[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am not equating Aquinas with jihadist muslims. Nor have I made any statements about whether he was actually a Christian. What I have said was that his foundation for thought, his epistemology, absolutely WAS Aristotle’s. Denying that doesn’t pass the snicker test.[/quote]
Of course it was. You didn’t really have a whole lot else available in the period of burgeoning civilization to the age of Acquinas. If you could read at all you were a rarity. Besides which just as the “earth centric” astronomy model gave us the tools and framework to eventually understand the “helio centric” model, which then enabled us to eventually understand that neither was true and develop a more accurate understanding. Math started with 2+2 and eventually progressed to Newton developing Calculus. See my point?
I know you know that. Although your writing has always left me in some doubt about aspects of your theology in regard to some of these things. I know you know the point I made. That’s why I said it, and that’s why I don’t understand what you claimed earlier on. You essentially made the claim that you wish Acquinas had never been involved with the Church and you would have been ok with Islamic nutsos if it meant that old St. Tom hadn’t been around. That in my mind is akin to say “well gee that whole earth centric astronomy model sucks and was totally fundamentally wrong–I’d rather have the sorcerers in charge of astronomy than have that earth centric model ever made to influence astronomy”. Well that doesn’t make ANY sense does it? No. It doesn’t.
Fine. Ok.
[/quote]
You and Chris are both missing the point. HISTORICALLY, Aquinas’ actions are entirely justifiable as a stop-gap measure, a way of defending the cross with the best intellectual tools available to him at the time. The same can be said of the early church fathers and apologists, like Justin Martyr. But in terms of CONSTRUCTIVE THEOLOGY, i.e., determining how WE should understand various doctrines and interpret the Scriptures, Aquinas wedded his theology to an ultimately weak philosophical system, and as a consequence, very little that he argued can have any claim to normativity for us today. The simple fact is that, like it or not, doctrinal content is ineluctably tied to particular ways of construing the world (philosophical systems), and you cannot argue that Aquinas’ theology remains a normative resource for us if we don’t buy into Aristotelianism. This is the biggest historical blunder that I regularly see among Catholics - they uncritically accept the erroneous notion that the various philosophical systems and assumptions among the early church fathers somehow failed to fundamentally color the doctrines they proposed. The ROman Catholic church has not escaped history, regardless of the continuity in its vestments.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am not equating Aquinas with jihadist muslims. Nor have I made any statements about whether he was actually a Christian. What I have said was that his foundation for thought, his epistemology, absolutely WAS Aristotle’s. Denying that doesn’t pass the snicker test.[/quote]
Of course it was. You didn’t really have a whole lot else available in the period of burgeoning civilization to the age of Acquinas. If you could read at all you were a rarity. Besides which just as the “earth centric” astronomy model gave us the tools and framework to eventually understand the “helio centric” model, which then enabled us to eventually understand that neither was true and develop a more accurate understanding. Math started with 2+2 and eventually progressed to Newton developing Calculus. See my point?
I know you know that. Although your writing has always left me in some doubt about aspects of your theology in regard to some of these things. I know you know the point I made. That’s why I said it, and that’s why I don’t understand what you claimed earlier on. You essentially made the claim that you wish Acquinas had never been involved with the Church and you would have been ok with Islamic nutsos if it meant that old St. Tom hadn’t been around. That in my mind is akin to say “well gee that whole earth centric astronomy model sucks and was totally fundamentally wrong–I’d rather have the sorcerers in charge of astronomy than have that earth centric model ever made to influence astronomy”. Well that doesn’t make ANY sense does it? No. It doesn’t.
Fine. Ok.
