|
|
USER COMMENTS BY BY YOUR STANDARDS, NOT ELECT |
|
|
Page 1 | Page 2 · Found: 158 user comments posted recently. |
| | | |
|
|
11/13/08 4:04 PM |
By Your Standards, Not Elect | | Oblivion | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Technically, you mentioned I John 1:9, not 1:8.It's simple: RCC news stories typically generate the most interesting comments on both sides of the issue. They range from helpful to near hilarity. And, as I've said in other threads, you have a tendency to attack the person on the basis of their church affiliation, many times regardless of their arguments. If I were a Catholic and said 2+2 is 4, you would probably say "She would say that, she's a Catholic. You can't believe anything they say." If you don't know my affiliation, you have to take my points as they come, not on the basis of anything else. enough already wrote: BYSNE- you consistently post only concerning RCC news stories. If you aren't an RCC, then tell everyone here. Why the secrecy? You are playing games purposely, which says much about you. |
|
|
11/12/08 8:48 PM |
By Your Standards, Not Elect | | Oblivion | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Once again, my only point is that the brawling is insufficient to condemn them as non-Christians. They may be Christians, they may not be. You have another argument, namely that they follow "traditions", etc., in an attempt show conclusively that they aren't Christians. Regardless of the merits of this argument, it is irrelevant to my point. You still seem to suggest that Christians don't sin, which is problematic to say the least. So, do Christians sin or don't they?enough already wrote: BYSNE- you say the brawl isn't sufficient to condemn them as non-Christians, although it may be a 'symptom' of a heart that hasn't been changed by God. {I prefer to use 'sign' instead of 'symptom'} |
|
|
11/11/08 4:36 PM |
By Your Standards, Not Elect | | Oblivion | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Once again, the brawl isn't sufficient to condemn them as non-Christians, although it may be a symptom of a "heart that hasn't been changed by God". But, as I think we've tentatively established, the presence of any sin might be symptomatic of that as well, and Christians and non-Christians are susceptible to this criticism. Now, the second claim you make here requires a little more consideration, but I hope we agree on the first point at least. That's all I was getting at. enough already wrote: If these monks are following traditions, rituals, etc. taught by men, they are not born again. Only God can save a lost sinner, Ephesians 2:8,9- For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the GIFT of God. {it's God's gift, He gives it to whom He chooses, based on His mercy} NOT of works, lest any man should boast". The Greek Orthodox Church does not follow scripture alone, salvation is based on works,{performing the 7 sacraments in one's lifetime, these are the 'channels' to receive God's grace} with no eternal security. Again, NO ONE can earn their way to heaven, or work to receive grace. The Father gives His gift to whom it pleases Him to do so. Brawling would seem to indicate one's heart has NOT been changed by God. [/QUO |
|
|
11/5/08 4:55 PM |
By Your Standards, Not Elect | | Oblivion | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Neil,First, we have to be careful not to make a strawman argument out of scientific claims. There are different ways scientists view the propositions and models in their respective fields. Scientists don't see the universe through the lens of Newtonian physics. And, it's not clear, as some historians of science suggest, that Newton saw his own laws as being categorical like many claim. Second, inductive arguments are not fallacious per se. Remember, validity has to do with the way in which the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Just because a conclusion doesn't follow necessarily from the premises (hence invalidity) doesn't mean that an argument isn't strong. Validity is only one test for the way in which premises support conclusions. Strength is another. In the absence of clear defeaters, one is justified in asserting the truth of the conclusion. Also, one would have to specify what kind of inductive argument one is claiming to make, since there are different kinds of inductive arguments and not all of them are from "particular to universal". Inductive arguments can have all universal propositions as well. Also, isn't something "true by definition" necessary, not contingent? It's not a contingent fact that "All unmarried males are bachelors" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|