[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…and then they say god works in mysterious ways![/quote]
Jesus loves you.[/quote]
…that’s an odd thing to say D. What prompted you to make that comment?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…and then they say god works in mysterious ways![/quote]
Jesus loves you.[/quote]
…that’s an odd thing to say D. What prompted you to make that comment?
[/quote]
Maybe odd, but true from my point of view. Just thought you would like to hear that, and anyone else that would want to hear that.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…and then they say god works in mysterious ways![/quote]
Jesus loves you.[/quote]
…that’s an odd thing to say D. What prompted you to make that comment?
[/quote]
Maybe odd, but true from my point of view. Just thought you would like to hear that, and anyone else that would want to hear that.[/quote]
…well okay, but why did you think i’d like to hear that?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<< Yes, I had to do it - lol!
Tirib and I both understand that we do not disagree on the doctrines themselves per se, but rather on the exent of the affect of Adam’s sin. This is a fine line and some Christians are comfortable on one side, some on the line and some on the other side. As a Biblical literalist I have a specific view, but leave room for my brothers who take a harsher tack on this subject.
ok back to training . . .[/quote]Emphasis mine
Alright, you’re gonna play it like this right from the git go huh? This must make me/us what? Non literal allegorists? Let us not forget it was Zwingli who first annunciated the principle of “if not commanded then forbidden” which was also adopted by Calvin though not by Luther who went erroneously in my view with “if not forbidden then permitted”.
We’ll get into this some more no doubt and it will probably go a long way toward answering the “what exactly do Christians really believe, why are there so many flavors and do they consider each other Christians and why or why not” questions.
LOL - sorry about that Tirib - I read what I wrote and that came across completely wrong . . . I meant only to say that I consider myself a biblical literalist and even then that my views on the issue do not prohibit me from calling those who hold a tougher stance on this issue (affect of Adam’s sin) my brother or sister.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<< LOL - yeah, having some fun at my brothers’ expense - I am Baptist in my doctrinal stand and heritage, thus neither protestant or Catholic[/quote]As I so graciously pointed out to him, in the modern vernacular Baptists are considered protestants though the Anabaptists from which they descend were at odds with both the reformers and Rome. I freely admit to having been taken on a winding journey by brother Irish here (for a few weeks) as I refused to ask him outright in a stubborn quest to get him pegged myself. I had to contend with immensely helpful phraseology such as “alternate faith heritage” along the way, but did finally manage to get the ol boy on that anabaptist stake where he belongs =]
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
LOL - sorry about that Tirib - I read what I wrote and that came across completely wrong . . . I meant only to say that I consider myself a biblical literalist and even then that my views on the issue do not prohibit me from calling those who hold a tougher stance on this issue (affect of Adam’s sin) my brother or sister.[/quote]
OK, fair enough. lol! I feared you may be employing cheap psychological trickery designed to predispose our friends here toward believing that views opposing your own would only be entertained by the less conservative end of the hermeneutic scale. A thing I am quite thrilled to learn is not the case.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<< Yes, I had to do it - lol!
Tirib and I both understand that we do not disagree on the doctrines themselves per se, but rather on the exent of the affect of Adam’s sin. This is a fine line and some Christians are comfortable on one side, some on the line and some on the other side. As a Biblical literalist I have a specific view, but leave room for my brothers who take a harsher tack on this subject.
ok back to training . . .[/quote]Emphasis mine
Alright, you’re gonna play it like this right from the git go huh? This must make me/us what? Non literal allegorists? Let us not forget it was Zwingli who first annunciated the principle of “if not commanded then forbidden” which was also adopted by Calvin though not by Luther who went erroneously in my view with “if not forbidden then permitted”.
We’ll get into this some more no doubt and it will probably go a long way toward answering the “what exactly do Christians really believe, why are there so many flavors and do they consider each other Christians and why or why not” questions.
[/quote]
Well, now this is a simple question and a simple answer. 
[quote]Makavali wrote:
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/_p2/why_not_christian.html[/quote]
Dude. I read this in a book of his collected short works 20 years ago.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/_p2/why_not_christian.html[/quote]
Okay, so he compiles every common argument that cannot refute G-d or Lord Jesus, very good.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Ha! Don’t flatter yourself there, Captain Planet.
If we’ve conflicted in the past (not unlikely, given the bozo you seem to be), Chushin “don’t recall it.”
And Tirib? YOU know my words stand, from our PMs.[/quote]
I knew you were being sincere and I was just as sincere in my response. Of course kind words from others always feel good. I should throw in, though I don’t think you exactly meant it this way, that I don’t see myself as any better as a man than CappedAndPlanIt. If anybody here had known me before I got saved you would know that I am in no position to look down my nose at anybody.
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
When those actions are obviously influenced by the teachings of christianity, yes, its the religions fault.
