Posted on 09/03/2023 10:10:00 AM PDT by daniel1212
Certainly that logical fallacy, a superficial ignorant parroted polemic (such as invokes everything from the Flood to AIDS as a moral argument against God), can be answered. There simply is no contradiction btwn God being omnipotent (and omniscient) and all good (from whom all good has come, as the creator of an exceedingly vast, systematicity ordered universe, exquisitely fine-tuned for our physical life), and the allowance of evil, For unless you want a world in which mankind is like a cloud or a robot, then allowing evil is a necessary good if: Man is to be a being with the ability to make moral choices; And if such choices are to have effects/consequences, for both good and evil, And which consequences can affect others as well as self, directly or indirectly. But which God can make to ultimately work out for what is Good, in the light of all that can be known. Which includes just punishment for eternal beings which manifest they wanted the opposite of God, (John 3:19–21) though only being punished according to what they could and did choose to do, (Deuteronomy 24:16; Luke 10:1- 15; Revelation 20:12; cf. 2 Corinthians 8:12) while making all to work out to the benefit of those who honestly choose Him over sin, seeking and finding the mercy of God in the Lord Christ. (Roman 8:28) Consider some alternatives. God could have, 1. made us (and angels) with no moral standard or sense or deprived us from the moral ability to respond to or choose good [morally insensible, even as with clouds]. 2. granted us free moral agency, but never have given us anything to choose between [negation of moral choices, and no devil or God]. 3. left man only with recourse to finite competing sources as his ultimate object of spiritual affection and allegiance and source of security, and supreme judge of what is good [atheism and atheistic governments]. 4. called man to make the Creator their ultimate object of spiritual affection and allegiance and source of security as being what is right and what is best for man, versus finite created beings or things being one's "god," and provided moral revelation and influences. Yet always have moved us to do good, and never have allowed us to choose evil (even if as by making believing in God and choosing good so utterly compelling — like God appearing daily and always doing miracles on demand, and preventing any seeming evidence to the contrary - so that no man could attempt to make excuses for not believing in Him [effective negation of any freedom to choose]). 5. allowed created beings a negative alternative to faithfulness to the creator, and the ability to choose evil, but immediately reversed any effects and not penalized such [negation of consequences to choices]. 6. allowed us to do bad, but restricted us to a place where it would harm no one but ourselves [isolated consequences to choices]. 7. allowed us to choose between good and evil, and to affect others by it, but not ultimately reward or punish us accordingly [negation of judicial and eternal consequences, positive or negative]. 8. given us the ability to choose, and alternatives to chose between, and to face and overcome evil or be overcome by it, with the ability to effect others and things by our choices, and to exercise some reward or punishment in this life for morality, and ultimately reward or punishment all accordingly [pure justice]. 9. restrained evil to some degree, while making the evil that man does to work out for what is Good, with justice yet with mercy, and grace, towards those who want good, and who thus the One who is supremely Good. 10. in accordance with 8, the Creator could have chose to manifest Himself in the flesh, and by Him to provide man a means of escaping the ultimate retribution of Divine justice, and instead receive unmerited eternal favor, at God's own expense and credit, appropriated by a repentant obedient faith, in addition to the loss or gaining of certain rewards based on one's quality of work as a child of God. And eternally punish, to varying degrees relative to iniquity and accountability, those whose response to God's revelation manifested they want evil, [justice maintained while mercy and grace given]. But man, as an exceedingly finite being who is but a speck in this universe, and in the sea of humanity, and whose existence on earth occupies an infinitesimal amount of time, and who is very ignorant of what all the effects of his choices have been and will be, in time and eternity, and quite impotent to make them all work out as he/she wants, not only in one’s own life but in others, and for this life, as well as eternity, is in no position to sit in judgment upon an omniscient and omnipotent being and giver of life, who alone knows what all the effects will be of even our most seemingly insignificant actions or inactions, not only in this life but for eternity. And can make all work out for what is Good, for what is just, as well as showing mercy and grace. And which the God of the Bible has often manifestly done already, and promises to do for those who choose the ultimate Good, the living and true God, (Romans 8:28) by His grace, thanks be to God. This the choices of an omniscient omnipotent Being cannot be judged as being evil or good by extremely finite and relatively ignorant man. Not that - in my ignorance myself - I have/do not too often protested His dealing with me as I subjectively imagined Him, though objectively blessed, and I am being blessed right now listening to, uplifting spiritual worship: Oden Fong and Friends: Lord of All Creation. Glory to God
Cannot even a True Believer decry the sorry state of the Bible?! Why can't even a True Believer lament the fact that the Bible has been distorted, heavily redacted, badly translated, etc.?
