# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Personal Confession

## Christian Liberty

I have a passion for the gospel.  I despise what I perceive as being false gospels, and I feel that far more important than any political issue.  I've flirted with the edge of the forum guidelines a few times because of this, and I do not apologize for this.  I am intolerant because I believe that Christ and the apostles were intolerant.  If that leaves me with neg reps from the admin once in awhile, I can deal with that.  If they decide they want to ban me, that's their prerogative.  I worship Jesus Christ, not Ron Paul or this website, no matter how much I appreciate the privledge of being able to post here.  I will not refrain from identifying falsehood because of this.

But: I have crossed the line in at least some cases.  Earlier today TC and I were having a discussion.  While I do not agree with all of his views on judging, I did agree with him that it was generally inappropriate to call someone a heretic in an unrelated thread.  I violated this specifically in the "18 year old cheerleader kicked out of her house" thread and its probably not the only time.

I do not apologize for identifying certain false beliefs as false.  But there's a point where it becomes unnecessary, particularly when it involves hijacking unrelated threads.  I believe my heart is in the right place, but in some cases, the zeal is misplaced.  I also apologize for certain instances, which I cannot immediately recall, where I have made personal attacks rather than attacking certain doctrines.  Calling someone unregenerate is sometimes appropriate, calling them idiots or the like is not.  For these things I repent.  I thank God for his mercy and forgiveness, and for dying for these sins of mine as well as so many others.  May God alone be glorified.

----------


## Brett85

> I am intolerant because I believe that Christ and the apostles were intolerant.


  I don't recall Jesus going around telling people that they were unsaved if they weren't correct on every single theological issue.  His main message was about loving God with all your heart and loving your neighbor as yourself.  Of course we're saved by believing that he died for our sins and rose again as well, but his focus was on spreading a message of love and helping out your fellow man, and not on rigid doctrine.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't recall Jesus going around telling people that they were unsaved if they weren't correct on every single theological issue.


My point wasn't to talk about that (My primary point was to repent for things that I said that actually did cross the line, like calling Catholicism a false church in non-religious threads, and any personal attacks), but I did NOT say anything nearly remotely close to this.  I'd like to discuss this issue further in another thread, but I'm not going to discuss it here.  No offense intended here, as this is a worthwhile topic.  But my main purpose here is to repent.  If you think I should repent of something else, PM me.



> His main message was about loving God with all your heart and loving your neighbor as yourself.


I'd argue that a God that actually accomplishes salvation on the cross is a different God than one that helps you live better in order to gain salvation by faith and works.  But, that's not the topic of this thread.  PM me or start a new thread please.

----------


## phill4paul

You have a serious attention whore trait that leads you to instigate contention and draw attention to yourself. That's what you have.

----------


## fr33

Sucks to be you. You've been inspired to be an $#@! by a book who's truthfulness is questionable. Unfortunately for all of us, you fall into the trap of a questionable book that says you cannot question it, thus many of us suffer the wrath of FF who calls us satanic, immoral, etc.

----------


## Brett85

> I'd argue that a God that actually accomplishes salvation on the cross is a different God than one that helps you live better in order to gain salvation by faith and works.  But, that's not the topic of this thread.  PM me or start a new thread please.


I wasn't necessarily saying that Jesus taught salvation by a combination of faith and works, just that his main overall message was to love others.

Anyway, I guess I'll give you credit for trying to be humble here.

----------


## Bryan

> If that leaves me with neg reps from the admin once in awhile, I can deal with that.  If they decide they want to ban me, that's their prerogative.... I will not refrain from identifying falsehood because of this.... I do not apologize for identifying certain false beliefs as false.


You are welcome to identify what you see as falsehoods, just please do so in a respectful manner which means you will have to lay out intellectually based arguments, not ones on unsupported name callings. You saying things are false doesn't make it so, others can just as easily say what you believe is false, name calling can escalate, and then, where does that leave us? How has anyone enriched their life?

Things can only be false if a complete ironclad proof is presented that clearly shows it is so. If you have done that, present you case each time you make a claim. I would suggest to start a new thread to demonstrate your proof, let it be peer reviewed and critique and then reference to it in others threads. This will prevent having to repeat your proof over and over.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You are welcome to identify what you see as falsehoods, just please do so in a respectful manner which means you will have to lay out intellectually based arguments, not ones on unsupported name callings. You saying things are false doesn't make it so, others can just as easily say what you believe is false, name calling can escalate, and then, where does that leave us? How has anyone enriched their life?
> 
> Things can only be false if a complete ironclad proof is presented that clearly shows it is so. If you have done that, present you case each time you make a claim. I would suggest to start a new thread to demonstrate your proof, let it be peer reviewed and critique and then reference to it in others threads. This will prevent having to repeat your proof over and over.


