I think it more likely you are unable to rationalise your emotive, biased opposition to anti-Catholic theology.
Advertisement
by Tarsonis » Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:27 pm
Turelisa- wrote:Tarsonis wrote:
mmm, no. None of that is true, especially not your perverted interpretation of 1 Corinthian 5 which calls for excommunication of the faithless to leave them for God's judgment. Excommunication is social expulsion, not separating them from life.
I haven't said the faithless should be executed. The faithless must be excommunicated.
by Tarsonis » Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:28 pm
Turelisa- wrote:Tarsonis wrote:
Pearls before swine comes to mind. Anyone who thinks killing a person is somehow for their own good, really doesn't seem capable of embracing the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I think it more likely you are unable to rationalise your emotive, biased opposition to anti-Catholic theology.
by Turelisa- » Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:29 pm
Old Tyrannia wrote:I am not saying that I don't have significant theological objections to Calvinism myself, but taking Turelisa as a standard example of Calvinism is a bit like taking Leonard Feeney as the standard by which you judge Catholic theology in general. The position Turelisa is taking represents a particularly strict and unforgiving interpretation of Reformed theology and would not necessarily meet with the approval of most self-described Reformed Christians. Additionally, I think condemning a large swathe of fellow Christians as "satanic" is uncalled for. It's not as if Calvinists are sacrificing infants to Moloch.
by Punished UMN » Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:33 pm
Turelisa- wrote:Old Tyrannia wrote:I am not saying that I don't have significant theological objections to Calvinism myself, but taking Turelisa as a standard example of Calvinism is a bit like taking Leonard Feeney as the standard by which you judge Catholic theology in general. The position Turelisa is taking represents a particularly strict and unforgiving interpretation of Reformed theology and would not necessarily meet with the approval of most self-described Reformed Christians. Additionally, I think condemning a large swathe of fellow Christians as "satanic" is uncalled for. It's not as if Calvinists are sacrificing infants to Moloch.
Correct. I'm a Reformed Christian who belongs to the fringe Christian Reconstructionism movement. And yes, for a Christian to denounce another Christian as 'satanic' is unnecessary, bigoted and not very Christian.
by Tarsonis » Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:33 pm
Old Tyrannia wrote:Esheaun Stroakuss wrote:
If Satan did not enter the picture, then we would have just been perfect. Tbh that sounds really boring.
Based on his depiction in Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, Satan would appear to agree.The Brothers Karamazov, Book 11, Chapter 9 wrote:Before time was, by some degree which I could never make out, I was predestined 'to deny' and yet I am genuinely good-hearted and not at all inclined to negation. 'No, you must go and deny, without denial there's no criticism and what would a journal be without a column of criticism?' Without criticism it would be nothing but one 'hosannah.' But nothing but hosannah is not enough for life, the hosannah must be tried in the crucible of doubt and so on... Without suffering, what would be be the pleasure of [life]? It would be transformed into an endless church service; it would be holy, but tedious.
Interestingly enough, Dostoevsky's Devil also seemed to believe that he would be redeemed in the end:The Brothers Karamazov, Book 11, Chapter 9 wrote:I know that at the end of all things I shall be reconciled. I, too, shall walk my quadrillion [kilometres] and learn the secret. But till that happens I am sulking and fulfil my destiny though it's against the grain- that is, to ruin thousands for the sake of saving one.
Of course, neither of theses quotes can be taken at face value as reflecting Dostoevsky's own opinions- firstly, the speaker is the Devil himself, i.e. the Prince of Lies. Secondly, it may not even be the Devil but simply a manifestation of Ivan Karamazov's imagination; it depends on the interpretation of the reader. There's a third possibility raised by Ivan, too- that it might a devil, but not the Devil. Whatever the case, I found it interesting that Esheaun Stroakuss' expressed thoughts echo those of Dostoevsky's version of Satan. Are you secretly the Devil, Esheaun?Punished UMN wrote:I don't understand this mindset, really, I don't. What kind of person goes "Humanity could be perfect, almost god-like beings that don't suffer or die, and who all bear perfect love for one-another, but that sounds boring, better throw in a few thousand wars and genocides and maybe a handful of deadly diseases and death by old age!"
