-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
C
I'm obviously fooling around with it anyway. I was pointing out that if you want to start keeping score then, in my opinion, continuously implying that a person believes what they have explicitly denied (which I think VW has done to me) is inflammatory. And I think he keeps making off-topics remarks (although we all are now, aren't we?).
These are the two main characteristics of a troll (with the essential ingredient being that they do this in order to provoke controversy). What is *not* a characteristic of a troll, at least from what I read on wikipedia, is that he is around for only a short period of time.
My language isn't inflammatory and it seems to me that I only go off topic to pursue a comment that someone else has made. So I don't see how I have any trollish characteristics.
(Sorry, VW, I'm really not trying to say anything about you at all, I don't think you're a troll. I'm only using you, unfortunately enough for you, as an example in regards to Charisenexcelcis's implication on another thread.)
These are the two main characteristics of a troll (with the essential ingredient being that they do this in order to provoke controversy). What is *not* a characteristic of a troll, at least from what I read on wikipedia, is that he is around for only a short period of time.
My language isn't inflammatory and it seems to me that I only go off topic to pursue a comment that someone else has made. So I don't see how I have any trollish characteristics.
(Sorry, VW, I'm really not trying to say anything about you at all, I don't think you're a troll. I'm only using you, unfortunately enough for you, as an example in regards to Charisenexcelcis's implication on another thread.)
My own personal Jesus was and is a direct statement about how there are those who believe in the revelation of the Holy Spirit for the truth of God. I disagree that this is a problem, and that it can and will be corrected by everyone having the scripture as the ultimate authority. Just so everyone will know, this is my stance on this subject, and I believe that it is very much on topic.
Here is why: if all one has is the knowledge that is gained from the scripture, if the scripture is the basis of that one's truth, then that person has not, and because of pride that comes from knowledge, will not without some serious intervention by God. While we may not always have the same interpretation as someone else, it is one that has come to us, from God. (I am not discounting that some can and will be deceived, but this in no way makes the case that we should stop seeking the Spirit for the truth.) I really liked what machew said above, that scripture means one thing today, and years later it can mean something else. I have found this so many times as to beggar the imagination. And I have had scriptures which I knew had a deeper significance, and I have asked and waited upon Him for the truth, and He has answered, in one case even now is He answering, and the concept is so awesome that I am still gaining insight into its significance.
Scripture was never intended to be the end of arguments. When Paul wrote what he did about scripture, and its uses, he was very clear in his words, and said first that all Scripture is inspired by God. Of all the books that have been written, that have been published, the bible is unique in its origin. This is the only book that is inspired by God. That in no way negates the inspiration of God in believers. For even the spiritual gifts, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, are inspiration from God. The Scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. Why would we add the saying that it is the final authority in the church? This authority is the Spirit, has always been the Spirit, will always be the Spirit.
And the Spirit teaches us to live in Jesus. Not to know about Him, or to study Him, but to live in Him.
Here is why: if all one has is the knowledge that is gained from the scripture, if the scripture is the basis of that one's truth, then that person has not, and because of pride that comes from knowledge, will not without some serious intervention by God. While we may not always have the same interpretation as someone else, it is one that has come to us, from God. (I am not discounting that some can and will be deceived, but this in no way makes the case that we should stop seeking the Spirit for the truth.) I really liked what machew said above, that scripture means one thing today, and years later it can mean something else. I have found this so many times as to beggar the imagination. And I have had scriptures which I knew had a deeper significance, and I have asked and waited upon Him for the truth, and He has answered, in one case even now is He answering, and the concept is so awesome that I am still gaining insight into its significance.
Scripture was never intended to be the end of arguments. When Paul wrote what he did about scripture, and its uses, he was very clear in his words, and said first that all Scripture is inspired by God. Of all the books that have been written, that have been published, the bible is unique in its origin. This is the only book that is inspired by God. That in no way negates the inspiration of God in believers. For even the spiritual gifts, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, are inspiration from God. The Scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. Why would we add the saying that it is the final authority in the church? This authority is the Spirit, has always been the Spirit, will always be the Spirit.
