# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Continuing my conversation with FreedomFanatic from the closed thread

## cajuncocoa

> Question for FreedomFanatic: why do you feel it is so important for you to take on the task of showing those who follow a "false gospel" the error of their ways? Since you've been told it's offensive to others, why not stop?





> I'm less worried about offending people than I am about people's souls. 
> 
> Now, if it were a face to face conversation, and somebody didn't want to hear it anymore, I'd shake the dust off my feet, as the Bible suggests. But its different on an online forum, where everyone reacts differently to the discussion. I won't post who without their permission, but there is a poster here who claims to have been saved due in part to the preaching of SF and Nang. Even if identifying errors won't help the people who are debating me, it could help other people.
> 
> With that being said, it shouldn't be offensive. People just need to get over themselves and get into the debate rather than crying in the corner when someone says something that's offensive. Frankly, I think these types of things show a lack of confidence in one's own relationship with God. I know I have one so I couldn't care less if someone else says I don't. Being offended by it shows uncertainty.





> Fair enough, but you didn't answer my main question: why do you feel compelled to take on this task of saving souls?


I don't really care if others want to add their .02 to this discussion, but I'd still like to hear FF's response to this even if others want to take a shot at it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I don't save people.  But I do tell people that they need to be saved, and I pray that God will help them to see it.  See Matthew 28:19-20 and Romans 1:16-17.

I don't usually explain election in depth during basic gospel presentation, but since its been brought up here, I'll just address the inevitable question.  If God is in control of who is saved, than why preach?

The answer is that God uses the means of preaching the gospel to bring his people to a knowledge of the truth, as Romans 1:16-17 says.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I don't save people.  But I do tell people that they need to be saved, and I pray that God will help them to see it.  See Matthew 28:19-20 and Romans 1:16-17.
> 
> I don't usually explain election in depth during basic gospel presentation, but since its been brought up here, I'll just address the inevitable question.  If God is in control of who is saved, than why preach?
> 
> The answer is that God uses the means of preaching the gospel to bring his people to a knowledge of the truth, as Romans 1:16-17 says.


What if I told you that God doesn't need *you* to preach His Gospel to save people?  God is all-knowing, all-powerful. He has ways of bringing people to Him without human intervention.

So why do YOU feel compelled to preach the Gospel to non-believers?

----------


## MelissaWV

$0.02.

I get the compunction a lot of folks feel to preach.  I really do.  It's like seeing someone about to walk off a cliff and feeling the need to do everything in your power to stop it.  Even if that person tells you there's a bridge there, and they're going to be fine, you keep going on and on about how falling off the cliff is a bad thing.  You have to because not to do so would be to participate actively in that person walking off the cliff to certain death.

The thing is, you really have no way of knowing they are going to walk off the cliff if you don't interfere.  They might stop right at the edge, have a seat, and enjoy the view.  They might be going right to the edge to erect a large sign that says "WARNING!!!  REALLY STEEP BAD CLIFF AHEAD!!! DON'T WALK OFF!" in which case they'd be doing more helpful work than you are.  They might actually walk off the cliff after all, but you chasing them around badgering them about it only made them walk faster and more resolutely towards the edge.  

And there might actually BE a bridge there.  Since you are so concerned with simpering at the edges of things, telling people what you know about the cliff, you really don't know whether there's a bridge or not.  You just know you can't see it from where you are, so you assert that the walker will fall.  

Sometimes shouting it once or twice is all you can do, and then worry about not falling over the edge while you're wrapped up in your own zeal.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Yes, I agree with this, Melissa.  

I guess what I'm really getting at is, why do we do this at all?  What will happen to us, spiritually or morally, if we don't stop the person from going off the cliff -- or from dooming themselves, if that's what we think they're doing?  

What's in it for the person preaching?  FF, I'd really love to hear *your* answer to this.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What if I told you that God doesn't need *you* to preach His Gospel to save people?  God is all-knowing, all-powerful. He has ways of bringing people to Him without human intervention.
> 
> So why do YOU feel compelled to preach the Gospel to non-believers?





> Yes, I agree with this, Melissa.  
> 
> I guess what I'm really getting at is, why do we do this at all?  What will happen to us, spiritually or morally, if we don't stop the person from going off the cliff -- or from dooming themselves, if that's what we think they're doing?  
> 
> What's in it for the person preaching?  FF, I'd really love to hear *your* answer to this.


I will wholeheartedly agree that God is able to preach the gospel without human intervention.  But that's not the norm, and God never told us to count on him doing that.  Acts 9 is a good example of God doing this.  Paul hated Christians and God converted him on the side of the road.  No human intervention, nothing.  Just God.  But that isn't the norm.  The norm is that God tells us to preach the gospel to all nations (Matthew 28:19-20.)

