[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
<<< This is also the lie of sola fide ‘what you do doesn’t matter as long as you have faith’."
[/quote]And that is a lie ABOUT sola fide. Calvin himself said in his commentary on Romans that to believe that grace and it’s assurance of reconciliation with God can be had while sin abounds is to make the medicine the fomenter of the very sickness it alleges to cure. No reliable proponent biblical Christianity holds that salvation by grace through faith alone is ever taking place where flagrant sin or fatally heretical doctrine persists. Blacksheep has given a solid and concise exposition from the 1st epistle of John that I have been citing which quite soundly shows us why.
That is a falsehood sir. You seem a decent fella. I would not like to think you did it intentionally.
[/quote]
That begs the question who is a reliable proponent?
[quote]forlife wrote:
The self-righteousness is the conviction that God would choose YOU for eternal joy and condemn OTHERS to eternal suffering, >>>[/quote]Ok, He did not choose me. I chose Him and you didn’t moron. What is wrong with you? I was able to recognize a good deal when I saw one, why can’t you? Why you can’t you be holy like me? Is it because you like boys or what? Man do I ever thank me that I am not nearly as filthy and stupid as you are. There, no more self righteousness. [quote]forlife wrote:for His own mysterious purposes and for no fault of their own. >>>[/quote]It is exactly through their own capital crimes before His court. Yes, I know the whole theodicy thing comes up again. [quote]forlife wrote:I honestly think the most damning doctrine one could adopt is the belief that men have no free will. It removes responsibility for our actions, and makes us nothing more than puppets. I think Christ would condemn such a heresy in the harshest terms. It is contrary to everything that he taught. >>>[/quote] I honestly think Christ doesn’t care what you honestly think. He doesn’t care what I honestly think either BTW and no we are not puppets and yes we do have moral responsibility and culpability and no we do not have free will as defined by fallen autonomous man and yes that is absolutely consistent to me because I know it resolves itself in Him. >>.[quote]forlife wrote:Again, I welcome your comments on Matthew 5:43-48. They directly contradict everything you’ve said. [/quote]God’s command for ME to love MY enemies addresses no similar obligation in Himself which is another way of stating what I already said which was “He can do it and we can’t”. However, as regards His elect, He DOES actually love His enemies. That’s why He saves them. He chooses, for reasons entirely sufficient to Himself and entirely unknown to us, some of His enemies in which to display His love, mercy and grace and leaves the rest in their sin for Him to display His awesome and terrible wrath and judgment upon. I don’t know what to tell you man. That is how it is and you or anybody else not liking it will not deter almighty God from His own declarations. As this Jakerz guy says, this view was clearly articulated all the way back to Augustine of Hippo 1600 years ago. It is not Tribs newfangled gospel of hate.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< That begs the question who is a reliable proponent?[/quote]RC Sproul is a reliable proponent. Joel Osteen is not. I am incapable of a comprehensive list.
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
<<< This is also the lie of sola fide ‘what you do doesn’t matter as long as you have faith’."
[/quote]And that is a lie ABOUT sola fide. Calvin himself said in his commentary on Romans that to believe that grace and it’s assurance of reconciliation with God can be had while sin abounds is to make the medicine the fomenter of the very sickness it alleges to cure. No reliable proponent biblical Christianity holds that salvation by grace through faith alone is ever taking place where flagrant sin or fatally heretical doctrine persists. Blacksheep has given a solid and concise exposition from the 1st epistle of John that I have been citing which quite soundly shows us why.
That is a falsehood sir. You seem a decent fella. I would not like to think you did it intentionally.
[/quote]
And maybe you better make sure you know what I mean. The ‘sola fide’ rejected by the Council of Trent is the one you reject, that faith saves even while sin abounds. That is the ‘sola fide’ I was referring to. We do not disagree on that. The problem is that there are a great many people who believe something along those lines. I would clarify also that we are saved by grace through faith (that alone part is really an innovation of Luther) and that faith has to be a lively one, which as James puts it must have works or else it is dead.