Why should that lead you to conclude that someone is an atheist - just because the "operating instructions" are no longer in a pristine condition? Add to that the confusion caused by the appending of additional "Holy Scriptures" like the Book of Mormon, and the confusion is complete!
Why should that even hint at someone merely noting this objectively sorry state being an atheist?
The disparities between the Lutheran Bible and the Catholic Bible and the Eastern Orthodox Bible (whole books being left out or added in) only compound the issue.
Why should this be construed as anyone being an atheist? Don't you agree that the Bible is in a sorry state? (You have hitherto assiduously avoided responding to this point except to interpret it as evidence of "Disbelief.")
Again, you leap to interpret any theological position differing significantly from yours as evidence of apostacy / atheism. That is most presumptuous of you (and also irrelevant: Even if a hard-core atheist were to pose these questions, they would still be equally valid questions, equally deserving of an answer).
Therefore your argumentation seems to be just like that of an atheist against God on the basis of allowing suffering which you cannot reconcile with His stated nature.Irrelevant. Questions are questions, and deserve answers regardless of how YOU might mistakenly characterize the questioner (as an atheist or what-have-you).
If someone asks me why 2 + 2 = 4, and not 5, I don't first quiz him about his orthodoxy; rather, I answer to the best of my lights.
while yet arguing that "a world without suffering is always preferable to a world with suffering."
You initially tried to argue why a world with suffering would be better - rather than intellectually honestly answering that "God's Plan is mysterious and unknowable."
The PROPER response to any such queries should always be: "I don't know. Humankind can't know. God's Will is unfathomable." Only at nearly the very end did you, after much pressing, invoke it. Finally!
My basic argument is that in the light of God omniscient and omnipotence, of all that can be known, including of man and his motives and and of what he would do, and of all effects of all choices, and what this reveals, not simply how this pertains to this speck of time but for eternity, then enabling man to make choices btwn good and evil, and this affect others, and of requiring a seeking of God beyond simply material evidences, and from among competing claims, and in which God can and promises to make all to work out for what is Good in the light of eternity , with warranted justice as well as showing mercy and grace, relative to what man choose, renders the suffering of this world, and its purposes, from tornadoes to STD's. compatible with God being both Good (and thus defining what is God) and omnipotent, but only as also being omniscient.
Sorry, but this overly wordy response serves only to cloud the true explanation: Despite us Humans viewing - on the basis of our logical reasoning, evidence, etc. - it as being intolerably unjust, indeed God's Plan must be just, simply per definitionem, because He is God. God's Will is unfathomable, and even if any rational human being would have to agree that there is no apparent just reason, by any Earthly measure, for God not, e.g., stopping a mass-murderer, we are nonetheless wrong. There is a very good reason - but our limited intellects and restricted vision mean that we can't perceive it. It defies human logic.
This, in my opinion, is the ONLY legitimate response that a believing Christian can give.
And rather than dissing Bible being as a couple of dusty old documents that were in fragments, as if the mss evidence for it, and its volume and scope surpasses anything of of like antiquity, it supports what I presented.
Sorry-not-sorry, but the assertion that the Bible is better to any other documents of comparable antiquity just doesn't cut it with me. I don't care that it's "better" than the Bhagavad-Gita, etc. It still falls far short of what would be required of evidence in a modern court. Nor have you ever bothered to explain why other such "Holy Scriptures" as the Book of Mormon should be excluded.