And the Spirit teaches us to live in Jesus. Not to know about Him, or to study Him, but to live in Him.
I must apologize for a sentence which is incomplete above. The first sentence in the second paragraph should have said:
Here is why: if all one has is the knowledge that is gained from scripture, if the scripture is the basis of that one's truth, then that person has not, and because of pride that comes from knowledge, will not without some serious intervention by God, come to know God.
I left out the part in bold, no excuse, my grand daughter just came over to stay with us for a while, and I got more distracted than I am usually. It is a wonder that I did not forget that I was writing a post.
In His love,
vic
Here is why: if all one has is the knowledge that is gained from scripture, if the scripture is the basis of that one's truth, then that person has not, and because of pride that comes from knowledge, will not without some serious intervention by God, come to know God.
I left out the part in bold, no excuse, my grand daughter just came over to stay with us for a while, and I got more distracted than I am usually. It is a wonder that I did not forget that I was writing a post.
In His love,
vic
C
This seems to assume that God, or the Holy Spirit does not work through Scripture. But I think he does.
“So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. ” (Romans 10:17)
Now, you may say that this "word of Christ" is some audible (or inner personal) word, but I don't see any warrant for making it that. I think this means the words about Christ (as MacArthur puts it) and this is contained in the Scripture, right? Sure, we can speak the words to, but in so doing we are only repeating what we have learned from Scripture (yes, yes... with the help of the Holy Spirit).
Another verse:
“For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. ” (Hebrews 4:12)
And especially:
“... from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. ” (2 Timothy 3:15–17)
(Interestingly, Paul doesn't seem to feel overly concerned about qualifying this in 2 Timothy with THROUGH THE SPIRIT!).
How would you say we know when it has come from God and when we have arrived at it on our own?
But I do think it was intended to be our ultimate rule of authority. And Jesus employed it on several occasions to end arguments. And who would listen to what a man has to say if what he says sounds contrary to Scripture and he can point to no Scripture to back it up?
But I do think it equivocates on the word "inspired". I'm obviously not inspired in the same sense that Scripture is. Scripture is "breathed out by God" I'm not and my words aren't (and neither are yours).
This looks like a categorical confusion to me. Let's pretend we are in medieval France. The king issues a command: "All men are to wear green pants." If I disobey they words (command) of the king I disobey the king. To say "BUT the king is not the command!" seems really trite and to miss the point altogether.
We can't live in Jesus if we don't know who Jesus is, can we? And as I pointed out earlier, I think knowing who Jesus is requires knowing things about Jesus. Things like "Jesus is God" and things like "Jesus is the Messiah" etc...
“So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. ” (Romans 10:17)
Now, you may say that this "word of Christ" is some audible (or inner personal) word, but I don't see any warrant for making it that. I think this means the words about Christ (as MacArthur puts it) and this is contained in the Scripture, right? Sure, we can speak the words to, but in so doing we are only repeating what we have learned from Scripture (yes, yes... with the help of the Holy Spirit).
Another verse:
“For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. ” (Hebrews 4:12)
And especially:
“... from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. ” (2 Timothy 3:15–17)
(Interestingly, Paul doesn't seem to feel overly concerned about qualifying this in 2 Timothy with THROUGH THE SPIRIT!).
How would you say we know when it has come from God and when we have arrived at it on our own?
But I do think it was intended to be our ultimate rule of authority. And Jesus employed it on several occasions to end arguments. And who would listen to what a man has to say if what he says sounds contrary to Scripture and he can point to no Scripture to back it up?
But I do think it equivocates on the word "inspired". I'm obviously not inspired in the same sense that Scripture is. Scripture is "breathed out by God" I'm not and my words aren't (and neither are yours).
