The Problem Of Evil A problem at the heart of any Theistic belief system

[mahesh2k 0]

True. One more thing you'll notice in this thread is begging for "open minded" intellectual pitch. I mean you've read that comment here as well. Theists expect us to keep open minded where they thrive on ignorance. I mean they're pitching in such basic things in science for religious books which are easily contradicted and have no empirical evidence for their claims. All the time they assume stance of god in favor of their religion. I mean if you've open minded as per theists then you either- agree with bible or if there is islamic person you're forced to agree with quran. If you don't agree with their fantasy and imagination for universal creator as per their religion then you're not open minded. Their religious scripture is also from god and theirs is only true religion, i mean seriously ? Creator took his time from universe formation and landed to location like say arab or respective places to send his son or prophets to form a religion ? i mean why not hawai ? or sri-lanka ? They'll come up with very poor arguments for these i'm sure because they are assuming stance in their favor of their religion not skeptically. You'll also find that islamic and christians have also very bad stance about other religions. I mean is it written in bible or quran not to respect non-believers or other religions. You can bait any theist in this forum or outside and can get their views on respective figures in other religion. They're such a hard brainwashed that they don't even appropriate people in other religion. For them, pedophile prophets who attacked pagan is more idol figure. I mean christian killing hyptia, galileo by calling blasphemy are popular instances. Or mary who got knocked by some anonymous person is holy, ignoring that there was no birth seed planted by miracle(if they think so then that is holy ignorance) one needs to knock women out to get her pregnant-harsh but truth on this planet. Damage to society ? i think islamics are doing more damage which is seen explicitly. They forcefully convert people into islam or simply kill them and then pretend about peace and even treat converts like lower caste worst because they only believe in pure islamic birth so any conversion is treated like racist thing. Christians convert here like virus, here in asia they hit on emotional area of people. Many lower castes in other religion are converted into christianity because there is large sum is given to them when they convert. They get jobs, home and matrimonial connections if they convert. Also some priest in india ask families not to do planning in order to increase the follower count of their religion. Mormon, LDS etc are dangerous as well but we see very few families here in india. I too hope their delusion gets over. Already lot of internet is garbage with islamic agendas, creationism fan pages and conservepedia retards. I wish they atleast come up with sound reasoning before argue-with creationism fun and scripture verse-spam.

[Bikerman 2]

I don't disagree with much of that. My view that Christian fundamentalism is more dangerous is based on the fact that Islam offers no real threat to the west unless we choose to make it one. Militarily the Islamic states have nothing to threaten the west with. Socio-politically the same is true. The hysteria about muslims migrating until they become a majority is overblown.Fundamentalist Christians, on the other hand, undermine the very things which give the west that relative immunity from religious domination. They undermine science and education.Which is more scary - fundamentalist Christians setting policy for the West or fundamentalist Muslims flying planes into buildings? To me it is the former.Thunderfoot sums it up pretty well I think in the following:[media]http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/]

Edited August 31, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[mahesh2k 0]

I agree that christian fundamentalist are more dangerous. But here in the east side, islamics is more dangerous. They migrate to various places and form colonies and then make it hard for others to do certain things(business & politics). Maybe they don't flock in west like they do here. But here they have made colonies in such way that they can gang up and threaten any secular goverment in asia. They think that western culture should be replaced by islamic thinking or religion. This is same as hinduism or budhism. But islamics assume that there religion is superior than any other on the planet. I see that as more of threat. Not every terrorist is islamic but more than 80% terrorist attacks are made by islamic people that percentage is not made up. Anyone can verify by counting the incidents going on today.Christian fundamentalist are using the extreme islamic people and degrading their religion by provoking them for the violence. Earlier these terrorist used to threaten in my country to typical religious areas. But when 26/11 happened here, i found out that these extremist hate more of British/American and UN people than any indian person. Problem with these religion is that they're holding too much to their thoughts and are not ready to change their views.

[Bikerman 2]

I agree that christian fundamentalist are more dangerous. But here in the east side, islamics is more dangerous.