Regards,
I would only be giving up that which I acquired only as of a few decades ago. For billions of years prior to that, I lacked that faculty, and experienced no suffering.
Isn't that preferable to suffering?
Even Christ acknowledged that there was at least one person for whom it would have been better had he never been born.
Perhaps that applies to many people? Perhaps to all?
Regards,
You and I can intellectualize it all we want for years and we'll never increase our understanding of it one whit...until. I could tell you what I believe for hours and it might not make a bit of sense. So, go to the source. Go to the Gospel itself. It isn't just a book. It is supernatural. See for yourself.
Here's a link to a youtube narration of the Book of John by Sir David Suchet (of BBCs Hercule Poirot fame). It's the NIV Bible. There are others, but this is my favorite narration.
Listen to it a few times when you can sit and let it flow over you.
The Gospel According to John read by David SuchetSome people might recommend some other Book of the Gospel or some other translation. This is my favorite and I think the Book of John is a great place to start.
BTW, I will say this. This Jesus is alive and he will speak to you. You can ask him tonight. Ask him to speak to you in whatever way he wants. Tell him what's on your mind. Tell him what you are afraid of and why you are concerned about suffering. Tell him about your doubts and ask him to help you.
There are many uncertainties in life, but there is one thing I am certain of. He knows you through and through. He loves you more than you can comprehend...and he is waiting for you. Right now.
What WOULD you accept in its place?
What kind of a GOD would it describe??
Would it have any, "If you do this; I'll do that?" stuff in it?
Would it even mention - GASP! - sin?
Oh?
How can you be sure; in light of your previous postings?
...the fact that the Bible has been distorted, heavily redacted, badly translated...
“Strike me dead!” is quicker.
What a weak "gotcha" moment!
Must I really spell everything out? Okay, then let me formulate that more completely:
According to the written texts in which you place your trust, and which you proclaim as authoritative, even Christ acknowledged that there was at least one person for whom it would have been better had he never been born.
Sheesh!
Now can I expect a substantive rejoinder?
You folks have been consistently arguing against my claim that a truly merciful Deity would do better to create a Universe entirely lacking in suffering - even at the cost of your precious "sentience" or "Free Will."
Christ's statement clearly indicates that there is at least one instance where oblivion would be preferable to being born. This prompts the question: Why didn't a merciful Deity - aware of this situation - perform a mitzvah and grant Judas non-existence ab initio? Your only intellectual honest answer can be: "God works in mysterious ways, and Man lacks the capacity to fathom them and/or Judas was a pawn in the Divine Plan and had to be sacrificed 'for the greater good.'"
Regards,
That occurred to me.
All this talk of "suffering" is just the whining of a petulant child who doesn't want to grow up, do his homework, go to work, obey the drill instructor.
Suffering is the source of human character. Those who embrace it get strong and develop positivity of character, heart, and soul. Those who hate it become weaker and weaker.
Suffering is also the portal to intellectual depth and humility. When we embrace it, we find that we are not alone. We draw tighter with our brother and sister humans and animals...and we reach out to our creator.
That last part, that suffering motivates us to reach out to our Creator, seems to be at the heart of this thread.
In the 500 comments above, suffering is used as just another excuse for turning one's back on our Creator (rarely was there a comment that God does not exist...just that he does not do what some child thought he should). Nothing more, nothing less. 500 comments to and from a child who doesn't want to do his chores or go to school in the morning.
I am done with this thread. It is depressing to see a soul whither.
As you say, after listening to a person threaten eternal suicide long enough, eventually you just tell them to eat a bullet.
You sure use a lot of words to try to cover the fact that you apparently have no idea what kind of god would please you.
Look up thread and you'll find several poster who have engaged in "academese" to appear "edumacated."
For those who don't like to click on links:
"Academese" is a derogatory term for a formal or artificial style of communicating prevalent in institutes of higher education. It is characterized by pedantic, pretentious, and often confusing academic jargon.