Ultimately, God predestines everything that happens, who preaches, when they preach, what the results are, etc.  But I don't know what God has predestined and who he has predestined.  All I know is that God told me to preach the gospel and that he may use it to save some.  So I preach the gospel in hopes that some people will respond and be saved, rather than spending eternity in Hell.

Isn't that enough of a reason?  Mind you, I do think the Bible teaches that there are rewards in heaven for those who do things for God, but I don't even really worry about that.  The  prospect of seeing someone potentially avoid eternal torment is more than enough motivation.

And, I have seen someone on this very forum converted through the preaching of Sola, Nang, and myself.  I take no credit for this, but it is encouragement to press on.  I am a willing vessel, and I hope that God will use me to win some of his people to himself.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes, I agree with this, Melissa.  
> 
> I guess what I'm really getting at is, why do we do this at all?  What will happen to us, spiritually or morally, if we don't stop the person from going off the cliff -- or from dooming themselves, if that's what we think they're doing?  
> 
> What's in it for the person preaching?  FF, I'd really love to hear *your* answer to this.


What if there's nothing in it for the person preaching?  Wouldn't the fact that someone else might not go to Hell be enough reason?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> And, I have seen someone on this very forum converted through the preaching of Sola, Nang, and myself.  I take no credit for this, but it is encouragement to press on.  I am a willing vessel, and I hope that God will use me to win some of his people to himself.


Strangely, I've been further converted the other way.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Strangely, I've been further converted the other way.


So you're hardening yourself.  That is the natural man's response to the gospel.  Repent before its too late.

----------


## William Tell

> So you're hardening yourself.  That is the natural man's response to the gospel.  Repent before its too late.


Saying that does nothing besides annoy people, don't you see? You are turning people off to your views, don't you care that you are causing more harm than good?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> So you're hardening yourself.  That is the natural man's response to the gospel.  Repent before its too late.


I was Catholic.  I accepted Jesus as my Savior.  You said that's not good enough.  So why should I even bother participating in Theistic Religion?  No matter what a person does, someone else will always have another take on the Bible that says they're wrong and going to Hell. 

To be honest though, I've had doubts arise from reasons other than this as I mentioned in my "Do You Doubt?" thread.  It starts with wondering if God created the Universe, than where did this God come from?  I'm also seriously fascinated with The Physics of Nothing and how we can get a Universe from seemingly Zero Energy.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I was Catholic.  I accepted Jesus as my Savior.  You said that's not good enough.  So why should I even bother participating in Theistic Religion?  No matter what a person does, someone else will always have another take on the Bible that says they're wrong and going to Hell.


I don't say that all Catholics are unsaved, it depends on whether or not they believe any of their own works contribute to their justification before God.  Biblically justification is something that Jesus accomplished on the cross and that is imputed to the believer's account at the moment of belief.  Catholicism combines justification and sanctification into one thing, namely, they believe you are saved by working your way toward actual righteousness, rather than a trust in a righteousness outside yourself.  Big difference.

With that being said, you don't even currently believe in Jesus at all, which makes it seem likely to me that you never believed the true gospel at all.  The Bible tells you what the true gospel is.  I'd recommend reading the book of Romans.


> To be honest though, I've had doubts arise from reasons other than this as I mentioned in my "Do You Doubt?" thread.  It starts with wondering if God created the Universe, than where did this God come from?  I'm also seriously fascinated with The Physics of Nothing and how we can get a Universe from seemingly Zero Energy.


God is eternally existent, since he's outside of time he also isn't caused by anything outside of himself.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I'd recommend reading the book of Romans.


I hear that's popular around here.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> What if there's nothing in it for the person preaching?  Wouldn't the fact that someone else might not go to Hell be enough reason?





> Strangely, I've been further converted the other way.





> Saying that does nothing besides annoy people, don't you see? You are turning people off to your views, don't you care that you are causing more harm than good?


What about this, FF....aren't you concerned that you're turning some people in the direction you *don't* want them to go?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'd recommend reading the book of Romans.





> I hear that's popular around here.


Indeed, it is.  

I'd recommend reading Matthew, Mark, Luke and John...if not the whole Book.

----------


## William Tell

> Indeed, it is.  
> 
> I'd recommend reading Matthew, Mark, Luke and John...if not the whole Book.


It seems like Paul is quoted about 10 times against one quote of Jesus. Not to mention the Old Testament, which is virtually entirely forgotten. Not just on RPF, but in American Christianity these days.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> It seems like Paul is quoted about 10 times against one quote of Jesus. The Old Testament is virtually entirely forgotten. Not just on RPF, but in American Christianity these days.


That's what I don't understand in these discussions.  If one refers to him/herself as a "Christian" why wouldn't that person repeat more of the words of Christ Himself instead of one of His Apostles?  And when Christ's words appear to be in conflict with said Apostle, why wouldn't a Christian give more credence to Christ's words?

