sky4it

Garth: usaid: He proves nothing in that regard. He only proves that he believes in God, and that he mistakes that belief as proof by default. Try again. I disagree. I think Decarte makes the most logical point one can come too. I think Decarte is terrific. Garth u said: Untrue: The reference point that atheists refer to is verifiable proof. Yeah right Garth. Verifiable proof like: Earnst Haekels fake drawings. Moths that were pinned to a tree and photographed, Human heads that were attached to orangatan skeletons and "discovered" and much much more Verifiable Proof. LMAO A famous person recently said, and I love this quote, Evolution is about one notch above Scientology in Scientific Rigor. By the way Garth, I have read Dawkins, some of his stuff, it doesnt even make sense. u said: And how does my 'Calvin quote' suit your purpose? Just from the standpoint I cant stand Calvin and to not presuppose that anyone else who doesnt like Calvin may not view it quit like I do. u said: Ironically enough, so did Calvin, particularly in reference to his wanting heretics killed. ... you might want to rethink your premise because of this. yeah well God doing something doesn't give others the right to try to emulate what they think that behavior is for selfish interests. Things like the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah, and other things establish God's judgement. Neither is it fair to say when death and war occur that man can attribute it to God; for God did not will man's fall in the garden of eden as a Calvinist might suggest. The fact that we live in grace, in no way diminishes the importance of judgement. People mistake death and the wrath of God as tho God is something that Dawkins describes. What is the wrath of God? It is I believe Garth, when God walks away. When God walks away and turns his back, people kill other people. U said: Well put, Larry!! hack hack cough cough, cut me some slack. Yeah well just cause I dont have political correctness down doesnt mean I dont get out. I get out, I study somethings, but I dont pay much attention to politics and harranging that goes on over such things.

anotherdan: see above post Larrynmoore: Yeah I dont know many of them, still i do know a few. Larry, I have actually watched on you tube and other sources lengthy knock down drag out brawls on the topic, so I am a versed on the topic.

Garth,Bramble, Oakspear Moore(see my post on the other page) Anotherdan u said:incendiary, like you were picking a fight. "Hey Oakspear! Come on outta that there saloon! I want a few words with you!" You are taking me all wrong anotherdan. I think Oakspear is a terrifc guy. We had some conversation years ago that was terrifically enjoyable for me. That certainly is not my point with Oakspear. I think again, because of the Calvin thread, you are presupposting that on me. Am I saying that about Calvinists? Yeah let me parse it for you: Hey Calvinists come on outta that saloon i wanna have a few words with you. you know Dan, people of Pentacostal persuasion used to make that same arguement to me about people of TWI. Ie( dont argue with them) (Arguing with people is the "wrong spirit" Jesus wouldn't do that.) I think thats non-sense(but only sometimes) and I want to tell you why. You were in TWI right? If somebody had pistol whipped you maybe you would have had less of a 'bad experience" Even if not you certainly some people from this room would say so. Here's the point: you can't just lay down for whacks like Calvin. That's what Calvin would have wanted. That's how guys like Calvin win. Thus, sometimes and I say only sometimes, a good fight is necessary. I mean the Apostle Paul had great doctrinal arguements during his day. The fights back then were to the point of blood. So to say again, I am not of that kind of spirit when it comes to guys like Oakspear. In a short word, if the speeding limit for everyone else is 60 miles an hour, the speed limit for looking at Calvin is 90mph.

Bramble and another dan see above post Oakspear and Garth: (and Larrynmoore this will explain to your last post) I had you pegged wrong Oak, my mistake, which means this thread should now go south. Since Garth was so good to cut my question in two like a intelligent person would, I will explain. When the question is posed to an athiest "Does an athiest have a need for God?" Most of them will suddenly answer NO or False. The question has 2 parts for it: 1) Pesumes the existence of God 2) Proves that the person answering it doesn't want God. Thus by answering it an athiest is telling you that they believe in God and have no need for him. It's sort of the same logic derived by famous French philospher Renae DeCartes, who proved the existence of God by logic. An athiest only has one reference point from which to work. Ie(themselves) Thus, if you ask them a question outside there own reference point there arguement always fails. SO ANYWAY THATS WHERE I WAS GOING ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHH GARTH U SAID: of course your Calvin quote suits my purpose Dawkins might have been a little more impressive if he had cited a point from the OT and then explained an oratory of one word. THEN I COULD HAVE TAKEN THAT ARGUEMENT APART. Dawkins is a garbage can. I can defend OT stuff Garth, but now we are talking miles and miles of stuff to say, which I think would be better left for another thread. Hey does this mean we disagree ?

