sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Not sure I would go so far as to say "Game, Set, Match," but not sure I would go so far as a rank dismissal, either. It's a valid point in this discussion.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Real Christians
- Thread starter Spiritone
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
You are wrong.
I said nothing about having "wrong" beliefs.
In fact, I did not even imply "wrong" beliefs.
If anything their beliefs are inconsistent.
You have free will unless you become a christian, at such time you cannot ever become a non-christian, and if you do become a non christian it is becasue you were never a true christian in the first place.
But hey, you go with whatever assumptions you like.
I am used to you being wrong, so it is no big deal when you are.
McBell
Unbound
I am not dismissing it.
I am merely saying that "game, set, match" is nothing more than a "preach to the choir" approach.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Ah. I see.
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
God has always used the dirtiest, most flawed human beings to do God's work. Today's clergy are no better, nor any different.Stop trying to make them into paragons of virtue, just so you can tear them back down.
Why doesn't your god do his OWN work?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Because it's about relationship.Why doesn't your god do his OWN work?
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Sorry! It is what it is. If you're as astute when it comes to literature as your user name implies, the relational nature of the Biblical story jumps right off the page at you.Yeah, right!
Hmmmm, OK
splitting hairs
This really has nothing to do about right or wrong, a person can believe anything they want. If you want to run around a fire naked chanting, that is your right. I have done it before, that is what religious freedom is all about.
There are no wrong or right beliefs, just beliefs. If we had to prove them or make a logical explanation of them, there would be no need to believe any more.
If a Witch started healing people with terminal illnesses, there would be no doubt of his or her accomplishments. If Jesus came back to earth and people who's name where not written in the lamb's book of life where being thrown in the lake of fire, not everyone would be happy about it, but no one would say it was not real, unless you are the leader of Iran. He might deny anything.
McBell
Unbound
So why are you the one going to such great lengths to make it about being right or wrong?
Seems to me that YOU are the one who accused me of saying something I did not say.
Seems to me that you made an assumption and are now trying to to push your assumption as something that was actually said.
I said the the beliefs were inconsistent, I said NOTHING about them being wrong.
Them being wrong is YOUR strawman.
So I am wrong about you saying I am wrong because you think there is a huge difference between inconsistency and having wrong beliefs? So to follow your logic being consistent is right or wrong?
So are my beliefs right or wrong?
So is being asinine right or wrong?
McBell
Unbound
Perhaps it would help if you were to look up the definition of the word?
Or would you rather just continue to attack your strawman?
I'm trying to figure out how being asinine and inconsistent could be anything else but wrong.
"Your an inconsistent azz, but I never said your beliefs where wrong".
"Your an inconsistent azz, but I never said your beliefs where wrong".
McBell
Unbound
your inability to make the distinction is my fault how?I'm trying to figure out how being asinine and inconsistent could be anything else but wrong.
"Your an inconsistent azz, but I never said your beliefs where wrong".
Your equating inconsistent with wrong is my fault how?
Your equating asinine with wrong is my fault how?
You grasp to hard at your assumed straws.
OK, so you are saying the opposite then? My inability to make the distinction is because your not being very clear.
You are the one who introduced the word, "wrong" into the conversation. You said I was wrong. Wrong about what, paraphrasing your comments?
How about quit dancing around the issue. Do you believe once saved always saved
is the correct interpretation of the Bible? Are we saved by grace or saved by works?
Do you have any reason to believe differently? What are your sources?
Actually, you are the one who is assuming that I subscribe to "once saved always saved".
McBell
Unbound
Fair enough.
You said:I said you were wrong.
I never once said they were messed up, I never once said they had the wrong beliefs and I never once said that they would be better off thinking as I do.
You came up with all that crap on your own.
My apologies if you are unclear at what I said you were wrong about.
I am not dancing around the issue.
Of course, the issue I am addressing is your side tangent were you made assumptions based upon your equating asinine and inconsistent with wrong and then trying to tell me that I was saying they were wrong when all I said was asinine and inconsistent.
Irrelevant to my whole point.
again, irrelevant to my point.
My point is that once saved always saved is inconsistent with free will and that it is rather asinine that so many people do not understand that it is.
My point is that every single person I have ever talked to who believes OSAS rely heavily on the No True Scotsman to explain those who "fall from grace".
Now if you want my opinions on OSAS and why I disagree with it; start another thread, then send me a link to it.
Last edited by a moderator:
McBell
Unbound
When did I make any such assumption?
Seems to me that we have been talking about two different points.