Six Facts Plainly Revealed in The Gospel

[Zarathustra]

Your controversy is with God, not with me.

Nah... God and I are just fine.

My problem is with you.

 

[KDude]

Nothing productive will come from this. On anyone's side. I'm out.

 

[Spurgeon]

Nah... God and I are just fine.

Not if you reject his Son, Jesus Christ. For:

John 3:36
"He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

 

[Ginkgo]

John 3:36
"He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

You're a spam bot.

 

[Jaguar]

The 'wrath' of God. What a crock of crap. Lol.

 

[Rasofy]

I think Lark found a buddy.

 

[Lark]

I don't find it offensive so much as confusing why he approaches the subject this way. He has no concept of how forums work. Forums revolve around discussions. I have nothing against his zeal, but why not phrase things that garner discussion and debate and demonstrate and defend his reasoning? Christians have an approach like this ("Apologetics"). Even his own avatar, Charles Spurgeon, engaged people in this way, and wrote tons of books in the apologetic style. He didn't just write bible quotes and left it at that. He was one of the most popular preachers of his era, and I don't think he accomplished that by barking from the hilltops, condemning complete strangers.

It all makes perfect seen if you understand protestant christian fundamentalism and evangelism.

The importance that it be biblical because there's a damn near idolatrous attachment to scripture as selected by Luther as important in his struggles in his day.

There's the sinful nature of man, the need of a saviour, who puts things right with God for everyone, the passive nature of salvation. All rooted in Luthers struggles with authority again, opposition to the significance of any deeds in determining fate, therefore sin and its forgiveness or otherwise by authorities is of no consequence.

All of which begs many a question about what is the point of evangelism, if its all a done deal then your belief is of no consequence, it does not redeem you, Jesus did, past tense, actions are of no consequence either, when you think about it.

Although difference is that its so ill understood and ill conceived, often possessed by individuals feeding needs to oppose or protest or relieve some neurotic guilt they will expect a lot of change. Usually that you'll think and live exactly as they do.

A big part of which is quoting the script.

 

[Spurgeon]

The 'wrath' of God. What a crock of crap. Lol.

Stop mocking God and humble yourself before him, for:

The curse of the Lord is on the house of the wicked,
But He blesses the home of the just.
Surely He scorns the scornful,
But gives grace to the humble.
The wise shall inherit glory,
But shame shall be the legacy of fools.
Proverbs 3:33-35

 

[Jaguar]

Stop mocking God and humble yourself before him

 

[Zarathustra]

[brainwashed messaging]

You're not a messenger of God.

 

[Lark]

Ohh, man. I learned two things from being raised as a Jehovah's Witness. The first is that the Bible can be interpreted to say about anything. And the second is that nobody has ever convinced anybody of anything by quoting scriptures if they didn't believe them in the first place. In my experience, all conversions happened because the people were lonely, needed a support structure, suffered loss, or were vulnerable in other ways. This must be what is called the Holy Spirit.

I'm totally and utterly outside and opposed to the tradition of solo scripture and bible christians but I remember a good quote I heard once which said 'the devil can quote scripture when he wants to'

It just makes sense, I actually heard it in a dispute between socialist factions whose dogmatism and fragmentation into rival sects mirrors christianity alright.

The RC church has its own version of this, fascists who use the code of canon law as undisputable, undiscussable and uncontestable. I hate it because most of the canon does relate to specific epochs, periods, precise events, such as vows of celibacy and crusades or conflicts and resulting dependents should breadwinners perish.

No one is converted by that, some people conform to it to meet other needs as you say, which is sad. For both the convert and those honestly seeking converts.

 

[Qlip]

I'm totally and utterly outside and opposed to the tradition of solo scripture and bible christians but I remember a good quote I heard once which said 'the devil can quote scripture when he wants to'

It just makes sense, I actually heard it in a dispute between socialist factions whose dogmatism and fragmentation into rival sects mirrors christianity alright.

The RC church has its own version of this, fascists who use the code of canon law as undisputable, undiscussable and uncontestable. I hate it because most of the canon does relate to specific epochs, periods, precise events, such as vows of celibacy and crusades or conflicts and resulting dependents should breadwinners perish.

No one is converted by that, some people conform to it to meet other needs as you say, which is sad. For both the convert and those honestly seeking converts.

You know that I'm not religious.. but the thing with the RC is that it's a living tradition and has a kind of an ecosystem to it, all kinds of different voices. It *can* change with the needs of the time because it's a tradition. Straight out Biblical fundamentalism is just crazy, crazy, crazy.

 

[kelric]

Oh, goody. Another religion troll-thread.

 

[Lark]

You know that I'm not religious.. but the thing with the RC is that it's a living tradition and has a kind of an ecosystem to it, all kinds of different voices. It *can* change with the needs of the time because it's a tradition. Straight out Biblical fundamentalism is just crazy, crazy, crazy.

I dont think you couldnt offer anything because you're not religious. Although what counts as religious is another topic altogether, even if I was a secular humanist I would remain in sone sense religious. Humans have a religious imagination and it has been an evolutionary driving force.

Its an ironic accident of history the traditionalists appearing more capable of change than the reformers. Although Luther was a dogmatist, he thought he was doing the 'conservative' thing with his reordering. The rest is history.

 

[Spurgeon]

You're not a messenger of God.

That's irrelevant.

All the prophets of the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures including the Lord Jesus Christ are messengers of God and you reject them and their message.
That's the real issue here.

Will you believe the messengers of God or not?

John 3:18
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

 

[Lark]

T REX!!! T REX TO HELL!! TO HELL I SAY!!

 

[Metamorphosis]

Trolls should aspire to this.

 

[Zarathustra]

That's irrelevant.

No, it is relevant.

You don't really know what you're talking about.

And, as such, your opinion on these matters is meaningless.

 

[tinker683]

Sky cake motherfucker!!!!!!!!

Oh, and I wonder how long it will be before this winds up in the graveyard....

 

[Totenkindly]

It's a declaration of truth.
I don't gain anything by posting it.
However, I gain everything by believing it.

That's nice.
It doesn't explain why you are posting it here, since you can believe whatever you'd like without vocalizing it.
If you vocalize it, either you're trolling or you have intentions.
If you have intentions, then your strategy should support them.

I don't find it offensive so much as confusing why he approaches the subject this way. He has no concept of how forums work. Forums revolve around discussions. I have nothing against his zeal, but why not phrase things that garner discussion and debate and demonstrate and defend his reasoning? Christians have an approach like this ("Apologetics"). Even his own avatar, Charles Spurgeon, engaged people in this way, and wrote tons of books in the apologetic style. He didn't just write bible quotes and left it at that. He was one of the most popular preachers of his era, and I don't think he accomplished that by barking from the hilltops, condemning complete strangers.

I think I'd just find it "confusing" too (as my other posts rather attest to -- the strategy makes no sense), except I've also seen a lot of people have their lives destroyed by this kind of single-minded dogmatism. Right now, it just comes off as a curiosity because it's some random member of a random website and he has no power; but those who have power coupled with the same degree of indifference/insensitivity to other people can create a great deal of suffering.

So I can't view this from an entirely detached viewpoint. People without perspective or the ability to examine their own thinking create hell on earth for others.

It's not like we don't have other members here who don't understand what the word "discussion" means.

Trolls should aspire to this.

Maybe that's all it is.