Religious

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

BTW your hero Calvin taught the same exact thing, nobody knows they are part of the elect, while they are alive.

But my real hero the Word of God says differently. Plus I doubt Calvin taught that since he taught the Perseverance of the Saints.

It's no wonder at all that never once in my entire life has any Roman Catholic knocked on my door to share the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, I know of no one who has ever been evangelized by a Roman Catholic. Not one single human being. Even the Satanic-inspired cults such as the Mormons and the JWs have it all over the RCC! The RCC's heretical views On Assurance and Perseverance speak volumes as to why that is.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Wait a minute.

You are the one who told us that God has PRE-SELECTED his "flock"...and "soul-saving" isn't something that the individual could attain of his own power and volition. Are you now telling us that, when you go knocking on strangers' doors to "spread the word of God", you think that you are actually SAVING people? Are YOU this "grace" that you say God bestows or withholds from people?

You nailed the problem with talking with boxcar. He argues for and against the same position, depending on who he is posting to.

Calvinism is deterministic, God determines who is saved and who is condemned in some eternity past, before being born. In fact, God determines everything even planning the murder of an innocent. Yet, he argues against determinism with Actor.

He tells you cannot freely make a decision to choose to believe because God won't let you, but then says you must believe.

His theology is a movable target depending on who boxcar is posting to.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But my real hero the Word of God says differently. Plus I doubt Calvin taught that since he taught the Perseverance of the Saints.

It's no wonder at all that never once in my entire life has any Roman Catholic knocked on my door to share the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, I know of no one who has ever been evangelized by a Roman Catholic. Not one single human being. Even the Satanic-inspired cults such as the Mormons and the JWs have it all over the RCC! The RCC's heretical views On Assurance and Perseverance speak volumes as to why that is.

You can doubt all you want, read Calvin's works. So your experience is the only reality; like Actor's position about reality?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Philippine Bishops Back Pope's Remarks on Zika Contraception

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireSto...ption-37073968

According to el papa, using contraceptives is not an "absolute evil". I guess he means it's only relatively evil? (Maybe some Catholic can help me out here?) But before trying to help me, one of you RCs should shoot off a quickie email to the Vatican to inform this pope that procreation is a creation ordinance that universally applies to all men and women who have descended from Adam. (This ordinance can found in the creation account in Genesis.) Of course, if someone can prove they haven't descended from Adam, then they get a free pass.

Why don't you help us out. Are you a good example of following the creation ordinance? Do you have offspring? If, so How many? How many children does Scripture state you individually need to produce to satisfy the creation ordinance to go forth and multiply? Does Scripture state that not having children is a sin or a curse. Please cite Chapter and verse and your personal example of following the creation ordinance so I can forward it to Pope Francis.

[nomad1102]

For your pleasure and entertainment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iopTdRFA2Pg

Enjoy

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by nomad1102

For your pleasure and entertainment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iopTdRFA2Pg

Enjoy

I always liked that guy.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The Kingdom of Heaven is all about the rule of Christ's Spirit in the hearts of his people.

I see you expanded your "rule" a bit.

When Jesus was on the cross dying, he didn't start spouting rules. He showed love and compassion for all including his enemies. His enemies that you say the Bible would never condone as worthy. Jesus heals with love,not rules.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And all Christians are charged to go out into the world to make disciples. That's every Christian's duty.

I know a lot of Christians and none of them do that. In fact, the only Christians I see do propagation are the evangelical preachers who do it for money, in the name of God.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Regarding children, scripture teaches that nothing clean can be born of a woman.

Written by chauvinistic men 2000 years ago when women were totally subjugated and practically owned by men. Not written by God. And I assume you do know that the disciples were all jealous of Mary Magdalene's closeness to Jesus. And the reason why Mary Magdalene's Gospel was not one of the four Gospels was because she is a woman. And the only disciples who had the guts to stay with Jesus when the storms set in at his death were women. And the Church finally apologized for turning Mary Magdalene into a whore. With all this male chauvinism clear today, you still believe the filth men interjected in the Bible, in the name of God. Shame on you.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And your conditioning argument begs the question big time. When did this "conditioning" begin? Wouldn't it had to have begun with our first parents back in the Garden?

I am talking about this lifetime.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Anyhow...I'm done with you, as well. You have finally convinced me that you do have a ton of "love" in you.

I've never heard of a "Christian" being intimidated by someone who says he experiences the love of God within. You sure your name is not Darth? Because it's usually the dark side that cannot handle the Light.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Why don't you help us out. Are you a good example of following the creation ordinance? Do you have offspring? If, so How many? How many children does Scripture state you individually need to produce to satisfy the creation ordinance to go forth and multiply? Does Scripture state that not having children is a sin or a curse. Please cite Chapter and verse and your personal example of following the creation ordinance so I can forward it to Pope Francis.