Sorry, I didn't realise where you were writing from - and I absolutely agree that the threat in your part of the world is more immediate from islamic extremism. I know that we are hated by Muslim extremists (and I have to be honest and say that I also know that some of the reasons for that hatred are real and valid).I would say don't get too caught up in the hysteria about the threat of terrorism to you personally. I know that might seems easy to say from the UK, but actually we have been living with the threat for many years - don't forget the IRA were bombing us long before Ismalicist terrorism became a big issue. I'm not minimising the danger but, to put it in proper context, it is slight. To be honest I can't find any reliable stats on deaths in India due to Islamicist terrorism so I can't get an accurate picture, but I can give you a picture based on the UK. In a really bad year - 2005 when we had the London bombings - 56 people are killed by terrorism. In most years none are. Put that in perspective - 22 people drowned in their own bathtub last year, 258 accidentally hung themselves, 80 died from falling off a ladder....those are the sort of probabilities we are looking at. Tragigic for every victim of course, but not something that keeps me awake nights...

[truefusion 3]

I don't want anyone to roast anyone - I'm not nearly sick enough to wish that upon my worst enemy. There is no conflict of interest between me and God because I actually exist. My observations relate to the mythical God of the bible and are based on what you, and others, say said about him - why you think my interests are conflicted by that I don't really know.

You don't have to believe that God exists in order for the interests to conflict. Why you believe that you have to is beyond me.

 

How is someone given the chance to change when they are dead? The cases I am talking about are natural disasters where thousands of people, whom God could save, die. Are you suggesting that they can somehow reflect on their lives whilst dead? Why do you assume they might need to? Does it follow that they are guilty because God refused to save them?

If you require another summary of what i said that already does away with your need for questions, then here it is: Failure to repent leads to death. Have you forgotten that it takes time for their deaths to occur? Have i not already mentioned that God does things as He so desires, which involves doing things at set times? What reason have i given you to assume that these things are instant? Just because death is an instant thing, doesn't mean that they weren't given enough time to repent. But what do you care? You'll just continue stating "God sticks to a timetable" as to imply that God is inconsiderate or whatever you constantly mention without taking into account what i have said. There is a benefit for you to being reasonable, you know.

 

Says you. Funny how the more zealous the christian the more certain they are of what is biblical - or perhaps not. The concept of original sin is certainly biblical, or rather it is as biblical as most of the rest of Christian beliefs and theology. Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:22 and Psalm 51:5 give the concept a biblical grounding, and the fall of Adam and Eve is the obvious origin. The fact that the Old and New testament are at odds on the matter is not a surprise, or shouldn't be to anyone who has read them. Different Gods, different audience, different times, different religions.

What Paul illustrates in his writings is that Adam introduced sin into the world. This does not mean that since Adam sinned, that everyone that is born is now guilty of sin. Otherwise Paul would not have said "because all have sinned" at the end of verse Romans 5:12, for if it were the case that Adam caused everyone who has yet to exist to automatically become sinners, "because all have sinned" would be irrelevant and therefore not worth mentioning. Since Paul is the author of the Epistole to the Romans and to the Corinthians, it follows that he would share the same concept. Therefore there is no reason to assume that he meant anything different than what he said in Romans 5. Psalm 51:5 does not entail that the person was born a sinner. It merely mentions that his mother was a sinner and that he was born in a sinful world.

 

I know of the verses that people have used to try and prove the concept of original sin (and if i'm not mistaken, the concept was first introduced by St. Augustine). For that reason i can safely state that the concept of original sin is not Biblical. Since you were able to pull some of these verses up, it should be safe to assume that you know of the verses that contradict the concept of original sin (not that they are required to be mentioned anyway), so i don't think i need to take the time to list them here.

 

Well since I started the topic I think I know what was in my mind....It certainly is a dilemma and emotion has nothing to do with it - why would I get emotional about something I don't believe exists? I do get a bit miffed when people give silly answers to questions, and assume that they know my mind better than I do...but I won't let it spoil my day :-)

I do not know why you would get emotional over something that you believe doesn't exist. Maybe it is because somewhere in your heart you believe He does. Whatever the case, when you mention something that implies that God is inconsiderate, sadistic, evil, or whatever it is you have so said, you are merely bringing emotions into the topic.

 

The Tsunami was very real, The people who died were very real. There was no fault on their part and certainly no fault on the part of the children, yet they died by the thousands and, despite what you believe, many Christians believe that the unbaptised do indeed go to hell - amongst the people believing in this would be many of the early Church leaders - like St Paul, Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin...

