I'm tired of trying.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I participate in three Christian forums. At one forum, it's the Calvinists. At one forum, it's former Pagans. At one forum, it's Enyartian Theonomists. Yet it seems everywhere I go, people are willing to disregard anything that does not fit their preconceived beliefs ... even if they have to deny the world around them, or even the evidence of their own scriptures.

The Calvinists say that God is in control of everything, and that He ordained everything ... but yet it's still my fault that I am a "sinner." The former Pagans say that I do not know--and cannot know--the true nature of the Gods, and even though my experiences have little or nothing in common with theirs, it's "obvious" that it's the exact same entity "fooling me" that once "fooled them." The Enyartian Theonomists say that "God's law" ought to be followed as secular law, yet that this will not result in religious persecuation.

When I try to point out logical, or even Biblical, problems with the points of view presented, the common answer I get is "Oh, you're not saved, so you don't understand."

Because I'm "not saved," the evidence I present to refute Calvinism "doesn't matter." Because I'm "not saved," the evidence I present to refute Christian Gnosticism "doesn't matter." Because I'm "not saved," the evidence I present that refutes the applicability of Biblical law for today "doesn't matter."

And in all probability, the only response I'm going to get to this post is that I "don't understand," because I'm "not saved." Or I'll be accused of whining.

Don't mind me, folks. I'm only a non-Christian, so my opinion "doesn't matter."

 

[Crow]

I participate in three Christian forums. At one forum, it's the Calvinists. At one forum, it's former Pagans. At one forum, it's Enyartian Theonomists. Yet it seems everywhere I go, people are willing to disregard anything that does not fit their preconceived beliefs ... even if they have to deny the world around them, or even the evidence of their own scriptures.

The Calvinists say that God is in control of everything, and that He ordained everything ... but yet it's still my fault that I am a "sinner." The former Pagans say that I do not know--and cannot know--the true nature of the Gods, and even though my experiences have little or nothing in common with theirs, it's "obvious" that it's the exact same entity "fooling me" that once "fooled them." The Enyartian Theonomists say that "God's law" ought to be followed as secular law, yet that this will not result in religious persecuation.

When I try to point out logical, or even Biblical, problems with the points of view presented, the common answer I get is "Oh, you're not saved, so you don't understand."

Because I'm "not saved," the evidence I present to refute Calvinism "doesn't matter." Because I'm "not saved," the evidence I present to refute Christian Gnosticism "doesn't matter." Because I'm "not saved," the evidence I present that refutes the applicability of Biblical law for today "doesn't matter."

And in all probability, the only response I'm going to get to this post is that I "don't understand," because I'm "not saved." Or I'll be accused of whining.

Don't mind me, folks. I'm only a non-Christian, so my opinion "doesn't matter."

Why would your opinion not matter?

I do believe that implementing God's system of criminal justice would be better than the one we have now if one keeps in mind that of the laws that were given, some were only applicable to the Jews, and were not applicable to nonbelievers even when the Jews were in charge.

 

[Carver]

If all that stuff is true, then why do you have 9 green boxes of good rep? Anyway, you've become one of my favorite fellow posters in the short time I've been here, and while you're not always right (as, naturally, I am ), you always make sense. Although, I'm not by any means an 'Enyartian Theonomist.'

 

[PureX]

When I try to point out logical, or even Biblical, problems with the points of view presented, the common answer I get is "Oh, you're not saved, so you don't understand."

Because I'm "not saved," the evidence I present to refute Calvinism "doesn't matter." Because I'm "not saved," the evidence I present to refute Christian Gnosticism "doesn't matter." Because I'm "not saved," the evidence I present that refutes the applicability of Biblical law for today "doesn't matter."

And in all probability, the only response I'm going to get to this post is that I "don't understand," because I'm "not saved." Or I'll be accused of whining.

Why are you surprised? All cults are based on the absolute adherence to a given dogma. So of course if you don't absolutely adhere to the given dogma, you're not a "member" of the cult, and therefor you're absolutely wrong. And cult members have to deny that they're in a cult, so naturally all they can say to you is that "you have to believe as we do, to see that we are right". It's a ridiculous proposition, and it's irrational, but they don't care about that. They didn't buy into the cult dogma because they were seeking rationality. They bought into it because it gave them the illusion of being right. And that's more important to them than being rational.

 

[Yorzhik]

The Enyartian Theonomists say that "God's law" ought to be followed as secular law, yet that this will not result in religious persecuation.

This is the most common accusation I hear against Theonomy, yet to whatever extent that Theonomy is tried, it results in the most freedom for the most people regardless of what they belive.

