Quote:
Originally Posted by Olvin
OBM, you wrapped yourself with Igzy, defending a position which evidently you had not done to diligence to investigate. It was Igzy, who accused me of mockingly him by using the word charACTOR, if you would slow down and ACTually read the post. Furthermore when I suggested that others go back and read the post from the beginning I made it clear that it was- Igzy - I was referring to, so as to avoid the very thing your are accusing me of. Still you prove my point of not wanting to deal with the uncomplicated truth; truth which in this particular instance had to do with "acting" or "denying of the self". Why don't you just defend the stand you took with Igzy over that point, since I have cleared up the charges you leveled against me?
|
I took the position that I took, not the position that someone else took. I agree with the general thought that we must act. And further, that even denying yourself is an act.
I did not assert that Igzy did not make the reference to you concerning "charACTOR," and the others. I did not make that and therefore you lumping me in with that is not correct.
And it seems to me that I dealt quite directly with the so-called "uncomplicated truth" that you mention. I did not stand with all of anything. I very specifically laid out what I see as the truth in the scripture. Yes, there are one or two references to denying the self. But there are many references to
doing according to righteousness, and the law. Even a sort of "ramp-up the rules" in Matthew 5. If you think that none of these stand as a requirement to act, then how does one reference rise so high to be followed while many are ignored?
And you still have not addressed how you deny yourself without taking some kind of action. I did not specifically say that you have to do that, but since you declare that I have not addressed your position, I think you should at least address mine and not something I did not say. I have addressed your position. It is steeped in the leaven that Ohio talked about. It is mired in the kind of thinking that runs parallel to "don't worry about right or wrong, only the spirit." You come by that naturally because you spent years learning it. I did too. I was there. I know where you are coming from. I am not ignorant of the teachings that are provided in the so-called Local Churches.
But if denying does not entail action, then it is not truly denying anything. Denying one's self is to take action to stop the things of the flesh. It is not to take in more dispensing in the expectation that the flesh will one day just disappear.
You have ignored what I actually said and instead argued that I am just part of someone else's argument. That is a form of strawman argument. Ignore the argument actually made and restate it as one that you think you can defeat. At some level, I don't mind. I will just assume that you didn't understand and will approach it from a different angle.
But if you want to accuse me of something that someone else did, you will have to find more than the fact that I agreed with a particular point they made that was not the thing you are now complaining about.
And if you want to defend denying yourself as something that is opposed to taking action, then please tell us where this comes from. I have no basis for understanding it in that manner. I can only see it in terms that would require a kind of action to be effective. If you disagree, can you find a basis for your position? I am open to look at it, so don't just dismiss us and refuse to provide your answer.