| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| If the rapture really happens tomorrow . . .; AKA . . . the Good Bye Thread | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 20 2011, 01:21 PM (12,111 Views) | |
| Dewey | May 25 2011, 05:41 AM Post #526 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
When you think about it, it's really just a variation on the "seasoned for destination" argument. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| sue | May 25 2011, 05:42 AM Post #527 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
|
![]() |
|
| Renauda | May 25 2011, 05:44 AM Post #528 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
How can an infant or child below the age of reason repent sin? Give me Larry's honest *Johnny Cash* faith any day over that kind of unmitigated theological B. S.. Larry's cleaned both yours and the other architect's clocks and exposed organised religion for the fraud it is. |
![]() |
|
| Chris Aher | May 25 2011, 05:44 AM Post #529 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
|
|
Regards, Chris | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | May 25 2011, 05:56 AM Post #530 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Hm, thanks for pointing that quote out to me. I started to write that sentence one way and finished it another way, with the end result that it said the exact opposite of what I really meant. I've edited that line to say what I really meant, as follows: "I have no doubt that an infant, or any child below the age of reason, is indeed saved without having repented of their sin." I don't suspect that makes you any more comfortable with organized religion, but it is more accurately what I meant. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | May 25 2011, 05:57 AM Post #531 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
No it doesn't. It's still a load of pretentious bollocks. |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | May 25 2011, 06:01 AM Post #532 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
And I don't know if Larry's faith is the same as Johnny Cash's or not. One thing I'm trying to figure out is if he really believes that a person can't be saved without having repented of his sins - which, as was my actual point in that post, would actually condemn all those infants and children below the age of reason to hell, unless there were something else going on besides repentance after the age of reason. And to that I'll add that, even though my tradition accepts the theology of infant baptism, we do not believe that children who die without having been baptized are excluded from heaven. But that's a separate issue beyond the appropriateness of infant baptism itself. Edited by Dewey, May 25 2011, 06:06 AM.
|
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | May 25 2011, 06:13 AM Post #533 |
|
Bloody good thread, especially your comments, JD. ![]() I find this topic interesting. I grew up in the Protestant world (non-denominational, evangelical, etc) but as an adult I'm finding it interesting to research these topics myself. My GF is Catholic so I'm checking out that side of things as well. All of this is made more "interesting" since my older brother is heavily involved (with good intent) with biblical prophesy, and I foresee many an interesting conversation to be had at future Thanksgiving dinners. :-D Ok back to the thread......on page 5 now... |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 25 2011, 06:46 AM Post #534 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I see a couple of reasons why Dewey is so adamant that IT has "cleaned my clock". First, he still carries a huge grudge over my having told him he was unfit for the ministry. He takes that personally, I can understand why he does even though he should not, and would not if he understood what I mean by it. Second, Dewey has decided that because he's in the seminary he has become some sort of guru when it comes to all things scriptural. It never occurs to him that he's headed down the wrong road. Combine those two things, and he enjoys getting "even". Dewey thinks that I haven't made my case, that I haven't given a credible theological argument, and that IT has. I beg to differ, as do the tens of thousands of people far more qualified than Dewey is or will ever be who have studied scripture and interpret these things the exact same way I do. I am not the one who has not built a solid theological argument, IT is the one who has not built a solid theological argument, Dewey sees it the way he sees it because he, sorry to say, wouldn't recognize a correct theological argument if it slapped him in the face. I tried to keep this civil, I said that I didn't want to insult anyone's religion, I said I wanted it to remain a purely theological discussion, devoid of all corner pissing and personal attacks. Anyone reading this thread all the way through should be able to see that the ONLY concern IT seems to have had throughout the entire discussion is defending the Roman Catholic Church. His last post pretty much proves that, as he continues to make the claim that the Roman Catholic church is responsible for everything that has ever happened in the Christian religion, to the point that I've almost expected to see him tell me the pope can fly and appear and disappear through solid walls. IT worships a religion. He worships his religion with such conviction that he finds it incredible that I would even suggest that Jews had anything to do with Christianity. He seems to be of the opinion that Christianity began in Rome. Dewey worships a religion. I do not worship a religion. There are millions of good, committed Christians in the Catholic Church. But it's not because they are in the Catholic Church. Dewey has asked me what happens to an infant when it dies, do I think it goes to hell. He fails to see that it is HIS beliefs that condemns babies to hell when they die, at least, the ones who don't manage to be fortunate enough to have good Catholic parents who remember to get the kid baptized before hand. Those poor babies.. totally dependent on their parents getting them baptized before they die or they will rot in hell. Imagine all those Jewish babies who die without the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church... Utter hogwash. Ah, but the Catholic Church has a "fix" for that. A priest can turn stand over the corpse and sprinkle water on it and chant some Latin and everthing will be ok. Never mind that that is not