View Full Version : Did someone mention a religious debate?
Theodoric
30-10-2003, 22:48
Preliminary note: I'm sure that this should be in some other forum but, for the life of me, I can't think where.
Posted by Towny in the 'Which is more depressing' thread. (My underlinings.)
"Believe it or not, us religious types are happy to debate with people who think we are 'wrong' ... one of the things I have been arguing is that I think absolute truth is a valid concept, in which case we need to grapple with the various ways people suggest we might 'discover' it. Maybe if more folks would wade in to those threads they would be less prone to going round in circles? I have to agree, at the moment there is a high probability that any 'religious' thread will revolve around just one or two themes for 20 pages before dying off."
OK, a question for the Calvinists and related believers out there, of which I suspect there may be a few. Would you care to attempt to justify the doctrine of double predestination? As to the meaning of double predestination, I cannot do better than to quote from Calvin's Institutes:
"In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined, both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction."
Now, in my view, if interpreting the Bible leads, logically and irrefutably, to the conclusion that God has created a certain group of people whom he intends to send automatically to hell (something which Catholics and many other Christian denominations would disagree with), I would argue that the premises must be wrong, that is the Bible is incorrect.
th'engineer
30-10-2003, 22:51
Preliminary note: I'm sure that this should be in some other forum but, for the life of me, I can't think where.
Posted by Towny in the 'Which is more depressing' thread. (My underlinings.)
"Believe it or not, us religious types are happy to debate with people who think we are 'wrong' ... one of the things I have been arguing is that I think absolute truth is a valid concept, in which case we need to grapple with the various ways people suggest we might 'discover' it. Maybe if more folks would wade in to those threads they would be less prone to going round in circles? I have to agree, at the moment there is a high probability that any 'religious' thread will revolve around just one or two themes for 20 pages before dying off."
OK, a question for the Calvinists and related believers out there, of which I suspect there may be a few. Would you care to attempt to justify the doctrine of double predestination? As to the meaning of double predestination, I cannot do better than to quote from Calvin's Institutes:
"In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined, both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction."
Now, in my view, if interpreting the Bible leads, logically and irrefutably, to the conclusion that God has created a certain group of people whom he intends to send automatically to hell (something which Catholics and many other Christian denominations would disagree with), I would argue that the premises must be wrong, that is the Bible is incorrect.
Not really wanting to start the debate off but how do you know the bible is correct it has been translated so many times from its original langauge. As opposed to the Koran that is in its same langauge without transilation.
downquark1
30-10-2003, 22:54
There are several flaws in relgious arguement like:
If God is all knowing, he knows what we will do in life so therefore why put us through it.
If religion is about faith proving miracles occured will destroy religion
Not really wanting to start the debate off but how do you know the bible is correct it has been translated so many times from its original langauge. As opposed to the Koran that is in its same langauge without transilation.
ok everybody, buckle up
here we go!
ok everybody, buckle up
here we go!
RELIGION DISCUSION IS A BIG NO NO!
LEAVE IT THERE!!!!!
Although people may think Im being a bit forceful........ Weve been here many times before!
th'engineer
30-10-2003, 23:02
RELIGION IS A BIG NO NO!
LEAVE IT THERE!!!!!
Although people may think Im being a bit forceful........ Weve been here many times before!
We can of course suggest that it is a way of controlling the populus, created by the Timelords of Galifry
There are several flaws in relgious arguement like:
If God is all knowing, he knows what we will do in life so therefore why put us through it.
If religion is about faith proving miracles occured will destroy religion
the concept of God being "all knowing" and the incoherencies depend on the view you have of God,,,,,,if God is a timeless being (and therefore lives outside of time) then one could say that for God to be all knowing means that he is somehow not a "good" god, because he knows the evil which is going to happen.....this is not necessarily the case though
secondly if God is a being whom lives within time then he sees what happens as it happens.....but this then limits God
what is your point about miracles?
wouldn't this thread be better in another one of the sections? :erm:
downquark1
30-10-2003, 23:08
the concept of God being "all knowing" and the incoherencies depend on the view you have of God,,,,,,if God is a timeless being (and therefore lives outside of time) then one could say that for God to be all knowing means that he is somehow not a "good" god, because he knows the evil which is going to happen.....this is not necessarily the case though
secondly if God is a being whom lives within time then he sees what happens as it happens.....but this then limits God
what is your point about miracles?I would have thought most religions go for the limitless God.
