So Sad

[The Archangel]

There is an "insurmountable daftness" inherent in every human being who has ever dared to disagree with his holiness the "Archangel" on any post.

Logical fallacy: Ad Hominem

Your past disagreements were based in your ignorance. All I simply did was point out your ignorances to you. So, then, I become the "bad guy" for pointing out that you, on several occasions, had absolutely no earthly idea what you were talking about.

It's not that you're mentally incompetent. In fact, I have no doubt in my mind that you are quite capable in so many ways. But, in the points that you've addressed to me lately, you are simply ignorant. Now, if that's a sore spot for you, I couldn't care less, and your ignorance isn't my fault. In our recent Hebrew discussion your ignorance was demonstrated for you and everyone else to see. It really is too bad that rather than learn from someone who might know more than you, you turn to attack me for your ignorance and shortcomings.

I'm not some plumber that has theology as a hobby. I have a Master's Degree in this stuff.

As for the rest of your silly, meandering nonsense.... It really isn't worth a reply since it is quite apparent that you are selectively editing what I actually said and taking it out of context.

I will say, however, as a corrective to your use of the English language...

"Than" is a comparative; "then" is temporal. Now you know.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I believe if one truly examines the final conclusions and life applications of TULIP, they will come to see how emotions must be denied, even the emotion of sadness, the heart begins to harden, to the point of turning on one's own children whom God has passed by and needing to say "they deserved what they got".

I don't ever want to be one of those Christians who say "they" deserve what "they" got! But for me, "I" will rejoice that "I" got picked for life! No, I will say as Paul said, I would rather be accursed from Christ if it could save my sons and daughters!

So... what makes you think someone doesn't deserve Hell? Is God's judgment not right in all cases and at all times? Is there injustice with God?

And, rather than rejoicing that God intervened in your eternal destiny by setting His love upon you, why don't you just break your arm patting yourself on the back saying "I've chosen wisely; I'm so much smarter than those who won't believe?" (please note the sarcasm by which I ask an honest question)

I honestly think you haven't been listening to the answers given to you. You aren't articulating our position correctly, and that makes me think you're still shadow-boxing against the caricature of Calvinism offered by some slanderous people.

I think you're free to reject the soteriology of Calvinism. However, I'm not convinced that's what you're doing here. You're rejecting Calvinistic soteriology based on a priori concepts on which you seem to be ineducable. So you started this thread in insincerity or you haven't been listening--and I'm not saying that because you don't agree with our position.

The Archangel

 

[steaver]

So... what makes you think someone doesn't deserve Hell? Is God's judgment not right in all cases and at all times? Is there injustice with God?.

The Archangel

Deserve - "do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment)."

Does a child in the womb deserve hell?

 

[The Archangel]

Deserve - "do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment)."

Does a child in the womb deserve hell?

But, that wasn't the original question, now was it? Unless I'm mistaken, you never phrased the question in terms of an infant child...

My answer to that question is irrelevant until you answer the question:

"Do persons in hell not deserve hell?"

The Archangel

 

[steaver]

But, that wasn't the original question, now was it? Unless I'm mistaken, you never phrased the question in terms of an infant child...

My answer to that question is irrelevant until you answer the question:

"Do persons in hell not deserve hell?"

The Archangel

It is absolutely relevant, is a child not a person?

 

[The Archangel]

It is absolutely relevant, is a child not a person?

You're dodging the question: Do people in hell not deserve to be in hell?

I'll remind you, that is, essentially, your conclusion. The question of an infant who dies, etc. was never presented as the point of the Calvinist's sadness. So, the question about anyone deserving hell stands and must be answered before the other topic is approached.

The Archangel

 

[steaver]

You're dodging the question: Do people in hell not deserve to be in hell?

I'll remind you, that is, essentially, your conclusion. The question of an infant who dies, etc. was never presented as the point of the Calvinist's sadness. So, the question about anyone deserving hell stands and must be answered before the other topic is approached.

The Archangel

If they freely rejected God's light to them they deserve to be in hell.

Now, does a unborn child deserve hell?

 

[The Archangel]

If they freely rejected God's light to them they deserve to be in hell.

Ah.. So, in your understanding, people aren't in hell for their sin but for the rejection of "God's light"?

We'll leave the other question for a moment...

