For me to participate in the dialogue, I am attempting to gain a better understanding of your statement. That's it. Sorry for the delays in responding, as I am busier than usual.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

If someone is saved when they are 13, but their actions fail to reflect a Christian life, by lying, cheating, and being a bully, I take it that they would not be in the Book of Life, by your interpretation?

---

Why would you think that is my interpretation? There is nothing I said in this or in any other thread that would indicate that.

---

BTD, so what would be your interpretation?

---

If you're saying that person is saved, then their name is in the Book of Life. I'm not sure why you couldn't figure this out.

Are you saying a saved person can be removed from the Book of Life based on their actions regardless of their faith? If so, then at what point does "failing to reflect a Christian life" occur? What's the cutoff point between adequately living a Christian, and failing to?

---

As an example, a nonbeliever, becomes a believer (is saved), and for a while believes and acts in accordance with those beliefs and faith in Christ, but after a period of time leaves the faith and returns to being a nonbeliever and his actions reflect his lack of faith in Christ. In my opinion, that person will not be in the Book of Life, because they will be headed for Hell. What is your opinion? I ask this because I have come across some who people in "once saved, always saved," but often avoid how that plays into free will. Although I don't believe that, I am open to discussing it with those who do, hoping to have a better understanding of the whole issue. I may be in error, as I thought you may have addressed this issue some time ago and I have the impression that you might that belief, and if so, would be willing to share some dialogue.

---

You are presenting a different scenario than what you did initially. Here, you're saying the person actually "leaves the faith". In that case, the person never did have true faith, and was never written in the Book of Life to begin with.

Your new scenario makes it more unclear about what it is you believe: are you saying 1) that a person can intitially be in the Book of Life, but then be removed due to their works not being reflective of a "Christian" life, or 2) a person can be intially be in the Book of Life, but they are removed because they no longer have faith, or 3) you believe both these things?

I've never avoided the issue of free will and "once saved always saved". I don't think the loss of free will is even in the equation. In fact, I think it's the opposite - salvation and the Holy Spirit FREES a person from bondage and thus accentuates their free will, not diminishes it.

---

So do you believe that once a person is saved that they are always saved?

---

God is faithful and will complete the work he started in you. The real question is when are you saved..

---

Usually around the time one stops attacking Christians.

---

So when are you going to stop?

---

Thanks for proving my point again, BTD.

---

No one thinks any of your points are proven.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

If someone is saved when they are 13, but their actions fail to reflect a Christian life, by lying, cheating, and being a bully, I take it that they would not be in the Book of Life, by your interpretation?

---

Why would you think that is my interpretation? There is nothing I said in this or in any other thread that would indicate that.

---

BTD, so what would be your interpretation?

---

If you're saying that person is saved, then their name is in the Book of Life. I'm not sure why you couldn't figure this out.

Are you saying a saved person can be removed from the Book of Life based on their actions regardless of their faith? If so, then at what point does "failing to reflect a Christian life" occur? What's the cutoff point between adequately living a Christian, and failing to?

---

As an example, a nonbeliever, becomes a believer (is saved), and for a while believes and acts in accordance with those beliefs and faith in Christ, but after a period of time leaves the faith and returns to being a nonbeliever and his actions reflect his lack of faith in Christ. In my opinion, that person will not be in the Book of Life, because they will be headed for Hell. What is your opinion? I ask this because I have come across some who people in "once saved, always saved," but often avoid how that plays into free will. Although I don't believe that, I am open to discussing it with those who do, hoping to have a better understanding of the whole issue. I may be in error, as I thought you may have addressed this issue some time ago and I have the impression that you might that belief, and if so, would be willing to share some dialogue.

---

You are presenting a different scenario than what you did initially. Here, you're saying the person actually "leaves the faith". In that case, the person never did have true faith, and was never written in the Book of Life to begin with.

Your new scenario makes it more unclear about what it is you believe: are you saying 1) that a person can intitially be in the Book of Life, but then be removed due to their works not being reflective of a "Christian" life, or 2) a person can be intially be in the Book of Life, but they are removed because they no longer have faith, or 3) you believe both these things?

