# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  view of particular religion discussion - split

## heavenlyboy34

I disagree with the Siths' view of how The Force should be used.  It strikes me as cruel and unethical.

----------


## acptulsa

I don't have a problem with any religion that doesn't worship hb34.  I only have a problem with sects that are so insecure in their dogma they have to persecute people over it.




> "Hunt out and talk about the good that is in the other fellow's church, not the bad, and you will do away with all this religious hatred you hear so much of nowadays."--_Will Rogers 1923_

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *I don't have a problem with any religion that doesn't worship hb34.*  I only have a problem with sects that are so insecure in their dogma they have to persecute people over it.


You mean to say that there is a religion(s) that worships me?  Why wasn't I notified?!!11!

----------


## Nang

> The _Peace Through Religion_ forum is designed to having "respectful discussion of religious topics and their surrounding philosophies with the primary purpose of peaceful social exchange and personal enrichment to help bring forth a better world." which is inline with the site usage guideline of "Be respectful of others' religion or lack there of."
> 
> This new guideline was added due to a long train of complaints about religions being "bashed" and the like. As being respectful is a necessary element for broad appeal discussion, and our objective here, is was decided to limit our focus.
> 
> That said, I would like to open the floor to a public discussion between myself and other members here that do not need to follow this guideline.
> 
> The objective of this is as follows:
> To allow everyone to expressive their religious views in whole, even if not respectful to others. Some members feel the guidelines are too restrictive, this will give them an outlet.Allow me to better understand others' positions.Allow me to challenge others' positions.This will provide data for possible changes to the site guidelines. I have no idea what or how this will go, so it's just an experiment.
> 
> ...


I hope the first few responses do not reflect your motives for this thread, Bryan.  Hopefully you are serious, for you are providing a wonderful opportunity for some of us to give the foundations for our Christian beliefs.  On my part, I am most appreciative.

My first post would be to ask you what religion or faith you hold to . . not to argue or debate at all . .  but simply to find out your premise of religious thought.

Do you mind answering my inquiry?

Nang

----------


## Natural Citizen

.......

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You mean to say that there is a religion(s) that worships me?  Why wasn't I notified?!!11!


I'm still dying to know what religion(s) worship me and want answers from my brother acptulsa ASAP!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What to you view to be a legitimate mechanism for error correction then?


Take every thought captive to the Word of the Lord spoken in the Scriptures.

----------


## Natural Citizen

..........

----------


## nayjevin

The kind that leave 'Understanding World Government' flyers on the porch.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> A particular Religion. No.. and as I have said often, i view religion in a harsh light.. All religions,,not a particular religion..
> 
> I am a believer in God,, and of Jesus Christ.. a "Christian" That is my Faith..as opposed to a religion. I do not follow any particular denomination, and believe that they all contain error,, some error that has been passed down through the generations and some acquired along the way.
> I try not to attack any,,even though I may disagree with some of their beliefs.. and disagreeing or even opposing doctrine does not reflect on all adherents of that particular church.
> As to other Faiths,, Some I will reject outright,, Atheism for instance,, is distinctly contrary to and often hostile to my beliefs.. I reject it in entirety.
> *
> Judaism and Muslim beliefs share the same belief in God as me ,The God of Abraham..* Though beliefs differ.  I have no animosity and am hopeful that share my belief in the Messiah with them. Religion gets in the way of that.
> 
> Another reason I dislike religion.. 
> ...


If I understand your religion correctly, you believe in the Holy Trinity.  If so, you do not believe in the God of Judaism or Islam.  They will tell you this and explain why in great detail if you ask them.

----------


## HVACTech

> I'm still dying to know what religion(s) worship me and want answers from my brother acptulsa ASAP!


you are quoting yourself dude. as well as jacking with a friend of mine, 

pretty lame.

"heavenlyboy"

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> you are quoting yourself dude. as well as jacking with a friend of mine, 
> 
> pretty lame.
> 
> "heavenlyboy"


How is that lame?  The alternative is just repeating the question, and I don't care for the redundancy.  It seems more like an accidental post than a reiteration.  Why do you put my screen name in scare quotes?  Do you think I'm imaginary?

----------


## moostraks

> The kind that leave 'Understanding World Government' flyers on the porch.


Lol...

----------


## HVACTech

> How is that lame?  The alternative is just repeating the question, and I don't care for the redundancy.  It seems more like an accidental post than a reiteration.  Why do you put my screen name in scare quotes?  Do you think I'm imaginary?


because I think it is silly. 

"heavenlyboy"

I doubt your credentials. care to attack mine?
I did not think so.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Definite unfavorable view: westboro baptist because of the hate it seems intent on breeding. So my issue is likely just the censorship but the hate behind refusing to allow a person to have a voice or an identity that isn't forced upon them by outsiders that demand people to conform to their own self proclaimed religious identity.


So like the rest of the unthinking politically correct world,  you pile on against the Westboro Baptists.

----------


## moostraks

> So like the rest of the unthinking politically correct world,  you pile on against the Westboro Baptists.


Lol...that didn't take you long.

----------


## pcosmar

> If I understand your religion correctly, you believe in the Holy Trinity.  If so, you do not believe in the God of Judaism or Islam.  They will tell you this and explain why in great detail if you ask them.


Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of Judaism. and yes they did follow the very same God,, though they misunderstood much. And have been led in confusion since,, rejecting their own Messiah even when he stood in front of them.
And the Arab peoples also followed the same God of Abraham,,from whom they are descended. The one God, The creator of the Universe.. Even if they misunderstand him,, and even if their religious leaders mislead them.

And they may well misunderstand the trinity.. But then the Druids did understand the trinity and were destroyed by the church of Rome. Because the Roman church misunderstood the Druids.

Religion is the great evil,, and Satan's greatest tool.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> because I think it is silly. 
> 
> "heavenlyboy"


It's supposed to be silly.  When I first came here I didn't sign in that often so I needed something easy to remember.  It has nothing to do with me or anything else.





> I doubt your credentials. care to attack mine?
> I did not think so.


My (and your) credentials or lack thereof are irrelevant to this thread, so I won't bother.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of Judaism. and yes they did follow the very same God,, though they misunderstood much. And have been led in confusion since,, rejecting their own Messiah even when he stood in front of them.
> And the Arab peoples also followed the same God of Abraham,,from whom they are descended. The one God, The creator of the Universe.. Even if they misunderstand him,, and even if their religious leaders mislead them.
> 
> And they may well misunderstand the trinity.. But then the Druids did understand the trinity and were destroyed by the church of Rome. Because the Roman church misunderstood the Druids.
> 
> Religion is the great evil,, and Satan's greatest tool.


All parts of the Trinity are equally God according to Christian tradition.  Both traditional (non-messianic) Jews and Muslims disbelieve in Christianity-they believe in the first and second persons of God only.  Semitic religions 101.  This is one reason Christians are heavily persecuted in areas dominated by ethnic jews and followers of Islam.

Religion is not inherently evil.  God gave it to us.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If a religion must feed on hate to fuel its engines then I am inclined to view them unfavorably. Using other people with no concern for those whose backs you step on to gain notoriety is disturbing IMO.


Agreed.

----------


## HVACTech

> Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of Judaism. and yes they did follow the very same God,, though they misunderstood much. And have been led in confusion since,, rejecting their own Messiah even when he stood in front of them.
> And the Arab peoples also followed the same God of Abraham,,from whom they are descended. The one God, The creator of the Universe.. Even if they misunderstand him,, and even if their religious leaders mislead them.
> 
> And they may well misunderstand the trinity.. But then the Druids did understand the trinity and were destroyed by the church of Rome. Because the Roman church misunderstood the Druids.
> 
> Religion is the great evil,, and Satan's greatest tool.


are you suggesting Sir... 
that the Abrahamic faiths... like to fight a lot?
and subtly inferring that the "war on terror" is a religious war?

----------


## pcosmar

> Religion is not inherently evil.  God gave it to us.


I do not believe so.
What religion was Job? or Noah for that matter?

----------


## pcosmar

> are you suggesting Sir... 
> that the Abrahamic faiths... like to fight a lot?
> and subtly inferring that the "war on terror" is a religious war?


I am suggesting that they are induced into war,, by religion. And by Government and leaders that exploit religion.

as to the "war on terror",, it is a tool manufactured to bring about the final World War,, for the purpose of putting a one world leader on the throne..

To complete what was started by Nimrod long ago. and was disrupted by the confusion of tongues.
That confusion still exists.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> All parts of the Trinity are equally God according to Christian tradition.  Both traditional (non-messianic) Jews and Muslims disbelieve in Christianity-they believe in the first and second persons of God only.  Semitic religions 101.  This is one reason Christians are heavily persecuted in areas dominated by ethnic jews and followers of Islam.
> 
> Religion is not inherently evil.  God gave it to us.


It's not Biblical to describe the Trinity as "parts".

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If a religion must feed on hate to fuel its engines then I am inclined to view them unfavorably. Using other people with no concern for those whose backs you step on to gain notoriety is disturbing IMO.


Maybe your characterization of different group's hate is just a reflection of your dislike of them.  This antinomian love that you believe is not Biblical at all.

----------


## Deborah K

How about we have some honesty here?  How about those who claim the Catholic religion and the Eastern Orthodox are heresies and satanic, admit it here, as you so readily do in other threads?

----------


## Deborah K

yeah.....

----------


## Natural Citizen

I'm deleting my posts here in this split thread. Relevance lost....

----------


## Crashland

> yeah.....



I know, right! The one place he's actually *asking* for more honest and critical stuff, is the only place in religion forum we don't find it? lol

If there are going to be crickets though, how about jazz it up

----------


## pcosmar

> How about we have some honesty here?  How about those who claim the Catholic religion and the Eastern Orthodox are heresies and satanic, admit it here, as you so readily do in other threads?


Well that does seem a particularly provocative question. And it is the basis of many arguments. Many of which I have deliberately avoided.

I was raised in the Catholic Church. I view it as a political Religion and do believe that it will have a prominent place in end times prophecy.

I also believe that there are many believers within that Church. At some point they will have to make a choice between their loyalty to the Church and their loyalty to God.
But then the same can be said for those in other State connected Churches. They will have to choose who they will serve.
And it will be a life or death decision.

That said,, I prefer to focus on those points we agree on,, rather that points of difference.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I do not believe so.
> What religion was Job? or Noah for that matter?


Matthew 16:18.  Yahweh spoke directly to Abrahm and Job and revealed himself to them-they thus did not need an organized religion.  When He reveals Himself to the rest of us on His return, there will be no need for religion.  Till then, the Church serves as a spiritual guide/family-His gift to us.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Well that does seem a particularly provocative question. And it is the basis of many arguments. Many of which I have deliberately avoided.
> 
> I was raised in the Catholic Church.* I view it as a political Religion and do believe that it will have a prominent place in end times prophecy.
> *
> I also believe that there are many believers within that Church. At some point they will have to make a choice between their loyalty to the Church and their loyalty to God.
> But then the same can be said for those in other State connected Churches. They will have to choose who they will serve.
> And it will be a life or death decision.
> 
> That said,, I prefer to focus on those points we agree on,, rather that points of difference.


Christianity (and the Abrahmic religions) are political.  Jesus was betrayed for both political and spiritual reasons.  The implications of what Jesus claimed about himself and others were a direct threat to TPTB of his day.  It is impossible to separate Jesus and politics in general.  (I think the power politics throughout the OT are self-explanitory)

----------


## pcosmar

> Matthew 16:18.  Yahweh spoke directly to Abrahm and Job and revealed himself to them-they thus did not need an organized religion.  When He reveals Himself to the rest of us on His return, there will be no need for religion.  Till then, the Church serves as a spiritual guide/family-His gift to us.


Dude,, that is how he speaks to everyone,  if they ever hear him at all.





> Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona,* because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.*


 it is revealed by God,, or it is never really known at all.. it is just reciting words that have been taught.
It is either Revelation Knowledge or it is NO Knowledge at all.

----------


## Terry1

> Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of Judaism. and yes they did follow the very same God,, though they misunderstood much. And have been led in confusion since,, rejecting their own Messiah even when he stood in front of them.
> And the Arab peoples also followed the same God of Abraham,,from whom they are descended. The one God, The creator of the Universe.. Even if they misunderstand him,, and even if their religious leaders mislead them.
> 
> And they may well misunderstand the trinity.. But then the Druids did understand the trinity and were destroyed by the church of Rome. Because the Roman church misunderstood the Druids.
> 
> Religion is the great evil,, and Satan's greatest tool.


The word "religion" simply describes *any kind of belief system that people subscribe to.   We could use the word *faith*, the same way because just the same as *religion*--anyone can have *faith* in anything or anyone, just the same as *religion* can consist of anything or any certain assembly of people who retain that same belief.  Both of these words are relative to whatever ones frame of reference may be.

----------


## acptulsa

> I'm still dying to know what religion(s) worship me and want answers from my brother acptulsa ASAP!


How'd I get stuck in _your_ thread?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Dude,, that is how he speaks to everyone,  if they ever hear him at all.


If you've heard His voice literally in the sense Moses did, I have to question your seriousness or your state of mind when this happened.  






> it is revealed by God,, or it is never really known at all.. it is just reciting words that have been taught.
> It is either Revelation Knowledge or it is NO Knowledge at all.


There is no doubt that He revealed himself to Simon Peter.  Do you mean to say that He doesn't reveal himself to us through reading of/listening to scripture?  Very avant-garde of you.  Scripture and tradition disagree with your claim.  He in fact was The Word made flesh (John 1:14).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> How'd I get stuck in _your_ thread?


It's a mystery of the interwebz...

----------


## pcosmar

> The word "religion" simply describes *any kind of belief system that people subscribe to.   We could use the word *faith*, the same way because just the same as *religion*--anyone can have *faith* in anything or anyone, just the same as *religion* can consist of anything or any certain assembly of people who retain that same belief.  Both of these words are relative to whatever ones frame of reference may be.


Ok,, by Religion I mean the organizational structure,, Particular doctrine, pomp and ceremony associated with particular Groups or denominations (sects) as opposed to the heart belief in God Himself (however he is understood).
It is the religion that is manipulated by man, by the state, or by the evil one,, as opposed to Faith which comes from God and is untouchable by any of these.

----------


## pcosmar

> If you've heard His voice literally in the sense Moses did, I have to question your seriousness or your state of mind when this happened.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doubt that He revealed himself to Simon Peter.  Do you mean to say that He doesn't reveal himself to us through reading of/listening to scripture?  Very avant-garde of you.  Scripture and tradition disagree with your claim.  He in fact was The Word made flesh (John 1:14).


Oh no,,, he can be heard through many means. Through His Word,, By a Preacher,, and Nature itself declares his Glory.
But one can hear his word and still not hear his voice. Unless the heart is open,, 

Jesus walked among the people and spoke to them directly,, and yet some did not hear.

And yes,, I did hear,, and do from time to time,when I listen.. And I have seen his hands work in my life.
You can question that all you wish..

----------


## Terry1

> Thank you phill4paul, mosquitobite, HVACTech, pcosmar, tod evans and Terry1 for your responses. In all cases, I do not see you indicate any religion as unfavorable.


Fact is Bryan that peace is not something that's sustainable in this world--it's something that is maintained through force and is only a temporary fix to the sad state of humanity.  There will always be evil dictators who try to oppress and enslave the people. Peace is only a *pause* from violence because it was fought for.

  Secular humanists rightly have discerned that there has been much violence as the result of one belief wanting to dominate the other as our history clearly documents as well.  This only confirms the Gospel of Jesus Christ even more when He said that I came not to bring peace, but a sword.  Jesus wasn't talking about violence itself, but the truth in the word of God which is the "sword" itself and that would cause mother, father, sister and brother to turn against one another because of those same beliefs.

This is just the way the world will be until Jesus returns.  So if we want to talk about certain religions that are unfavorable, we'd have to include all of them because everyone believes differently.  The only peace we have are through those who believe in peace and are tolerant of others beliefs as well, but they're usually killed off by the evil violent ones.  Humanity will go on just as it has and keep repeating itself until the Lord returns.

----------


## Deborah K

> Well that does seem a particularly provocative question. And it is the basis of many arguments. Many of which I have deliberately avoided.
> 
> I was raised in the Catholic Church. I view it as a political Religion and do believe that it will have a prominent place in end times prophecy.
> 
> I also believe that there are many believers within that Church. At some point they will have to make a choice between their loyalty to the Church and their loyalty to God.
> But then the same can be said for those in other State connected Churches. They will have to choose who they will serve.
> And it will be a life or death decision.
> 
> That said,, I prefer to focus on those points we agree on,, rather that points of difference.


Bryan asked a particular question:  Why do you view a particular religion as unfavorable or worse?

This question, in my opinion, speaks to the source of contention in the religious forums as of late.  And, in particular, a small group of individuals who consistently cast aspersions on the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox religions, among other beliefs.  It would be nice, if those particular people would be as forthcoming to Bryan about it, as they are to those for whom they have such disdain.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Bryan asked a particular question:  Why do you view a particular religion as unfavorable or worse?


Bryan is begging the question in some cases. As in assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased.
 See Carl's Bologna Detection Kit. http://www.carlsagan.com/index_ideascontent.htm

I don't think I've ever attacked a specific religion here.

I just happen to carry it around in my wallet. Scwewy, I know.

I do like his method of questioning though. There was a time when I was like that. Might get back to those.

----------


## Terry1

> Bryan asked a particular question:  Why do you view a particular religion as unfavorable or worse?
> 
> This question speaks to the source of contention in the religious forums as of late.  And, in particular, a small group of individuals who consistently cast dispersions on the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox religions, among other beliefs.  It would be nice, if those particular people would be as forthcoming to Bryan about it, as they are to those they have such disdain for.


Deb--do you really think they're going to confess their belief to Bryan knowing he doesn't agree with them? LOL  I hear those crickets chirping myself. I mean anyone who comes right out and confesses that they agreed with John Calvin's execution of Michael Servitus for nothing more than Servitus refusing to recant his belief and subscribe to Calvin's doctrine can't be too trustworthy at your back in battle either or anywhere for that matter.

This is why some people label Christianity as a violent religion as well, because it's all based upon personal interpretations that in no way reflect what Jesus taught.

----------


## Deborah K

> Deb--do you really think they're going to confess their belief to Bryan knowing he doesn't agree with them? LOL  I hear those crickets chirping myself. I mean anyone who comes right out and confesses that they agreed with John Calvin's execution of Michael Servitus for nothing more than Servitus refusing to recant his belief and subscribe to Calvin's doctrine can't be too trustworthy at your back in battle either or anywhere for that matter.


It will be interesting to see if they have the nerve and intellectual honesty to proclaim to him the things they have written time and again about those faiths.  This is the only thing I can deduce.  It looks to me like he wants to get at the source of the contention in the religious forum, and he's asking people to be honest about it.  The way I see it, there are only a handful of people who reject specific religions with a certain zeal.

----------


## Terry1

> It will be interesting to see if they have the nerve and intellectual honesty to proclaim to him the things they have written time and again about those faiths.  This is the only thing I can deduce.  It looks to me like he wants to get at the source of the contention in the religious forum, and he's asking people to be honest about it.  The way I see it, there are only a handful of people who reject specific religions with a certain zeal.


I think the entire point is that if we love one another no matter what we believe as we're instructed Biblically, religion then becomes a non issue to those who understand love and tolerance.  These kinds of people exist within many different religions despite the fact that their will always be hate mongering radicals amongst them all.

----------


## Deborah K

> I think the entire point is that if we love one another no matter what we believe as we're instructed Biblically, religion then becomes a non issue to those who understand love and tolerance.  These kinds of people exist within many different religions despite the fact that their will always be hate mongering radicals amongst them all.


Perhaps this is his attempt at weeding out the "hate mongering radicals".

----------


## Terry1

> Perhaps this is his attempt at weeding out the hate mongering radicals.


I think he's gonna have to smoke em out.

----------


## Crashland

> Perhaps this is his attempt at weeding out the hate mongering radicals.


If that was the attempt, it will fail 

But it might succeed in changing the tone for a little while.

----------


## Deborah K

> If that was the attempt, it will fail 
> 
> But it might succeed in changing the tone for a little while.


Why will it fail?

----------


## Deborah K

> I think he's gonna have to smoke em out.


Yes.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I think he's gonna have to smoke em out.


But where there is smoke there is fire. Better ways to solve pest problems than to strike a match in yer own castle.

----------


## Crashland

> Why will it fail?


cause no matter how many times I weed that area on the front lawn the weeds always grow back

----------


## Deborah K

> But where there is smoke there is fire. Better ways to solve pest problems than to strike a match in yer own castle.


Explain.  Are you implying this isn't a good method for getting people to show some respect for other's religions without having to permanently ban them?

DISCLAIMER:  I have no clue what Bryan's objective is.  I am speculating based on what has been happening in the religious forum lately.

----------


## Deborah K

> cause no matter how many times I weed that area on the front lawn the weeds always grow back


I see.  Wrong choice of words on my part then.

----------


## Terry1

I was hoping to see a lil excitement, but I guess I'll hit the sack now.

----------


## pcosmar

> I think the entire point is that if we love one another no matter what we believe as we're instructed Biblically, religion then becomes a non issue to those who understand love and tolerance.  These kinds of people exist within many different religions despite the fact that their will always be hate mongering radicals amongst them all.


You know,, I deal with this some in real life,,outside this forum.
My Mother. She is 88 and a lifelong Catholic. She wanted me to be a Priest. She got an outlaw instead.
A very Godly woman,,and a well known and respected pillar of the community,, I know she is a Believer. 
Her very best friend,(used to be our neighbor growing up), is Presbyterian, also a solid believer. and was almost a second mother to me.
Mom is insistent that I "Return to the True Church" . This has caused several discussions and even some arguments,, and I don't want to argue with her.

I try to keep it to those things we agree on,,which is much. I do not insist that she leave the Church. She is comfortable there and too set in her way..
I have no interest in it. Though I do go with on occasion,, and sometimes weddings and funerals are at the Catholic Churches in the area. I go.
I also go to a local Baptist Church,, but do not consider myself Baptist either.

Now I suspect that the Roman Church has a role to play in some near future events.. And I have warned of that,, but each individual has to make decisions for themselves.
Everyone needs to be very sure who they serve.. be it the state,, or the church, or God.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Explain.  Are you implying this isn't a good method for getting people to show some respect for other's religions without having to permanently ban them?


Speaking only for myself, it annoyed me greatly that he specifically started a thread for lil ol me that completely contradicted my initial response to the original thread before he split it up. Deborah, I'm not a dumb person. There was a time when Bryan's methodology in a few of these threads was also my natural way of communicating in political atmospheres with people. Although I've relaxed from it, I'm also reminded of the effectiveness of it. I don't care to be tinkered with to be quite honest. If there are problematic posters then ban them. It's simple. It's his site. What are they going to do? Sue?

----------


## Deborah K

> Speaking only for myself, it annoyed me greatly that he specifically started a thread for lil ol me that completely contradicted my initial response to the original thread before he split it up. Deborah, I'm not a dumb person. There was a time when Bryan's methodology in a few of these threads was also my natural way of communicating in political atmospheres with people. Although I've relaxed from it, Im also reminded of the effectiveness of it. I don't care to be tinkered with to be quite honest.


I can say with certainty that Bryan's intentions are honorable.  He in no way, is tinkering with you.  If I am right, he's trying to figure out for _himself_ who it is that is the source of contention in the religious forums.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So like the rest of the unthinking politically correct world,  you pile on against the Westboro Baptists.


I'm going to have to read this whole question, but the WBC is Satanic.  I understand that they have some doctrinal points you agree with.  I know some people stupidly attacked you because you agreed with Fred Phelps that God hates certain people.  Most of those people that attacked you agree with Fred Phelps on the Trinity.

That doesn't mean there is anything loving about what they do.  Homosexuals are living lifestyles of sin, this does not warrant calling them "****" or personally attacking them, nor does it warrant telling them God hates them (if nothing else, how do you know?  Perhaps they are elect.)  Soldiers live lifestyles of sin, which many Christians don't recognize, but this doesn't warrant the extremism of the WBC.  Its possible to show love to the sinner without endorsing the sin.  The WBC does not do this.  One of the first questions I've got every time I've been evangelizing is what I think of the WBC.  The world sees the hate of the WBC and wants to know if I'm like them, especially if they know I'm a Baptist.  Like everyone once in a blue moon, the world is right in this case.  The WBC people show no fruit of true Christianity and should be excommunicated from any Bible-believing churches until they repent.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well I had experiences within the Calvinist and reformed circles both online and irl. I lived in areas in the south where the church members were also sheet wearing kkk members which would pass out flyers on the square promoting their beliefs. I have been in the religious circles which devalue women and spousal abuse is a condoned behavior because the woman submits to her husband and her testimony is to allow her husband to be transformed by her acceptance and sacrifice to the husband's abuse. To submit to the abuse would be required according to the church's particular reading of certain Scriptures. 
> 
> This is just off the top of my head.


I don't think anyone here believes any of that, "reformed" or otherwise.  I can tell you with absolute certainty that I don't believe anything like that.  I have a really low view of human authority compared to most other Christians anyway.  Wives submitting to their husbands is a statement of what is normally supposed to occur, it doesn't have anything to do with extreme situations like abuse.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You know,, I deal with this some in real life,,outside this forum.
> My Mother. She is 88 and a lifelong Catholic. She wanted me to be a Priest. She got an outlaw instead.
> A very Godly woman,,and a well known and respected pillar of the community,, I know she is a Believer. 
> Her very best friend,(used to be our neighbor growing up), is Presbyterian, also a solid believer. and was almost a second mother to me.
> Mom is insistent that I "Return to the True Church" . This has caused several discussions and even some arguments,, and I don't want to argue with her.
> 
> I try to keep it to those things we agree on,,which is much. I do not insist that she leave the Church. She is comfortable there and too set in her way..
> I have no interest in it. Though I do go with on occasion,, and sometimes weddings and funerals are at the Catholic Churches in the area. I go.
> I also go to a local Baptist Church,, but do not consider myself Baptist either.
> ...


I always find this odd when someone says something to this effect.  The Church is not an object of worship for Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox.  We cleave to the Church because it is Christ's bridegroom.  It is the major way we preserve the traditions handed down to us from the apostles.  There are problems with the RCC (which is one reason why I'm not RC), but there is no doubt that that Church was established by Christ with Peter as the rock it was built on and that the RC have a valid sacrament.

