No you're not. I think you would freely admit that it gives you great joy to know you are offending.
That being said, you didn't respond to my assertions about the similar Calvinistic conundrum, so I will have to assume that you must agree with my points.
If God hated Esau from before he was born, what is to stop him from hating other children who have not yet been born and who will die in infancy?
If you don't know, then how can you say Wesley was wrong? How do you know that God doesn't reserve his mercy only for those whom he has predestined to be baptized?
That statement is clearly against the rules -- minding read and making it personal.
If we demand RCs follow the rules and discuss the issues, we need to expect the same of ourselves.
No. You misunderstood me.
My intended meaning -- and dare I say it, I'm, um, sorry you didn't take it this way -- was, "I'm sorry if it offends you." You're correct in this: perhaps there are some FReepers, who shall remain nameless, who in-my-opinion seem to want to "debate" Calvinism by intentionally Lying about its doctrines in order to "poison the well" rather than discuss the evidences of Scripture honestly. I admit, I don't mind if my thread offends them; the Truth is often a rock of offense to unbelievers and the stiff-necked backslidden or prodigals.
HOWEVER, I have not (at this time) encountered that particular problem with YOU. You have posted some interesting questions and challenges (not theologically difficult, but requiring a bit of exposition to answer properly), but you have not done so in a spirit of deceitfulness, of seeking to "win points" against Calvinism by misrepresenting its doctrines.
So, what I meant was, I am sorry that it offended you. I have not at this time encountered argumentative dishonesty from you; so I was not intentionally seeking to offend. But, you're right: if I offend those whom I consider to be practitioners of argumentative dishonesty, I don't really give a crapazola if my thread offends them.
There, is that a bit more clearly expressed?
That being said, you didn't respond to my assertions about the similar Calvinistic conundrum, so I will have to assume that you must agree with my points.
You may not.
It is simply a matter of thinking that your posts deserve a response with some textual meat to my answers, and I haven't had time or inclination to compose them yet. But I'd like to answer the questions you raised, and I'll probably try to get to them in a little while later tonight. Have patience....