|
Post by Paul on May 24, 2011 21:07:03 GMT -5
I can't believe I turned this thread into a Calvinist debate just by saying predestination, oh well
also:
Well I pretty much agree with the idea here. Offense is determined by the victim.
But so is love determined by the recipient. If you love someone you try and find a way to convey it. If they don't feel that you love them, what's the point?
I realize people can take advantage of that, but that's not your responsibility. I think as long as they're not asking you to do something sinful accommodations can be at least attempted. Of course, Jesus showed His love in an incomprehensible way (for many people), but He at least made His motives clear, that He loved the world. I guess that's the best we can do? (I'm kinda just making this part up as I type it, could be wrong)
So, I am genuinely sorry if I've been condescending, clearly I need to work on it. I did try rewording things, but obviously it matters less if I think I'm condescending than if you do
And srsly I'm not just saying this cause you think I should, although I guess there's no harm in that anyway
|
|
N/A
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by N/A on May 25, 2011 3:48:20 GMT -5
Because the general populace, as opposed to the time of the first few councils, was Biblically illiterate and the political system had co-opted the church rather than the church co-opting the political system.
You can't argue with corruption when you don't know how to read the language that the rulebook is written in and the only people who can say that everything is fine.
Modern Catholicism, (and even Orthodox, I would argue, to a lesser extent) has very little in common with the church circa 200-500 AD. If the church fathers went that long without instituting Predestination as a concept, it's bunk.
And here's why. That verses everybody quotes,
"For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. Ephesians 1:4"
Romans 8:29-30 (New American Standard Bible)
"For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. Romans 8:29-30"
There are roughly 13 footnotes between the two of them. Let me give you a history lesson, since most Calvinists seem only to be familiar with Romans and the other Pauline epistles.
Paul was a Jew. Surprise. As such, he was fond of using Jewish culture to explain things such as the call of grace.
Now what are the Israelites called? God's chosen people. Did God choose each and every one of them individually? No. He blessed and sanctified the nation as a body.
We see Jesus refer to the Jews again and again as the people that rejected the cornerstone, the people that declined to come to the feast. Who becomes the chosen then? The people who answer the call to the feast. The people that accept are chosen. The "chosen" refers to the nationhood or body of believers. Actually, the Romans passage is literally followed by a passage about the nationhood of Israel and believers as the new Israel. That's the problem with ripping Calvinist memory verses out of context.
You are most likely insulted because you share the same views. Grow tougher skin. Once your ideas can withstand criticism I don't think you will be quite so self-conscious about them. One of the main reasons Calvinists go after people like Rob Bell is because he knows Greek and Hebrew and they don't.
Also, insult is the only "offense" where the severity is determined by the "victim." I could find any number of things here, including the self-righteous condescension, insulting. I just don't get self-conscious when people question me or call me out.
And "love and kindness" doesn't mean politeness. It's a value. And it's a vague one at that. I don't have very much respect for people that call in values when they need them and reshape them to support themselves. Harsh words are a part of life and are necessary to knock arrogant people out of their lofty orbits. Both Jesus (Matt 23) and John the Baptist (Matt 3:7) hurl moral insults at people. I am simply commenting on intelligence, pride, and stupidity of arguments. The problem with reading Romans and only Romans (as many Calvinists are known to do) is that you end up applying everything in a way that suits your view of the world. People have only ever quoted "peace and love" at me when they wanted me to behave as they wanted. What it actually has become is a Biblical injunction against behavior one personally disagrees with, which is kind of scary.
I have yet to see the other participant in the argument acknowledge that he was being a condescending nitwit, although he did acknowledge some of my points as meritorious. I believe if I'm going to fight, I'm not wearing gloves.
Moreover, if I had a disproportionately high view of myself disproportionately high view of myself I would agree that my manners are bunk. However I know I have a history of being wrong. Therefore I have very little qualms about changing the way I think to reflect what is accurate. It's that dogged resistance to fact that reveals pride and requires a battering ram.
The problem with most Calvinists is that they tend to believe faith is a raft that you cling to in the ocean against waves of logic, refutation, and opposing ideas, and eventually you get hauled off to rescue when your time comes. But faith is the ocean. The raft is your culture, your identity, and your personal concept of faith. The ocean is endless, shifting, and constantly at war with you. It will pull you under, press around you, batter you, toss you, and eventually kill you. But the truth is that it is the raft you need saving from. Some people have elaborate rafts, but these titanic devices keep them from the real terrifying encounter with God: drowning. You want real faith? Abandon all of your laws and rules. Abandon your political affiliation. Abandon your denomination. Abandon your teachings.TL;DR I KNOW THE BIBLE BETTER THAN OTHER PEOPLE SO I GET TO BE A DICK ABOUT IT LOL
|
|
|
Post by Radiant Magnificence Alastair on May 25, 2011 7:43:12 GMT -5
NA IS BACK
|
|
|
Post by Azrael on May 25, 2011 9:28:10 GMT -5
TL;DR I KNOW THE BIBLE BETTER THAN OTHER PEOPLE SO I GET TO BE A DICK ABOUT IT LOL HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS Geeze, if you're going to pull that one, at least do it right.
|
|
N/A
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by N/A on May 25, 2011 17:15:54 GMT -5
See, Azrael, this is where you fail.