My second point was simular to something Russ came up with once. That relgion requires faith and therefore proving something destroys the need for faith (because it is now a certainty) so if we proved Jesus has existed as the son of god we destroy faith and religion. It's a circular argument with no real solution.
I would have thought most religions go for the limitless God.
My second point was simular to something Russ came up with once. That relgion requires faith and therefore proving something destroys the need for faith (because it is now a certainty) so if we proved Jesus has existed as the son of god we destroy faith and religion. It's a circular argument with no real solution.
i don't think that miracles do undermine one's belief...i think seeing miracles and erxperiencing the power of God actually strengthens one's belief and thus their faith
humphf.i think my question about pick and mix religoins was a betterone.humphf.
incog.;)
My second point was simular to something Russ came up with once. That relgion requires faith and therefore proving something destroys the need for faith (because it is now a certainty) so if we proved Jesus has existed as the son of god we destroy faith and religion. It's a circular argument with no real solution.
Ah, the babelfish :)
downquark1
30-10-2003, 23:20
i don't think that miracles do undermine one's belief...i think seeing miracles and erxperiencing the power of God actually strengthens one's belief and thus their faithAhh, but if God appeared tomorrow and answered all the questions about life we wouldn't need to 'believe' he exists because we would 'know' he exists. So religion defined as peopleââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life would no longer be necessary.
This is not so much a serious point but one of those silly arguments wannabe philosophers put foward to look clever.
Sorry if my sentances are badly written - I need to go to bed :zzz:
homealone
30-10-2003, 23:30
wouldn't this thread be better in another one of the sections? :erm:
dunno - I'm gonna wade in.:)
there is anecdotal evidence that re-cycling of all the atoms in all the stars in the whole universe, since time began, means we were literally "born in the stars" - and there is ,also, the philosophy that no-one saw it - so it may not be true - presumably, somewhere in the middle is the truth. For us to perceive "god" - we first have to perceive ourselves - I think life, the universe and everything is so easy to explain - big bang etc - but I am cynical enough to want to know why? - what is the point? ( persons named oblio are not elegible to reply, btw:D) (dogs named Arrow may, if they have learned to talk?:))
downquark1
30-10-2003, 23:38
but I am cynical enough to want to know why? - what is the point? ( persons named oblio are not elegible to reply, btw:D) (dogs named Arrow may, if they have learned to talk?:))The point of explaining things like the big bang, or the point of why we are here?
I would like to believe that there is no point that we choose what we do with the time we have [comes out of Gandalf mode], it would be pretty sad if we had a purpose to do but didn't have a clue what it was. A bit like novelty hats (I may come up with a better metaphor in the morning).:sleep:
Ahh, but if God appeared tomorrow and answered all the questions about life we wouldn't need to 'believe' he exists because we would 'know' he exists. So religion defined as would no longer be necessary.
This is not so much a serious point but one of those silly arguments wannabe philosophers put foward to look clever.
Sorry if my sentances are badly written - I need to go to bed :zzz:
:erm: which argument? and who u calling a wannabe philosopher? ;):p
well if you read my blog u would realise that knowledge is better than belief any day ;) (according to plato)
downquark1
30-10-2003, 23:40
:erm: which argument? and who u calling a wannabe philosopher? ;):p My argument, and me. :mis:
My argument, and me. :mis:
your argument has flaws yes, but most arguments do......good attempt at being a philosopher though ;)
anyway philosophers are defined as "lovers of wisdom" im sure u theres a poss u could define yuorself as that......
after 5yrs of studying it you just become a pedantic bugger :p
<snippity snip>OK, a question for the Calvinists and related believers out there, of which I suspect there may be a few. Would you care to attempt to justify the doctrine of double predestination? As to the meaning of double predestination, I cannot do better than to quote from Calvin's Institutes
i studied calvanism at uni, so will find my notes out tomorrow and have a look through and see what i can come up with
homealone
30-10-2003, 23:52
humphf.i think my question about pick and mix religoins was a betterone.humphf.
incog.;)
it was certainly a new spin on the subject - and imo the core of it - are we more obsessed with the minutae of a kind of faith - jews don't like pork, muslims pray many times a day, christians believe jesus was the son of god etc. Than the faith itself - i.e. do we believe in the concept of a higher order for the situation we find ourselves in - I do - I just have trouble defining it - and I won't stop trying, while I breathe.?
