Non-Calvinists twisting/ignoring verses

e v e

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?
i disagree...

as for why not answer...
i stopped exactly as said i would (scroll up), even though I had many other examples open on my computer from augustine and even said this one was not the most explicit problem as others, that I'd just opened to that page...

i stopped because there was no interest except to throw labels at me...and this coming from various posters all at once..

as I said "you won...enjoy" etc.
 

e v e

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.
it was not a move...it was a pummel, from everyone in the room who was posting at that time, all at once, including the jeering and heckling.
 

preacher4truth

Well-known member
it was not a move...it was a pummel, from everyone in the room who was posting at that time, all at once, including the jeering and heckling.
I'm not interested in your denial, victimhood, double standards, or manipulation. You brought an agenda, attacked others with it, called others Pagan, then got stifled, and tasted your own medicine. Those you attempted to malign turned the tables on you and aired your Gnostic teachings with evidence. You pummeled yourself.
 

rhomphaeam

Robert Chisholm
i know the places in scripture Christ rebuked...but the context was specific..and not this one.

I hope you understand that I am not seeking to instruct you. If I were making that presumption then I would do so in a formal way and not discursively as I did in my comment that you have answered. I am simply trying to understand your hurt in the way you described yourself. I asked you about your beliefs and set those into a formal frame of reference that I cited as Church of Christ. Do you understand why I did that? Why did I ask about the Church of Christ? That wasn't begging or implying anything pertaining to your faith but is qualified by my asking 'by identification or belief?' You see I didn't cite a context in which Jesus rebuked anyone other than in the general terms that I stated. And you appear to be telling me that He didn't rebuke anyone in those general terms. Yet He did. The Lord expressly rebuked some of the Pharisees precisely in those terms. John 9:39-41. It was a rebuke that has the Lord Jesus expressly saying that He came into the world to bring judgement. That, insofar as I know, is the only time Jesus expressly states that he came into the world to bring judgement. And it cannot be more certain that its meaning is so that those who say they can see would be made blind. And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. (v39). Verses 40 and 41 sets the ones who would require an answer to that meaning and the mind of those asking. God bless you.
 
Last edited:

e v e

Well-known member
I hope you understand that I am not seeking to instruct you. If I were making that presumption then I would do so in a formal way and not discursively as I did in my comment that you have answered. I am simply trying to understand your hurt in the way you described yourself. I asked you about your beliefs and set those into a formal frame of reference that I cited as Church of Christ. Do you understand why I did that? Why did I ask about the Church of Christ? That wasn't begging or implying anything pertaining to your faith but is qualified by my asking 'by identification or belief?' You see I didn't cite a context in which Jesus rebuked anyone other than in the general terms that I stated. And you appear to be telling me that He didn't rebuke anyone in that context. Yet He did. The Lord expressly rebuked some of the Pharisees precisely in those terms. John 9:39-41. It was a rebuke that has the Lord Jesus expressly saying that He came into the world to bring judgement. That, insofar as I know, is the only time Jesus expressly states that he came into the world to bring judgement. And it cannot be more certain that its meaning is so that those who say they can see would be made blind. And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. (v39). Verses 40 and 41 sets the ones who would require an answer to that meaning and the mind of those asking. God bless you.
I'm not a pharisee so that context does not apply. The example you gave was the one I had in mind but it belongs to a different context. For example, pharisees had authority in their community. They were leaders and could exact punishments on others by their opinions. In the context of me, as a soul, trying to talk to other souls about Augustine, there is no connection to your example.

Christ can of course judge. But who in this thread can judge me?

You asked about me personally. This is a public thread. In the past I have responded with some personal things, on the old forums. I find it gets used in a negative way and the forums are not intended for that, for the same reason, that those things are personal. I've no reason of course to mind anyone getting to know me or personal things about me, but as you can see, this is a public thread published to the entire internet.

