Run in with a street preacher

[kcmekim]

then it is a false “Gospel”, which teaches that all we have to do to be saved is to say a little prayer.

Actually, that isn’t how we believe one is saved at all. In fact, if you’d only bothered to ask, we don’t do the sinners’ prayer at all. But I understand that you have to defend Catholicism, even if it means spreading falsehoods about what we believe.

the Catholic Church teaches the Gospel

And, as a Catholic, I’m sure you believe that.

as for street preachers… I saw one once, near a mall, and he was shouting about how God hates sinners and is going to put them in hell… honestly I think it’s better to proclaim God’s mercy, talking about “God hating people” is not only false, but only pushes people away

I agree that we should tell people about God’s mercy, but without God’s wrath, God’s mercy is meaningless.

 

[dianaiad]

Actually, that isn’t how we believe one is saved at all. In fact, if you’d only bothered to ask, we don’t do the sinners’ prayer at all. But I understand that you have to defend Catholicism, even if it means spreading falsehoods about what we believe.

Who is ‘we?’

I’ve heard many different preachers, and some of them do indeed say ‘the sinner’s prayer,’ (is THAT what they call it?) and claim that this is all that is required for salvation. Others do not.

So now you have identified yourself as one of those who do not. That helps…but what group do you identify with?

And, as a Catholic, I’m sure you believe that.

I agree that we should tell people about God’s mercy, but without God’s wrath, God’s mercy is meaningless.

Did you truly mean to say this quite that way?

It is true that it is difficult to appreciate good health if you have never been ill, or joy if you don’t have sorrow to compare it to. However, you make it sound a bit like a doctor insisting that you be grateful to him for curing you of a disease that he gave you in the first place.

 

[kcmekim]

Did you truly mean to say this quite that way?

Yes, that is exactly the way I truly meant to say it.

Without the possibility of God’s wrath, God’s mercy is not mercy.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, that is exactly the way I truly meant to say it.

Without the possibility of God’s wrath, God’s mercy is not mercy.

It is not possible to show mercy to someone if you are not responsible for the trouble they find themselves in?

In the American justice system, a criminal brought before the bar and a jury of their peers decides whether they are guilty or not guilty. In many cases the maximum sentence is set by law; a judge cannot, for instance, impose the death penalty on a shoplifter, for whom the maximum sentence might be, oh, a year in jail.

The judge did not commit the crime. The judge did not decide guilt or innocence; his only job is to see to it that the trial was fair, and to come up with the sentence (the jury only recommends.)

The judge can show mercy at this point, sentencing the criminal to anything short of the maximum sentence allowed by law.

The criminal, by committing whatever crime he committed, has made himself subject to the punishment…that’s simply the accepted, "natural’ consequence. The judge is not responsible for the crime, or the consequences of that crime. He is responsible for imposing the sentence–or for showing mercy. The criminal exercised his free will, did what he did…the judge did not make him commit it.

I don’t know why I get this impression from your posts, and I could very well be wrong, but you remind me of a gentleman with whom I have had an ongoing debate for well over a decade: he is a "hyper-calvinist. "

His is a belief that is singularly lacking in joy. Or hope.

 

[kcmekim]

It is not possible to show mercy to someone if you are not responsible for the trouble they find themselves in?

God isn’t responsible for the trouble they find themselves in.

His is a belief that is singularly lacking in joy. Or hope.

I understand that because I’m a Protestant, your religion tells you that you have to believe that about us, but I assure you that we have more reason to be joyful than anyone and more reason to have hope than anyone because we know what we’ve been saved from and how little we deserve God’s mercy.

 

[kcmekim]

Dianaiad:

Then our choices and actions are predetermined. If anybody (or Anybody) knows what those choices will be, then it is also impossible for anyone to do anything ELSE. No chances.

Perhaps that’s what Mormonism teaches, but it isn’t what Christianity teaches.

Then perhaps, if you have the ‘choice to do anything that falls within scriptural guidelines,’ a better choice would be to do that which works

Who says it doesn’t work?

not that which makes you feel superior to all the poor boobs you are consigning to eternal hellfire

Actually, it isn’t us who is consigning them to Hellfire, it is Christ who has declared that those who die in their sins will go to Hell, not us.

who just might have listened to you had you been more inviting and less condemning?