This looks like a categorical confusion to me. Let's pretend we are in medieval France. The king issues a command: "All men are to wear green pants." If I disobey they words (command) of the king I disobey the king. To say "BUT the king is not the command!" seems really trite and to miss the point altogether.
We can't live in Jesus if we don't know who Jesus is, can we? And as I pointed out earlier, I think knowing who Jesus is requires knowing things about Jesus. Things like "Jesus is God" and things like "Jesus is the Messiah" etc...
I think I did a pretty good job addressing this, but he hasn 't seem to respond to my reply yet 
I don't agree with any of them.
First, I never said that the Spirit does not work through the scriptures. You think it is a good answer to misconstrue my words?
Did Jesus not say that His sheep would hear His voice?
Do we really think that Timothy was not filled with the Spirit?
I never said anything about arriving at a truth on our own. The entire discussion is about receiving truth from above, from God by the Spirit. I am reminded of the scripture where those who refused to receive the love of the truth are being sent a strong delusion. Notice again the word received.
Who sets on the throne? It ain't a book, it is not anything created, but Jesus Christ, the Lord of all. He is the only authority, because God made Him so.
God inspires every time someone accepts Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
Even the centurian knew about authority. Jesus marveled at him. The authority is Jesus, and just because we have His inspired words, that in no way makes us authorities. Even when we cast out demons, it is in His name.
Jesus said to those who came to Him that He never knew them. This is said by Him twice. It is instructive to look at both of these times.
In His love,
vic
First, I never said that the Spirit does not work through the scriptures. You think it is a good answer to misconstrue my words?
Did Jesus not say that His sheep would hear His voice?
Do we really think that Timothy was not filled with the Spirit?
I never said anything about arriving at a truth on our own. The entire discussion is about receiving truth from above, from God by the Spirit. I am reminded of the scripture where those who refused to receive the love of the truth are being sent a strong delusion. Notice again the word received.
Who sets on the throne? It ain't a book, it is not anything created, but Jesus Christ, the Lord of all. He is the only authority, because God made Him so.
God inspires every time someone accepts Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
Even the centurian knew about authority. Jesus marveled at him. The authority is Jesus, and just because we have His inspired words, that in no way makes us authorities. Even when we cast out demons, it is in His name.
Jesus said to those who came to Him that He never knew them. This is said by Him twice. It is instructive to look at both of these times.
In His love,
vic
M
I don't believe that this is what he meant. Obviously the Holy Spirit speaks to us through the Bible, but it isn't the only way (read my reply for explanation)
Based on what you said: I assume you believe that God only speaks through the Bible? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it is foolish to believe that God doesn't speak separate from the book we call the Bible. He never contradicts the Bible, but He surely can speak in whatever fashion He deems appropriate.
So because Paul said it in one statement and not in the other, you can assume that he didn't mean it everywhere else? If there was an intentional point about something not being through the Spirit, which I highly doubt (Romans 8:13-16) then he would have made it clear. You are reading into things that aren't in the text. Because it doesn't say something doesn't necessarily mean it is saying something(as you assume).
I address this in my previous reply to your original post.
If something sounds contrary to scripture I do agree that it should be weighed by the Bible, but also by what you see come out of it in the person's life (also addressed in my previous reply to your original post)
I think the greater error is to brush off anything that doesn't sit well with our understanding of the scriptures. Things can be biblical without us realizing it until later. (Also addressed in my previous reply)
True, and it is absolutely essential to get to know Jesus through the Bible. But there is a clear distinction between only knowing about Him and actually knowing Him.
I think Matthew 7:15-23 sums up everything I have said in the previous and current post.
Blessings,
Machew
Based on what you said: I assume you believe that God only speaks through the Bible? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it is foolish to believe that God doesn't speak separate from the book we call the Bible. He never contradicts the Bible, but He surely can speak in whatever fashion He deems appropriate.
So because Paul said it in one statement and not in the other, you can assume that he didn't mean it everywhere else? If there was an intentional point about something not being through the Spirit, which I highly doubt (Romans 8:13-16) then he would have made it clear. You are reading into things that aren't in the text. Because it doesn't say something doesn't necessarily mean it is saying something(as you assume).
