SovereignGrace
Well-known member
Yugo wanted to come out with a family car and call it Wego. That didn’t come to fruition, so they wanted to make a conversion van and call it WeAllgo. It flopped, too.Stop mysticizing your Yugo, bruh.
Non-Calvinists twisting/ignoring verses
- Thread starter Theo1689
- Start date
Septextura
Well-known member
Well, a Yugo is evidence of increasing entropy in the Universe, therefore nothingness as its default state.
OK. I don't think this thread can ever get back on track.
Sorry.
OK. I don't think this thread can ever get back on track.
Sorry.
rhomphaeam
Robert Chisholm
Your own position to the term Calvinism may seem plausible as long as you don't press into mysticism, and as some brethren have pointed out by that means into paganism. I am assuming you have never been an occultist - but to my shame I have. The veil that is drawn back with our words open us to the very ruler of this world in ways that cannot be easily fathomed unless the Lord has given us a need to fathom it in service to His house. Most brethren come to a proper understanding and rejection of this occult predication both in the world and in some men and women by lawful means of seeing the argument that is made and reflecting on the Scripture as a contrast. Others, the Lord permits to walk into its very folds and then pass back out having seen an appalling thing. Jesus said, behold the ruler of this world cometh, and he has nothing in me.' Now you say in your last post that you are hurt. Your feelings are as nothing to the effect that mysticism with its hidden doors and ways has had on many believers and I have to tell you plainly that the woman is more vulnerable to it than is the man. God Bless.
Last edited:
rhomphaeam
Robert Chisholm
And just to give some credence to what I have said.I have been told on this thread by two posters to prove Augustine was still holding to pagan concepts. Here is one point, which by the way WILL tie back to the OP. As I said, each line of Augustines books, which are inches thick can provide quite long posts:
The source texts are Augustine's texts on Genesis. I have linked to the scribd. The book is available at libraries and on Amazon. I will refer to it again.
Quoted item is in green. Footnote is marked footnote, also green and smaller. My response to the line is below it.
On Genesis - Augustine, St. & Teske, Roland_5059.pdf | Augustine Of Hippo | Allegory
Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site.www.scribd.com
Augustine says on page 57 the book /page 73 of the PDF from Scribd.com:
10. And, therefore, we correctly believe that God made all things from nothing. For, though all formed things were made from this matter, this matter itself was still made from absolutely nothing. 38
footnote 38:
38. Augustine insists that God made the unformed matter out of nothing, and he points out that, unlike other makers, God needs no help from some matter out of which he makes something. If God needed such help from matter he would not be omnipotent. He inculcates the idea of creation out of nothing by comparison with an artisan making something and by the denial of any need for a material cause out of which God makes the unformed matter. The idea of nothing was not an easy one to come by, especially for a Platonist who views being in terms of permanence and stability. Cf. DBV 2.8 where Augustine, struggling with the concept of nothing, describes it as "whatever is flowing, dissolving, melting and-so to speak-perpetually perishing."
My reply to you (here present) and to Augustine:
God created out of Love. Not Nothing, not lack, not the perpetually perishing. However, this concept of Augustine's, along with many others have affected theology and become a standard point of view. God created from Love- from His own Wisdom - not anything waste and void.
The usual Greek formula of something / nothing started with the Greek philosopher Parmenides then followed by Plato and this is the either/or Augustine follows: "did things come to be from something or from nothing". The question and topic is a greek form. The Christian answer is not existing matter and the answer is not nothing or lack. The answer is that God in Genesis creates from LOVE. The either/or of something and nothing is a false argument based on Greek philosophy.
Nothingness or nothing is a nirvana / buddhism / eastern concept. Creating from something implies the demiurge. Both are wrong.
Note carefully how Augustine defines ‘nothing’ in the footnote. It is still then ‘something perpetually perishable' or existing although its character is nothing.
Some contextual notes (mine): Augustine wrote these On Genesis texts around 393 A.D. against the Manichaeans. No doubt he was still struggling to sort out how to distinguish himself from them, having been greatly affected by their views, For context, Augustine was born in 354 A.D. These texts were written when he was around 39 years old. His free choice of the will text was written in 387 A.D. and that text will have bearing on the OP and also relate to this. So, he was a relatively young man when he was writing these and a newer Christian. He had converted in 386, at the age of 31. For context, he was made a priest in 391 and a bishop in 395. He was already a priest when he wrote the Genesis refutations of the Manichees. Augustine died in 430 A.D. Note that this text and also the free well text contain a separate text that is included with ALL Augustine's texts, that is, his retractions, because in his old age he had a change of heart and saw errors in the points made in both texts I'm mentioning. I am looking through the refutations but my recollection of studying them is that they do not correction the item I am commenting on here. In fact, the errors of many of his texts have been perpetuated as few read his retractions but many read the texts from which come the retractions. Additionally, the retractions cover certain points but do not cover many other points. It is not a comprehensive retraction.
Augustine was a man of his own day, however, he knew unlike yourself that the atomist philosophers and their prediction to trying to dissect physicality gave rise to occult thinking that took on a form that by his time was a fully fledged rational imperative - expressly that whilst it could not lead to a true knowledge of Christ most certainly did achieve what lies at the back of all occult thinking in ambition of Satan. And that ambition is a secondary effect of making men to stand in place of God (anti God) to uncover His creation in defiance of God. The occult is to individualise men and a way of refusing true God and standing in His place. It is eventually, in greek thinking, apotheosis and it is most enthusiastically expressed in pantheistic terms as logos. And how peculiar that this is the linguistic term that is given to Christ by the Apostle John.