I think the most succinct way to put it is that all gov't must be based on some philosophy, and that philosophy will tend to exclude all others by law. Since the bible is specific about what the law should and should not do, any deviation from allowing people to believe what they want would be a departure from theonomy as the bible teaches it.

And you criticisms of the other 2 views are spot on.

 

[Lovejoy]

I participate in three Christian forums. At one forum, it's the Calvinists. At one forum, it's former Pagans. At one forum, it's Enyartian Theonomists. Yet it seems everywhere I go, people are willing to disregard anything that does not fit their preconceived beliefs ... even if they have to deny the world around them, or even the evidence of their own scriptures.

The Calvinists say that God is in control of everything, and that He ordained everything ... but yet it's still my fault that I am a "sinner." The former Pagans say that I do not know--and cannot know--the true nature of the Gods, and even though my experiences have little or nothing in common with theirs, it's "obvious" that it's the exact same entity "fooling me" that once "fooled them." The Enyartian Theonomists say that "God's law" ought to be followed as secular law, yet that this will not result in religious persecuation.

When I try to point out logical, or even Biblical, problems with the points of view presented, the common answer I get is "Oh, you're not saved, so you don't understand."

Because I'm "not saved," the evidence I present to refute Calvinism "doesn't matter." Because I'm "not saved," the evidence I present to refute Christian Gnosticism "doesn't matter." Because I'm "not saved," the evidence I present that refutes the applicability of Biblical law for today "doesn't matter."

And in all probability, the only response I'm going to get to this post is that I "don't understand," because I'm "not saved." Or I'll be accused of whining.

Don't mind me, folks. I'm only a non-Christian, so my opinion "doesn't matter."

Hmm. I tend to believe that salvation is necessary for comprehension, as that comes from the Holy Spirit. However, I also feel that this board is improved with your presence and have come to anticipate your input. Whatever it is you add, and where ever it comes from, it has value and does you credit. I do not dismiss what you say out of hand, and in fact, am often startled by the quality of your insight. I have no idea if that means anything to you, but it is the truth.

 

[docrob57]

I participate in three Christian forums. At one forum, it's the Calvinists. At one forum, it's former Pagans. At one forum, it's Enyartian Theonomists. Yet it seems everywhere I go, people are willing to disregard anything that does not fit their preconceived beliefs ... even if they have to deny the world around them, or even the evidence of their own scriptures.

The Calvinists say that God is in control of everything, and that He ordained everything ... but yet it's still my fault that I am a "sinner." The former Pagans say that I do not know--and cannot know--the true nature of the Gods, and even though my experiences have little or nothing in common with theirs, it's "obvious" that it's the exact same entity "fooling me" that once "fooled them." The Enyartian Theonomists say that "God's law" ought to be followed as secular law, yet that this will not result in religious persecuation.

When I try to point out logical, or even Biblical, problems with the points of view presented, the common answer I get is "Oh, you're not saved, so you don't understand."

Because I'm "not saved," the evidence I present to refute Calvinism "doesn't matter." Because I'm "not saved," the evidence I present to refute Christian Gnosticism "doesn't matter." Because I'm "not saved," the evidence I present that refutes the applicability of Biblical law for today "doesn't matter."

And in all probability, the only response I'm going to get to this post is that I "don't understand," because I'm "not saved." Or I'll be accused of whining.

Don't mind me, folks. I'm only a non-Christian, so my opinion "doesn't matter."

Well, I am a Calvinist, though not a hyper-one. I would not say it is any more your fault that you are a sinner than it is my fault that I am a sinner. What matters is that was are sinners and the question is what will we do about it? If you can honestly come before God in the authority of Jesus confessing who you are and your need for Him, then you can be saved. That is the good news! From my perspective, you would have been predestined to do it.

 

[Jeremiah85]

When I try to point out logical, or even Biblical, problems with the points of view presented, the common answer I get is "Oh, you're not saved, so you don't understand."

Because I'm "not saved," the evidence I present to refute Calvinism "doesn't matter." Because I'm "not saved," the evidence I present to refute Christian Gnosticism "doesn't matter." Because I'm "not saved," the evidence I present that refutes the applicability of Biblical law for today "doesn't matter."

I cannot speak for anybody else, but I appreciate the views that you bring to these debates. I am a Christian and I pray that you will get saved, but that will not come to be by insulting and excluding you. It is a sad person who excludes the truth just because it is spoken by a non-christian.