I address this in my previous reply to your original post.
If something sounds contrary to scripture I do agree that it should be weighed by the Bible, but also by what you see come out of it in the person's life (also addressed in my previous reply to your original post)
I think the greater error is to brush off anything that doesn't sit well with our understanding of the scriptures. Things can be biblical without us realizing it until later. (Also addressed in my previous reply)
True, and it is absolutely essential to get to know Jesus through the Bible. But there is a clear distinction between only knowing about Him and actually knowing Him.
I think Matthew 7:15-23 sums up everything I have said in the previous and current post.
Blessings,
Machew
Last edited:
C
I'm curious, does this mean you think that the ordinary man (who is an unbeliever) cannot understand the basic teaching of Scripture?
If so, does this mean that a person can only get saved (because only then can they understand the teaching of Scripture on salvation) when the Holy Spirit opens their eyes?
If so, does this mean that not everyone can be saved or do you think that the Holy Spirit opens the eyes of everyman to understand the basic teaching of Scripture?
If it's the latter, then saying we have no ability on our own to interpret the Bible may be true, but it's not very interesting, is it? It's like the earlier example I used of the Three Stooges: pointing out that they cannot make truth claims without brains my be true, but it's not very interesting...
So when an unbeliever correctly interprets Scripture to say that "Jesus is the Messiah" this was from the Holy Spirit?
I don't necessarily have a problem with that, I just think it's a rather uninteresting claim since it seems that virtually everyone has this enlightening of the Holy Spirit.
The maxim usually goes "One meaning, various applications."
As I once heard it said, someone who is immersed in self-deception cannot detect his own self-deception.
The devil is more than please to allow small errors to creep in over time that involve a slow death. In the meantime, it may look like people are on fire for God. I might step on some toes with this one, but take Joel Osteens church for example. I think the "health, wealth, and prosperity" gospel is a false gospel. But you'd never know it by looking at the externals: Osteen is a huge success by that account.
Well let's say for a moment that the Bible really doesn't teach that persons can still experience healings and tongues. People may be drawn to your church just to see a so-called miraculous event. Is that true faith?
Please consider the story in John 6. Jesus fed a multitude of people with bread and fish. Jesus then left the area. The people went searching for him and they found him.
Great effect, right? If I had a ministry that sent persons looking for me I must be on the right track. That's good fruit!
Not quite. Jesus said: “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves” (John 6:26). These people were just being led around by their stomach! Jesus explained to them that this wasn't good enough. “Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal” (John 6:27).
Now, if you are magically producing bread and gathering a large following of people, as you no doubt will, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Likewise, if you start healing people and speaking tongues, that may bring a large crowed, but it may mean absolutely nothing.
The only thing that is truly important and truly has value is if people are accepting Christ. And it's God who gives the increase, always. It's not us and its not our gimmicks. So I would say, if the Bible says "signs and wonders" have ceased, then throw away the gimmicks and win the crowds with the truth of the Gospel.
If so, does this mean that a person can only get saved (because only then can they understand the teaching of Scripture on salvation) when the Holy Spirit opens their eyes?
If so, does this mean that not everyone can be saved or do you think that the Holy Spirit opens the eyes of everyman to understand the basic teaching of Scripture?
If it's the latter, then saying we have no ability on our own to interpret the Bible may be true, but it's not very interesting, is it? It's like the earlier example I used of the Three Stooges: pointing out that they cannot make truth claims without brains my be true, but it's not very interesting...
So when an unbeliever correctly interprets Scripture to say that "Jesus is the Messiah" this was from the Holy Spirit?
I don't necessarily have a problem with that, I just think it's a rather uninteresting claim since it seems that virtually everyone has this enlightening of the Holy Spirit.
The maxim usually goes "One meaning, various applications."
