[donfriesen1]

I have completed reading Dom's post's up to 47. After this my reading of posts has been intermittent.

Should I be faulted for not having done a complete reading of every post? Perhaps. Most of his posts have contained large volumes of words which attack me. This is a waste of everyone's time, since this forum is designed and expected to be about Bible discussion.

Reading the personal negativity takes great effort to wade through, producing no feelings of desires to read what else may have been written. Thus Dom's methods produce a lack of receptivity, to the Word of God when he actually does share from the Word. This from a man who should have desires to share the Word of God with those who he sees as lost, me. Thus Dom's methods defeat what he as a preacher of the Gospel would say are his purposes in life. Why this method Dom, which is contrary to you stated purpose in life?

That Dom had not yet defeated my views in the first 47 posts, to conteract that which is the meat of my points, then doing so afterward in other posts (he has subsequently said that he has in later posts) leads to wondering about Dom. Dom, if you have information to share which will defeat the main points of post 1, when would be the right time to share this info? Post 2 or post 102? The obvious answer is he has not had the info in his earlier posts. He is learning as he goes. This is a good thing. I wait for Dom to catch up in learning, to the understanding of what I present in post 1. If there's life and an openness to the Word, then this learning may just happen.

In the past I've much chided Dom for posing as the AFF authority which all should give honour to. He does actually have a great wealth of knowledge. But, here he is, demonstrating that he actually is not this completed authority of a wealth of info, the epitomy of learning, because the first 47 posts did not portray the info he says is contained in later posts, which he says puts down my views as presented in post 1.

Up to post 47 Dom has not said much to conteract the views I present in post 1. What he has said has been mostly about the suface teaching of Ro14. I have indicated that I agree with this view, as it makes sense.

My view finds its weight in what comes by reading between the lines, also called deductive reasoning. Paul says that those who hold conflicting conclusions of doctrines (days and foods are only examples. Many things fit in this category) are Ok to do so. The natural conclusion of seeing Paul say that it is OK for those to hold conflicting conclusions leads to thinking: 1) he is OK if someone would hold false doctrine, because two conflicting views can't both be solid gold pure doctrine, can they? OR 2) Paul believes that God does not always write his Word in such a manner that it would naturally only lead to one conclusion. It is well known that people make various conclusions reading the same passage of God's Word, lending some credence to the thought that God has purposely written somethings in a way which naturally leads to more than one conclusion. Which of these two is the most acceptable? Most, who have no bias, would say that 2 is the more acceptable. But is 2 also the wrong conclusion?

If 2 is the wrong conclusion, then Paul would have taught these Romans which is the right conclusion to hold concerning days and foods. He doesn't take the time to do so. Obviously he believes that some passages naturally lead to multiple conclusions or he would teach the Romans which views to hold as the kosher view. That he doesn't, speaks to something. He says in Ro14 that he is OK with the holding of conflicting doctrine. Accept and don't judge the persons who do. Like Dom does. He judges me not an Apostolic and that I am lost.

I'll keep reading Dom's post. I'll find out if what he claims is true. He says he has defeated the views I present in post 1. I'll keep you posted.

Matthew 5:44 love your enemies but you don't have to love their ideas.