 

[Lovejoy]

I cannot speak for anybody else, but I appreciate the views that you bring to these debates. I am a Christian and I pray that you will get saved, but that will not come to be by insulting and excluding you. It is a sad person who excludes the truth just because it is spoken by a non-christian.

Ugh. How about a guy like Shamgar, who excludes the truth just on general principle? I will take a non-christian like Justin or Pure-X anyday over him.

 

[Granite]

This is the most common accusation I hear against Theonomy, yet to whatever extent that Theonomy is tried, it results in the most freedom for the most people regardless of what they belive.

I think the most succinct way to put it is that all gov't must be based on some philosophy, and that philosophy will tend to exclude all others by law. Since the bible is specific about what the law should and should not do, any deviation from allowing people to believe what they want would be a departure from theonomy as the bible teaches it.

And you criticisms of the other 2 views are spot on.

Care to provide examples of this?

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Justin, I'm glad you're here, and I hope you'll stay.

You know that there are varying degrees of..

rationality
clarity & brevity
graciousness
willingness to entertain opposing views to try to understand the other guy
willingness to ask questions before jumping down someone's throat
humility

..on message boards.

Don't concern yourself with overcoming resistance to your views or getting concessions from the other guy. It's easier to keep your head in a debate if you think that you're posting for the other readers of the thread. You're presenting a case to a jury, and the verdict comes down at the end of time. And because none of us owns the truth (for instance, you don't need permission from a copyright holder to do math) even then there will be no gloating. This is the perspective of a consistent dogmatist.

But it's a whole different ball of wax with a religious empiricist. You base a religion on experience and then you are the truth. Disputes are bound to be personal. The "truth" itself is constitutionally insecure, because an experience is nothing more than chemicals squirting around in your head, and one accident or illness, one moment, will take it all away.

And what about the Calvinist, who believes that regenerating grace makes the elect different from the non-elect? A consistent Calvinist glorifies the Elector, not the presumed electee. If we are saying anything true (and the verdict is God's) then it's being expressed by the God of grace, through us, in spite of us, never because of us.

 

[servent101]

Crow

if one keeps in mind that of the laws that were given, some were only applicable to the Jews, and were not applicable to nonbelievers even when the Jews were in charge.

Good point

With Christ's Love

Servent101

 

[servent101]

Justin - there are two thoughts - one is that the Lord says that His Yoke is easy and His Burden light, and the other is that idea in Buddhism where one is to take the middle ground - not trying too hard or too little or becoming too attached to the knowledge of Supernatural things.

Yet it is also Written that if you seek the Lord with all your heart - you will find Him... and I take this to be tempered with the two ideas previously - so take your time, and finally there is also the Saints who tell us if we want knowledge of God - help other people, do acts of charity, that in this way, we receive this much sought after "relationship" with the Infinite.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Stick around a while, Justin. You're a polite, well-spoken guy, and people tend to respond more congenially to someone like you than to someone who has a tendency to rant every post.

 

[allsmiles]

A good old fashioned hug Justin fest.

 

[docrob57]

I wish Justin was here to receive his hugs.

 

[BillyBob]

Why are you surprised? All cults are based on the absolute adherence to a given dogma. So of course if you don't absolutely adhere to the given dogma, you're not a "member" of the cult, and therefor you're absolutely wrong. And cult members have to deny that they're in a cult, so naturally all they can say to you is that "you have to believe as we do, to see that we are right". It's a ridiculous proposition, and it's irrational, but they don't care about that. They didn't buy into the cult dogma because they were seeking rationality. They bought into it because it gave them the illusion of being right. And that's more important to them than being rational.

I didn't realize the topic here is liberalism and the democrat party. :doh:

 

[BillyBob]

Stick around a while, Justin. You're a polite, well-spoken guy, and people tend to respond more congenially to someone like you than to someone who has a tendency to rant every post.

As an illustration of this, look at his 'Reputation'. Not bad for a self admitted wiccan on a Christain website.

 

[servent101]

Billybob

As an illustration of this, look at his 'Reputation'. Not bad for a self admitted wiccan on a Christain website.

What does reputation have to do with it? - I may be biased, but since I am in the red, -87 right now, but really when Jesus said "Woe to you when all men speak well of you, or rejoice for the "same slander" said against you was also spoken against the Prophets.

So anyways, what other people say, is it really a good idea to weigh that in to what a person is actually saying? -

With Christ's Love

Servent101

 

[One Eyed Jack]

As an illustration of this, look at his 'Reputation'. Not bad for a self admitted wiccan on a Christain website.

He's got a better rep than I do.