09 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder..... another one of those secular fundamentalists. Put an Evangelical fundamentalist and a secular one in the same room ... and what do you get ? ... Right ! .... Two fundamentalists in one room. Simple isn't it ?
No, your belief system is a crock. Yeah, when you throw a 3 O being who supposedly created everything and can do anything, it does shift the moral culpability discussion a bit. It's quite incredible that you can't grasp this.
09 Apr 07
Originally posted by whodeyYes, that appears to be the only thing you're capable of saying. You're like a parrot in that regard, just repeating "freewill" over and over as though its mere repetition will give it some additional weight. Or like Poe's raven, sitting above his chamber door, croaking "freewill" forevermore.
As I have said before, if none of God's creation had "fallen" then could we then claim that we actually have free will? I don't think so. Having said that, there is a difference between knowing something is going to happen and wanting something to happen. For example, if I have a child I know for a fact that at a certain point that child is going to defy m ...[text shortened]... anyway even though I may know this for a fact and do not wish for the child to ever defy me.
Well, its not a one-size-fits-all answer. As I've said, even if we accept freewill as being responsible for human evils (which I don't), it in no way explains away natural evils. Of course you've chosen to dance around that one for the time being.
09 Apr 07
Originally posted by rwingettJust redefine and rearrange your definitions, Rwingo. Ask Bbarr how to do it.
Yes, that appears to be the only thing you're capable of saying. You're like a parrot in that regard, just repeating "freewill" over and over as though its mere repetition will give it some additional weight. Or like Poe's raven, sitting above his chamber door, croaking "freewill" forevermore.
Well, its not a one-size-fits-all answer. As I've said, even ...[text shortened]... ay natural evils. Of course you've chosen to dance around that one for the time being.
09 Apr 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf you could make a post half as intelligent as Bbarr, you should consider yourself fortunate. Unfortunately, such aptitude on your part has been conspicuously lacking, as your recent spate of spam-like posts clearly demonstrates.
Just redefine and rearrange your definitions, Rwingo. Ask Bbarr how to do it.
09 Apr 07
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingett...... Oops ..... How many logical fallacies do you think are written down in this post of yours, Rwingo ? 😉
If you could make a post half as intelligent as Bbarr, you should consider yourself fortunate. Unfortunately, such aptitude on your part has been conspicuously lacking, as your recent spate of spam-like posts clearly demonstrates.
10 Apr 07
Originally posted by mancityboyOf course she was a Christian. The only people who seem to like to pick at the question are neo-Christian Protesant Biblicists who reduce thousands of years of Christianity to a narrowly-defined game-show Q&A religion based on “think right and be saved,” ala Regis Philbin as God. Mother Theresa is a target because she’s RCC and a worker of wonderful, compassionate good works. She would’ve been considered a Christian by probably anybody up till the 16th century, at least.
So you think she was a Christian then?
Here is a very early church definition of who the “true Chrisitians” (&trade😉 are:
“All who have lived in accordance with the Logos are Christians, even if they have been reckoned atheists, as among the Greeks Socrates, Heraclitus and the like.” (Justin Martyr; 100 - 165 C.E.)
This is about 9 centuries before there was a Roman Catholic Church per se (following the Great Schism of 1054), and about 14 centuries before the Protestant Reformation and sola scriptura.
10 Apr 07
Originally posted by mancityboyIn all honesty, what does it matter? What is the point of asking who is saved and who is not? Am I or anyone else responsible for such matters? Really, all that matters is God's opinion so finding out what he says about the matter is key.
So you think she was a Christian then?
10 Apr 07
Originally posted by whodeyAnd remembering that “a rose, by any other name...”
In all honesty, what does it matter? What is the point of asking who is saved and who is not? Am I or anyone else responsible for such matters? Really, all that matters is God's opinion so finding out what he says about the matter is key.
11 Apr 07
Originally posted by whodeyWell you have a "personal relationship" with him, so ask. We'll be waiting on pins and needles for the Big Guy's answer.
In all honesty, what does it matter? What is the point of asking who is saved and who is not? Am I or anyone else responsible for such matters? Really, all that matters is God's opinion so finding out what he says about the matter is key.
11 Apr 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe, I hope in the sake of sanity that you're not calling someone else a bloody fundamentalist...
..... another one of those secular fundamentalists. Put an Evangelical fundamentalist and a secular one in the same room ... and what do you get ? ... Right ! .... Two fundamentalists in one room. Simple isn't it ?
The hypocrisy would be enough to raise a dead nun from the bloomin' grave!
12 Apr 07
Originally posted by shavixmirShavy, If you bloody think I am a bloody fundamentalist, you simply bloody don't bloody know what a bloody fundamentalist bloody is.
Ivanhoe, I hope in the sake of sanity that you're not calling someone else a bloody fundamentalist...
The hypocrisy would be enough to raise a dead nun from the bloomin' grave!
13 Apr 07
One more thought I had with regard to the question raised in the opening post of this thread—
I rather think that Mother Theresa had reached a depth of spiritual maturity from which she saw in people—not unregenerate idolaters, or beings filled with wickedness, or whatever—but the face of the logos, eikon, Christos...