I've never avoided the issue of free will and "once saved always saved". I don't think the loss of free will is even in the equation. In fact, I think it's the opposite - salvation and the Holy Spirit FREES a person from bondage and thus accentuates their free will, not diminishes it.

---

So do you believe that once a person is saved that they are always saved?

---

God is faithful and will complete the work he started in you. The real question is when are you saved..

---

Usually around the time one stops attacking Christians.

---

So when are you going to stop?

---

Thanks for proving my point again, BTD.

---

No one Everyone but me thinks any of your points are proven.

---

Yup

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Hmmm. Has that apparition actually led people to Jesus, or has it led them to Roman Catholicism, which distorts the gospel (and thus away from Jesus) and leads millions to Mary worship (as it actually has done in Mexico and South America)?

---

Well, an estimated 9 to 10 million indigenous people (pagans) were converted to Christianity within a decade of her appearance.

In the previous ten years, Christianity barely made a dent into the population after Cortex reached the new world.

Her apparition and those conversions helped to end the Aztec practice of human sacrifice.

Catholicism does not preach the worshipping of Mary, and you know that.

(Cue the "Glories of Mary" and your famous list that you have saved and love to post.)

---

I didn't say that "Catholicism preaches the worshipping of Mary". I said that Roman Cathoilcs worship Mary.

All of us in the rational world know that based on everything I've presented, it's true that Roman Catholicism worships Mary. The only ones denying this are the ones brainwashed in the Roman Catholic system.

Ending human sacrifice is good, but Satan is perfectly happy with giving up a temporary evil for an eternal one. No rational, honest person can look at Roman Catholicism south of the border and say that Mary isn't worshiped. The degree to which you and your Catholic brethren are deceived, is beyond understanding.

I'm not doing al this for Catholics like yourself, who are completely deceived and lost. My call is for those reading this who are in the Roman Catholic system who KNOW what they're doing is wrong (the true Christians with Roman Catholicism) to heed the call of Jesus in Revelation:

"Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues".

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

If someone is saved when they are 13, but their actions fail to reflect a Christian life, by lying, cheating, and being a bully, I take it that they would not be in the Book of Life, by your interpretation?

---

Why would you think that is my interpretation? There is nothing I said in this or in any other thread that would indicate that.

---

BTD, so what would be your interpretation?

---

If you're saying that person is saved, then their name is in the Book of Life. I'm not sure why you couldn't figure this out.

Are you saying a saved person can be removed from the Book of Life based on their actions regardless of their faith? If so, then at what point does "failing to reflect a Christian life" occur? What's the cutoff point between adequately living a Christian, and failing to?

---

As an example, a nonbeliever, becomes a believer (is saved), and for a while believes and acts in accordance with those beliefs and faith in Christ, but after a period of time leaves the faith and returns to being a nonbeliever and his actions reflect his lack of faith in Christ. In my opinion, that person will not be in the Book of Life, because they will be headed for Hell. What is your opinion? I ask this because I have come across some who people in "once saved, always saved," but often avoid how that plays into free will. Although I don't believe that, I am open to discussing it with those who do, hoping to have a better understanding of the whole issue. I may be in error, as I thought you may have addressed this issue some time ago and I have the impression that you might that belief, and if so, would be willing to share some dialogue.

---

You are presenting a different scenario than what you did initially. Here, you're saying the person actually "leaves the faith". In that case, the person never did have true faith, and was never written in the Book of Life to begin with.

Your new scenario makes it more unclear about what it is you believe: are you saying 1) that a person can intitially be in the Book of Life, but then be removed due to their works not being reflective of a "Christian" life, or 2) a person can be intially be in the Book of Life, but they are removed because they no longer have faith, or 3) you believe both these things?

I've never avoided the issue of free will and "once saved always saved". I don't think the loss of free will is even in the equation. In fact, I think it's the opposite - salvation and the Holy Spirit FREES a person from bondage and thus accentuates their free will, not diminishes it.

---

So do you believe that once a person is saved that they are always saved?