The Archangel

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Ah.. So, in your understanding, people aren't in hell for their sin but for the rejection of "God's light"?

We'll leave the other question for a moment...

The Archangel

Rejection ...isn't that a grevious sin? Isn't that the sin of unbelief?

 

[convicted1]

Does a child in the womb deserve hell?

Yes, and here's why. Not one person who ever lived...including babies that died in the womb, ever deserved the right to call heaven their eternal resting place. There's not going to be one there who didn't have to go through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Any and all that get there, get there solely by the grace of God.

 

[steaver]

Rejection ...isn't that a grevious sin? Isn't that the sin of unbelief?

Exactly :thumbsup:

It is the only sin that is not forgiven at the cross.

 

[steaver]

Yes, and here's why. Not one person who ever lived...including babies that died in the womb, ever deserved the right to call heaven their eternal resting place. There's not going to be one there who didn't have to go through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Any and all that get there, get there solely by the grace of God.

I mostly agree here, but the question was the "deserved" part, "deserved" denotes a cause verses effect due to behavior. The unborn have not had a sin by choice yet.

 

[The Archangel]

Exactly :thumbsup:

It is the only sin that is not forgiven at the cross.

So, then, your view of the atonement must be limited in some fashion. This is to say that Jesus didn't die for every sin--if unbelief remains unforgiven.

The Archangel

 

[steaver]

So, then, your view of the atonement must be limited in some fashion. This is to say that Jesus didn't die for every sin--if unbelief remains unforgiven.

The Archangel

Yes, that is what Jesus said., I will go with Jesus :thumbsup:

 

[The Archangel]

Yes, that is what Jesus said., I will go with Jesus :thumbsup:

So then... how is it determined whose sin of unbelief is atoned for and whose sin of unbelief isn't?

The Archangel

 

[Inspector Javert]

Logical fallacy: Ad Hominem

There was no "Ad-Hominem" argument there...
You see...
an "Ad Hominem" would be something akin to this:

"How could you be against tax breaks for corporations along with someone like Bill Clinton since he's nothing but a philandering adulterous pervert.."
See the difference?

I wasn't proposing any conclusion based upon something...
I was just insulting you.

An actual "Ad-Hominem"....would exist if I were trying to prove a point over and above a debatable issue....
There's no "Ad-Hominem"....if I'm just saying something gratuitously nasty about you....did you simply not "KNOW" that? or were you being intentionally dishonest by saying so????

Your past disagreements were based in your ignorance.

I think you mean "Our" past disagreements...not "your"...that doesn't even make sense...

All I simply did was point out your ignorances to you.

You have not done so...
I'm not in a personal battle with you, that's what you don't get...
YOU...
Lost your frikkin' MIND over the thought that someone...ANYONE...would DARE disagree with you directly...
I have done so, and I will continue to.
A murderous rage develops in the mind of any Calvinist every time someone tells them they are dead wrong to their face...and it consumed you like it consumed Calvin when he murdered Servetus....

Your rage at someone directly saying you are "wrong" about something spins you into a dimension of pissed-off you can't describe...

But, there was no "Ad-Hominem"....

So, then, I become the "bad guy" for pointing out that you, on several occasions, had absolutely no earthly idea what you were talking about.

You've NEVER done that...
Not once...
Your sycophants think that....but, you've never successfully proven me wrong about anything. You've postured like a pea-cock...but proven nothing.

It's not that you're mentally incompetent. In fact, I have no doubt in my mind that you are quite capable in so many ways.

Just, not capable of telling you you're clearly full of crap when you obviously are....
I don't seek your verification of my mental capacities....when you are full of crap you are full of crap, and you are in this thread...and you were in every thread I've taken you on so far.
Your sycophants don't know that...but, they're the ones you are trying to convince, not me...so it works for you.

But, in the points that you've addressed to me lately, you are simply ignorant.

Then prove it and publically embarrass me in a debate before God and man.

it's a sore spot for you, I couldn't care less, and your ignorance isn't my fault. In our recent Hebrew discussion your ignorance was demonstrated for you and everyone else to see.

You were completely and demonstrably wrong in that discussion...
anyone who knows Hebrew at all would know that.

You were making up crap.