Bramble and Another Dan: i dont get in arguements with athiests either. If I read a book and find insconsistencies I do not mind pointing them tho. Another dan: u said: God can be just as displeased with theists as with atheists. I myself sometime prefer an atheists company to religous folks! Depends on the atheist, of course! Best of all is when brethren dwell together in harmony. Yeah I dont know many athiests. I do know a few agnostics. So I really can't tell you much about getting in knock down drags outs with them. I think because of the Calvin thread your maybe thinking I am always a fire starter too dan, really I am not that much. Shouldn't a place where doctines are discussed by many different people have some major disagreements tho? I think that is healthy and should be expected. I was speaking, another dan, from mostly watching some of these conventions where the topic of God is talked about and you get athiests and Liberty U or Christians cross firing. The diatribes and exchanges do get very very heated. Athiesm and Evoloution actually has political impetus today. It is part of a political agenda. I dont know if you guys are aware of that. It doesn't have platform impetus with the democrats but it has people in places that propel it everywhere. Judges, journalists, sceintists and others. Evolution in my view is NOT A SCIENCE. I think it is a religion. Bramble u said: I think the idea that 'my beliefs are correct and every human should follow them' is actually a destructive way to think, and leads to enmity when others choose not to think the 'right' way. I think it weakens personal relationships, families, communities... I agree with that statement bramble i really do. BUT WHY DOES IT ALWAYS HAVE TO BE ABOUT "EVERY HUMAN SHOULD FOLLOW THEM" You see, that statement you said, that where cultist wrong thinking takes people. The end is always with a person. When we talk shouldn't a logical arguement leave someone at the feet of Jesus? That's what I think. So I dont think arguing is necessarily bad. Jesus got in some scraps with the leaders there right? There is however, a problem with what you just said too though. The way some people think ie (evolution/Calvinism) is very very destructive. In fact, there is a book by Richard Wiekart that traces evolution roots to Nazi facism and eugenics. Not even evolutionists, will argue much that eugenics movement is the evolutionary child. Evolutionists just dont like to take credit for eugenics when it goes awry. I mean Earnst Haekel was a big time into eugenics and evolution. The quack doctor drew up fake drawings to prove evolution. Eugenics today just has different names like cloning and stuff like that. Don't get me wrong I am not saying cloning is the same as Eugenics, I am just saying that in the wrong hands it could be like eugenics. What I am trying to say Bramble is this: When things in a country go real real bad, there is almost always an ideology behind what went wrong. The greatest mass murders in the last century all where evolutionists: Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Nazi Germany. This is why I think topics of this nature are important.

Garth ( see above post) Larryandmoore: Thanks for the post. Richard Dawkins bugs me but he doesn't bug me nearly as bad as creepy crawler John Calvin. cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze Thanks Larry later

Garth: u said:What so you mean when you say that someone 'insults your God'? Could you specify please? High Priest Richard Dawkins of the Athiest Credo let out a diatriabe in his Book "The God Delusion" that I will post if you want me too. (Basically he called the God of the Old Testament an unbelieveable assortment of names). If you want me to I will go fetch it for you, its about the biggest insult ever from a guy by the name of Richard Dawkins. ) BTW, I read this guys books hes is right up there with the Calvin with his nonsense and I can prove it. I will fetch it for you if you want me too. It's one of the biggest bunch of crocks i have ever heard. Garth, I am am a technician, I am not good with political stuff and current and historical events. My studies relate to very technical stuff like math and logic. (That's the way my mind works) I am an (Inactive) Certified Public Accountant. I can make logic out of words. Garth: I can read guys like Kant and Decartes and tell you why they are reasonable and why guys like Frederick Nitshke are liars FROM COMMON SENSE LOGIC.) IT IS 2+2=4 FOR TO ME. (Philospophy and logic are the the same topic which is logical or mathematical sense out of words. This is a topic of my enjoyment. I also enjoy the same topic (Logic/philosphy/religion)with respect to Greek language and so forth, as I have 15 credits of Biblical Greek) Yet when it comes to political and historical and current events I am somewhat lacking When it comes to history and current events (political correctness) I am very much lacking. Like with the Calvin thread, I really didnt understand the stuff on Little Rascals and I am sincere about that. Ie( A friend of mine told me I was not Politcally correct) while you said that was not it. skyman