I avoided nothing, except spending hours,. esp. exposing the nature of charges of multitudes of charges of actual contradictions and discrepancies/errors - more than (at least 1,000) - including those of Bart Ehrman (which is largely due to the surpassing mss evidence), whose reasoning ‘’If the account is wrong in the small things, how do you know it isn’t wrong in bigger things?’ impugns him.
No, I do not find the Bible to be in a sorry state at all (though many translations are), but that of a book of almost 800,000 words, with different genres and complementary teachings, which, understood in the light of context (often ignored) and sometimes original language, provide consistent teaches in doctrine, in contrast to the ignorant parroting of propaganda by skeptics. Yet neither am I going to spend hours upon hours refuting such, at least not while I can be active in actually helping others, by the grace of God.
It still falls far short of what would be required of evidence in a modern court.
Really? This is the standard by which you accept or reject the validity any ancient extensive document to, with its figures for which data is missing, versus what could be provided its contemporary setting when it was believed (as with the Resurrection)?
Add to that the confusion caused by the appending of additional "Holy Scriptures" like the Book of Mormon, and the confusion is complete!
There is simply no confusion btwn a 19th writing by a very imaginative soothsayer who relied upon the Bible for his perversions of it and as a badge of authority, versus the Bible itself. As with Islam, with its brief monologue btwn "Allah" and the purported "revelations" of Muhammad, any book which claims to be an extension of Biblical revelation must fully comport with it, at the NT does with the OT, with its convental distinctions, which as have briefly shown, eliminates both Joe Smith and Muhammad. The disparities between the Lutheran Bible and the Catholic Bible and the Eastern Orthodox Bible (whole books being left out or added in) only compound the issue.
What significant disparities? Despite what you may have read, and Catholic prop., the reason for Luther's rejection of the deuterocanonical (deuteros, "second") books that Trent settled debate about after his death was not really due to doctrinal issues (though Luther in debate with Eck about RC Purgatory, did deny that Maccabees - precisely 2 Mac. 12 - was authoritative, he was following Jerome while 2 Mac. 12 does not teach Purgatory anyway), but as with and many other Cath scholars, Luther had scholarly reasons for his personal judgment on the canon) - see here).
Yet Luther translated apocryphal books though placing them in a different section as per an ancient tradition, and they were included in Prot bibles until discontinued for economic reasons in the early 1800's, and likely lack of demand. The deuteros provides little to validate Cath. teaching, and the Prot exlsuin it was mainly due to overall being judged as not being wholly God-inspired as the rest.
The conflict btwn RC and evangelicals/"Bible Christians" (though who esteem Scripture as the sure supreme authoritative standard) is really not due to different Bibles - though her modern translation is scorned by many TradCaths - but the real reason is due to Cath magisterium effectively being the sure supreme standard for faith and morals, and under which both Oral Tradition (the overall main recourse of Orth. Jews in rejecting what NT Jewish converts believed) and Scripture are equal, but only consists of and means what she says. In which they effectively say that she is the sure supreme standard for faith and morals.
Thus the conflict btwn RC's and evangelicals is essentially because distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
The conflict btwn RCs and EOs is mainly due to how they interpret tradition.
Again, I am spending or wasting too much time on this, and so that is all I am going to say today.
"Cannot even a True Believer decry the sorry state of the Bible?! Why can't even a True Believer lament the fact that the Bible has been distorted, heavily redacted, badly translated, etc.?... Don't you agree that the Bible is in a sorry state?I would recommend that people on this thread back away from it ASAP (as you have suggested).
daniel1212: Still exceedingly rare in the span of human history (you are also suffering under Detection Bias) [...]
Let's not arbitrarily limit ourselves to recorded history, shall we? When we rather include Pre-History in our considerations, we see that natural disasters were the norm, not the exception.
On numerous occasions, we, as a species, almost went extinct.
