[wimpycat]

I guess you don't bother listening to what other people have to say. I said you've been making erroneous assumptions about who and what I am, and yet you continue.


But if, based on your post to somebody else, it's the pre-destination vs. free will debate that is driving your train, it's no wonder...

There is one thing that is certain, though. Whether I am saved or not due to predestination or my own free-will, whether my ultimate destination is in my hands and God's, mine alone or God's alone, there are still only two entities that could possibly decide my fate; and YOU aren't one of the two.

Since you keep going on about this "American Religion" thing, why don't you share with us your own denomination? I'm sure you'll tell me you're a Christian (as if the rest of us aren't), but what denomination are you, and what seminary did you attend? Or is that private information?

[Dr Warmoose]

I guess you don't bother listening to what other people have to say.

Rule #1 in public discussion, use the words that people to say as a basis for shoving through your own agenda.

What this means is that you say enough stuff to merit one of my trademark Over-Analysis Smackdowns. There are certain shibboleth's that emerge that betrays a philosophical preference. When you (or anyone else) makes a claim that is indicative of this ideology, then that becomes a foundation of sorts to fill in the missing blanks. If I were to mention "pre-destination" then you could go off on an anti-Calvinist rant and would stand a good chance that your assumptions were correct.

The point being, in public discussions, it is assumed that the two will not change their minds, it is for the audience's benefit.

Whether I am saved or not due to predestination or my own free-will, whether my ultimate destination is in my hands and God's, mine alone or God's alone, there are still only two entities that could possibly decide my fate; and YOU aren't one of the two.

That kind of statement converts the idea of salvation into a superstition. Freewill vs. Grace has been debated for centuries. Up until the last generation the freewill argument had some biblical basis, now it has none. So it is no longer a question of interpretation, it is a question of Vain Imaginations vs Sola Scriptura. Like in the Highlander, "there can only be one".

Since you keep going on about this "American Religion" thing, why don't you share with us your own denomination?

That is a fallacy I don't subscribe to. In the NT there were no "denominations" since there is only one gospel. Any I object to any suggestion that the neo-evangelical movement is Christian.

Jesus Christ was the Messiah. Throughout the OT, His coming was predicted. One day He actually came as man. He fulfilled prophesy; He fulfilled the Law. Yet the Jews rejected the Son of God, the I AM because they had in mind a political king, not a spiritual one. The present day hope of the Jews for a political messiah will not save them. They have followed their nature to reject the real Messiah in preference for another that is not mentioned in Scripture. Similarly the neo-evangelical (American Religion) "church" is apostate in that they have also rejected the Messiah in Scripture and have chosen to "seek" for another that lives in a WWJD bracelet and is conjured down from heaven when people chant emotive choruses and wave their hands around to the sound of rock music and the sight of flashing stage lighting.

It is like comparing Christianity with a Mormonism, in that there is another gospel, Joe Smith had his golden plates, the American Religion has its pop-culture and self-esteem movement. To say that there is a buffet of "denominations" to pick from ignores the fact that the American Religion isn't a denomination, it is its own false religion that seeks to replace Christianity - just as Scripture prophecy has foretold.