We don’t condemn anyone.

You can’t have this both ways; if you have the choice to do anything that falls within scriptural guidelines, then choosing to ‘light the path’ rather than point out the pitfalls is ALSO being ‘obedient to the word of God.’

You cannot preach the Gospel without first explaining God’s wrath and why it abides on the wicked. You simply cannot tell somebody how to be saved unless you first explain to them what they must be saved from and why they must be saved.

I believe that the specific criticism here is of people who preach hellfire and brimstone as the method of choice. You are quite right that the Gospel is a light to the path. So…why not simply preach the gospel?

We do.

You know, " Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

OK. Let’s say for a moment that that is the Gospel How does that explain to somebody how to be saved or why they must be born again?

No, you haven’t.

Then your claim is false.

Pretty much the same thing.

Nope. Not even remotely the same thing.

The criticism here is of those who say neither, but rather say “you are going to hell.”

Why is it a bad thing to tell somebody that the Bible says that sinners go to Hell?

Odd. There isn’t a single word in there that addresses discernment in these issues

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.

 

[dianaiad]

God isn’t responsible for the trouble they find themselves in.

then who is?

I understand that because I’m a Protestant, your religion tells you that you have to believe that about us, but I assure you that we have more reason to be joyful than anyone and more reason to have hope than anyone because we know what we’ve been saved from and how little we deserve God’s mercy.

I don’t think you are paying attention to the religion I belong to. I am not a Catholic.

The problem is, though, that there are many different flavors of protestant beliefs…some are trinitarians as Catholics are. Some are Modalists. Some are some form of belief that is neither. Some believe in free will. Some believe in a sort of modified version of free will. Some believe in predestination…but with some free will in there (not free will that will actually affect one’s salvation) and some, such as my friend the hyper-calvinist, believes that every thought and action we take is foreknown–and thus predetermined, by the Creator; that we have all been created, quite literally, for the purpose of being eternal firewood…but that some of us will be saved; are of the ‘elect,’ and are destined for heaven; not because they deserve it, but because God, for no reason that we can influence, picks them. They aren’t any better than the unregenerate, but are nevertheless saved.

…and it is that latter position, which I seem to see in your posts, that seems so utterly devoid of hope, not your Protestantism.

By the way, since I am a Mormon and am quite used to getting considerably more grief from both Catholics AND Protestants than you have been treated to over the last few days, I think I can safely tell you to chill. You have been, and are now being, treated with a level of kindness and courtesy that is remarkable. If you don’t think so, I suggest that you head on over to alt.atheism and announce that you are a fundamentalist Christian. There you will be given examples of discourtesy to which you can truly compare CAF.

Better use your flame retardant monitor and keyboard first, though.

 

[kcmekim]

then who is?

Every individual is responsible for their own sin.

I don’t think you are paying attention to the religion I belong to. I am not a Catholic.

Which is precisely why I said, “Perhaps that’s what Mormonism teaches…”

The problem is, though, that there are many different flavors of protestant beliefs…some are trinitarians as Catholics are. Some are Modalists. Some are some form of belief that is neither. Some believe in free will.

Actually, if they deny the Trinity, such as Modalists do, then they’re not Christians at all and, thus, not Protestants.

and it is that latter position, which I seem to see in your posts, that seems so utterly devoid of hope, not your Protestantism.

I’m sorry you feel that way. We find a great deal of hope in it. Perhaps one day you’ll join us and then you will have that hope.

You have been, and are now being, treated with a level of kindness and courtesy that is remarkable.

Really? This is kindness and courtesy??? Funny, but I’m sure that if I responded in kind with this “kindness and courtesy”, I’d be banned in about a minute.

Depends on which Christian belief system you are talking about…and no, that’s not what Mormonism teaches at all.

No, it is not what Christianity teaches at all.

People who have experience with proselytizing, including street preaching and other methods. Missionaries.

You know, like me.

But you’re from another religion and your goals and definitions are different.

