"Why won't God heal amputees?"
- Thread starter lkh
- Start date
I simply answered his question I will leave it up to others to argue with you the finer points of calvinism. I will only say that this is not what any of the mainline denominations believe.
All Gods are imaginary and all religions are superstition so i do not want to waste time arguing which form of religious superstition is correct. Maybe Jem wants to debate it with you.
So you think I am superstitious? Nice. Is it that easy just to dismiss all with whom you disagree? That's okay. I'm praying for you anyway, that God will reveal himself to you in a way that your intellect will submit to something greater than mere reason or finite logic.
Just remember your logical box is dependent upon your a priori assumptions and really don't prove much of anything except logical consistency or inconsistency.
Jeff
You are wrong again. My logic is dependant on evidence. If god,if he exists,ever came to earth and proved himself i would believe. Until then i use all the available history and evidence i have to come to the conclusion that the bible was written by primitive goat herders who liked to kill in the name of god.
If you continue to read this thread it may become apparent even to you before i am through.
well I have not read the the last few pages of the thread.
I have no idea if mr. jeffries is arguing for Calvinism or not.
But I will say this.
There is a debate between arminianism and Calvinism.
I have seen quotes supporting both sides although i believe the others sides quotes are taken out of context.
However I believe the debate is rather foolish. Because while humans experience the illusion of time and it may seem like someone was predistined or compelled by irresistable grace -- or we could argue humans have free will.
But more than likely it all happened just not in the past the present or the future. Sorry I did not engage more fully or write more clearly but I am experience bed time.
I have no idea if mr. jeffries is arguing for Calvinism or not.
But I will say this.
There is a debate between arminianism and Calvinism.
I have seen quotes supporting both sides although i believe the others sides quotes are taken out of context.
However I believe the debate is rather foolish. Because while humans experience the illusion of time and it may seem like someone was predistined or compelled by irresistable grace -- or we could argue humans have free will.
But more than likely it all happened just not in the past the present or the future. Sorry I did not engage more fully or write more clearly but I am experience bed time.
It is apparent that you have come to a conclusion and will use logic to bolster your conclusion, but it is not apparent that you have used "all available history." Your question about Paul shows a complete lack of understanding of the history of the reasons and methods and purposes of even the letters. You brought up a canard that is one of the common straw man arguments. But it is evident that you haven't done a thorough study of the history of the text itself. It seems you may not even understand parts of the text itself in its historical and cultural context. So you may dismiss what you do not understand thinking you have somehow gotten to the real substance of the matter.
Many people saw Jesus' love and compassion for the poor and the outcasts and still rejected him and his example. Even if God were to appear to you in the flesh, it would be no guarantee that you would believe.
What a waste of time you are.
I have given you the definition of Free Will and you still choose to redefine the word
Why dont you give us you defintion of free will and put an asterisk next to so we all know what you intend it to mean.
I have the free will to ignore any post of yours in which you pretend your defintion is superior to the dictionaries.