[/quote]
You and Chris are both missing the point. HISTORICALLY, Aquinas’ actions are entirely justifiable as a stop-gap measure, a way of defending the cross with the best intellectual tools available to him at the time. The same can be said of the early church fathers and apologists, like Justin Martyr. But in terms of CONSTRUCTIVE THEOLOGY, i.e., determining how WE should understand various doctrines and interpret the Scriptures, Aquinas wedded his theology to an ultimately weak philosophical system, and as a consequence, very little that he argued can have any claim to normativity for us today. The simple fact is that, like it or not, doctrinal content is ineluctably tied to particular ways of construing the world (philosophical systems), and you cannot argue that Aquinas’ theology remains a normative resource for us if we don’t buy into Aristotelianism. This is the biggest historical blunder that I regularly see among Catholics - they uncritically accept the erroneous notion that the various philosophical systems and assumptions among the early church fathers somehow failed to fundamentally color the doctrines they proposed. The ROman Catholic church has not escaped history, regardless of the continuity in its vestments.[/quote]
Possibly I was. However, writing as you do I understand your position and can agree with what you’re posting (even if I don’t know exactly how you define your theology outside of the fact that you are extremely intelligent). That was not what I understood to be Tirib’s comment to be saying, and that is exactly why I was saying the things I was–if he’d just gone ahead and posted something like “historically, yes: i don’t hold his scholarship against him however I was talking about constructive theology” then I finally understand the point he’s making.
That’s not what he said. He said “I’d rather be subjected to global Islamic fascism than have Aquinas part of the church” or something very similarly phrased (I’m not looking at the quote right now). THAT is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. At the very least you must see the source of my absolute surprise and disagreement. What that writing implies is that he wished Aquinas had never existed (even if not actually written, this is the connotation I read it as denoting)–not that constructive theology he is weak and not doing favorable things for the faith or even doing harm. Two different things most entirely.
I most definitely agree with you, particularly this part:
I’ve always believed this, having been aware of this in general terms for most of my life. Your point about the early church fathers and the prevalent assumptions and philosophical systems is dead on as well. Nobody escapes history.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am not equating Aquinas with jihadist muslims. Nor have I made any statements about whether he was actually a Christian. What I have said was that his foundation for thought, his epistemology, absolutely WAS Aristotle’s. Denying that doesn’t pass the snicker test.[/quote]
Of course it was. You didn’t really have a whole lot else available in the period of burgeoning civilization to the age of Acquinas. If you could read at all you were a rarity. Besides which just as the “earth centric” astronomy model gave us the tools and framework to eventually understand the “helio centric” model, which then enabled us to eventually understand that neither was true and develop a more accurate understanding. Math started with 2+2 and eventually progressed to Newton developing Calculus. See my point?
I know you know that. Although your writing has always left me in some doubt about aspects of your theology in regard to some of these things. I know you know the point I made. That’s why I said it, and that’s why I don’t understand what you claimed earlier on. You essentially made the claim that you wish Acquinas had never been involved with the Church and you would have been ok with Islamic nutsos if it meant that old St. Tom hadn’t been around. That in my mind is akin to say “well gee that whole earth centric astronomy model sucks and was totally fundamentally wrong–I’d rather have the sorcerers in charge of astronomy than have that earth centric model ever made to influence astronomy”. Well that doesn’t make ANY sense does it? No. It doesn’t.
Fine. Ok.
[/quote]
You and Chris are both missing the point. HISTORICALLY, Aquinas’ actions are entirely justifiable as a stop-gap measure, a way of defending the cross with the best intellectual tools available to him at the time. The same can be said of the early church fathers and apologists, like Justin Martyr. But in terms of CONSTRUCTIVE THEOLOGY, i.e., determining how WE should understand various doctrines and interpret the Scriptures, Aquinas wedded his theology to an ultimately weak philosophical system, and as a consequence, very little that he argued can have any claim to normativity for us today. The simple fact is that, like it or not, doctrinal content is ineluctably tied to particular ways of construing the world (philosophical systems), and you cannot argue that Aquinas’ theology remains a normative resource for us if we don’t buy into Aristotelianism. This is the biggest historical blunder that I regularly see among Catholics - they uncritically accept the erroneous notion that the various philosophical systems and assumptions among the early church fathers somehow failed to fundamentally color the doctrines they proposed. The ROman Catholic church has not escaped history, regardless of the continuity in its vestments.[/quote]
Possibly I was. However, writing as you do I understand your position and can agree with what you’re posting (even if I don’t know exactly how you define your theology outside of the fact that you are extremely intelligent). That was not what I understood to be Tirib’s comment to be saying, and that is exactly why I was saying the things I was–if he’d just gone ahead and posted something like “historically, yes: i don’t hold his scholarship against him however I was talking about constructive theology” then I finally understand the point he’s making.