As I once heard it said, someone who is immersed in self-deception cannot detect his own self-deception.
The devil is more than please to allow small errors to creep in over time that involve a slow death. In the meantime, it may look like people are on fire for God. I might step on some toes with this one, but take Joel Osteens church for example. I think the "health, wealth, and prosperity" gospel is a false gospel. But you'd never know it by looking at the externals: Osteen is a huge success by that account.
Well let's say for a moment that the Bible really doesn't teach that persons can still experience healings and tongues. People may be drawn to your church just to see a so-called miraculous event. Is that true faith?
Please consider the story in John 6. Jesus fed a multitude of people with bread and fish. Jesus then left the area. The people went searching for him and they found him.
Great effect, right? If I had a ministry that sent persons looking for me I must be on the right track. That's good fruit!
Not quite. Jesus said: “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves” (John 6:26). These people were just being led around by their stomach! Jesus explained to them that this wasn't good enough. “Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal” (John 6:27).
Now, if you are magically producing bread and gathering a large following of people, as you no doubt will, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Likewise, if you start healing people and speaking tongues, that may bring a large crowed, but it may mean absolutely nothing.
The only thing that is truly important and truly has value is if people are accepting Christ. And it's God who gives the increase, always. It's not us and its not our gimmicks. So I would say, if the Bible says "signs and wonders" have ceased, then throw away the gimmicks and win the crowds with the truth of the Gospel.
C
I said: "This seems to assume..." so I didn't deliberately misconstrue your words and I left room for error.
Here is why I thought it meant what I said:
"if all one has is the knowledge that is gained from the scripture... then that person has not... [and] will not without some serious intervention by God [come to God]."
But if the Holy Spirit works through Scriptures, then your above statement is nonsense. The knowledge they have may be (and according to some here will be) gained through the Holy Spirit.
So, *if the Holy Spirit works through Scripture* then it is not true that "if all one has is the knowledge that is gained from the Scripture... they will not come to God."
See what I mean? It's your own statement that doesn't make sense in light of your belief that the Holy Spirit works through the Scripture.
Since you don't reference anything, I'm not sure what exactly this is in response to or how it relates.
Right. Jesus is King. And the Scriptures are the words of the King. The King has authority. His words have authority. Scripture has authority. Jesus is not a book, we all get that. No one said he is. So this point looks irrelevant.
Again, this is getting confuses because you are using the same word (inspired/inspires) in different ways. Jesus doesn't "inspire" someone to salvation in the same sense he "breathed out" the Scriptures. No one claimed that a person coming to salvation in Jesus came without the help of God. So all these sorts of claims are irrelevant. They are turning into red-herrings because they are side-tracking the topic.
No one said it makes us authorities so this looks like more irrelevant statements.
Here is why I thought it meant what I said:
"if all one has is the knowledge that is gained from the scripture... then that person has not... [and] will not without some serious intervention by God [come to God]."
But if the Holy Spirit works through Scriptures, then your above statement is nonsense. The knowledge they have may be (and according to some here will be) gained through the Holy Spirit.
So, *if the Holy Spirit works through Scripture* then it is not true that "if all one has is the knowledge that is gained from the Scripture... they will not come to God."
See what I mean? It's your own statement that doesn't make sense in light of your belief that the Holy Spirit works through the Scripture.
Since you don't reference anything, I'm not sure what exactly this is in response to or how it relates.
Right. Jesus is King. And the Scriptures are the words of the King. The King has authority. His words have authority. Scripture has authority. Jesus is not a book, we all get that. No one said he is. So this point looks irrelevant.
Again, this is getting confuses because you are using the same word (inspired/inspires) in different ways. Jesus doesn't "inspire" someone to salvation in the same sense he "breathed out" the Scriptures. No one claimed that a person coming to salvation in Jesus came without the help of God. So all these sorts of claims are irrelevant. They are turning into red-herrings because they are side-tracking the topic.
No one said it makes us authorities so this looks like more irrelevant statements.