scriptural. Separate "original sin" from a person actually knowing what he's doing, and sinning. An infant has not sinned. An infant is not responsible for wiping his own butt, fixing his own meals, or making weighty decisions. An infant is an infant. If there is a God, and if there is an afterlife, it all hinges on Jesus being who he said he was - NOT the Roman Catholic Church. Going with the assumption that Jesus was who he said he was, then if you want to know what happens to babies when they die, pay attention to what scripture has to say on the matter, not what a religion has to say on the matter. There is no scripture that says an infant goes to heaven when it dies. There is no scripture that says an infant does NOT go to heaven when it dies. That doesn't mean scripture is silent on the issue. Scripture says that Jesus Christ paid the penalty for EVERYONE, and that it is the UNBELIEVER who will not go to heaven. How can a baby be an unbeliever? It can't. How can a man born and raised in the deepest most remote areas of the rain forest, a man who has never seen another human being outside his little clan, be an unbeliever? How could all the people who lived and died in oh.... China before the year 0 be unbelievers? None of them had even heard of Jesus Christ, or Moses, or Judaism, or Christianity - to "unbelieve" in. What happens to them? Little babies cannot be "unbelievers" - so it is not necessary for the CHURCH to do a thing for them, any more than it is necessary for the Church to do anything for those people who lived and died without ever having heard what it is they are to believe in. You are condemned by the active decision to NOT BELIEVE. A baby cannot actively make that decision. So if you want to get your kid baptized, fine. Nothing wrong with it. It's a nice little ceremony that can bring you some good "Kodak moments". But baptizing someone who is not capable of actively choosing to not believe in the belief that this is going to save its soul is not only not scriptural, it's ridiculous. I have a cousin who is severely mentally handicapped. If you ask him if he "believes in Jesus", he just grins. He has no idea what you mean. He thinks you're talking about Santa Claus. If you follow the IT and Dewey's logic, my cousin is going to die and go to hell. Sorry, but that's not scriptural. My cousin is not mentally capable of deciding whether he believes in the saving grace of Jesus Christ's death on the cross. He is not capable of even grasping the concept of it. When he dies, he will die never having made an active decision to NOT BELIEVE, and if anyone is in heaven, it will be him. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | May 25 2011, 06:54 AM Post #535 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Ask Larry. I've read quite a bit about the Man in Black and he, like Larry, adhered to a simple faith of the heart and didn't have much use for the theological mumbo-jumbo you and IT are trying to peddle. Unlike Larry, I don't think you and IT believe in a particular religion, I think you both believe in an established theology that sets out to justifiy an organised and highly orchestrated approach to faith. |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 25 2011, 06:57 AM Post #536 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I knew Johnny Cash. He didn't have any use for all the theological navel gazing any more than I do. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | May 25 2011, 07:00 AM Post #537 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
If an apostate sceptic like me can figure that out, why can't the resident theologians? |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | May 25 2011, 07:02 AM Post #538 |
|
Who's the prophet now!?!?!
|
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | May 25 2011, 07:06 AM Post #539 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Don't think the "resident theologians" "cannot" figure out why, but they're focusing on describing/explaining things through a form of formalism. Larry's articulation (if not understanding) of his belief on the subject does not "fit" established formalism. |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | May 25 2011, 07:45 AM Post #540 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
In other words, Larry speaks directly to the issue. In contrast to this: http://s10.zetaboards.com/The_New_Coffee_Room/single/?p=771716&t=373535 |
![]() |
|
| kenny | May 25 2011, 07:45 AM Post #541 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
So, I missed something...who won? |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 25 2011, 07:48 AM Post #542 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
The same one who always does - God did. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | May 25 2011, 08:06 AM Post #543 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
In overtime no less. |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 25 2011, 08:07 AM Post #544 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Hahahahahahahahahaha |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| kenny | May 25 2011, 08:08 AM Post #545 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Good. So this merry go round will never spin in circles again? |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | May 25 2011, 08:09 AM Post #546 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Stop with the Lennon quotes Kenny. It makes you sound formalist. |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 25 2011, 08:11 AM Post #547 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
No, I'm fairly certain that it won't be long until we will get to wade through another long winded pompous bit of piety about why it's not that simple because the Roman Catholic Church didn't come up with the idea... |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| kenny | May 25 2011, 08:11 AM Post #548 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Did I just quote John Lennon? What's formalist? Is formalism bad? |
![]() |
|
| kenny | May 25 2011, 08:12 AM Post #549 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
So, God didn't win? |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 25 2011, 08:13 AM Post #550 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Until then, I guess we're all just "stuck in limbo".... oh, what purgatory... Quick - someone slam a baby under water.... |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |










11:27 AM Jul 11