And this was because Creation was in a "fallen state?" Really?!
From The 5 times humans almost went EXTINCT.
Regards,
That is wonderfully true, but the allegation is to the integrity of the Bible, and how it has been used, while my response was that of judging - as an extensive body of writings of various subject and genres - its integrity compared literature of like antiquity, and argued that the major divisions are due to rejection of it as the sure supreme standard (which atheists do not have).
But in addition, there is the issue of misuse and variant doctrinal interpretations, which God allows and relates to the issue of suffering in the world (and note, that the issue should be just extraordinary exmples of suffering, but any and all).
Yet if i may provide a concluding if imperfect summation of the conflict, the Bible itself tells us of the causes and purposes for enabling man to make choices, and to realize consequences, and its consummation. In which we have a systematically ordered universe of natural laws and astounding complexity, and finely tuned for the only intelligent corporeal life we know of, in a world of immense beauty, and in which there would be no suffering if man would walk in communion with and conformity to the laws and principled the Creator wisely and justly ordained for man.
Which faithfulness will be the case in the consummation, for those who have chosen to do so, who choose Light over Darkness, to know God and walk in faithfulness to Him, and with the devil as well as the sinful flesh of man permanently done away with. Revelation 20 thru 22. The Bible begins with creation and ends with the consummation.
But since an omniscient and omnipotent God can do this, then it is logical that He has a purpose for enabling man to make choices, and to realize consequences - both benefits of faithfulness to God as well as negative effect and punishments for sin, which includes "butterfly effects" resulting from both.
Thus to reiterate and elaborate, my basic argument has been and is, that the issue of suffering is logically to be understood in the light of God's omniscience and omnipotence, knowing all that can be known, including of man and his motives and of what he would do, and of all effects of all choices, and what this reveals. And can enable this to ultimately all work out for what is Good, for this knowledge of effects does not simply pertain to this speck of time but for eternity, for that is just what the Bible teaches.
And it is in this light that God therefore enabled man to make choices btwn good and evil, and thus affect others, and uniquely required of man - as a being with a innate God-conscious spirit (if fought against by some) - a seeking of God beyond that of simply material evidences, and from among competing claims. With believing in God being not simply that of believing H exists, but of wanting to be in conformity and communion with Him, thus revealing what man wants, and not simply what he can comprehend and be compelled to do.
And with the Good that God can and promises to make all to work out for, being inclusive of warranted justice for eternal beings those who did not want the true and living God, but a perversion or negation of Him, while showing mercy and grace to those who wanted Him over sin, and sought and believed in the mercy of God in Christ, according to the light they were given.
Which, relative to what man choose, renders the suffering of this world, and its purposes, from tornadoes to STD's. compatible with God being both Good (which is manifest in the light of all that can be know, and eternity) and omnipotent, but only as also being omniscient.
Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. (Ecclesiastes 7:29)
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:20)...And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (Romans 1:28)
How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you. (Proverbs 1:22-23)
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. (John 3:19-21)
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12)
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14)
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me,And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Revelation 22:17)
It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (Revelation 21:3-8)
This I trust, shall be my consummation of posting on this thread.
That would be digressing from the topic at hand.
1. To begin describing my own personal theological and philosophical preferences would unnecessarily expand the scope of this discussion and make it unmanageable.
2. I don't have to be a chicken to critique an egg. I don't have to propose a better worldview to criticize someone else's worldview. (Though I did, in broad strokes, do so: Eliminate all suffering, or at least check all natural catastrophes, etc.)
Let's instead stick to the subject at hand.
Regards,
But, as you know, we have plenty of trustworthy Bibles which have been meticulously translated. And it is easy to go right to the points at which these separate translations differ and do our own research into word translation, etymology, usage, and context.
The person who made the statement in question about the integrity of the Bible is trying to turn people away from the Word of God. His behavior is as close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit (who inspired the Bible) as I have witnessed in a long time (if ever).
All this whining about suffering is a smoke screen for a litany of anti-God statements and, now, a denigration of God's Word itself.