[quote]forlife wrote:
The self-righteousness is the conviction that God would choose YOU for eternal joy and condemn OTHERS to eternal suffering, >>>[/quote]Ok, He did not choose me. I chose Him and you didn’t moron. What is wrong with you? I was able to recognize a good deal when I saw one, why can’t you? Why you can’t you be holy like me? Is it because you like boys or what? Man do I ever thank me that I am not nearly as filthy and stupid as you are. There, no more self righteousness. [quote]forlife wrote:for His own mysterious purposes and for no fault of their own. >>>[/quote]It is exactly through their own capital crimes before His court. Yes, I know the whole theodicy thing comes up again. [quote]forlife wrote:I honestly think the most damning doctrine one could adopt is the belief that men have no free will. It removes responsibility for our actions, and makes us nothing more than puppets. I think Christ would condemn such a heresy in the harshest terms. It is contrary to everything that he taught. >>>[/quote] I honestly think Christ doesn’t care what you honestly think. He doesn’t care what I honestly think either BTW and no we are not puppets and yes we do have moral responsibility and culpability and no we do not have free will as defined by fallen autonomous man and yes that is absolutely consistent to me because I know it resolves itself in Him. >>.[quote]forlife wrote:Again, I welcome your comments on Matthew 5:43-48. They directly contradict everything you’ve said. [/quote]God’s command for ME to love MY enemies addresses no similar obligation in Himself which is another way of stating what I already said which was “He can do it and we can’t”. However, as regards His elect, He DOES actually love His enemies. That’s why He saves them. He chooses, for reasons entirely sufficient to Himself and entirely unknown to us, some of His enemies in which to display His love, mercy and grace and leaves the rest in their sin for Him to display His awesome and terrible wrath and judgment upon. I don’t know what to tell you man. That is how it is and you or anybody else not liking it will not deter almighty God from His own declarations. As this Jakerz guy says, this view was clearly articulated all the way back to Augustine of Hippo 1600 years ago. It is not Tribs newfangled gospel of hate.
[/quote]
Augustine also believed in asking Mary to pray for him and a whole bunch of other Catholic stuff… I don’t mean to be argumentative here, but I wonder why (I have my suspicions though) protestants always cherry-pick from Augustine’s writings and turn a decidedly blind eye to the parts they don’t like.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< That begs the question who is a reliable proponent?[/quote]RC Sproul is a reliable proponent. Joel Osteen is not. I am incapable of a comprehensive list.
[/quote]
Okay, how about this, what criteria do you use to figure out if someone is a reliable proponent?
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
<<< This is also the lie of sola fide ‘what you do doesn’t matter as long as you have faith’."
[/quote]And that is a lie ABOUT sola fide. Calvin himself said in his commentary on Romans that to believe that grace and it’s assurance of reconciliation with God can be had while sin abounds is to make the medicine the fomenter of the very sickness it alleges to cure. No reliable proponent biblical Christianity holds that salvation by grace through faith alone is ever taking place where flagrant sin or fatally heretical doctrine persists. Blacksheep has given a solid and concise exposition from the 1st epistle of John that I have been citing which quite soundly shows us why.
That is a falsehood sir. You seem a decent fella. I would not like to think you did it intentionally.
[/quote]
And maybe you better make sure you know what I mean. The ‘sola fide’ rejected by the Council of Trent is the one you reject, that faith saves even while sin abounds. That is the ‘sola fide’ I was referring to. We do not disagree on that. The problem is that there are a great many people who believe something along those lines. I would clarify also that we are saved by grace through faith (that alone part is really an innovation of Luther) and that faith has to be a lively one, which as James puts it must have works or else it is dead.[/quote] Ephesians 2:1-10 ESV [quote]1-And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2-in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience 3-among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4-But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5-even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved- 6-and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7-so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8-For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9-not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10-For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.[/quote]Grace by faith alone is what saves. A person with no accompanying works demonstrates the illegitimacy of their faith. James is speaking about demonstrating one’s justification before men. Paul almost literally beats the Romans and Galatians over the head with salvation being absolutely by grace through faith alone. Regardless of what anybody tries to say the notion that Paul was referring to the law of Moses alone while leaving other works open to being able to save (or maintain salvation) is just… wrong. Working God’s law doesn’t justify, but working natural law (which is still God’s law) does? No, what he is saying is that works of any kind, most highly typified in the THE law cannot justify before God and all for the same reason. The impossibility of perfect obedience and nothing short of perfection is acceptable before God which explains how a single bite of fruit can bring damnation to creatures bearing the image of God.