----------


## Deborah K

> If there are problematic posters then ban them. It's simple. It's his site. What are they going to do? Sue?


I'm sure it is much more complicated than that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Deb--do you really think they're going to confess their belief to Bryan knowing he doesn't agree with them? LOL  I hear those crickets chirping myself. I mean anyone who comes right out and confesses that they agreed with John Calvin's execution of Michael Servitus for nothing more than Servitus refusing to recant his belief and subscribe to Calvin's doctrine can't be too trustworthy at your back in battle either or anywhere for that matter.
> 
> This is why some people label Christianity as a violent religion as well, because it's all based upon personal interpretations that in no way reflect what Jesus taught.


Nang, can you please confess publicly that you don't support the murder of Michael Servetus so this whole little thing will calm down?

Terry, there's something I want you to understand, and that includes Bryan to... the term "Calvinist" does not mean "follower of Calvin."  That's probably how it started out, but that's not how people mean it anymore.  The term "Calvinist" means a belief in a particular set of soteriological doctrines which Calvin _probably_ taught (some say Calvin did not even teach one of the 5 points).  The term doesn't entail an agreement with Calvin on ecclesiology, baptism, eschatology, politics, or any other subject.  Is the term unfortunate?  Yeah, I do kind of wish the term that's widely in use to describe my soteriological viewpoint was the name of a human being, especially one who is so controversial for understandable reasons.  but, it is what it is.  I am a "Calvinist" in that I subscribe to the doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement (also called particular redemption), irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints (Christians will always persevere to the end.)  That's it.

I don't agree with Calvin's ecclesiology.

Though I'm not strongly opinionated on it, I reluctantly disagree with Calvin's eschatology.

I don't agree with Calvin's paedobaptism.

I don't agree with Calvin's statism.

I'm tolerant of a lot.  I don't care if you like my views, respect me, or even if you consider me a Christian.  But, the whole "Calvinists follow Calvin" thing really needs to go.  Its a deliberate red herring, and its borderline at the point where I might even consider the report button.  Nobody actually believes its true.  I've never accused Arminians of following Arminius, or Wesleyans of following John Wesley, either, and for good reason.  Please give us the same respect.  Disagree: even anathemize us if you want, but don't lie and say we follow Calvin.  Thanks.

----------


## Christian Liberty

To be clear, I'd willingly confess anything I believe about religion to Bryan.  I'm not hiding anything here, nor do I really care whether the admins agree with me or not.  The absolute worse that could happen is I could get banned, and I feel like I know Bryan well enough that he won't do that in this case.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

FF-just a reminder-I have you on ignore.  If you're hoping for a reply from me, you won't get it.  I just see blank boxes where your posts are.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FF-just a reminder-I have you on ignore.  If you're hoping for a reply from me, you won't get it.  I just see blank boxes where your posts are.


I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Terry.  That said, you should really man up and engage me.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I'm sure it is much more complicated than that.


Perhaps. I don't appreciate being baited into the $#@!ery though. Sorry for my french, Deborah.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> How about we have some honesty here?  How about those who claim the Catholic religion and the Eastern Orthodox are heresies and satanic, admit it here, as you so readily do in other threads?


I believe the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox religions are Satanic heresies.

There, does that make you happy?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Perhaps. I don't appreciate being baited into the $#@!ery though. Sorry for my french, Deborah.


Deb speaks French well.   ~hugs Deb~

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Deb speaks French well.   ~hugs Deb~


 I forgot to Capitalize F.

----------


## pcosmar

> but there is no doubt that that Church was established by Christ with Peter as the rock it was built on and that the RC have a valid sacrament.


Actually. that is a point of doctrine that that I do very much disagree with. So Yes,, there is doubt about that.

The rock that the Church is built on is the revelation that Jesus is the Christ,, the Son of the living God.

The same Rock that Destroys the Empires in the Vision from Nebuchadnezzar's Dream.

That is the solid foundation the Church is built on. Christ is the Rock.. Not the man Peter.

----------


## moostraks

> I don't think anyone here believes any of that, "reformed" or otherwise.  I can tell you with absolute certainty that I don't believe anything like that.  I have a really low view of human authority compared to most other Christians anyway. * Wives submitting to their husbands is a statement of what is normally supposed to occur, it doesn't have anything to do with extreme situations like abuse.*


This is the other part:
Ephesians 5:25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church

It was a 2 way street discussion but some churches neglect to properly discipline on the two way street nature of a healthy relationship.

So then you take a section such as:
Matthew 18:23 For this reason the kingdom of heaven [v]may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. 24 When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him [w]ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25 But since he [x]did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. 26 So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, Have patience with me and I will repay you everything. 27 And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the [y]debt. 28 But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred [z]denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, Pay back what you owe. 29 So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, Have patience with me and I will repay you. 30 But he was unwilling [aa]and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. 31 So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. 32 Then summoning him, his lord *said to him, You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you? 34 And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. 35 My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from [ab]your heart.

And a person who has such a low opinion of humanity such as 5 point doctrine teaches, and someone who believes they are the elect and their sins are covered, and you have a recipe for disaster. Just because you haven't lived it doesn't mean you can ridicule my intelligence or my experiences and dismiss that this situation was not just my own but many women who were and are within these churches.

----------


## moostraks

> I can say with certainty that Bryan's intentions are honorable.  He in no way, is tinkering with you.  If I am right, he's trying to figure out for _himself_ who it is that is the source of contention in the religious forums.


I think his intentions are well meaning. It is a bit disconcerting feeling like you are in a silent hall talking to the great Oz. It makes me feel like I am being a hater because I have such a low opinion on a specific structure of understanding and I have to list out what brought me to the understanding I have. Just because I have a low opinion of the structure doesn't mean I think those believers should be stopped from making their case for their positions. I lived it and saw the worst side of it and have the counter points for why I personally find it to be detrimental. 

I think I should blame AF for my bothering to say anything at all to retort to the hate. His constant posts on police abuse stick in my head. So what do I do when I see other people being told they are stupid and the Creator hates you and made you for the purpose of heaping His contempt upon you? Do I just sit back and watch while people verbally murder other peoples spiritual connections? Yet the damage it is doing to my own soul is palpable.

----------


## Terry1

> Nang, can you please confess publicly that you don't support the murder of Michael Servetus so this whole little thing will calm down?.


We're not supposed to direct these posts at anyone's person, Bryan said they would be deleted.  I never mentioned anyone's name when I made that post, but you knew who I was talking about.  She said it, and then tried to change the narrative after you told her you didn't agree with her, then she tried to deny that's what she meant.  That's not the first time she's denied saying what she said and I had to literally chase after her post and repost them back in front of her.  It's either a bad memory issue or plain old lying.  It's gotta be one of the two.




> Terry, there's something I want you to understand, and that includes Bryan to... the term "Calvinist" does not mean "follower of Calvin."  That's probably how it started out, but that's not how people mean it anymore.  The term "Calvinist" means a belief in a particular set of soteriological doctrines which Calvin _probably_ taught (some say Calvin did not even teach one of the 5 points).  The term doesn't entail an agreement with Calvin on ecclesiology, baptism, eschatology, politics, or any other subject.  Is the term unfortunate?  Yeah, I do kind of wish the term that's widely in use to describe my soteriological viewpoint was the name of a human being, especially one who is so controversial for understandable reasons.  but, it is what it is.  I am a "Calvinist" in that I subscribe to the doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement (also called particular redemption), irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints (Christians will always persevere to the end.)  That's it.
> 
> I don't agree with Calvin's ecclesiology.
> 
> Though I'm not strongly opinionated on it, I reluctantly disagree with Calvin's eschatology.
> 
> I don't agree with Calvin's paedobaptism.
> 
> I don't agree with Calvin's statism.
> ...


FF--reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, chosen by predestination while in this life and having no free will-- is Calvin's doctrine, whether you or anyone else chooses to admit that because it's certainly not biblical.  You can search anywhere and this is a historical fact.  The early and ancient church teaching's on the 66 books of the Bible are correct, even if you don't agree with some of their traditions and practices.

You three have worked very hard giving Calvinists a bad name in here and now you simply want to deny Calvinism at this point, when it's not *Calvinism* per-say that's actually the problem or the issue here at all.  It's never been about all Calvinists being evil or bad people--it's about a few that have behaved in such a way that it's cast a negative shadow upon the whole who believe this doctrine.

Personally--I know that there are many God loving Calvinists who see just as darkly through the glass in this life as many other God loving Christians do as well.  Our interpretations are not what saves us--our love for God and the brethren in Christ is though and the good that we do according the commandments and will of God.

----------


## acptulsa

> I think his intentions are well meaning. It is a bit disconcerting feeling like you are in a silent hall talking to the great Oz.


Well thank you for doing it.

As an Oklahoman and a Presbyterian, I know something of part of that history.  I knew a woman years ago who went to an assimilation school when she was a kid.  They weren't pretty.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> FF-just a reminder-I have you on ignore.  If you're hoping for a reply from me, you won't get it.  I just see blank boxes where your posts are.


Grow some balls and get in to the debate.

----------


## acptulsa

> Grow some balls and get in to the debate.


One could say the same to you.

Someone has asked you a question (or half a dozen)...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...99#post5539399

...and you are hiding out here in the manner of a coward.

----------


## Terry1

> I believe the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox religions are Satanic heresies.
> 
> There, does that make you happy?


You'd be very wrong IMO too.  The fact is that they could just as easily make that same claim about what you believe in and subscribe to.  Until you realize that Christians as a whole are not all going to agree on interpretation and that's not what saves us at all--you might just be one of those lost souls that you claim you're attempting to witness to by and through your accusations and judgments of them.  You're on a mighty slippery spiritual slope there FF.  If you wouldn't treat God the same way you are treating others who believe that Jesus is their Lord and savior--then that's the best indication you've gone down the wrong path and are in danger of damnation yourself.

God didn't ask you to be loving, merciful and nice to people--He commanded it.

----------


## pcosmar

> I believe the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox religions are Satanic heresies.
> 
> There, does that make you happy?


No,,actually.

It does not make me happy. Why should that make me happy?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You'd be very wrong IMO too.  The fact is that they could just as easily make that same claim about what you believe in and subscribe to.  Until you realize that Christians as a whole are not all going to agree on interpretation and that's not what saves us at all--you might just be one of those lost souls that you claim you're attempting to witness to by and through your accusations and judgments of them.  You're on a mighty slippery spiritual slope there FF.  If you wouldn't treat God the same way you are treating others who believe that Jesus is their Lord and savior--then that's the best indication you've gone down the wrong path and are in danger of damnation yourself.
> 
> God didn't ask you to be loving, merciful and nice to people--He commanded it.


No they couldn't just as easily make that claim, because all of our claims must have Biblical warrant.   If they don't have biblical warrant,  then they cannot be regarded as Christian.

----------


## Deborah K

> Perhaps. I don't appreciate being baited into the $#@!ery though. Sorry for my french, Deborah.


None of us can possibly know or understand the magnitude of responsibility that falls on the shoulders of an owner of such a forum as this one.  It's the RON PAUL FORUMS!  Bryan has to consider and weigh the opposing sides to every contentious issue that arises for the sake of the man whose name is on these boards.  Imagine if he just wielded his ban hammer indiscriminately against perceived trouble makers *in cases as contentious as this one*, without determining first, if the accused are indeed causing problems?  What kind of representation of this forum and its namesake would that be?   The issue, as I see it, is that BOTH sides are pleading their cases to him, and he is just trying to flesh out the problem, and solve it once and for all.  

Having stated the above, Bryan enjoys having these kinds of discussions anyway, so my guess is, this 'exercise' is two-fold for him.  He doesn't get a chance to do it very often. He'll have to speak for himself though.  So, if I had a particular issue with a particular religion, I'd take advantage of this opportunity to discuss it with him. (My issue in the religious forum is with certain people - not their religion.) 

Bryan is skilled at debating, so watching these debates unfold will be a learning experience for me.

----------


## Deborah K

> I think his intentions are well meaning. It is a bit disconcerting feeling like you are in a silent hall talking to the great Oz. It makes me feel like I am being a hater because I have such a low opinion on a specific structure of understanding and I have to list out what brought me to the understanding I have. Just because I have a low opinion of the structure doesn't mean I think those believers should be stopped from making their case for their positions. I lived it and saw the worst side of it and have the counter points for why I personally find it to be detrimental. 
> 
> I think I should blame AF for my bothering to say anything at all to retort to the hate. His constant posts on police abuse stick in my head. So what do I do when I see other people being told they are stupid and the Creator hates you and made you for the purpose of heaping His contempt upon you? Do I just sit back and watch while people verbally murder other peoples spiritual connections? Yet the damage it is doing to my own soul is palpable.


I respect what you're doing.  You have the courage of your convictions.  I trust Bryan to handle this situation, unorthodox though it may seem. Hang in there.  hugs.

----------


## pcosmar

> No they couldn't just as easily make that claim, because all of our claims must have Biblical warrant.   If they don't have biblical warrant,  then they cannot be regarded as Christian.


Oh come off it,, I have argued with Aryan Nations and KKK pukes who claim "Biblical Warrant" for their twisted beliefs.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Oh come off it,, I have argued with Aryan Nations and KKK pukes who claim "Biblical Warrant" for their twisted beliefs.


Do they have it?  Is a mere claim sufficient?

----------


## moostraks

> Well thank you for doing it.
> 
> As an Oklahoman and a Presbyterian, I know something of part of that history.  I knew a woman years ago who went to an assimilation school when she was a kid.  They weren't pretty.


 I'll give it a go the best I can. Assimilation school being something like this?




> . Federal Indian policy called for the removal of children from their families and in many cases enrollment in a government run boarding school...believing that Indian ways were inferior to those of whites, he subscribed to the principle, "kill the Indian and save the man." ...The foremost requirement for assimilation into American society, authorities felt, was mastery of the English language. Commissioner of Indian Affairs T.J. Morgan described English as "the language of the greatest, most powerful and enterprising nationalities beneath the sun."


https://content.lib.washington.edu/aipnw/marr.html

Got to love history. I believe my ancestors and how they were persecuted have a good deal to do with my views on liberty both politically and spiritually. Oppression brings out an overwhelming fight or flight in me. I try to balance my reactions but the fear of history repeating itself is definitely a prime motivator for my responses and reactions. Not because I am concerned about myself but what my action/inaction is responsible for in regards to others suffering.

----------


## Deborah K

> We're not supposed to direct these posts at anyone's person, Bryan said they would be deleted.  I never mentioned anyone's name when I made that post, but you knew who I was talking about.  She said it, and then tried to change the narrative after you told her you didn't agree with her, then she tried to deny that's what she meant.  That's not the first time she's denied saying what she said and I had to literally chase after her post and repost them back in front of her.  It's either a bad memory issue or plain old lying.  It's gotta be one of the two.
> 
> 
> 
> FF--reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, chosen by predestination while in this life and having no free will-- is Calvin's doctrine, whether you or anyone else chooses to admit that because it's certainly not biblical.  You can search anywhere and this is a historical fact.  The early and ancient church teaching's on the 66 books of the Bible are correct, even if you don't agree with some of their traditions and practices.
> 
> You three have worked very hard giving Calvinists a bad name in here and now you simply want to deny Calvinism at this point, when it's not *Calvinism* per-say that's actually the problem or the issue here at all.  It's never been about all Calvinists being evil or bad people--it's about a few that have behaved in such a way that it's cast a negative shadow upon the whole who believe this doctrine.
> 
> Personally--I know that there are many God loving Calvinists who see just as darkly through the glass in this life as many other God loving Christians do as well.  Our interpretations are not what saves us--our love for God and the brethren in Christ is though and the good that we do according the commandments and will of God.


Terry, you're making a case for the question Bryan asks.  Are you sure you don't want to take this opportunity to have your own thread on it with him?

----------


## acptulsa

> Do they have it?  Is a mere claim sufficient?


Is that why you won't answer Bryan's questions?  Because you only know how to ask questions, not how to answer them?

----------


## Terry1

> No they couldn't just as easily make that claim, because all of our claims must have Biblical warrant.   If they don't have biblical warrant,  then they cannot be regarded as Christian.


And you make this assertion based upon *your* interpretation of the word of God and this is why God gave us the two greatest commandments that all of the law/written word of God are based upon and encompass--because mankind can not fully comprehend the perfection of the word of God while in a state of flesh and blood and we were given a way--a clause that released us from our own ignorance by God telling us that the only way to truly enter the kingdom of heaven is by and through the blood of Christ--and loving people the same as we love Him.  That is the ONLY WAY anyone will enter the kingdom of heaven.  Not through your vain attempts at knowledge or judging others by that same flawed understanding and interpretation, but only by and through the love that you show for others--the same as you claim you have for God.

What did God tell you?  He told you that whatever you do unto others--you also do unto Him.  God made it real simple for us knowing how corrupted we are in this state of human flesh and blood and how ignorant we are thinking ourselves wise--we then become the fools.  The knowledge that mankind thinks they have gained through their own efforts is nothing and couldn't fill a thimble compared to the wisdom and knowledge of God.

You are wrong to judge anyone based upon your interpretation of the word of God and you will be judged with the same measure that you have judged others--God told you this.

----------


## eduardo89

> Oh come off it,, I have argued with Aryan Nations and KKK pukes who claim "Biblical Warrant" for their twisted beliefs.


It's interesting that one thing the KKK and SF have in common is their anti-Catholic bigotry.

----------


## acptulsa

> Got to love history. I believe my ancestors and how they were persecuted have a good deal to do with my views on liberty both politically and spiritually. Oppression brings out an overwhelming fight or flight in me. I try to balance my reactions but the fear of history repeating itself is definitely a prime motivator for my responses and reactions. Not because I am concerned about myself but what my action/inaction is responsible for in regards to others suffering.


As in, was she severely punished for speaking Muscogee?  Yes.

Well, no one can call you a complete isolationist...

----------


## Terry1

> Terry, you're making a case for the question Bryan asks.  Are you sure you don't want to take this opportunity to have your own thread on it with him?


Sure, I don't mind if it will help sort out some of the differences.

----------


## moostraks

> Do they have it?  Is a mere claim sufficient?


For some it seems so. They become more aggressive than longer that those who silently disagree with them give them the bully pulpit. Why do you think anyone discusses issues with you? How does tyranny get a foothold again? The crux of the problem lies in not becoming that which you despise in defense against it, imo.

----------


## pcosmar

> Do they have it?  Is a mere claim sufficient?


Do they have it? 
 I don't think so..but apparently they do,,

----------


## moostraks

> As in, was she severely punished for speaking Muscogee?  Yes.
> 
> Well, no one can call you a complete isolationist...


I have native ancestors on both sides of my tree, throw in some Irish and well stereotypes have some basis in fact shall we say. The manner of culture destruction some went to leaves lasting impressions. I could not imagine what it must have been like to live through it as reading about it is bad enough. I would not have fared well. I grew up in Miami when they were forcing the English children to learn Spanish to assimilate. I refused rather loudly (and luckily with parental permission). It did not improve my relationship with the Cuban teacher, though. I offered to learn French but got stuck writing words from the English dictionary instead. Hardly as bad as what my ancestors lived through but you develop a certain reputation when you are the only problem in the classroom and you are outspoken about why the problem exists in the first place.

I am glad at least someone doesn't see me as a complete isolationist, lol...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Do they have it? 
>  I don't think so..but apparently they do,,


So a mere claim that someone makes is sufficient?   Why would logic and rationality not come to bear in a debate about the Bible?  Is it possible that the Bible says one thing and not another (something that can be shown with argumentation)?

----------


## Deborah K

> Sure, I don't mind if it will help sort out some of the differences.


Cool!  Take what you wrote and put it here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...in-first-post)  and Bryan will start a thread with you.

I'm glad to see SOME people have the courage of their convictions.

----------


## acptulsa

> Why would logic and rationality not come to bear in a debate about the Bible?


Because you're involved?

And what's more, you know it.  That's why you're afraid to go here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...99#post5539399

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the valley of the Shadow of Death, I will fear no evil, but Bryan's thread scares the hell out of me!

----------


## moostraks

> So a mere claim that someone makes is sufficient?   Why would logic and rationality not come to bear in a debate about the Bible?  Is it possible that the Bible says one thing and not another (something that can be shown with argumentation)?


In their own head it is sufficient, but others disagree with them. So the ones who are promoting a ideology of hate such as the KKK, then become the reasoning for others to caste aspersions upon those who use the same Book. Logic can be employed but people who believe that they are the solely divinely inspired ones and self educate and self police use the very fact their beliefs are unpopular to validate in their own minds their special and esteemed position as a chosen people like the Jews of the OT.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> In their own head it is sufficient, but others disagree with them. So the ones who are promoting a ideology of hate such as the KKK, then become the reasoning for others to caste aspersions upon those who use the same Book. Logic can be employed but people who believe that they are the solely divinely inspired ones and self educate and self police use the very fact their beliefs are unpopular to validate in their own minds their special and esteemed position as a chosen people like the Jews of the OT.


Is "being right in your own head" sufficient? 

Or can the Bible be shown to support one position and not another?

----------


## acptulsa

> Is "being right in your own head" sufficient? 
> 
> Or can the Bible be shown to support one position and not another?


The Bible can be shown to support pretty much any position under the sun if you get to be Sole Arbiter of what is literal and what is metaphor.

And it's even easier if one simply doesn't talk about certain well-known verses at all, as though they're the raving lunatic sister who lives in the Bible's attic.

No wonder having a thread to yourself scares you.  You can't blend into the crowd when the going gets rough.

----------


## Terry1

FF--reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, chosen by predestination while in this life and having no free will-- is Calvin's doctrine, whether you or anyone else chooses to admit that because it's certainly not biblical. You can search anywhere and this is a historical fact. The early and ancient church teaching's on the 66 books of the Bible are correct, even if you don't agree with some of their traditions and practices.

 You three have worked very hard giving Calvinists a bad name in here and now you simply want to deny Calvinism at this point when it's convenient for you to do so, when it's not *Calvinism* per-say that's actually the problem or the issue here at all. It's never been about all Calvinists being evil or bad people--it's about a few that have behaved in such a way that it's cast a negative shadow upon the whole who believe this doctrine.

 Personally--I know that there are many God loving Calvinists who see just as darkly through the glass in this life as many other God loving Christians do as well. Our interpretations are not what saves us--our love for God and the brethren in Christ is though and the good that we do according the commandments and will of God.

----------


## moostraks

> Is "being right in your own head" sufficient? 
> 
> Or can the Bible be shown to support one position and not another?


Sufficient for what? For continuing an argument according to their reasoning and not re-evaluating the fact they are being consumed by poison? Seems so. They use their own form of logic when it comes to what qualifies as support for their position. Words and their nuances becoming validation. Up is no longer up and down is no longer down. They are self affirming and then find someone else who wants the same achievement of the flesh who will echo them and it spreads from there like a virus.

----------


## pcosmar

> Is "being right in your own head" sufficient? 
> 
> Or can the Bible be shown to support one position and not another?


The Bible can *be used* to support just about any position. That does not mean that it is correct.

And I have had to revise some positions when a clearer understanding came  on some subjects.

I believe that there are many errors in "interpretation". Which is why I tend to dislike religion.. It preserves error.

I don't use the Word.. I prefer to let it speak and teach.

----------


## moostraks

Outside the camp was a recent discussion here on the forums. Some saw them as going too far, some would say they don't go far enough. Then others of us see that the argument is just a matter of degrees of a wrong headed course altogether. I wouldn't eliminate their right to make a case but I sure am going to be clear that I see them as toxic and clarify they do not represent me or my beliefs and why I could use the same verses from a perspective of love or peace. A tool is neutral until a person employs it for personal gain.

----------


## Deborah K

> I believe the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox religions are Satanic heresies.
> 
> There, does that make you happy?



I took the liberty of posting this in your thread with Bryan since it answers the question he asks directly.  Since he guarantees that you can be free to state your opinions and beliefs without impunity, why don't you and Sola, and Nang, take this opportunity to do so, since all three of you believe the above?  I would think you would want to partake in this opportunity to publicly express your views on other religions and beliefs since you do so on a regular basis in the comfort of threads that get easily buried?

Look, I don't want a war with you three, and neither does anyone else here.  You just need to tone the rhetoric WAY down regarding your assessments of other people's beliefs and their salvation.  It's not your place to do that within the realm of the guidelines of this forum.  It is disrespectful, and it has got to stop.  That's all, nothing more.  Please, help us get the forum back on track?  Our diversity needs to be okay in order for our online community here to thrive.  We need to find a way to come to some kind of mutual understanding.  Bryan is trying to make that happen.  Please participate and let's be done with the warring.

----------


## pcosmar

> Is it possible that the Bible says one thing and not another (something that can be shown with argumentation)?


The word of God means what God means it to.
Not what any amount of arguing or clever word games can turn it into.

It is only understood by  Revelation from God,, if it is ever understood at all..

No manner of Clever argument will change that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This is the other part:
> Ephesians 5:25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church
> 
> It was a 2 way street discussion but some churches neglect to properly discipline on the two way street nature of a healthy relationship.
> 
> So then you take a section such as:
> Matthew 18:23 For this reason the kingdom of heaven [v]may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. 24 When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him [w]ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25 But since he [x]did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. 26 So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, Have patience with me and I will repay you everything. 27 And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the [y]debt. 28 But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred [z]denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, Pay back what you owe. 29 So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, Have patience with me and I will repay you. 30 But he was unwilling [aa]and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. 31 So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. 32 Then summoning him, his lord *said to him, You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you? 34 And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. 35 My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from [ab]your heart.
> 
> And a person who has such a low opinion of humanity such as 5 point doctrine teaches, and someone who believes they are the elect and their sins are covered, and you have a recipe for disaster. Just because you haven't lived it doesn't mean you can ridicule my intelligence or my experiences and dismiss that this situation was not just my own but many women who were and are within these churches.


Moon, I'm not mocking you or denying that the issue you describe is real.  I actually had someone on another site try to tell me that "obey" has no qualifiers and that women and children who are abused by their husbands and fathers must submit and obey.  I do not know how common this viewpoint is, but I realize it exists, and I'm not trying to minimize the experiences of those who have gone through that with an abusive "Christian" parent.

