Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
You are still avoiding my point. It does not matter how many times you responded to Ezek 16, it matters if you are addressing our specific question: WHY WOULD GOD USE AN UNHOLY PICTURE TO ILLUSTRATE A HOLY ACT? You've done everything but directly answer that question.
Type 114 more pages of responses and never actually answer this single and simple question. But do not say you already answered it.
The point is what you think is plainness is incorrect, which is evident in your continued inability to answer this one simple question. Until you can answer this one question, I see no reason to believe your interpretation and alleged plain reading of the NT passages is correct, and nobody has helped me see it your way.
In my estimation GOD WOULD NEVER USE AN UNHOLY PICTURE TO ILLUSTRATE A HOLY THING OR ACT. Sorry, cannot get around that.
So, your interpretation that demands that picture be unholy shows your interpretation of Paul and Peter to be wrong. What you think is plain instruction is wrong. And until you or SOMEONE answers this question, I have not received an answer, and will never accept your idea that Peter and Paul meant what YOU CLAIM they meant. The fact that you are saying everything except the answer to this question shows me your idea of standards is error.
|
I especially appreciate your comment about a good suit. I know I "get what I pay for", and believe me, I don't buy my suits at WalMart! I'd like to know at what point things become "costly".
I'd also like to know if RDP considers this topic "holiness" preaching.
Threaded Mode
