordingly.

You asked "what does that have to do with anything in this case?" referring to inordinate activity which you began to argue against. You have lost the trend of thought. Let me get you back on it. I first mentioned specifically to the case that there is "mention of deism in the Bible," pertaining to God's command not to place any gods before Him, which emanates from His character and atonement of His Son. And so we need not overanalyze as was stated, "Christians are not to inordinately analyze," since the "purpose of the Bible is not to mention scores and scores of cults and adherents." Once we know something, we don't need to analyze it till the cows come home. That would be counterproductive. I know your god is taking you to hell with him since you reject the love of Jesus Christ who died on the cross to save you from your sins and the sins of the world.

Notice very carefully your contradiction in character: you finally agree over analyzing is wrong in your last sentence, but just before that you are arguing for inordinate activity by calling it negatively, "ignorance is bliss" if you do not overextend yourself inordinately. Then you go on to talk about sub-optimal results as the consequence of not abusing yourself.

You have committed a sin, yet God says, be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8). Your mistake comes from being two-faced with your words, which is a bad conscience. What you have read here exposes your bad behavior to self-exalt self above the name of Jesus Christ as you have already stated this is your subterranean motivation.

[spiritp1umber]

Quick definitions (Kay)
name: A female given name (common: 1 in 1408 females; popularity rank in the U.S.: #272)
name: A surname (common: 1 in 12500 families; popularity rank in the U.S.: #1508)
No mention of a single male name.


You're quite wrong there, Kay is a Roman-derived male name with a long and proud tradition. One example for all: http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/bios/kay.html



Nonetheless, the solid proof stands, that lesbianism is also a sin because man did not make woman for woman. He is very clear.

Also wrong. According to Christian scripture, man did not make woman; God made woman, albeit from man.



"The doctrine or creed of a Deist," is no doubt the definition, but notice the source of the definition - a man, and a fallen one at that. It does not originate with God.

No revealed literature, of any religion, provides a definition of Deist. So what are you going to use?


First, to say a God is to possibly suggest there can be more than one God, but we know this is not possible given the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Biblewhich agrees with the Word.

Eh, but that's what I am trying to argue against :) you citing your conclusion as your source is a circular argument... don't worry, I'll get to your proof after I'm done warming up. I need to see how you think before I can come up with a refutation.



You said "No" to "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20.3).

I said "No" to the use of that passage as a definition. It is not a definition; it is a command. If it was a definition, it would say something specific about the other gods (for example, it would say "Other gods don't exist"). Note that the claim that other gods don't exist is made, but elsewhere in the Bible.


God has His commands, because of what emanates from His nature. This command is true given the gloriousness of God and His truth, thus it is in character with God's holiness. This command is the first commandment of the two tablets of God's Word, not merely a mention.

It's still a command rather than a definition; you're trying to compare apples and oranges. A masterfully crafted command has no weight as a definition and a masterfully crafted definition has no weight as a command, they serve different purposes! An analogy: a very nicely built sailboat is a work of art in itself, but can't be used to travel on roads. It's not its purpose, it doesn't even have wheels! By the same token, a very nicely built sports car can't be used to travel at sea!


You can not say this first commandment of the law can be applied to other religions because other religions reject Jesus as the only begotten Son of God.

I didn't say that; you did earlier (about deism). You are contradicting yourself.



Christianity is not Judeo, in the sense that Judaism rejects Christ. However the Jews once believed as a people, and they will believe again of those that are the remnant. God will not forsake His promise to the Jewish nation to be the center of all nations. Never again will Israel lose her land. We are near the return of Christ probably sometime this century.

"Judeo-Christian" refers to the body of traditions that is common to both religions. It's shorthand for "something the Jewish religion and the Christian religion agree upon", such as what happened with Abraham, for example.


Though you or others try to say "that the Christian God and the Deist God are the same entity," this of course is illogical, since Jesus said, "He that is not with me is against me"

Well, it's unproven either way, but how is that illogical? Jesus makes no logical claim on that one, he's just giving his opinion and NOT trying to prove a point. If he wanted to, I'm sure he would have.