Are you that ignorant of scripture? I did say that procreation is a creation ordinance. You cannot find it in creation account? Quite an amazing thing, especially since it has long been the stand of the RCC that abortion and contraceptive use is sinful! Tell me: On what did they base that doctrine!? Or were they just guessing?

And then you put your ignorance on further display for all to see by asking:

Does Scripture state that not having children is a sin or a curse.

What's the matter: None of the RCC's man-made traditions address this question? Really? Someone slipped up, did they? But hear what the authoritative Word of God says:

James 4:17
17 Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do, and does not do it, to him it is sin.
NASB

No one ever taught you in the RCC about sins of omission?

As far as me having children or not is a non sequitur. But let's say for the sake of discussion that my wife and I did choose to not have children back in the day. But we did that in ignorance not having the knowledge of the scriptures that we now have, would not that kind of situation differ significantly from the RCC's that historically has spoken out against abortion and contraceptives, presumably on the basis of having full knowledge of that on which they spoke so authoritatively?

If you still can't find that creation ordinance and you have no shame in admitting it, let me know.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

I see you expanded your "rule" a bit.

When Jesus was on the cross dying, he didn't start spouting rules. He showed love and compassion for all including his enemies. His enemies that you say the Bible would never condone as worthy. Jesus heals with love,not rules.

What about his 3-1/2 years of ministry? Further, I have always said that a kingdom requires a king. That is what kingdoms are all about! Someone is ruling in the kingdom. Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is the rule of Christ in the hearts of men, since Christ is this King! To be in more specific -- it is the rule of Lord of Lords and King of kings in the new heart God graciously gives to his elect.

Also, you continue to trip over yourself in one contradiction after another. Since you do not believe that the love of God withing requires outward expression -- that it does not have to be manifested externally to others -- why do you cite Jesus' example on the Cross when you do not believe that you must follow his example!? You see how you get caught up in your own lies because you believe a lie!?

And I would also remind you that BEFORE Jesus went to cross he predicted Israel's demise as a nation and the destruction of their sacred temple because they rejected him. The nation was punished severely for their sin. This prophecy of His came to past in 70 A.D. So, it's evident to me that you have no clue of what Jesus meant on cross and how his words on that cross were also fulfilled!

[quote]I know a lot of Christians and none of them do that. In fact, the only Christians I see do propagation are the evangelical preachers who do it for money, in the name of God. [/b]

Then they are not obeying their Lord! In fact, you'd be doing them a favor by reminding them of that. And if they're not doing that, that could be evidence that those professing Christians do not have the love of God within them, since they do not have in their heart the compassion and love and mercy that Jesus did. Read up on the Great Commission someday.

Written by chauvinistic men 2000 years ago when women were totally subjugated and practically owned by men. Not written by God. And I assume you do know that the disciples were all jealous of Mary Magdalene's closeness to Jesus. And the reason why Mary Magdalene's Gospel was not one of the four Gospels was because she is a woman. And the only disciples who had the guts to stay with Jesus when the storms set in at his death were women. And the Church finally apologized for turning Mary Magdalene into a whore. With all this male chauvinism clear today, you still believe the filth men interjected in the Bible, in the name of God. Shame on you.

But the "chauvinists" were including themselves, too, as being unclean! They didn't exclude themselves!

I am talking about this lifetime.

What lifetime? Your generation only? If you were "conditioned" , then WHO conditioned you? And whoever conditioned you, WHO conditioned them? And whoever conditioned them, WHO conditioned....etc., etc., etc. You must trace the conditioning process back in time. And if you're satisfied with settling for infinite regress (which you probably would be), then your conditioning theory continues to beg the question big time because we would not know how or when or even why this conditioning process began in the first place.

I've never heard of a "Christian" being intimidated by someone who says he experiences the love of God within. You sure your name is not Darth? Because it's usually the dark side that cannot handle the Light.

Why do you think I'm intimidated? I have the Spirit of Christ in my heart and it is He who moves me, motivates me, influences me to share his love with the rest of the world, and this I try to do in various ways through good works, so that men will see my good works and give glory to God.

Before Jesus went to the Cross, he said:

Matt 5:16
16 "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
NASB

But you have hidden your lamp under the bed so that no one can see your works and give any glory to God. Or do you think that Jesus meant that men should do that only up to the time of the Cross, then they could cease being light and salt on this earth and quit doing good works and quit glorifying God? Did all that cease at the Cross?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

You can doubt all you want, read Calvin's works. So your experience is the only reality; like Actor's position about reality?