Note:  I am not implying that anyone is not a Christian.  If you say you are, I believe you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Christ's words don't contradict Paul's words.  John is an excellent book for getting the gospel laid out throughout as well.

----------


## eduardo89

> I don't say that all Catholics are unsaved, it depends on whether or not they believe any of their own works contribute to their justification before God.  Biblically justification is something that Jesus accomplished on the cross and that is imputed to the believer's account at the moment of belief.  Catholicism combines justification and sanctification into one thing, namely, they believe you are saved by working your way toward actual righteousness, rather than a trust in a righteousness outside yourself.  Big difference.


All of of this is either an untrue and/or grossly simplified and distorted view on what Catholics believe.

----------


## William Tell

> Christ's words don't contradict Paul's words.


Good, they had better not. But why so few Jesus quotes by most?

----------


## eduardo89

> I'd recommend reading the book of Romans.


This is one of the biggest problems with you. You take Romans on its own without the rest of the Bible. You cannot look at verses individually outside of the context of the entire Bible or you end up with twisted idiotic things like sex = marriage (not saying you believe that).

----------


## eduardo89

> Good, they had better not. But why so few Jesus quotes by most?


Anything posted quoting Jesus will actually be one of the writers quoting Jesus. The Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Not by Jesus Himself.

----------


## William Tell

> Anything posted quoting Jesus will actually be one of the writers quoting Jesus.


Gee, that's the first time I ever considered that Eduardo, thanks buddy for telling me that.

----------


## eduardo89

> Gee, that's the first time I ever considered that Eduardo, thanks buddy for telling me that.


You're welcome.



The amazing thing is the Evangelists all wrote their respective Gospels independently of one another, yet their recollections of what Jesus said and did are virtually identical.

----------


## francisco

> ...And, I have seen someone on this very forum converted through the preaching of Sola, Nang, and myself.  I take no credit for this, but it is encouragement to press on.  I am a willing vessel, and I hope that God will use me to win some of his people to himself.


Who, if I may ask?




> Strangely, I've been further converted the other way.


Same here. I thought Bible thumpers are bad in real life, but they're even worse online and if anything turn readers away...

----------


## William Tell

> Who, if I may ask?


+ rep, I want to know too.





> Same here. I thought Bible thumpers are bad in real life, but they're even worse online and if anything turn readers away...


It's a real shame that discussions on truth turn, in to debates over the messengers.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Who, if I may ask?





> + rep, I want to know too.


I'd like to know that too.  I'm skeptical, given the approach used.  I cannot think of a single example when anyone has been convinced of a different opinion by having insults and personal attacks hurled at them.  Perhaps they just said that so they could leave the discussion gracefully?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Christ's words don't contradict Paul's words.  John is an excellent book for getting the gospel laid out throughout as well.


I said "appear" to be in conflict.  You know, we all have to take things in with our own eyes and ears and process them with our brains....then we come to conclusions.  Not everyone is as certain of the lack of conflict (or of their own salvation) as you are -- and I'm happy for you for that!  But that may not be true of everyone.  I'm giving others the benefit of doubt.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> This is one of the biggest problems with you. You take Romans on its own without the rest of the Bible. You cannot look at verses individually outside of the context of the entire Bible or you end up with twisted idiotic things like sex = marriage (not saying you believe that).


*Big +rep. *

----------


## francisco

> *Big +rep. *


I just noticed for the first time 5 black stars above your green rep bars. Is that something new?

Anyway, since you amplified your +rep to eduardo by putting it in bold large font, I decided to help out by giving him some more rep for you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I said "appear" to be in conflict.  You know, we all have to take things in with our own eyes and ears and process them with our brains....then we come to conclusions.  Not everyone is as certain of the lack of conflict (or of their own salvation) as you are -- and I'm happy for you for that!  But that may not be true of everyone.  I'm giving others the benefit of doubt.


To be clear, I am NOT saying that one has to believe exactly as I do in order to be saved.  But, the fact that the Bible has no contradictions is basic stuff.  If you believe that, why get at me for what book I'm quoting, seeing as all the things I am quoting come from the same inspired source?

That said, Jesus regularly blasted the Pharisees for being self-righteous.  The Pharisees thought their works were good enough to justify themselves.  Jesus taught that belief, not works, was the difference between a saved man and a lost man (John 3:18.)  Jesus also taught the same election doctrine that you despise so much (John 6:37-44, John 10:15-29.)




> Anything posted quoting Jesus will actually be one of the writers quoting Jesus. The Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Not by Jesus Himself.


Correct.



> This is one of the biggest problems with you. You take Romans on its own without the rest of the Bible. You cannot look at verses individually outside of the context of the entire Bible or you end up with twisted idiotic things like sex = marriage (not saying you believe that).


In fairness to me, I recommended an entire book, not just one verse. But you could just read the whole Bible and you should come away with the same results.  The whole sex = marriage thing is bizarre, but this is a red herring even though you know I don't subscribe to it.  There are Catholics who have taken church tradition to teach that Protestants have been executed.  Does this have anything to do with your beliefs?