I am simply assuring you that this has nothing to do with Reformed theology per say, and that the Reformed people on this website do not believe it.  That's it.




> We're not supposed to direct these posts at anyone's person, Bryan said they would be deleted.  I never mentioned anyone's name when I made that post, but you knew who I was talking about.  She said it, and then tried to change the narrative after you told her you didn't agree with her, then she tried to deny that's what she meant.  That's not the first time she's denied saying what she said and I had to literally chase after her post and repost them back in front of her.  It's either a bad memory issue or plain old lying.  It's gotta be one of the two.
> 
> 
> 
> FF--reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, chosen by predestination while in this life and having no free will-- is Calvin's doctrine, whether you or anyone else chooses to admit that because it's certainly not biblical.  You can search anywhere and this is a historical fact.  The early and ancient church teaching's on the 66 books of the Bible are correct, even if you don't agree with some of their traditions and practices.
> 
> You three have worked very hard giving Calvinists a bad name in here and now you simply want to deny Calvinism at this point, when it's not *Calvinism* per-say that's actually the problem or the issue here at all.  It's never been about all Calvinists being evil or bad people--it's about a few that have behaved in such a way that it's cast a negative shadow upon the whole who believe this doctrine.
> 
> Personally--I know that there are many God loving Calvinists who see just as darkly through the glass in this life as many other God loving Christians do as well.  Our interpretations are not what saves us--our love for God and the brethren in Christ is though and the good that we do according the commandments and will of God.


I have read extremely little Calvin, and I'd never read him at all when I came to the conclusion that "Calvinism" was true.  If you want to claim that Calvin was the first person ever to hold to these ideas, that's fine, you can try to make that case.  I disagree, and I think history proves you wrong, but we could have that debate.  But even if that's true, I didn't come to those conclusions from reading Calvin, I came to those conclusions from reading the Bible.  And I am not going to accuse you of coming to your conclusions by reading Arminius either.




> You'd be very wrong IMO too.  The fact is that they could just as easily make that same claim about what you believe in and subscribe to.  Until you realize that Christians as a whole are not all going to agree on interpretation and that's not what saves us at all--you might just be one of those lost souls that you claim you're attempting to witness to by and through your accusations and judgments of them.  You're on a mighty slippery spiritual slope there FF.  If you wouldn't treat God the same way you are treating others who believe that Jesus is their Lord and savior--then that's the best indication you've gone down the wrong path and are in danger of damnation yourself.
> 
> God didn't ask you to be loving, merciful and nice to people--He commanded it.





> No,,actually.
> 
> It does not make me happy. Why should that make me happy?


My post was a response to Deborah K acting like we are somehow "too cowardly" to say the Catholic and EO churches are Satanic and anti-Christian to Bryan's face.  My post was intended to elimininate that feeling.  In normal conversation I would probably choose different terms that make a similar point, such as "unbiblical" or "false Christian" or "UnChristian."  Those terms are still harsh though, no doubt about it.  There's no way to tell Catholics and EOs that their church is a spiritual whore (Revelation 18:4) without being "mean" in  some sense.  It should be done in the nicest way possible, and with love and compassion toward the people who are caught up in it.  The idea shouldn't be to prove a point, but to win souls for Christ.  But it would be absolutely hateful not to tell them.  By loving the Catholic Church, most people here hate the people in it, through their actions.




> No they couldn't just as easily make that claim, because all of our claims must have Biblical warrant.   If they don't have biblical warrant,  then they cannot be regarded as Christian.


Yes.




> None of us can possibly know or understand the magnitude of responsibility that falls on the shoulders of an owner of such a forum as this one.  It's the RON PAUL FORUMS!  Bryan has to consider and weigh the opposing sides to every contentious issue that arises for the sake of the man whose name is on these boards.  Imagine if he just wielded his ban hammer indiscriminately against perceived trouble makers *in cases as contentious as this one*, without determining first, if the accused are indeed causing problems?  What kind of representation of this forum and its namesake would that be?   The issue, as I see it, is that BOTH sides are pleading their cases to him, and he is just trying to flesh out the problem, and solve it once and for all.  
> 
> Having stated the above, Bryan enjoys having these kinds of discussions anyway, so my guess is, this 'exercise' is two-fold for him.  He doesn't get a chance to do it very often. He'll have to speak for himself though.  So, if I had a particular issue with a particular religion, I'd take advantage of this opportunity to discuss it with him. (My issue in the religious forum is with certain people - not their religion.) 
> 
> Bryan is skilled at debating, so watching these debates unfold will be a learning experience for me.


I do have issues with certain religions, but my goal here is NOT to try to get these religions banned from discussion, my goal is to defend what I believe.

----------


## moostraks

> Moon, I'm not mocking you or denying that the issue you describe is real.  I actually had someone on another site try to tell me that "obey" has no qualifiers and that women and children who are abused by their husbands and fathers must submit and obey.  I do not know how common this viewpoint is, but I realize it exists, and I'm not trying to minimize the experiences of those who have gone through that with an abusive "Christian" parent.
> 
> I am simply assuring you that this has nothing to do with Reformed theology per say, and that the Reformed people on this website do not believe it.  That's it.


My comment regarding mock or deny was heading it off at the pass before it occurred. Default response from you on my posts is this. And by acting as though it is not connected to Reformed theology is doing just that (denying my experiences). You don't want to see the connection but I lived it.

When a train derails one works from the accident and tries to see where the problem developed.


I could have been hard-hearted and like a person suffering a train wreck, walked to every destination. I walked away from my faith for a few years because of the toxic influences some of these churches are to those with very violent tendencies who lack empathy and value power. Then I started to research. There is a weakness in the premises that are exploited by a certain segment of the population that becomes Reformed/ Calvinist/five pointer. It has a historical reputation for being exploited and used as a tool of tyranny over individuals who disagree with it or refuse to uphold its supposed infallibility. There is no reasoning with those who uphold its tenets and become convinced they are right. Arguments seem to just reaffirm the very necessity of being even more firm and forthright and aggressive in the defense of one's beliefs.

----------


## Deborah K

> I do have issues with certain religions, but my goal here is NOT to try to get these religions banned from discussion, my goal is to defend what I believe.


Hopefully, that isn't _anyone's_ goal here.  Defend what you believe.  Just do it without casting aspersions.

----------


## Nang

> I took the liberty of posting this in your thread with Bryan since it answers the question he asks directly.  Since he guarantees that you can be free to state your opinions and beliefs without impunity,* why don't you and Sola, and Nang, take this opportunity* to do so, since all three of you believe the above?  I would think you would want to partake in this opportunity to publicly express your views on other religions and beliefs since you do so on a regular basis in the comfort of threads that get easily buried?


For several reasons, I choose not to enter this exercise:

1.  You have previously stated more than once you "will do anything" to run the Reformers off this forum.  Therefore, responding to you would be like sitting my horse on the highest hill, in plain site of the indian ambush. 

2.  I refuse to be manipulated.

3.  I do not post on RPF to vent disfavor against others' religions.  I post here to protect my own faith from gross misrepresentation and lies.  

4.  My brothers can cover my position for me.  That is how it is done in the Reformed churches.  The men protect and speak for the women in the midst of doctrinal threats and/or crisis.

5.  I am having my family visit from out of town over the weekend, and I am extremely busy shopping, cleaning, and cooking.  (Yes, I have a life!)


So don't you dare accuse me of being cowardly about my beliefs because I do not let you control me and my posts.  I have not hesitated to make my beliefs clear to all (unlike you), so since I have nothing to gripe about regarding other religions, there is no need for me to play this particular game.




> Look, I don't want a war with you three,


Bah.  I don't believe you . . . and you are not going to get one, either.

----------


## acptulsa

> Bah.  I don't believe you . . . and you are not going to get one, either.


No new war.

Thank you!

Now, what do we do with the _old_ war?

----------


## Deborah K

> For several reasons, I choose not to enter this exercise:
> 
> 1.  You have previously stated more than once you "will do anything" to run the Reformers off this forum.  Therefore, responding to you would be like sitting my horse on the highest hill, in plain site of the indian ambush. 
> 
> 2.  I refuse to be manipulated.
> 
> 3.  I do not post on RPF to vent disfavor against others' religions.  I post here to protect my own faith from gross misrepresentation and lies.  
> 
> 4.  My brothers can cover my position for me.  That is how it is done in the Reformed churches.  The men protect and speak for the women in the midst of doctrinal threats and/or crisis.
> ...


This speaks for itself - lying accusations and all.

----------


## moostraks

> No new war.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Now, what do we do with the _old_ war?


 You were shunned. I think you are talking to the hand. She seems to just be here to spread sunshine and daisies. So she has family in from out of town, can post a diatribe about why she can't post, attacks but will hide behind the men's skirts when the crap hits the fan. And then wonders why others are shunning her. Why does she have special privileges? So far I have seen the argument she is old so she doesn't have to be nice as there is no time for her but the rest of us need to shut up or we are haters and impeding the gospel according to some.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Outside the camp was a recent discussion here on the forums. Some saw them as going too far, some would say they don't go far enough. Then others of us see that the argument is just a matter of degrees of a wrong headed course altogether. I wouldn't eliminate their right to make a case but I sure am going to be clear that I see them as toxic and clarify they do not represent me or my beliefs and why I could use the same verses from a perspective of love or peace. A tool is neutral until a person employs it for personal gain.


Wait, some people here don't think Outside the Camp goes far enough?  Are you talking about the same outside the camp that I'm familiar with?  Even Sola thought they went way too far...




> I took the liberty of posting this in your thread with Bryan since it answers the question he asks directly.  Since he guarantees that you can be free to state your opinions and beliefs without impunity, why don't you and Sola, and Nang, take this opportunity to do so, since all three of you believe the above?  I would think you would want to partake in this opportunity to publicly express your views on other religions and beliefs since you do so on a regular basis in the comfort of threads that get easily buried?
> 
> Look, I don't want a war with you three, and neither does anyone else here.  You just need to tone the rhetoric WAY down regarding your assessments of other people's beliefs and their salvation.  It's not your place to do that within the realm of the guidelines of this forum.  It is disrespectful, and it has got to stop.  That's all, nothing more.  Please, help us get the forum back on track?  Our diversity needs to be okay in order for our online community here to thrive.  We need to find a way to come to some kind of mutual understanding.  Bryan is trying to make that happen.  Please participate and let's be done with the warring.


The diversity is OK with me.  I've never had any issue with it.  I think other people have issues with the fact that we don't think they are Christians and refuse to fellowship with them as such based on what they believe.  

I'm not going to look around for threads to call Catholicism satanic.  In pretty much any normal thread I would tone that down so as not to be offensive on purpose.  Whatever I could say would still be offensive though.  There's no way to tell someone that they believe a false gospel and for it to not be offensive.  It just is what it is.  

But, since you asked and challenged me, I said it.  Anything that is not godly is satanic.  Catholicism is not godly, it does not have the true gospel, thus it is satanic.  I say that out of love for the people who are trapped in the false gospel, with the hope that some of them might repent and believe the true gospel.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> My comment regarding mock or deny was heading it off at the pass before it occurred. Default response from you on my posts is this. And by acting as though it is not connected to Reformed theology is doing just that (denying my experiences). You don't want to see the connection but I lived it.
> 
> When a train derails one works from the accident and tries to see where the problem developed.
> 
> 
> I could have been hard-hearted and like a person suffering a train wreck, walked to every destination. I walked away from my faith for a few years because of the toxic influences some of these churches are to those with very violent tendencies who lack empathy and value power. Then I started to research. There is a weakness in the premises that are exploited by a certain segment of the population that becomes Reformed/ Calvinist/five pointer. It has a historical reputation for being exploited and used as a tool of tyranny over individuals who disagree with it or refuse to uphold its supposed infallibility. There is no reasoning with those who uphold its tenets and become convinced they are right. Arguments seem to just reaffirm the very necessity of being even more firm and forthright and aggressive in the defense of one's beliefs.


OK, this is getting to the heart of our disagreement, I think.  Nobody (here) is saying that wives and children should submit to abuse.  Nobody is saying that there aren't any "Reformed" people that are bad men who manipulate the Bible for their own purposes.  

You seem to see some logical connection between 5-point Calvinism and abuse of power.  I don't see it.

George W. Bush was a mass murderer.  He was also a Methodist... a Wesleyan.  It would be absurd for me to take that anecdote and to say that Arminians support mass murder just because George W. Bush was an Arminian who supported mass murder.  And as someone rightfully pointed out, Woodrow Wilson was at least nominally "Calvinist" and he supported mass murder to.

You're just going to have to take our word on this point.  We aren't teaching that women who are being abused have to submit to it.  And I find it extremely annoying when other evangelicals manipulate Romans 13 to say we must submit to everything the "governing authorities" do as well.

Come on.  This religion subforum is the most anti-statist religious community that I've seen.  We aren't just going to turn around and support other kinds of religious coercion.

And saying "I've seen it" is not an argument.  If you think we're lying to you, prove it.  I have NEVER seen a Reformed Christian teach anything like what you're saying.  Is it possible?  Absolutely.  Do I believe you when you say you've experienced it?  Yes.  Do I think what you experienced is something a majority of Reformed people would reject?  Almost certainly, but even if not... who cares?  Most "Christians" support either the Christian right or the Christian left, both tyrannical, fascistic movements.  So what?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This speaks for itself - lying accusations and all.


I believe that you are sincere, but I can't deny understanding why Nang would not.  I'm more than willing to defend what I believe here.  I won't judge those who do not wish to do so, given the hostile environment of late.

----------


## Deborah K

> Wait, some people here don't think Outside the Camp goes far enough?  Are you talking about the same outside the camp that I'm familiar with?  Even Sola thought they went way too far...
> 
> 
> 
> The diversity is OK with me.  I've never had any issue with it.  I think other people have issues with the fact that we don't think they are Christians and refuse to fellowship with them as such based on what they believe.  
> 
> I'm not going to look around for threads to call Catholicism satanic.  In pretty much any normal thread I would tone that down so as not to be offensive on purpose.  Whatever I could say would still be offensive though.  There's no way to tell someone that they believe a false gospel and for it to not be offensive.  It just is what it is.  
> 
> But, since you asked and challenged me, I said it.  Anything that is not godly is satanic.  Catholicism is not godly, it does not have the true gospel, thus it is satanic.  I say that out of love for the people who are trapped in the false gospel, with the hope that some of them might repent and believe the true gospel.


Then please be willing to take Bryan's offer to explain your position.  These are Bryan's objectives as stated in the OP:




> To allow everyone to expressive their religious views in whole, even if not respectful to others.
> Some members feel the guidelines are too restrictive, this will give them an outlet.
> Allow me to better understand others' positions.
> Allow me to challenge others' positions.
> This will provide data for possible changes to the site guidelines. I have no idea what or how this will go, so it's just an experiment.


Why Nang would take that to mean she is being manipulated is beyond me.  She shouldn't confuse any remarks I've made with Bryan's good intentions, - we're not the Borg for Pete's sake! Read the OP carefully.  He has every intention to make this a win-win situation if at all possible.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...in-first-post)

This man, Bryan, has given all of us an online home and community.  He is bending over backwards to try and make this work.  I would think those who have the issues would be the first to want to participate.

----------


## moostraks

> Wait, some people here don't think Outside the Camp goes far enough?  Are you talking about the same outside the camp that I'm familiar with?  Even Sola thought they went way too far...


Not here per say, but since the list they developed of points of agreement is arbitrary to some extent, based upon the emphasis created by its founder, then for the sake of reasonable argument there is likely some bird in the ear that is behind the increasing number of names on the hall of shame and the inevitable tweaking that occurs when an individual controls the destiny of their own beliefs. OTC is one of those groups that just feeds a progressively intolerant doctrine to its followers as the flesh devours whatever grain of truth they were initially in possession of in the first place.

----------


## Deborah K

> I believe that you are sincere, but I can't deny understanding why Nang would not.  I'm more than willing to defend what I believe here.  I won't judge those who do not wish to do so, given the hostile environment of late.


Both sides have been hostile, it has not been one-sided.

----------


## moostraks

> OK, this is getting to the heart of our disagreement, I think.  Nobody (here) is saying that wives and children should submit to abuse.  Nobody is saying that there aren't any "Reformed" people that are bad men who manipulate the Bible for their own purposes.  
> 
> You seem to see some logical connection between 5-point Calvinism and abuse of power.  I don't see it.
> 
> George W. Bush was a mass murderer.  He was also a Methodist... a Wesleyan.  It would be absurd for me to take that anecdote and to say that Arminians support mass murder just because George W. Bush was an Arminian who supported mass murder.  And as someone rightfully pointed out, Woodrow Wilson was at least nominally "Calvinist" and he supported mass murder to.
> 
> You're just going to have to take our word on this point.  We aren't teaching that women who are being abused have to submit to it.  And I find it extremely annoying when other evangelicals manipulate Romans 13 to say we must submit to everything the "governing authorities" do as well.
> 
> Come on.  This religion subforum is the most anti-statist religious community that I've seen.  We aren't just going to turn around and support other kinds of religious coercion.
> ...


I don't think you are lying. I think you are blind as a bat about what is going on. I think you are young and inexperienced. You might or might not turn out alright. I don't know. Right now, I think you are becoming progressively drawn to a very seductive sentiment of proposals. You have changed and others can take the opportunity to enlighten you for whom you have more respect than I because from me it is worthless to go any further with that part of the discussion.

I don't think all are anything. Unlike the sweeping proposals made by a loud but tiny minority of believers regarding oh say all Catholics, I would never say anything even close to that about any faith. For this I get branded a heretic because I don't hold to your position or many other mainstream ideologies regarding the doctrine is either the beginning or the end of my faith. 

So let me say this again and read it over and over if you need to, my problem with Calvinism/Reformed/Five Point whatever the folks are that make their own self validating so called Biblical beliefs made up from their own self educated religious experiences and then make themselves judge and jury over the spiritual relationships of others and then manipulate the meanings of verses and try to shovel hate off as love and tell me I am an idiot or a nuthatch for disagreeing with them are getting it from their own self validating so called Biblical beliefs up from their own self educated religious experiences and there is no reasoning with it because it is circular. It is self seeking and self fulfilling. There is a corresponding relationship between the historical religion these folks cling to an the exploitation that is being used to feed the flesh of these "believers". My proof is that I lived it and I know wherefore I speak. I have the physical scars to validate it. The churches are out there and they are in no small number by which these occurs. 

It took me awhile to realize where the train derailed and it was a manipulation of terms and exploitation of certain core fundamental tenets of the belief structures first brought forth during the Reformation that the particular stain to which I am addressing resulted. 

As for who cares, why come into the thread Bryan specifically gave for non-cross posting and argue? The original post this now stems from was my particular position on the churches I found unfavorable and a direct response to Bryan who is trying to find a way to make peace around here. However if I have a particular experience I am not allowed to speak without being told I am a moron, a follower, pathetic, stupid, or damned even in a so called free zone. Your rebuttal got drug off over here because neither you, S_F, or nang can tolerate people who do not cower or those who hold certain dissenting opinions without being sure you drive the person into the ground. Which is why I told you not to dismiss my position just because you have no experience with it. 

Swing away Merrill. I know you will and again you cannot change my opinion, and you will not belittle my experiences away.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not here per say,


Where?  I'm honestly curious.  Did someone criticize them for saying believers could disagree on eschatology?  LOL!

In all seriousness, its kind of hard to pardoy that which is almost a parody.  That said, they have like two articles that are good...



> but since the list they developed of points of agreement is arbitrary to some extent, based upon the emphasis created by its founder, then for the sake of reasonable argument there is likely some bird in the ear that is behind the increasing number of names on the hall of shame and the inevitable tweaking that occurs when an individual controls the destiny of their own beliefs. OTC is one of those groups that just feeds a progressively intolerant doctrine to its followers as the flesh devours whatever grain of truth they were initially in possession of in the first place.


Sure, but I'm not sure how to get more extreme than they already are.  That would be tough.




> Both sides have been hostile, it has not been one-sided.


I agree.  I'm not sure why Nang doesn't want to participate, truth be told.  But, its her choice to make.  Maybe she feels like she can't really add anything to what Sola and I have already said.  Maybe she just isn't comfortable with it.  I don't know.  I'll assume a good reason unless/until proven otherwise.  As for me, I already answered, and am more than happy to answer more if Bryan follows up.  I speak only for me.


> I don't think you are lying. I think you are blind as a bat about what is going on. I think you are young and inexperienced. You might or might not turn out alright. I don't know. Right now, I think you are becoming progressively drawn to a very seductive sentiment of proposals. You have changed and others can take the opportunity to enlighten you for whom you have more respect than I because from me it is worthless to go any further with that part of the discussion.
> 
> I don't think all are anything. Unlike the sweeping proposals made by a loud but tiny minority of believers regarding oh say all Catholics, I would never say anything even close to that about any faith. For this I get branded a heretic because I don't hold to your position or many other mainstream ideologies regarding the doctrine is either the beginning or the end of my faith. 
> 
> So let me say this again and read it over and over if you need to, my problem with Calvinism/Reformed/Five Point whatever the folks are that make their own self validating so called Biblical beliefs made up from their own self educated religious experiences and then make themselves judge and jury over the spiritual relationships of others and then manipulate the meanings of verses and try to shovel hate off as love and tell me I am an idiot or a nuthatch for disagreeing with them are getting it from their own self validating so called Biblical beliefs up from their own self educated religious experiences and there is no reasoning with it because it is circular. It is self seeking and self fulfilling. There is a corresponding relationship between the historical religion these folks cling to an the exploitation that is being used to feed the flesh of these "believers". My proof is that I lived it and I know wherefore I speak. I have the physical scars to validate it. The churches are out there and they are in no small number by which these occurs. 
> 
> It took me awhile to realize where the train derailed and it was a manipulation of terms and exploitation of certain core fundamental tenets of the belief structures first brought forth during the Reformation that the particular stain to which I am addressing resulted. 
> 
> As for who cares, why come into the thread Bryan specifically gave for non-cross posting and argue? The original post this now stems from was my particular position on the churches I found unfavorable and a direct response to Bryan who is trying to find a way to make peace around here. However if I have a particular experience I am not allowed to speak without being told I am a moron, a follower, pathetic, stupid, or damned even in a so called free zone. Your rebuttal got drug off over here because neither you, S_F, or nang can tolerate people who do not cower or those who hold certain dissenting opinions without being sure you drive the person into the ground. Which is why I told you not to dismiss my position just because you have no experience with it. 
> ...


Who says I'm belitting your experience?  I'm just saying that its not a "Reformed" thing.  

To me this is like saying that since most Arminians are shills for Bush that this somehow disproves Arminianism.

----------


## moostraks

> Who says I'm belitting your experience?  I'm just saying that its not a "Reformed" thing.  
> 
> To me this is like saying that since most Arminians are shills for Bush that this somehow disproves Arminianism.


You are dismissing the role the church played in allowing and condoning my husband beating the hell out of me. It was a church thing. They knew and a nice little party of elders (men) came by and schooled me on a woman's sacrifice being like Christ's and that I was expected to uphold my part of the marital arrangement and if I died, well our dear Lord and Savior accomplished so much through his death, so...

When I got out of the marriage, I dropped religion. He isn't in the religion, it just explains a manner of comprehending the unknowable)and the doctrines aren't going to save you, it is a matter of hearing His voice. I found Him nearest when I stopped "doing" church. I fleshed out the "how" of this repugnant level of sacrifice being demanded (meaning it is prevalent and I wasn't some anomaly) and I continue to see this smug, self important behavior as characteristic and problematic for those who now don't want to associate with Calvin and have switched to the Reformed title because of re-branding from the stigma of the past history they wish to not have recalled when they embody its worst aspects.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You are dismissing the role the church played in allowing and condoning my husband beating the hell out of me. It was a church thing. They knew and a nice little party of elders (men) came by and schooled me on a woman's sacrifice being like Christ's and that I was expected to uphold my part of the marital arrangement and if I died, well our dear Lord and Savior accomplished so much through his death, so...
> 
> When I got out of the marriage, I dropped religion. He isn't in the religion, it just explains a manner of comprehending the unknowable)and the doctrines aren't going to save you, it is a matter of hearing His voice. I found Him nearest when I stopped "doing" church. I fleshed out the "how" of this repugnant level of sacrifice being demanded (meaning it is prevalent and I wasn't some anomaly) and I continue to see this smug, self important behavior as characteristic and problematic for those who now don't want to associate with Calvin and have switched to the Reformed title because of re-branding from the stigma of the past history they wish to not have recalled when they embody its worst aspects.


Again, I don't discount that your church was seriously messed up.  There are cult-like churches that believe in Calvinism.  Your church sounds like it was messed up.  Stop judging us all based upon what your church did to you.

----------


## moostraks

> Again, I don't discount that your church was seriously messed up.  There are cult-like churches that believe in Calvinism.  Your church sounds like it was messed up.  Stop judging us all based upon what your church did to you.


I ain't "judging us all" anything. There are Calvinists on the forum I have no beef with at all. There are churches are have no dispute with their fruits. It is when someone is arrogant, rude, disrespectful, and narcissistic and covers it with Scripture that I retort with my counter argument about their presuppositions.

----------


## Deborah K

> Stop judging us all based upon what your church did to you.


This isn't a fair statement.  She's not doing that.  She's never done that, unlike others who will remain unnamed.  It has always been about the manner in which certain members proclaim superiority and final authority over every one else's beliefs.  

It would be nice to just learn about someone's beliefs and their differences without being told you're an idiot, a heretic, a hypocrite, a false prophet, etc., etc., etc..

----------


## Terry1

> This isn't a fair statement.  She's not doing that.  She's never done that, unlike others who will remain unnamed.  It has always been about the manner in which certain members proclaim superiority and final authority over every one else's beliefs.  
> 
> It would be nice to just learn about someone's beliefs and their differences without being told you're an idiot, a heretic, a hypocrite, a false prophet, etc., etc., etc..


+ rep!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This isn't a fair statement.  She's not doing that.  She's never done that, unlike others who will remain unnamed.  It has always been about the manner in which certain members proclaim superiority and final authority over every one else's beliefs.


She's wording things in confusing ways.  Its one of those corrolation = causation fallacies.  She's saying that since I am a Calvinist who comes off as harsh and "intolerant" and that her abusive church did the same thing, that therefore I am like her abusive church.  Even though I think her church is wrong on the issue which she is identifying it as abusive based on.