You said "it's a 'completely' different word."
That was crap.
You did NOTHING to prove that..and my disagreement with you stands. Ask your sycophants one thing:
Tell them to look up BOTH words in a HEBREW Lexicon...and what word will they get??

Huh?
Which one?

Are those two "completely different" words found in two different places in a Lexicon Archangel??
Tell your followers the truth...Where will they find it?

It's "different" in roughly the same sense that "fire" and "conflagration" are different in English....
or maybe...

"burn" and "cauterize"...

Except that there's actually different places you'll find that in an English dictionary....you can look up the two words you fallaciously, wrongly, incorrectly claimed were "completely different" in a Hebrew Lexicon...and the only way to do so is to look at the EXACT SAME word. You know it, and I know it.

You know it, and you should admit it.

It really is too bad that rather than learn from someone who might know more than you, you turn to attack me for your ignorance and shortcomings.

It isn't "too-bad" genius....it's God's perfect will............why don't you understand that?
If I am pre-disposed to be against truth and learning it is only because God has ordained as much....Good Lor...do I have to explain the fundamentals of Calvinism to you now???

I'm not some plumber that has theology as a hobby.

You'd have more understanding if you were. <----(that's a "gratuitous insult"...not an "Ad-Hominem" as you falsely allege).

I have a Master's Degree in this stuff.

That's the basis of your problem.
You think that you had figured it all out before you were 30....and some guy gave you a piece of paper which said you had it all figured out when you were 28 years old...you haven't learned anything since then. That's what goes wrong too often with education....You haven't questioned your own pre-suppositions in 20 years.
That renders you a talented dogmatist...
But, it doesn't educate you at all.

As for the rest of your silly, meandering nonsense.... It really isn't worth a reply

But, nonetheless, you replied...
Which is weird...if it's truly nonsense, and kinda' stupid.

 

[steaver]

So then... how is it determined whose sin of unbelief is atoned for and whose sin of unbelief isn't?

The Archangel

Jn5:24 - "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life"

 

[Rippon]

There was no "Ad-Hominem" argument there...

I was just insulting you.

I'm not in a personal battle with you,

Lost your frikkin' MIND

A murderous rage develops in the mind of any Calvinist

Your rage

But, there was no "Ad-Hominem"....

Your sycophants think that

You've postured like a pea-cock

you're clearly full of crap

when you are full of crap you are full of crap,

Your sycophants don't know that


You were making up crap.

That was crap.

Ask your sycophants

that's a "gratuitous insult"...not an "Ad-Hominem"

kinda' stupid.

IJ you are displaying, for all the world to see --what an utterly juvenile mind you have.

It is repugnant in the extreme to realize that you preach even once in a while.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for your immaturity, but in all probability you glory in it.

I really hope you join winman and leave the BB. It can't be soon enough.

 

[Inspector Javert]

IJ you are displaying, for all the world to see --what an utterly juvenile mind you have.

It is what God has, in his perfection, from eternity past ordained by the purposes of his holy will that I have. It is Entirely what God has ordained, and we are no one to question it.

It is repugnant in the extreme to realize that you preach even once in a while.

Nothing has transpired which is not to God's Sovereign and Holy and perfect pleasure...
The fact that you call God's perfect and immutable will "repugnant"....
Is sick.

Let it be known that Rippon believes that God's perfect Immutable will is "repugnant" to him.
I am not surprised.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for your immaturity

,
I am never ashamed of God's perfect will. Nor his gospel, nor shall I ever be.

but in all probability you glory in it.

I take Glory in God's perfect ordained will...
What is sick is that you hate God's will and ever do you fight against it.

I really hope you join winman and leave the BB. It can't be soon enough.

Just murder me like your god John Calvin did, and you'd be all set...
That's how your sort has always worked and always will.

According only to God's perfect and Holy decree.

 

[Rippon]

The fact that you call God's perfect and immutable will "repugnant"....
Is sick.

I did nothing of the kind. I simply said that for a person such as yourself preaching even occasionally is repugnant. You are sick to twist my very plain words.

Let it be known that Rippon believes that God's perfect Immutable will is "repugnant" to him.

Let it be known that IJ is up to no good as more of his same immaturity is evidenced below.

What is sick is that you hate God's will and ever do you fight against it.

Lies and hate. Is that all you have for me IJ? That doesn't preach well.