> Good, they had better not. But why so few Jesus quotes by most?


I quote Jesus all the time.  But, I don't believe the black-letters of the Bible are somehow less spoken by God than the red ones.  The entire Bible is God's inspired word for us.

----------


## Deborah K

> Yes, I agree with this, Melissa.  
> 
> I guess what I'm really getting at is, why do we do this at all?  What will happen to us, spiritually or morally, if we don't stop the person from going off the cliff -- or from dooming themselves, if that's what we think they're doing?  
> 
> What's in it for the person preaching?  FF, I'd really love to hear *your* answer to this.


I think living by example is the best way to influence people.  If they respect you, they'll be inclined to ask questions, which opens the door for you to teach.  St. Paul put it best in 2Timothy:




> Again I say, don't get involved in foolish arguments which only upset people and make them angry.  God's people must not be quarrelsome; they must be gentle, patient teachers of those who are wrong. Be humble when you are trying to teach those who are mixed up concerning the truth.  For if you talk meekly and courteously to them, they are more likely, with God's help, to turn away from their wrong ideas and believe what is true.  2:23-26

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think living by example is the best way to influence people.  If they respect you, they'll be inclined to ask questions, which opens the door for you to teach.  St. Paul put it best in 2Timothy:


I don't think being respectful is incompatible with preaching against false gospels.  I don't think being respectful means what most people here thinks it means.  And I think foolish controveries are generally unimportant ones.  For instance, I've seen churches split over their doctrine of when the rapture was going to take place.  That's just silly and clearly a debate over a non-gospel issue (probably even the people involved would say its a non-gospel issue.)  But debates over gospel issues or even matters of basic morality are not.

----------


## Deborah K

> Indeed, it is.  
> 
> I'd recommend reading Matthew, Mark, Luke and John...if not the whole Book.


I read a chapter out of the OT and a chapter out of the NT almost every day.  In order, from start to finish.  And when I'm done, I start over.  And each time, I learn something new.  And when something doesn't make sense to me, I research it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I just noticed for the first time 5 black stars above your green rep bars. Is that something new?
> 
> Anyway, since you amplified your +rep to eduardo by putting it in bold large font, I decided to help out by giving him some more rep for you.


I'm able to customize my member title since I contributed... I added those stars myself.  You're the first person who's asked!! LOL

Thank you for rep'ing eduardo, too....I thought his comment was worthy of more than I could give.

----------


## Deborah K

> Who, if I may ask?
> 
> 
> 
> Same here. I thought Bible thumpers are bad in real life, but they're even worse online and if anything turn readers away...


This makes me sad.

----------


## eduardo89

> Thank you for rep'ing eduardo, too....I thought his comment was worthy of more than I could give.


Most of my posts are like that

----------


## otherone

> This makes me sad.


The most vociferous devotees of ANY endeavor tend to be Pharisaical.
At least in my experience.
It's not just children who observe behaviors in deference to pronouncements.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> To be clear, I am NOT saying that one has to believe exactly as I do in order to be saved.  But, the fact that the Bible has no contradictions is basic stuff.  If you believe that, why get at me for what book I'm quoting, seeing as all the things I am quoting come from the same inspired source?
> 
> That said, Jesus regularly blasted the Pharisees for being self-righteous.  The Pharisees thought their works were good enough to justify themselves.  Jesus taught that belief, not works, was the difference between a saved man and a lost man (John 3:18.)  Jesus also taught the same election doctrine that you despise so much (John 6:37-44, John 10:15-29.)


Whoa, who said I "despise" anything??   All I said was, the entire Bible should be considered; not just one Book (Romans).  I'm not as scholarly on Biblical issues as you and eduardo.  The whole "doctrine" thing doesn't even interest me as much as following Christ's directives.  I guess if I'm not one of God's elect (He hasn't told me) then all I'm doing/not doing/believing/etc. is for nothing.  Maybe you will now say that I am not Catholic.  I disagree.  I don't (never have) signed on with each and every directive of the Church, but I attend Catholic Mass because I love the traditions, and I believe in the consecration of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the Living Lord.  

However, there are only a few people in the religion subforum who are being self-righteous....if I were to ask the people in this thread, I wonder who they might say that is.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Most of my posts are like that


haha!! Not really, but when you *are* right, I gotta rep ya.

----------


## eduardo89

> haha!! Not really, but when you *are* right, I gotta rep ya.


I guess I'm wrong very often.

----------


## francisco

> This makes me sad.


To clarify: When I said




> I thought Bible thumpers are bad in real life, but they're even worse online and if anything turn readers away...