I think you should be careful with this line of reasoning. You are essentially making the "problem of evil" argument but directed against the Devil rather than God, which is problematic because ultimately God permits everything that happens, including the actions of the Devil. If the Fall was such an unmitigated catastrophe, why would God permit it to happen? You can't say that He didn't foresee it, or that He couldn't have prevented it; not without abandoning the classical understanding of God as being both omnipotent and omniscient. The problem of evil is a serious philosophical objection to theism, but we shouldn't be tempted to counter it by passing blame for all the world's ills onto the Devil, because unless you place limits on God's power and wisdom then the buck, as it were, still stops with Him. I think we should consider the position that suffering may serve a greater purpose. Dostoevsky's Devil has a point- if it were all one "hosannah," what would be the point of everything? Is the taste of Heaven not sweeter for all our earthly sufferings?Punished UMN wrote:This is just awful theology. Calvinism truly is Satanic.
I am not saying that I don't have significant theological objections to Calvinism myself, but taking Turelisa as a standard example of Calvinism is a bit like taking Leonard Feeney as the standard by which you judge Catholic theology in general. The position Turelisa is taking represents a particularly strict and unforgiving interpretation of Reformed theology and would not necessarily meet with the approval of most self-described Reformed Christians. Additionally, I think condemning a large swathe of fellow Christians as "satanic" is uncalled for. It's not as if Calvinists are sacrificing infants to Moloch.
by Esheaun Stroakuss » Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:35 pm
Old Tyrannia wrote:I found it interesting that Esheaun Stroakuss' expressed thoughts echo those of Dostoevsky's version of Satan. Are you secretly the Devil, Esheaun?
by Turelisa- » Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:36 pm
Tarsonis wrote:Turelisa- wrote:
I haven't said the faithless should be executed. The faithless must be excommunicated.
Bullshit, you said "The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty" and then went on a nice rant about why putting these people to death is for their own benefit. It's right there. We can read it over and over again..
Turelisa- wrote:The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.
by Tarsonis » Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:42 pm
Turelisa- wrote:Tarsonis wrote:Bullshit, you said "The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty" and then went on a nice rant about why putting these people to death is for their own benefit. It's right there. We can read it over and over again..
Woman, I suggest you read it over and over again if that what it takes to see what I really wrote -
Turelisa- wrote:The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.
The fact is you didn't read it properly in the first place, and, having realised your mistake after you denounced me, refuse to admit it.
That's why you're getting angry and using profanity, which isn't very Christian.
by Esheaun Stroakuss » Thu Dec 17, 2020 2:04 pm
by Turelisa- » Thu Dec 17, 2020 2:10 pm
Tarsonis wrote:[
I didn't misread. What you fail to to grasp is that qualifier doesn't change the meaning. You specifically quoted Deuteronomy 17, when you said "Put away evil from among you." Quotes have a context and meaning.
That's why you're getting angry and using profanity, which isn't very Christian.
1. I'm not angry. I'm revolted, big difference.
2. Profanity isn't real.
by United Hemand Insia » Thu Dec 17, 2020 2:28 pm
by The Reformed American Republic » Thu Dec 17, 2020 2:32 pm
Punished UMN wrote:Turelisa- wrote:
Correct. I'm a Reformed Christian who belongs to the fringe Christian Reconstructionism movement. And yes, for a Christian to denounce another Christian as 'satanic' is unnecessary, bigoted and not very Christian.
I didn't say you were satanic, I said your beliefs are satanic. Big difference.
by Punished UMN » Thu Dec 17, 2020 2:41 pm
Turelisa- wrote:I might have sworn that in a previous interaction you implied you were a woman. My mistake. I was wrong.
Again, you are wrong to think I presume you were a woman just because....what? Who is calling whom out here for 'bull####?' I've had to disabuse you twice, now, yet still you refuse to acknowledge or admit your glaring misnotions, instead making desperate recourse to aggressive disingenuousness. Not very adult. Not very clever. Not very Christian.Tarsonis wrote:[
I didn't misread. What you fail to to grasp is that qualifier doesn't change the meaning. You specifically quoted Deuteronomy 17, when you said "Put away evil from among you." Quotes have a context and meaning.
1. I'm not angry. I'm revolted, big difference.
2. Profanity isn't real.
You did misread, old bean. Stop refusing to admit you're wrong. It's making you appear absolutely pathetic.