I’m not saying christianity is bad because some priests molest children - that would be blaming the relgion for the actions of some of its members.
[/quote]
Can you please show me where burning crosses or lynching someone of another race, or molesting children is a Christian teaching.
Edit: Another misconception of Christianity-if people who claim to be Christians do something evil, it must have been taught to them through Christianity. Leaving the blame not in their hands, but the religion they claim to be a part of.
[/quote]
Read what I wrote again. I’m NOT doing that.
However, the bible says homosexuality is evil, and christians are bigoted against gays IN ACCORDANCE with their religion.
Christians believe men should have final say in all family decisions BECAUSE the bible teaches this
Doctor assisted suicide is made illegal BECAUSE the bible says its wrong.
Etc
I’m not singling out the actions of a few members of the group that dont reflect the teachings, my problems are with the actions of the majority that come directly from the teachings.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
I’m not much of a believer, either.
But if I could choose between being the kind of person Christianity has apparently made Tirib, and the kind of your person your beliefs seem to manifest here, I’d choose Tirib anytime.
And, it’s beyond me why people like you find it so urgently necessary to try to prove the Tiribs of the world wrong…[/quote]
This is most exceedingly gracious and humbling of you kind sir. It also means more to me than you know.[/quote]
Yeah, dont take it too personal. Chushin don’t like me from some other threads, and is just using flattering you as a way of taking a shot at me.
Carry on. :)[/quote]
Ha! Don’t flatter yourself there, Captain Planet.
If we’ve conflicted in the past (not unlikely, given the bozo you seem to be), Chushin “don’t recall it.”
And Tirib? YOU know my words stand, from our PMs.[/quote]
Name calling. Super.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Answer me this, sincerely: Why is it, that when something, at face value, is thought to be good, it is said to be proof of the existance of god and his benevolence… yet when something, at face value, is thought to be bad, and either the proof of the nonexistance of god, or lack of his benevolence, another interepretation entirely must be made in order to preserve both?
Example:
My crops grew very well, this proves god loves me and is kind! I understand the action and the reasoning for it.
or
My crops failed… clearly god must have some reason I cannot see, which still makes him benevolent, but beyond my understanding.
This just shows that Christians aren’t worried about proof, or reason: crops may grow or crops may fail, good or bad may happen, and either they take the good to mean they are right, or the bad to mean they are right.
Then pompously claim that they see proof of god all the time. Well, yeah, if you’re going to twist anything and everything into “proof of god”, you’re going to see it all the time.[/quote]
LMAO - this post just goes to show you’ve never known a farmer or a Christian . . .
My crops succeed = God has blessed my efforts. My crops failed = God has blessed my efforts.
A Christian understands that all of life, every event, has the potential for being a blessing. Nothing is taken as a punishment or a lack of blessing.
My crops failing may have been just the thing needed to get me off my a$$ and back to school, or perhaps convince me to move to Africa and to be a missionary farmer there, or maybe a sign that my counting on a single crop was a poor choice of planning on my part.
Your oversimplistic and misinformed opinions of Christianity are sad to see. . . it’s no wonder you don’t believe in Christianity - you don’t even know what it is . . . .[/quote]
Yup. Raised catholic, got confirmed, in numerous bible study groups… I have no idea what it is. Right.
^ mere presence does not equate with understanding . . . .
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Tell you what, lets flip a coin. If its heads, god exists and is all loving. If it doesnt, god doesnt exist or isn’t omnipotent benevolent.
Then, no matter what the coin says, you can claim to be right: either you’re proven right by heads, or the tails simply means god refuses to show himself because proof would destroy faith.
Either way you always win and never have to consider the possibilty that you could be wrong.[/quote]
I have faith that the coin will come up heads. My wife and I did this to decide if we should get married. We flipped it once and it came up heads. We flipped it six more times and all of them came up heads.
If I truely beleived that you would start beleiving in God then I would tell you to flip the coin, but I do not think you would beleive. When it came up heads and you would become a mighty warrior for Christ I would tell you to flip the coin.
I say if it came up heads you would say it was just a flip of a coin and it is nothing more than a coincidence. If it came up tails you would say that it proves that God does not exist.
When you get some change today flip the coin. Let God show you who he is.[/quote]
Just flipped. Came up tails.[/quote]
If it did, you wouldn’t have to tell us.[/quote]
The point was to illustrate the intellectual dishonesty with which christians approach the subject.
It is dishonest to claim you see objective proof of something, when the fact is that you will twist any outcome to be “proof”. This is not proof, its wanton confirmation bias.
Oh, and another intellectually weak and dishonest technique: accuse the person of lying.
I’m about done here. Have fun.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …and then they say god works in mysterious ways![/quote]And here we are again. Another restatement of the same argument. Here again is mine.
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
The God I’m talking about does not, indeed cannot contritely lay Himself in a petri dish for the insolent probings of His arrogant sinful creatures, myself included.