It is not the beliefs in the Bible themselves, no matter how ardently held, or the Believers,  that I find objectionable. Rather, it is the unrelenting proselytizing and pontificating, especially when the recipients of that have made it clear that they don't want to hear it. And I more than especially object when those who wear their religion on their sleeves are mean, insulting, hypocritical, and close-minded.

In other words, it is the _thumping_ that I find objectionable.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I guess I'm wrong very often.


I don't know...but don't go all pity party on me now.  Here...have a Sarah Palin moment. 




Feel better?

----------


## eduardo89

> Feel better?


I don't know...I do feel tingly all over, though.

----------


## William Tell

> Here...have a Sarah Palin moment.


Make her go away, she's a bad influence on him.

----------


## francisco

> I don't know...I do feel tingly all over, though.


Can you see Russia from where you are now, too?

Or, maybe as more likely, Cuba?

----------


## Deborah K

> To clarify: When I said
> 
> 
> 
> It is not the beliefs in the Bible themselves, no matter how ardently held, or the Believers,  that I find objectionable. Rather, it is the unrelenting proselytizing and pontificating, especially when the recipients of that have made it clear that they don't want to hear it. And I more than especially object when those who wear their religion on their sleeves are mean, insulting, hypocritical, and close-minded.
> 
> In other words, it is the _thumping_ that I find objectionable.


I knew what you meant, fransisco. And you're right.  And it makes me sad.

----------


## eduardo89

> Can you see Russia from where you are now, too?
> 
> Or, maybe as more likely, Cuba?


No, but I think,I can see Barbados.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Can you see Russia from where you are now, too?


You do realize that she never said that, right?  That was all from a Saturday Night Live skit.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Whoa, who said I "despise" anything??


You've responded to me in anger every time I've brought up the issue of election.




> All I said was, the entire Bible should be considered; not just one Book (Romans).


We all agree with that.  But you seem to be acting like there's something wrong with Romans.




> I'm not as scholarly on Biblical issues as you and eduardo.  The whole "doctrine" thing doesn't even interest me as much as following Christ's directives.


Doctrine is unavoidable.  Would you call somebody a Christian if they believed Jesus was a pig?  Of course not.  What if they believed that Jesus never really walked the earth?  Well, if you believe 2 John 9-11 you wouldn't.  Mind you, I'm not saying that I judge someone to be saved based on how much doctrine they know, but there are clearly certain doctrines that every Christian believes.  We're debating how much.






> I guess if I'm not one of God's elect (He hasn't told me) then all I'm doing/not doing/believing/etc.


But what if you are one of his elect?  You don't find out because he has a special revelation for you.  You know because of what you believe.  If you believe that Jesus Christ died to save you and that his perfect life and death are the only thing God accepts as payment for sin, than you are one of his elect.  The problem is when someone says that he believes that first part and then confesses things that blatantly contradict it, like the doctrine that baptism regenerates or that mortal sin causes one to fall from grace, that person believes a false gospel and does not truly believe that Christ died to save him.




> is for nothing.  Maybe you will now say that I am not Catholic.  I disagree.  I don't (never have) signed on with each and every directive of the Church,


I usually try to clarify when I make statements that Catholics are not Christians.  I am not saying that every single person who is in the Catholic Church is not a Christian.  I am saying that those who believe in certain Catholic doctrines are not saved.  If you don't believe in those, that's good.




> but I attend Catholic Mass because I love the traditions, and I believe in the consecration of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the Living Lord.


I fail to see how this is not a cannibalistic doctrine.  Transubstantiation is a doctrine that implicitly denies that Christ's one-time death on the cross was enough to accomplish salvation for his people on the cross.  The Mass is a re-sacrificing of Jesus Christ and should be avoided like the plague.




> However, there are only a few people in the religion subforum who are being self-righteous....if I were to ask the people in this thread, I wonder who they might say that is.


Well, it isn't the people who believe that Christ's alien righteousness credited to their account completely saves them and is the only thing that could save them, that's for sure.  That would be impossible and absurd.    Rather, it is those who think they can cooperate with God and partially contribute to a salvation process that are self-righteous.




> I don't know...but don't go all pity party on me now.  Here...have a Sarah Palin moment. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel better?


Sarah Palin is repulsive.  I was mostly neutral toward her until I heard her comparing waterboarding to baptism.  I absolutely despise her now.  I'm actually curious what eduardo's thoughts are on that.  I don't believe in the "mortal sin" concept, but if that concept did exist and comparing torture to baptism is not a mortal sin, I don't know what to say...  Her church should throw her out, but they were probably applauding.

----------


## francisco

> You do realize that she never said that, right?  That was all from a Saturday Night Live skit.


I actually didn't know that. If what you say is true (will do research, now), shows the power of the meme and how easy it is to plant false ideas in the mind of the public. Distressingly, including me in this instance.

Although I did make the statement in jest.

Also, if SP did say the quote in question, it really wouldn't be very remarkable considering that from some Aleutian Islands of Alaska, it probably IS possible to see a neighboring Russian island, at least except when as usual the area is socked in by fog.