(Matt. 12.30), and we see how they are against Him. You said that you would not be one of those that would try to make this argument, thus, you are against Jesus Christ and are going to hell for believing in your god of deism. You are indicating clearly two different beings,

I spent a bit of time explaining that NO, I am NOT indicating two different beings. Are you even reading what I write?



Those who try to make this argument for the same, are also going to hell because the character of their god is clearly not the same as God of the Bible as I saw no mention of Christ being God

Okay, let's even supposed that I can be sent to hell for making that argument (I guess that divine law doesn't have a First Amendment). Does that disprove the argument in any way? Not really: yours is mostly an appeal to consequences (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html), which is a logical fallacy.


This is a false statement, "It certainly IS argued by most proponents of all three religions that the Jewish God, the Christian God and the Islamic God are the same entity (in all three cases, it's the God of Abraham)." The reason it is false is because though men may claim Abraham, they actually reject Him, because they reject the perfect sacrifice for sin. Many false prophets there will be

How is this statement false? Proponents of all three religions claim to acknowledge the Abrahamic tradition as historical; this is easy to verify, just read about any Christian, Jewish or Islamic commentator. This is no more a false statement than "A lot of what you buy at Walmart is made in China"; it's easy to verify.


For example, if someone does a work which causes him to make too many mistakes because of crowding his mind with too much knowledge in the work, this is an example of Satan gaining a stronghold in his mind to agitate his flesh.

Well, not really... in all fields, the more you know the less likely you are to make that sort of mistake, although occasionally "having to reinvent the wheel" spurs a new and creative solution. Why would Satan bother with interfering with people's analysis of a problem is beyond me.



Notice very carefully your contradiction in character: you finally agree over analyzing is wrong in your last sentence, but just before that you are arguing for inordinate activity by calling it negatively, "ignorance is bliss" if you do not overextend yourself inordinately. Then you go on to talk about sub-optimal results as the consequence of not abusing yourself.

I did NOT agree that overanalyzing is wrong -- I agreed that analyzing in a disordered manner is "wrong" in that it's inefficient. This is what "inordinately" means. Since there are no reasonable limits to analysis (well, other than budget and time constraints!) the 2nd sense of the word (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inordinately) applies.

[Churchwork]

You're quite wrong there, Kay is a Roman-derived male name with a long and proud tradition. One example for all:
Only one example from the distant past? When I give you population records, today! You want to be a man and a Kay, then that is how I will address you, even though it is difficult to find anyone in the populace today who is a guy with this first name. Lesbianism is still a sin though, even if you are a guy.


Also wrong. According to Christian scripture, man did not make woman; God made woman, albeit from man.
I meant to say God, that's my typo.


No revealed literature, of any religion, provides a definition of Deist. So what are you going to use?
The truth is what we should use. In all ages, surely there were those who believed in deism, "the belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation." This is not sound reasoning. For a loving God would not abandom His creation. This would be an evil god that did what you propose your god did. But, since you have no reason to believe in this evil god, why overassume? That's not reasoning to overassume. Christians instead see Christ who broke into creation to atone for our sins. This is the most loving act ever done. Your god is too selfish to atone for the sins of the world, and thus is rendered powerless by the cross. None can compare to the sinless sacrifice.



Eh, but that's what I am trying to argue against you citing your conclusion as your source is a circular argument... don't worry, I'll get to your proof after I'm done warming up. I need to see how you think before I can come up with a refutation.

You haven't even started to do what you propose to do. I have not seen you address Step 1 yet. It is not circular to state the Proof is solid if it in fact solid, which it is. You need to read the 4 Step Proof to attempt a disproof, that is, you would need to deal with the specifics of the Proof, not engage in vain attempts that are off topic.


I said "No" to the use of that passage as a definition. It is not a definition; it is a command. If it was a definition, it would say something specific about the other gods (for example, it would say "Other gods don't exist"). Note that the claim that other gods don't exist is made, but elsewhere in the Bible.
I said that the Bible will NOT analyze every religion for that is vain, so for you to ask the Bible to do a study on your cult is unspiritual. Of course then, I would not give you a definition. The Bible is a book of spirit for our spirit. The command is true for it comes from a holy and righteous God that does not abandon His creation. He is not an absentee landlord like your impotent god. This command defines your god as below God because of God: issued from who He is and what He has done. Your god did not do what God did. Your god is an idol, because of its inability to be selfless like Christ was. Your conscience should speak to you that Jesus was put to death because of the authority of His sinlessness. Men were jealous, wanted to usurp their own self-strength, and preserve their power, all the while forsaking their creator.