That’s not what he said. He said “I’d rather be subjected to global Islamic fascism than have Aquinas part of the church” or something very similarly phrased (I’m not looking at the quote right now). THAT is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. At the very least you must see the source of my absolute surprise and disagreement. What that writing implies is that he wished Aquinas had never existed (even if not actually written, this is the connotation I read it as denoting)–not that constructive theology he is weak and not doing favorable things for the faith or even doing harm. Two different things most entirely.
I most definitely agree with you, particularly this part:
I’ve always believed this, having been aware of this in general terms for most of my life. Your point about the early church fathers and the prevalent assumptions and philosophical systems is dead on as well. Nobody escapes history.[/quote]
That’s fair; I understand your concern. I do think Tirib’s rhetorical flourishes inadvertently obscure his meanings at times. And having reread his comments, I can understand why you might think he was saying he’d prefer global islamic fascism to Aquinas’ participation in the church. However, that was not what he actually said. Though it was not laid out clearly, there is one major assumptions that underlies Tirib’s statements…
Historical vicissitudes have no real bearing on the salvation of the elect.
You have already stated your disagreements with Calvinism, so you would probably not accept the above comment, but Tirib does. For him, whatever pragmatic historical value Aquinas’ transformation of Aristotelianism may have had, i.e., to whatever extent it preserved the intellectual dominance of Christianity in Europe, this intellectual dominance nevertheless was not the determining factor in the salvation of God’s elect. In short, the elect would have been brought to God even if Islam prevailed In Europe. In other words, God would have found a way. In fact, Tirib would probably say (he can correct me if I’m wrong) that, without Aquinas’ attempts to integrate Aristotelianism into the faith, there would be way fewer tares among the wheat. The reprobate would not be able to hide themselves so easily among the elect if Aquinas hadn’t pandered to their intellectual concerns.
I’m not saying I agree, and Tirib can correct me if I have misrepresented him, but I think that’s what he was really trying to say. He was NOT denying Aquinas’ salvation.
That’s fair; I understand your concern. I do think Tirib’s rhetorical flourishes inadvertently obscure his meanings at times. And having reread his comments, I can understand why you might think he was saying he’d prefer global islamic fascism to Aquinas’ participation in the church. However, that was not what he actually said. Though it was not laid out clearly, there is one major assumptions that underlies Tirib’s statements…
Historical vicissitudes have no real bearing on the salvation of the elect.
You have already stated your disagreements with Calvinism, so you would probably not accept the above comment, but Tirib does. For him, whatever pragmatic historical value Aquinas’ transformation of Aristotelianism may have had, i.e., to whatever extent it preserved the intellectual dominance of Christianity in Europe, this intellectual dominance nevertheless was not the determining factor in the salvation of God’s elect. In short, the elect would have been brought to God even if Islam prevailed In Europe. In other words, God would have found a way. In fact, Tirib would probably say (he can correct me if I’m wrong) that, without Aquinas’ attempts to integrate Aristotelianism into the faith, there would be way fewer tares among the wheat. The reprobate would not be able to hide themselves so easily among the elect if Aquinas hadn’t pandered to their intellectual concerns.
I’m not saying I agree, and Tirib can correct me if I have misrepresented him, but I think that’s what he was really trying to say. He was NOT denying Aquinas’ salvation.[/quote]
Fair statements. And hence you see some of my problems with Calvinism. I do not believe he was calling into question Aquinas’s salvation, although you could read that way by the extended implications his post conveyed and it crossed my mind more than once from reading.
Tirib, I would respectfully request you try to cut down on the flowery language and rhetorical proclivities because you often run into this problem on the forum with other posters besides myself. You took walls of language to accomplish what Kai did in a paragraph or so. I don’t mean that as a criticism (because not many people are more prone to verbosity than me) except insofar as it obscures details in your intended arguments instead of revealing them–and in more than one case your primary meanings are obscured (this being one of them, to me at least). This leads to massive misunderstanding like I just experienced.