----------


## francisco

> You do realize that she never said that, right?  That was all from a Saturday Night Live skit.


According to Snopes, Palin never said that she could see Russia _from her house_ (which is what came from the SNL skit), but that skit was a takeoff of _what Palin did say_, which is that there are places in Alaska where one can see Russian territory, as I alluded above and is in fact true.





> Claim:   During the 2008 presidential campaign, Sarah Palin said: "I can see Russia from my house."
> 
> 	FALSE
> 
> Origins:   Paradoxically, one of the common features of catch phrases associated with famous figures (both real and fictional) is that those phrases are often caricatures that do not reflect statements actually made by the people with whom they're associated. For years, impersonators merely had to utter the lines "Judy, Judy, Judy" or "Come with me to the Casbah," and listeners immediately knew they were portraying actors Cary Grant and Charles Boyer,
> respectively, though neither man ever delivered such a line in any of his roles. Likewise, the phrase most indelibly associated with the fictional character of Sherlock Holmes, "Elementary, my dear Watson," appeared in none of the original works authored by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
> 
> So it is that one of the quotes most strongly associated with former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin is the exclamation "I can see Russia from my house!" even though she didn't actually utter that phrase during the campaign.
> 
> ...


Reference:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/russia.asp

----------


## Natural Citizen

We could use a really good Sarah Palin thread.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> According to Snopes, Palin never said that she could see Russia _from her house_ (which is what came from the SNL skit), but that skit was a takeoff of _what Palin did say_, which is that there are places in Alaska where one can see Russian territory, as I alluded above and is in fact true.[/url]


Yes, and apparently what she said was correct.

You're right about the media.  Think about all the ditto-heads who go around saying that starting wars everywhere is "protecting our freedoms", or unless you agree with sending our men and women to die in foreign lands that have 0 to do with our national defense, then you aren't "supporting our troops".

----------


## cajuncocoa

My responses embedded in *red*. 


> You've responded to me in anger every time I've brought up the issue of election.
> 
> *Nope, not always in anger.  I don't believe in "election" the way  you present it.  That's all. 
> *
> We all agree with that.  But you seem to be acting like there's something wrong with Romans.
> 
> *Nope, I just think you and a couple of others rely on that particular book (and quote from it more often) than any other in the Bible....by far.
> * 
> 
> ...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> *I actually didn't know that. If what you say is true (will do research, now), shows the power of the meme and how easy it is to plant false ideas in the mind of the public.* Distressingly, including me in this instance.
> 
> Although I did make the statement in jest.
> 
> Also, if SP did say the quote in question, it really wouldn't be very remarkable considering that from some Aleutian Islands of Alaska, it probably IS possible to see a neighboring Russian island, at least except when as usual the area is socked in by fog.


I'm no Sarah Palin fan, but LE is correct about this.

----------


## francisco

> We could use a really good Sarah Palin thread.


Or Not.

----------


## eduardo89

> We could use a really good Sarah Palin thread.


I agree.




> Or Not.


-rep

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Or Not.


I'm not talking about some stupid thread to poke at her. I mean a _real_ one. She has a tremendous following and I think it's something worth analyzing for what it is.

----------


## Deborah K

> I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> -rep


LOL.  +rep

----------


## HVACTech

let's level the playing field.
if I stated, that BOTH theism AND atheism...
depended on "faith" .. to support their position.

would anyone argue with me?

----------


## eduardo89

> I fail to see how this is not a cannibalistic doctrine.  Transubstantiation is a doctrine that implicitly denies that Christ's one-time death on the cross was enough to accomplish salvation for his people on the cross.  The Mass is a re-sacrificing of Jesus Christ and should be avoided like the plague.


Please stop repeating this lie. That is not what we believe nor is it what the Mass is.

-rep for having to correct you on this lie you keep spreading yet again.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Please stop repeating this lie. That is not what we believe nor is it what the Mass is.
> 
> -rep for having to correct you on this lie you keep spreading yet again.


I'm glad you're here to correct this nonsense with facts.  I PM'd you once to discuss the many ways that my Catholic education differed from the education you obviously received.   I owe you a +rep again as soon as I can give out more of them.  (Need to go spread some around....catch ya later).

----------


## francisco

> I'm not talking about some stupid thread to poke at her. I mean a _real_ one. She has a tremendous following and I think it's something worth analyzing for what it is.


Actually, you have a point.

----------


## eduardo89

> I'm glad you're here to correct this nonsense with facts.  I PM'd you once to discuss the many ways that my Catholic education differed from the education you obviously received.   I owe you a +rep again as soon as I can give out more of them.  (Need to go spread some around....catch ya later).


I finally replied to your message lol. Sorry it took me a couple months

----------


## Deborah K

> let's level the playing field.
> if I stated, that BOTH theism AND atheism...
> depended on "faith" .. to support their position.
> 
> would anyone argue with me?