In Christ, however, it is a true meaning. In any other meaning it is a false claim. Augustine was not a continuing pantheist or a heretic or any of the false claims that are made against him such as gnostic and nihilist (as you have done). Your claim in your own words as your reply &c are themselves mystical in a meaning that gives rise to a more demanding need to know why simply speaking of God's love does not of itself produce truth in the day we live in. Yet you do not say that God is love, and that we ought to love one another another - you say that God created the very universe out of love and thus make the love of God a thing. So why make a use to prove greek philosophy and then accuse Augustine of being a greek in the same meaning? Augustine spoke in this regard to a necessity in his own day and you would be better served to speak in the day you live in and not in another day. To argue that Augustine was mistaken in how he spoke and taught by saying that he was speaking about nihilism by speaking about God creating out of nothing, seems like a desperate attempt to utilise the love of God as an appellant tool to imply that Augustin was without love as the Calvinist is without love. Its blatant nonsense. Like I said before hand, I was an occultist and so it isn't difficult to see what it means or how something can lead to the very thing one is claiming to refute.
If you want to really understand how diabolic any reality can be then read some Cabalistic treatise on the subject of nihilism such as Etz haChayim (עץ ה) and you may realise that to press even the very detail of God's creative powers in our sight, be that with our eyes or with microscopes or telescopes - without God and Christ, will lead to the most plausible and attractive doctrines that are all set to turn you away from God and Christ. What reason did God Himself give at the Tower of Babel for the confusion of language?
Last edited:
Septextura
Well-known member
Hurting someone is not our goal. Contending for the truth is.
preacher4truth
Well-known member
You mean you didn't "win" after posting that we're all Pagans, while we showed that it was an erroneous claim.
Hello.
Theo1689
Well-known member
I have that particular poster on "ignore", and maybe some of you are figuring out why.
But if they're trying play the victim, I'm only reminded of something Ben Shapiro said:
"If I state a fact and you're offended,
that's not me offending you,
that's me starting a fact and you choosing to be offended."
- Ben Shapiro
(paraphrased, from memory).
Oh yeah, there's also this one:
"Facts don't care about your feelings."
-- Ben Shapiro
If someone is full of herself, and thinks she is our teacher, and then gets all hurt when she finds out that we never ACCEPTED her as our "teacher", she has only herself to blame if she feels "hurt".
I guess she's "triggered" and needs to find a "safe space" somewhere, where nobody will ever disagree with her.
Septextura
Well-known member
I addressed Eve as a Christian Gnostic. I wouldn't call it a fact, just my opinion from observation, and not with intent to demean her.
The greater judgment will be on her teacher.
SovereignGrace
Well-known member
Those two words can never be grammatically correct in a sentence together.
Septextura
Well-known member
We usually just call them Gnostics but for categorical accuracy it would be Christian Gnosticism, considering there are non-Christian forms of it.
Loading…
iep.utm.edu
Theo1689
Well-known member
So she calls others "pagans", but throws a hissy-fit when she's called a "Gnostic"?
Off to your "safe space", eve.... You have no business being in a college.
e v e
Well-known member
no ive not been occultist
many causes make for being hurt.
one cause is being ganged up on and bullied and jeered at. i can’t find where christ ever did that.
rhomphaeam
Robert Chisholm
I didn't think you had been an occultist. It may also be worth pointing out that many who have ventured into the occult are already wounded before they do find themselves in it. I am quiet certain that the Lord did not jeer at anyone in the sense that He was rebuking them for fun. But you may be able to believe that he rebuked men and did so with an alarming swiftness when their accusations amounted to trying to teach Him truth in defiance of not being able to fault His teaching. The brethren are saying that you were calling them 'pagans' and took offence at being called a 'Gnostic'. Remember that being isolated in ones mind can produce an isolation with others and that isolation from others can and often does produce feelings of being hurt. What men say of you is worth zilch, however, if it is worthless acrimony. To your face it may matter but on a forum it is worth precisely nothing. God bless you.
Are you Church of Christ by identification or by belief?
Last edited:
preacher4truth
Well-known member
Victim much? You came in here telling us all how we are pagan, and failed in the process. It was intended to demean others and would have, if we were ignorant of the truth.
We picked up on your own teachings, that they are Gnostic and stated this back to you, and @Septextura took the time to document this for you.
Now you're hurt because you got a true taste of your own game and objective?
If you don't think Christ "ganged-up" on others, well, I'd suggest reading your Bible, starting in Genesis, and work your way through its entirety.
SovereignGrace
Well-known member
We haven’t bullied you at all. We have asked you to support your claim Augustine was a pagan. Where’s your proof from his writings? You posted one that another guy took and twisted. It didn’t prove he was a pagan. Now again, from his writings, where does it prove he was pagan?
preacher4truth
Well-known member
It's like someone sat down to play chess and made the first move. Then when the opponent countered with a move, the other player got offended.
Septextura
Well-known member
When multiple posters gang up on a discussion I'm having, I simply ignore them and I keep discussing with that one person of interest. Otherwise I won't be able to argument my position efficiently. If I wanted to prove Augustine as pagan, that's all I'd keep putting forward to my one original opponent. Leave the "What about this?" comments being thrown at you for later.
Works for me.
Works for me.
e v e
Well-known member
i know the places in scripture Christ rebuked...but the context was specific..and not this one.