God was hurt when Adam fell. Christ was hurt to be betrayed. A person can be validly hurt without implying it was on them. If someone betrays their spouse, the spouse feels hurt and it wasn't because they somehow can't deal with stuff. If someone is laid off, they are hurt because their children's ability to eat might be affected. It does not warrant telling me (my rephrase) that I am incapable to be teaching in university as I have been because I was hurt. Hurt can mean that I see the sorry state of the other who is acting in a poor way. Check. It can mean that I am sorry the conversation was derailed into a group discussion of another poster and if they are gnostic, all in the third person. Check. It can meanmaking a space inhospitable to someone, attempting to lessen them, by subtle bullying. Check. A number of things, not just or if the person couldn't handle criticism, could be in play.
 

e v e

Well-known member
I hope you understand that I am not seeking to instruct you. If I were making that presumption then I would do so in a formal way and not discursively as I did in my comment that you have answered. I am simply trying to understand your hurt in the way you described yourself. I asked you about your beliefs and set those into a formal frame of reference that I cited as Church of Christ. Do you understand why I did that? Why did I ask about the Church of Christ? That wasn't begging or implying anything pertaining to your faith but is qualified by my asking 'by identification or belief?' You see I didn't cite a context in which Jesus rebuked anyone other than in the general terms that I stated. And you appear to be telling me that He didn't rebuke anyone in those general terms. Yet He did. The Lord expressly rebuked some of the Pharisees precisely in those terms. John 9:39-41. It was a rebuke that has the Lord Jesus expressly saying that He came into the world to bring judgement. That, insofar as I know, is the only time Jesus expressly states that he came into the world to bring judgement. And it cannot be more certain that its meaning is so that those who say they can see would be made blind. And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. (v39). Verses 40 and 41 sets the ones who would require an answer to that meaning and the mind of those asking. God bless you.
Please do show me where Christ engaged in theological debates with the souls who followed Him. If anything, with the pharisees he answered their questions but those were not formal debates. He did not argue with anyone in any example I can find. His anger expressed itself as overturning the tables of money changers and in dealing with pharisees. I am neither one. Further, who here can take the position of Christ so as to judge?

He says to love one another.

He is Love --- that is how I know Him.

Thank you for writing.
 

rhomphaeam

Robert Chisholm
I'm not a pharisee so that context does not apply. The example you gave was the one I had in mind but it belongs to a different context. For example, pharisees had authority in their community. They were leaders and could exact punishments on others by their opinions. In the context of me, as a soul, trying to talk to other souls about Augustine, there is no connection to your example.

Christ can of course judge. But who in this thread can judge me?

You asked about me personally. This is a public thread. In the past I have responded with some personal things, on the old forums. I find it gets used in a negative way and the forums are not intended for that, for the same reason, that those things are personal. I've no reason of course to mind anyone getting to know me or personal things about me, but as you can see, this is a public thread published to the entire internet.

God was hurt when Adam fell. Christ was hurt to be betrayed. A person can be validly hurt without implying it was on them. If someone betrays their spouse, the spouse feels hurt and it wasn't because they somehow can't deal with stuff. If someone is laid off, they are hurt because their children's ability to eat might be affected. It does not warrant telling me (my rephrase) that I am incapable to be teaching in university as I have been because I was hurt. Hurt can mean that I see the sorry state of the other who is acting in a poor way. Check. It can mean that I am sorry the conversation was derailed into a group discussion of another poster and if they are gnostic, all in the third person. Check. It can meanmaking a space inhospitable to someone, attempting to lessen them, by subtle bullying. Check. A number of things, not just or if the person couldn't handle criticism, could be in play.

Yes and more than all of that could be in play. I could speak of being violently and mentally abused for the first ten years of my life and being sexually abused in loco parentis care for seven years following on, and homelessness and hunger and cold. I could speak of having a severely mentally and physically impaired son and seeing almost endless abuse and harm in all walks of life in my professional work. But that would be an irrelevance to any discussion on a forum that is set to a discourse into which you have elected to participate and in which you assert that because you believe that Augustine was a pagan then by inference so are those who are Calvinist because Calvin held Augustine up as a standard of doctrine in some meanings. God is love I whole heartedly agree, yet as I said in a previous comment, '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.' @ #206

The Pharisees were the context of the Lord's words in specificity but they were a fulfilment of a prophecy of Isaiah which applied to the entirety of Israel. Only those who knew that they were blind were given sight. And the danger of circumnavigating truth with feeling is that in the end feeling insists that it can see when in truth the mind can see nothing until the Father opens the ears and restores sight. Then and only then do we have the light to ask for forgiveness. Deception is not simply a spirit to deceive it can also be of oneself, whereas pride is common to all men.
 