He has also (and more frequently) spoken of the benefits of His gospel. Why do I get the feeling that you have too much fun telling people to go to hell to light their way to heaven?

Could you please show me where Jesus told sinners about the “benefits of His Gospel” without calling them to repent?

Don’t you?

No, we don’t.

Well then, you’ll stop telling people that they are headed for hell in preference to inviting them to heaven, right?

How do we invite sinners to Heaven when God has stated that they can’t enter Heaven?

Sure you can.

OK. Pretend that I’m an unsaved person with no understanding of the Gospel and present the Gospel to me without first presenting the law.

There is a scripture (well, you won’t think it is, but I do…) that says “Wickedness never was happiness.” Whether you think that quote is scripture or not, it’s true; the wicked aren’t happy. How can they be?

I don’t know who you’re hanging out with, but all of the sinners I know are very happy. I know I was.

True joy comes only when one has the light of Christ, and is ‘right’ with God, with his fellow humans, with his family and with himself. Someone who is sinning, and going down the wrong path…he is not happy.

Are you talking about joy or happiness?

When you show him what happiness IS, you don’t have to tell him that he’s not…he’ll figure that out all by himself. Most people who are truly lost already know what hell is, because…they are in it already. They want OUT.

God hasn’t called us to tell people how to be happy, but to tell them how they can be saved.

Perhaps you do…but from your posts here, I get the impression that you only preach the scary half. --and honestly?

It’s always easier to demonize your opponent by thinking the worst about them, isn’t it?

People who are in need of the gospel already know about the scary half, because most of them are already living it.

No, they’re not living it at all. In fact, the Bible says that God is withholding His wrath from them in order to give them another opportunity to repent.

I believe that Jesus rather succinctly says that in three words. “Come follow me.” There is also this instruction to be baptized in water and in spirit…and 'be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect."

You’re avoiding the question.

What…“Come follow me” and “you must be born again” are not the same thing?

No, they’re not the same thing at all.

You have a most interesting doctrinal view.

I’m sure that to a Mormon, the Biblical view must seem very strange. \

Very different…after all, wasn’t Christ baptized Himself?

Not in the sense that you mean. In the Old Testament, there were several kinds of baptisms and ceremonial cleansings. Christ was baptised in order to set Himself apart for ministry, not baptised in the same sense that we observe baptism in the church.

Didn’t he have a very intense experience when the Holy Ghost descended upon Him in the form of (or 'like a") dove?

I don’t see any such “very intense experience” in scripture.

Isn’t that part of what He meant when He said 'Come, follow me?" He said “if ye love me, keep my commandments…” and He said “ye must be born again.”

So…how are those two concepts 'not even remotely the same thing?"

Being born again is being crucified with Christ and raised to new life with Him, and with a new nature. Following Christ is following Christ.

t’s not a BAD thing…Ok, perhaps it is, depending on motive. It seems to me that if your intention is to keep people from going there, you would concentrate on the methods that work the best.

Again, we don’t define “success” by what you believe is “effective”. We define success by obedience to the Gospel.

I don’t suppose for a moment that you would consider that the fruits of the hellfire and brimstone preacher are less desirable (in quality and in quantity) than the one who teaches in love?

Who says that a preacher who preaches the Biblical doctrine of Hell isn’t preaching in love?

Let’s say that you’re driving along a deserted country road late at night, and there is a terrible storm. As a result of heavy rains, a bridge is washed out.

You are speeding to the bridge when you notice that it is washed out and you stop just in time. You realize that other motorists may not see the gap in time and so you get out of your car to warn them.

Which is more loving: to say “STOP! The bridge is washed out! If you keep going, you’re going to die!”? Or to say “You know, I’ll bet you’d be happier driving in some other direction”?

 

[dianaiad]

Perhaps that’s what Mormonism teaches, but it isn’t what Christianity teaches.

Depends on which Christian belief system you are talking about…and no, that’s not what Mormonism teaches at all.

Who says it doesn’t work?

People who have experience with proselytizing, including street preaching and other methods. Missionaries.

You know, like me.

Actually, it isn’t us who is consigning them to Hellfire, it is Christ who has declared that those who die in their sins will go to Hell, not us.