For a religious argument, does Biblical references count as "proof"?  If so, I think this is a good idea.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I wasn't necessarily saying that Jesus taught salvation by a combination of faith and works, *just that his main overall message was to love others.*
> 
> Anyway, I guess I'll give you credit for trying to be humble here.


That's a pretty good way to put it.  The Greatest Commandment, according to Jesus in Luke's Gospel-*27* He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’*[a]*; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’*[b]*”

----------


## VIDEODROME

The first thought I have on these situations is somethings might be "lost in translation".  Some people have a passion for certain beliefs and some arguments come bundled with their own terminology. For example, many people might not get what is meant or intended by terms like "unregenerate". It just generally sounds negative and may just cause arguing based on confusion.  

That might be one of the trickiest things about this forum.  I bet there are lot's of people befuddled by the term Justification to.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The first thought I have on these situations is somethings might be "lost in translation".  Some people have a passion for certain beliefs and some arguments come bundled with their own terminology. For example, many people might not get what is meant or intended by terms like "unregenerate". It just generally sounds negative and may just cause arguing based on confusion.  
> 
> That might be one of the trickiest things about this forum.  I bet there are lot's of people befuddled by the term Justification to.


"unregenerate", at least for me, means "currently unsaved."  It doesn't mean that someone is definitively going to Hell, God might save them through the preaching of the true gospel at a later date.  But it does mean that they have not yet been so saved.

I may need to clarify this in my sig so people know what I'm talking about.

----------


## eduardo89

> For a religious argument, does Biblical references count as "proof"?  If so, I think this is a good idea.


It does, but in the end you are just a fallible man and what you will present will just be your private interpretation of Scripture. You have no way of proving that your argument is true, it is just your opinion.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It does, but in the end you are just a fallible man and what you will present will just be your private interpretation of Scripture. You have no way of proving that your argument is true, it is just your opinion.


Neither do you really, but that's a subject for another thread.  

I really need to read through 1 Corinthians 13 again before debating this.  Too often I'm too much about truth at the expense of love, when Biblically it should be both.

----------


## Bryan

> For a religious argument, does Biblical references count as "proof"?  If so, I think this is a good idea.


You're welcome to construct arguments that are based on Biblical references, but they should be qualified as such. For example, you can make a thread to establish a Biblical proof, which can then be peer reviewed and critique. Once established, in other threads you could reference the proof thread with such a statement as "This Biblical proof shows this is not accurate".

I would suggest in your Biblical proof thread that you start off listing your "assumptions" / beliefs, which should then be out-of-scope for the purpose of the discussion. This is done all the time in the scientific community, of course others can challenge your assumptions in other means but debate of the assumptions is not the point of the matter at hand.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> It does, but in the end you are just a fallible man and what you will present will just be your private interpretation of Scripture. You have no way of proving that your argument is true, it is just your opinion.





> Neither do you really, but that's a subject for another thread.


You are both correct. There are as many ways to interpret Scripture as there are Christian denominations.  I don't plan to stick around in this thread because *I don't like to argue and debate about religion.*  The way I see it, there's a reason it's called "Faith".  Everyone's  faith is personal, and runs deep in many cases. I try to respect the religious beliefs of others on this board, and I would like the same respect of my beliefs in return. 

This is a political board; not one based on religion.

----------


## Brett85

> You are both correct. There are as many ways to interpret Scripture as there are Christian denominations.