The tsunami and the people may have been very real, but that doesn't make the fictional scenario you make out of it true.

 

I know that some Christians believe that baptism is a requirement, but the church fathers you point out? While i have not read any works on Martin Luther or John Calvin, i know that Paul didn't make baptism a requirement when he was proclaiming the Gospel, and i know that Augustine's view on baptism is a form of baptism that can occur here on earth or spiritually. From what i have heard from Calvanists, i highly doubt John Calvin argued that baptism is required for salvation (though i don't think John Calvin is considered an early church father). I have no comment on Martin Luther, but since your claim on the other three is dubious, you'll have to provide proof of that.

 

Citing the OT isn't much use because it only refers to Jews, not the rest of the people on earth, since they were the chosen people and they were the only ones who could be saved anyway.

The main reason I didn't want thousands of people to die is not selfish, it is simply the wish that nobody should die in those circumstances. I would like to see everyone die in old age, during sleep. This has nothing to do with the fact that the God you profess belief in doesn't give a hoot about the suffering and death that he causes.*

 

* And if you believe in a powerful creator-God it follows that such a God could intervene when and where he chooses. The fact that he doesn't is 'explained' by you as being down to his timetable. I repeat - that makes him a beaurocratic, selfish, inconsiderate, unfeeling, uncaring monster.

The nearest analogy would be....ermm..Ah yes...the Vogons.

The fact that before the new convenant only Jews (those who are and those who later become one) could be saved is irrelevant on whether or not using a book of the Old Testament to explain something should be allowed. If you do not want an explanation, especially a Biblical explanation, then do not make statements that imply that you do.

 

What it comes down to is, "I don't want it to happen to me, therefore let it not be done to others." It follows, therefore, why you would like to see everyone die a natural death, especially in their sleep, because "everyone" includes yourself.

 

As it is written, you reap what you sow. They merely suffer what they suffer in accordance to the suffering they have caused.

 

Again, emotions.

 

Contradicts? In what way...I don't think you need much analysis to work out what I am saying - that the Christian God is a monster, not a God of Love. Were you confused by me asking you to tell me why you think he is a God of Love? I thought it was a straightforward enough sentence, and how you imagine it contradicts my previous statements completely escapes me.

 

Well if you care to point out the flaw then I'll see if I can answer it. Right now I see no such illogicality.

 

Huh? When was this? I must have missed it, and I certainly haven't complained about it.

If all the emotions you bring into this topic are not complaints, then i can only imagine what a complaint is to you.

 

The contradiction seems to be in your mind, not in my words. Why would I complain if your God did something good for humanity? If he appeared during the next natural disaster and stopped it from killing thousands of people do you really think I would be whinging at him? I would be delighted. The fact is, he doesn't. He could, but, as you say, he hasn't got time right now and the people don't have an appointment.

 

The scenario you were supposed to picture was not God stopping a tsunami, but God causing the tsunami. But we already know your emotions on that, and it is as i have said it is?self contradicting. Anyone who wishes for evil to cease to exist would not wish for everyone to die a natural death, especially in their sleep, for that is to give evil people their entire life to commit evil.

 

Not a single person from all religions made convincing note about why should god created one religion and wants us to follow that.

Ignoring the irrelevant and emotional rhetoric, i'll say: There is no need to mention what is obvious. But if you have trouble seeing why there can only be one path to heaven, then i'll point it out to you: they are mutually exclusive.

[mahesh2k 0]

Ignoring the irrelevant and emotional rhetoric, i'll say: There is no need to mention what is obvious. But if you have trouble seeing why there can only be one path to heaven, then i'll point it out to you: they are mutually exclusive.

No need to mention what is obvious ? lol thanks for laughs. This sounds to me like glenn beck and brother micah speech. What you claim about single path to heaven is your assumption,do you have proof ?. Present proof before you claim something like that. Present proof for existence of heaven first then present proof for why it has to be single path and why it comes from Christianity only. Why there is a need to go to heaven via christian way and why the religions before Christianity should be discarded. Oh and please NO scripture verse spam please-when you think about proof. Then present proof for why all other religions are wrong or false knowing that zakir naik kicked Christianity badly(please cover that up please before you even say that Christianity is superior or even single path).
Else what you say or claim here is wishful thinking or more like emotional and favorable towards your own religion.