---

God is faithful and will complete the work he started in you. The real question is when are you saved..

---

Usually around the time one stops attacking Christians.

---

So when are you going to stop?

---

Thanks for proving my point again, BTD.

---

No one Everyone but me thinks any of your points are proven.

---

Yup

---

You're in your own little world.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

If someone is saved when they are 13, but their actions fail to reflect a Christian life, by lying, cheating, and being a bully, I take it that they would not be in the Book of Life, by your interpretation?

---

Why would you think that is my interpretation? There is nothing I said in this or in any other thread that would indicate that.

---

BTD, so what would be your interpretation?

---

If you're saying that person is saved, then their name is in the Book of Life. I'm not sure why you couldn't figure this out.

Are you saying a saved person can be removed from the Book of Life based on their actions regardless of their faith? If so, then at what point does "failing to reflect a Christian life" occur? What's the cutoff point between adequately living a Christian, and failing to?

---

As an example, a nonbeliever, becomes a believer (is saved), and for a while believes and acts in accordance with those beliefs and faith in Christ, but after a period of time leaves the faith and returns to being a nonbeliever and his actions reflect his lack of faith in Christ. In my opinion, that person will not be in the Book of Life, because they will be headed for Hell. What is your opinion? I ask this because I have come across some who people in "once saved, always saved," but often avoid how that plays into free will. Although I don't believe that, I am open to discussing it with those who do, hoping to have a better understanding of the whole issue. I may be in error, as I thought you may have addressed this issue some time ago and I have the impression that you might that belief, and if so, would be willing to share some dialogue.

---

You are presenting a different scenario than what you did initially. Here, you're saying the person actually "leaves the faith". In that case, the person never did have true faith, and was never written in the Book of Life to begin with.

Your new scenario makes it more unclear about what it is you believe: are you saying 1) that a person can intitially be in the Book of Life, but then be removed due to their works not being reflective of a "Christian" life, or 2) a person can be intially be in the Book of Life, but they are removed because they no longer have faith, or 3) you believe both these things?

I've never avoided the issue of free will and "once saved always saved". I don't think the loss of free will is even in the equation. In fact, I think it's the opposite - salvation and the Holy Spirit FREES a person from bondage and thus accentuates their free will, not diminishes it.

---

So do you believe that once a person is saved that they are always saved?

---

God is faithful and will complete the work he started in you. The real question is when are you saved..

---

Usually around the time one stops attacking Christians.

---

So when are you going to stop?

---

Thanks for proving my point again, BTD.

---

No one Everyone but me thinks any of your points are proven.

---

Yup

---

You're in your own little world.

---

You are wrong as usual, BTD. I am not the one going around attacking other Christians just because they are a little different in some details.


I am not the one who lies about what someone else posts, and I am not the one unwilling to admit my flaws.

You are the embodiment of those Pharisees Jesus rebuked. Self-righteous, arrogant, bullying and yet somehow unaware of all that.

I truly pity you. You seem miserable.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Hmmm. Has that apparition actually led people to Jesus, or has it led them to Roman Catholicism, which distorts the gospel (and thus away from Jesus) and leads millions to Mary worship (as it actually has done in Mexico and South America)?

---

Well, an estimated 9 to 10 million indigenous people (pagans) were converted to Christianity within a decade of her appearance.

In the previous ten years, Christianity barely made a dent into the population after Cortex reached the new world.

Her apparition and those conversions helped to end the Aztec practice of human sacrifice.

Catholicism does not preach the worshipping of Mary, and you know that.

(Cue the "Glories of Mary" and your famous list that you have saved and love to post.)

---

I didn't say that "Catholicism preaches the worshipping of Mary". I said that Roman Cathoilcs worship Mary.

All of us in the rational world know that based on everything I've presented, it's true that Roman Catholicism worships Mary. The only ones denying this are the ones brainwashed in the Roman Catholic system.

Ending human sacrifice is good, but Satan is perfectly happy with giving up a temporary evil for an eternal one. No rational, honest person can look at Roman Catholicism south of the border and say that Mary isn't worshiped. The degree to which you and your Catholic brethren are deceived, is beyond understanding.