I never said about my experience being the only reality. I just related my experience of many other Christians I know. I have been a Christian for close to 40 years and have never had any Catholic come knocking on my door to share the gospel of Jesus Christ. (And there were times during my Christian that I lived in close proximity to Catholic churches!) But this truth shouldn't surprise you. The apples within the RCC don't fall far from the tree (the popes), since I never heard a pope either share the gospel of Christ with anyone. Popes are huge on religious puffery and pomp and flowery words and making religious declarations; but not once to my knowledge has any pope shared the gospel publicly in print or word. And this is beyond strange because Paul said that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16; 1Cor 1:18)!

Truly, this is a mark of a dead church!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

You nailed the problem with talking with boxcar. He argues for and against the same position, depending on who he is posting to.

Calvinism is deterministic, God determines who is saved and who is condemned in some eternity past, before being born. In fact, God determines everything even planning the murder of an innocent. Yet, he argues against determinism with Actor.

He tells you cannot freely make a decision to choose to believe because God won't let you, but then says you must believe.

His theology is a movable target depending on who boxcar is posting to.

Predestination is not Determinism. The bible does not teach that man doesn't have the freedom to choose, as Determinism does. What the bible does teach is that man's freedom of choice is is as limited as God's will is, which in both cases is by the nature of the being. The will of man is very free to sin, since it is in bondage to sin. It's enslaved to sin. Because of these truths, man cannot not sin, no matter how hard he tries.

A prisoner behind the walls of a penitentiary has "free will"; however, his choices of movement, for example, are very limited. He might have the choice to lay in his cot in his open cell, or to go out to roam on the cell block with other inmates or to even get some exercise in the yard outdoors, etc. He has the freedom to make those choices but his situation -- his environment -- severely restricts just what he can choose to do. And so it is with nature of all sentient beings. Why in the world do you think it took nothing less than the God-Man Jesus Christ to come to set the PRISONERS FREE!

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, you're not.

I never implied anything whatsoever about studying the sciptures[sic] and forgiveness. I never remotely tied those two together. Once again, you misrepresent what I said to Light.

In spite of your protestation above I am trying to understand what you are getting at. You posted ...

Originally Posted by boxcar

This kind of work requires much prayer and use of intellect. Since God used his intellect to give mankind revelation of himself, his Son, salvation, etc., then what makes you think that man doesn't need to use his intellect to understand what God has revealed through his prophets, apostles and His Son?

I'm trying to understand exactly what you mean by this statement and I've tried to frame my responses to it as questions (and that can be difficult). Note my use of the phrase "are you saying" in at least two posts.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And why is a mentally challenged person in your world an idiot? That's very, very NOT SO PC! Very uncool. Very krass, uncharitable and uncompassionate way to think and talk about the less fortunate among us. Just sayin'....

The English language does not really provide (as far as I can tell) any word with the equivalent meaning, viz., a person with an IQ less than 25. The closest might be "retard" which carries the same baggage. "Mentally challenged" and other words/phrases do not mean quite the same thing. The offensive or "NOT SO PC" element derives from the application of the word to persons without the handicap with the express purpose of offense. I do not regard the word as offensive when applied to persons who do have the handicap. What other term do you prefer?

Originally Posted by boxcar

Now...to the free part of you statement. The gift of eternal life is free to all. It's free to all because they did not pay for it. But the gift itself was not free. It was bought and paid for -- in this case by the Son of God paid the price for sin which is death.

It's not free. It requires belief without evidence. The very act of critical thinking is an offense. Part of Show Me the Wire's signature is the quote "To doubt is the greatest insult to the Divinity." The price is intellectual suicide.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

In spite of your protestation above I am trying to understand what you are getting at. You posted ...I'm trying to understand exactly what you mean by this statement and I've tried to frame my responses to it as questions (and that can be difficult). Note my use of the phrase "are you saying" in at least two posts.

The English language does not really provide (as far as I can tell) any word with the equivalent meaning, viz., a person with an IQ less than 25. The closest might be "retard" which carries the same baggage. "Mentally challenged" and other words/phrases do not mean quite the same thing. The offensive or "NOT SO PC" element derives from the application of the word to persons without the handicap with the express purpose of offense. I do not regard the word as offensive when applied to persons who do have the handicap. What other term do you prefer?

It's not free. It requires belief without evidence. The very act of critical thinking is an offense. Part of Show Me the Wire's signature is the quote "To doubt is the greatest insult to the Divinity." The price is intellectual suicide.