That's what I always point out.  There are some things in the Bible that are absolutely clear, that every Christian agrees with.  But other things are less clear and can be interpreted differently.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Here is what John Robbins said about judging people according to their theology:





> “To return to our original example, the editors of Present Truth suggested that a separation be made between Karl Barth’s theology and his person, indicating that it is permissible to judge his theology, but not his person. Such a separation is foreign to the Scriptures. The reason one is not to call a brother Raca or Fool is that his theology is basically correct: He is a brother and has been regenerated by God. His theology is his person; as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. Not only are we not to make a separation between a person’s theology and his person, we are commanded to judge another person by his theology. John, in 2 John, does not say that the theology of certain people is antichristian (though it is) nor does he say they speak lies (though they do). He calls the people antichrists and liars. He judges their persons by their theologies, and he commands the elect lady and her children to do the same. Worse still, from the point of view of the twentieth century—the bloodiest and most polite century in history — John commands the elect lady and her children not to show any hospitality to such liars and antichrists. It is not without significance that John first gives his reasons, then calls names, and then gives the command. Accurate identification is necessary to appropriate action. Unless that identification is made, the appropriate action will not follow. Witness the reluctance of denominations and institutions in twentieth-century America to dismiss employees and officers who deny the faith.”

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You are both correct. There are as many ways to interpret Scripture as there are Christian denominations.  I don't plan to stick around in this thread because *I don't like to argue and debate about religion.*  The way I see it, there's a reason it's called "Faith".  Everyone's  faith is personal, and runs deep in many cases. I try to respect the religious beliefs of others on this board, and I would like the same respect of my beliefs in return. 
> 
> This is a political board; not one based on religion.


I think the religion subforum is a religious segment of the board, and as such, I think that kind of conversation is appropriate there.

But sometimes I've attacked people's theology in unrelated threads, and that isn't really right, or at least, not for me.




> Here is what John Robbins said about judging people according to their theology:


I agree with John.  But it was still inappropriate for me to do it in threads that were completely unrelated to the subject of theology or a particular theological system.

----------


## Schifference

Can things only be true if a complete ironclad proof is presented that clearly shows it is so? 


> You are welcome to identify what you see as falsehoods, just please do so in a respectful manner which means you will have to lay out intellectually based arguments, not ones on unsupported name callings. You saying things are false doesn't make it so, others can just as easily say what you believe is false, name calling can escalate, and then, where does that leave us? How has anyone enriched their life?
> 
> Things can only be false if a complete ironclad proof is presented that clearly shows it is so. If you have done that, present you case each time you make a claim. I would suggest to start a new thread to demonstrate your proof, let it be peer reviewed and critique and then reference to it in others threads. This will prevent having to repeat your proof over and over.

----------


## Voluntarist

> For a religious argument, does Biblical references count as "proof"?  If so, I think this is a good idea.


If Biblical references count as proof, then be prepared also to accept the validity of passages from the Qur'an, Tao Te Ching, Ramayana, Mahābhārata, Dianetics (or other such religious and pseudo-religious texts) as proof. Similarly, works refuting those texts would have to be accepted as proof. From a provability perspective, they all have equal standing (despite their inequal acceptance).

... and no name calling or disrespect - because flinging holy book verses at each other isn't much different than flinging spells at each other in a game of Dungeons and Dragons.

----------


## Bryan

> Can things only be true if a complete ironclad proof is presented that clearly shows it is so?


No, of course not-- but things should only be presented (or claimed) as true if there is a proof.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If Biblical references count as proof, then be prepared also to accept the validity of passages from the Qur'an, Tao Te Ching, Ramayana, Mahābhārata, Dianetics (or other such religious and pseudo-religious texts) as proof. Similarly, works refuting those texts would have to be accepted as proof. From a provability perspective, they all have equal standing (despite their inequal acceptance).
> 
> ... and no name calling or disrespect - because flinging holy book verses at each other isn't much different than flinging spells at each other in a game of Dungeons and Dragons.


Then bring your false texts and let's have a debate.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If Biblical references count as proof, then be prepared also to accept the validity of passages from the Qur'an, Tao Te Ching, Ramayana, Mahābhārata, Dianetics (or other such religious and pseudo-religious texts) as proof. Similarly, works refuting those texts would have to be accepted as proof. From a provability perspective, they all have equal standing (despite their inequal acceptance).
> 
> ... and no name calling or disrespect - because flinging holy book verses at each other isn't much different than flinging spells at each other in a game of Dungeons and Dragons.


This is partially why I think the rule is silly.  But I particularly had in mind defending of Reformed Christianity over and against other sub-biblical forms of Christianity.  Dealing with Islam, Hinduism, etc. is another matter, generally leading back to the question of "how do you know you're good enough?  You don't."