I'm not doing al this for Catholics like yourself, who are completely deceived and lost. My call is for those reading this who are in the Roman Catholic system who KNOW what they're doing is wrong (the true Christians with Roman Catholicism) to heed the call of Jesus in Revelation:

"Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues".

---

Just to be clear, is it your position that the Catholic Church is the fallen Babylon referred to in Revelation?

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

If someone is saved when they are 13, but their actions fail to reflect a Christian life, by lying, cheating, and being a bully, I take it that they would not be in the Book of Life, by your interpretation?

---

Why would you think that is my interpretation? There is nothing I said in this or in any other thread that would indicate that.

---

BTD, so what would be your interpretation?

---

If you're saying that person is saved, then their name is in the Book of Life. I'm not sure why you couldn't figure this out.

Are you saying a saved person can be removed from the Book of Life based on their actions regardless of their faith? If so, then at what point does "failing to reflect a Christian life" occur? What's the cutoff point between adequately living a Christian, and failing to?

---

As an example, a nonbeliever, becomes a believer (is saved), and for a while believes and acts in accordance with those beliefs and faith in Christ, but after a period of time leaves the faith and returns to being a nonbeliever and his actions reflect his lack of faith in Christ. In my opinion, that person will not be in the Book of Life, because they will be headed for Hell. What is your opinion? I ask this because I have come across some who people in "once saved, always saved," but often avoid how that plays into free will. Although I don't believe that, I am open to discussing it with those who do, hoping to have a better understanding of the whole issue. I may be in error, as I thought you may have addressed this issue some time ago and I have the impression that you might that belief, and if so, would be willing to share some dialogue.

---

You are presenting a different scenario than what you did initially. Here, you're saying the person actually "leaves the faith". In that case, the person never did have true faith, and was never written in the Book of Life to begin with.

Your new scenario makes it more unclear about what it is you believe: are you saying 1) that a person can intitially be in the Book of Life, but then be removed due to their works not being reflective of a "Christian" life, or 2) a person can be intially be in the Book of Life, but they are removed because they no longer have faith, or 3) you believe both these things?

I've never avoided the issue of free will and "once saved always saved". I don't think the loss of free will is even in the equation. In fact, I think it's the opposite - salvation and the Holy Spirit FREES a person from bondage and thus accentuates their free will, not diminishes it.

---

So do you believe that once a person is saved that they are always saved?

---

God is faithful and will complete the work he started in you. The real question is when are you saved..

---

Usually around the time one stops attacking Christians.

---

So when are you going to stop?

---

Thanks for proving my point again, BTD.

---

No one Everyone but me thinks any of your points are proven.

---

Yup

---

You're in your own little world.

---

You are wrong as usual, BTD. I am not the one going around attacking other Christians just because they are a little different in some details.


I am not the one who lies about what someone else posts, and I am not the one unwilling to admit my flaws.

You are the embodiment of those Pharisees Jesus rebuked. Self-righteous, arrogant, bullying and yet somehow unaware of all that.

I truly pity you. You seem miserable.

---

One of your (many) problems is that you can't tell the difference between attacking false beliefs and attacking people personally. A prime example of this is in another thread, when I called someone's view a "satanic message" (which it most certainly was). You completely lack the discernment to know who is the Pharisee and who is the one correcting them.

And you saying you don't go around attacking people completely belies the reality that people see from you every day. And what's worse, you feel you are in the position to preach to the whole forum about not doing that. It is absolutely ridiculous. YOU are the one who lacks the awareness, and it is you who demonstrates your miserableness.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Hmmm. Has that apparition actually led people to Jesus, or has it led them to Roman Catholicism, which distorts the gospel (and thus away from Jesus) and leads millions to Mary worship (as it actually has done in Mexico and South America)?

---

Well, an estimated 9 to 10 million indigenous people (pagans) were converted to Christianity within a decade of her appearance.

In the previous ten years, Christianity barely made a dent into the population after Cortex reached the new world.