I wouldn't.

----------


## HVACTech

> I wouldn't.


thank you, there is a LOT of irate talk over that distinction. 
I chose to represent myself as a "Diest" my reasoning for this is to put people at ease. 
I fully admit that I do NOT know the answer, but that I do prefer the existence of a god. and that requires faith.
many use "science" to disprove god. 
I have found that "science" is proof for god. 
interesting times that we live in.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> many use "science" to disprove god.


Of course, many also prefer science as a model to ask more questions relative _to "_God". This doesn't necessarily mean to prove or disprove. I think that you would be hard pressed to find anyone who functions from within this model who would declare that they have all of the answers about "God" and that no more questions are required. Nope, these absolute truths are reserved for absolutists.

----------


## HVACTech

> Of course, many also prefer science as a model to ask more questions relative _to "_God". This doesn't necessarily mean to prove or disprove. I think that you would be hard pressed to find anyone who functions from within this model who would declare that they have all of the answers about "God" and that no more questions are required. Nope, these absolute truths are reserved for absolutists.


I am not as educated as you. I am unable to tell..
if I am making your point.. or you are making mine. 

when I see page after page of dialog, concerning the same subject,, or "book" if you will...
I have to ask myself...

why is this subject SO frickin complicated?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I finally replied to your message lol. Sorry it took me a couple months


 No problem...I thought I'd remind you!!

----------


## Christian Liberty

*



Nope, not always in anger. I don't believe in "election" the way you present it. That's all. 



Do you believe in election in any form?  After all, the Bible mentions the topic.  What does election mean to you?




Nope, I just think you and a couple of others rely on that particular book (and quote from it more often) than any other in the Bible....by far.



Because its discussing the specific doctrinal belief we were discussing.





You realize there are people who believe that Jesus is the Son of God, died for our sins, was resurrected on the third day and will return....but have never read the Bible, right? Maybe they're illiterate and cannot read, maybe they're too young and haven't yet learned to read, but they still believe all that is necessary. 


Of course.  But regardless of what empirical method one uses to understand the gospel, it has to be the real one.  If someone has the gospel orally presented to them and believes it even though he can't read the Bible for himself, he is saved.






The first means I'm saved....it might mean the same as you when you call someone "elect". I just don't use that language...I wouldn't call myself "elect"


.

*I usually don't either but when the false accusations that I am condemning people to Hell and so forth are presented, I have to use terminology that I probably wouldn't use all the time.  There are elect people who are not saved, but all saved people are elect.  An elect person's ultimate destiny is heaven.  A saved person currently believes the gospel and has had righteousness imputed to his account.  Every elect person has this happen to him at some point, but for some it is in the future.

Let me put it this way.  Let's say a wealthy man decides to pay the debt of three men out of ten who are in serious debt.  The other seven will go to debtors prison (I'm not saying debtors prison is actually justified, its just an analogy.)  He sends the bank three checks, one that will be cashed in two days, one that will be cashed in three days, and one that will be cashed in ten days.  Five days after the man sends the money, the last guy is like an unsaved elect person.  He's ultimately not going to prison, because his debt is paid for, but it hasn't actually been cashed yet, and he doesn't know it yet.  By contrast, the first two people are like saved people, not only is their debt paid for but their accounts have actually been declared clean and they know their debts are paid for.
* 



			
				As for the rest, what does baptism mean to you?
			
		

Baptism is an outward sign of inward regeneration.  But it does not actually regenerate.  There are baptized people who are not regenerated, and there are unbaptized people who are regenerated.





			
				And if someone commits a mortal sin (say, murder) do you not believe that sin separates them -- temporarily, perhaps -- from God? And if this murderer repents later, is there no way back? Or are you suggesting there was no separation in the first place?
			
		







A professing Christian that commits murder has either temporarily fallen into sin, or if murder is his lifestyle this shows that he is not really a believer.  In neither case can a true Christian ever lose his salvation based upon what he does.





I don't know (nor do I care) which ones those are that you would feel better about if I don't believe them. 



We'd have to get into some specifics, which I suspect you don't want to do, so I'll just drop this now.  I'm just saying that I don't believe everyone in the Catholic Church is unsaved.





That's your opinion. Yes, OPINION. I do not share it. 



Is the fact that my statement is opinion opinion as well? If I disagree with your assessment of my statement as opinion, and I believe it is actually fact; then what?




The definition of self-righteous is 


confident of one's own righteousness, especially when smugly moralistic andintolerant of the opinions and behavior of others.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self-righteous


Re-examine the situation and try to ascertain which among us in this thread that sounds like.


*


> 


My own righteousness would send me straight to eternal Hell.  I have no confidence in it.