Discussing the Bible or God or theology with this person is chatting with a demon.
daniel1212: Really? This is the standard by which you accept or reject the validity any ancient extensive document to, with its figures for which data is missing, versus what could be provided its contemporary setting when it was believed [...]
Yes, really! (Your confusing syntax notwithstanding.) I see absolutely no reason to apply laxer standards - essentially "forgiving" or "overlooking" gross inaccuracies and distortions, giant omissions, etc. - to a document just because of its antiquity.
If I need a heart operation, and have the choice between two medical documents - one written by modern heart surgeons, and the other dating back thousands of years, which has undergone numerous massive edits by medieval clergymen (Council of Nicaea, etc.), is missing WHOLE BOOKS, etc. - of course I am justified in being suspicious of the ancient document.
alex: The disparities between the Lutheran Bible and the Catholic Bible and the Eastern Orthodox Bible (whole books being left out or added in) only compound the issue.
daniel1212: What significant disparities?
An even only cursory examination of the Eastern Orthodox Bible, the Greek Orthodox Bible, the Lutheran Bible, and the Roman Catholic Bible quickly shows VAST DIFFERENCES. Namely that ENTIRE BOOKS are missing from one and present in the other, or vice-versa.
So, whenever you speak of "THE" Bible - you should specify WHICH Bible you actually mean.
In your brief (but syntactically puzzling; don't mean to harp on it, but some of your sentences have jumbled syntax, making it very difficult to decipher your meaning) excursion into the differences between the Lutheran and Roman Catholic versions, you admit to as much, but try to minimize them. If we are truly speaking about the WORD OF GOD, then the absence / addition of entire books should be regarded as more than merely "significant." Rather, it should be considered to be CATASTROPHIC!
daniel1212: There is simply no confusion btwn a 19th writing by a very imaginative soothsayer who relied upon the Bible for his perversions of it and as a badge of authority [...]
I am no Mormon apologist - I referenced the Book of Mormon only as one of the latest examples of the contamination of the Bible. The damaged done to it by the Council of Nicaea and by Luther only compound it.
daniel1212: Thus the conflict btwn RC's and evangelicals is essentially because distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
You explain the differences - but that does not excuse them. They still exist, and they still demonstrate that an honest person humbling seeking enlightenment today is confronted by a bewildering variety of heavily redacted versions to choose from.
Then RoosterRedux goes so far as to accuse me of being "pure Evil" for merely pointing out this fact. (I always find it incredible how some people who hold themselves to such high moral and religious standards can be so cavalier about making such accusations; I can very easily imagine them in former days being the ones proclaiming the damnatio and ordering the condemned heretics to be burned at the stake.)
Thank you, by the way, for your patience; I, likewise, endeavor to be patient.
Regards,
I have at no point complained myself of "suffering;" In comparison with 99.9% of humanity, I have lived a charmed life.
Rather, when discussing Theodicy, I think chiefly about the suffering of, e.g., little children in Nazi concentration camps, innocents suffering and slowly dying in Soviet gulags, etc.
It is easy to hold forth about the "nobility" of suffering when one is not oneself starving to death in a prison camp - or watching one's own loved ones die like animals.
In view of your statements about the "character-strengthening" effects of suffering, I should think that experiencing the excruciating pain of, say, an impacted wisdom tooth for a day or two might straighten out your thinking.
I can hardly imagine your then asking for "more, please!"
Regards,
Oh, so now I'm not only "pure Evil" - I'm also a "demon."
Your Faith must be extremely weak and fragile for you to resort to such name-calling on - yes: an Internet message board.
If you truly can't engage in calm, rational debate without endangering your everlasting soul - then maybe you ought to simply stick your fingers into your ears.
It's extremely rare that I address the character or temperament of my fellow conversation partners, but in this case, I'm making an exception.
By literally demonizing me in this way, and then going that "extra mile" to warn other participants to shun me, you have demonstrated a remarkable lack of confidence.
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.