It also explains why Christ was required to obey all the law perfectly for His sacrifice to be accepted. He who knew no sin was made to be sin for me. He was made my sin and He was made my righteousness. Him and Him alone. My godly works are the result of His grace and contribute exactly zeeroh to my righteousness.
BTW, I know for a fact that neither Luther nor Calvin nor Bullinger for that matter taught that somebody could say “Jesus save me”, live like a pagan and be saved. Who was Trent addressing in 1560 that DID believe this?
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
<<< Augustine also believed in asking Mary to pray for him and a whole bunch of other Catholic stuff… I don’t mean to be argumentative here, but I wonder why (I have my suspicions though) protestants always cherry-pick from Augustine’s writings and turn a decidedly blind eye to the parts they don’t like.[/quote]The parts that are biblical. Yes, I know.
If also a bit refreshing for you to appear at least to concede that Augustine’s “City of God” does say what I’m saying. BTW, I firmly believe the creeping apostasy predicted in the first century began to fester probably before John’s body was cold. loooooonnnnggg discussion. Need sleep.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< That begs the question who is a reliable proponent?[/quote]RC Sproul is a reliable proponent. Joel Osteen is not. I am incapable of a comprehensive list.
[/quote]
Okay, how about this, what criteria do you use to figure out if someone is a reliable proponent?[/quote]There is a core of Christian doctrine and practice which when adhered to make someone reliable at least to the life and death degree. A remarkable diversity can exist around that core.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< That begs the question who is a reliable proponent?[/quote]RC Sproul is a reliable proponent. Joel Osteen is not. I am incapable of a comprehensive list.
[/quote]
Okay, how about this, what criteria do you use to figure out if someone is a reliable proponent?[/quote]There is a core of Christian doctrine and practice which when adhered to make someone reliable at least to the life and death degree. A remarkable diversity can exist around that core.
[/quote]
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
<<< This is also the lie of sola fide ‘what you do doesn’t matter as long as you have faith’."
[/quote]And that is a lie ABOUT sola fide. Calvin himself said in his commentary on Romans that to believe that grace and it’s assurance of reconciliation with God can be had while sin abounds is to make the medicine the fomenter of the very sickness it alleges to cure. No reliable proponent biblical Christianity holds that salvation by grace through faith alone is ever taking place where flagrant sin or fatally heretical doctrine persists. Blacksheep has given a solid and concise exposition from the 1st epistle of John that I have been citing which quite soundly shows us why.
That is a falsehood sir. You seem a decent fella. I would not like to think you did it intentionally.
[/quote]
And maybe you better make sure you know what I mean. The ‘sola fide’ rejected by the Council of Trent is the one you reject, that faith saves even while sin abounds. That is the ‘sola fide’ I was referring to. We do not disagree on that. The problem is that there are a great many people who believe something along those lines. I would clarify also that we are saved by grace through faith (that alone part is really an innovation of Luther) and that faith has to be a lively one, which as James puts it must have works or else it is dead.[/quote] Ephesians 2:1-10 ESV [quote]1-And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2-in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience 3-among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4-But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5-even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved- 6-and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7-so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8-For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9-not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10-For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.[/quote]Grace by faith alone is what saves. A person with no accompanying works demonstrates the illegitimacy of their faith. James is speaking about demonstrating one’s justification before men. Paul almost literally beats the Romans and Galatians over the head with salvation being absolutely by grace through faith alone. Regardless of what anybody tries to say the notion that Paul was referring to the law of Moses alone while leaving other works open to being able to save (or maintain salvation) is just… wrong. Working God’s law doesn’t justify, but working natural law (which is still God’s law) does? No, what he is saying is that works of any kind, most highly typified in the THE law cannot justify before God and all for the same reason. The impossibility of perfect obedience and nothing short of perfection is acceptable before God which explains how a single bite of fruit can bring damnation to creatures bearing the image of God.
It also explains why Christ was required to obey all the law perfectly for His sacrifice to be accepted. He who knew no sin was made to be sin for me. He was made my sin and He was made my righteousness. Him and Him alone. My godly works are the result of His grace and contribute exactly zeeroh to my righteousness.
BTW, I know for a fact that neither Luther nor Calvin nor Bullinger for that matter taught that somebody could say “Jesus save me”, live like a pagan and be saved. Who was Trent addressing in 1560 that DID believe this?