[Bikerman 2]

If you require another summary of what i said that already does away with your need for questions, then here it is: Failure to repent leads to death. Have you forgotten that it takes time for their deaths to occur? Have i not already mentioned that God does things as He so desires, which involves doing things at set times? What reason have i given you to assume that these things are instant? Just because death is an instant thing, doesn't mean that they weren't given enough time to repent. But what do you care? You'll just continue stating "God sticks to a timetable" as to imply that God is inconsiderate or whatever you constantly mention without taking into account what i have said. There is a benefit for you to being reasonable, you know.

All over the place as usual. First death takes time then death can be instant, then some confused rubbish about instant still giving time to repent. You mangle theology and logic and now you are mangling English and my will to live...

What Paul illustrates in his writings is that Adam introduced sin into the world. This does not mean that since Adam sinned, that everyone that is born is now guilty of sin. Otherwise Paul would not have said "because all have sinned" at the end of verse Romans 5:12, for if it were the case that Adam caused everyone who has yet to exist to automatically become sinners, "because all have sinned" would be irrelevant and therefore not worth mentioning. Since Paul is the author of the Epistole to the Romans and to the Corinthians, it follows that he would share the same concept. Therefore there is no reason to assume that he meant anything different than what he said in Romans 5. Psalm 51:5 does not entail that the person was born a sinner. It merely mentions that his mother was a sinner and that he was born in a sinful world.

 

Romans 6:3 “We who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death”

I know of the verses that people have used to try and prove the concept of original sin (and if i'm not mistaken, the concept was first introduced by St. Augustine). For that reason i can safely state that the concept of original sin is not Biblical. Since you were able to pull some of these verses up, it should be safe to assume that you know of the verses that contradict the concept of original sin (not that they are required to be mentioned anyway), so i don't think i need to take the time to list them here.

Different day same crap. You haven't a clue which verses contradict it, and you think that St Augustine definitions invalidate the authenticity of the concept, which tells us either you haven't read the bible passages I suggested or you didn't understand them.

I do not know why you would get emotional over something that you believe doesn't exist. Maybe it is because somewhere in your heart you believe He does. Whatever the case, when you mention something that implies that God is inconsiderate, sadistic, evil, or whatever it is you have so said, you are merely bringing emotions into the topic.

 

I merely say that if the one in quadzillion chance comes up and there is a God, then we have his record already in black and white. Millions of murders, conspiracy to rape, incest, torture, false imprisonment, kidnapping, robbery with intent, genocide and, uniquely, he is also charged with several steps up from genocide - Genocide is when you wipe out a good number or all of an ethnic group. God did it to every ethnic group at the same time. I don't even think there is a word for it...mass murder is not nearly sufficient....humanocide? Omnicide is probably close. We know about his character - narcissistic, vicious, sadistic, pompous, insecure, childish & quite stupid. If he were a man we would put him in a high security mental hospital and make sure he never escaped...

That's pretty factual, not at all emotional. I don't believe there is such a person or thing, so naturally I can't get worked up over mythical actions. What does wind me up is people who buy into creationism and similar woo-woo nonsense. It gives my species a bad name. If our neighbours ever DO actually land on earth then we are going to have to explain how we can have nuclear fission and be working close to a solution on fusion, yet we still have people with bizarre illogical refuted and physically impossible beliefs. I'll be so damned ashamed....

The tsunami and the people may have been very real, but that doesn't make the fictional scenario you make out of it true.

What fiction? That experience of death and destruction was common all along the coastline of first contact. It wasn't the piddling little few thousand I used - I wasn't trying to play it up - rather the opposite. The real thing killed over quarter of a million people.

I know that some Christians believe that baptism is a requirement, but the church fathers you point out? While i have not read any works on Martin Luther or John Calvin, i know that Paul didn't make baptism a requirement when he was proclaiming the Gospel, and i know that Augustine's view on baptism is a form of baptism that can occur here on earth or spiritually. From what i have heard from Calvanists, i highly doubt John Calvin argued that baptism is required for salvation (though i don't think John Calvin is considered an early church father). I have no comment on Martin Luther, but since your claim on the other three is dubious, you'll have to provide proof of that.