> I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> -rep


Why would you have a positive opinion of a blasphemer who compared waterboarding to  baptism?  Doesn't your church preach against torture techniques by now?  Are you not offended by  a "Christian" who so glibly compares an evil, disgusting action with a sacred ceremony like baptism?  You shouldn't have to agree with me on theology to be disgusted by that.  Palin is a witch.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I am not as educated as you. I am unable to tell..
> if I am making your point.. or you are making mine. 
> 
> when I see page after page of dialog, concerning the same subject,, or "book" if you will...
> I have to ask myself...
> 
> why is this subject SO frickin complicated?


It's _not_ complicated. I was essentially agreeing with you except from a social standpoint. I'm no more educated than than next person, HVACTech. We're all professionals in our respective fields and, yes, there are people in various fields of science who are biased and do seek to disprove "God". I was just implying that not everyone in the field functions in that way. That's all I was saying. I wasn't attacking you or anything.

----------


## eduardo89

> Why would you have a positive opinion of a blasphemer who compared waterboarding to  baptism?  Doesn't your church preach against torture techniques by now?  Are you not offended by  a "Christian" who so glibly compares an evil, disgusting action with a sacred ceremony like baptism?  You shouldn't have to agree with me on theology to be disgusted by that.  Palin is a witch.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> 


http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/...ous-punchline/

Is this not blasphemy?

----------


## Brett85

> Why would you have a positive opinion of a blasphemer who compared waterboarding to  baptism?  Doesn't your church preach against torture techniques by now?  Are you not offended by  a "Christian" who so glibly compares an evil, disgusting action with a sacred ceremony like baptism?  You shouldn't have to agree with me on theology to be disgusted by that.  Palin is a witch.


I'm not condoning torture, but why exactly do you consider waterboarding to be such a terrible evil when you don't see any moral problem at all with the concept of human beings receiving far, far worse torture in hell for trillions and trillions of years without end?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Do you believe in election in any form?  After all, the Bible mentions the topic.  What does election mean to you?
> 
> [...]
> 
> Because its discussing the specific doctrinal belief we were discussing.


My honest answer is this:  "election" and "doctrines" are not terms I have ever used, nor would I use them in any discussion apart from one with you.  I know you're going to have a field day with this, but when I was growing up and getting my Catholic education, it was not typical for Catholics to read the Bible.  I read it now, but I do not possess the knowledge of it that someone like you, eduardo, and others in this thread have.  My Catholic education comes from The Baltimore Cathecism, not doctrines. 

On the subject of doctrines, I had a brief exchange via PM with eduardo last night, and he said something to me that I found encouraging....I hope he doesn't mind if I share it; it's what I've always believed as well (eduardo just reinforced it, and I thank him for it):  

_ In the end it's not about knowing doctrines or theological positions, it's about what is in your heart. If you seek God out with an honest and contrite heart, it doesn't matter how little you know about the complicated theological theories or how many of the canons of the Council of Trent you know. It's about how much you love God and how you strive to follow His Commandments, and when you fall, which you will, how you seek Him out for forgiveness._

That is the way I know God.  That is the God of Love, the one and only God, the true and living God.





> A professing Christian that commits murder has either temporarily fallen into sin, or if murder is his lifestyle this shows that he is not really a believer.  In neither case can a true Christian ever lose his salvation based upon what he does.


What about a woman whose lifestyle included adultery?  In Leviticus 20:10, the law called for both the man and the woman to be put to death....that's in the Bible:




> 10“If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the man and the woman who have committed adultery must be put to death.


However, when Jesus confronted a crowd who was preparing to stone an adulterous woman (according to the law of Moses), this is what He said to them:




> 1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. 3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, 4they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5“Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” 6They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. 7But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, *“He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”* 8Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. 10Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.”]


I don't know how you feel, but to me, this is one of the most encouraging stories in the Bible.  Because it shows Jesus' compassion and love for sinners (we're all sinners).  Maybe you (or someone else) can also tell me how Jesus' action is not in contradiction with the Leviticus 20:10 verse, too.   As I said, I'm not an expert on the Bible as you or some others here are.  




> My own righteousness would send me straight to eternal Hell.  I have no confidence in it.


Many things that you say in this thread and others seem to contradict your claim of "no confidence" in your righteousness.  I apologize if that is untrue, but it certainly comes across as self-righteous and confident.  Maybe that's just me.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Having said all of that ^^ I would like to get back to the reason I posted this thread in the first place, the question in the OP:

*FF, why do you feel it's important for you to save me?*  In order for you to even think you must,  you first must see me as "unsaved".  Is that a judgment?  An opinion?  Based on what?  You know Catholic doctrine, but you don't know what I believe....and in order to conclude that I am "unsaved", wouldn't you need to know that?  You assume all Catholics are monolithic, but I assure you, that is not the case.  However, I don't want to digress either....even if you do deem me "unsaved" why do you feel called upon to do something about it?  What is driving you to do this?

----------