It's still a command rather than a definition; you're trying to compare apples and oranges. A masterfully crafted command has no weight as a definition and a masterfully crafted definition has no weight as a command, they serve different purposes! An analogy: a very nicely built sailboat is a work of art in itself, but can't be used to travel on roads. It's not its purpose, it doesn't even have wheels! By the same token, a very nicely built sports car can't be used to travel at sea!
Since I already said the Bible does not study your cult, nor should it, you don't get a definition from me, nor from the Bible. Rather, you get the truth of the Word, which you find no fault with in the redemptive design through Christ. This command thus, has authority and is able to discern the apples and the oranges. There is a cause and effect here to notice. The love of Christ, then the authority of the commands of God. This authority discerns there is no gods before God by command because of God's nature who created all things in His divine providence. The nature of God is loving, righteous and holy, which shows that your god is none of these as it abandons.


I didn't say that; you did earlier (about deism). You are contradicting yourself.
When you accuse someone of contradiction, you need to show it, not self-declare it. You did say, "the verse you quote...you could say that it covers all other religious beliefs." I responded, "You can not say this first commandment of the law can be applied to other religions because other religions reject Jesus as the only begotten Son of God." You say you didn't say what you said, but I quoted you saying it. You shouldn't lie. Did you not think I would quote your words?


"Judeo-Christian" refers to the body of traditions that is common to both religions. It's shorthand for "something the Jewish religion and the Christian religion agree upon", such as what happened with Abraham, for example.
God's work applying the law to the nation of Israel is not traditions, but law that was give to be kept to show sin, which points to Christ, because only Christ could keep the law as He came to fill it up. It was not founded on traditions. Today, the Jewish religion say they agree, but don't you know, they do not? They say the agree with Abraham, but they in fact do not. It's like two people saying they saw the same person the other day at the store, but one was mistaken, while the other was not. The OT is constantly pointing to Christ, but they did not accept Christ and still can not see Christ in their own works. Selfishness is the culprit, not so different from your own. They misread their testament from God. Many who try to cast down Christianity, naturally will try to marry it to Judaism today, but we should not Judaize Christianity. You should see this distinction, and certainly what Satan will try to use to confuse.


Well, it's unproven either way, but how is that illogical? Jesus makes no logical claim on that one, he's just giving his opinion and NOT trying to prove a point. If he wanted to, I'm sure he would have.
It is proven that the deist god pales in comparison to the God of the Bible, and renders those who follow your god hellbound. I gave the definition to you above, that a loving God would not do that. Jesus shows it in His life and His actions, so with this life of His, He has authority. I keep telling you this, but you keep not listening. If you read the Bible, you discover this more and more. Do you see how your darkened mind keeps blocking your spirit from receiving the truth? It does not allow you to see the cause and effect of spirituality in the selflessness of Christ, because your selfishness is so great. What Jesus does is perfectly logical as it flows by the Spirit. What you do is perfectly illogical. In the Scriptures, He shows His authority by the spiritual truths He gives, the things He does, and how He remains sinless, which no man could be unless He is God and man. Pretty simple stuff.


I spent a bit of time explaining that NO, I am NOT indicating two different beings. Are you even reading what I write?
I don't think you are reading what you write, for you said "it is argued by some, although I'm not one of them." Since you do not argue they are the same, you are arguing they are not the same, meaning two different beings, entities, concepts, etc. Being coy is couth, but not righteous. You should not resort to lying straight to my face. Perhaps you did not think I would quote you.

Everything you say is wrong. I see I have to change the format of the forum, because you will continue to login with new registrations, but at least you can only post in the Introductions forum. I do not care to receive these belligerent types of posts from people where I constantly correct you, so I think I will have to change the format and decide shortly. I am not interested in dullards.