dmiller: and hello too you too been a while: u said: Oak is agnostic, Geo is atheist, and; I've never been politically correct! you know that figures abt right. Agnostics are fence sitters and I never met an athiest who didnt stand around and Insult my God. Where's Oakspear to clear this up. Actually, I bet your right, Oak has some faith, interestingly one of my best freinds growing up was agnostic, he didnt like to insult God either like Richard Dawkins , High Priest of the Athiests confession. And Yeah I dont have the political correct thing down either, actually my best friend growing up is an Indian guy and some of my best friends are Hispanics. Man that ought to get em eh? Eh is what they say in Canada. Anyway greetings Dmiller nice to talk to you. the skyman

Bramble: u said: Umm, maybe you should do a search on Oakspear's posts, sky4it. He is not an athiest--least not last I heard! I thought he was, thanks for letting me know that, I appreciate it. Well when he shows up maybe he will clear that up. Maybe it was GeoAR i was thinking of. Now you confused me. I talked to Oakspear 3 years ago and thought he made that arguement , but I could be wrong. Its been about 2 and 1/2 to three years since i posted here Bramble, but I thought I had long talks with Oakspear. Oak Oak where are you? By the way Bramble I saw your post on the Calvin thread. Of course, I think that we should resolve all things harmoniously. Also, I mean you no harm or injustice. I am just a more than a bit upset at Calvin stuffin in fact i am furious at it and I will try to indicate why there. Anyway have a good one.

Yeah I know hes an athiest, I just want to engage him in some conversation. Its been a while. Garth: SHHHHHhhhhhh, no giving tips to the Oakman

Garth: anyway thanks for the tip, I might have said it in the wrong crowd someday (ignorantly) and got decked. :( I just remember as kids we would use all the Little Rascal names and didnt think anything about it. I was also wondering, if as a matter of your historical enjoyment, if there is anything out there on the personal life, (as in sexual life of John Calvin). If you run across it, be sure to spin it. Well Im on timeout so I may be back on this thread in 3 days. :)

Garth: I apoligize to you. I changed it too goofball, your the first person that ever told me that was a "racial" term. That's how out of touch I am with political correctness. Kids used to use it all the time and the other peoples from that show and I never heard someone suggest it was otherwise. I am not a racist. Interestingly, I made a comment one day about girls softball and got hacked on for that too in a sports message forum. My generation (in my 40's) didnt think about terms like that. With respect to horses hes a little excessive himself, but I will behave which also means i certainly dont need to apologize to him for asking him if he watches beavis and butthead ..... I think he does.

Horses: Yeah ok goofball, you really are a muleskinner. You badger me to answer a pun, but don’t blame yourself. I am going to take your 3 day timeout, not because you said too but BECAUSE I WANT TO. I mean did you even read the post before that you said was OK. Just ok huh? Because I tried to help you get it. Donating my time to help a muleskinner like you doesn’t do much good because I don’t think you even read the stuff I posted. It’s pretty plain and simple stuff even for a muleskinner like you. By the way I am going on a 3 day self imposed timeout ( ), so don’t ask me any questions for three days either got it goofball? BTW, cut the Mr. this and Mr. that it doesn't suit your style. When you get back in three days, here is a question for you. Think about a number between one and a million and write it down on your post. I am quite certain I can get it and tell you the number. Now follow the instructions and do it and I will tell you the number.

Oakspear: Here's the question for you. Does an athiest have a need for God? (Yes or No) (True or False) Choose only in the affirmative or negative.

I met Peter Wade when I was 18 years old. Wordwolf: He was not in TWI at the time. I think he told everyone that he like some of the stuff they had but really disagreed with where things were going. Highway guy, he didnt say why a lot when people asked him. I think he was too nice of a person to really bash them. I do know that he said he would never go back. I met him at a lake retreat for Christians in the later 70's . Someone who knew him invited him to come speak and he did. He is Austrailian I believe. He was when I met him a real nice guy. Good speaker too.