----------


## Bryan

> If Biblical references count as proof, then be prepared also to accept the validity of passages from the Qur'an, Tao Te Ching, Ramayana, Mahābhārata, Dianetics (or other such religious and pseudo-religious texts) as proof. Similarly, works refuting those texts would have to be accepted as proof. From a provability perspective, they all have equal standing (despite their inequal acceptance).
> 
> ... and no name calling or disrespect


Exactly, be sure to see my statement on specifying assumptions.

Thanks.

----------


## Miss Annie

{{{{{{{{ HUGS }}}}}}}}

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I think the religion subforum is a religious segment of the board, and as such, I think that kind of conversation is appropriate there.


Yes, I know....I just don't know why.  I can make a case for all other subforums and how they relate to liberty.  But not so much religion.  

The only debate about religion, as it pertains to liberty (in my opinion), is whether or not it is appropriate to ever impose one's religious beliefs on others...and if so, how much so.  I would vote "no, it is not appropriate."  End of discussion.

But that's just me.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If Biblical references count as proof, then be prepared also to accept the validity of passages from the Qur'an, Tao Te Ching, Ramayana, Mahābhārata, Dianetics (or other such religious and pseudo-religious texts) as proof. Similarly, works refuting those texts would have to be accepted as proof. From a provability perspective, they all have equal standing (despite their inequal acceptance).
> 
> ... and no name calling or disrespect - *because flinging holy book verses at each other isn't much different than flinging spells at each other in a game of Dungeons and Dragons*.


Not exactly.  Especially if the book in question is the Bible-it has thousands of supporting historical proofs (Tacitus probably the most important from the secular view).  I submit to you that any debate about historical books/literature isn't much different than "flinging spells at one another in a game of Dungeons and Dragons."  Consider Lincoln.  All historians have access to the same records/evidence, yet they come to many different conclusions about Lincoln's character and life.  Such debates are similar to debates about the scriptures.  Strange creatures we humans be.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> {{{{{{{{ HUGS }}}}}}}}


((((((((((HUGS)))))))))))

----------


## Nang

> Yes, I know....I just don't know why.  I can make a case for all other subforums and how they relate to liberty.  But not so much religion.  
> 
> The only debate about religion, as it pertains to liberty (in my opinion), is whether or not it is appropriate to ever impose one's religious beliefs on others...and if so, how much so.  I would vote "no, it is not appropriate."  End of discussion.
> 
> But that's just me.



It is my opinion that the very foundation of liberty is scriptural Christianity . . but that's just me.

Edited to add:  I LOVE your avatar!

----------


## acptulsa

I figure the Lord moves in mysterious ways.

I also figure that if this fact pisses the fundamentalists off, well, that's not my problem.

Jesus taught tolerance for a reason.  One _could_ listen to the Man.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes, I know....I just don't know why.  I can make a case for all other subforums and how they relate to liberty.  But not so much religion.


If you paid more attention to Sola_Fide's posts you'd know why.  Specifically, there is no non-arbitrary reason to support liberty without a belief in scripture.  



> The only debate about religion, as it pertains to liberty (in my opinion), is whether or not it is appropriate to ever impose one's religious beliefs on others...and if so, how much so.  I would vote "no, it is not appropriate."  End of discussion.
> 
> But that's just me.


I'd agree with you.  But you ultimately have to appeal to some standard of morality in order to make that statement.  And without some religious backing, its completely arbitrary.



> It is my opinion that the very foundation of liberty is scriptural Christianity . . but that's just me.
> 
> Edited to add:  I LOVE your avatar!


Agreed.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> It is my opinion that the very foundation of liberty is scriptural Christianity . . but that's just me.
> 
> Edited to add:  I LOVE your avatar!


As a Christian who is Catholic I agree with you.  But in the Constitutional sense, liberty must pertain to all:  every religion and also those who practice no religion.  

Glad you like my avatar!

----------


## cajuncocoa

> If you paid more attention to Sola_Fide's posts you'd know why.  Specifically, there is no non-arbitrary reason to support liberty without a belief in scripture.  
> 
> 
> I'd agree with you.  But you ultimately have to appeal to some standard of morality in order to make that statement.  And without some religious backing, its completely arbitrary.
> 
> 
> Agreed.


See response to Nang above.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I don't think any of us disagree with you on that point.  But we're talking past each other.  I'm talking about the importance of the religion subforum, you're talking about every person of every religious persuasion having civil rights.  But nobody here disagrees with you about the concept of civil rights for all.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I don't think any of us disagree with you on that point.  But we're talking past each other.  I'm talking about the importance of the religion subforum, you're talking about every person of every religious persuasion having civil rights.  But nobody here disagrees with you about the concept of civil rights for all.