I told you you were an innovator?:)
it was certainly a new spin on the subject - and imo the core of it - are we more obsessed with the minutae of a kind of faith - jews don't like pork, muslims pray many times a day, christians believe jesus was the son of god etc. Than the faith itself - i.e. do we believe in the concept of a higher order for the situation we find ourselves in - I do - I just have trouble defining it - and I won't stop trying, while I breathe.?
I told you you were an innovator?:)
almost sounds as though u are advocating a one world religion.....
now russ what that remind u of ;):p
homealone
31-10-2003, 00:03
almost sounds as though u are advocating a one world religion.....
now russ what that remind u of ;):p
we do all live on one planet - that got here? :)
we do all live on one planet - that got here? :)
even so there will never be total agreement......i think it's obvious how i think the world got here......i.e God created it
homealone
31-10-2003, 00:08
we do all live on one planet - that got here? :)
gotta be careful here i am ok with Gaia - I just pressed return too soon?
gaz u lost me now babes :erm:
even so there will never be total agreement......i think it's obvious how i think the world got here......i.e God created it
*goes to bed before he joins in the debate!! :zzz: :sleep:
homealone
31-10-2003, 00:12
even so there will never be total agreement......i think it's obvious how i think the world got here......i.e God created it
I never ruled out God?
I never ruled out God?
fair enuff.......i'm getting old now, used to be able to stay awake till 5am debating religion and then get up at 8am for work but im an elderly bird now, and need my beauty sleep
:wavey: night night
MetaWraith
31-10-2003, 10:13
Injects levity into heated debate.
Calvinism ? Isn't that worshiping the cartoons of the brat and his stuffed tiger.
Gaia, Didn't R Danieel Olivaw has something to do with that in Azimov's Foundation series.
homealone
31-10-2003, 10:53
Injects levity into heated debate.
Calvinism ? Isn't that worshiping the cartoons of the brat and his stuffed tiger.
Gaia, Didn't R Danieel Olivaw has something to do with that in Azimov's Foundation series.
hmm - I was possibly a bit incoherent, but didn't think we were getting heated?
- taking your idea of Calvinism - the outcome of the cartoons would be predestined, so we wouldn't need to read them:D
- not sure about Foundation, long time since I read it:)
Stuart W
31-10-2003, 11:08
My humble view.....
Religion was created by wise men many years ago as a form of control.
If we lived many moons ago, without the civilised world we know today, there would be very little 'come back' on the most harsh of crimes. For example, I am arguing with someone about some daft subject and feel I am not getting my point accross, so I stab the person I am arguing with to death.
The only thing I need to worry about now is one of the persons friends / relatives wanting to kill me out of revenge.
How do you stop this mentalitiy? Fear of the unknown.
If you stab me, I will die. I will depart this world and 'meet my maker' who will judge me and either give me eternity by his/her side or an eternity of hellish torture.
When you die, you will have to answer for the taking of my life.
I had a strict C of E childhood, going to church at least 3 times a week, was a chiorboy, then an alter boy. I spent a good 8 years in bible classes studying the bible with Father Roy Greenwood.
When I got to the age of 12 or so, I asked to speak with Father Roy and explained my loss of belief in religion. I spoke with him over a number of days and decided that religion realy isn't for me.
Having said all that, I would not try and talk anyone out of their beliefs, as I feel we all need some sort of goal and some 'method' to live our lives by and faith can be a great comfort in times of distress.
My second point was simular to something Russ came up with once. That relgion requires faith and therefore proving something destroys the need for faith (because it is now a certainty) so if we proved Jesus has existed as the son of god we destroy faith and religion. It's a circular argument with no real solution.I don't think thats correct. If the existance God and Jesus was proved to me I would 'get religion' in an instant. Thus bolstering religion.
btw.....I wish I was religious, it would give me a lot of comfort. I envy those with faith.
I wish I was religious, it would give me a lot of comfort. I envy those with faith.