 

That simply proves you are a troll. You don't know who Calvin is, you haven't read any Luther or Calvin and yet you pompously declare what they argued or did not argue for. Calvin obviously doesn't qualify as an early Church father to someone with your mastery of theology and logic, but for mere mortals such a I, who have to put the effort in and read the books, the Calvin is exactly the definition of an early church Father. Calvinism was pretty important - ultimately that is the root of most US religion - certainly Presbyterian and Reformed churches. The fact that you don't know Luther makes you ignorant and not someone who should be seeking to pontificate on religion. It is like saying you are a poet who hasn't heard of shakespeare - Possible, of course, but likely to be talking through his *bottom*.

How many times is this, I wonder, that you have done this? I wonder if anyone has counted...

 

Basically matey you are a Walter-Mitty character. I don't think you actually know the difference between reality and laa-laa land and you certainly don't get the basic concepts of logic and honesty that we use in the real world.

What it comes down to is, "I don't want it to happen to me, therefore let it not be done to others." It follows, therefore, why you would like to see everyone die a natural death, especially in their sleep, because "everyone" includes yourself.

No I would like everyone to get their own choice and pretty soon the science you know nothing about will make that a reality, barring your God bumping them off in an earthquake or other 'act of God'.

 

I can't be bothered with the rest of this tripe...

Edited September 2, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[Shahrukh 0]

I can see I would be wasting everyone's time here if I said anything else.And you would think I am trying to enforce my beliefs on you.And I admit that I am not qualified to argue with you folks. So, you know what, I won't argue.P.S. Bikerman, I really appreciate the fact that you can differentiate between real Islam and the one people call Islam these days. I wish more people could identify those.

[Bikerman 2]

P.S. Bikerman, I really appreciate the fact that you can differentiate between real Islam and the one people call Islam these days. I wish more people could identify those.

As I said I have frequently stuck up for Islam when it has been unfairly picked-on. I post on a few forums and have frequently been on my own trying to defend the religion against all-comers. Of course I don't believe that all Muslims are terrorists and the distinction between Islam and Islamism is important. What does worry me, and has done since 1989 (Salman Rushdie) is the willingness of people who are otherwise good citizens and decent people, to go along with this Fatwa idea for people insulting the religion. I have very close personal experience of this - I lost a good friend over it. He could not see that disagreeing with Rushdie was fine, but threatening to kill him was not. This is the area of conflict and it isn't negotiable. We in the west will never give up the right to free speech and it looks like many Muslims continue to misunderstand or ignore it. That is the one thing where I will not compromise one inch. it is the one concession to our laws that I DEMAND Muslims make. it is not too much to ask. Nobody is forced to watch or hear offensive things and everyone has the right to organise and protest, but nobody has the right to start screaming murder. I tell you seriously, I attended one of the protest rallies in London over the Rushdie affair and some of the Muslims on the 'other side' were ridiculous, embarrassing and scary all at the same time. I was embarrassed to call myself a fellow citizen of theirs.

[media http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/[/media]

I know that these people were a minority - but I also know that their basic views were NOT. Those views will have to change I'm afraid.

[truefusion 3]

All over the place as usual. First death takes time then death can be instant, then some confused rubbish about instant still giving time to repent. You mangle theology and logic and now you are mangling English and my will to live...

Can a person who is dead claim that they are alive? Therefore death is instant. However, you seem to have trouble distinguishing from my words that the path to death can be either small or long. But it is expected of you not to consider what i have said.

 

Romans 6:3 ?We who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

And this contradicts/proves what...? "We who were" implies both those who willingly chose to be baptized and those who thought it was a requirement. Not even the context of that verse fits within the discussion on whether or not baptism is required. The context just talks about the concept of baptism.

 

Different day same crap. You haven't a clue which verses contradict it, and you think that St Augustine definitions invalidate the authenticity of the concept, which tells us either you haven't read the bible passages I suggested or you didn't understand them.