He has also (and more frequently) spoken of the benefits of His gospel. Why do I get the feeling that you have too much fun telling people to go to hell to light their way to heaven?

We don’t condemn anyone.

Don’t you? (By the way, and for about the third time, who is ‘we?’)

Well then, you’ll stop telling people that they are headed for hell in preference to inviting them to heaven, right?

You cannot preach the Gospel without first explaining God’s wrath and why it abides on the wicked.

You simply cannot tell somebody how to be saved unless you first explain to them what they must be saved from and why they must be saved.

Sure you can. There is a scripture (well, you won’t think it is, but I do…) that says “Wickedness never was happiness.” Whether you think that quote is scripture or not, it’s true; the wicked aren’t happy. How can they be? True joy comes only when one has the light of Christ, and is ‘right’ with God, with his fellow humans, with his family and with himself. Someone who is sinning, and going down the wrong path…he is not happy. When you show him what happiness IS, you don’t have to tell him that he’s not…he’ll figure that out all by himself. Most people who are truly lost already know what hell is, because…they are in it already. They want OUT.

We do.

Perhaps you do…but from your posts here, I get the impression that you only preach the scary half. --and honestly? People who are in need of the gospel already know about the scary half, because most of them are already living it.

OK. Let’s say for a moment that that is the Gospel How does that explain to somebody how to be saved or why they must be born again?

I believe that Jesus rather succinctly says that in three words. “Come follow me.” There is also this instruction to be baptized in water and in spirit…and 'be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect."

Then your claim is false.

I didn’t claim that you were rude to me, sir. Would you care to clarify what claim it is you think I am making, that is proven false by my admission that you haven’t been rude to me?

Nope. Not even remotely the same thing.

What…“Come follow me” and “you must be born again” are not the same thing? You have a most interesting doctrinal view. Very different…after all, wasn’t Christ baptized Himself? Didn’t he have a very intense experience when the Holy Ghost descended upon Him in the form of (or 'like a") dove? Isn’t that part of what He meant when He said 'Come, follow me?" He said “if ye love me, keep my commandments…” and He said “ye must be born again.”

So…how are those two concepts 'not even remotely the same thing?"

Why is it a bad thing to tell somebody that the Bible says that sinners go to Hell?

It’s not a BAD thing…Ok, perhaps it is, depending on motive. It seems to me that if your intention is to keep people from going there, you would concentrate on the methods that work the best. However, if your intention is to simply be the cheerleaders who wave at the sinners on their way down, like the spectators in a Roman circus, then I suppose it serves its purpose for you.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.

I don’t suppose for a moment that you would consider that the fruits of the hellfire and brimstone preacher are less desirable (in quality and in quantity) than the one who teaches in love?

 

[dianaiad]

Every individual is responsible for their own sin.

Well, that is indeed what I believe…but as a Calvinist, (ARE you a Calvinist? you really need to identify your beliefs, so that we aren’t sliding past one another.) the ultimate responsibility is the Creator, who could have made us free from original sin and free from our predetermined fate of hellfire, but who did not.

Which is precisely why I said, “Perhaps that’s what Mormonism teaches…”

Actually, if they deny the Trinity, such as Modalists do, then they’re not Christians at all and, thus, not Protestants.

Ok, now that’s begging a very big question, m’friend. Since when is “Christian” defined as “trinitarian,” who decided that, and why should non-trinitarians who firmly believe that a: they are Christians and b: trinitarians have it wrong, accept it?

I mean, really; would you accept my proclamation that you are not a Christian because you don’t believe in the Book of Mormon?

think about it.

I’m sorry you feel that way. We find a great deal of hope in it. Perhaps one day you’ll join us and then you will have that hope.

Who is “us?” Calvinists? ??? Would you terribly mind clearly stating your doctrinal beliefs, so that the rest of us (ok, …me…) aren’t floundering?