Horses: Read the above POST 5 TIMES BEFORE THIS ONE so I don’t hurt your virgin ears. Now you provoked me to answer your questions so its on you: Here’s an explanation of the Long version is the short version and the short version is the long version: “The initiated Calvinists might as well just pass out the Condoms, KY Jelly & the Vaseline and tell us what they really are about. Get it? With the long version it is difficult to get to the short (unerect you know what) version. With the short version (above statement by sky4it) it is easier to get to the long version (erect knowyou what) You mean you couldn’t figure this out? Here is also the expanded definition of a “Initiated Calvinist” “Repeated”::::: Here's one more thing I thought to clear up. I mentioned the concepts of initiated Calvinist and the uninitiated. I said you could have a society within a society. Still, you could have no such soceity and have initiated Calvinism working and it is the far more likely outcome. How? By not obeying the 3 (three) NT principles or rather the 2 ie( fornication(Eph5.5 calls it whoremonger)) and covetousness = uncleanliness) OUTSIDE THE CHURCH. Thus, you could have individual initiated practioners who practice it with others outside the church, a far more likely outcome and virtually no one in the church would have knowledge of such "affairs".

Horses and anyone else listening: Look, ( I suppose I will tell you later) open your ears and listen its real simple: Hebrews Chapter 7 & 8 tells us the difference between the old testament and the new. The new testament, Jesus was made a surety of a “better testament.” Hebrews 7:22 Jesus is called the mediator of a “better covenant.” ..... which was established on “better promises” Hebrews 8:6 Still , one can fall short of the “better promises” Hebrews 4:1 and not enter into his rest. If one neglects there salvation they could find themselves in a situation where they cannot escape. Hebrews 2:3 Notice that the mediator and surety of the better testament and covenant is JESUS.( Not me or you or Calvin or anyone else.) All roads point to Jesus. This better covenant is by “a new and living way” Hebrews 10:20 If someone where to kick Jesus off the throne, they would not have a “surety” or a “mediator”, for the way they believe. Thus, they would be under Old Testament Law. Why is the new testament/covenant better? Because Jesus did this for us: ”Blotting out the ordinances , that was against us, which was contrary to us took it OUT OF THE WAY, nailing it to his cross. Colossians 2:14. Notice that, that is THE WAY he took out of THE WAY to establish a new and living (better) way. The ordinances are the numerous stuff listed as things in the old way or Old Testament. The new and living way lists a smaller group of things that one can NOT do. THAT IS WHY IT IS BETTER. The things you cannot in the NT do are listed as : NO FORNICATION AND/OR NO WHOREMONGING PLUS NO COVETOUSNESS = {DOING (FORNNICATION,WHOREMONGING, COVETOUSNESS)IS UNCLEAN}; { NOT DOING (FORNICATION,WHOREMONGING,COVETOUSNESS) IS CLEAN} Thus, the things listed as "unclean" in NT paramaters are considered sin. Here is just some of the places they are listed in the New Testament: Acts 15:20,29 , I Thess. 4:3,7; 5:18 , Eph. 5:5, II Corinthians 12:21, I Corinth 10: 7-10, Colos. 3:5,Galations: 5:19-21 and there are more. These are THE CONDITIONS OF the New Testament and Covenant and are the BETTER WAY. What can happen if one does not obey the NT stuff listed above? One can lose his “INHERITANCE IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD and CHRIST. (Read above versus) Losing your inheritance is like being KICKED OUT. Ie ( you have no rights to ownership of anything there) Also “if a man have not the Spirit of Christ in him he is none of HIS” Romans 8:9 If you are “none of his and lose your inheritance” this would constitute seperation features from HIM. Those seperation features would be God's and Jesus's choice becuase they are the mediators/sureties of these covenants. If the covenants are violated? The consequences are clear. What about Salvation? Peter and Jude & others describe how the things listed above can wage war against and destroy a soul.( I Peter 2:11, II Peter 2:4, 10-12, Jude v. 5-13) and (Hebrews 10:39) All of the above paragraphs describe CONDITIONS in NT better way testament/covenant beliefs. Calvinism says that UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION is that BETTER WAY. This teaching of Calvin is false. Thus Calvinism describes a DIFFERENT WAY than the BETTER WAY. Notice that the better way is better for a reason: it has way fewer conditions. Calvinism says there is NO CONDITION which is a LIE. This should make that CLEAR.