Her apparition and those conversions helped to end the Aztec practice of human sacrifice.

Catholicism does not preach the worshipping of Mary, and you know that.

(Cue the "Glories of Mary" and your famous list that you have saved and love to post.)

---

I didn't say that "Catholicism preaches the worshipping of Mary". I said that Roman Cathoilcs worship Mary.

All of us in the rational world know that based on everything I've presented, it's true that Roman Catholicism worships Mary. The only ones denying this are the ones brainwashed in the Roman Catholic system.

Ending human sacrifice is good, but Satan is perfectly happy with giving up a temporary evil for an eternal one. No rational, honest person can look at Roman Catholicism south of the border and say that Mary isn't worshiped. The degree to which you and your Catholic brethren are deceived, is beyond understanding.

I'm not doing al this for Catholics like yourself, who are completely deceived and lost. My call is for those reading this who are in the Roman Catholic system who KNOW what they're doing is wrong (the true Christians with Roman Catholicism) to heed the call of Jesus in Revelation:

"Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues".

---

Just to be clear, is it your position that the Catholic Church is the fallen Babylon referred to in Revelation?

---

I believe it is quite possible, yes. But I'm not necessarily making that declaration here. I'm simply applying Jesus warning in Revelation to all those stuck in a false religious system.

And there it is, the patented BTD tantrum when called on his behavior.

Oldbear83 said:

---

And there it is, the patented BTD tantrum when called on his behavior.

---

It isn't a tantrum. It's telling you the truth. You're just dismissing it by calling it a tantrum.

I call someone's view "satanic" and you say I'm "attacking". However, YOU call me "Satan" himself, as in personally - yet, you have the incredible nerve to say you don't attack people. And you say this despite the extensive written record in this forum of you doing exactly that. And as if that weren't enough, you then get on your high horse and preach to everyone how they're the ones doing wrong for "attacking" people. The level of hypocrisy is absolutely astounding. Everything you accuse others of is a pure projection. It's uncanny.

" The level of hypocrisy is absolutely astounding."

That part you got right, except that it's your hypocrisy at work.

Most of us just ignore you, seeing as you are impervious to common decency. I just point it out every so often, in the hope that at some point you will mend your ways.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" The level of hypocrisy is absolutely astounding."

That part you got right, except that it's your hypocrisy at work.

Most of us just ignore you, seeing as you are impervious to common decency. I just point it out every so often, in the hope that at some point you will mend your ways.

---

What you're doing right now - this petty back and forth in order to "one up" the other guy - this is your MO. The comment section is flooded with you doing this very thing. You just can't see that you ought to be preaching to yourself.

I highly doubt people like you ignore me. You read every word, as is evident.

You really are in your own little world. Go ahead and continue responding with your silly comments. It's your MO. I won't be answering.

As Groucho Marx once said:

'You don't have to go away mad .... just go away'.


You sad, petty little man.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Hmmm. Has that apparition actually led people to Jesus, or has it led them to Roman Catholicism, which distorts the gospel (and thus away from Jesus) and leads millions to Mary worship (as it actually has done in Mexico and South America)?

---

Well, an estimated 9 to 10 million indigenous people (pagans) were converted to Christianity within a decade of her appearance.

In the previous ten years, Christianity barely made a dent into the population after Cortex reached the new world.

Her apparition and those conversions helped to end the Aztec practice of human sacrifice.

Catholicism does not preach the worshipping of Mary, and you know that.

(Cue the "Glories of Mary" and your famous list that you have saved and love to post.)

---

I didn't say that "Catholicism preaches the worshipping of Mary". I said that Roman Cathoilcs worship Mary.

All of us in the rational world know that based on everything I've presented, it's true that Roman Catholicism worships Mary. The only ones denying this are the ones brainwashed in the Roman Catholic system.

Ending human sacrifice is good, but Satan is perfectly happy with giving up a temporary evil for an eternal one. No rational, honest person can look at Roman Catholicism south of the border and say that Mary isn't worshiped. The degree to which you and your Catholic brethren are deceived, is beyond understanding.