I've read your arguments up until this point, and for the most part, you're right. You make a good point that a lot of the intended meanings of certain areas of scripture are lost in translation, give the depth and intricacies of the Hebrew and Greek languages. I'll even give you credit for challenging other christians in this thread to do research and to challenge an "in-the-box" view of their faith. These are things that within the context of a book-based religious belief should be pursued. I add that last part because I am not a christian, so taken out of that context, everything you said is meaningless drivel.
The only problem is that you're a huge douchebag about it so no one likes you. Everything you've said might be worth considering, but no one is going to, because you're an a**hole. Intertwined with your extensive knowledge of scripture is a very dickish way of presenting your arguments, you can't deny it or justify it. You come off as an elitist prick, so you shouldn't be surprised when people are exactly immediately willing to take your advice. You being really f**king irritating to talk to is even more apparent in the way you dealt with my albeit immature but ultimately accurate statement. In earlier altercations with people in this thread that you had challenged, at the very least you had a basis for insult, you were showing them evidence, and being snotty and disparaging at the same time. However with my initial comment, not only did you not try to disprove what I was saying by defending your snotty and disparaging behavior, you ONLY responded with that same snotty and disparaging behavior. Your rebuttal fell flat on its face. You failed.
So here's the deal, Azrael. You are well versed in scripture, and well-taught in the mannerisms of the initial languages of the bible. These are good things, in the context of this forum. Use them.
You are also a huge f**king dickhead to people you have qualms with, so nobody likes you.
Stop it.
|
|
|
Post by Azrael on May 25, 2011 23:50:15 GMT -5
Edit: I just couldn't help myself
|
|
|
Post by Scott on May 26, 2011 0:14:43 GMT -5
As to predestination, whether or not free will exists comes down to a question of God's nature, which is, in the view of the Orthodox (read: as it has been since the first centuries), completely unknowable and ineffable.
|
|
|
Post by Azrael on May 26, 2011 1:05:36 GMT -5
See, Azrael, this is where you fail. I've read your arguments up until this point, and for the most part, you're right. You make a good point that a lot of the intended meanings of certain areas of scripture are lost in translation, give the depth and intricacies of the Hebrew and Greek languages. I'll even give you credit for challenging other christians in this thread to do research and to challenge an "in-the-box" view of their faith. These are things that within the context of a book-based religious belief should be pursued. I add that last part because I am not a christian, so taken out of that context, everything you said is meaningless drivel. The only problem is that you're a huge douchebag about it so no one likes you. Everything you've said might be worth considering, but no one is going to, because you're an a**hole. Intertwined with your extensive knowledge of scripture is a very dickish way of presenting your arguments, you can't deny it or justify it. You come off as an elitist prick, so you shouldn't be surprised when people are exactly immediately willing to take your advice. You being really f**king irritating to talk to is even more apparent in the way you dealt with my albeit immature but ultimately accurate statement. In earlier altercations with people in this thread that you had challenged, at the very least you had a basis for insult, you were showing them evidence, and being snotty and disparaging at the same time. However with my initial comment, not only did you not try to disprove what I was saying by defending your snotty and disparaging behavior, you ONLY responded with that same snotty and disparaging behavior. Your rebuttal fell flat on its face. You failed. So here's the deal, Azrael. You are well versed in scripture, and well-taught in the mannerisms of the initial languages of the bible. These are good things, in the context of this forum. Use them. You are also a huge f**king dickhead to people you have qualms with, so nobody likes you. Stop it. Alright, at first I thought you were joking. It baffled me that anybody whose age shows up as "20" on his profile could be unaware how the internet works. If you take it seriously, you lose. For example, when you throw a little GIGANTIC baaaaaawfest when I mock you, you somehow are remiss to the fact that this means I get a rise out of you and will continue to mock you. Nobody really wins. Well, you lose. I kind of win because making fun of people on the internet is how I get my jollies when I'm bored, the beer is gone, and the girl isn't around. Part of me still thinks you can't possibly be serious what with your comments like "disprove my statements about you being a dick." And if you are a troll, you kind of suck at it as any good troll would have spotted the "disregard" and at least drawn a chuckle. I was under the assumption that you were joking around (Forgive me, it seems I overestimated your intelligence. It won't happen again.) and that actually is how you deal with an obvious moralfag (or tease back a troll). And if you are not a troll.......well, sir, it's kind of pathetic that little 21 year old me on the other side of the country is able to disrupt your chi so badly with my internet rudeness and boyish attitude. So, I guess you have certainly shown me with your righteous indignation. Congratulations you have educated me on "the deal." I will retreat with my tail between my legs knowing that some serious young gentleman on the internet is defending people's feelings everywhere. I have been intellectually checkmated.
|
|
|
Post by davo on May 26, 2011 3:02:59 GMT -5
i'm fed up of the slanging match this thread has become.
locked.
|
|