Me too, I have been so disillusioned over the years ... don't know if I lost it, or never found it in the first place.
i was also brought up c of e.....and i became disillusioned with it all....gave up church and all things churchy.... gave up totally on faith until about 2years ago............. even went back to my old c of e church when my nephew was being christianed (im his God mother) and the vicar was spouting some rubbish and i said, actually if you take that passage in context u have it wrong :p
i'm an athiest but i do have faith.i place my faith in the human race and our ability to walk the tightrope of existence and still do the right thing.that we will survive to become a better species than we are now.that we will become all that we can be.
incog. :)
myself I don't see how the heaven thing works
I mean - why not just cut out the middleman so to speak and have everyone go straight there without a worldly existance
or just sort of be there and stay there
myself I don't see how the heaven thing works
I mean - why not just cut out the middleman so to speak and have everyone go straight there without a worldly existance
or just sort of be there and stay there
hmmmmmmmmmmm
th'engineer
31-10-2003, 17:36
Now i think there is somethiong out there but more your timelords or something like stargate.
Cant see the point in spending good time singing hymns or praying to the EAST.
Theodoric
04-11-2003, 19:53
Injects levity into heated debate.
Calvinism ? Isn't that worshiping the cartoons of the brat and his stuffed tiger.
Gaia, Didn't R Danieel Olivaw has something to do with that in Azimov's Foundation series.
Ahem.
1. Daneel not Danieel.
2. Asimov not Azimov (although there is (was?) an American novelist (playwright?) called Azimov).
3. The Robot series (there were originally 2 novels, one was 'The Caves of Steel', and a number of short stories) was originally completely separate from the 3 novels in the Foundation series.
<Dons anorak and slinks out of room.> :)
Theodoric
04-11-2003, 20:03
myself I don't see how the heaven thing works
<Snip>
And you do have some cause to be confused. There seems to be 2 different versions of heaven in the Bible.
Version 1. After you die you are immediately judged and (if lucky) you go straight to Heaven.
Version 2. After you die you lie (presumably without awareness) in the grave until all the dead are resurrected to face judgement all at once.
And you do have some cause to be confused. There seems to be 2 different versions of heaven in the Bible.
Version 1. After you die you are immediately judged and (if lucky) you go straight to Heaven.
Version 2. After you die you lie (presumably without awareness) in the grave until all the dead are resurrected to face judgement all at once.
there is no "if lucky" the bible, speciafically the new testmant is clear there is only ONE way to get to heaven
there is no "if lucky" the bible, speciafically the new testmant is clear there is only ONE way to get to heaven
If (please alow me that "if") heaven does exist then I'm sure the people that get there would consider themselves pretty lucky, I however certainly wouldn't (so it's probably a good job I'm a non-believer).
poolking
04-11-2003, 20:15
RELIGION DISCUSION IS A BIG NO NO!
LEAVE IT THERE!!!!!
Although people may think Im being a bit forceful........ Weve been here many times before!
There is nothing wrong with religious discussion as long as it doesn't degenerate into name calling and rubbishing others religious beliefs in order to get yours across.
If (please alow me that "if") heaven does exist then I'm sure the people that get there would consider themselves pretty lucky, I however certainly wouldn't (so it's probably a good job I'm a non-believer).
it has nothing to do with "luck" it's to do with belief and trust in Jesus (that sounds like a song)
it has nothing to do with "luck" it's to do with belief and trust in Jesus (that sounds like a song)
So you don't consider it lucky that you found your belief in the bible?
So you don't consider it lucky that you found your belief in the bible?
nope i don't believe in "luck" i beleive everything happens for a reason, and the right time, in accordance with god's will
poolking
04-11-2003, 20:26
I do believe in luck but I don't think that it's applicable to religion. You don't "luck" into religion. It's a choice, whether you choose to follow a belief system or not.
Theodoric
04-11-2003, 21:16
there is no "if lucky" the bible, speciafically the new testmant is clear there is only ONE way to get to heaven
Agreed. A slapdash choice of words on my part. For "if lucky", I should have written something like "if by divine grace".
Theodoric
04-11-2003, 21:21
I do believe in luck but I don't think that it's applicable to religion. You don't "luck" into religion. It's a choice, whether you choose to follow a belief system or not.
However, to get back to my original posting, neither is it choice if you are a Calvinist.
One thing that always causes me problems is the 'by faith alone' of Lutherans. So how do you get this faith? By the grace of God, I believe is the conventional answer. And if God doesn't give you his grace, does this mean that you are damned? In which case, what is the difference from Calvinism?
Ahh, but if God appeared tomorrow and answered all the questions about life we wouldn't need to 'believe' he exists because we would 'know' he exists. So religion defined as would no longer be necessary.