> It would be nice to just learn about someone's beliefs and their differences without being told you're an idiot, a heretic, a hypocrite, a false prophet, etc., etc., etc..


There may be a wrong way to identify false teaching, but it must nonetheless be identified.

----------


## moostraks

> She's wording things in confusing ways.  Its one of those corrolation = causation fallacies.  She's saying that since I am a Calvinist who comes off as harsh and "intolerant" and that her abusive church did the same thing, that therefore I am like her abusive church.  Even though I think her church is wrong on the issue which she is identifying it as abusive based on.
> 
> 
> There may be a wrong way to identify false teaching, but it must nonetheless be identified.


No I am saying that you are often rude. I see your rudeness is substantiated by your philosophy, per your own words. I then say that I have experienced this before and explain that the prior experience leads me to request that you reevaluate your position because I do not think your validation in Scripture, to which I have researched, is upholding your position. If I was crying about my old church all the time then I wouldn't want to have a conversation with any Calvinist/Reformed/So called Biblical/ Five pointer.

So your premise is faulty.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I'm not even accusing you of crying about your old church or saying you should "move on" so  to speak.  All I'm saying is that I don't represent them in any way, shape, or form.  I don't believe wives should submit to abuse.  I think they should flee that situation if at all possible, and I don't think its wrong to use self-defense if necessary.

----------


## moostraks

> I'm not even accusing you of crying about your old church or saying you should "move on" so  to speak.  All I'm saying is that I don't represent them in any way, shape, or form.  I don't believe wives should submit to abuse.  I think they should flee that situation if at all possible, and I don't think its wrong to use self-defense if necessary.


Okay, great. Never thought you represented them so to speak. The actions you describe are not anything I have attributed to you. But glad to hear about it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *The Bible can be shown to support pretty much any position under the sun if you get to be Sole Arbiter of what is literal and what is metaphor.
> *
> And it's even easier if one simply doesn't talk about certain well-known verses at all, as though they're the raving lunatic sister who lives in the Bible's attic.
> 
> No wonder having a thread to yourself scares you.  You can't blend into the crowd when the going gets rough.


_That_ is one of the primary reasons militant anti-Catholic and anti-Orthodox types really hate the Church.  It prevents them from writing their own rules, dogma, interpetations, etc.

----------


## Deborah K

> She's wording things in confusing ways.  Its one of those corrolation = causation fallacies.  She's saying that since I am a Calvinist who comes off as harsh and "intolerant" and that her abusive church did the same thing, that therefore I am like her abusive church.  Even though I think her church is wrong on the issue which she is identifying it as abusive based on.


This experience, this contentious, warring atmosphere as of late in these forums, is reminding her of past experiences with people of similar faith.  That's just something you're going to have to deal with.  I don't take it to mean that she's equating you to it - just that you're reminding her of it.




> There may be a wrong way to identify false teaching, but it must nonetheless be identified


It's been made more than evident that there is a wrong way.

----------


## moostraks

> _That_ is one of the primary reasons militant anti-Catholic and anti-Orthodox types really hate the Church.  It prevents them from writing their own rules, dogma, interpetations, etc.


I went to write my own and found that it was mostly done already

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I went to write my own and found that it was mostly done already


You could always pull an L. Ron Hubbard and start your own religion.

----------


## Terry1

> _That_ is one of the primary reasons militant anti-Catholic and anti-Orthodox types really hate the Church.  It prevents them from writing their own rules, dogma, interpetations, etc.


This is so true and something I never realized until many years after I saw the errors in the reformed churches.  I truly have not seen any church closer to the Biblical truth than the EOC--they are spot on IMO.

----------


## Terry1

> I'm like most of the posters on this thread.  I don't see any religion, race, etc. as unfavorable, rather individuals.  When I was an atheist I was very curious about different religions (I think most are) because I was fascinated about how people think and why they think the way they do.  I still retain that curiousness.
> 
> This is a good idea Bryan, splitting the threads up.  Some of the most outspoken members when it comes to bashing other faiths are very silent about their own personal faiths for fear of ridicule.  I like the way you've given people their own place to speak without fear.  
> 
> Me personally, I'm enticed when I see the beauty of what someone believes.  I get aggravated when some one wants to attract me to their belief by trying to repel me from another.  I've stayed away from the more intense debates in the last month because I found myself doing just that.


I noticed that you were being such a good boy lately too.  I try to be good, but those nasty people just keep pissing me off.   I think I'm improving though.

----------


## RJB

> I noticed that you were being such a good boy lately too.  I try to be good, but those nasty people just keep pissing me off.   I think I'm improving though.


I would like to say it's the Grace of God, but more likely I have to credit the "Ignore button."

----------


## Terry1

Which also brings to mind today something good I did.  I was in my bathroom this morning and noticed a hornet sitting on my window sill.  I sat down and looked at him really close and he just stared back at me like he was really tired.  He took his front arms and starting wiping off his little antenas and then just turned his head to stare me again.  First I thought about just squashing him there since he wasn't too active and just sort of hanging out on the window sill.  Then I felt guilty looking at him there so weak and helpless thinking I should try and free him.  

So I started talking to the bee/wasp and said to him--well, if you want your freedom you're going to have hop on this Q-Tip.  Slowly I placed that Q-Tip under his feet and he walked right up on it as if he understood me.  I opened the window and set him free.   Yes--I liberated a bee today.

----------


## Terry1

> Since the spirit of this thread and it's intentions are to speak frankly with regards to the dangers of certain faiths,  I will add my own thoughts focused on Christian faiths with the awareness that the things I am about to write will offend the sensibilities and bruise the pride of some of the readers.  My intention is not to cause ill feelings or turn people away, but rather to speak the truth in love knowing that sometimes the truth can make us feel uncomfortable or insulted.  But if we are to face our errors and turn to the truth, then we need to be made aware where we error so that we can make the appropriate turning of our head, which is the definition of the word metanoia (repentance, in the biblical Greek). 
> 
> So I ask for your forbearance and your forgiveness for what I am about to say which is truly done out of love and concern and for no other reason then to help my fellow brethren turn away from the broad road of relativism and toward the narrow and straight road leading to the Kingdom of Heaven.
> 
> We are our deepest held beliefs.  We become the doctrines we eschew.  
> 
> When one's most sacred beliefs are that human beings are totally depraved and less than dog feces, then that is how they will eventually treat other people. 
> 
> If our belief is that there is no reason or real value in doing works of love because these are just filthy rags, then we will not put effort into doing such works of love and simply consider it unnecessary.
> ...


_You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice._  ++ reps!

----------


## moostraks

> You could always pull an L. Ron Hubbard and start your own religion.


Ugh! I ended up with one of those books years ago. I was 16 and out to the movie theater with friends. A very haggard looking salesman with a very pathetic briefcase approached me. So, feeling sorry for him, I offered to purchase one of the books he was selling. After a few days I decided to read it partially out of curiosity and partially out of boredom of the moment. After 3 pages I tossed it. (Not in the garbage as I have a high regard for the effort no matter how ridiculous or nonsensical for writing) But it took such a circuitous approach, at least 3 pages as I recall it, worth to tell the reader that they were going to be teaching through a simplistic straight forward approach, and that is where they lost me. If you need to waste my time with that much language to tell me in such a convoluted manner how simplistic the rest was going to be, well then I figured the rest would not be worth the effort required to glean anything from and would be just as truthful.

----------


## pcosmar

> You could always pull an L. Ron Hubbard and start your own religion.


I might if I thought the world needed yet another religion.. but I do not..
I would like to see believers have less religion.

But even the organized religions,,that I disagree strongly with are not near as offensive to me as the twisted doctrine  S F posted in another thread.

It is no wonder that he crosses swords with so many diverse Christians here.

----------


## pcosmar

> Ugh! I ended up with one of those books years ago. .


I liked some of his Sci-Fi.. had he only kept to writing entertaining fiction,,,

Got no use for his religion.

----------


## pcosmar

> So I started talking to the bee/wasp and said to him--well, if you want your freedom you're going to have hop on this Q-Tip.  Slowly I placed that Q-Tip under his feet and he walked right up on it as if he understood me.  I opened the window and set him free.   Yes--I liberated a bee today.


Bees I will often help/rescue. 

Wasps,, not so much.

----------


## phill4paul

> Bees I will often help/rescue. 
> 
> Wasps,, not so much.


  I'm fairly forgiving. I offer a chance. I was working on my second story window ( three bucks up) last fall when a warm spell brought the nest out. I asked them over and over again just to chill out and I would be done soon. I finally looked up at twenty or so that made their way out of the framework and were very intent on looking straight at me. A few decided to make a foray against me and I decided it was time for tougher measures. I wish they hadn't. Were it not for fixing the windows we never would have come in contact.

----------


## Nang

> I'm fairly forgiving. I offer a chance. I was working on my second story window ( three bucks up) last fall when a warm spell brought the nest out. I asked them over and over again just to chill out and I would be done soon. I finally looked up at twenty or so that made their way out of the framework and were very intent on looking straight at me. A few decided to make a foray against me and I decided it was time for tougher measures. I wish they hadn't. Were it not for fixing the windows we never would have come in contact.


Want to hear my testimony with hornets?

Had some very aggressive ones who made the mistake of nesting under my home. 

We quickly identified and became aware of each other, and one day when they were showing especial  hostile intent to dominate and thereby take possession of my home,  war broke out between me and their entire army.  

I hosed their nest using heavy volume, and they attacked me, getting caught in my hair and biting me and stinging me over 2 dozen times. 

But can you guess who still owns and dominates my house. 

Right.

Me. 

For I am greater than  any colony of hornets, for I was created by God purposefully to exert dominion over such lower creatures, and greater is He who in me, than he who is in the world.  I John 4:4

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Since the spirit of this thread and it's intentions are to speak frankly with regards to the dangers of certain faiths,  I will add my own thoughts focused on Christian faiths with the awareness that the things I am about to write will offend the sensibilities and bruise the pride of some of the readers.  My intention is not to cause ill feelings or turn people away, but rather to speak the truth in love knowing that sometimes the truth can make us feel uncomfortable or insulted.  But if we are to face our errors and turn to the truth, then we need to be made aware where we error so that we can make the appropriate turning of our head, which is the definition of the word metanoia (repentance, in the biblical Greek). 
> 
> So I ask for your forbearance and your forgiveness for what I am about to say which is truly done out of love and concern and for no other reason then to help my fellow brethren turn away from the broad road of relativism and toward the narrow and straight road leading to the Kingdom of Heaven.
> 
> We are our deepest held beliefs.  We become the doctrines we hold dear.  
> 
> When one's most sacred beliefs are that human beings are totally depraved and less than dog feces, then that is how they will eventually treat other people. 
> 
> If our belief is that there is no reason or real value in doing works of love because these are just filthy rags, then we will not put effort into doing such works of love and simply consider it unnecessary.
> ...


+rep  ~hugs~

----------


## Terry1

> Want to hear my testimony with hornets?
> 
> Had some very aggressive ones who made the mistake of nesting under my home. 
> 
> We quickly identified and became aware of each other, and one day when they were showing especial  hostile intent to dominate and thereby take possession of my home,  war broke out between me and their entire army.  
> 
> I hosed their nest using heavy volume, and they attacked me, getting caught in my hair and biting me and stinging me over 2 dozen times. 
> 
> But can you guess who still owns and dominates my house. 
> ...


Bee hater!

----------


## HVACTech

> I'm fairly forgiving. I offer a chance. I was working on my second story window ( three bucks up) last fall when a warm spell brought the nest out. I asked them over and over again just to chill out and I would be done soon. I finally looked up at twenty or so that made their way out of the framework and were very intent on looking straight at me. A few decided to make a foray against me and I decided it was time for tougher measures. I wish they hadn't. Were it not for fixing the windows we never would have come in contact.


not fair!
I live in the south, and before I open a panel, I smack it to see if wasps come out. 
ants and black widows also like the heat of refrigeration equipment. 
when I am at work, I take no prisoners!

----------


## Natural Citizen

I have all kinds of honeybees now. Lucky me. Seriously. The more the merrier, I always say. Blackberry blossoms are covered with them. 

Up to 20 million bees swarm after truck overturns in Delaware; people told to stay away

----------


## Terry1

> I have all kinds of honeybees now. Lucky me. Seriously. The more the merrier, I always say. Blackberry blossoms are covered with them. 
> 
> Up to 20 million bees swarm after truck overturns in Delaware; people told to stay away


Oh they were honey bees!  I'm glad they had some bee handlers there who knew what to do instead of killing them.  No bees = no food!

----------


## Terry1

> not fair!
> I live in the south, and before I open a panel, I smack it to see if wasps come out. 
> ants and black widows also like the heat of refrigeration equipment. 
> when I am at work, I take no prisoners!


One time I was weed whacking in my back yard and whacked over an underground bees nest.  They were mad at me for that.  Pretty soon they were all over me and I was running uphill in my backyard tearing my clothes off.  As I was running for my life I noticed the old guy next door staring as me as I was trying to make it to the house and jump in a hot shower to get the rest of them off of me.

I can't imagine what my neighbor was thinking, because he couldn't see the bees on me--just me running up hill tearing my clothes off. lol  Thank goodness he moved away.  That was embarrassing.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FF--reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, chosen by predestination while in this life and having no free will-- is Calvin's doctrine, whether you or anyone else chooses to admit that because it's certainly not biblical. You can search anywhere and this is a historical fact. The early and ancient church teaching's on the 66 books of the Bible are correct, even if you don't agree with some of their traditions and practices.
> 
>  You three have worked very hard giving Calvinists a bad name in here and now you simply want to deny Calvinism at this point when it's convenient for you to do so, when it's not *Calvinism* per-say that's actually the problem or the issue here at all. It's never been about all Calvinists being evil or bad people--it's about a few that have behaved in such a way that it's cast a negative shadow upon the whole who believe this doctrine.
> 
>  Personally--I know that there are many God loving Calvinists who see just as darkly through the glass in this life as many other God loving Christians do as well. Our interpretations are not what saves us--our love for God and the brethren in Christ is though and the good that we do according the commandments and will of God.


A lot of people who are more Calvinistic in their soteriology dislike the term "Calvinism" because it gives the conniotation that someone is following Calvin.  I'm usually kind of indifferent to this, and so am fine with using the term "Calvinist" as a descriptive term.  But when I have someone falsely saying that "Calvinists follow Calvin" I have to be careful.




> I'm like most of the posters on this thread.  I don't see any religion, race, etc. as unfavorable, rather individuals.  When I was an atheist I was very curious about different religions (I think most are) because I was fascinated about how people think and why they think the way they do.  I still retain that curiousness.
> 
> This is a good idea Bryan, splitting the threads up.  Some of the most outspoken members when it comes to bashing other faiths are very silent about their own personal faiths for fear of ridicule.  I like the way you've given people their own place to speak without fear.  
> 
> Me personally, I'm enticed when I see the beauty of what someone believes.  I get aggravated when some one wants to attract me to their belief by trying to repel me from another.  I've stayed away from the more intense debates in the last month because I found myself doing just that.


How do you interpret Matthew 28:19-20?




> Since the spirit of this thread and it's intentions are to speak frankly with regards to the dangers of certain faiths,  I will add my own thoughts focused on Christian faiths with the awareness that the things I am about to write will offend the sensibilities and bruise the pride of some of the readers.  My intention is not to cause ill feelings or turn people away, but rather to speak the truth in love knowing that sometimes the truth can make us feel uncomfortable or insulted.  But if we are to face our errors and turn to the truth, then we need to be made aware where we error so that we can make the appropriate turning of our head, which is the definition of the word metanoia (repentance, in the biblical Greek). 
> 
> So I ask for your forbearance and your forgiveness for what I am about to say which is truly done out of love and concern and for no other reason then to help my fellow brethren turn away from the broad road of relativism and toward the narrow and straight road leading to the Kingdom of Heaven.
> 
> We are our deepest held beliefs.  We become the doctrines we hold dear.  
> 
> When one's most sacred beliefs are that human beings are totally depraved and less than dog feces, then that is how they will eventually treat other people. 
> 
> If our belief is that there is no reason or real value in doing works of love because these are just filthy rags, then we will not put effort into doing such works of love and simply consider it unnecessary.
> ...


With respect, there are a bunch of strawmen here.

What exactly is a hyper-calvinist?  I've decided that this term just annoys the heck out of me.  I know of some Arminians who would consider all "5-pointers" hyper-calvinists.  I know of some 5-point infras that consider all supras to be hyper-calvinist.  I've seen supras (such as James White) say that those who say Arminians are unsaved are hyper-calvinists.  I've also seen some supras say that all who deny "common grace" or that God loves all men without exception to be "hyper-calvinists."  And then you've got some people, usually fairly extreme, but I actually agree with them in this case, who limit hyper-calvinism to those who deny either the duty to preach the gospel to all men, or who deny the duty of all men to believe the gospel.

Simply put, "hyper" usually just means "more extreme than me."  I don't agree with Sola_Fide on several points of theology, but I'm not going to call him a hyper (unless I'm joking), its just a silly pejorative that works as a substitute for actual debate.  Similarly, I don't agree with those Calvinists who say God desires to save all men without exception or who use "sufficient for all" terminology to describe the atonement, but I'm not going to call them "hypo-calvinists" either, which is again an attack term that's a replacement for real debate.

Think about Sola_Fide for a moment.  Phil Johnson (I don't agree with him) is a Calvinist and would consider Sola a hyper-calvinist.  Has Sola ever said that holiness was unimportant, that there's no value in doing works, or anything else of this nature?  Of course not. Can you name me one person who says anything like this?  I'm honestly not aware of any.  Its a strawman designed to discredit us.  As Sola_Fide has explained multiple times, because you and most of the people in your church are not saved, you confuse justification and sanctification.  You falsely assume that because no works are required for justification that works are not required of the Christian.  This is a serious, and damnable, theological error.  Was Paul saying works were unimportant when he wrote Galatians 1:6-9, Galatians 3:1-2, and Galatains 5:1-2?  Or Romans 4:5?  Obviously not.  And you know it.  But, were Paul not a Bible writer, you would falsely accuse him of being an antinomian.  Because you don't understand the Bible.




> They believe that God created the reprobates in order to show them the elect how much favor they have gotten from Him


Yes.  Paul believed that to (Romans 9:22-23.)  And if Paul wasn't a Biblical writer, you'd have a problem with him to.  




> that God desires to kill His own Son and destroy His children so that these special elect may see how much love He supposedly has.  And their status as chosen is not on account of anything they did but because they were chosen by God to be the elect. They fool themselves in believing it, thinking God is under the control of their own inflated minds. It is the most obscene form of pride and completely antithetical to the spirit of Christianity and the teachings of the saints.


This is just blatantly absurd.  First of all, the reprobates are not God's children.  Second of all, none of us claim to have any idea who the reprobate are.  I told you above that you are not saved, and I stand by that statement, but _I do not know if you are among the elect or not. _ If (this would not occur) God told me you were reprobate, would I be preaching the gospel to you?  No, I'd stop talking to you and move on.  It is in the hope that you are of the elect that I take the time to have this discussion with you.  How in the world is it "prideful" to say that God is in control of what people think, say, and do?  Is it not far more prideful to say YOU control these things?

I'm not seeing the pride here.  Admittedly, I may have pride when I think of you as unintelligent because you make clearly absurd arguments such as this.  CONDITIONAL election is the height of human pride.




> These Calvinist beliefs are completely against the ideas of humility, love, mercy, mutual respect, fair justice, appreciation of the human soul, and the value of human life which are the trademarks of Christianity. Their beliefs instead are the root of all prejudices and bigotry and the reason why so many people in the west in the past few generations have left faith in God and turned to materialism, relativism and atheism.  Calvinism is the spawn of the devil, and the doctrines of Tulip have led and continue to lead multitudes to perdition and further from the Church which is the Body of Christ.


Prove these accusations please.


> Their's is a serious spiritual sickness, with its foundation stemming from vainglory and pride, the mother of all demons.  The irony is that in one breath they call mankind totally depraved and in the same breath declare their elect status.  They may fool themselves but God will not be mocked, and He will judge them by their acts, their works, and how they have treated others, and by the same measure.  Woe to those who have fallen for the satanic doctrines of John Calvin and his ilk.  Woe to those whose faith is based on pride of election yet forget the commandments of The Lord which are forgiveness, mercy, charity and love, thinking they are saved while all the while the demons laugh at their spiritual blindness and  their headlong falling.


When have we said God's commands are not important?  You are a fool, and I believe I am justified in calling you such.  Not because the commandments  do not apply to me.  But because you are an agent of Satan who makes false accusations.  Mods, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.  Its these kinds of posts, the ones that make up silly strawmen that the writer knows are false, that warrant and deserve personal attacks.  TER is a false teacher and John the Baptist would have no qualms about calling him a "viper."


> All heterodox faiths (that is, those which are not Holy Orthodoxy which is the true apostolic faith established by Christ and handed down for the world through His Apostles) lack certain things and fall short of the fullness and wholeness of the faith.  That is not to say that the Holy Spirit is not active within the heterodox (or even in those of entirely completely different religions or lack of), or that these same will not or cannot be saved outside the Orthodox Church.  If and when they are saved, however, it will be within the Orthodox Church, grafted into the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of Christ, if not in this life, then on the last day, for there is one bride of Christ and one body of Christ and one Church, in one baptism, one mind, one faith, one belief, one truth, and one spirit.  This is the gospel truth.  This is the Holy Orthodox Church.  This is the Church of the Apostles and the martyrs.  This may sound like boasting, but I am speaking the truth in love.  I don't wish to discourage those who are not Orthodox, but I also do not want them to be led into a false sense of security either.   The Church does not bend the truths handed down to her because of the spirit of the age or the sensibilities of the modern psyche.  Rather, she holds onto the teachings handed down and defended by Christ's holy saints so that the world may have access to the apostolic teachings of the faith. Those who feel their custom design Christianity and cafeteria Christianity is all that is needed are following the pluralistic and relativistic spirit of the age which is anathema to the witness of the Christian Church since the earliest days.  This is not a condemnation, for again I say that God alone knows the heart of the individual and God will save whomever He wills.   Though the Orthodox know where the Church is, they do not pretend to know where it's boundaries are or will be on the Last Day.  Nor do they make exclusive claims over the Holy Spirit.  I am certain many who have never even heard of the Orthodox Church will make it before me and I am the first to say that my salvation is no way guaranteed.  Instead, I run the race falling often, looking for guidance, instruction and healing from the Holy Traditions of the faith which include the Holy Scriptures and the sacraments, aware always of my failings and sinfulness and praying always for mercy from God.
> 
> That being said, the most disgraceful and most rejected faith which claims to follow Christ that I am aware of is by far Calvinism.  These poor souls require prayer, almsgiving and fasting, the three very things they doctrinally consider dead works and filthy rags.  For this reason I hold such an unfavorable view of this religion, not because they go against my own opinions or thoughts (which are fallible and often times wrong) but because they go against the teachings of the saints of the Church and the correct and orthodox interpretation of the Scriptures.


I'm just going to content myself with laughing at you now, because this is blatantly absurd.  Quote scripture, and if you cannot, repent.  You put on a facade of kindness and charity, but when given the opportunity you show your true, Satanic colors.  YOu are arguing against men made of straw, none of us actually believe the things you accuse us of, yet you hurl accusations anyway, and you think you are justified because we are not "Orthodox" (the name of this church is probably the funniest joke I've ever heard, as they are far from orthodox.)  I can't even argue with you because you aren't even arguing.  You are simply being a fool.  You know what the true gospel  is.  Jesus Christ came to REDEEM sinners.  It was finished on the cross.  There is nothing you can do to justify yourself, or to ensure your justification.  Repent and believe this gospel, conditioned on what Christ did rather than what you can do, receive his imputed righteousness, and you will be saved.  And if you do this, you will surely have good works as evidence.  Until then, YOUR good works (Not mine, for I believe the gospel) are nothing but filthy rags.  Once you believe the gospel, your works can please God: they MERIT nothing from him, but once you are declared righteous, your works are not filthy and repulsive to God anymore.  Until then, that is exactly what they are.

John 10:15 and John 10:27 is more than sufficient to prove "Calvinism" (this so called "doctrine of demons".)  Paul need not even be quoted, though his quotes certainly help.  Many people who I consider to be my brothers and sisters in Christ are ignorant of these doctrines or do not understand them.  But they do not choose not to understand.  You choose not to understand, and your hatred has been made clear.  Repent.  Please.  I have called you out on your wickedness, I have gotten frustrated, and I have probably sinned in anger, but I still care about you.  I don't want you to perish, and I certainly take no joy in the fact that you seem to be on the broad path.  But it is not too late.  Bow the knee to Christ, lest you perish.

----------


## RJB

> How do you interpret Matthew 28:19-20?


I agree with it of course.  How does that go against what I said.  Show me the beauty of your faith, not the strawmen of another.  I would say TER, when he's at his best, does this very well.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I agree with it of course.  How does that go against what I said.  Show me the beauty of your faith, not the strawmen of another.  I would say TER, when he's at his best, does this very well.


Did you see TER's post in this thread?  He's good at masking it, but he showed what he really believes here.  Its filled with blatant strawmen and vicious hatred.  Come out of Babylon.

----------


## Terry1

> A lot of people who are more Calvinistic in their soteriology dislike the term "Calvinism" because it gives the conniotation that someone is following Calvin.  I'm usually kind of indifferent to this, and so am fine with using the term "Calvinist" as a descriptive term.  But when I have someone falsely saying that "Calvinists follow Calvin" I have to be careful.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you interpret Matthew 28:19-20?
> 
> 
> 
> With respect, there are a bunch of strawmen here.
> ...

----------


## RJB

> Did you see TER's post in this thread?  He's good at masking it, but he showed what he really believes here.  Its filled with blatant strawmen and vicious hatred.


I said when he's at his best.  He isn't perfect.




> Come out of Babylon


Get a grip, kid.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 


FF is one of those people you can only shake your head and laugh about.  I like having him on ignore because I don't have to read the ignorant and extremely poorly thought out posts like the one you quoted.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FF is one of those people you can only shake your head and laugh about.  I like having him on ignore because I don't have to read the ignorant and extremely poorly thought out posts like the one you quoted.


