Search results

You're a perfect example of women being the weaker vessel (mentally, too--Eve's weak mind was deceived, Adam's stronger mind wasn't), thus ineligible for ever having authority over a man or teaching us anything. Enjoy your ignorance!

Yup, but, again, are you denying people eat for pleasure and harm themselves by so doing--that it's one thing to eat for nourishment, to obtain for the body the vitamins and minerals, fibers, etc, it needs WHILE ALSO MAINTAINING suffering and not living in wanton pleasure, and another thing to...

Obviously, I mean unhealthy diet causes self-harm. I've repeated that over and over. Are you even reading what I'm saying carefully before responding?

Peter says it's by abstaining from fleshly desires that wage war on the soul, just as Paul describes the sinful urges in the flesh as doing in Ro 7. Is Peter "psychotic"? Didn't Paul say he was in fasting often?

Yeah, that, by itself, debunks universalism; however, it requires a rethinking of the punishment of God's wrath, bc it seems that the people who go there go to become objects of God's Wrath, whereby they glorify God (God revealing His wrath glorifies Him), thus, little by little, repaying their...

Paul says the widow who lives in wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives (Spiritually dead--she has been warred against by the flesh, with its desires that are contrary to the spirit, and has been conquered); Peter says "arm yourselves with suffering in the flesh, for the one that has...

Right, diet causes self-harm--and we know why people do it, that it is for pleasuring the body, the desires of which wage war against the mind, according to Peter and Paul, and hundreds of thousands die from that pursuit of pleasure in the US every year, bc they die of heart attacks, strokes...

1. Universalism ignores the reality that some people cannot be forgiven for their sin, and Jesus did not die to atone for their sin, because their sin cannot ever be atoned for, because it is really eternally offensive--blasphemy of the Spirit. Jesus's sacrifice could not pay for that sin...

But again, if it is a personal choice that is leading to self harm, and "love does no harm", aren't we correct to identify their activity as not walking in love, but after the flesh (since walking after the Spirit means walking in love)? And since gays "receive in themselves the penalty due...

I understand we should not "despise" or "pass judgment" on others, but if a person is choosing to do something they think is wrong, or that they think is right, what is the basis for their conviction--and if their conviction has good reason for being that way, why wouldn't it be right to try to...

Apparently, the animals changed (even biologically) after the fall... so it may also be that humans also changed (even biologically) so that they cannot sustain a completely raw vegan diet. Raw vegans do have to supplement with B12, because we don't have a good source for it (meat eaters obtain...

1. Yeah, that is it : had you availed yourself of the information already shared in this thread, you wouldn't have said, "I just can't figure out where the idea that OSAS comes from Gnosticism comes from!" You are responding to a matter before hearing the matter, as Proverbs 18:13 says not to...

That's because you're answering a topic without knowing what you're answering, as Proverbs 18:13 warns against doing.

The topic is a historical claim; being that that is the nature of the topic, in order for you to disprove the assertions made about OSAS, you have to bring historical counterclaims about OSAS.

No one is against anyone being "secure", the discussion is simply about historical claims.

You really ought to address the historical claims. You can't, right?

It does not at all follow : Gnostics had their set of deviations from the Gospel, and Orthodoxy developed its own deviations from the Gospel.

Empty claims--present historical counterclaims to the historical claims made in the video presentation.

This thread is not about the "practicality" of either position, only about the historical claim that the Church fought OSAS during its early years as part of its fight against Gnosticism, because OSAS was a doctrine unique to Gnostics.

1. I'm saying "be on topic", and that's "condescending"? BE ON TOPIC. 2. "Welcome"? It's MY thread. YOUR IRRELEVANT / OFF TOPIC THOUGHTS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE ON MY THREAD.