Biff the unclean

Yeah, you have quite a problem in that category.

No, I don’t think you are crazy. I think you are the victim of a cult.

What better way to express your hostility and contempt for humanity than to hide behind God’s skirt? That way you get to shout at the world in general, you’re damned, you’re wicked, you’re stupid and still tell yourself that you are a good little fellow who loves his neighbor.

Oh what a good boy you are for telling everyone they are shite.
That is what you wanted to hear, isn’t it?

RPS

Indeed. I just find it hard to believe so I wanted to be sure.

"Do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem?" backacha. You didn't answer the following so I repeat:

If that's the case, what's your evidence to support it?

Pendaric

<Mod note - This is an interesting conversation, can we all please try to keep it civil as well? Thanks.>

jdlongmire

Yah - <edit> .I'll get back to the other posts in a bit...

Biff the unclean

Yes, well you see it’s you who said mentally ill. Those are the words you put into my mouth. I said misanthropy and sociopathic behavior are “psychological problems.�? They are rather classic psychological problems so I don’t know what your bitch is.
By psychological problems I am distinguishing the difference between illness and injury. Misanthropic beliefs instilled in a person by a religious cult would fall under the category of injury. Contempt for humanity is misanthropy, and is the foundation of Calvinism.

Ratel

Biff, just wanna say I love your posts.

Regarding the "basic goodness" of humans issue, let's not forget that Calvinism doesn't merely deny that humans are basically good (in my view, humans are neither inherently good nor evil but are very smart primates capable of both in great extremes)- but denies that humans are even capable of doing good without the effects of "common grace"- that is, even when a depraved wicked unsaved sinner like Ghandi does something good, this is merely God stepping down to make the good things happen. By ourselves, say the Calvinists, we are only capable of eating babies and masturbating all day. (or something to that effect)

With respect to JD, I think Biff's analysis of Calvinism as anti-human is pretty accurate.

Ratel

This is fine for you to say JD but for the sake of honesty you should clarify that the "supernatural love" ,"spiritual peace", and "joy" you experience aren't what we unsaved usually experience or define as love, peace or joy, correct? I'm mean, you don't feel or exhibit an emotional outpouring of happiness all day as if you were a contestant on the "Price Is Right"? I just want to make sure that everyone who hasn't been through Christian indoctrination knows what is meant when Christians use these terms. "Love" isn't the emotional kind of love, its more of something you just say. "Peace" doesn't mean the placid calmness of quite lake but more of the reassurance that whatever happens you get to live in a gold mansion in the sky and the other guy is going to be barbecued for all eternity.

Okay, I'm being sort of facetious here but the fact is most of us have heard the sermons that redefine these normal positive experiences into the "Christian" versions, which seem a little less appealing after reflection. It's false advertising to go around telling people that they will experience infinite joy when they join your religion and then turn around and redefine what "joy" is. I would feel ripped off if I converted and reealized that the "joy" I was supposed to be experiencing was more like an obligation.

In normal terms, many Christians I know and have known have been the most joyless cranks you'd ever want to meet, and a great many of them have been Presbyterians. I don't think Christians have anymore "joy"- properly defined- than anyone else.

luminous

I assure you I've read your posts very carefully, more than once. You say that God is justified to punish all because of our individual sin. It is exactly this conclusion that I'm challenging you on. Your doctrine says that we are born unable to not sin, and that we can only be saved by the Holy Spirit by a process of regeneration in which we have no choice in. I've asked several questions in the previous posts which you haven't answered yet.

But I'll reiterate my challenge to you: If we are all born unable to not sin, and can only be saved through no choice of our own, how can God justifiably send people to hell? Why does it matter that the people who go to hell have sinned if the very nature they were born with prevented them from being able to refrain from sin? Is it just for God to blame a bee for being a bee or or a cat for being a cat? Humans are born unable to refrain from sin according to your doctrine. Then how can God blame them for sinning if they can't refrain from sin??? This doctrine makes absolutely no sense to me.


No, I don't believe I missed the point. I think you're missing mine. The link you gave me to Augustine's view on the will states that reborn persons are able to sin and able to not sin. I've pointed out that it may be impossible to find a sane and honest reborn Christian who will verify Augustine's point by saying that he/she has never sinned since being reborn, so it would seem like reborn Christians are still not able to refrain from sin. I'm making the point that Augustine's view on the will doesn't correspond to reality.


What point am I missing? Please answer my direct questions. Does the person have a choice in accepting or regecting the Holy Spirit's regeneration, or doesn't he?

We'll have to disagree on this one. The passage you believe supports your view applies to lawsuits and grieveances against eachother, not civil debate.

Can you explain what it means to have logic as a servant to faith? What system do you use to diferentiate something that is "illogical" from something that is "superlogical".

funinspace

Ooh ooh, a Free Will vs. predestination debate...time to make some popcorn Yeah, it always feels weird that I just imagined I believed in Christ/God for 20 years... and here I thought I wasn't very imaginative. Good luck! Though it can't be more entertaining than 2 atheists/agnostics debating the same point. Personally, I kind of like the Eastern Orthodox near univeralism view these days, but that's just an emotional preference verses a logical interpretation.

Evoken

Don't try, it doesn't. Calvinist puts Jesus saying he came for the sinners who had no ability to receive his message, it has Jesus telling people to obey commandments they could simply not obey, it has God complaining and punishing people for not obeying his commandments even when they simply could not obey them in the first place. It also has Jesus complaining about people rejecting his message when he had not given them the ability to receive it.

Calvinist makes the whole teachings of Jesus, the commandments et all..meaningless and irrelevant.


Valz