But if you ARE talking about hyper-calvinism…I’d have greater hope buying a lottery ticket. At least I can do something to affect the results of THAT, like, oh, buy a ticket. According to the gentleman who has been trying to convert me to his point of view for years, there is NOTHING we can do, think or consider that will influence whether we are saved or not. Nothing…and the only reason HE preaches (and he preaches a lot) is to let the unregenerate know that they are indeed unregenerate and doomed to hell no matter what they do, or want. It is, it seems to me, one of the nastier forms of torture.

Really? This is kindness and courtesy??? Funny, but I’m sure that if I responded in kind with this “kindness and courtesy”, I’d be banned in about a minute.

Well, and have I been rude to you?

 

[kcmekim]

Well, that is indeed what I believe…but as a Calvinist, (ARE you a Calvinist? you really need to identify your beliefs, so that we aren’t sliding past one another.)

Why? I’m a Christian and so I hold to Biblical Christian doctrine.

the ultimate responsibility is the Creator, who could have made us free from original sin and free from our predetermined fate of hellfire, but who did not.

Why?

Ok, now that’s begging a very big question, m’friend. Since when is “Christian” defined as “trinitarian,” who decided that, and why should non-trinitarians who firmly believe that a: they are Christians and b: trinitarians have it wrong, accept it?

2 John is a good place to start.

I mean, really; would you accept my proclamation that you are not a Christian because you don’t believe in the Book of Mormon?

No, but then, the Book of Mormon is not the objective and authoritative word of God. The Bible is.

Who is “us?” Calvinists? ??? Would you terribly mind clearly stating your doctrinal beliefs, so that the rest of us (ok, …me…) aren’t floundering?

If you claim to be a Christian, then you are also claiming to know Christian doctrine.

and the only reason HE preaches (and he preaches a lot) is to let the unregenerate know that they are indeed unregenerate and doomed to hell no matter what they do, or want. It is, it seems to me, one of the nastier forms of torture.

In all fairness to your friend, the Bible does state that for the unregenerate, the hearing of the preaching of the Gospel is a form of God’s judgement.

 

[dianaiad]

Why? I’m a Christian and so I hold to Biblical Christian doctrine.

Why are you being so slippery about this? I think it is a fairly straightforward question.

After all, I too am a Christian, and hold to Biblical Christian doctrine, but I rather imagine that we disagree on a few things.

Why?

I don’t know why He would do that. Do you?

2 John is a good place to start.

No, but then, the Book of Mormon is not the objective and authoritative word of God. The Bible is.

If you claim to be a Christian, then you are also claiming to know Christian doctrine.

“Christian doctrine” as defined by whom?

In all fairness to your friend, the Bible does state that for the unregenerate, the hearing of the preaching of the Gospel is a form of God’s judgement.

I see. So God creates these people so that they are sinners. They have no choice but to sin. They have no choice in whether they are of the elect or not, and never will have. Nobody does–because nobody is even going to want to be ‘regenerate’ unless God decides that he (or she) already is.

In sum, God has created us all as broken vessels, fit for nothing but the fire…but for some reason that has nothing at all to do with the shattered crockery (which He, remember, created already broken) decides to fix a few.

To get away from the ceramic analogy, God has created, quite deliberately, broken people. They cannot heal themselves, and don’t even understand that they are in need of healing, so can’t want to get better. For some reason completely unrelated to anything those people do or think, God decides to save a few people that He created broken. That is, he is sending them to heaven, not hell. Oh, he doesn’t fix it so that these people can’t do nasty things any more, y’know, like lie or steal or cheat or whathave you–he simply declares that these broken pots are going to get displayed on his shelf, and all the rest are getting thrown back in the kiln.

Not content with creating all these people who have no other destination but eternal hellfire, or with changing his mind about a few of them and deciding to fix them, he decides that the ones he fixed have no better role in the world than to mock the ones who lost the heavenly lottery…nya, nya, we’re saved and you’re not…you are going to hell, nya nya…They are not preaching with the hope that someone will listen and come to Christ. They are preaching just to increase the torture level; you are going to hell, there’s nothing you can do about it, just…get used to the idea.

If I thought for one minute that God was truly like this, I’d join the opposition–and perhaps start thinking that Pullman was on to something.

 

[kcmekim]

Why are you being so slippery about this? I think it is a fairly straightforward question.