Keep laughing to your own destruction...

*Shakes dust from feet, chuckles at HB's stupidity, moves on*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I would like to say it's the Grace of God, but more likely I have to credit the "Ignore button."


ditto.  I would likely have many headaches from SMFH-ing and facepalming by now without that lovely ignore button.

----------


## James Madison

> Does what well?  Deny the gospel of the righteousness found in Jesus Christ, alone.   Yeah.
> 
> To each his own . . . let TER worship what he wants to worship.
> 
> But TER is an idolator and a false teacher who only wants to lure and entrap souls into his false religion.
> 
> And his biggest threat are Reformers who stand ready and able to expose all the EO mysticisms and falsehoods.
> 
>  Thus the vilification and malice shown forth against us, in his post.


Why are you here, Nang? I don't mean this to be demeaning; I am genuinely curious. I never see you post outside of the religion subforum. Are you a fan of Ron Paul? Are you interested in things like limited government, free markets, and private property? Because you do know this is a _political_ website, yes?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I think it is a selfish waste of time. to be caught up in and worried about the "hereafter"  we see SO much banter about the specifics of being "saved"
> it seems like immortality is the ultimate goal. and that rings selfish to me. 
> I view a persons "Religion" as nothing more than their belief system. as an American, I am compelled to respect all of them. 
> in our long history, we humans have invented MANY gods. 
> they cannot all be right.. at the end of the day. 
> this tells me it is a part of our nature.  
> 
> I adopted Deism when I found out what it was.
> 
> ...


Good post.   There are elements of truth and beauty in just about all religions.

----------


## RJB

> Does what well?  Deny the gospel of the righteousness found in Jesus Christ, alone.   Yeah.
> 
> To each his own . . . let TER worship what he wants to worship.
> 
> But TER is an idolator and a false teacher who only wants to lure and entrap souls into his false religion.
> 
> And his biggest threat are Reformers who stand ready and able to expose all the EO mysticisms and falsehoods.
> 
>  Thus the vilification and malice shown forth against us, in his post.


Get a grip too.  Show me the beauty of being a reformist if you can.  Quit gossipping about TER.

----------


## RJB

> ditto.  I would likely have many headaches from SMFH-ing and facepalming by now without that lovely ignore button.


I took them off for a few days.  A pointless endeavor.  Some say it's cowardly.  But why debate with someone who won't listen to your responses and tries to "preach the Gospel" by making strawmen of my faith and gossiping?  It's either ignore or invest in Tylenol.  LOL

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Get a grip too.  Show me the beauty of being a reformist if you can.  Quit gossipping about TER.


Why don't you tell your Babylonian puppet master to stop gossping about us?

I just about lost my patience with TER after that pathetic post.  I have no real interest in talking to him anymore.  Nothing more I can say can help him.

----------


## Nang

> Get a grip too.  Show me the beauty of being a reformist if you can.  Quit gossipping about TER.


Are you provoking me, like TER, to break Bryan's guidelines, or giving me a clue as to what Bryan is looking for from our responses?

If so, I admit I failed and responded to a member when it was forbidden in the OP.

It is very hard to have one's faith totally maligned and called demonic, without a human response.

Sorry, Bryan.  Sorry RJB.

(Not sorry TER and Terry.)

----------


## Terry1

> Are you provoking me, like TER, to break Bryan's guidelines, or giving me a clue as to what Bryan is looking for from our responses?
> 
> If so, I admit I failed and responded to a member when it was forbidden in the OP.
> 
> It is very hard to have one's faith totally maligned and called demonic, without a human response.
> 
> Sorry, Bryan.  Sorry RJB.
> 
> (Not sorry TER and Terry.)


LOL

----------


## RJB

Is it a full moon?  Take it up with TER.  Why are you nagging me about that one post   I really don't feel like this BS tonight. Usually TER does a good job explaining his religion as in his "humility" and "Love threads."

Start a thread showing me what is good about being a reformist.   




> Why don't you tell your Babylonian puppet master to stop gossping about us?
> 
> I just about lost my patience with TER after that pathetic post.  I have no real interest in talking to him anymore.  Nothing more I can say can help him.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why are you here, Nang? I don't mean this to be demeaning; I am genuinely curious. I never see you post outside of the religion subforum. Are you a fan of Ron Paul? Are you interested in things like limited government, free markets, and private property? Because you do know this is a _political_ website, yes?


I don't post outside of the religion forum either.

----------


## Terry1

> Does what well?  Deny the gospel of the righteousness found in Jesus Christ, alone.   Yeah.
> 
> To each his own . . . let TER worship what he wants to worship.
> 
> But TER is an idolator and a false teacher who only wants to lure and entrap souls into his false religion.
> 
> And his biggest threat are Reformers who stand ready and able to expose all the EO mysticisms and falsehoods.
> 
>  Thus the vilification and malice shown forth against us, in his post.


You do realize that RJB (whom your speaking to) is a Catholic don't you Nang?  The EOC and the Catholics believe in the same things for the most part.  I'm not speaking for RJB, but I'm sure he would agree with me on this as well.  This is where you fall short in understanding who's-who in here and accusing people by broad brushing them with your spewage.

----------


## Nang

> Why are you here, Nang? I don't mean this to be demeaning; I am genuinely curious. I never see you post outside of the religion subforum. Are you a fan of Ron Paul? Are you interested in things like limited government, free markets, and private property? Because you do know this is a _political_ website, yes?


Since when do political interests determine one's religious rights?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Are you provoking me, like TER, to break Bryan's guidelines, or giving me a clue as to what Bryan is looking for from our responses?
> 
> If so, I admit I failed and responded to a member when it was forbidden in the OP.
> 
> It is very hard to have one's faith totally maligned and called demonic, without a human response.
> 
> Sorry, Bryan.  Sorry RJB.
> 
> (Not sorry TER and Terry.)


I'm not apologizing to anybody.  Either Bryan REALLY didn't think this through, or he realized this would happen.  False accusations need to be addressed.  I  don't think he's going to, but he can ban me if he wants to.  That would be his prerogative.  I won't let accusations like that go unchallenged.




> LOL


Stop laughing Terry.

I like you.  You believe in liberty.  Real liberty, not the false definitions of "liberty" used by neocons and liberals.  I can't help but like somebody who believes in that.  In this area you're head of 90% of the country, minimum.  

But, I cannot put political liberty ahead of the gospel itself.  When I die and go to heaven, the State will be gone.  I won't need to worry about it anymore, it will no longer have any hold over me.  Though I attack the intellectual foundations of the State, and I attack the intellectual foundations of Christians who are deceived into complacency towards or downright acceptance of this wickedness,  I also realize that no ethical issue is as important as the gospel.  The State is only oppressing us for one lifetime, but for all of eternity we will never fully grasp the amazing nature of God's grace.  That is my first focus.  This is why I post the things I post.  This is a serious matter and you need not lie.



> Is it a full moon?  Take it up with TER.  Why are you nagging me about that one post   I really don't feel like this BS tonight. Usually TER does a good job explaining his religion as in his "humility" and "Love threads."
> 
> Start a thread showing me what is good about being a reformist.


Do you agree with what TER posted or not?  Please give me a straight answer.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't post outside of the religion forum either.


Why not?  Do you think its somehow wrong to do so?  Or do you just not feel like it?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Since when do political interests determine one's religious rights?


I think they're just curious what you believe politically, and if you believe the same things you do.  I know you've answered this for me in personal emails, but I don't remember if you've shared any of your political views here.

----------


## RJB

I'm not trying to provoke anyone tonight.  I meant (and said) in general, TER, *AT HIS BEST,* does a good job explaining his faith and posting threads on his faith.  Most of these threads have no mention of other faiths.  It's *usually* pure Orthodox belief.  *I wasn't including his post in this thread.*

I genuinely enjoy reading how others see things and understanding their view points.  I have a thread asking Calvinists to talk about their spiritual life and got on people who jumped in with negative remarks.

I've never said anything bad about Calvinists in general.  Usually when I get snarky, it is when the "debates" have gotten personal.




> Are you provoking me, like TER, to break Bryan's guidelines, or giving me a clue as to what Bryan is looking for from our responses?
> 
> If so, I admit I failed and responded to a member when it was forbidden in the OP.
> 
> It is very hard to have one's faith totally maligned and called demonic, without a human response.
> 
> Sorry, Bryan.  Sorry RJB.
> 
> (Not sorry TER and Terry.)

----------


## James Madison

> I don't post outside of the religion forum either.


That's too bad.




> Since when does political interests determine one's religious rights?


What does this have to do with religious rights? You come to a website named after a _politician_ and manage to pile up 1500 posts, all in the religion subforum, in two months. If you're only here to debate religion, there are websites devoted to such discussion.

----------


## Terry1

> Since when do political interests determine one's religious rights?


You don't have "rights" in here--you have the privilege of being an invited guest in Bryan's private forum.  This is not your democracy here--this is private property and you're a guest in someone's house here.

You don't have a right to come tacking your dirt in his house unless he gives you permission--capish?

----------


## RJB

> Do you agree with what TER posted or not?  Please give me a straight answer.


I'll call TER's mom and have her give him a spanking.  That'll teach him.  Is that straight enough?

----------


## Nang

> I think they're just curious what you believe politically, and if you believe the same things you do.  I know you've answered this for me in personal emails, but I don't remember if you've shared any of your political views here.


After being here just a short while, I have discovered political blood in my body, I did not realize I had!  

Mostly by discovering the hypocrisy exhibited by those who say they stand for liberty, freedoms, and tolerance of free speech, but then proving so inhospitable, vicious, and intolerant of other views and overtly expressing desire to extinguish the rights of others to post diverse religious views.  It has been quite shocking!

It is exactly what my husband is going to discuss with the Pauls. . .  how can this be?  Is the Liberty movement just another political farce?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's too bad.


I agree.  I know Sola knows stuff about politics, and that he just really doesn't feel like talking about it.  I'd love to hear Sola's thoughts on some of the political topics, and especially his reactions to some of the most extreme cases of police abuse in this country.  But I know he's not as interested in those topics right now.  Which is his prerogative.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'll call TER's mom and have her give him a spanking.  That'll teach him.  Is that straight enough?


LOL!!

----------


## Nang

> That's too bad.
> 
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with religious rights? You come to a website named after a _politician_ and manage to pile up 1500 posts, all in the religion subforum, in two months. If you're only here to debate religion, there are websites devoted to such discussion.


Are you demanding I leave RPF on those grounds?

----------


## Nang

> You don't have "rights" in here--you have the privilege of being an invited guest in Bryan's private forum.  This is not your democracy here--this is private property and you're a guest in someone's house here.
> 
> You don't have a right to come tacking your dirt in his house unless he gives you permission--capish?


I did not realize I needed permission.

However, privately Bryan has expressed his pleasure that I am posting here.

Does your nasty opinion override his hospitality?

----------


## James Madison

> Are you demanding I leave RPF on those grounds?


I've met people with huge persecution complexes before, but you definitely take the cake. So eager to get offended and whine about how everyone's keeping you down, while oblivious to the reasons no one here likes you.

----------


## Terry1

> I'll call TER's mom and have her give him a spanking.  That'll teach him.  Is that straight enough?


If TER's Greek Mom is anything like mine was---she'll be hunting down anyone whose bullied him with horse whip. You don't mess with the Greeks.

----------


## Nang

> I agree.  I know Sola knows stuff about politics, and that he just really doesn't feel like talking about it.  I'd love to hear Sola's thoughts on some of the political topics, and especially his reactions to some of the most extreme cases of police abuse in this country.  But I know he's not as interested in those topics right now.  Which is his prerogative.


Time priorities must be set, if one wants to devote one's day to serious bible/theological studies, daily family duties & friendship obligations, and giving enough time to witness online to the sovereign grace of God.  Getting involved in politics has never been within my time limitations.  Sorry.

----------


## RJB

> If TER's Greek Mom is anything like mine was---she'll be hunting down anyone whose bullied him with horse whip. You don't mess with the Greeks.


A silly question got a silly answer.

----------


## Terry1

> I did not realize I needed permission.
> 
> However, privately Bryan has expressed his pleasure that I am posting here.
> 
> Does your nasty opinion override his hospitality?


No, but I feel sorry for Bryan having to run behind you with a mop and a broom constantly too.

----------


## acptulsa

> Time priorities must be set, if one wants to devote one's day to serious bible/theological studoes, daily family duties & friendship obligations, and giving enough time to witness online to the sovereign grace of God.  Getting involved in politics has never been within my time limitations.  Sorry.


Praise be to God Almighty in His Infinite Wisdom!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You don't have "rights" in here--you have the privilege of being an invited guest in Bryan's private forum.  This is not your democracy here--this is private property and you're a guest in someone's house here.
> 
> You don't have a right to come tacking your dirt in his house unless he gives you permission--capish?


Show me where Bryan says you must be interested in politics to post here and I'll accept your point




> After being here just a short while, I have discovered political blood in my body, I did not realize I had!  
> 
> Mostly by discovering the hypocrisy exhibited by those who say they stand for liberty, freedoms, and tolerance of free speech, being so vicious and intolerant of other views and overtly expressing desire to extinguish the rights of others to post diverse religious views.  It has been quite shocking!
> 
> It is exactly what my husband is going to discuss with the Pauls. . .  how can this be?  Is the Liberty movement just another political farce?


I was a little afraid of this being your reaction.  Let me comment on it briefly.

First off, I know you respect me and you respect Sola.  Both of us completely reject the State as an unbiblical organization.  I don't know how much interaction you've had with erowe1, but I can tell you that he's a Calvinist as well and that Sola has stated on multiple occasions that he respects him.  Erowe1 also rejects the State as an unbiblical organization.  C Jay Engel, similarly, blogs at  ReformedLibertarian.com.  Not only is he a Calvinist, but he self-describes as a Clarkian, and he also believes the State to be unbiblical.  All of the above support Ron Paul as well. 

Here's the thing about liberty, it attracts a lot of different types of people, simply because of what it is.  The ONLY thing a libertarian must believe (to be a libertarian) is two propositions.  The first proposition is that the initiation of force against an innocent person is immoral.  The second proposition is that private property rights exist via homesteading and can be transferred by peaceful trade, and that to violate such rights are wrong.  Period.  That's it.  It doesn't matter (as far as libertarianism is concerned) HOW one comes to these conclusions, only that they come to these conclusions.  Some people support liberty because of natural law, some because of utilitarian reasons, and some (myself, Sola, erowe1, and C Jay Engel, the late John Robbins, and many others would fall into this category) believe the Bible teaches these ideas and so accept them.  Its only natural, becaue of this, that there are going to be all types of people who are attracted to libertarianism.  Conservatism mostly attracts religious people (though I don't believe conservatism is Biblical) and liberalism mostly attracts secular people.  This is because conservatism generally wants to use State force to impose religious values,  and liberalism generally wants to use force to impose "secular" values.  By contrast, libertarianism, in its rejection of nearly all force, is going to attract all kinds of people to it.  Some Christian, some not, some jerks, some not, etc.

As for the "liberty movement", this term means too many things.  There's just too many variety.  its not even really one movement.  Look at anything posted by "compromise" and you'll see my point.  On one side of the spectrum you have Republican Party junkies who are interested in basically any campaign where a Republican shows the slightest sign of being for liberty in a couple of areas, then you have people like me who are extremely selective, and then you have some people who believe education and civil disobedience should be the only weapon libertarians use to combat the State, and that politics should be avoided entirely.  And there are a bunch of internal categories here as well.  The hardcore voluntarists do not get along well with the guys who are selling Ted Cruz (actually, I don't get along with the Cruz-ites either).  And then, of course, you have the religious foundation debates.  I've had other voluntarist libertarians dislike me even though we believed basically the same political propositions, because I defended those propositions based on Biblical rather than "Secular" ethics.  It is what it is.

My faith is not in the liberty movement.  My faith is in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  But I do NOT have faith in the vast majority of American Christians, in fact, a lot of them disgust me even more than non-Christians.  "Christian" military or nation honoring services enrage me in a way that no non-Christian ever could, because those are people that I feel like should know better yet don't.  I despise "Christian" movements that are designed to coerce other people.  I despise the State.  and I despise statism in any form of these things.  I'll continue to believe these things even if some other people who believe these things are jerks.  At least they're leaving me alone!  That's more than can be said for Christians who "support their local police" and so forth...

I don't know.  There is SOMETHING to be said for brotherhood among libertarians.  I can't help but like anyone who has the intellectual discipline to learn most or all of the crap they've been taught and realize how evil the State really is.  But don't read too much into that either.  The gospel unites all true Christians in a way that libertarianism CANNOT unite libertarians, as Sola_Fide pointed out recently.  So, my advice to you is, worry less about the "movement" and more about your personal beliefs.  Learn to recognize support for coercion when you see it.  Be careful when doing this though, its made me extremely cynical.  I honestly feel like I think the abolitionists of 1850 felt sometimes.  How do you respect somebody who's OK with slavery?  That's almost how I feel in most political discussions.  It takes a lot of discipline to attack (intellectually) the evil that's around us and yet not let this override one's committment to the gospel at the same time.

Don't worry too much about the people here.  Most of them don't believe the gospel.  They don't represent me, even though we have the same political beliefs a lot of the time.

----------


## Dr.3D

> No, but I feel sorry for Bryan having to run behind you with a mop and a broom constantly too.


Maybe he wouldn't have to if "Christians" wouldn't keep throwing crap at her.

----------


## Terry1

> Time priorities must be set, if one wants to devote one's day to serious bible/theological studies, daily family duties & friendship obligations, and giving enough time to witness online to the sovereign grace of God.  Getting involved in politics has never been within my time limitations.  Sorry.


I'm saving this post.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Time priorities must be set, if one wants to devote one's day to serious bible/theological studies, daily family duties & friendship obligations, and giving enough time to witness online to the sovereign grace of God.  Getting involved in politics has never been within my time limitations.  Sorry.


Yeah, I hear you.  Sola's probably in the same boat.  I'm a college student so I have more time, especially since I'm off school right now.  While I don't think there's any moral obligation to get deeply involved in politics, I do think everyone should take the time to read at least a few non-mainstream articles that explain some very BASIC libertarian theory and explain why our country is in a far worse state than most people think it is, if you have a little time.  I could look for and recommend a few articles if you are interested and have a little bit of time.  If you're not so interested in political DEBATE, even a little less than an hour (not necessarily all at once) could go a very long way.  One thing that I could say about myself is that I was obsessed with politics BEFORE God ignited a fire for the gospel in my heart.  So I already knew a lot of stuff about politics before I started evangelizing.  I'm not sure how it would feel to devote time to that when you're already busy and evangelizing.  I don't recommend spending a lot of time.  But I do recommend a little time, if possible.

----------


## Nang

> I'm saving this post.


Be sure to send the IRS a copy so they know I am not politically involved!

----------


## Terry1

> Maybe he wouldn't have to if "Christians" wouldn't keep throwing crap at her.


The only "crap" getting tossed at Nang is the same stuff she's already hurled at them.  I have tried to post a civil discussion today with all three of them and have been called "ungodly" by Nang, heretic by Sola and unchristian by FF.  Why do you insist on taking sides here when it's clear to see that they don't want to discuss anything without hurling insults.  I haven't called any of them nasty names or insulted them the same way they have today.  I have tried to reach out and make peace--they do not believe in making peace with those of us they're calling "agents of satan".

----------


## Nang

> Some revelations, like the revelation of the nature of foreordination, does attract certain kinds of people who end up leavening the revelation with themselves, and then drawing a deeper corruption of man into itself.
> 
> An obvious example of this using an almost universally-agreed heresy doctrine, is the so-called 'prosperity gospel.'  They take the truth of God and pollute it with themselves.  Then they sell the stuff and build an empire on the backs of the gullible.  That is not what is happening here but an example of the _process_ that is operating.
> 
> "Wow, I am Elect.  and I was all along.  But God I am worthless.  and You have made me to present Your face."  
> 
> Around one very profound inspiration, an entire congregation will form, and may grow.   If many hear it, it will grow large and fast.  If the nature of the revelation draws the narcissist, then their presence in that branch will over time corrupt the original message.
> 
> Instead, merge with the mind of Christ and become one in body and mind.  Give everything that is, over to God, an then act as the avatar of Messiah, and in yourself, you will express the fruit of the Spirit.


Politics draw narcissists.

The gospel of Jesus Christ draws humble believers, who only wish they had more hours of the day to devote to contemplation of His truths.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Be sure to send the IRS a copy so they know I am not politically involved!


That might help you when everyone who posts here gets rounded up... which will probably happen eventually.

----------


## Dr.3D

> The only "crap" getting tossed at Nang is the same stuff she's already hurled at them.  I have tried to post a civil discussion today with all three of them and have been called "ungodly" by Nang, heretic by Sola and unchristian by FF.  Why do you insist on taking sides here when it's clear to see that they don't want to discuss anything without hurling insults.  I haven't called any of them nasty names or insulted them the same way they have today.  I have tried to reach out and make peace--they do not believe in making peace with those of us they're calling "agents of satan".


Wouldn't the best way to make peace be, to stop making war?  You just go on and on as if it's some kind of thing you thrive on.   If you don't like the war, stop fighting.

----------


## Nang

> Yeah, I hear you.  Sola's probably in the same boat.  I'm a college student so I have more time, especially since I'm off school right now.  While I don't think there's any moral obligation to get deeply involved in politics, I do think everyone should take the time to read at least a few non-mainstream articles that explain some very BASIC libertarian theory and explain why our country is in a far worse state than most people think it is, if you have a little time.  I could look for and recommend a few articles if you are interested and have a little bit of time.  If you're not so interested in political DEBATE, even a little less than an hour (not necessarily all at once) could go a very long way.  One thing that I could say about myself is that I was obsessed with politics BEFORE God ignited a fire for the gospel in my heart.  So I already knew a lot of stuff about politics before I started evangelizing.  I'm not sure how it would feel to devote time to that when you're already busy and evangelizing.  I don't recommend spending a lot of time.  But I do recommend a little time, if possible.


If it makes you feel better, husband and I have not missed a national or local vote since 1962.  We stay aware enough to know what is going on and to vote wisely.  I am talking about getting caught up in energy and time to be an activist.  Have never been led that direction.  Sorry.

----------


## Terry1

> Be sure to send the IRS a copy so they know I am not politically involved!


It won't matter--the UN's white vans will be color coding you by painting your curb or street in front of your house for being a Christian and you'll be shipped off to a FEMA camp where they'll let you drink all of the koolaid you like.

----------


## Terry1

> Wouldn't the best way to make peace be, to stop making war?  You just go on and on as if it's some kind of thing you thrive on.   If you don't like the war, stop fighting.


Who's making war?  Nang's the one hurling all of the insults.  You're always jumping in here coming to her defense for some odd reason.  Speak to your friend Nang--she's the source of the problem here not me.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If it makes you feel better, husband and I have not missed a national or local vote since 1958.  We stay aware enough to know what is going on and to vote wisely.  I am talking about getting caught up in energy and time to be an activist.  Have never been led that direction.  Sorry.


I'm not an activist either, at least not really.  I comment on politics, so if that counts as "activism" than I guess I am, but that's really it.  I send people I know articles to read once in awhile, I comment here, I used to blog but I don't anymore.  I rarely endorse candidates, most of them are not worth our time.

I'm less concerned with whether someone votes or not, there are often very good reasons not to and only occasionally good reasons to do so.  BE CAREFUL before voting for any candidate, make sure they stand for LIBERTY rather than the Republican Party.  That doesn't mean all Republicans oppose liberty (Ron Paul was a Republican, and he's not the only good one) only that most Republicans oppose liberty.  I'm much more concerned with to what extent a person supports or opposes statism, and to what extent they are informed about the abuses of power that take place in the country.  

I know a lot of people who think they were "informed" because they voted for Romney.  I am telling you right now, there is not a single liberty-loving individual who was well-informed if they voted for Romney (The same is true for Obama, but that is so obvious that I am probably wasting space here.)  Well-informed liberty lovers voted for Johnson, Goode, wrote in Ron Paul, or didn't vote.  But I know a lot of people who just assume the Republican candidate is good because he's "pro-life" (barely) and opposes same sex marriage, even though he supports the income tax, foreign wars, regulation of gun ownership, regulation of drugs, and so forth.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Who's making war?  Nang's the one hurling all of the insults.  You're always jumping in here coming to her defense for some odd reason.


Please stop being so personal with the posts.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It won't matter--the UN's white vans will be color coding you by painting your curb or street in front of your house for being a Christian and you'll be shipped off to a FEMA camp where they'll let you drink all of the koolaid you like.


This honestly wouldn't surprise me...  I don't know if they'll come for all "Christians" though.  The red-state fascists and the Christian left are playing right into their laps.  Its us that they are really worried about.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> After being here just a short while, I have discovered political blood in my body, I did not realize I had!  
> 
> Mostly by discovering the hypocrisy exhibited by those who say they stand for liberty, freedoms, and tolerance of free speech, but then proving so inhospitable, vicious, and intolerant of other views and overtly expressing desire to extinguish the rights of others to post diverse religious views.  It has been quite shocking!
> 
> It is exactly what my husband is going to discuss with the Pauls. . .  how can this be?  Is the Liberty movement just another political farce?


You don't have the right to determine other person's beliefs under any kind of liberty that this universe has ever known.  Their ontology is between them and God.

Total political liberty pushes back towards the time of the Judges, before there were any kings in the Kingdom but God.  Modern libertarian governments (such as Revolution era America) push for a scripted description as close to that time as they may get.  As a Constitutionalist, I work first to make government obey their script, and then once order is restored, work on that script to perfect the American expression of Liberty.


Aramaic Bible in Plain English 2Corinthians 3:17
But The Spirit is THE LORD JEHOVAH, and wherever The Spirit of THE LORD JEHOVAH is, there is freedom.

----------


## Terry1

> That might help you when everyone who posts here gets rounded up... which will probably happen eventually.


LOL, now there's something we agree on.

----------


## Nang

> Who's making war?  Nang's the one hurling all of the insults.  You're always jumping in here coming to her defense for some odd reason.


It is called ~discernment~ and being in solid touch with reality!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> LOL, now there's something we agree on.