But what about people 2000 years from now?
But what about people 2000 years from now?
One would assume he'd have learnt from his mistakes and stuck around...bit logical really if you ask me
downquark1
05-11-2003, 08:22
But what about people 2000 years from now?
We could video record his appearance and take an etherial tissue sample :p
I hate to think the test and DNA splicing that will happen on it though :D
We could video record his appearance and take an etherial tissue sample :p
I hate to think the test and DNA splicing that will happen on it though :D
yeah - get an appearance and swamp the world with t-shirts, postcards, key rings and every other type of souvenier
not that any one would want to profit from an image
(by the way - does anybody know what that latest royal scandal that is being suppressed is? - i got asked to find out)
"I witnessed the second coming and all I got was this lousy T-shirt"
:D
MetaWraith
05-11-2003, 10:40
Ahem.
3. The Robot series (there were originally 2 novels, one was 'The Caves of Steel', and a number of short stories) was originally completely separate from the 3 novels in the Foundation series.
<Dons anorak and slinks out of room.> :)
Foundation series is now far more than the original 3 novels, and is in fact joined to the Robots series, by the novels "Foundation's Edge" & "Foundation and Earth"
Okay back to main topic.
Premise 1 : Religion is a belief system.
Premise 2 : We all believe in something (we believe in our own existence right ?)
Conclusion : We all adhere to a religion, whether its a major recognised one or a much smaller one in which we (individually) are possibly the high priest(ess), acolyte and only convert all at the same time.
Discuss.
But what about people 2000 years from now?
biblically it states that God will come again in the form of Jesus (the trinity tricky to explain) and when Jesus does come again He will set up his thousand year reign on earth....you'd be pretty dumb not to notice that :p
However, to get back to my original posting, neither is it choice if you are a Calvinist.
One thing that always causes me problems is the 'by faith alone' of Lutherans. So how do you get this faith? By the grace of God, I believe is the conventional answer. And if God doesn't give you his grace, does this mean that you are damned? In which case, what is the difference from Calvinism?
I'm loath to post this link but it's the best answer to Calvinism I've come across. The guy talks a lot of hot air in some of the other essays on his site (IMHO, of course ;) ) but I couldn't concisely get across on the forum what he says very well indeed (although at some length) about the errors of Calvinism. You may have guessed, I am not one.
http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/calvin/calv1.htm
Now, why did it take me so long to find this thread? I must be slipping...
the thing that always puzzled me was the three kings and the star
etc
like - they were quite violent times and it would be quite unlikely to have them roaming around on camels - just the three of them - without bodyguards like you see them doing on christmas cards
the thing that always puzzled me was the three kings and the star
etc
like - they were quite violent times and it would be quite unlikely to have them roaming around on camels - just the three of them - without bodyguards like you see them doing on christmas cardsYou have to blame Clinton Cards for that, not the Bible (which never says there were three kings, never says they rode camels, never says they travelled alone and never says they arrived at the stable just after Jesus was born - in fact, they most likely turned up about 18 months later).
I know, shall we continue this debate in Reading? :D
You have to blame Clinton Cards for that, not the Bible (which never says there were three kings, never says they rode camels, never says they travelled alone and never says they arrived at the stable just after Jesus was born - in fact, they most likely turned up about 18 months later).
but they are in the bible right?
also - that crib scene would have been slightly more crowded if there was a full entourage of bodyguards and foodtasters etc
oh...wait a minute, I think there might have been 4 kings but one dropped out
but they are in the bible right?
also - that crib scene would have been slightly more crowded if there was a full entourage of bodyguards and foodtasters etc
oh...wait a minute, I think there might have been 4 kings but one dropped out
It's really strange to hear a Christian trying to make out they know little or nothing about Biblical teachings.....
I know, shall we continue this debate in Reading? :D
:erm: if you want.....neil tried to start a religious discussion in manc but wasn't really in the mood for abig discussion then.....
Theodoric
05-11-2003, 19:47
I'm loath to post this link but it's the best answer to Calvinism I've come across. The guy talks a lot of hot air in some of the other essays on his site (IMHO, of course ;) ) but I couldn't concisely get across on the forum what he says very well indeed (although at some length) about the errors of Calvinism. You may have guessed, I am not one.
http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/calvin/calv1.htm
Now, why did it take me so long to find this thread? I must be slipping...