Tell me...do you subscribe to any magazines or newspapers or science journals or any such thing? Assuming you read something ( ), do you have to interpret what the author is writing? If so, do you use your intellect or do you just wing it?

By the way, look up the definition of gift. Salvation (eternal life) is a gift of God. By definition a "gift" is something transferred voluntarily by one person to another without compensation. Since man has a will, he can freely choose to whether accept or reject the gift. If he accepts it, he doesn't think it's "intellectual suicide" -- only an atheist would think that. Rejecting the free gift is truly intellectual suicide -- but then again, man would only be acting out the [already] deadness of his soul.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Are you that ignorant of scripture? I did say that procreation is a creation ordinance. You cannot find it in creation account? Quite an amazing thing, especially since it has long been the stand of the RCC that abortion and contraceptive use is sinful! Tell me: On what did they base that doctrine!? Or were they just guessing?

And then you put your ignorance on further display for all to see by asking:



What's the matter: None of the RCC's man-made traditions address this question? Really? Someone slipped up, did they? But hear what the authoritative Word of God says:

James 4:17
17 Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do, and does not do it, to him it is sin.
NASB

No one ever taught you in the RCC about sins of omission?

As far as me having children or not is a non sequitur. But let's say for the sake of discussion that my wife and I did choose to not have children back in the day. But we did that in ignorance not having the knowledge of the scriptures that we now have, would not that kind of situation differ significantly from the RCC's that historically has spoken out against abortion and contraceptives, presumably on the basis of having full knowledge of that on which they spoke so authoritatively?

If you still can't find that creation ordinance and you have no shame in admitting it, let me know.

Your usual b.s. non-responsive answer, taking my last sentence out of context. I asked you to do the following so I can forward your response to Pope Francis:

Are you a good example of following the creation ordinance? Do you have offspring? If, so How many? How many children does Scripture state you individually need to produce to satisfy the creation ordinance to go forth and multiply? Does Scripture state that not having children is a sin or a curse?

Of course your personal example is relevant. Tell me where to find Scripture's teaching, chapter and verse, How many children does Scripture state you individually need to produce to satisfy the creation ordinance to go forth and multiply?and Scripture's specific teaching about whether or not having any offspring is a sin or a curse.

I understand sins of omission. Thus, my question about not producing offspring and whether or not it is a sin or a curse? It is important to know if Scripture specifically addresses this situation.

Yes, the Catholic Church speaks out against contraception and Pope's Francis and still does.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Your usual b.s. non-responsive answer, taking my last sentence out of context. I asked you to do the following so I can forward your response to Pope Francis:

Are you a good example of following the creation ordinance? Do you have offspring? If, so How many? How many children does Scripture state you individually need to produce to satisfy the creation ordinance to go forth and multiply? Does Scripture state that not having children is a sin or a curse?

Whether I have kids or not does not determine the authority of God's Word. Therefore, it's a non squitur to which I will not respond.

Of course your personal example is relevant. Tell me where to find Scripture's teaching, chapter and verse, How many children does Scripture state you individually need to produce to satisfy the creation ordinance to go forth and multiply?and Scripture's specific teaching about whether or not having any offspring is a sin or a curse.

Does the creation ordinance itself tell us how many children we should have? If not, then why are you asking me such stupid question?

Then my next question is: Isn't the central purpose behind the use of contraceptives to prohibit having any children?

Also, the passage in James is teaching a broad biblical principle which can cover many practical areas in life, including procreation.

I understand sins of omission. Thus, my question about not producing offspring and whether or not it is a sin or a curse? It is important to know if Scripture specifically addresses this situation.

What part of the broad principle in Jas 4:17 don't you understand?

Yes, the Catholic Church speaks out against contraception and Pope's Francis and still does.

Yeah...except when the moral relativist pope doesn't.

So, all you gotta do is let el papa connect the dots between Gen 1:22, 28 and Jas 4:17. If he can do that, he'll be a more enlightened human being.

Of course, Gen 1:28 is referring to what God has joined together, i.e. the institution of matrimony. So, if his relaxation against the use of contraceptives is aimed to them, he's encouraging them to sin. To disobey the creation mandate which is still in force today. On the other hand if his current stand is aimed at everyone and anyone, regardless of marital status, then he's encouraging fornication or even adultery -- both of which are strictly forbidden in all scripture. But in either case, Jas 4:17 would apply because the pope knows better! He knows (or should) what the right thing is to do, yet, he doesn't teach it. Even worse, he's encouraging and promoting sin!

Let me know how your pope responds.