I don’t mean to attempt to change your writing style wholesale whatsoever. It is simply very hard for me to follow you some times and I feel pretty confident in my reading comprehension skills.
One of my admittedly many difficulties with Calvinism is…Who cares if the reprobate hide among the elect? By definition of Calvinism they can not lead astray anybody, and by definition “all things will be brought to light, nothing that was done in secret…” etc. So they can cause no harm and they cannot be saved. Hence Tirib’s worry/distaste/I don’t know what to call it can have no effect whatsoever. To say otherwise is to deny Calvinism’s primary tenet of election. So either it is a baseless concern or problem to have–in other words it should not anger or offend because it has absolutely ZERO effect on the number of souls saved, or Calvinism is ultimately incorrect because you are allowing for something besides perfect election.
The reprobate hiding among the elect only matters if perfect election is untrue: i.e. Calvinism is false.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
One of my admittedly many difficulties with Calvinism is…Who cares if the reprobate hide among the elect? By definition of Calvinism they can not lead astray anybody, and by definition “all things will be brought to light, nothing that was done in secret…” etc. So they can cause no harm and they cannot be saved. Hence Tirib’s worry/distaste/I don’t know what to call it can have no effect whatsoever. To say otherwise is to deny Calvinism’s primary tenet of election. So either it is a baseless concern or problem to have–in other words it should not anger or offend because it has absolutely ZERO effect on the number of souls saved, or Calvinism is ultimately incorrect because you are allowing for something besides perfect election.
The reprobate hiding among the elect only matters if perfect election is untrue: i.e. Calvinism is false.
[/quote]
I understand your concern - any system which presupposes meticulous providence (God’s sovereign decree of each and every event) runs into this sort of problem. To affirm that God wills only “good” (even if he alone knows what “good” means) AND that God wills all events seems to necessarily imply that whatever is is good. But Tirib, like other Calvinists I respect and admire, is more concerned about being biblically faithful than he is about having a completely coherent system; consequently, I think he would affirm that, while he believes that God always gets his way, Scripture implies in several places that our struggles against sin and the devil remain REAL struggles, struggles which we genuinely experience. In other words (unless I’m putting words in Tirib’s mouth again), I would suggest that Tirib is trying to do justice to the biblical witness, which seems to affirm both divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Consequently, the reprobate hiding among the elect DO matter because they provide the devil with a means to ensnare and deceive the elect, even if the elect will ultimately triumph, and while the salvation of the elect is an accomplished reality in the mind of God, we do not yet experience that reality as such. Instead, we are fraught with temptation, struggles, etc.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
One of my admittedly many difficulties with Calvinism is…Who cares if the reprobate hide among the elect? By definition of Calvinism they can not lead astray anybody, and by definition “all things will be brought to light, nothing that was done in secret…” etc. So they can cause no harm and they cannot be saved. Hence Tirib’s worry/distaste/I don’t know what to call it can have no effect whatsoever. To say otherwise is to deny Calvinism’s primary tenet of election. So either it is a baseless concern or problem to have–in other words it should not anger or offend because it has absolutely ZERO effect on the number of souls saved, or Calvinism is ultimately incorrect because you are allowing for something besides perfect election.
The reprobate hiding among the elect only matters if perfect election is untrue: i.e. Calvinism is false.
[/quote]
I understand your concern - any system which presupposes meticulous providence (God’s sovereign decree of each and every event) runs into this sort of problem. To affirm that God wills only “good” (even if he alone knows what “good” means) AND that God wills all events seems to necessarily imply that whatever is is good. But Tirib, like other Calvinists I respect and admire, is more concerned about being biblically faithful than he is about having a completely coherent system; consequently, I think he would affirm that, while he believes that God always gets his way, Scripture implies in several places that our struggles against sin and the devil remain REAL struggles, struggles which we genuinely experience. In other words (unless I’m putting words in Tirib’s mouth again), I would suggest that Tirib is trying to do justice to the biblical witness, which seems to affirm both divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Consequently, the reprobate hiding among the elect DO matter because they provide the devil with a means to ensnare and deceive the elect, even if the elect will ultimately triumph, and while the salvation of the elect is an accomplished reality in the mind of God, we do not yet experience that reality as such. Instead, we are fraught with temptation, struggles, etc.