I may not agree with you on much, but if you believe that the American government is completely out of control and that it and its agents should be ridiculed rather than honored, we are in agreement on that point

----------


## Nang

> You don't have the right to determine other person's beliefs under any kind of liberty that this universe has ever known.  Their ontology is between them and God.


Tell that to all your friends, who attempt to undermine my beliefs and by so doing, violate my liberties in Christ.




> As a Constitutionalist, I work first to make government obey their script, and then once order is restored, work on that script to perfect the American expression of Liberty.


Giggle . . .

From what I see, you are not doing much of a job.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Politics draw narcissists.
> 
> The gospel of Jesus Christ draws humble believers, who only wish they had more hours of the day to devote to contemplation of His truths.


Strawman with an ad hominem while poisoning the well.  I'm impressed. :-)

The devil quotes scripture you know, to tempt even the Lord.  Many things tempt narcissists.  Just look at such as Creflo Dollar, and Joel Osteen.

----------


## Terry1

> This honestly wouldn't surprise me...  I don't know if they'll come for all "Christians" though.  The red-state fascists and the Christian left are playing right into their laps.  Its us that they are really worried about.


Anyone who supports the Constitution will be considered the enemy--the gobment is already compiled a huge database containing anyone who's a supporter of it.  I'm sure you've seen that data that was passed around haven't you?  You saw where they were stalking RPF's and tossing them in jail didn't you?  I think Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura did a youtube vid on that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Tell that to all your friends, who attempt to undermine my beliefs and by so doing, violate my liberties in Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> Giggle . . .
> 
> From what I see, you are not doing much of a job.


This is unfair.  One man cannot do everything.  I don't know much about Gunny's religious beliefs, but I know that politically he was one of the most anti-statist politicians in the US.  Gunny is the real deal as far as politics is concerned.

----------


## Nang

> Just look at such as Creflo Dollar, and Joel Osteen.


PLEASE . . don't make me!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Anyone who supports the Constitution will be considered the enemy--the gobment is already compiled a huge database containing anyone who's a supporter of it.  I'm sure you've seen that data that was passed around haven't you?  You saw where they were stalking RPF's and tossing them in jail didn't you?


Wait, what?  Can you send that to me?  I haven't seen it.  I'm not really surprised, but I haven't seen it.  Who were they tossing in jail?

I know this is going to happen, but I didn't realize it was ALREADY happening... Yikes.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> PLEASE . . don't make me!


He's condemning them... lol!  I know nothing about Dollar but Osteen is a blatantly anti-Christian heretic.

----------


## TER

FF, I know you think I am wicked because of my earlier post.  I was expecting that given my sharp rebuke of the theological errors of Calvinism which you hold dear.  I do not apologize for saying the things I said, because it is what I believe is true and I was following what (I think) Bryan's intention was, namely to air out our grievances and explain why we find certain groups or theological positions dangerous.  

I usually try to have more reservation in calling out in such strong language the errors you have chosen to make your gospel, out of courtesy and respect.  Funny that you think I am wicked for saying these things and claim that my 'evil heart has been revealed', when I have only said in this rare instance what you say quite often, nearly daily, about my faith and the faith of others.  Perhaps that reveals more about your own character then it does mine, and hopefully we will both learn from it. 

Nevertheless, I am sorry you feel so offended.  I was simply trying to be open and honest, and more candid than usually and I apologize for hurting your feelings.  Hopefully, one day you will see the errors of your thoughts, how the false innovative doctrines you hold actually distort your entire worldview and darken your heart.  It is very easy and only requires humility and obedience.  Start with reading the Fathers of the Church so that you can learn the true and correct intepretations of the Scriptures instead of relying on the errors of the Reformers.  It would be to your great benefit I believe.

Much has been said in this thread about the problem not being in religions or even groups, but in individuals.  And of course, in the end, it is the individuals who are the ones culpable for the sins they do.  But we should not minimize the importance doctrine play in all this, for it is the sacred doctrines held within the man which shape him and molds his heart and his relations with others.  Doctrines matter, indeed, extremely so, whether they are doctrines of religion or philosophy.  This is why it has always been the prime importance to the Church from the beginning to faithfully maintain, hold, and pass down the teachings and doctrines handed down by those before them going back to the Apostles.  This has been the prime objective of the Church, even if it meant its members losing their very lives or limbs in defending the truths of the faith.  It has been the Orthodox Church which has done this from the Day of Pentecost.  This is the Church which has transmitted the faith of the Apostles down the centuries, centered around the common cup, that is the Holy Eucharist, which by the grace of the Holy Spirit has championed it and protected it even through history's greatest persecutions.  And the Orthodox of today say the same prayers as has been done for centuries, and it's history filled with the wonders of God in the lives of its holy fathers and mothers of the faith.  And the faith and worship of the Orthodox Christian living in South America is the same as the one living in China, and not only across geographic space, but in time, the 1st century Christian partaking of the same Holy Eucharist as the 6th century Christian up until today in the 21st century.  The same Holy Spirit guiding the Church, and the gates of hell have not prevailed over it and never will as our Lord promised.

Some are quick to ignore these truths.  They do so at their own peril.  They mock the Holy Traditions of the Church which have endured for 20 centuries while holding on to the new traditions of men starting in the 1600s which have no foundation in belief or confession, being devoid of any link to the apostolic Church we read about in the New Testament, yet in their arrogance and pride claiming to know the truths and relying on their own intepretations.  And the fruit of this pride is this:  Thousands upon thousands of varying confessions, a myriad of contradictory beliefs, disunity and disenfranchisement, chaos and excommunion, even as they ironically proclaim doctrine of Sola Scriptura. But these divisions and disunity are the results of Sola Scriptura!  And the main reason is because they have cut themselves from the Church, believing to know better then the saints before them in their pride and vainglory.  There is no entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven nor as a member of the Body of Christ without having humility first.  

Doctrines matter because one bad apple can spoil the entire barrel, and this is the history of where Protestantism has led, whereby these doctrinal errors have been the cause of many to fall towards the abyss and to reject the faith in God.  This is not to say that every Protestant is deluded!  AGAIN, I know many Protestants who are better Christians than I am and I am sure there will be innumerable Protestants who will enter into the Kingdom on the Last Day.  But this does not erase the real consequences this dis attachment from the apostolic Church has caused and the results are everywhere now, with the rampant atheism and materialism.  Relativism and egalitarianism is in fact the fruit of Protestantism.  Now, anyone can create their own church and worship the god they have constructed in their own mind.  But just as God is One, likewise Christ is One, and Christ is not divided and neither is His Church which is His Body.  And those who hate to hear this have fought the Church and continue to do so, rather submitting to their own fallible minds than to the authority if the Mind of Christ which is found within the Church which He is Head of.  But these who continue to fight will fail, for the Holy Spirit is greater then their envy and their pride.

I have said enough.  I don't think anything I have written will change FF or SF, and I am not writing this in that expectation.  Perhaps however what I have written might be of some benefit for one or two who are searching for the truth.

 I want to finish this long post to say that I have found the truth not because I am some secret elect or because I have some great knowledge others don't.  Far from it.  I found the truth because I have humbled myself, knowing that I am a great sinner, that my mind is fallible and often times wrong, and that my thoughts are full of evil passions and cause me often to fall into sin.  Because I have realized my unworthiness before God and the weaknesses of my mind and flesh I look for instruction and edification from those much greater then me, the giants of the faith, the Godbearing Fathers and Saints of the Chuch who have obediently and faithfully transmitted the teachings of Christ and who by the grace of God He has established to be our shepherds and lampposts and examples to emulate, so that following them (as they followed Christ), I might also run the race and finish it and earn my crowns of victory.

I apologize if I have hurt the feelings of my Protestant brothers and sisters in this post.  My intention is not to hurt anyone or to put anyone down.  It is to make clear the lines of distinction which unfortunately do exist, though it is my prayer and my hope they didn't.  I will now exit this thread as I have spoken enough.  Goodnight and God bless everyone.

----------


## Nang

> This is unfair.  One man cannot do everything.  I don't know much about Gunny's religious beliefs, but I know that politically he was one of the most anti-statist politicians in the US.  Gunny is the real deal as far as politics is concerned.


Well, he lost my vote, when he tore into me regarding gospel matters a few days ago.  I don't care how constitutional a person may be, if they cannot respect Christians and the gospel of Jesus Christ, they are nothing but vainglory.

----------


## Terry1

> It is called ~discernment~ and being in solid touch with reality!


LOL, at least you're amusing if nothing else Nang, gotta give credit where it's due.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Tell that to all your friends, who attempt to undermine my beliefs and by so doing, violate my liberties in Christ.


Your liberty in Christ?  To walk all over other people's property where you aren't wanted and trod mud on the carpets?  This is your liberty in Christ?

You see, if you really were in Christ, and we really were the heathens, then at God's own command you would have shaken the dust from your sandals long ago. 




> Giggle . . .
> 
> From what I see, you are not doing much of a job.


As I have said from the beginning, there are things that you are blind to.  In your blindness, your instinct is to attack.  It is a reaction that lifeguards know very well.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Strawman with an ad hominem while poisoning the well.  I'm impressed. :-)
> 
> The devil quotes scripture you know, to tempt even the Lord.  Many things tempt narcissists.  Just look at such as Creflo Dollar, and Joel Osteen.


When Satan quoted the Scripture to Jesus, Jesus quoted the Scripture back!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Well, he lost my vote, when he tore into me regarding gospel matters a few days ago.  I don't care how constitutional a person may be, if they cannot respect Christians and the gospel of Jesus Christ, they are nothing but vainglory.


because a disagreement with you, is a disagreement with God?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> When Satan quoted the Scripture to Jesus, Jesus quoted the Scripture back!


That is the absolute truth.

----------


## Terry1

> Well, he lost my vote, when he tore into me regarding gospel matters a few days ago.  I don't care how constitutional a person may be, if they cannot respect Christians and the gospel of Jesus Christ, they are nothing but vainglory.


See what I said Nang?  This is why you just don't fit in here with the rest of us.  We may not all agree when it comes to doctrinal issues, but we do agree politically for the most part and this is a political site.

----------


## Nang

> FF, I know you think I am wicked because of my earlier post.  I was expecting that given my sharp rebuke of the theological errors of Calvinism which you hold dear.  I do not apologize for saying the things I said, because it is what I believe is true and I was following what (I think) Bryan's intention was, namely to air out our grievances and explain why we find certain groups or theological positions dangerous.  
> 
> I usually try to have more reservation in calling out in such strong language the errors you have chosen to make your gospel, out of courtesy and respect.  Funny that you think I am wicked for saying these things and claim that my 'evil heart has been revealed', when I have only said in this rare instance what you say quite often, nearly daily, about my faith and the faith of others.  Perhaps that reveals more about your own character then it does mine, and hopefully we will both learn from it. 
> 
> Nevertheless, I am sorry you feel so offended.  I was simply trying to be open and honest, and more candid than usually and I apologize for hurting your feelings.  Hopefully, one day you will see the errors of your thoughts, how the false innovative doctrines you hold actually distort your entire worldview and darken your heart.  It is very easy and only requires humility and obedience.  Start with reading the Fathers of the Church so that you can learn the true and correct intepretations of the Scriptures instead of relying on the errors of the Reformers.  It would be to your great benefit I believe.
> 
> Much has been said in this thread about the problem not being in religions or even groups, but in individuals.  And of course, in the end, it is the individuals who are the ones culpable for the sins they do.  But we should not minimize the importance doctrine play in all this, for it is the sacred doctrines held within the man which shape him and molds his heart and his relations with others.  Doctrines matter, indeed, extremely so, whether they are doctrines of religion or philosophy.  This is why it has always been the prime importance to the Church from the beginning to faithfully maintain, hold, and pass down the teachings and doctrines handed down by those before them going back to the Apostles.  This has been the prime objective of the Church, even if it meant its members losing their very lives or limbs in defending the truths of the faith.  It has been the Orthodox Church which has done this from the Day of Pentecost.  This is the Church which has transmitted the faith of the Apostles down the centuries, centered around the common cup, that is the Holy Eucharist, which by the grace of the Holy Spirit has championed it and protected it even through history's greatest persecutions.  And the Orthodox of today say the same prayers as has been done for centuries, and it's history filled with the wonders of God in the lives of its holy fathers and mothers of the faith.  And the faith and worship of the Orthodox Christian living in South America is the same as the one living in China, and not only across geographic space, but in time, the 1st century Christian partaking of the same Holy Eucharist as the 6th century Christian up until today in the 21st century.  The same Holy Spirit guiding the Church, and the gates of hell have not prevailed over it and never will as our Lord promised.
> 
> Some are quick to ignore these truths.  They do so at their own peril.  They mock the Holy Traditions of the Church which have endured for 20 centuries while holding on to the new traditions of men starting in the 1600s which have no foundation in belief or confession, being devoid of any link to the apostolic Church we read about in the New Testament, yet in their arrogance and pride claiming to know the truths and relying on their own intepretations.  And the fruit of this pride is this:  Thousands upon thousands of varying confessions, a myriad of contradictory beliefs, disunity and disenfranchisement, chaos and excommunion, even as they ironically proclaim doctrine of Sola Scriptura. But these divisions and disunity are the results of Sola Scriptura!  And the main reason is because they have cut themselves from the Church, believing to know better then the saints before them in their pride and vainglory.  There is no entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven nor as a member of the Body of Christ without having humility first.  
> ...


It was offensive and I do not buy your apology.  You relished every word you posted and enjoyed getting the opportunity to vent against all Protestantism.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

He also said "Get thee behind me, Satan!" the same words He would later say to Peter when tempted again; while Judas wandered off towards potter's field.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well, he lost my vote, when he tore into me regarding gospel matters a few days ago.  I don't care how constitutional a person may be, if they cannot respect Christians and the gospel of Jesus Christ, they are nothing but vainglory.


Gunny doesn't live in your state, and I don't know what he said (feel free to send me a link), but if he were to run for political office and I had the opportunity to vote for him I would, even if he hated me personally or believed a false gospel.  I wish we had the luxury to have lots of true Christians who were both anti-statist and interested enough to actually get involved, but we don't.  To put what you said in reverse, I don't care how Christian someone sounds if they want to use their power to steal or murder.  I'm not saying I agree with Gunny's religious beliefs.  I don't know enough about them, but I have noticed a few red flags, and if he's ever specific enough in a thread that I'm participating in, I'd have no qualms about calling him out.  But I'd still vote for him, heck, I'd vote for Terry if she were to run for office where I live.  Although its nice if a politician believes the gospel, that is not critical for the job.  Its nice if a history teacher believes the gospel, but of primary importance (not overall, just for the career) is that they know history, that they know the facts of what happened and how to teach them.  With politicians, belief in the gospel is important, but of primary importance is whether they can do the job correctly, which in this case means wanting to dismantle at the very least large portions of the government.

Just out of curiosity (not judging, just asking) did you vote for Mitt Romney in '12?  His political issues (and they were NUMEROUS) aside, he was also a Mormon.  Yet most Christians in this country acted like he was the "Christian" candidate.  I don't know, its bizarre at the very least.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It was offensive and I do not buy your apology.  You relished every word you posted and enjoyed getting the opportunity to vent against all Protestantism.


I honestly wasn't THAT offended (I don't get offended easily) just shocked.  I didn't expect it from him.  And when he did say it, he needed to be called out.  If you look at the rebuttal above, TER seems to be apologizing, but he's really acting like he's humble because he "knows" that he "humbled himself" rather than receiving special grace from God.  The world thinks that this is humility.  God's people should not.

----------


## Nang

> Just out of curiosity (not judging, just asking) did you vote for Mitt Romney in '12?  His political issues (and they were NUMEROUS) aside, he was also a Mormon.  Yet most Christians in this country acted like he was the "Christian" candidate.  I don't know, its bizarre at the very least.


This is kinda rude of you to ask, but so you sleep o.k. tonight . . . no, I did not vote for Romney.  I left that portion of the ballot blank.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> See what I said Nang?  This is why you just don't fit in here with the rest of us.  We may not all agree when it comes to doctrinal issues, but we do agree politically for the most part and this is a political site.


No, we don't all agree politically at all.  There are several political shills on this forum who are trying to get the liberty movement to whore with borderline mainstream Republicans.  

Say anything else you like about Nang, her disinterest in politics is NOT *destructive.* The people here who attack radical libertarians and/or try to convince us to endorse Ted Cruz actually are destructive.  Compromise is politically destructive.  TaftFan is politically destructive.  Eduardo is politically destructive.  Nang is not being politically destructive, she just isn't commenting much, which is her prerogative.

Now, I hope Nang will not go around the site trying to persuade people not to support Gunny.  If she were to do that, I'd have to disagree with her and call her out on it, even though I understand her concerns.  But otherwise, she's entitled to her opinion.  Honestly, I think this kind of strict standard fits the principled nonvoting position better than anything else, but I understand it .

----------


## Terry1

> It was offensive and I do not buy your apology.  You relished every word you posted and enjoyed getting the opportunity to vent against all Protestantism.


And what do you do?  What have you said and done to the Catholics and EOC members here.  What makes you think you have the right to give your insulting opinions of others beliefs and then think they're not allowed to speak respectfully and honestly about yours?   Buck up there Nang, if you can dish it out, you should be able to take constructive criticism the same as you give it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This is kinda rude of you to ask,


Sorry... I meant no offense.  I honestly don't see why this is an offensive question, but I know some people do consider it rule so... I apologize for the offense.  


> but so you sleep o.k. tonight . . . no, I did not vote for Romney.  I left that portion of the ballot blank.


I would have slept OK regardless. But I am glad that you did not vote for him

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And what do you do?  What have you said and done to the Catholics and EOC members here.  What makes you think you have the right to give your insulting opinions of others beliefs and then think they're not allowed to speak respectfully and honestly about yours?   Buck up there Nang, if you can dish it out, you should be able to take constructive criticism the same as you give it.


Because she is right.

----------


## Nang

> I honestly wasn't THAT offended (I don't get offended easily) just shocked.  I didn't expect it from him.  And when he did say it, he needed to be called out.  If you look at the rebuttal above, TER seems to be apologizing, but he's really acting like he's humble because he "knows" that he "humbled himself" rather than receiving special grace from God.  The world thinks that this is humility.  God's people should not.


I agree.  His apology came across fake.  Pretty hard to put smoke back in the bottle . . .

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I agree.  His apology came across fake.  Pretty hard to put smoke back in the bottle . . .


It was definitely fake.  No doubt.  But I can't let it get to me.  all I can do is continue to preach the gospel.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Say anything else you like about Nang, her disinterest in politics is *destructive.* The people here who attack radical libertarians and/or try to convince us to endorse Ted Cruz actually are destructive.  Compromise is politically destructive.  TaftFan is politically destructive.  Eduardo is politically destructive.  Nang is not being politically destructive, she just isn't commenting much, which is her prerogative.


Who died and left you God?

----------


## James Madison

Pro-tip: It's generally considered poor form to put words in other people's mouths, on the internet, or otherwise.

----------


## Nang

> It was definitely fake.  No doubt.  But I can't let it get to me.  all I can do is continue to preach the gospel.



Amen, brother.

And I was not offended by you asking me if I voted for Romney, but others might not like being asked about who they voted for.

----------


## Terry1

> No, we don't all agree politically at all.  There are several political shills on this forum who are trying to get the liberty movement to whore with borderline mainstream Republicans.  
> 
> Say anything else you like about Nang, her disinterest in politics is *destructive.* The people here who attack radical libertarians and/or try to convince us to endorse Ted Cruz actually are destructive.  Compromise is politically destructive.  TaftFan is politically destructive.  Eduardo is politically destructive.  Nang is not being politically destructive, she just isn't commenting much, which is her prerogative.
> 
> Now, I hope Nang will not go around the site trying to persuade people not to support Gunny.  If she were to do that, I'd have to disagree with her and call her out on it, even though I understand her concerns.  But otherwise, she's entitled to her opinion.  Honestly, I think this kind of strict standard fits the principled nonvoting position better than anything else, but I understand it .


Nang has no political interests whatsoever FF.  If all Christians were like Nang and didn't vote--we probably would have lost all of freedoms a long time ago.  I disagree with you there.  People who don't vote are more dangerous than those who do.  We all have to choose which side we're on in this life.  Mediocre people are no good to anyone--not God or country.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Because she is right.


Ya know, I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I've not seen the level of downright rudeness be as prevalent as it is in the religion forum lately.  But, it's not coming from God-haters, it is coming from a few people who _profess_ to be Christians.  Personally, I find the behavior disgusting.  But, that's just me.

For shame.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Who died and left you God?


I didn't say anything that would give you that, but you alterted me to my typo, so thanks...

Nang, if you read the original version, and didn't figure out my mistake by context, I apologize.  N-O-T was missing because I made a typing mistake, and it completely changed the meaning of the sentence.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I didn't say anything that would give you that, but you alterted me to my typo, so thanks...
> 
> Nang, if you read the original version, and didn't figure out my mistake by context, I apologize.  N-O-T was missing because I made a typing mistake, and it completely changed the meaning of the sentence.


You called out by name a number of forum members to insult them.  It wasn't a typo.

----------


## Terry1

> Because she is right.


We don't agree on that FF--she's dead wrong. LOL

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Amen, brother.
> 
> And I was not offended by you asking me if I voted for Romney, but others might not like being asked about who they voted for.


This is a political forum.  I know you're not as into politics as some of us, and that's OK, but I feel like that type of question is OK for this forum.  Had you personally been offended I would have felt bad.  But I do think that question is acceptable here.  I can understand why it might not be acceptable in other places.



> Nang has no political interests whatsoever FF.  If all Christians were like Nang and didn't vote--we probably would have lost all of freedoms a long time ago.  I disagree with you there.  People who don't vote are more dangerous than those who do.  We all have to choose which side we're on in this life.  Mediocre people are no good to anyone--not God or country.


First of all, Nang does vote.  She stated as much before.

Second of all... I don't think voting is the main thing.  That's not to say not to vote, but I think education is way more important than voting.  I have way more respect for Lew Rockwell, who doesn't vote, than I do for the guy who just goes "D" or "R" in every vote without seriously thinking through the issues or the specific people they are voting for.  While not voting is often a symptom of indifference, it isn't always.

Third of all, the average voter isn't helping our freedom at all.  Just think about our last Presidential election for a minute.  The third party voters arguably helped our freedom with that vote, but even then it made zero difference.  The main party voters did NOT help freedom in our last election.  Voting for Romney or Obama were both anti-freedom votes.  Not voting was more pro-freedom than voting for either one.  

The average voter is also ill-informed.  I can't help but judge people who go to the polls without knowing what they're voting for.  I especially can't stand people who are rightly offended by war but vote for mainline Republicans anyway.  They either have no clue what they're doing or they don't care enough. Not voting would actually be MORE useful than this, at the least it doesn't give the State your time and let them pretend like you somehow consented.

Now, I agree that not voting is not the best option.  Voting informed, which can include strategic non-voting at times, is the best option.  But a blanket non-voting stance is not ideal.  But I'm way more offended by people who want to manipulate the State to their own ends than I am with people who just don't vote.  I haven't voted yet either, but then, I'm 19 and I wasn't allowed to vote in the last Presidential election.  I did miss the last local election though.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You called out by name a number of forum members to insult them.  It wasn't a typo.


Oh, I stand by that.  Those people are politically destructive.  - rep me if you want.  But there was originally a major mistake in my post which would have wrongly indicated that I thought Nang was politically destructive, which was the part that I fixed.

Statism is POISON.  the people who support it are POISONOUS.  Go for it, neg rep me.  I do not care.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Nang has no political interests whatsoever FF.  If all Christians were like Nang and didn't vote--we probably would have lost all of freedoms a long time ago.  I disagree with you there.  People who don't vote are more dangerous than those who do.  We all have to choose which side we're on in this life.  Mediocre people are no good to anyone--not God or country.


Now you're being silly.  I don't vote on partisan ballots myself.  I only vote on propositions.  I don't believe I have a right to choose authorities that others will be compelled to obey.  If politics were more like it was in the book of Judges, we'd all be much better off.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Amen, brother.
> 
> And I was not offended by you asking me if I voted for Romney, but others might not like being asked about who they voted for.


If you've been paying attention, you'll notice that I've done things that are far more offensive to the average person than this.  Again, I'd be saddened if I knew I offended a brother or sister in Christ.  But in general I don't care what people think.  I have a number of reasons for this, and I don't judge those who have a harder time with this.  I'll probably comment more on this point privately tomorrow.  But, I'm not really interested in what other people think about what I believe.  I only care what God thinks

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Oh, I stand by that.  Those people are politically destructive.  - rep me if you want.  But there was originally a major mistake in my post which would have wrongly indicated that I thought Nang was politically destructive, which was the part that I fixed.
> 
> Statism is POISON.  the people who support it are POISONOUS.  Go for it, neg rep me.  I do not care.


So, does this mean you believe that Ron Paul is poison?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Now you're being silly.  I don't vote on partisan ballots myself.  I only vote on propositions.  I don't believe I have a right to choose authorities that others will be compelled to obey.  If politics were more like it was in the book of Judges, we'd all be much better off.


Would you really refuse to vote for Ron Paul if he was the Republican nominee though?  This is where I think both the 100% anti-political and 100% political factions of the liberty movement both go too extreme and into error.  Do I support the State in any form?  No.  Do I support abolishing it?  No.  Is the constitution my ideal?  Nope, it was originally a power grab, the Articles of Confederation were better and completely voluntary government would be ideal (you're right on in your Judges reference.)  Would I still vote for Ron Paul, or even probably Rand Paul, over a mainstream shill from the Democrats?  Yeah.  There's a fine line between a lesser evil and a lesser good, and that line is hard to identify, but its important, IMO.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So, does this mean you believe that Ron Paul is poison?


This is a good question.  No.  I was using the word "statist" in a non-technical sense (perhaps I should have been more clear.)  Minarchists aren't supporting the State nearly as often as they are condemning it.  So we disagree on 5% of the issues... that's not the end of the world for me.  

Ted Cruz and his supporters, on the other hand....

