Originally Posted by muscogee
Because you're logic is weak. Many of us are tired of the weak logic used to foment hostility towards anyone who disagree with you. You can't live and let live.
I don't know what you mean by weak logic. I may have come late to the annoying evangelizing party I sometimes see here, but I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I don't have that kind of power. I don't argue for the existence of God, or the truth of the Bible -- I assume it. I expect people not
to believe or be interested in/sympathetic to the gospel -- it's our natural state. To be honest, what knocks me off my feet is when I meet someone who is
a pedigreed Christian.
Originally Posted by muscogee
1. That's a very prideful statement. Maybe your pride ran him off.
2. Seems you completely misread that "young brother". God didn't give you very good guidance. Maybe you need to look inward rather than outward.
I wasn't trying
to be prideful -- I was trying to be informative, using terms and concepts I assumed buzznRose would understand, if he is a Christian. It was an in-house debate there for a minute, and I stepped on his toes. I don't like to start sentences with "I
believe that..." or "in my humble opinion..." not because my opinions are pride-based, but because I'm convinced of my convictions. If I'm not sure of what I'm saying, why say it at all? I've been around this forum just long enough that I assume we know I subscribe to Protestant doctrine, and within that, Calvinst sub-doctrine. I've spent 37 years studying, and it landed me in a place that actually puts me outside
a lot of religious circles. Calvinism is regarded as highly rigid (doesn't feel rigid to me), exclusive (it certainly is that, but so is all Christianity ["No one comes to the Father but by Me..."]), and -- believe it or not -- overly cerebral. We're accused of being too interested in doctrine, and not interested enough in people.
I think what happened was that my Calvinist leanings offended him and he bailed. I'm actually somewhat in company with the atheists here, in that the majority of western Christendom regards the Reformers' teachings as hostile and counter-productive to the soft-rock evangelism that's been so popular since the 70s.
Why did you back off your claim that you haven't seen any Christians on this forum? -ArtificialGrape"
I didn't know I had, but if it seemed that way, maybe I was backpeddling so as not to offend anyone. (I violated my own principle of not apologizing. ; )
But if pressed, I'd say I don't think I have seen evidence of consistent
classical Christianity in the comments of those who identify themselves as Christians. Most of the comments give evidence of some kind that they are 'corrupted' by a non-Christian belief, influence, or personal spin on things. There is
such a thing as a pure, Biblical Theology -- and then there's Everything Else. Doesn't matter what -- Islam, science, atheism, LDS, whatever. Historically, the refinement of Christian Theology reached its apex in the writings of Calvin, Zwingli, and others, who took Luther's excellent start at recovering the gospel, and cleaned it up a little. That Theology is largely in disfavor today among people of 'faith,' but it doesn't mean it wasn't right -- it means there are a lot of 'churched' unbelievers. Not wolves maybe, but at least dogs in sheep's clothing.
So anyway, I took buzz to task -- as I thought I had a right to do, as a fellow believer -- for his deconstructed Christian views: that God loves everyone and will wait forever, pleading with people to believe; that we all have an opportunity to exercise free will and believe when we're ready, to the end that our souls are saved. He doesn't. We don't. We can't and won't
believe without assistance -- more than assistance: a resurrection of the stillborn soul that frees the will so it can choose God. This is pure Protestant Theology. Buzz should have known that, and if he is regenerated, he should have believed it. But I don't think he did, and I pissed him off.