Well if I am completely honest I do feel that sometimes you give the impression that you have knowledge from the Spirit that is greater than others, and you are in a lets say enhanced state of Christianity and totally yielded to God.
And when you always sign off with in his love, I'm sorry, but that does not seem to ring true with me.
I honestly believe that credo has been far more dierect in answering your questions, and sometimes you stay in discussions even though let us say scripturally the other person is able to prove more of their argument, but there is csomething in you that will not let you withdraw
I'm sorry, but I also feel that when you sign off to me 'in his love' this is not really the truth. If you are honest I believe you would admit it
And BTW I am a sinner saved by grace
And when you always sign off with in his love, I'm sorry, but that does not seem to ring true with me.
I honestly believe that credo has been far more dierect in answering your questions, and sometimes you stay in discussions even though let us say scripturally the other person is able to prove more of their argument, but there is csomething in you that will not let you withdraw
I'm sorry, but I also feel that when you sign off to me 'in his love' this is not really the truth. If you are honest I believe you would admit it
And BTW I am a sinner saved by grace
C
Not sure which post of mine you're referring to. I used a cool face once, which is also a facetious face.
The troll thing seem to be directed at me. The Malaysian guy definitely doesn't look like a troll (in my opinion)l. At least I don't see how he could count on one. He hasn't been inflammatory, his questions seem honest enough, he isn't going off topic (he is starting his own topics). Praying for him is fine, naturally. (Anyway, I'm not too interested in debating about who is or isn't a troll, I was just playing around and didn't mean to get into a serious discussion about it.)
The troll thing seem to be directed at me. The Malaysian guy definitely doesn't look like a troll (in my opinion)l. At least I don't see how he could count on one. He hasn't been inflammatory, his questions seem honest enough, he isn't going off topic (he is starting his own topics). Praying for him is fine, naturally. (Anyway, I'm not too interested in debating about who is or isn't a troll, I was just playing around and didn't mean to get into a serious discussion about it.)
Wow.
Well, I am sorry that you do not believe this. I will tell you the truth, I am not any better than anyone else, and in truth, I am a sorry excuse for one who follows Jesus. And the truth, I do love you, with His love, so deeply that I cannot tell you the measure of it. And I have known that you were feeling this way about me, but did not know what to do about it.
So let me tell you what I feel about you. You are susceptible to the way of understanding that has become the ruin of the bride. She has lost her first love, which is for Jesus, and has instead grown to love the things of God over God. This is not to say that she does not love Jesus, but she loves the scripture and the church organization more. I cannot tell the sorrow that the Spirit feels because of this.
Not a credo,
In His most precious love,
vic
Well, I am sorry that you do not believe this. I will tell you the truth, I am not any better than anyone else, and in truth, I am a sorry excuse for one who follows Jesus. And the truth, I do love you, with His love, so deeply that I cannot tell you the measure of it. And I have known that you were feeling this way about me, but did not know what to do about it.
So let me tell you what I feel about you. You are susceptible to the way of understanding that has become the ruin of the bride. She has lost her first love, which is for Jesus, and has instead grown to love the things of God over God. This is not to say that she does not love Jesus, but she loves the scripture and the church organization more. I cannot tell the sorrow that the Spirit feels because of this.
Not a credo,
In His most precious love,
vic
C
I appreciate your words which cast me in some positive light, but I would prefer to focus on people's arguments for and against issues and stay as far as possible from the persons themselves.
I realize this isn't always possible (after all, a *person* is giving the argument and psychological factors, as Machew correctly pointed out, play a big part in our reasoning). But I'm afraid this might spin into a partisan thing or discussion of personalities (as even the label "troll" is apt to do (even if it is legitimate)).
I realize this isn't always possible (after all, a *person* is giving the argument and psychological factors, as Machew correctly pointed out, play a big part in our reasoning). But I'm afraid this might spin into a partisan thing or discussion of personalities (as even the label "troll" is apt to do (even if it is legitimate)).