The verses that contradict it are found in Deuteronomy and in Ezekiel, and probably elsewhere; it is thoroughly explained within Ezekiel chapter 18 when it talks about the sinful father and the righteous son, and the righteous father and the sinful son. The entire chapter of Ezekiel 18 is dedicated to the very explanation of what the sins of a person's father entails for the son. Ezekiel 18:19-20 completely destroys the concept of original sin. This completely changes the way other verses in the Old and New Testaments are to be perceived, especially since Ezekiel 18:1 says, "The word of the Lord."

 

I never said Augustine's definitions invalidate the concept (that would be illogical, since the definitions are in support of the concept); i merely said the concept of original sin is not Biblical.

 

I merely say that if the one in quadzillion chance comes up and there is a God, then we have his record already in black and white. Millions of murders, conspiracy to rape, incest, torture, false imprisonment, kidnapping, robbery with intent, genocide and, uniquely, he is also charged with several steps up from genocide - Genocide is when you wipe out a good number or all of an ethnic group. God did it to every ethnic group at the same time. I don't even think there is a word for it...mass murder is not nearly sufficient....humanocide? Omnicide is probably close. We know about his character - narcissistic, vicious, sadistic, pompous, insecure, childish & quite stupid. If he were a man we would put him in a high security mental hospital and make sure he never escaped...

That's pretty factual, not at all emotional. I don't believe there is such a person or thing, so naturally I can't get worked up over mythical actions. What does wind me up is people who buy into creationism and similar woo-woo nonsense. It gives my species a bad name. If our neighbours ever DO actually land on earth then we are going to have to explain how we can have nuclear fission and be working close to a solution on fusion, yet we still have people with bizarre illogical refuted and physically impossible beliefs. I'll be so damned ashamed....

If ye seek justice but commit no action, where then is justice? If ye see action against evil but speak against this action, where then is good? Why then seek the end to evil?

 

What fiction? That experience of death and destruction was common all along the coastline of first contact. It wasn't the piddling little few thousand I used - I wasn't trying to play it up - rather the opposite. The real thing killed over quarter of a million people.

For someone as self-proclaimed as you are, anyone would have trouble believing that you believe this to be non-fictional:

"Oops...those techtonic plates I installed cheaply have just failed causing a huge Tsunami that will kill tens of thousands, including many children...what should I do? Stop the Tsunami? Er...what time is it? Nope, can't stop it. It's my day off."

However, you words and usage say otherwise.

 

That simply proves you are a troll. You don't know who Calvin is, you haven't read any Luther or Calvin and yet you pompously declare what they argued or did not argue for. Calvin obviously doesn't qualify as an early Church father to someone with your mastery of theology and logic, but for mere mortals such a I, who have to put the effort in and read the books, the Calvin is exactly the definition of an early church Father. Calvinism was pretty important - ultimately that is the root of most US religion - certainly Presbyterian and Reformed churches. The fact that you don't know Luther makes you ignorant and not someone who should be seeking to pontificate on religion. It is like saying you are a poet who hasn't heard of shakespeare - Possible, of course, but likely to be talking through his *bottom*.

How many times is this, I wonder, that you have done this? I wonder if anyone has counted...

 

Basically matey you are a Walter-Mitty character. I don't think you actually know the difference between reality and laa-laa land and you certainly don't get the basic concepts of logic and honesty that we use in the real world.

I am so glad that you have taken the time to provide anything from the authors you mention in order to prove anything you say about them.

 

But?to speak seriously?i have done a lot of research on Calvinism, and i agree with a lot of things it mentions. For that reason i doubt John Calvin declared that baptism is a requirement for salvation. If he did any proclamation on baptism, i doubt he would affirm baptism to be a requirement for salvation. It only takes one argument from these authors that clearly show their position that they believe that baptism is a requirement for salvation for me to believe such. The only difficulty you would have in providing such writings from them is if there existed none that show the position you assert for them. If you don't intend on providing any of their writings, then you cannot continue to assert so assuredly of yourself of what they believe.

 

No I would like everyone to get their own choice and pretty soon the science you know nothing about will make that a reality, barring your God bumping them off in an earthquake or other 'act of God'.

Choice of what? The context implies choice of when to die. If science is pretty close to that position, then they would indeed be trying to play the role of God. But it should be noted: God gave life, therefore He has the right to take it away whenever He wants; anything given can be taken away.

