Calvinism is a Cult

[Vince]

So? Apparently you thought you were making a point against God and Christianity. So what was it? Slavery? Again, so what?

Stranger

My answer was clear to me so why don't you understand? See post 2280.

 

[bbyrd009]

My answer was clear to me so why don't you understand? See post 2280.

Fwiw that might be perceived as an indictment of becoming a slave in the first place, rather than an endorsement of slavery? Which btw I guess the def of slavery has even prolly changed since then, ppl used to (also) voluntarily do that, etc

 

[Vince]

Fwiw that might be perceived as an indictment of becoming a slave in the first place, rather than an endorsement of slavery? Which btw I guess the def of slavery has even prolly changed since then, ppl used to (also) voluntarily do that, etc

No matter what the system of slavery was god still set up a system for a slave owner to beat a slave. Stranger will undoubtedly defend it in some way as most Christians do. Put yourself in the position of the slave owner, would you beat a slave so severely that he"stays alive a day or two"? I doubt it. God says this is OK as long as you don't do anything to their eyes.

 

[bbyrd009]

No matter what the system of slavery was god still set up a system for a slave owner to beat a slave. Stranger will undoubtedly defend it in some way as most Christians do. Put yourself in the position of the slave owner, would you beat a slave so severely that he"stays alive a day or two"? I doubt it. God says this is OK as long as you don't do anything to their eyes.

Well, I do get your perspective here, but I have to suggest that we easily take "an eye for an eye" to be a permission rather than a limitation, too. Imo the real Scriptural advice there is maybe "don't be a slave, or these terms will apply to you"

 

[Vince]

Well, I do get your perspective here, but I have to suggest that we easily take "an eye for an eye" to be a permission rather than a limitation, too. Imo the real Scriptural advice there is maybe "don't be a slave, or these terms will apply to you"

Well that is kind of hard for those born into slavery or female Hebrews that were sold by their fathers into slavery.

 

[bbyrd009]

Well that is kind of hard for those born into slavery or female Hebrews that were sold by their fathers into slavery.

Yes, and I guess not so hard for those willing to have their ears pierced by their masters.
So I don't know, but I think a diff kind of slavery is really what is in view

 

[Stranger]

This is a childish response. In an adult conversation the person receiving the information gets to determine if you were clear or not. You don't. I asked you to clarify this issue; Why do you think the verses you quoted are referencing a future kingdom and was not meant for us or the people listening to follow at the time? I am unclear as to why you think this.

Now you have a couple of options:
1. Address my question and try to make this more clear so we can have a conversation.
2. Decide not to answer my question.
3. Throw a fit and tell me that you have been clear and I just cannot understand for some reason as you have done here.

First of all, three is not a couple.

Second of all, I don't take options from you.

Third of all, if you want to ask anything of me, you will do it below in the nonchristian hole. Gee, was that an option?

You are unclear because you don't know what you are talking about. You don't know the Bible. Yet you say you threw God and Christ away. What ignorance.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

My answer was clear to me so why don't you understand? See post 2280.

Try and keep up. Post #(2280) is response to (2279).

You gave no response to (2274) except saying 'exactly' in (2277).

To which I asked again, so what? in (2279).

In other words, you are using slavery to say something about God. Ok. So, what are you saying. What is your point? Are you scared?

I know...go ahead and tell me you are done with me again...and again...and again..

Stranger

 

[Vince]

First of all, three is not a couple.

Cambridge Dictionary, Couple: two or a few things that are similar or the same, or two or a few people who are in some way connected. But this is petty.

Second of all, I don't take options from you.

But then you did choose one. (Option 3)

Third of all, if you want to ask anything of me, you will do it below in the nonchristian hole. Gee, was that an option?

Then why are you responding to me?

You are unclear because you don't know what you are talking about. You don't know the Bible. Yet you say you threw God and Christ away. What ignorance.

Sigh.

 

[Vince]

Try and keep up. Post #(2280) is response to (2279).

You gave no response to (2274) except saying 'exactly' in (2277).

To which I asked again, so what? in (2279).

In other words, you are using slavery to say something about God. Ok. So, what are you saying. What is your point? Are you scared?

When I ask you questions about what you meant you say you don't have to respond because you were clear. When you don't understand my response you throw a fit and demand me to be clear. That is hypocrisy. You also lie and say you won't answer me unless I ask in my non christian hole. Why do you lie?

I know...go ahead and tell me you are done with me again...and again...and again..

I never said this. You are the one that said you won't answer me in this forum.

 

[Stranger]

Cambridge Dictionary, Couple: two or a few things that are similar or the same, or two or a few people who are in some way connected. But this is petty.