----------


## Terry1

> This is a political forum.  I know you're not as into politics as some of us, and that's OK, but I feel like that type of question is OK for this forum.  Had you personally been offended I would have felt bad.  But I do think that question is acceptable here.  I can understand why it might not be acceptable in other places.
> 
> 
> First of all, Nang does vote.  She stated as much before.
> 
> Second of all... I don't think voting is the main thing.  That's not to say not to vote, but I think education is way more important than voting.  I have way more respect for Lew Rockwell, who doesn't vote, than I do for the guy who just goes "D" or "R" in every vote without seriously thinking through the issues or the specific people they are voting for.  While not voting is often a symptom of indifference, it isn't always.
> 
> Third of all, the average voter isn't helping our freedom at all.  Just think about our last Presidential election for a minute.  The third party voters arguably helped our freedom with that vote, but even then it made zero difference.  The main party voters did NOT help freedom in our last election.  Voting for Romney or Obama were both anti-freedom votes.  Not voting was more pro-freedom than voting for either one.  
> 
> ...


I don't believe that we just don't vote because we don't think it'll do any good.  If you have to write someone's name in when there's no other option, at least you're voting for the right person and your conscience, then you justifiably have a say no matter what the outcome of any election.  Who can complain about who got voted in if they didn't vote at all?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't believe that we just don't vote because we don't think it'll do any good.  If you have to write someone's name in when there's no other option, at least you're voting for the right person and your conscience, then you justifiably have a say no matter what the outcome of any election.  Who can complain about who got voted in if they didn't vote at all?


I have no issue with this.  But, I'm not going to judge somebody for just saving the time in that situation.  I'm far more judgmental of those who vote for evil in those situations.  But yeah, I agree with you. 

That said, I've heard that in some cases they could write-ins as votes for specific partisan candidates.  If you know that's the case, you could make a very good case for not voting at all in that situation.

But, I have a hard time saying that somebody like Lew Rockwell is "contributing to the problem" just because he doesn't go to the polls even though he's put blood, sweat, and tears into showing people how wicked the State is.  This is primarily an intellectual revolution and only secondarily a political one, IMO.

----------


## Terry1

> Now you're being silly.  I don't vote on partisan ballots myself.  I only vote on propositions.  I don't believe I have a right to choose authorities that others will be compelled to obey.  If politics were more like it was in the book of Judges, we'd all be much better off.


 I realize that you're a bit of voluntaryist--that's something I don't quite agree with, but I wouldn't argue it either.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I realize that you're a bit of voluntaryist--that's something I don't quite agree with, but I wouldn't argue it either.


Why don't you agree with it?  I completely agree with HB on this point.  Ron Paul has said he's a voluntarist as well, although I'm not certain what that means  to him.  That doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for a Justin Amash or Greg Brannon, I absolutely would as a huge step in the right direction, but I don't see how we should support ANY level of coercion as an ideal.

----------


## Terry1

> I have no issue with this.  But, I'm not going to judge somebody for just saving the time in that situation.  I'm far more judgmental of those who vote for evil in those situations.  But yeah, I agree with you. 
> 
> That said, I've heard that in some cases they could write-ins as votes for specific partisan candidates.  If you know that's the case, you could make a very good case for not voting at all in that situation.
> 
> But, I have a hard time saying that somebody like Lew Rockwell is "contributing to the problem" just because he doesn't go to the polls even though he's put blood, sweat, and tears into showing people how wicked the State is.  This is primarily an intellectual revolution and only secondarily a political one, IMO.


I like Lew--read him a lot and agree with him on many things too.

----------


## Terry1

> Why don't you agree with it?  I completely agree with HB on this point.  Ron Paul has said he's a voluntarist as well, although I'm not certain what that means  to him.  That doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for a Justin Amash or Greg Brannon, I absolutely would as a huge step in the right direction, but I don't see how we should support ANY level of coercion as an ideal.


Like I said--I won't argue it, but I don't fully subscribe to it either.  I do believe Ron Paul pretty much has said the same thing as well.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Like I said--I won't argue it, but I don't fully subscribe to it either.  I do believe Ron Paul pretty much has said the same thing as well.


Meh, give it a year or two at most.  I love that joke: what's the difference between a minarchist and an anarcho-capitalist?  Six months 

Ron Paul is the one who woke me up to liberty first.  At the time I still had neo-con leanings on foreign policy, but respected Paul's consistent advocacy of freedom on economics, guns, and opposition to drug laws, all areas where I knew the Republican Party was not consistent with the exception of Ron Paul.  From there I encountered someone else who also liked Ron Paul but was an anarcho-capitalist.  He pointed me to LewRockwell.com.  I didn't convert to anarcho-capitalism right then but I moved steadily in that direction, "making the jump" in September.  I can't look back now  But I'll still support minarchists for political office, its a huge step in the right direction.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't believe that we just don't vote because we don't think it'll do any good.  If you have to write someone's name in when there's no other option, at least you're voting for the right person and your conscience, then you justifiably have a say no matter what the outcome of any election.  Who can complain about who got voted in if they didn't vote at all?


I believe Nobody is the best candidate in every race.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@HB- LOL!  I respect that.  I'd still vote for Paul-type candidates, but I understand the danger of voting for or endorsing lesser candidates as well.

----------


## V3n

not reading this whole thread, just trying to keep record....

divisive thread part I go:

----------


## Terry1

> I believe Nobody is the best candidate in every race.


LOL-- It's pretty much true, but in reality based upon what we have to work with now--it couldn't be implemented with any success without sending us spiraling into a third world status.  Is that really what anyone wants?

----------


## acptulsa

> But, I'm not really interested in what other people think about what I believe.


Yeah, that's true of just about everyone who racks up 12,600 posts in fifteen months.

----------


## Terry1

> Wait, what?  Can you send that to me?  I haven't seen it.  I'm not really surprised, but I haven't seen it.  Who were they tossing in jail?
> 
> I know this is going to happen, but I didn't realize it was ALREADY happening... Yikes.


Yeah, Alex Jones sent Jessie Ventura to a facility somewhere--can't remember and the guy they talked to there said that's all they do is hunt for people that they feel might pose a threat to the government.  The guy who worked there actually said that they drive around in cars looking for things like bumper stickers from Ron Paul supporters--they become moles in internet forums as well.  They have this huge database filled with different groups and people's names that the government feels could be a potential threat some day.  It was really scary.  I don't even know if I can find it because it was probably a few years ago now.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, Alex Jones sent Jessie Ventura to a facility somewhere--can't remember and the guy they talked to there said that's all they do is hunt for people that they feel might pose a threat to the government.  The guy who worked there actually said that they drive around in cars looking for things like bumper stickers from Ron Paul supporters--they become moles in internet forums as well.  They have this huge database filled with different groups and people's names that the government feels could be a potential threat some day.  It was really scary.  I don't even know if I can find it because it was probably a few years ago now.


I haven't looked into Jones or Ventura enough to know for sure, but I know some people (even here) view them as being a little nutsy, so I'm not certain that an anecdote from them would be trustworthy.  It is something though, and it wouldn't surprise me if it were true.  I've heard things about cops pulling people over for Ron Paul bumper stickers either.  Its frightening....

----------


## moostraks

> It was offensive and I do not buy your apology.  You relished every word you posted and enjoyed getting the opportunity to vent against all Protestantism.


I don't believe this about TER for a minute. Those who know their responsibility is to love as we have been loved do not take the case of posting about a spiritual path others identify themselves with lightly. This forum has become a nightmare lately and poor Bryan is trying to figure out what went wrong between the very strong identities that are bumping heads. It seems as though some of us are doing our best to be honest and forthright about our grievances while others hide behind the mens' skirts and the only response from your little party of the indignant is from the 19 year old who is semi clueless on half of the conversations going on. Seems as though you are merely projecting the party of the indignant's tactics upon others.

----------


## Deborah K

> After being here just a short while, I have discovered political blood in my body, I did not realize I had!  
> 
> Mostly by discovering the hypocrisy exhibited by those who say they stand for liberty, freedoms, and tolerance of free speech, but then proving so inhospitable, vicious, and intolerant of other views and overtly expressing desire to extinguish the rights of others to post diverse religious views.  It has been quite shocking!
> 
> It is exactly what my husband is going to discuss with the Pauls. . .  how can this be?  Is the Liberty movement just another political farce?


Her husband is going to discuss whether the Liberty movement is a just another political farce with the Pauls?  Am I reading this right?  Is this some kind of veiled threat?

----------


## Terry1

> Her husband is going to discuss whether the Liberty movement is a just another political farce with the Pauls?  Am I reading this right?  Is this some kind of veiled threat?


That is most definitely a "threat" against Bryan.  Whoa--she's really crossing some lines here that should never be crossed at all--  Deb--has Bryan seen this post of Nangs?  He should.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't believe this for a minute. Those who know their responsibility is to love as we have been loved do not take the case of posting about a spiritual path others identify themselves with lightly. This forum has become a nightmare lately and poor Bryan is trying to figure out what went wrong between the very strong identities that are bumping heads. It seems as though some of us are doing our best to be honest and forthright about our grievances while others hide behind the mens' skirts and the only response from your little party of the indignant is from the 19 year old who is* semi clueless on half of the conversations going on.* Seems as though you are merely projecting the party of the indignant's tactics upon others.


At least I'm only "semi-clueless."  You are entirely clueless.



> Her husband is going to discuss whether the Liberty movement is a just another political farce with the Pauls?  Am I reading this right?  Is this some kind of veiled threat?


How would that be a "threat?"

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That is most definitely a "threat" against Bryan.  Whoa--she's really crossing some lines here that should never be crossed at all--


What's a "threat?"  Its certainly not a threat to do anything wrong or violent.  So, why should you care?

----------


## Terry1

> What's a "threat?"  Its certainly not a threat to do anything wrong or violent.  So, why should you care?


You should really step away from attempting to defend Nang on this one FF.  I have a feeling that fur is going to fly over this last whopper of a threat she made.

----------


## otherone

> Her husband is going to discuss whether the Liberty movement is a just another political farce with the Pauls?  Am I reading this right?  Is this some kind of veiled threat?


naaahhh...more like:



It's an arrested development thing  (yes, yes, I'm sure someone's relative or whatnot is struggling with this, and will demand an apology from me).

----------


## Deborah K

> It was offensive and I do not buy your apology.  You relished every word you posted and enjoyed getting the opportunity to vent against all Protestantism.


Let it be known that this woman does not practice what Christ preached over and over.

----------


## moostraks

> At least I'm only "semi-clueless."  You are entirely clueless.


Semi clueless in that your personal interpretations on my posts miss the mark more often then knowing my intentions (example would be my picture responses the other day or my dig at nang and s_F that pissed you guys off so bad, no one likes to have low blows made but it seems it is only offensive when the indignant trio are harmed) and the other half of the time your retort to people is to respond with idiot or something similar rather than offer any substance to your position or rebuttal to what was presented. Just like you did here. As usual you make the case for me. Thanks

----------


## Terry1

> Quote Originally Posted by Nang View Post 
> 
> After being here just a short while, I have discovered political blood in my body, I did not realize I had! 
> 
>  Mostly by discovering the hypocrisy exhibited by those who say they stand for liberty, freedoms, and tolerance of free speech, but then proving so inhospitable, vicious, and intolerant of other views and overtly expressing desire to extinguish the rights of others to post diverse religious views. It has been quite shocking!
> 
>  It is exactly what my husband is going to discuss with the Pauls. . . how can this be? Is the Liberty movement just another political farce?


So just what are you going to do here Nang?  Contact Ron Paul and whine to him that the people here don't represent his views?  Ron Paul has already addressed this issue and lost.  You're treading on dangerous ground here.  You're basically threatening the members of this forum whom Bryan represents as a whole.  Bad move Nang.

----------


## moostraks

> naaahhh...more like:
> 
> 
> 
> It's an arrested development thing  (yes, yes, I'm sure someone's relative or whatnot is struggling with this, and will demand an apology from me).


ROFL...and I agree with you.

----------


## moostraks

> So just what are you going to do here Nang?  Contact Ron Paul and whine to him that the people here don't represent his views?  Ron Paul has already addressed this issue and lost.  You're treading on dangerous ground here.  You're basically threatening the members of this forum whom Bryan represents as a whole.  Bad move Nang.


Well she brings this threat up from time to time and seems to be getting bolder in her behavior the longer she is let go. She is going to have her husband, not a member ?, tattle and we are all going to have to respect and obey her athoritay.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> LOL-- It's pretty much true, but in reality based upon what we have to work with now--*it couldn't be implemented with any success without sending us spiraling into a third world status*.  Is that really what anyone wants?


Prove it.

----------


## Terry1

> Well she brings this threat up from time to time and seems to be getting bolder in her behavior the longer she is let go. She is going to have her husband, not a member ?, tattle and we are all going to have to respect and obey her athoritay.


Well this is where I say that minor name calling and accusations are one thing, but making these *threats* against people are entirely something else.  I don't know how Bryan's going to handle this one at all.  I didn't think anything she posted could shock me anymore--I was wrong!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well this is where I say that minor name calling and accusations are one thing, but making these *threats* against people are entirely something else.  I don't know how Bryan's going to handle this one at all.  I didn't think anything she posted could shock me anymore--I was wrong!


I don't support any efforts to try to regulate this website from outside this website.  Ron Paul doesn't "own" his name, and this is Bryan's website, not Ron's.  I don't remember what the whole deal was with the RonPaul.com thing, but I think Ron was wrong there as well.  That said, I wasn't under the impression that Nang wanted to talk to Ron in order to punish this website, I thought she just wanted to discuss the liberty movement with him and whether or not it was a Christian movement, or something like that.

----------


## Deborah K

> Well this is where I say that minor name calling and accusations are one thing, but making these *threats* against people are entirely something else.  I don't know how Bryan's going to handle this one at all.  I didn't think anything she posted could shock me anymore--I was wrong!


Yeah, it shocked me as well.  I'd like to know specifically what is meant by what she wrote there.  In an effort to 'self-regulate' and all......

Wielding such veiled threats will have its ramifications.  This is something she needs to fully explain.

----------


## Deborah K

> I don't support any efforts to try to regulate this website from outside this website.  Ron Paul doesn't "own" his name, and this is Bryan's website, not Ron's.  I don't remember what the whole deal was with the RonPaul.com thing, but I think Ron was wrong there as well.  That said, I wasn't under the impression that Nang wanted to talk to Ron in order to punish this website, I thought she just wanted to discuss the liberty movement with him and whether or not it was a Christian movement, or something like that.


That is not what she wrote.  Don't try to whitewash this.

Edit:  I'm tempted to put it in my signature so that the rest of the membership can see it.

----------


## Terry1

> Yeah, it shocked me as well.  I'd like to know specifically what is meant by what she wrote there.  In an effort to 'self-regulate' and all......
> 
> Wielding such veiled threats will have its ramifications.  This is something she needs to fully explain.


How can she, when she basically said that she's going to the Paul's with her gripes against the people of this forum.  That's a pretty serious threat in light of her ignorance as to what has already transpired between RP and this forum previously over "names", "rights", and "property".  Poor Bryan--this is what his kindness and generosity has got him with her.

----------


## Deborah K

> How can she, when she basically said that she's going to the Paul's with her gripes against the people of this forum.  That's a pretty serious threat in light of her ignorance as to what has already transpired between RP and this forum previously over "names", "rights", and "property".  Poor Bryan--this is what his kindness and generosity has got him with her.


Bryan is a smart man.  But even he has his limits on patience with people.

----------


## otherone

> That's a pretty serious asinine threat in light of her ignorance as to what has already transpired between RP and this forum previously over "names", "rights", and "property".


fify

----------


## Terry1

> I don't support any efforts to try to regulate this website from outside this website.  Ron Paul doesn't "own" his name, and this is Bryan's website, not Ron's.  I don't remember what the whole deal was with the RonPaul.com thing, but I think Ron was wrong there as well.  That said, I wasn't under the impression that Nang wanted to talk to Ron in order to punish this website, I thought she just wanted to discuss the liberty movement with him and whether or not it was a Christian movement, or something like that.


She's gone way too far this time FF--best to step away from this one.

----------


## RJB

> fify


I agree.  It's more silly than serious.

Relax folks.  Have a beer with a loved one.

----------


## Terry1

> fify


Thanks for fixing it--that word is far more apropos.

----------


## Deborah K

> I agree.  It's more silly than serious.
> 
> Relax folks.  Have a beer with a loved one.


That really isn't the point.  Why state it at all?  What is the objective?  Fluffing it off as nonsense, yet again, excuses this woman's garish behavior.  The baiting, and then playing victim is getting old.  It really is time to put an end to this intentional divisiveness.  Bryan is trying to put an end to it by asking people to participate in his exercise.  The fact that she refuses and calls it manipulation is just another ploy to feed the drama.

If they _refuse_ to be part of the solution - then they're _proving_ that they are part of the problem.

----------


## RJB

> That really isn't the point.  Why state it at all?  What is the objective?  Fluffing it off as nonsense, once again, excuses this woman's garish behavior.  The *baiting*, and then playing victim is getting old.


Spend some time with the ones you love this weekend not one who baits you

----------


## Deborah K

FF, I applaud you for at least trying to get along.  Nang and I actually were getting somewhere when you and SF were banned.  But the moment you returned, she became combative and downright hateful again.  I can show you PMs, posts, etc. to prove it, if you don't believe me.

----------


## moostraks

> That really isn't the point.  Why state it at all?  What is the objective?  Fluffing it off as nonsense, once again, excuses this woman's garish behavior.  The baiting, and then playing victim is getting old.


Well from the selective censorship that she and S_F have embarked on against me the other night, I am just seeing them gain steam. Which is why I think she is floating the threat again just a bit louder each time. She is basically trying to verbally arm wrestle to be the authority in this sub forum. You are part of her group and you may do as you please or you are not and you will be ridiculed and censored. Lies and threats are fine as long as the party of the indignant is the one posting. Otherwise you are a hater and impeding their spread of the Gospel. I am not trying to silence them at all, as I think they make the best case against their position, but sure wish the other side could get a word in edgewise without constantly being shouted down with lies. Documentation to them seems to be 'cause they said so. Such is life...

----------


## Deborah K

> Spend some time with the ones you love this weekend not one who baits you


I'm woman.  I can multi-task.  

My goal at this point, is to get the religion forums back to a semi-peaceful state.  It's a personal thing, since I'm the one who petitioned for it years ago, in case you're wondering why I'm so aggressively pursuing this matter.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Well from the selective censorship that she and S_F have embarked on against me the other night, I am just seeing them gain steam. Which is why I think she is floating the threat again just a bit louder each time. She is basically trying to verbally arm wrestle to be the authority in this sub forum. You are part of her group and you may do as you please or you are not and you will be ridiculed and censored. Lies and threats are fine as long as the party of the indignant is the one posting. Otherwise you are a hater and impeding their spread of the Gospel. I am not trying to silence them at all, as I think they make the best case against their position, but sure wish the other side could get a word in edgewise without constantly being shouted down with lies. Documentation to them seems to be 'cause they said so. Such is life...


It is terribly one-sided.  They can call us stupid, heathen, ungodly, children of Satan and more, and worse, and that's OK but God forbid one of us even insinuate they may be wrong on some point and now we are engaging in personal attacks and should be forced into silence.  It's frankly absurd, and Bryan has 10-fold more patience with it than I would have.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm woman.  I can multi-task.  
> 
> My goal at this point, is to get the religion forums back to a semi-peaceful state.  It's a personal thing, since *I'm the one who petitioned for it years ago, in case you're wondering why I'm so aggressively pursuing this matter*.


Ah, so you're the one to blame for everything!

----------


## Terry1

> I'm woman.  I can multi-task.  
> 
> My goal at this point, is to get the religion forums back to a semi-peaceful state.  It's a personal thing, since I'm the one who petitioned for it years ago, in case you're wondering why I'm so aggressively pursuing this matter.


Don't be discouraged Deb, I do believe that some good is being accomplished here.  We just have to look beyond the fray to see it.

----------


## otherone

> It's a personal thing, since I'm the one who petitioned for it years ago, in case you're wondering why I'm so aggressively pursuing this matter.


Maybe you can petition for it to be renamed "The Jerry Springer Forum".

----------


## Deborah K

> Maybe you can petition for it to be renamed "The Jerry Springer Forum".


Not a bad idea.

----------


## moostraks

> It is terribly one-sided.  They can call us stupid, heathen, ungodly, children of Satan and more, and worse, and that's OK but God forbid one of us even insinuate they may be wrong on some point and now we are engaging in personal attacks and should be forced into silence.  It's frankly absurd, and Bryan has 10-fold more patience with it than I would have.


Agree completely. I am afraid my own frustration is often not providing the best response. I wish we could find some way to invoke a truce and move forward. It seems that the only way to be in this sub forum involves using the block user option so one can have some measure of peace. I am trying to be forthright with them from my own perspective but in doing so it seems that I have only angered them more and then I fight fire with fire and I end up being the bad guy.(And yes for the record I knew it was a low blow with with comment the other day and feel bad about it but the favoritism and attacking needs to stop) To say I am frustrated is an understatement.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> She's gone way too far this time FF--best to step away from this one.


Yeah, I think I'm going to.  There's no way I can defend that in particular, if that is indeed what she's saying.  Sorry.



> FF, I applaud you for at least trying to get along.  Nang and I actually were getting somewhere when you and SF were banned.  But the moment you returned, she became combative and downright hateful again.  I can show you PMs, posts, etc. to prove it, if you don't believe me.


Don't.  This isn't my fight.  Its none of my business.




> Not a bad idea.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Agree completely. I am afraid my own frustration is often not providing the best response. I wish we could find some way to invoke a truce and move forward. It seems that the only way to be in this sub forum involves using the block user option so one can have some measure of peace. I am trying to be forthright with them from my own perspective but in doing so it seems that I have only angered them more and then I fight fire with fire and I end up being the bad guy.(And yes for the record I knew it was a low blow with with comment the other day and feel bad about it but the favoritism and attacking needs to stop) To say I am frustrated is an understatement.


I am too.  The easiest truce would be simply to stop talking about each other and start discussing the issues.

----------


## moostraks

> I am too.  The easiest truce would be simply to stop talking about each other and start discussing the issues.


It doesn't work that way with some folks. The statements are made from one side which are very personal and then the other side gets offended. Then the ones condemning the others ask so? Why do you care? And then the offended side retaliates to show them why. Then the ones who started the whole mess cry and flag and make a huge drama so that we each get an individual hall to respond to the site owner.  And the ones who start the mess refuse to be show up to say why they feel the way they do as they carry this same crap out again on every thread all the while abusing the flag system and trying to eliminate comments from everyone who disagrees with them.  

And then the offenders act like the ones who are offended are stupid idiots who are crazier than a bat out of hell.

----------


## Terry1

> Yeah, I think I'm going to.  There's no way I can defend that in particular, if that is indeed what she's saying.  Sorry.
> 
> 
> Don't.  This isn't my fight.  Its none of my business.


This one might come back to bite her too if the feds start knocking on her door for harassing the Paul's with this silliness too.

----------


## Sola_Fide

NO ONE CARES ABOUT HOW YOUR FEELINGS ARE HURT BECAUSE YOU THINK OTHERS AREN'T NICE.  PUT YOUR BIG GIRL PANTIES ON AND DEBATE THE ISSUES INSTEAD OF MAKING YOUR POSTS ABOUT PERSONAL SQUABBLES.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This one might come back to bite her too if the feds start knocking on her door for harassing the Paul's with this silliness too.


OK, I don't see that as likely.  The Feds would actually probably appreciate anyone who wasted Ron Paul's time.  And, if the Feds ever did anything about that, I'd hope you would even be compassionate at that point...

----------


## Terry1

> OK, I don't see that as likely.  The Feds would actually probably appreciate anyone who wasted Ron Paul's time.  And, if the Feds ever did anything about that, I'd hope you would even be compassionate at that point...


Rand's an active politician, what do you think he'll do if she contacts him with this silliness--ignore her or have her put on a list of possible threats due to her being so disgruntled with the Liberty forum and those of us who are members here?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Rand's an active politician, what do you think he'll do if she contacts him with this silliness--ignore her or have her put on a list of possible threats due to her being so disgruntled with the Liberty forum and those of us who are members here?


List of threats?  Rand would probably just ignore her.  But, I don't exactly care what Rand Paul thinks anyways.  I'm kind of bored with him anyways.  I'll vote for him, but I'm not thrilled with him by any means.  Edward Snowden excites me far more than Rand Paul does these days.

----------


## RJB

> NO ONE CARES ABOUT HOW YOUR FEELINGS ARE HURT BECAUSE YOU THINK OTHERS AREN'T NICE.  PUT YOUR BIG GIRL PANTIES ON AND DEBATE THE ISSUES INSTEAD OF MAKING YOUR POSTS ABOUT PERSONAL SQUABBLES.


The reason why people get annoyed with you has nothing to do with your preaching of* your version* of the gospel, instead it's because your charming personality resembles that of a [DELETED BY RJB BEFORE POSTING  ].  Some understanding of basic communication skills would greatly help your attempt at evangelizing.

----------


## moostraks

> NO ONE CARES ABOUT HOW YOUR FEELINGS ARE HURT BECAUSE YOU THINK OTHERS AREN'T NICE.  PUT YOUR BIG GIRL PANTIES ON AND DEBATE THE ISSUES INSTEAD OF MAKING YOUR POSTS ABOUT PERSONAL SQUABBLES.





> And I find you to be destructive and absurd.





> Terry1, no offense but I bet you have never read a systematic theology or church history book in your life.





> Terry's beliefs are not "semi-gnosticism," . .  they are full-blown gnosticism.
> 
> But you know what is sad . . . is any of us who confront her with her error will be deemed bad.
> 
> Meanwhile, she will not bother to research Gnosticism to learn of her error.
> 
>  As long as we are deemed bad, for identifying her error, she thinks she has cover, and thereby Terry finds excuse to remain in her error, while declaring we who would offer scriptural correction, to be "bad!"
> 
> Such ungodliness produces the woes of the faithful sons and prophets of God!!!
> ...


Like this?

----------


## acptulsa

No, like this.




> Maybe your characterization of different group's hate is just a reflection of your dislike of them.  This antinomian love that you believe is not Biblical at all.





> Grow some balls and get in to the debate.





> I don't post outside of the religion forum either.





> NO ONE CARES ABOUT HOW YOUR FEELINGS ARE HURT BECAUSE YOU THINK OTHERS AREN'T NICE.  PUT YOUR BIG GIRL PANTIES ON AND DEBATE THE ISSUES INSTEAD OF MAKING YOUR POSTS ABOUT PERSONAL SQUABBLES.