Hope that helps…[/quote]
eh, not particularly. I have always appreciated your attention to detail and lucid style of writing however, so don’t stop posting. Sadly I have no difficulties understanding you while the good Tirib gets a lot of my ire undeservingly I’m sure.
In some sense what you say makes sense however in the bigger sense I am asking why they matter on a few levels–I just stated one, but the other one is that Calvinism obviously requires a determinism of sorts–the perfect predestination implies also that we cannot do a single thing about the reprobate’s souls…OR their hiding among us. In other words there is no way to–and forgive me because I am sure I will not state this articulately given my supreme lack of sleep or caffeine so far these past two days–but there is no way to chase them away from hiding.
There is no way to “out” them in a sense that helps at all. If that is the case, that not only do the elect triumph regardless but also that we cannot out the reprobate away from the Church–then why on earth bother thinking about it at all?? Why care? You can’t do it, God predetermined it, and you’re going to win either way, so why worry or care? They fundamentally CAN’T deceive souls, nor can they be uncovered due to God’s predestination of events.
Determinism is a scary and slippery philosophy, and I do not believe it holds water in any way, nor do I believe it allows God’s sovereignty to show fully (that is a different thread entirely, and a poor way to phrase it to boot).
I do fully respect the idea of placing biblically consistent belief as the top priority rather than system coherency. There are always things we will never understand, which means our ability to be coherent is limited (Bayes theorem comes to mind–even if we were “perfect” in knowledge we are still not perfect in knowledge). Therefore the choice still has to be made. HOWEVER…and this is a big one for me: God gave us both good sense and the sense of logic and rational thought. I assume therefore that he wants us to use them to our fullest extent, regardless of the eventual circularity of all reasoning (something trib has posted about in the past), and that it is precisely BECAUSE he wants us to use our talents and brains that He gave us that a philosophical or theological system should be coherent.
Dunno if that makes sense. Like I said, I’m fuzzy as hell today.
As soon as God convinced me that I didn’t have to understand everything, His Word and His world opened up to me in ways I never dreamed possible.
My priority is THE CHURCH. The body of Christ in the earth. Accomplishing political or social ends, while significant, ARE NOT my primary motivation. I would have gladly handed the western world to Islam IF I could have been paid with a purer church.
I am inclined to believe that Aquinas was a Christian, despite his servility to his own frightening intellect. (and Aristotle’s)
Of course what we do, what the devil does, what moral choices are made in history ARE real choices. I have said time without number that the very movement of every sub atomic particle in this universe has been decreed and is governed by almighty God. I have further stated that this extends not only to the physical universe, but also to the hearts and wills of men so that not one thought can percolate in a single mind over which this God has not exercised absolute sovereignty. WHILE at the same time these men created in His image ARE free morally accountable agents. How does this work? I say again. I HAVE NOT THE FIRST FLICKERING CLUE. The three most liberating words in the English language. “I don’t know”. =]
I do know this. I perceive a comprehensive system of theology, philosophy and practice that depends on the self attesting nature of the Christian scriptures AND the meticulously deterministic AND TRIUNE nature of the God who reveals Himself as such therein. Mystery ABOUNDS in the very nature of the case seeing that this God likes to do stuff such as command well ordered light and matter to exist from nothing as a hobby. To say noting of the fashioning of living sentient beings bearing His image and likeness such as ourselves. Not being myself so equipped, I have found it best to leave the mysteries to Him.
KingKai agrees, but his mysteries live in different places in the system than mine do. This is why he and I do not agree in some major areas. In fact he won’t even like the way I’ve constructed the situation as he prefers to see me as ironically bound to western rationalism in a manner similar to that of which I have charged St. Thomas though he has never explicitly stated this to me. (not this way) Is this not correct your most royal majestic graciousness? (I’m not the least bit aggravated btw before you email me and ask LOL!)
