The problem lies with meaning to passages which we can both see differently
That doesn't really wash unless you're going to present some relevant Scripture. I'm not seeing any Scripture to indicate why this particular blood moon means anything at all, let alone suggestions as to just what it might mean.
as well as personal experiences which some discredit since they didnt see or experience them which I find telling as without faith it is impossible to please God.
Nobody is disputing that specific quote from Scripture. The problem is you're talking of a blind faith that requires nothing other than a third-hand account of something Very Unusual. If I told you I saw dancing unicorns praising God at the end of my back yard would you believe me, or would you question it? If you believe it, how much more absurd does my claim have to be before you stop believing? If you don't believe it, how do you reconcile that with your recurring quote that without faith it is impossible to please God?
Nobody disputes that without faith we cannot please God. The problem with the endless use of the verse is when it is misapplied. If you have blind faith in my outlandish claim of dancing unicorns you're not going to please the God who breathed the Scripture to "test all things". All apples are fruit but not all fruit are apples. We must have faith to please God but the faith must be well placed. We can't go round blindly accepting everything we hear from every source and then patting ourselves on the back because we've got the kind of faith that pleases God. That would be like saying we need liquid to survive, and so offering a man lost in the desert a cool refreshing drink of carbon tetrachloride because he needs liquid to survive. He does need liquid to survive, but carbon tetrachloride isn't the liquid he needs.
Your idea of disagreement and diseccting posts shuts down a discussion with people that are like me
Why does it shut down a discussion to disagree? Why does it shut down a discussion to ask someone to put some substance into a post and address the issue rather than using endless deflection tactics that don't answer the question and arguments so vague they could be used to support any position.
Or, put another way, what sort of disagreement with a post doesn't shut down a discussion with people that are like you?
but between you and ather like minded might actually be good discussion but I dont like double speak such as with OSAS where if they fall away they were never saved and so on.
More deflection right here. What has OSAS got to do with it, and where is the doublespeak other than on the extreme Pentecostal side? If arguments are riddled with doublespeak (or doublethink, or whatever else you want to call it) they are usually pretty easy to dismantle.
That to me is fruitless discussion so in the end I justy back away from these discussions, of course then one member will try to bully a response by saying oh they couldnt handle it or they did not respond and so on, to me that is bullying and I wont respond to that or to anyone that employs these tactics
I'm not seeing a lot of that, although I am seeing an awful lot of deflection, vague comments that don't relate to the discussion at hand, and comments like "oh well I'll just leave you to it then" which suggests people wanting to post and not have anyone disagree with them.
