DHK
First I want to say that I do not use the word stupid lightly. The use of this word was not allowed in my home. However:
1. I have been accused of lying and being ignorant by carpro. Are these pejoratives? What is the real difference between stupid and ignorant? Furthermore to accuse one of lying is even worse.
Then why use it all. Older software on the BB would not even allow a poster to post the word. It is an ugly pejorative. There is no such thing as "using the word lightly" when it is against the rules to use such words.
[SIZE=-1]
3. Show grace to the other posters. When someone disagrees with you, discuss it; but be slow to offend, and eager to get into the Word and find the answers. Remember, when discussing passionate issues, it is easy to go too far and offend. Further, if we are "earnestly contending for the faith" it would be unrealistic not to expect at times to be misunderstood or even ridiculed. But please note that your words can sometimes be harsh if used in the wrong way. The anger of man worketh not the righteousness of God.
4. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. The board has an edit button enabled. We encourage you to use it and edit your own words. Moderators and Administrators will be visibly proactive in dealing with potentially offensive situations. Posts of a violent or threatening nature, either implicitly or explicitly, will be deleted, and the poster's membership revoked. We encourage personal problems with other members be resolved privately via email or personal messaging.
[/SIZE]
I have a daughter. Sometimes she does things that are out of line. Often she comes up with the excuse: "But my brother did it and he didn't get punished." That seems to be the same old childish excuse here. And it is childish. Two wrongs don't make a right. Are you going to blame your bad behaviour because someone else got away with theirs. Deal with your own sin, and leave others out of the picture.
I am one moderator that oversees a number of forums. I can't read everything. But when I catch one infraction I consider myself fortunate, and perhaps this warning will serve as an example to others as well.
There is no excuse to use the word stupid twice in two consecutive paragraphs. BTW, you called it a pejorative the first time you used it.
2. My God and Savior has been accused of making men robots and forcing them to believe by you and Winman. That shows an abominable ignorance of Scripture.
This is a false accusation. Your Calvinistic view of Scripture makes men in the eyes of God look like robots. Don't blame God. That is where the blasphemy comes in. We are referring to your outlook on Scripture; your theology. To cast this aspersion on God is blasphemy on your part. I would stay away from that accusation if I were you.
The second accusation you have made here is that both Winman and I have "an abominable ignorance of Scripture." I would say that that would require an apology on your part. We are ignorant because we don't agree with you. I don't call you ignorant for not agreeing with me; why should you do the same. Ever consider that you may be wrong? You should.
So I used the word stupid which is no more pejorative than ignorant or lying.
This is over the limit and by all standards should be taken to the BB administration. I didn't not call you ignorant. I did not lie. Why the accusations? I disagree with your theology. The false accusations are absolutely unwarranted.
Now you say in your response to my post in part:
The above remarks are simply a disgusting parody of what I said. I will say this. I had rather be God's robot than delude myself into thinking I am the author of my own salvation.
As I said previously in the conversation, no non-Cal believes what you attack them of believing, that we are the author of our salvation. This is a false accusation. Not one of us is "deluded" into thinking such things, and yet continually you make this false accusation. And then you wonder why I use such caustic and sarcastic language in my response to you. I tire of the same old, the same old, the same old, all the time.
Furthermore, dragging the heretic Benny Hinn into the discussion makes me wonder. Are you, a moderator, calling me a heretic?
The reference to Benny Hinn was a lame excuse at humor which you did not take well. No I was not calling you a heretic.
I thought that was not allowed on this Forum. You take me to task for using the word stupid after I have been called a liar, ignorant, and believe that God makes us robots. And then you call me stupid and cleverly imply that I am a heretic like Benny Hinn.
Prove your accusations!
1. I did not call you a heretic.
2. I did not call you a liar.
3. I did not call you ignorant.
4. I said that your theology makes men robots. That is not what God actually does of course. That is the end result of your theology.
5. I did not call you stupid--I, in a cleverly worded statement, warned you against such "stupidity".
You then say:
The above is completely false, furthermore, it is blaspheming God to make such asinine remarks as:
You can't see the forest for the trees, can you.
I actually quoted you, and added some of my own embellishments (a little sarcastically, mind you), to make the point. Your point was that God had a specific order in salvation, and the way it was worded, you left gaps between this order. Reread your own post. God elects. You expounded on it. Then God regenerates. you expounded on that. So, how much time is there between that election and that regeneration. You give an impression as if there is quite a bit of time, as if God could not do all things at once--which indeed he does. Thus regeneration and conversion takes place at the same time, and faith precedes them both.
But your mind is made up; you seem to be unteachable, and only want to argue for the sake of argument. No matter who tries to teach that faith precedes regeneration, even if they could prove it beyond any shadow of a doubt, would you accept their proof?