Your post makes more sense this way even though I have severe issues which have already been mentioned and bear no further mention here. Thanks for the directness of reply and lack of flourish Tirib, this was much easier to follow with my fuzzy mind than much of your posts in all honesty.
To me the comprehensive system of theology, philosophy and practice depends on scriptures, triune nature of God, and God’s SOVEREIGNTY. There is a vast difference between sovereignty and determinism and I firmly hold that determinism is fatally flawed and dangerous to boot. As a separate comment, simply because a man is not equipped to understand the creation of everything does not mean that he should simply give up trying to understand and reconcile said mysteries. To do so relegates the best and most valuable gift given to humans (the mind and rational thought) to a place equivalently buried with the talents in the backyard.
Do understand that Christian determinism as I am here defining it is NOT the same as fatalism. Determinism is utterly required or ultimate contingency swallows up this conversation (and everything else) in it’s futile irrationality. Kamui can explain why. (oh how I beg God to save that man).
No more fervent supporter of the ongoing progressive quest for greater knowledge has ever been spawned on this planet than I. There are however boundaries that are not always easy to discern beyond which it is neither safe nor allowed for the mind of man to probe. Neither you nor I will EVER understand creation ex-nihilo, the incarnation and hypostatic union of natures in Christ, the triunity of the Godhead or the relation of divine sovereignty to human freedom and accountability. EVER. Paul’s answer in the 9th of Roman to those so insolent as to demand knowledge beyond revelation is: “who are you oh man who answers back to God?”
As I have also said one thousand times, there is NO explanation for the existence of logic itself, (2+2=4) a thing to which every single human being is inescapably enslaved, IF we look no further than ourselves. God declares Himself as the origin and only proper standard by which logic is to be operated correctly to His glory. Man therefore refuses true knowledge where it’s offered and demands it where he is both forbidden and ill equipped to venture.
was the very essence of the first sin and is in fact the corrupted state of mind out of which every other one since has arisen.
To restate my illustration for children again. Imagine a big high throne with a king sitting in it staring down at a lowly subject. That king boys n girls is how you see yourselves before Jesus saves you. King of your life, looking down at God and judging whether He?s really there and if He is whether He gets to be God or not and then if He does, what kind of God you?ll let Him be. After He saves you? You see that He was the King all along.
Ohhhh if it were only so, but no. So much of the church continues stubbornly wrestling with God for His rightful place on that intellectual throne of their mind. Even many Calvinists.
God is on His Throne, and we are his subjects. He still loves us as we are still his children. We are his creation and he is our creator.
I will never fully be able to understand the enormity of who God is this side of death. It is impossible. All I know for sure is that he loves me and only HE made A WAY for me to be able to come home and dwell with the LORD forever.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
God is on His Throne, and we are his subjects. He still loves us as we are still his children. We are his creation and he is our creator.
I will never fully be able to understand the enormity of who God is this side of death. It is impossible. All I know for sure is that he loves me and only HE made A WAY for me to be able to come home and dwell with the LORD forever.[/quote]
Are Mormons saved?
And if not…WHY not?..I really wanna hear the reason these people may be be stabbed by pitchforks
and burn forever…this I GOTTA hear, because I met a Mormon family recently who acted more ‘‘Christian’’ than most Christians
I’ve ever met…they ‘‘walk the walk’’ and they don’t want to prompt doomsday by wishing Christian Persecution
soon and other horseshit I’ve been hearing from different people as long as I remember.
They go to Africa and South America and feed the hungry, tend to the sick, etc.
How many here do THAT on a regular basis? Not any of US, I’ll tell you that…we just go back and forth with
eternally unimportant banter about dead philosophers on the fuckin’ keyboard…what the fuck.
So allow me to quote another dead philosopher, Gandhi, who said to BE the change you want to see in the world,
which is a very loosely paraphrased version of the Biblical teaching of lighting a candle in the dark
instead of cursing the dark.
Stay thirsty my friends.
There was a time when I was probably one of the top 5 experts on Mormonism in the country. Maybe the world and that is no exaggeration. Please just listen to Dr. White who is definitely a top expert and has been for a couple decades.