[/quote]
The distinction is that human action (or maybe reaction) enabled by God’s grace is part of salvation. These are not our works they are God’s with our cooperation, or us acting under God’s enabling grace. Luther rejected all human works as being part of the process of salvation. Thus formulating sola fide as only an act of God not requiring any action on the part of the person for salvation. That is what Trent was addressing.
[quote]forlife wrote:
The self-righteousness is the conviction that God would choose YOU for eternal joy and condemn OTHERS to eternal suffering, >>>[/quote]Ok, He did not choose me. I chose Him and you didn’t moron. What is wrong with you? I was able to recognize a good deal when I saw one, why can’t you? Why you can’t you be holy like me? Is it because you like boys or what? Man do I ever thank me that I am not nearly as filthy and stupid as you are. There, no more self righteousness. [quote]forlife wrote:for His own mysterious purposes and for no fault of their own. >>>[/quote]It is exactly through their own capital crimes before His court. Yes, I know the whole theodicy thing comes up again. [quote]forlife wrote:I honestly think the most damning doctrine one could adopt is the belief that men have no free will. It removes responsibility for our actions, and makes us nothing more than puppets. I think Christ would condemn such a heresy in the harshest terms. It is contrary to everything that he taught. >>>[/quote] I honestly think Christ doesn’t care what you honestly think. He doesn’t care what I honestly think either BTW and no we are not puppets and yes we do have moral responsibility and culpability and no we do not have free will as defined by fallen autonomous man and yes that is absolutely consistent to me because I know it resolves itself in Him. >>.[quote]forlife wrote:Again, I welcome your comments on Matthew 5:43-48. They directly contradict everything you’ve said. [/quote]God’s command for ME to love MY enemies addresses no similar obligation in Himself which is another way of stating what I already said which was “He can do it and we can’t”. However, as regards His elect, He DOES actually love His enemies. That’s why He saves them. He chooses, for reasons entirely sufficient to Himself and entirely unknown to us, some of His enemies in which to display His love, mercy and grace and leaves the rest in their sin for Him to display His awesome and terrible wrath and judgment upon. I don’t know what to tell you man. That is how it is and you or anybody else not liking it will not deter almighty God from His own declarations. As this Jakerz guy says, this view was clearly articulated all the way back to Augustine of Hippo 1600 years ago. It is not Tribs newfangled gospel of hate.
[/quote]
You’re contradicting yourself. I think you know this, and it is a copout to dismiss the contradiction with a blithe “it all resolves itself in Him”.
Either men have free will or we don’t. If we have free will, our exercise of that will to freely partake of the Gift or to reject it is what determines our ultimate fate. Yes, irrespective of our will, we would all be damned without the Gift being offered. But we still choose whether to embrace or reject it.
However, you are not saying this. You can’t have it both ways. You insist that we aren’t puppets, then you make statements like this:
You’re saying that God made up your mind for you. He pulled your strings, but left others to their horrible fate. If God implanted the desire to embrace Him, how is that free will?
Even people in your own Calvinist tradition disagree with you. Some say that the gift is freely offered to all, who may choose to accept or reject it. Others, like you, insist that God plays favorites and doesn’t freely offer the gift to all. Your particular branch is called Hyper-Calvinism, and I think it is a tragic misunderstanding of the core message that Jesus taught. Why all the discussion about repentance, if God is the one making you want to repent, while abandoning everyone else to hellfire?
In Matthew 5, Jesus didn’t say to love some of your enemies and hate others. He said we should be like the Father, who sends the sun to all, including the just and the unjust. You cite the old testament to prove that God hates sinners, but Jesus specifically countermanded the old law that we should seek an eye for an eye, giving us a new commandment to turn the other cheek. His gospel is about love, not hate. His life and example are about love, not hate. He commanded us to be like the Father, who is about love, not hate.
[quote]forlife wrote:
So by your own admission, you were once a child of the devil. You were a son of disobedience, a child of wrath, and an enemy of God. [/quote]Admit? I own that without question. The guy who led me to the Lord 26 years ago told me that first thing. That’s just the gospel. It is that very realization that Paul cites as making the incredible grace of my loving Savior so amazing.
[quote]forlife wrote:
And you still would be, except for some mysterious reason God thought you were special and decided to save you, through no free repentance or submission of your will to His.[/quote]I still would be had he not raised me from death to life by His free sovereign electing grace for any other conceivable reason than my being special. I am not told why.
