Search results

You said it... Part of me wishes He was - then I wouldn't do some of the things I still do - but either way your belief seems to suggest that we are not free agents - we are either Satan's pawns or Christ's - and, remember, a puppet has no moral culpability. Therefore, your conundrum for...

I called her first - take your place in the line!

Then we are robots. Great - I'm going to dial a hooker right now, drop some tabs and get loaded - cos my programming said so (and the wife and kids are away!)....? Really...?

Then why did Paul enjoin Timothy to 'hold fast to the pattern of sound teaching that he heard from him' (2 Tim 1:13) - not written down but heard - and to entrust this "what you have heard me say...to reliable men who will be qualified to teach others'? We're quite clearly not talking about...

Are we then robots? If so, we are without moral responsibility, and that runs counter to the whole concept of man being made in imago Dei.

Because, if I understand TULIP correctly, TULIP says - and you can't get away from this, however you slice it or dice it or whatever form of logical and mental gymnastics you care to essay - that God creates some people for the purpose of destruction and eternal damnation. Such an act would be...

Alright, but do you not accept that TULIP does effectively ascribe evil to God and therefore must be heretical?

Yes, surely 'Scaley' would be more appropriate.

Indeed....which is why TULIP is heresy.

See Augustine.

Please explain.

Is outrage! The band should always be in front of the altar, and ideally to one side of it - everyone knows that!

Yes, they're called bishops. But you knew that already, didn't you? If liturgy was so wrong, why did the Apostles use it, as you yourself admit? You seem to be suggesting they got it wrong. If that is the case, that casts into doubt everything else they did - like the writing of the NT for...

Well, if He behaved like that, He would be. Fortunately, I don't believe He does. No, I don't doubt that; what I doubt is the heinous idea that He deliberately destined some to be damned. So He wouldn't create people for damnation, then.

In what way can a god who creates sentient beings for destruction be considered 'moral' or 'good'; surely such an entity would be a worse monster than a Stalin or Hitler or the sort of sick muppets who torture kittens for kicks?

Given that they have been doing these 'dead liturgical exercises' since the time of the Apostles, why should they?

Indeed. I had the privilege of attending a service at a church which claims descent from the Waldenses in St Raphael in Provence in 2006. Although as you say they are now part of the Presbyterian Eglise Reformee de France, they trace their descent from the Waldenses and are affiliated to...

And there's the small matter of the Cathar murder of Pierre de Castelnau, the Papal legate in January 1208...and their fortification of Montsegur. Such a peaceful sect! (None of which, of course, excuses the monstrous behaviour of Catholics like the elder Simon de Montfort and King Louis IX of...

Er...no. Just ask Pope Gregory VII and Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV...of King Henry II of England and Thomas a Becket...or Pope Innocent III and King John of England etc

Indeed. It is more correct to call them - at least at that point in their history - proto-Franciscans, since they adopted and called for similar virtues of simple preaching and simple living including vows of poverty as espoused by Francis of Assisi 50 years later. Their tragedy was to call for...