TBone I guess I kind of understood that. Having not experienced that, (we are talking about an experience only he has had right?), so its a little difficult to relate. So your saying time is a dimension to us and not to God? Of course he has perfect foreknowlege so why experience a family? Why not just experience it in foreknowledge? (Arghh but that wouldnt be a real experience or not? ) I think the answer to that is God wants a "rest" A place of quiet enjoyment. Anyways its a bit like entering the Twilight Zone since we have never experienced it right?

Abigail: see above Im just checking out to see if what you told me worked. yep it did many thanks.

Abigail: Thank you so very very much. Hope I didnt take to much of your time. I have one other question. Do you know if Polarbear first name is Pat? I thought I met Polarbear. If you see Polarbear tell polarbear to get off the fence and come read the Calvin thread and give us some biofeedback. Please? Thanks.

Mr. Horses: .U said:Are you just joking around? I take that as an insult. I have posted numerous times with facts more facts and more facts. Facts get dry, but I don’t have to explain that to a buckwheat like you. Having some fun once in while makes things less dry. I always take the bible real SERIOUSLY. I never joke around about the bible. NEVER. Everything else is fair game to mean for having some fun. I think you know that. I am not going to quit having some fun because a buckwheat like you tries to pigeonhole me with a question like that. Hey Mr. Horses: Do you watch Beavis and Butthead and giggle the entire time? Do you pee your pants before Beavis and Butthead shows air in joyful anticipation? Now am I joking? No I am not, I am just showing you how one of your suggestive questions feels, with a question you might feel the same about. U said: Would you please tell me what the short version is the long version and the long version is the short version is and means? I told you that you had to ask me three times. I also told you that you don’t want to know the answer. So quit provoking me. In summation, to anyone else still listening: The Vatican, Wycliffe, Luther, Watchmen Nee (China), Sadhu Sundar Sing (India), Billy Graham, Bill Gothard & Chuck Colson (America) all made meaningful contributions to the gospel. What did John Calvin Contribute? A bogus Unconditional Election doctrine applied to mostly everything and other stuff like Reprobation doctrines that at times don’t even make any sense. From my vantage point, John Calvin didn’t contribute any meaningful thing to the gospel. Calvin doctrine is addition by subtraction. What about VPW? There is a thread here about what people learned in TWI. It’s true a lot of people learned something. There was a thread 3 years ago about how a lot of VPW stuff wasn’t even his own it was plagiarized. VPW cemented concepts like scriptural contextualization .and made a doctrine out of it. (Not a bad idea, but VPW and some of his cronies were self serving so it didn’t work out.) VPW talked about how the gifts were manifestations of the Spirit during the Jesus movement and cemented it. (Again not a bad idea, but because VPW and his cronies were self-serving didn’t work out). Thus, VPW > (greater than) John Calvin. Hey did I say that, OUCH

Abigail: I was wondering if you could explain to me how to put words like some do on the bottom of there posts. Could you describe the 1,2,3 of that please? Also sometimes on the left hand side there is like a few words, which get assigned to you if you dont write your own how does one change that? Thanks in advance, ME

cman see above post Here's one more thing I thought to clear up. I mentioned the concepts of initiated Calvinist and the uninitiated. I said you could have a society within a society. Still, you could have no such soceity and have initiated Calvinism working and it is the far more likely outcome. How? By not obeying the 3 (three) NT principles or rather the 2 ie( fornication(Eph5.5 calls it whoremonger)) and covetousness = uncleanliness) OUTSIDE THE CHURCH. Thus, you could have individual initiated practioners who practice it with others outside the church, a far more likely outcome and virtually no one in the church would have knowledge of such "affairs".

cman: thanks for the post. :) u said: In other words, you are saved in order to reap the benefits of being saved. I very much agree. I think that liking the "benefits" as you described, is a reason someone would be protective over it. I was reading Pink's Soviegn God book last nite, (only the chapter on Salvation). I could post and disagree with some of his statements but that would be nitpicking. ( I think) It's not so much what he says that is bad, its what he doesn't say that I find disturbing. Not any reference to any of the things which are "to do" parts or warnings about NT stuff, while discussing a topic like salvation. It's like reading 1/2 the gospel. Thus his formula seems to be God = Soveriegn = Salavation. Arggggg.

tbone Yeah i think the foreknowledge one is the "good pick" Inquiries into trying to control a limitless supply of foreknowledge would seem to get ones panties or underwear in a bunch. Don't quite understand the living outside time limit part?, Yawn