He subdued my stubborn stiff necked rebellious will, gave me the gift of faith through which I believed His gospel, counted His blood as propitiation for my unpayable debt, gave me His very resurrection life and set me on a lifelong journey of discovery and sanctification. My friend, I was going to the same hell you are and had He left me to my own will and desires I would have justly perished in my sin.
If you read any self righteous “GOD HATES FAGS” attitude in that then I am out of ways to express my faith.
[/quote]
“My friend, I was going to the same hell you are…” Wow, just WOW…
I read the ‘…self righteous “GOD HATES FAGS” attitude…’, there is no other way to read it. You have some superior knowledge to know who are going to hell and who are not…
"…There is always danger in extrapolating versus out of context for in many cases it means something different in context.
Bible quotes should always mean the same in and out of the context they were written, lest you give birth to heresy and false beliefs. Quoting out of context is how you get kooks and cults, because you can make an out of context quote sound like anything.
John was talking about works here interestingly enough…"
Context has to do with preceding and succeeding sentences. You have only used the succeeding ones (I Jn. 3:11-24), which has to do with salvation and the test of love. I John 3:10 is the heart of John’s teaching which begins at I John 2:28 and has to do with those who obeyed, were the children of God and those that disobeyed, were the children of Satan.
John warns the reader not to be deceived about the nature of salvation (I Jn. 3:7). Consequently, the believer must reject any theology or teaching which alleges that one can be out of fellowship with God (I Jn. 1:3), continue to sin, do the works of the devil (I Jn. 3:8), love the world (I Jn. 2:15), do harm to others (I Jn. 3:14-18), and yet be a child of God who is saved and destined for heaven.
Contrary to this false teaching, John clearly believed that anyone who continues in sin “is of the devil” (I Jn. 3:8) and “is not of God” (I Jn. 3:10). If the one who habitually practices sin claims to possess eternal life and be God’s child, he is deceived and “is a liar” (I Jn. 2:4). Futhermore, what characterizes a true child of God is a love for God manifested in keeping His commandments (I Jn. 5:2) and showing genuine concern for the spiritual and physical needs of other believers (I Jn. 3:16-17). [/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Hate and sin are born of the devil. To say God hates, in a literal sense hates people is to say that God himself is under the influence of the devil. Interesting take.[/quote]I know exactly what the context was Pat. God hates people. Face it. Chris’s friar does and rightly so. This is what I mean by creating God in one’s own image. He describes Himself and people just refuse to believe what He says.
Sinners are children of the devil in a spiritual sense. Of course He’s not saying they are substantively begotten of Satan (although there are some who say this, I do not) Satan is called the prince of the power of the air and the “whole world” is reported to lie in His power. They who are of the world are in his family. That’s why we are everywhere commanded to “be not conformed to the world”. To “be not of the world” and that “friendship with the world is enmity with God”.
John also says that those who are born of God have His seed abiding in them which accounts for their not being able to continue a life of practicing sin. Take that how you want. I know what it means.
[/quote]
I know you know the context, I do to. It was the use of the statement that was out of context to force an unintended meaning. Secondly, I wasn’t certain how literalist you were so there is that as well. The problem with the way you put it is that we’re all sinners, screwing up doesn’t make you a child of evil. It’s unrepentant sinning, not recognizing the need for repentance and persistence in the sinning that makes you a child of the devil. To say simply that sinners are all children of the devil make all of man kind the devil’s children. But John prequalifies 1 John 3:10 with 3:4, that those who “…make practice” of sinning. That is a very important distinction that those who simply sin.
Unless you are perfect, you fall to, are you a child of the devil? I ain’t, I screw up, but I get back up, repent, and then screw up again.
I am not espousing that I am as perfect as you, but I would still be you mess up from time to time. But judging by your harsh judgments and condemnations, the Good Lord as seen you worthy of receiving info denied to the rest of us.
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
Augustine also believed in asking Mary to pray for him and a whole bunch of other Catholic stuff… I don’t mean to be argumentative here, but I wonder why (I have my suspicions though) protestants always cherry-pick from Augustine’s writings and turn a decidedly blind eye to the parts they don’t like.[/quote]
Interesting enough, Martin Luther also had a tremendous devotion to Mary.
