BRUCE ALMIGHTY: Atheism's Critique of Arminianism

[drstevej]

Bruce Nolan (Carrey), a television reporter in Buffalo, N.Y.,is discontented with almost everything in life despite his popularity and the love of his girlfriend, Grace (Aniston) . At the end of the worst day of his life, Bruce angrily ridicules and rages against God and God responds. God appears in human form (Freeman) and, endowing Bruce with divine powers, challenges Bruce to take on the big job to see if he can do it any better.

 

Bruce Nolan:       How do you make someone love you without changing free will?
God:                     Welcome to my world.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I'm as lost as FL here. I don't see any mention of a human body no matter how hard I look. Whatever are you talkign about? Please speak plainly and stop quizzing us.

[FormerLib]

This isn't Scripture, Hermann, it's "Three-Card Monty."

By winding a person through this process, they lead you down a path of deceit. It is because of this that he just can't say what he means. Revealed too quickly, and the bizarre interpretation would fall flat on its illogical (perhaps heretical) face.

Why else would they have to play the game in such a way, plucking lines out of context to build their house of cards?

[Alex Murphy]

"I don't see any mention of a human body no matter how hard I look"

Ah ah ah - no comments from the audience, please, unless FormerLib wishes to use you as one of his lifelines.

[FormerLib]

Why don't we take this by the numbers, one at a time...

Yep, it is a game of "Three Card Monty." Why are you afraid of just stating your case. What is it that you need to conceal?

...since you admit interpreting scripture is "beyond you"

No, that is not what I said. I said that "the convolutions and deceit being used here are thankfully beyond me."

Why was it necessary for you to lie just then? Why is truth your enemy?

[conservonator]

Please explain why you believe a human body was included, but not mentioned, on the sheet shown to Peter in Acts 11.

LOL!! What makes you possibly think that I am interested in the YOPIOS of an apostate? Do you really think that I, or any other Catholic or Orthodox, which FormerLib is BTW, would cast off 2000 years of Christian teaching in favor of a concept unknown to the Christian world for its first 1500 years?

Also why do you think shellfish and other non-Kosher fish were included but not mentioned? Just because you have chosen to ignore Christ, His apostles and their teachings on the Eucharist, don’t expect us to.

If I am ignorant of anything, it is of the irrational appeal of self-induced apostasy.

[FormerLib]

I don't see any mention of a human body no matter how hard I look.

Geez, I hope he isn't going to try to do something as mindless as try to claim that as proof that we shouldn't be eating a human body at the Eucharist ("As if" as the kids say nowadays). Don't these people understand anything about the Christian faith?

I think our sandals are getting dusty, what about you?

[FormerLib]

If I am ignorant of anything, it is of the irrational appeal of self-induced apostasy.

I believe the clinical term might be "megalomania."

[conservonator]

Ah, YOPIS again!

Who needs Sacred Tradition when you have the all-powerful YOPOIS at your beck and call?

BTW, how many times have you been called a Catholic on this thread?:)

[Alex Murphy]

I'm keeping them to simple yes or no questions. Why are you so afraid (or are you incapable) of answering them? Hermann seems to have no trouble with doing so.

[FormerLib]

BTW, how many times have you been called a Catholic on this thread?

Oh, this is nothing! You should see some of the threads where they demand that I admit my Roman Catholicism and stop making up terms such as "The Orthodox Church!"

[FormerLib]

I am not answering them for the same reason that I don't answer the guy on the street corner when he asks "Where's the queen? Did you see it?" I recognize deceit and have nothing to do with it.

And since you are so adamant about demanding people answre your questions: Why was it necessary for you to lie about what I said before? Why is truth your enemy?

[conservonator]

Unless I have suddenly lost my ability to detect a poorly constructed YOPIOS trap, I believe he is trying to state that since human flesh is not specifically mentioned in the Acts 11 reference, it is by omission, still consider "unclean". But I guess that means that shellfish, and other kinds of fish are still verboten.

Apparently he believes that Christ was inducing us to sin by commanding us to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I think our sandals are getting dusty, what about you?

Mine are nice and clean now, but there is this pile of dust a few feet behind me ...

[conservonator]

Hey ArrogantBustard - here's a prime example of the biblical illiteracy I was talking about, on our other thread. Maybe you can help this poor, misguided Catholic see the connection (at least from a Protestant POV) between Acts 11 and the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Protestant POV? Well here's your problem! I don't think most Catholics or Orthodox are too interested in the YOPOIS of a Protestant.

[conservonator]

Can I phone a friend?

Sure, ask him about shellfish too.

[Alex Murphy]

Why was it necessary for you to lie about what I said before? Why is truth your enemy?

Simple - I didn't lie. I re-interpreted what you said, just as you have doing of me here. The difference here is that I am answering your questions. I am not afraid of speaking the truth, as I see it. I prefer to get it out in the open.

Judging by your behavior here, apparently you prefer to keep the truth, as you see it, under a bushel?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Hermann seems to have no trouble with doing so.

I answered your question? Where? What the heck is your question?

I don't understand what the heck you are referring to or talking about, nor why FL and I are suddenly being subject to the third degree about Acts 11 by a Protestant Torquemada wannabe. We've jumped from #346 talking about Christ the door to the sheepfold to visions in Acts 11. I've missed the connection.

Can't you just make your point and stay on topic in responses?

[FormerLib]

Simple - I didn't lie.

Yes, you did. You took part of my words, inserted what you want, and then claimed that I had said it. That is a lie (also known as bearing false witness). Perhaps you'd know that if you knew the plain truth that is within Scripture (and I've already stated that in regards to Acts 11).

I re-interpreted what you said...

Thereby proving the Scriptural warning that there is no prophecy (truth) in personal interpretation.

So, are you going to state your position or are you afraid to do so without playing the game?

[FormerLib]

We've jumped from #346 talking about Christ the door to the sheepfold to visions in Acts 11. I've missed the connection.

The connection was that we'd penetrated the superficial responses on that topic so it was necessary to shift. It's just the lack of "prophecy."

[Alex Murphy]

I believe he is trying to state that since human flesh is not specifically mentioned in the Acts 11 reference, it is by omission, still consider "unclean". But I guess that means that shellfish, and other kinds of fish are still verboten.

Two points for the guy-who-eats-his-God. If you disagree with the Acts 11 continuation of Deut 28:53's proclamation that the consumption of human flesh is a sign of an anathema from God, please advise me now.

BTW, I despise shellfish.