----------


## Deborah K

> NO ONE CARES ABOUT HOW YOUR FEELINGS ARE HURT BECAUSE YOU THINK OTHERS AREN'T NICE.  PUT YOUR BIG GIRL PANTIES ON AND DEBATE THE ISSUES INSTEAD OF MAKING YOUR POSTS ABOUT PERSONAL SQUABBLES.


Is this for Nang?  Just wondering....

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Is this for Nang?  Just wondering....


No.  Nang's posts have *substance.*  They talk about issues.

----------


## Terry1

> No.  Nang's posts have *substance.*  They talk about issues.


You mean like this?




> Quote Originally Posted by Nang View Post 
> 
> Terry's beliefs are not "semi-gnosticism," . . they are full-blown gnosticism.
> 
>  But you know what is sad . . . is any of us who confront her with her error will be deemed bad.
> 
>  Meanwhile, she will not bother to research Gnosticism to learn of her error.
> 
>  As long as we are deemed bad, for identifying her error, she thinks she has cover, and thereby Terry finds excuse to remain in her error, while declaring we who would offer scriptural correction, to be "bad!"
> ...

----------


## acptulsa

> You mean like this?


Well?  Whose issues did you _think_ they were about?

----------


## Terry1

> Well?  Whose issues did you _think_ they were about?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You mean like this?


Terry1, the issue was your teaching of Gnosticism and passing it off as Christianity.  She wasn't attacking you because your she didn't like your hair.  She was raising a legitimate issue about the topic at hand.

----------


## moostraks

> Terry1, the issue was your teaching of Gnosticism and passing it off as Christianity.  She wasn't attacking you because your she didn't like your hair.  She was raising a legitimate issue about the topic at hand.


And yet discussing the hate some are spreading like a virus in the name of religion is off limits because it addresses the beliefs of the indignant trio.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And yet discussing the hate some are spreading like a virus in the name of religion is off limits because it addresses the beliefs of the indignant trio.


The only hate I've seen is your incessant personal attacks.  You have an anger problem.

----------


## moostraks

> The only hate I've seen is your incessant personal attacks.  You have an anger problem.


Keep trying S_F, you just cannot help but spread lies can you? How's that history lesson working out?



Think real hard how you answer this time.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Keep trying S_F, you just cannot help but spread lies can you? How's that history lesson working out?
> 
> 
> 
> Think real hard how you answer this time.




Another personal attack.


Will you please follow the forum guidelines and only post about issues? 

Thanks.

----------


## Dr.3D

And all this time I thought a Narcissist was somebody who developed new strains of Daffodils.

----------


## pcosmar

> All religions except Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a very broad question. With regards to posters here, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Arminianism, Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventism, etc. all deny that grace is free.
> 
> .


That is simply untrue. and Though I am not Roman Catholic I was raised in and taught in it.

Gods Grace is free to all, and Most others recognize the grace of God as a part of salvation. without the Grace of God ,,one cannot even understand the need for salvation. Both  Grace and Faith in Christ are required  for salvation.

----------


## moostraks

> The only hate I've seen is your incessant personal attacks.  You have an anger problem.





> Another personal attack.
> 
> 
> Will you please follow the forum guidelines and only post about issues? 
> 
> Thanks.


Guess you didn't get to #2? You are lying about me when you say that I hate because you think everything I post is about you. When I am talking about you then trust me I am pretty clear that you will know. And you personally promised you were gonna educate those who requested on the nature of the Reformed beliefs you espouse being an example of liberty and anti-censorship. The only thing I have seen so far is you showing just how pro-censorship your are to those who disagree with you to the extent of complaining that being personal is quoting your own words back to you.

----------


## moostraks

> And all this time I thought a Narcissist was somebody who developed new strains of Daffodils.




Pretty, huh?

----------


## Terry1

> Terry1, the issue was your teaching of Gnosticism and passing it off as Christianity.  She wasn't attacking you because your she didn't like your hair.  She was raising a legitimate issue about the topic at hand.



"teaching"?  "Gnosticism"?  Are you serious?  I explained Gnosticism to you both after you both accused me of it, then I went further to post scripture to back up what I wrote.  I didn't see any rebuttal from either one of you.

----------


## moostraks

> NO ONE CARES ABOUT HOW YOUR FEELINGS ARE HURT BECAUSE YOU THINK OTHERS AREN'T NICE.  PUT YOUR BIG GIRL PANTIES ON AND DEBATE THE ISSUES INSTEAD OF MAKING YOUR POSTS ABOUT PERSONAL SQUABBLES.





> Acptulsa, I really would suggest trying to have a teachable spirit.  Your pride and smart remarks are keeping you in darkness.


....

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That is simply untrue. and Though I am not Roman Catholic I was raised in and taught in it.
> 
> Gods Grace is free to all, and Most others recognize the grace of God as a part of salvation. without the Grace of God ,,one cannot even understand the need for salvation. Both  Grace and Faith in Christ are required  for salvation.


No.  Nothing is required from man for salvation.  If something was required for man for salvation, then grace would not be free.  Grace would be a payment for something worked by man.

----------


## Deborah K

> No.  Nang's posts have *substance.*  They talk about issues.


You mean like this?




> Originally Posted by Nang View Post 
> 
> Does what well? Deny the gospel of the righteousness found in Jesus Christ, alone. Yeah.
> 
>  To each his own . . . let TER worship what he wants to worship.
> 
> *But TER is an idolator and a false teacher who only wants to lure and entrap souls into his false religion.
> 
> * And his biggest threat are Reformers who stand ready and able to expose all the EO mysticisms and falsehoods.
> ...


BTW, this post was deleted, so apparently it wasn't a post of "substance".  So you can just stop with the double standards, Sola.

----------


## Deborah K

Posts like that are at the root of why this forum is like a cesspool now.

Madison's post #160 is a copy of it.  For anyone needing verification.

----------


## pcosmar

> No.  Nothing is required from man for salvation.  If something was required for man for salvation, then grace would not be free.  Grace would be a payment for something worked by man.


No payment,, but you must choose to believe. And salvation can be rejected.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No.  Nothing is required from man for salvation.  If something was required for man for salvation, then grace would not be free.  Grace would be a payment for something worked by man.





> No payment,, but you must choose to believe. And salvation can be rejected.


I could respond to this by quoting the typical Calvinistic proof texts, but I'm going to let SF have on this one because I think its an interesting indicator of how Arminianism(at least in a best case scenario) differs from what I'd call "real" works salvation systems, such as baptismal regeneration, confession, and the like.  Note how at least some Arminians do NOT appeal to works of any kind, instead they appeal to the possibility of rejecting free grace.  This is logically inconsistent for a number of reasons, but I'm not sure if its a works-based system "per say."

I'm curious how this one's going to go...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You mean like this?
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, this post was deleted, so* apparently it wasn't a post of "substance"*.  So you can just stop with the double standards, Sola.


Or maybe Bryan made a mistake?  I think he did, especially when you view the conversation in context.  If you know what TER posted and you still think he didn't deserve that, I would say you are also wrong.

----------


## Deborah K

> Or maybe Bryan made a mistake?  I think he did, especially when you view the conversation in context.  If you know what TER posted and you still think he didn't deserve that, I would say you are also wrong.


Bryan gave everyone who participates in that exercise free reign to say what they think.  She has every bit a right to do the same within that scope.  Without that scope, she does not.  Read his OP again.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Bryan gave everyone who participates in that exercise free reign to say what they think.  She has every bit a right to do the same within that scope.  Without that scope, she does not.  Read his OP again.


The OP is irrelevant.  Nang's post was still a post of substance, even if it was off topic.

That said, I think this format is fundamentally a mistake as well.  This is too much an attempt to have it both ways.  I fully expected Catholics and EOs to get upset and respond accordingly when I called their churches "satanic", even though you asked me the question.  I fully expected a hostile response.  TER basically did the same thing to us and yet did NOT expect a hostile response.  That was foolish on his part.  I knew what I was getting into when I answered the question, I don't think most other people do.

Let's be realists here, it takes a thick skin to debate religion online.  Religious debates inherently deal with things that cannot be proved (using the conventional definitions of "proof", I happen to think these definitions are unhelpful but I'm in the minority on that point), they deal with mutually exclusive claims that not everybody agrees on, and they inherently deal with statements of fact, and yes, harsh judgments of other people, being presented as facts despite the fact that not everybody agrees with them.  A statement like "2 + 2 = 4" is exclusive but generally not offensive because nobody really believes that 2 + 2 = 3 or that 2 + 2 = 5.  I am presenting the statement that the Roman Catholic church is satanic as a factual statement EVEN THOUGH I recognize that the vast majority of people disagree with me.  These sorts of discussions are inevitably "rough."  I can take them because I have a very low view of the opinions of other people in general, and thus I generally don't care what other people think of me.  RPF is somewhat unique in that it is predominately made up of people with political brilliance who have logically deduced political positions in ways that most other people have not.  As such, I value the average person's position on politics here moreso than elsewhere.  But that has nothing to do with religious discussion, in religious discussion we do not necessarily have common ground and are different as different can be.  

However, even though these discussions are inherently offensive, there are some offenses that are utterly unnecessary and add nothing to the debates at hand.  In Nang's case, this was not so.  She was correctly identifying a false teacher.  Offensive though this is, it is a relevant aspect of religious debate.  SF was correct, and I'm guessing 90+% of people here are wrong.  Which doesn't surprise me.  That's usually how it is, and again, this forum is the 10% minority on politics but on religion the average person is just as wrong here as anywhere else.

----------


## moostraks

> The OP is irrelevant.  Nang's post was still a post of substance, even if it was off topic.
> 
> That said, I think this format is fundamentally a mistake as well.  This is too much an attempt to have it both ways.  I fully expected Catholics and EOs to get upset and respond accordingly when I called their churches "satanic", even though you asked me the question.  I fully expected a hostile response.  TER basically did the same thing to us and yet did NOT expect a hostile response.  That was foolish on his part.  I knew what I was getting into when I answered the question, I don't think most other people do.
> 
> Let's be realists here, it takes a thick skin to debate religion online.  Religious debates inherently deal with things that cannot be proved (using the conventional definitions of "proof", I happen to think these definitions are unhelpful but I'm in the minority on that point), they deal with mutually exclusive claims that not everybody agrees on, and they inherently deal with statements of fact, and yes, harsh judgments of other people, being presented as facts despite the fact that not everybody agrees with them.  A statement like "2 + 2 = 4" is exclusive but generally not offensive because nobody really believes that 2 + 2 = 3 or that 2 + 2 = 5.  I am presenting the statement that the Roman Catholic church is satanic as a factual statement EVEN THOUGH I recognize that the vast majority of people disagree with me.  These sorts of discussions are inevitably "rough."  I can take them because I have a very low view of the opinions of other people in general, and thus I generally don't care what other people think of me.  RPF is somewhat unique in that it is predominately made up of people with political brilliance who have logically deduced political positions in ways that most other people have not.  As such, I value the average person's position on politics here moreso than elsewhere.  But that has nothing to do with religious discussion, in religious discussion we do not necessarily have common ground and are different as different can be.  
> 
> However, even though these discussions are inherently offensive, there are some offenses that are utterly unnecessary and add nothing to the debates at hand.  In Nang's case, this was not so.  She was correctly identifying a false teacher.  Offensive though this is, it is a relevant aspect of religious debate.  SF was correct, and I'm guessing 90+% of people here are wrong.  Which doesn't surprise me.  That's usually how it is, and again, this forum is the 10% minority on politics but on religion the average person is just as wrong here as anywhere else.


If one would respond in the original thread and open dialogue to put forth why they feel unfavorably toward a religion that would be fair. Certain folks are not wanting to do so because they are not willing to stand behind the trouble going on in other threads. So instead, people are cross-posting in opposition to the op and getting all twisted about why other people are viewing their religion unfavorably. Irony is the ones getting most offended and cross posting are those who make the most trouble in the forum telling everyone else they are damned on every thread and being cavalier about the insensitive nature of the comments.

----------


## acptulsa

> The OP is irrelevant.  Nang's post was still a post of substance, even if it was off topic.


Hemlock tea has some substance to it, too.




> That said, I think this format is fundamentally a mistake as well.  This is too much an attempt to have it both ways.  I fully expected Catholics and EOs to get upset and respond accordingly when I called their churches "satanic", even though you asked me the question.  I fully expected a hostile response.  TER basically did the same thing to us and yet did NOT expect a hostile response.  That was foolish on his part.  I knew what I was getting into when I answered the question, I don't think most other people do.


What the world needs is a website called comeletFFabusethesnotoutofyou.com

It'll be just the thing when they cancel _Big Bang Theory._




> Let's be realists here, it takes a thick skin to debate religion online.


You've heard of self-fulfilling prophecies?  Meet the self-fulfilling prophet.




> Religious debates inherently deal with things that cannot be proved (using the conventional definitions of "proof", I happen to think these definitions are unhelpful but I'm in the minority on that point), they deal with mutually exclusive claims that not everybody agrees on, and they inherently deal with statements of fact, and yes, harsh judgments of other people, being presented as facts despite the fact that not everybody agrees with them.  A statement like "2 + 2 = 4" is exclusive but generally not offensive because nobody really believes that 2 + 2 = 3 or that 2 + 2 = 5.  I am presenting the statement that the Roman Catholic church is satanic as a factual statement EVEN THOUGH I recognize that the vast majority of people disagree with me.  These sorts of discussions are inevitably "rough."  I can take them because I have a very low view of the opinions of other people in general, and thus I generally don't care what other people think of me.  RPF is somewhat unique in that it is predominately made up of people with political brilliance who have logically deduced political positions in ways that most other people have not.  As such, I value the average person's position on politics here moreso than elsewhere.  But that has nothing to do with religious discussion, in religious discussion we do not necessarily have common ground and are different as different can be.


Friends, FF may sound like he has no respect for you at all.  And he may act like he has no respect for you at all.

But don't let that fool you.  He has no respect for you at all. 




> However, even though these discussions are inherently offensive, there are some offenses that are utterly unnecessary and add nothing to the debates at hand.  In Nang's case, this was not so.  She was correctly identifying a false teacher.  Offensive though this is, it is a relevant aspect of religious debate.  SF was correct, and I'm guessing 90+% of people here are wrong.  Which doesn't surprise me.  That's usually how it is, and again, this forum is the 10% minority on politics but on religion the average person is just as wrong here as anywhere else.


Psst...  Don't tell him that the exceptional person can be as wrong here as anywhere else, too.  Trust me on this one...

----------


## Deborah K

> The OP is irrelevant.  Nang's post was still a post of substance, even if it was off topic.
> 
> That said, I think this format is fundamentally a mistake as well.  This is too much an attempt to have it both ways.  I fully expected Catholics and EOs to get upset and respond accordingly when I called their churches "satanic", even though you asked me the question.  I fully expected a hostile response.  TER basically did the same thing to us and yet did NOT expect a hostile response.  That was foolish on his part.  I knew what I was getting into when I answered the question, I don't think most other people do.
> 
> Let's be realists here, it takes a thick skin to debate religion online.  Religious debates inherently deal with things that cannot be proved (using the conventional definitions of "proof", I happen to think these definitions are unhelpful but I'm in the minority on that point), they deal with mutually exclusive claims that not everybody agrees on, and they inherently deal with statements of fact, and yes, harsh judgments of other people, being presented as facts despite the fact that not everybody agrees with them.  A statement like "2 + 2 = 4" is exclusive but generally not offensive because nobody really believes that 2 + 2 = 3 or that 2 + 2 = 5.  I am presenting the statement that the Roman Catholic church is satanic as a factual statement EVEN THOUGH I recognize that the vast majority of people disagree with me.  These sorts of discussions are inevitably "rough."  I can take them because I have a very low view of the opinions of other people in general, and thus I generally don't care what other people think of me.  RPF is somewhat unique in that it is predominately made up of people with political brilliance who have logically deduced political positions in ways that most other people have not.  As such, I value the average person's position on politics here moreso than elsewhere.  But that has nothing to do with religious discussion, in religious discussion we do not necessarily have common ground and are different as different can be.  
> 
> However, even though these discussions are inherently offensive, there are some offenses that are utterly unnecessary and add nothing to the debates at hand.  In Nang's case, this was not so.  She was correctly identifying a false teacher.  Offensive though this is, it is a relevant aspect of religious debate.  SF was correct, and I'm guessing 90+% of people here are wrong.  Which doesn't surprise me.  That's usually how it is, and again, this forum is the 10% minority on politics but on religion the average person is just as wrong here as anywhere else.


Have you ever looked up the official rules of debate?  The reason I ask is because they elevate the standards and make debating more enjoyable for people who tend toward critical thinking.  The other types just want drama.  Even in the case of theology, it is possible to elevate the standards of debate.  Personally, I think it represents Dr. Paul and puts his image in a much better light, and we owe at least THAT much to this man who many consider the Founding Father of the Freedom Movement.  Most of us are in line with his political philosophy or we wouldn't be camping here and 'fellowshipping' or planning political action the way we have all these many years. 

My point is, anytime you can't defend your argument without debasing another person or their belief system, you basically look like someone who wants drama and can't win a debate without casting aspersions on your opponent.  Sometimes we all fail at keeping the standards high, but there are those whose objective it is to do nothing _but_ create drama.  The problem with these people is that they wreak havoc and then claim victim status.  It's cunning, subversive, and counterproductive to the guidelines and objectives of this forum, as well as the overall forum. 

Bryan is trying to give everyone their say so that he can flesh out the problems and adjust the guidelines accordingly.  If members whine and cry like babies and won't cooperate, how can we blame _him_ for at least _trying_ to solve the problem.

Nothing will ever change as long as there is no ecumenism in these forums.  So, if that never becomes the requirement, the religious forum will continue to be the stinking, swirling cesspool it has become.

----------


## Terry1

> The OP is irrelevant.  Nang's post was still a post of substance, even if it was off topic.
> 
> That said, I think this format is fundamentally a mistake as well.  This is too much an attempt to have it both ways.  I fully expected Catholics and EOs to get upset and respond accordingly when I called their churches "satanic", even though you asked me the question.  I fully expected a hostile response.  TER basically did the same thing to us and yet did NOT expect a hostile response.  That was foolish on his part.  I knew what I was getting into when I answered the question, I don't think most other people do.
> 
> Let's be realists here, it takes a thick skin to debate religion online.  Religious debates inherently deal with things that cannot be proved (using the conventional definitions of "proof", I happen to think these definitions are unhelpful but I'm in the minority on that point), they deal with mutually exclusive claims that not everybody agrees on, and they inherently deal with statements of fact, and yes, harsh judgments of other people, being presented as facts despite the fact that not everybody agrees with them.  A statement like "2 + 2 = 4" is exclusive but generally not offensive because nobody really believes that 2 + 2 = 3 or that 2 + 2 = 5.  I am presenting the statement that the Roman Catholic church is satanic as a factual statement EVEN THOUGH I recognize that the vast majority of people disagree with me.  These sorts of discussions are inevitably "rough."  I can take them because I have a very low view of the opinions of other people in general, and thus I generally don't care what other people think of me.  RPF is somewhat unique in that it is predominately made up of people with political brilliance who have logically deduced political positions in ways that most other people have not.  As such, I value the average person's position on politics here moreso than elsewhere.  But that has nothing to do with religious discussion, in religious discussion we do not necessarily have common ground and are different as different can be.  
> 
> However, even though these discussions are inherently offensive, there are some offenses that are utterly unnecessary and add nothing to the debates at hand.  In Nang's case, this was not so.  She was correctly identifying a false teacher.  Offensive though this is, it is a relevant aspect of religious debate.  SF was correct, and I'm guessing 90+% of people here are wrong.  Which doesn't surprise me.  That's usually how it is, and again, this forum is the 10% minority on politics but on religion the average person is just as wrong here as anywhere else.


Nang brought no proof to the table that anything I said was as she accused me, but left it to Sola to do the dirty work.  I proved him wrong and Nang as well, so then why do you keep asserting that I was a false teacher or anyone else for that matter.  

If someone accuses you of something, don't you expect to see the reason why they accused you along with some proof or the word of God to back that up?  Tossing fruit at someone is not proof, nor does it explain why they have accused someone.

----------


## Deborah K

Oh, and Bryan posted this in the OP:

[QUOTE=Bryan;5539561]
*
If you can get offended by harsh religious discussion then please do not read beyond this point. Thank you.*


Seems to me many of you should have heeded this advice.  Just sayin'.

----------


## acptulsa

> Have you ever looked up the official rules of debate?


You're showing your age.

This is the era of proving you're right by throwing the biggest fit.




> This is absolutely ridiculous.  My debate teacher from high school would roll over in her grave.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

We are known by the fruits of our walk.  Walk in the Way, and the Spirit will manifest in your presence.  Some commentary:




> *Galatians 5:19-26*
> The Voice (VOICE)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *19* It’s clear that our flesh entices us into practicing some of its most heinous acts: participating in corrupt sexual relationships, impurity, unbridled lust, *20* idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, arguing, jealousy, anger, selfishness, contentiousness, division, *21* envy _of others’ good fortune,_ drunkenness, drunken revelry, and other shameful vices _that plague humankind_. I told you this clearly before, and I only tell you again _so there is no room for confusion:_ those who give in to these ways will not inherit the kingdom of God.
> 
> ...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You're showing your age.
> 
> This is the era of proving you're right by throwing the biggest fit.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I could respond to this by quoting the typical Calvinistic proof texts, but I'm going to let SF have on this one because I think its an interesting indicator of how Arminianism(at least in a best case scenario) differs from what I'd call "real" works salvation systems, such as baptismal regeneration, confession, and the like.  Note how at least some Arminians do NOT appeal to works of any kind, instead they appeal to the possibility of rejecting free grace.  This is logically inconsistent for a number of reasons, but I'm not sure if its a works-based system "per say."
> 
> I'm curious how this one's going to go...



FF,




> *Romans 9:16 
> 
> It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.*


Do Arminians believe this?

----------


## acptulsa

> FF,
> 
> 
> 
> Do Arminians believe this?


Pardon me, but why don't the two of you ask someone who actually knows?

----------


## robert68

> ...
> 
> 
> The Biblical teaching that God is ONE in being, and THREE in person.  The 3 persons of God share equally in the 1 divine being of God.  This is a combination of several propositions in the Bible.


1+1+1 ≠ 1

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 1+1+1 ≠ 1


No.  God is 1 and 3 in _different senses._  Your criticism is based on a misunderstanding.   Your criticism would be valid if I said God was 1 and 3 _in the same sense._

But I didn't say that...so what you said means nothing to my position.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No payment,, but you must choose to believe.


No.  That is the popular false gospel today.  The Bible says that faith is a gift that God gives a man.  A man chooses God only if God chooses Him first.




> salvation can be rejected.


How can a man, who was dead and then brought to life, "reject" being made alive?   Its impossible.  Dead men don't reject or accept or react to anytging.  They are dead.  They get ACTED UPON.

----------


## GunnyFreedom



----------


## pcosmar

> No.  That is the popular false gospel today.  The Bible says that faith is a gift that God gives a man.  A man chooses God only if God chooses Him first.
> 
> 
> 
> How can a man, who was dead and then brought to life, "reject" being made alive?   Its impossible.  Dead men don't reject or accept or react to anytging.  They are dead.  They get ACTED UPON.


So you believe that salvation is forced on people against their will?. Just as sin is forced on them? That they have absolutely no choice in the matter.
Just slaves being driven by a slave master.

I think I reject that idea.

----------


## GunnyFreedom



----------


## Sola_Fide

> So you believe that salvation is forced on people against their will?


Yes.  The Bible teaches man's will is dead in sin.  Salvation MUST be forced on him.  A dead man must be brought to life.  That requires an act of force on God's part.





> Just as sin is forced on them?


It's not entirely the same.  Man is already dead in sin, God doesn't have to force him to be dead.  But in the grand scheme of things, yes, God has prepared some pots for glory and some pots for destruction. 





> That they have absolutely no choice in the matter.
> Just slaves being driven by a slave master.


Dead men don't choose.  Dead men are rotting bones in the ground.





> I think I reject that idea.


I know you reject the idea.  Men in their sin recoil at the idea that they are not autonomous.

----------


## pcosmar

> Yes.  The Bible teaches man's will is dead in sin.  Salvation MUST be forced on him.  A dead man must be brought to life.  That requires an act of force on God's part.


And why is that.? Adams Sin?

but by your "logic" Adam had no choice in the matter (even when he was not Dead in Sin) Adam Had No Choice.

God created the EVIL,, and made Adam Sin so he could condemn all mankind. And then "save" him from what He Himself had done to him.

No,, I think I reject that idea in entirety.




> I know you reject the idea.  Men in their sin recoil at the idea that they are not autonomous.


Of course not.. I don't have any choice.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FF,
> 
> 
> 
> Do Arminians believe this?


They can't believe it consistently, no.  But what if an Arminian has never seen this verse before?  What if they have but they haven't thought seriously about what it means?




> It's not entirely the same.  Man is already dead in sin, God doesn't have to force him to be dead.  But in the grand scheme of things, yes, God has prepared some pots for glory and some pots for destruction.


And yet when I say essentially the same thing ,you accuse me of conditionality.  Why?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> They can't believe it consistently, no.  But what if an Arminian has never seen this verse before?  What if they have but they haven't thought seriously about what it means?
> 
> 
> And yet when I say essentially the same thing ,you accuse me of conditionality.  Why?


If I remember correctly,  you used some very conditional language.   I believe in active reprobation.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If I remember correctly,  you used some very conditional language.   I believe in active reprobation.


Can you explain what active reprobation means to you?

I believe in double predestination but reject equal ultimacy.  I don't know how you define "active reprobation" so I'm not sure how that qualifies.

----------


## Christian Liberty

[QUOTE=Deborah K;5541962]Oh, and Bryan posted this in the OP:




> *
> If you can get offended by harsh religious discussion then please do not read beyond this point. Thank you.*
> 
> 
> Seems to me many of you should have heeded this advice.  Just sayin'.


I don't get offended.  Practically ever.  That doesn't change the fact that Nang was correct.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I would postulate that the number is 144 million.  One hundred and fourty four million angels can dance on the head of a pin.

----------


## Terry1

> I don't get offended.  Practically ever.  That doesn't change the fact that Nang was correct.


About what?

----------