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< You’re contradicting yourself. I think you know this, and it is a copout to dismiss the contradiction with a blithe “it all resolves itself in Him”. >>>[/quote] This is beginning to wear me out. Have I not said… repeatedly that that is precisely the view unbelievers are supposed to take? Even using that very word referring to myself from your vantage point? Copout?[quote]forlife wrote:<<< You can’t have it both ways. You insist that we aren’t puppets, then you make statements like this: >>>[/quote]Not being a worshiper of human intellect, yes I can.[quote]forlife wrote:You’re saying that God made up your mind for you. He pulled your strings, but left others to their horrible fate. If God implanted the desire to embrace Him, how is that free will? >>>[/quote]By the definition of arrogant sinful men who cannot conceive of a truth that effects them being out of their intellectual grasp? It isn’t.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Even people in your own Calvinist tradition disagree with you.>>>[/quote]Who?[quote]forlife wrote:
In Matthew 5, Jesus didn’t say to love some of your enemies and hate others. He said we should be like the Father, who sends the sun to all, including the just and the unjust. You cite the old testament to prove that God hates sinners, but Jesus specifically countermanded the old law that we should seek an eye for an eye, giving us a new commandment to turn the other cheek. His gospel is about love, not hate. His life and example are about love, not hate. He commanded us to be like the Father, who is about love, not hate.
[/quote]Don’t preach at me man LOL! I made one comment that your raw intellectual grasp of the gospel exceeded what I originally perceived and now you’re poundin a pulpit at me. Do you or do you not believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the risen only begotten Son of the God of all creation through whose blood and resurrection alone men are reconciled to the Father? Please answer that question with a simple yes or no. Should be easy.
Tirib, you’re still dodging the point. Come on, dude. You can’t just dismiss a huge logical inconsistency like that by ridiculing logic as the “worship of human intellect”.
If you believe that God gave you the motivation to accept Him, through no will or desire of your own, and in fact contrary to what you wanted, then you are nothing more than a puppet. You didn’t choose it. You didn’t want it. God forced it on you, and forced you to be saved, while forcing everyone else to suffer endless torment. Do you really want to worship such a being? Do you not see how that philosophy flies in the face of everything Jesus taught and exemplified?
To answer your question, I’ve been very clear about the fact that I am an agnostic. I don’t know that the bible represents a supernatural reality, but having earnestly studied it and prayed about it and tried to live it for many years, I fundamentally disagree with what you are selling as the message of Jesus. It is degrading, it robs men of free will, and it smacks of elitism clothed in false humility.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You are blinded by anger toward me Pat which is at least in part my fault. You are not even in the same universe now with anything I’ve ever said. [/quote]
Uh no. Honestly, I think you are kind of illogical and hopeless. However, if you are intimating that your blind, aimless, factless, rants get my goat, they do. It does annoy me that you think you know me, because you don’t, at all. However, I know this is a forum, this is entertainment to me. So in that respect, my emotional expression is very compartmentalized to this and this alone. It is your fault for being pig headed and incapable of rational discussion, but blinded by anger I am not. I don’t even dislike you…I do not respect you, but I do not dislike you. I do not condemn you to hell, I do not think you are right, but I don’t condemn you for it. I think you need to seek truth and gain knowledge. Not convenient truth, not truth that fits your paradigm, but real, actual truth. If you that, I could respect you even if I believe your wrong.
For instance, do you think that forlife and I agree? I tell you we probably disagree more than we do agree, but we argue our points with respect. That doesn’t mean we do not argue them with passion, we do, but we do not cross the line of mutual respect. You have, and many times over. Even in the face of evidence to the contrary of what you are saying.
Atheists think we are idiots, they think we theists are wrong, and yet most of them have been more respectful and less roundly condemning than yourself.
Now, about being in the same universe, you are correct. The universe I live in is about 13.7 billion years old, started with a bang and is currently expanding. Life evolved on this planet and their is a high probability there is more somewhere.
You want an example of inconvenient truth? I have come to realize that faith and religion, atheist vs. theist has little impact on good behavior. Should it? Hell yes it should, but it’s not. I have seen believers behave in abominable ways, I have seen non-believers behave in admirable ways. I have seen the opposite as well, but what I cannot say is that theists are the best behaved people. It’s not something I wanted to believe or admit, it’s simply a fact.