And I gave you a straighforward answer. Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that a Christian holds to Christian doctrine?

After all, I too am a Christian, and hold to Biblical Christian doctrine, but I rather imagine that we disagree on a few things.

No, you’re a Mormon and you do not, by definition, hold to Biblical Christian doctrine.

I don’t know why He would do that. Do you?

Why are you avoiding the question?

“Christian doctrine” as defined by whom?

By the church, as dictated by the Bible, for 2,000 years.

To get away from the ceramic analogy, God has created, quite deliberately, broken people.

Please show that verse.

If I thought for one minute that God was truly like this, I’d join the opposition–and perhaps start thinking that Pullman was on to something.

This is precisely why the Bible says that the preaching of the cross is foolishness to them that perish.

 

[dianaiad]

And I gave you a straighforward answer. Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that a Christian holds to Christian doctrine?

…and why is the bible true? because it says so, that’s why…

Has it ever occurred to you that other people, who call themselves Christian, can hold to very different beliefs about Him than you do? In fact, that there are many different Christian belief systems out there? Which one are you?

You do realize that each and every one of them, when asked if they 'hold to Christian doctrine" will say ‘yes, we do," don’t you? How in the name of all that is holy am I supposed to know what YOU think "Christian doctrine’ is?

You have to be having me on with this. Really.

No, you’re a Mormon and you do not, by definition, hold to Biblical Christian doctrine.

By whose definition?

Why are you avoiding the question?

I’m not the one doing the avoiding here.

By the church, as dictated by the Bible, for 2,000 years.

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

By that, you mean…the Catholics? At the risk of getting moderators mad at me, I have to ask you; what planet are you inhabiting? Because it sure ain’t planet logical. So far you have begged the question, exibited circular reasoning that would make a Jack Russel dizzy, and have avoided any hint of actually explaining what you actually believe.

Please show that verse.

What verse? I was relating to you the eisegesis of bible thought that was explained to me by my friendly debate opponent: the one you agree with. Since this isn’t a doctrine I hold to, I can’t give you a verse. It is the doctrine YOU seem to be preaching, sir. I’m trying to get you to tell me exactly what it is you DO believe, and frankly, I’ve tickled trout less slippery than your answers.

This is precisely why the Bible says that the preaching of the cross is foolishness to them that perish.

You actually agreed with the portrayal of God as I gave it?

…and you wonder why I don’t buy into that version?

 

[kcmekim]

…and why is the bible true? because it says so, that’s why…

No, that’s circular reasoning. The BIble is true because the Bible demonstrates itself to be true.

Has it ever occurred to you that other people, who call themselves Christian, can hold to very different beliefs about Him than you do?

No. The Bible is very clear that there are things we must believe in order to be Christians, and that there are other beliefs that disqualify one from being a Christian.

You have to be having me on with this. Really.

By whose definition?

The Bible’s definition.

I’m not the one doing the avoiding here.

Yeah, actually, you are. I asked you a question and you gave a nonsensical reply that had nothing to do with the question.

By that, you mean…the Catholics?

No, I mean the church. Catholics are a part of the church, but they are not the whole of the church.

At the risk of getting moderators mad at me, I have to ask you; what planet are you inhabiting?

I’m on Kolob with your god.

Because it sure ain’t planet logical. So far you have begged the question, exibited circular reasoning that would make a Jack Russel dizzy

Really? As somebody who teaches rhetoric, I’d be very curious to see examples of my having done these things. Care to back up your claims?

and have avoided any hint of actually explaining what you actually believe.

No, actually, I’ve explained to you several times that I am a Christian and believe and affirm Christian doctrine.

What verse?

The verse you’re referring to when you claim that God “deliberately” creates “broken vessels”.

Since this isn’t a doctrine I hold to,

Then why are you making that claim?

I can’t give you a verse. It is the doctrine YOU seem to be preaching, sir.

No, actually, you’re the one who keeps saying it, not me. I wouldn’t be caught dead preaching that heresy.

I’m trying to get you to tell me exactly what it is you DO believe, and frankly, I’ve tickled trout less slippery than your answers.