e v e

Well-known member
Yes and more than all of that could be in play. I could speak of being violently and mentally abused for the first ten years of my life and being sexually abused in loco parentis care for seven years following on, and homelessness and hunger and cold. I could speak of having a severely mentally and physically impaired son and seeing almost endless abuse and harm in all walks of life in my professional work. But that would be an irrelevance to any discussion on a forum that is set to a discourse into which you have elected to participate and in which you assert that because you believe that Augustine was a pagan then by inference so are those who are Calvinist because Calvin held Augustine up as a standard of doctrine in some meanings. God is love I whole heartedly agree, yet as I said in a previous comment, '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.' @ #206

The Pharisees were the context of the Lord's words in specificity but they were a fulfilment of a prophecy of Isaiah which applied to the entirety of Israel. Only those who knew that they were blind were given sight. And the danger of circumnavigating truth with feeling is that in the end feeling insists that it can see when in truth the mind can see nothing until the Father opens the ears and restores sight. Then and only then do we have the light to ask for forgiveness. Deception is not simply a spirit to deceive it can also be of oneself, whereas pride is common to all men.
I did say God is love. I don’t believe you understood my posts.

Augustine is documented to have a platonic overlay within his theology. If not for the turn of this thread, my next post would have been direct quotes from him discussing platonic forms explicitly and tying them to God in his free choice text.

Your view of feeling is interesting and I disagree but the topic is too broad and hides philosophical commitments that affected interpretations of isaiah. It would only produce more howls to reply (here).

I’m used to it on carm, being addressed this way since 2015.... thanks for understanding.
 

e v e

Well-known member
Yes and more than all of that could be in play. I could speak of being violently and mentally abused for the first ten years of my life and being sexually abused in loco parentis care for seven years following on, and homelessness and hunger and cold. I could speak of having a severely mentally and physically impaired son and seeing almost endless abuse and harm in all walks of life in my professional work. But that would be an irrelevance to any discussion on a forum that is set to a discourse into which you have elected to participate and in which you assert that because you believe that Augustine was a pagan then by inference so are those who are Calvinist because Calvin held Augustine up as a standard of doctrine in some meanings. God is love I whole heartedly agree, yet as I said in a previous comment, '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.' @ #206

The Pharisees were the context of the Lord's words in specificity but they were a fulfilment of a prophecy of Isaiah which applied to the entirety of Israel. Only those who knew that they were blind were given sight. And the danger of circumnavigating truth with feeling is that in the end feeling insists that it can see when in truth the mind can see nothing until the Father opens the ears and restores sight. Then and only then do we have the light to ask for forgiveness. Deception is not simply a spirit to deceive it can also be of oneself, whereas pride is common to all men.
I don’t find any of what you said at the outset of your post irrelevant btw.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Correct, there is no such thing as a Christian Gnostic or even a Christian Docetist. 1 John 2:19 affirms this.

Re docetism

Christian docetism is rejected by

2 John 1:7 —KJV
“¶ For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Please do show me where Christ engaged in theological debates with the souls who followed Him. If anything, with the pharisees he answered their questions but those were not formal debates. He did not argue with anyone in any example I can find. His anger expressed itself as overturning the tables of money changers and in dealing with pharisees. I am neither one. Further, who here can take the position of Christ so as to judge?

He says to love one another.

He is Love --- that is how I know Him.

Thank you for writing.
Hey @e v e

Jesus did that as early as the time of his Bar Mitzvah. His folks had to head back to Jerusalem and haul him away from the debates he was having at the Temple...
 
Last edited:

Septextura

Well-known member
I still would like to see evidence of Augustine remaining pagan after converting to Christianity. As a Manichaean he was certainly pagan, as was I before being saved from atheism.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
I'd still would like to see evidence of Augustine remaining pagan after converting to Christianity. As a Manichaean he was certainly pagan, as was I before being saved from atheism.
I would not say he was pagan after conversion but I do believe he was influenced by some pagan ideas

and from what i read he did face some criticisms of being Manichaean
 
Top