Okay, let's even supposed that I can be sent to hell for making that argument (I guess that divine law doesn't have a First Amendment). Does that disprove the argument in any way? Not really: yours is mostly an appeal to consequences, which is a logical fallacy.
God's divine plan is quite simple really. You call Jesus a liar. He lovingly gave His life to you. Which is true? The sinless. God is merciful, which means, you can yet be saved, but in your current condition, all else being equal, you are hellbound. Do you see how you misread with your comment on First Amendment? It is not an appeal to consequences, but a fact that you call the Son of God a liar, just as deists contradict themselves by trying to marry God to their god, because they would also have to accept the atonement which they do not, among other things. To say what I have just said is not an appeal to consequences, but the observation of the fact that Jesus was sinless, He did selflessly give His life on the cross, and deists do not accept these principles. Try to apply your use of appeal of consequences rather than just mindlessly self-declaring it. Otherwise, it makes the conversation very dull.


How is this statement false? Proponents of all three religions claim to acknowledge the Abrahamic tradition as historical; this is easy to verify, just read about any Christian, Jewish or Islamic commentator. This is no more a false statement than "A lot of what you buy at Walmart is made in China"; it's easy to verify.
I already said, "they actually reject Him, because they reject the perfect sacrifice for sin. Many false prophets there will be." Through the Scriptures we see the pointing to Christ as God in all the books of the Bible, especially in Abraham's day. So other religions that reject this don't really accept Abraham, though they may say they do.

For example, in Gen. 17.19 the "everlasting covenant, and with his seed" was fulfilled in Jesus Christ as stated in Luke 3.34, "son of Abraham." Let's try one more. In Gen. 12.3, "in thee shall all families be blessed" points to Christ again in Matt. 1.1, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ...son of Abraham."

Do you see how your religion and other religions all call Jesus a liar. God has made a liar out of you.

In the future, don't just accept one someone says, but discern if it is true or not. This is easy to verify as I have just done for you. The OT requires the Messiah be a sinless sacrifice (Is. 53.5, Rom. 5.6,8). Your other religions don't agree. Yet the OT agrees perfectly with the NT. Ps. 16.10 and 49.15 agree with Mark 16.6,7 that Jesus is to be resurrected as the Son of God. Your religions don't agree, yet the NT and the OT agree. I could go on and on. There are lots of these.


ll, not really... in all fields, the more you know the less likely you are to make that sort of mistake, although occasionally "having to reinvent the wheel" spurs a new and creative solution. Why would Satan bother with interfering with people's analysis of a problem is beyond me.
You're just being belligerent and trying to bear false witness. This is too dumb. Previously you argued for inordinate activity no matter what damage that may do to the soul and the spirit; then you agreed it is not healthy; now, you go back to your original position. Don't be a flipfloppper like Kerry. His name is not Kay, lol, but he is a man. Again, you totally miss the point of doing abuse to one's soul, by "agitating his flesh" beyond what would be deemed healthy in God's leading by the Holy Spirit in the spirit of the man. What's that called when peole deflect obstinately like that? Firstly, because they can and are unethical, but also because as in your case you do have the evil spirit in your spirit that controls you. This is why you are oblivious to why Satan would bother which you say is beyond you. Because he is headed to perdition, and because he exalts himself above God, he wants to make himself a god, so he obfuscates and confuses. He needs anarchy. God does not interfere; He lets you be captured by the evil spirit if that is what you want, which you do.


I did NOT agree that overanalyzing is wrong -- I agreed that analyzing in a disordered manner is "wrong" in that it's inefficient. This is what "inordinately" means. Since there are no reasonable limits to analysis (well, other than budget and time constraints!).
You like to lie profusely without conscience. You said "I agree that inordinately analyzing something is usually a bad idea" but then you said you "did NOT agree that overanalayzing is wrong". Liars lie, that's what they do.

I never said anything about disordering per se, and mentioned over analyzing, being abusive to oneself as inordinate, just as you said inordinately analyzing taking from my words. Have you no compunction to lie straight out, not thinking people will quote you. Inordinate means in a dictionary, "uncontrolled, excessive". Your petty self is makes this an issue? Surely my words were clear in this usage as you compare the context of what was being said. What you have done is let your petty self go wild by misreading to stimulate that self, then bear false witness which increases your belligerency.

Conclusion: I have to do something about mindless posters. It appears I can't even let them have an Introductory forum to post on.