I've bookmarked it away. However, I may be learning something new (always a good thing).
Your quoted site has an article called 'FOUNDATION SCRIPTURES OF THE "FIVE-POINT" POSITION?' and says 'Perhaps the best way to answer this is by examining some of the principal Scriptures used by the five-point Calvinist'. Now, I've just checked my single Calvinist bookmark, a site devoted to a Victorian theologian called R L Dabney and posted there is an article entitled 'The Five Points of Calvinism'. Some time or other, I am going to have to find out what exactly are the 5 points of Calvinism.
I've bookmarked it away. However, I may be learning something new (always a good thing).
Your quoted site has an article called 'FOUNDATION SCRIPTURES OF THE "FIVE-POINT" POSITION?' and says 'Perhaps the best way to answer this is by examining some of the principal Scriptures used by the five-point Calvinist'. Now, I've just checked my single Calvinist bookmark, a site devoted to a Victorian theologian called R L Dabney and posted there is an article entitled 'The Five Points of Calvinism'. Some time or other, I am going to have to find out what exactly are the 5 points of Calvinism.
I don't see what particular insights into stuff a manufacturer of fancy male underwear would have over Joe public anyway
I don't see what particular insights into stuff a manufacturer of fancy male underwear would have over Joe public anyway
KA, your posts get more and more obviously you with every passing minute. Give up! :rolleyes:
KA, your posts get more and more obviously you with every passing minute. Give up! :rolleyes:
Makes you wonder why she bothers :rolleyes:
:banghead: :banghead: :knock:
I've bookmarked it away. However, I may be learning something new (always a good thing).
Your quoted site has an article called 'FOUNDATION SCRIPTURES OF THE "FIVE-POINT" POSITION?' and says 'Perhaps the best way to answer this is by examining some of the principal Scriptures used by the five-point Calvinist'. Now, I've just checked my single Calvinist bookmark, a site devoted to a Victorian theologian called R L Dabney and posted there is an article entitled 'The Five Points of Calvinism'. Some time or other, I am going to have to find out what exactly are the 5 points of Calvinism.
1. Total depravity of mankind (man is so completely sinful that he is incapable of making any move towards God or doing anything 'good')
2. Unconditional election of the saints (God chose his people, in no sense did they have anything to do with it)
3. Limited atonement (Jesus' sacrifice was only for those who would be saved and not for the whole world)
4. Irresistible grace (The elect have no choice not to be saved)
5. Perseverance of the Saints (Once saved, always saved)
Often called the 'T-U-L-I-P' position. http://allanturner.com/calbk_5.html
KA, your posts get more and more obviously you with every passing minute. Give up! :rolleyes:
I see - give up being 'me'
and cowtow to whatever i am told to be by the men
Theodoric
06-11-2003, 14:45
1. Total depravity of mankind (man is so completely sinful that he is incapable of making any move towards God or doing anything 'good')
2. Unconditional election of the saints (God chose his people, in no sense did they have anything to do with it)
3. Limited atonement (Jesus' sacrifice was only for those who would be saved and not for the whole world)
4. Irresistible grace (The elect have no choice not to be saved)
5. Perseverance of the Saints (Once saved, always saved)
Often called the 'T-U-L-I-P' position. http://allanturner.com/calbk_5.html
Which only makes Calvinism seem even less attractive to me. However, I can see how attractive it must be when you have convinced youself that you are one of the Elect.
Historically, irresistible grace seems, for some reason, to have been concentrated in particular parts of the earth; Geneva, Scotland and the Palatinate come to mind.
Theodoric
06-11-2003, 14:47
And to bring a little humour into the thread, here is Ambrose Bierce's definition of Christianity from The Devil's Dictionary.
CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.
Which only makes Calvinism seem even less attractive to me. However, I can see how attractive it must be when you have convinced youself that you are one of the Elect.
Historically, irresistible grace seems, for some reason, to have been concentrated in particular parts of the earth; Geneva, Scotland and the Palatinate come to mind.
Good, I'm not a Calvinist and I couldn't recommend it to anyone. Anyone who takes John 3:16 - 'for God so loved the world that he gave his only son so that whoever believes in him will never die, but will have eternal life' - and reinterprets it so that 'the world' and 'whoever' applies only to God's elect few, is being willfully blind to what the Bible actually says and frankly wants their bumps read.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.