Replies

The issue being RC's authority, part of her expression of this is fitting: Thus the author of the Acts of the Apostles narrates events in which he himself took part...

Oh, sure, Luke was there in person in Chapter 1...so much for that. Luke never saw Jesus in person.

I have responded to your narrow thinking in this before, and God was never under any delusion that majority would choose the broad path of destruction

Oh yeah, raise a lot of children and let the dumb ones play in traffic. The smart ones will survive and enjoy your rewards. Nice God.

But neither was i only referring to overt miraculous, but also to endure suffering and afflictions, needed for individual and corporate character, and overall that of the transformative effects of the new birth, with immediate new affections

Oh sure such as John 3:9. The born again do not sin, to which some say "as a habit." Oh, really? Every religion claims some transformative effects as a "sign" of its authenticity. Hogwash.

I have no antagonism towards God, whatever God may be. Nor do I hate the Church as some former Catholic seem to. As for condemning biblical collusion and extensive doctrinal "harmonization" of biblical authors and copyists by using manipulative techniques to get people to believe them ..

Kosta, need i post some of it and let other judge?

If that would please you, I don't mind. When I say I have no antagonism towards God I mean whatever God may be, not whatever man has made God to be. Nor do I, as a matter of habit attack the Catholic/Orthodox Church. I do object to some of their manipulative practices that are common to all partisan organizations, but not as to what the Church seeks to accomplish in good faith.

Both groups seem to have a certain view they believe is true, along with the idea that ends justify the means.

Indeed, and also a type of firewall which disallows objectivity. I do try to analytically look at both sides of the issue despite my shortcomings, and myself have dealt with the venom of militant atheists and considered enough of their arguments while attempting to be reasonable to recognize a narrow mindedness particularly among such, which they often seem determined to justify.

What about the venom of militant, narrow-minded, dogmatic zealots?

The issue being RC's authority, part of her expression of this is fitting: Thus the author of the Acts of the Apostles narrates events in which he himself took part...

Oh, sure, Luke was there in person in Chapter 1...so much for that. Luke never saw Jesus in person.

This is altogether too typical. First, you were defending realms interpretive authority, yet when shown that were contrary to its definition of inspiration, you respond by seeking a fault in part of her statement on such. And in which you left out the rest of the sentence which reads, “or which were related to him.”Moreover even the part you chose to quote is not untrue as the author of Acts later in that book did narrate events in which he himself took part. Whether Luke saw Jesus in person is not relevant to the issue of what constitutes inspiration according to Rome's definition of it.

I have responded to your narrow thinking in this before, and God was never under any delusion that majority would choose the broad path of destruction

Oh yeah, raise a lot of children and let the dumb ones play in traffic. The smart ones will survive and enjoy your rewards. Nice God.

Despite such seemingly constrained skewing of the revelation of God, being smart is not is not how you get on the narrow path, but by contrition for sins and faith in the Lord who gave himself for you, while those in the broadway to destruction think themselves too smart to have such a need, or to believe in a just and yet sacrificially merciful Almighty God, whose long-suffering many take delight in pushing.

But neither was i only referring to overt miraculous, but also to endure suffering and afflictions, needed for individual and corporate character, and overall that of the transformative effects of the new birth, with immediate new affections

Oh sure such as John 3:9. The born again do not sin, to which some say "as a habit." Oh, really? Every religion claims some transformative effects as a "sign" of its authenticity. Hogwash.

First, it is not is John 3:9 , but first John 3:9, and the word for “commit” (poieō) like as in “committed sin” (1Jn. 3:8) is the opposite of “does” (poieō) righteousness” (1Jn. 3:7) and is in the continuous sense, as in 1Jn.3:4, such as “walk in darkness” (1Jn. 1:6) And John has established prior to this that one who denies he has sin is in deception and does not have the truth in him. (1Jn. 1:8) Thus a believer is one whose life is characterized by righteousness, and confession and repentance when convicted of sin.

Meanwhile, while you broad brush all such transformative effects as hogwash, what is more substantive are observable effects that require faith in naturalistic explanations to deny.

Kosta, need i post some of it and let other judge?

If that would please you, I don't mind. When I say I have no antagonism towards God I mean whatever God may be, not whatever man has made God to be.

My original statement was that “you reject its Bible and its God most antagonistically,” not some undefined abstract Deity .

Nor do I, as a matter of habit attack the Catholic/Orthodox Church. I do object to some of their manipulative practices that are common to all partisan organizations, but not as to what the Church seeks to accomplish in good faith.

No, your primary target is evangelical Protestants, And having joined a forum which says it is for pro-God people you have plenty of them, who you variously described (just of the few I've seen) as those who” seek low self-image therapy and food for their narcissistic nature,” while “Reformed "worship" is like "a pagan-like spectacle one would expect to see in a pagan temple, all swaying their hands in the air like something from "Indiana Jones" movie” (though Catholic charismatics were far more like that then typical Reformed churches), while misconstruing the God of the Bible as one who is “narcissistic” because He demands people to believe and worship him (Response) being “moody, narcissistic, selfish, petty, inefficient, somoene always capable of being driven to violence, demanidng, and endlessly wheeling and dealing and fixing things without rellay fixing anything,” (Response) who “throws fits and commits genocide,” with “selfish motives,” (Response) being moody “man-made or man-imagned” and sacrificing himself on the cross, and what not, and the world is as evil and wicked as ever.” (Response)

By which characterization on this forum you intractably hold to regardless of attempts to appeal to objectivity, while asserting imagining contradictions no matter how much you are corrected, yet accusing others of being ideologically driven.