But then you did choose one. (Option 3)

Then why are you responding to me?

Sigh.

Oh, petty? A couple is two. Three is not a couple. What is petty is saying evidence and proof are not the same. See? You like the dictionary when you want to use it. But when it is against you, you mock it.

No, I didn't choose option 3.

To let you know if you want to ask any questions, you can do it from the hole you crawled out of.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

When I ask you questions about what you meant you say you don't have to respond because you were clear. When you don't understand my response you throw a fit and demand me to be clear. That is hypocrisy. You also lie and say you won't answer me unless I ask in my non christian hole. Why do you lie?

I never said this. You are the one that said you won't answer me in this forum.

Scared arn't you. You brought up slavery to try and bash God, and now you're scared because you don't know how to back it up. As we used to say, don't let your mouth write a check that your back end can't handle. And that is what you have done. You're all talk but no substance. You love to spout things, but you can't back them up.

What? See post #(2259) and #(2276). Now, go ahead and lie to me and say you didn't say it.

Stranger

 

[CoreIssue]

Add to Romans 8
James 2:5 New International Version (NIV)
5 Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?

 

[OzSpen]

This verse says nothing as to how they are saved.

It doesn't have to. It states enough: "for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." (Matt 19:14 NIV).

They belong in God's kingdom, the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Vince]

Oh, petty? A couple is two. Three is not a couple. What is petty is saying evidence and proof are not the same. See? You like the dictionary when you want to use it. But when it is against you, you mock it.

Again, you don't get to use whatever definition you want for the words I use. I defined how I used these words with a dictionary definition. You are being dishonest again.

No, I didn't choose option 3.

To let you know if you want to ask any questions, you can do it from the hole you crawled out of.

You just chose option 3 again.

 

[Vince]

Scared arn't you. You brought up slavery to try and bash God, and now you're scared because you don't know how to back it up. As we used to say, don't let your mouth write a check that your back end can't handle. And that is what you have done. You're all talk but no substance. You love to spout things, but you can't back them up.

Not at all. I have asked you repeatedly to clarify your stance on the kingdom verses. You refused. Why should I clarify my stance when you refuse to clarify yours when I ask? A mature conversation is a two way street. You refuse to have one. Why?

What? See post #(2259) and #(2276). Now, go ahead and lie to me and say you didn't say it.

What did I say that you are offended about?

 

[Vince]

It doesn't have to. It states enough: "for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." (Matt 19:14 NIV).

They belong in God's kingdom, the kingdom of heaven.

I can agree that your interpretation makes sense. Buit they must be saved by Jesus sacrifice or this would be a different gospel. Do you agree with this?

 

[Stranger]

Again, you don't get to use whatever definition you want for the words I use. I defined how I used these words with a dictionary definition. You are being dishonest again.

You just chose option 3 again.

Three is not a couple. Evidence and proof are the same.

I didn't choose your option 3.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Not at all. I have asked you repeatedly to clarify your stance on the kingdom verses. You refused. Why should I clarify my stance when you refuse to clarify yours when I ask? A mature conversation is a two way street. You refuse to have one. Why?

What did I say that you are offended about?

I did clarify my stance. I explained and gave you verses. You however, didn't know what I was talking about and wanted to be schooled on the kingdom. Well, that is why this is 'Christian' apologetics and not atheist apologetics. Christians are familiar with the kingdom. So, no I am not going to teach an atheist about the kingdom in an area he is not supposed to be in in the first place.

Now, you however said, God said this concerning slavery. So? I agree He said it. What is your point. I don't deny it.

Why are you acting stupid now? You said you never said you are done with me and so I showed you that you lie, and that you did say it. Now you act as if you don't know, even though I gave you the proof.

Stranger

 

[OzSpen]

I can agree that your interpretation makes sense. Buit they must be saved by Jesus sacrifice or this would be a different gospel. Do you agree with this?

Vince,

This child died before Jesus' sacrifice. He was King David's son, born in the illicit relationship with Bathsheba.

2 Samuel 12:22-23 (NIV) states:

22 He answered, ‘While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, “Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.” 23 But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.’​

Where was the godly, but sometimes sinful, King David going at death? He said he would 'go to him' (his son) who could not return to him.

For these verses to make sense, I understand David, 'the man after God's heart' (Acts 13:22), understood, 'It is impossible for me to bring the child to life again to be back with me. I understand he has gone to heaven and I'll be with him when I die'.

Was the son saved by Christ's sacrifice?

Could Hebrews 11:32-33 (NIV) point to an answer?

32 And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised....​

Oz