I’m sorry you won’t accept my answer, but it’s dishonest of you to say that I have not answered your question.

You actually agreed with the portrayal of God as I gave it?

No, not at all. I think you’ve grossly misrepresented the nature and character of God.

I just pointed out that the Bible says that the preaching of the cross is foolishness to them that perish.

 

[dianaiad]

No, that’s circular reasoning. The BIble is true because the Bible demonstrates itself to be true.

I know that this is circular reasoning. That’s why I included it–that statement is the classic example used to demonstrate circular reasoning, and to illustrate a problem your posts seem to have. By the way, the Bible is true because one can gain independent corroboration of it, from God.

No. The Bible is very clear that there are things we must believe in order to be Christians, and that there are other beliefs that disqualify one from being a Christian.

Actually, the bible never mentions what needs to happen in order to be Christian. It DOES mention what one needs to do, and to believe, to be ‘saved,’ but that’s entirely different. It only mentions that other people began to call the followers of Christ “Christian” in Antioch. I think the hint is…it was a name bestowed on them by others; quite possibly as an insult, but most certainly not as an honor bestowed upon the righteous or the saved.

As to the beliefs involved, why…I realize that you believe that you are correct about your beliefs, but here’s the problem: I believe that I am correct in mine, as well, and our Catholic neighbors believe that they are correct in theirs, as the Quakers, JW’s, Baptists and Four Square brethren believe in theirs. However, there is some rather fundamental disagreement going on between these belief systems. Which one of them gets to determine which beliefs are, because they are ‘right’ are then “Christian?” Do we put it to a vote?

Some things aren’t amenable to voting; the entire nation could vote to call a dog a cat, but once that is done, the new ‘cat’ will still bark, chase its tail and belong to the canine family. The entire Christian world (except you) could rise up and vote you out of the club, but you would still have Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, at the center of your faith, and you would still claim to be a Christian–you would still be a Christian. What else could you possibly be? Wiccan?

You might be nuttier than an almond orchard, completely off base about your beliefs or think picking your nose in public is a holy sacrament, but you are still Christian.

You have to be having me on with this. Really.

The Bible’s definition.

As interpreted by whom? Why is that so difficult a question? What do you think the bible is saying here? you realize that I could ask people of five different belief systems and get five different answers. What’s yours?

Yeah, actually, you are. I asked you a question and you gave a nonsensical reply that had nothing to do with the question.

Actually, I’m the only one in this conversation that is being straightforward and making sense. In my humble opinion, of course.

No, I mean the church. Catholics are a part of the church, but they are not the whole of the church.

by ‘church’ you mean ‘Christianity?’

I’m on Kolob with your god.

Kolob is a star, not a planet, and God does not live there. If you are going to try for a witty comeback, it rather spoils the effect if you don’t get the references right. It really spoils the effect when, by getting the references that wrong, you prove my point that you aren’t, quite, with the conversation.

Really? As somebody who teaches rhetoric, I’d be very curious to see examples of my having done these things. Care to back up your claims?

You teach rhetoric?
Now I know you are having me on, and enjoying yourself far too much. Nobody who actually teaches and understands rhetoric would do what you are doing unless it was absolutely deliberate.

Well, y’got me, I admit it. I’m far too gullible and will fall for this sort of thing every time. The problem is, most people who write the way you have here are deadly serious.

However, as a purely professional exercise in rhetorical and fallacious reasoning, I will give you a few very frustrating examples (just a few…I’m sure you have, rhetorician that you are, inserted a few that I missed, just to play with my head.)

In post #49, you commit a general ad hominem when you wrote:

Right, because in typical Catholic arrogance, if a Protestant leaves Protestantism, it is only because God has miraculously called him “home to Rome”, but if a Catholic leaves Catholicism, it’s because he was ignorant and as such, was easy pickings for the big, bad Protestants who prey on poor little Catholics who aren’t well versed enough in Catholic theology to defend themselves from those evil Protestant spawns of Satan.

Almost immediately afterward, in post #53, you disengenuously ask:

And have I shown hatred toward anyone?

I would personally categorize post #49 as “showing hate.” Or at least some serious disrespect.

contiuned on next post.