[Bikerman 2]

But—to speak seriously—i have done a lot of research on Calvinism, and i agree with a lot of things it mentions. For that reason i doubt John Calvin declared that baptism is a requirement for salvation. If he did any proclamation on baptism, i doubt he would affirm baptism to be a requirement for salvation. It only takes one argument from these authors that clearly show their position that they believe that baptism is a requirement for salvation for me to believe such. The only difficulty you would have in providing such writings from them is if there existed none that show the position you assert for them. If you don't intend on providing any of their writings, then you cannot continue to assert so assuredly of yourself of what they believe.

More lies? You haven't done any research on Calvin or you would know something about him. You don't, ergo you haven't. Calvin wrote extensively on Baptism, as anyone who has researched would know.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Calvin certainly believed that Baptism was a necessary step in 'joining with Christ'. His difference with Catholicism was in the interpretation of Original Sin - Calvin maintained that children would go to heaven whether they had been baptised or not.

 

As I said earlier, you are a deeply ignorant troll, and you have been caught out quite a few times with this sort of lie.

 

I must admit that I do find a pleasant irony. It seems to me that the more fundamental a religious person is, the more dishonest that are. Not just you - this applies to the majority of creationists and Islamists that I have come across. I always wonder whether they think God will overlook the lies and that the end justifies the means....interesting that they choose to take the bible literally, but don't think that applies to the 'bearing false witness' bit...

 

I have long believed that cognitive dissonance is the only possible result of believing in creationism, and this does tend to support that hypothesis....

Edited September 2, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

More lies? You haven't done any research on Calvin or you would know something about him. You don't, ergo you haven't. Calvin wrote extensively on Baptism, as anyone who has researched would know.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Calvin certainly believed that Baptism was a necessary step in 'joining with Christ'. His difference with Catholicism was in the interpretation of Original Sin - Calvin maintained that children would go to heaven whether they had been baptised or not.

 

As I said earlier, you are a deeply ignorant troll, and you have been caught out quite a few times with this sort of lie.

 

What part did i lie about? The part that i doubt what you claim about John Calvin (and the others)? Or the part that you cannot continuing asserting things without proof? If the latter, then i would agree. You can most certainly continue, but that would be counter-productive and self-contradicting to the assurance you illustrate within your own posts.

 

Also, if you would have said that this requirement of baptism is spiritual and does not deal with water, then that would indeed sound like something John Calvin would have said. The link you reference speaks about the physical-water baptism and the spiritual baptism of the Holy Spirit and the blood of Christ. The article does not emphasize that the water-only baptism is required for salvation. It only mentions that the spiritual form of baptism is required for salvation but that the water form of baptism is for affirmation of faith, which is what i have said about St. Augustine too.

[Bikerman 2]

What part did i lie about? The part that i doubt what you claim about John Calvin (and the others)? Or the part that you cannot continuing asserting things without proof? If the latter, then i would agree. You can most certainly continue, but that would be counter-productive and self-contradicting to the assurance you illustrate within your own posts.

You have lied so often that it is difficult to keep track. The latest would be your claim to have studied Calivin extensively. You obviously haven't because you don't have a clue what he said. You actually trip yourself up in your own postings and demonstrate that you are a liar.

For example, you first said:

While i have not read any works on Martin Luther or John Calvin....

But later you said

i have done a lot of research on Calvinism, and i agree with a lot of things it mentions

So you have done a lot of research on Calvinism but you haven't read a single work on Calvin.

 

Liar!

Also, if you would have said that this requirement of baptism is spiritual and does not deal with water, then that would indeed sound like something John Calvin would have said.

Wrong again.

Water baptism is the only possible mark that we have submitted to internal cleansing. Washing is by the blood of Christ but that is invisible. Water baptism is the outward sign of an inward cleansing. Without the sign we might speculate but we have no evidence that we are forgiven except by our ready acceptance of baptism

It is pretty funny that the most zealous Christians are often the ones who know the least about their so-called religion, and that they need atheists to educate them in their own beliefs. Edited September 3, 2011 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[anwiii 17]

it's pretty funn how you come back to open up a thread after almost a year just to call someone a liar. you haven't changed one bit. in fact, you can debate all you want. the true liar is yourself because you continue to lie to yourself. you are so concerned with debating, that you have lost the truth somewhere