OK, fair enough.  I do wonder, however, if the purpose of the religion subforum is for one group of Christians to lecture others that they are condemned to Hell based on one or the other's interpretation of Scripture.  I fail to see how Liberty is advanced by that discussion.   But that's for Bryan to decide.  As long as it's here, I will avoid it as I usually do.  Starting.......now.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> OK, fair enough.  I do wonder, however, if the purpose of the religion subforum is for one group of Christians to lecture others that they are condemned to Hell based on one or the other's interpretation of Scripture.  I fail to see how Liberty is advanced by that discussion.   But that's for Bryan to decide.  As long as it's here, I will avoid it as I usually do.  Starting.......now.


Political freedom is less important than salvation from sin.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Political freedom is less important than salvation from sin.


Well, I said I didn't want to come back, but I can't let this ^^ go.

I'm not arguing against that, FF.  I completely agree with it.  But when you're talking about political principals, those principals have to apply to Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, etc. alike.  That's why I question the placement of such a subforum on a political message board.  But that's Bryan's decision.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Well, I said I didn't want to come back, but I can't let this ^^ go.
> 
> I'm not arguing against that, FF.  I completely agree with it.  But when you're talking about political principals, those principals have to apply to Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, etc. alike.  That's why I question the placement of such a subforum on a political message board.  But that's Bryan's decision.


I think it's attempt to avoiding having religious debates spread across the entire site derailing threads.  If it's going to happen, it might as well be directed to one spot where everyone can posts their views and rants.

----------


## mad cow

> Political freedom is less important than salvation from sin.


Salvation is not the most important thing on a political forum,or a bird-watching forum,or a cooking forum,or a baseball forum,or a parenting forum,or a travel forum...

You will either learn this as you grow older or be prepared to be banned a lot.

----------


## acptulsa

> Political freedom is less important than salvation from sin.


Perhaps.  But God knows all.

You don't.

Therefore God is fit to judge.

You aren't.

So, I have faith in God.

Not in you.

And you will also learn _this_ as you grow older or get banned a lot.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

The two gentlemen above are wise in their words^^ take heed, little one.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It is my opinion that the very foundation of liberty is scriptural Christianity . . but that's just me.


Mine too.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Salvation is not the most important thing on a political forum,or a bird-watching forum,or a cooking forum,or a baseball forum,or a parenting forum,or a travel forum...
> 
> You will either learn this as you grow older or be prepared to be banned a lot.


Or post in the apparently unnecessary religion subforum

----------


## mad cow

> Or post in the apparently unnecessary religion sub forum



That would certainly be a good start.

----------


## 69360

God loves everyone as he created them and accepts their views of him. You used his name to hate others. Don't do that again.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> I think it's attempt to avoiding having religious debates spread across the entire site derailing threads.  If it's going to happen, it might as well be directed to one spot where everyone can posts their views and rants.


and disrespect each other's beliefs lol

smart move by the mods.  +rep

----------


## Terry1

--

----------


## Eagles' Wings

FF, I appreciate your honesty and humility.  

You have wisdom at a young age, God given I believe, and I for one have benefitted from your knowledge.  There is a foolishness in the youth of today and while you have humor, I find little foolishness.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> God loves everyone as he created them and accepts their views of him. You used his name to hate others. Don't do that again.


No.  God did create everyone,  but there are children of God and children of the devil.  God has wrath against those who are not His.  He doesn't accept them.

----------


## Kevin007

> OK, fair enough.  I do wonder, however, *if the purpose of the religion subforum is for one group of Christians to lecture others that they are condemned to Hell based on one or the other's interpretation of Scripture.  I fail to see how Liberty is advanced by that discussion.*   But that's for Bryan to decide.  As long as it's here, I will avoid it as I usually do.  Starting.......now.


I'm new here but I have not seen it this way We are exchanging ideas and beliefs. If the Lord is your Savior you are saved- have passed on from death to life. These other lesser issues imho do not affect our salvation.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'm new here but I have not seen it this way We are exchanging ideas and beliefs. If the Lord is your Savior you are saved- have passed on from death to life. These other lesser issues imho do not affect our salvation.


I agree with you, Kevin...unfortunately, it gets played out as I said in the post to which you replied (I used a little sarcasm, but still a lot of truth).

----------