 

[dianaiad]

continued from previous post…

As to your circular reasoning/begging the question…as a rhetorician you know that begging the question IS circular reasoning, and it happens when the conclusion is assumed in the premise…or when the premise for a conclusion is actually the question under consideration.

you do this here:

#66 Perhaps that’s what Mormonism teaches, but it isn’t what Christianity teaches
#68 Actually, if they deny the Trinity, such as Modalists do, then they’re not Christians at all and, thus, not Protestants.
#68 I’m sure that to a Mormon, the Biblical view must seem very strange.
#71 Why? I’m a Christian and so I hold to Biblical Christian doctrine.

#71 If you claim to be a Christian, then you are also claiming to know Christian doctrine.

#73 No, you’re a Mormon and you do not, by definition, hold to Biblical Christian doctrine

#76 “and have avoided any hint of actually explaining what you actually believe.”
No, actually, I’ve explained to you several times that I am a Christian and believe and affirm Christian doctrine.

you have repeatedly refused to answer my question, asked quite plainly, about what your beliefs actually ARE; you simply say “Christian” as if saying this is self explanatory. You further expect me to agree that I am NOT “Christian” because my beliefs are not yours, and why are my beliefs not yours? Why, because they aren’t Christian and yours are.

but you have not described what your beliefs actually are.

I am quite willing to agree with you that you are a Christian. No problem with that. However, that does not mean I must agree that I am not.

Frankly, if it has to come down to either you or me being Christian–that is, if one defines “Christian” as “those beliefs clearly taught in the New Testament, which are true,” then…I’m the Christian and you aren’t. Why not? I do believe that the NT teaches what I think it does, after all; obviously I do, or I wouldn’t BE a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I’d be something else and then I’d believe that THAT interpretation was what the NT ‘really’ meant.

So how about it? What do you think Christian beliefs should be?

No, actually, I’ve explained to you several times that I am a Christian and believe and affirm Christian doctrine.

And THAT is classic circular reasoning…" I am Christian because I believe in Christian doctrine…" but you don’t explain what 'Christian doctrine" is, so you are claiming that you are a Christian because…well, you say you are.

Actually, I have no problem with that. However, you do, since you will not accept my saying the same thing as being evidence that I am Christian.

The verse you’re referring to when you claim that God “deliberately” creates “broken vessels”.

One of the verses used as prooftexts for this idea is in Romans 9; 20-22. The eisegesis that is used by hyper-Calvinists is rather clear; that God indeed has deliberately created people for no other reason than to damn them. They have no choice in how they were created, their personalities or their choices.

Then why are you making that claim?

I am not making that claim. Rhetorician that you are, you should read more carefully. I am saying that this is the claim I seem to see YOU making. I disagree with it. I have asked you several times what your beliefs regarding this actually are, and you a; refuse to identify them, but b: actually defend the idea.

I have actually not met many hyper-Calvinists; it’s not a doctrine many people are comfortable with, or freely admit to. I have pointed out, however, that your posts remind me very much of a gentleman who IS very vocal in his hyper-Calvinism, and I have been trying rather hard to get you to clarify your position yourself.

No, actually, you’re the one who keeps saying it, not me. I wouldn’t be caught dead preaching that heresy

Ok, we finally seem to be getting somewhere. What DO you preach, if not that? .

I’m sorry you won’t accept my answer, but it’s dishonest of you to say that I have not answered your question.

where have you answered my question?

No, not at all. I think you’ve grossly misrepresented the nature and character of God.

Well, I know I have. The God I described is not the God I worship. However, it IS the God I seem to see in your posts; the God that logically follows from hyper-Calvinist beliefs. If you are not that (and that’s an improvement, simply knowing that much) then where on the 'free will/predestination" spectrum DO you fall?

I just pointed out that the Bible says that the preaching of the cross is foolishness to them that perish.

Except of course that you haven’t done any preaching. At all. You have done everything in your power to avoid telling me what you think is truth…and if you believe that I am all wrong in what I believe, then your complete refusal to explain what you think “Christian doctrine” IS, is not exactly ‘love,’ is it?