You have no understanding of the gospel Karado and it appears in this season of your life, no interest in learning.
I don’t have over 2 hours… but I think it would be safe to cut to the chase and say you believe those Mormon Missionaries
and their beautiful family I recently met on my road trip are going straight to hell.
Goodness gracious.
[quote]Karado wrote:
I don’t have over 2 hours… but I think it would be safe to cut to the chase and say you believe those Mormon Missionaries
and their beautiful family I recently met on my road trip are going straight to hell.
Goodness gracious.[/quote]
I have spent more time with Mormon missionaries than everybody else on this site combined times 10 Karado. Mormonism is a polytheistic, idolatrous false religion and the very definition of demonic deception.
If people could just have “beautiful families” and please God then Jesus Christ died on that cross for nothing as Paul says in the 1st Chapter of Galatians. THIS IS THE GOSPEL. You’d know that if you cared about anything any deeper than giants and idiotic conspiracy theories.
YOU CANNOT WORSHIP A FALSE GOD/S AND GO TO HEAVEN. Read the prophets for God’s unthinkable judgements against those who do. Mormons do. The answer is to love them, pray for them and preach the true saving gospel to them. They are at present a stench in the nostrils of a holy God. Voddie Bachum Karado. You were on the right track with him. Why Church Membership Matters | SermonAudio
Try this again. I have every evidence that Jeffery Dahmer trusted the risen Christ to cleanse him from his sin and is in heaven a living monument to the power of the blood and resurrection of the Lamb of God. The devil will take you to church himself. Pick you up and drive along with teaching you how to have the most “beautiful family” in the universe as long as he can keep you from trusting the one true Christ of the one true living God alone for your righteousness.
I refuse to give up. You’re gonna get this one day.
I’m not really disagreeing with you on this…It’s just tough to imagine ‘The Romneys and the Osmonds sharing hell with Stalin, Mao,
and Hitler.
you gotta admit that scenario is pretty surrealistic, and Imagine I must defend.
Don’t knock all conspiracy theories…The Catholic Church is about to disclose the existence of Extraterrestrials,
I cannot make this shit up, and I’m taking these so-call ‘‘idiotic’’ theories from CHRISTIAN sources, from Christian
hosts like Sid Roth , so if you think that’s ‘‘idiotic’’, forget Mormonism for a moment because shit
is WAY more messed up and gettin’ Rrrreally strange on our side of the room as well…transmitted on TV to millions.
I just don’t know LOL!!! It must be an addiction. Catholics and aliens now? Pope Mulder and Sister Scully? Look man. I don’t know what it is about you, but you are one of the most lovable frustrating people I know. Jay Pierce is another one. It would be so much easier if I could just write you off as an incurable foaming heretic, but I can’t LOL!
Ya know what I think it is? I think you keep yourself occupied with all this stuff in an effort to avoid God’s call on your life. It won’t work. He’s bigger than you. tiribulus at google mail anytime Karado.
That’s sweet of ya Tirib, I like how you constantly invite others to email you like you’re recruiting them for
Amway.
Just ribbin ya, lol, we each have our personality specialties and quirks, I just can’t hide my ‘‘quirks’’, and
I just ‘‘recruit’’ others mainly offline by making the Bible ‘‘Cool’’ again talking about The Witch Of Endor, the mysterious ‘‘Lion-Like’’
men of Moab, Giants with Six Fingers and Six Toes, The very interesting question of the ‘‘Serpent Seed’’, Time Travel, etc.
Yeah I’m a little nuts…off kilter, flawed…Just like many, many characters in the Bible. http://serpent-seed.com/#biblical
And enter the fascinating Biblical Discussion of Time Travel By Pastor Jim Wilhelmson.
Respectfully and Methodically disprove Pastor Jim on this video if you disagree with it…let’s see how good you are.
I’m all ears and open to educated opinions OTHER than ‘‘Pastor Jim is crazy’’, lest I shut down and close my ears to that
possible criticisim, which would be the easiest, safest comment to make.
Stay Thirsty my friend.