Profanity isn't real? What on earth is it, then? I should like to know your opinion. Are you prepared to swallow your revulsion and pride, and argue with a heretic?
by Tarsonis » Thu Dec 17, 2020 2:44 pm
United Hemand Insia wrote:I have a question. Would the song "Hallelujah" be considered as a Christian song as it talks about David and Solomon?
by Punished UMN » Thu Dec 17, 2020 2:49 pm
by The Reformed American Republic » Thu Dec 17, 2020 2:56 pm
Punished UMN wrote:Also, you said that the "criminally insane" should be put to death, what does that even mean? There's no such thing as being criminally insane, because being insane is not a crime. If someone is insane, they are, by definition, not criminally liable for their actions while insane. What you're basically implying is that being insane is itself a crime worthy of the death penalty.
by Salus Maior » Thu Dec 17, 2020 3:11 pm
Punished UMN wrote:Theologically, there wasn't a capacity for violence and cruelty before Satan explained them to us. There wasn't even a capacity for dying, or for suffering of any kind, until Satan introduced blemish to what was perfect.
by Trollzyn the Infinite » Thu Dec 17, 2020 3:23 pm
Turelisa- wrote:Tarsonis wrote:
Yes, once they've repented, put them to death to save them from themselves.
At least we Catholics have the integrity to admit we were wrong for this line of thinking.
The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.
People who commit these crimes are depraved, and can't be saved. They haven't the Holy Spirit working in them. They are the worst of reprobates.They're outside of God's grace, and must be killed judicially to spare the rest of society their corrupting influence. An evil person is never happy, and death is a release from the suffering which they inflict upon themselves. What is kinder than that? If you spare the reprobate criminal's life, and give him his freedom, you are, in effect, protracting his suffering and eventual self-destruction and guaranteeing the destruction of future victims of his depravity.
If they were in God's grace, they would either be intimidated by the rule of law sufficiently to refrain from temptation to do these unholy acts or, having the Holy Spirit working in them, would be regenerated from that natural depravity whence springs all Evil.
by Tarsonis » Thu Dec 17, 2020 3:36 pm
Turelisa- wrote:I might have sworn that in a previous interaction you implied you were a woman. My mistake. I was wrong.
Because this is where you said the quiet part out loud.Again, you are wrong to think I presume you were a woman just because....what? Who is calling whom out here for 'bull####?'
That would be because your disabuse is disingenuous, and in truth, I read your post very closely I'll explain:I've had to disabuse you twice, now, yet still you refuse to acknowledge or admit your glaring misnotions, instead making desperate recourse to aggressive disingenuousness.
"The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts."
People who commit these crimes are depraved, and can't be saved. They haven't the Holy Spirit working in them. They are the worst of reprobates. They're outside of God's grace, and must be killed judicially to spare the rest of society their corrupting influence.
"An evil person is never happy, and death is a release from the suffering which they inflict upon themselves. What is kinder than that? If you spare the reprobate criminal's life, and give him his freedom, you are, in effect, protracting his suffering and eventual self-destruction and guaranteeing the destruction of future victims of his depravity"
"If they were in God's grace, they would either be intimidated by the rule of law sufficiently to refrain from temptation to do these unholy acts or, having the Holy Spirit working in them, would be regenerated from that natural depravity whence springs all Evil."
Not very adult. Not very clever. Not very Christian.
You did misread, old bean. Stop refusing to admit you're wrong. It's making you appear absolutely pathetic.
Profanity isn't real? What on earth is it, then? I should like to know your opinion. Are you prepared to swallow your revulsion and pride, and argue with a heretic?
by United Hemand Insia » Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:05 pm
by Tarsonis » Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:08 pm
by United Hemand Insia » Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:11 pm
by The Blaatschapen » Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:13 pm
Turelisa- wrote:Tarsonis wrote:
Yes, once they've repented, put them to death to save them from themselves.
At least we Catholics have the integrity to admit we were wrong for this line of thinking.
The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.
People who commit these crimes are depraved, and can't be saved. They haven't the Holy Spirit working in them. They are the worst of reprobates.They're outside of God's grace, and must be killed judicially to spare the rest of society their corrupting influence. An evil person is never happy, and death is a release from the suffering which they inflict upon themselves. What is kinder than that? If you spare the reprobate criminal's life, and give him his freedom, you are, in effect, protracting his suffering and eventual self-destruction and guaranteeing the destruction of future victims of his depravity.
If they were in God's grace, they would either be intimidated by the rule of law sufficiently to refrain from temptation to do these unholy acts or, having the Holy Spirit working in them, would be regenerated from that natural depravity whence springs all Evil.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Emotional Support Crocodile, IC-Water, Singaporen Empire, The Astral Mandate, The French National Workers State, Tungstan
Advertisement