I'm not doing al this for Catholics like yourself, who are completely deceived and lost. My call is for those reading this who are in the Roman Catholic system who KNOW what they're doing is wrong (the true Christians with Roman Catholicism) to heed the call of Jesus in Revelation:

"Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues".

---

Just to be clear, is it your position that the Catholic Church is the fallen Babylon referred to in Revelation?

---

I believe it is quite possible, yes. But I'm not necessarily making that declaration here. I'm simply applying Jesus warning in Revelation to all those stuck in a false religious system.

---

Is your church or denomination infalliable?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

If someone is saved when they are 13, but their actions fail to reflect a Christian life, by lying, cheating, and being a bully, I take it that they would not be in the Book of Life, by your interpretation?

---

Why would you think that is my interpretation? There is nothing I said in this or in any other thread that would indicate that.

---

BTD, so what would be your interpretation?

---

If you're saying that person is saved, then their name is in the Book of Life. I'm not sure why you couldn't figure this out.

Are you saying a saved person can be removed from the Book of Life based on their actions regardless of their faith? If so, then at what point does "failing to reflect a Christian life" occur? What's the cutoff point between adequately living a Christian, and failing to?

---

As an example, a nonbeliever, becomes a believer (is saved), and for a while believes and acts in accordance with those beliefs and faith in Christ, but after a period of time leaves the faith and returns to being a nonbeliever and his actions reflect his lack of faith in Christ. In my opinion, that person will not be in the Book of Life, because they will be headed for Hell. What is your opinion? I ask this because I have come across some who people in "once saved, always saved," but often avoid how that plays into free will. Although I don't believe that, I am open to discussing it with those who do, hoping to have a better understanding of the whole issue. I may be in error, as I thought you may have addressed this issue some time ago and I have the impression that you might that belief, and if so, would be willing to share some dialogue.

---

You are presenting a different scenario than what you did initially. Here, you're saying the person actually "leaves the faith". In that case, the person never did have true faith, and was never written in the Book of Life to begin with.

Your new scenario makes it more unclear about what it is you believe: are you saying 1) that a person can intitially be in the Book of Life, but then be removed due to their works not being reflective of a "Christian" life, or 2) a person can be intially be in the Book of Life, but they are removed because they no longer have faith, or 3) you believe both these things?

I've never avoided the issue of free will and "once saved always saved". I don't think the loss of free will is even in the equation. In fact, I think it's the opposite - salvation and the Holy Spirit FREES a person from bondage and thus accentuates their free will, not diminishes it.

---

So do you believe that once a person is saved that they are always saved?

---

So is your idea of good dialogue to avoid answering a question by asking your own question?

---

Ok, my last response to you was the following:

For me to participate in the dialogue, I am attempting to gain a better understanding of your statement. That's it. Sorry for the delays in responding, as I am busier than usual.

Apparently you have chosen not to respond to my last question, which was a question to you so that it would better allow me to respond to our earlier dialogue. Is that correct? Are you of the mindset that you prefer to just stop and move on?

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Paul argues for resurrection but never mentions an empty tomb as evidence."

This may come as a shock to you, but if a man rises from the dead, his tomb will be empty.

Paul argued from the moral point of view, not the legalistic one. And as I noted, the tomb condition is obvious if the event described happened.

---

That's probably because Paul had not heard of an empty tomb story. Those stories apparently came later. Most likely there was no tomb. Romans typically left the cruicified for scavaging, and disposal of remains in a common pit.

I don't follow your last point, moral vs. legalistic?

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Paul argues for resurrection but never mentions an empty tomb as evidence."

This may come as a shock to you, but if a man rises from the dead, his tomb will be empty.

Paul argued from the moral point of view, not the legalistic one. And as I noted, the tomb condition is obvious if the event described happened.

---

That's probably because Paul had not heard of an empty tomb story. Those stories apparently came later. Most likely there was no tomb. Romans typically left the cruicified for scavaging, and disposal of remains in a common pit.

I don't follow your last point, moral vs. legalistic?

---

You have provided no evidence for your claim that 'there was no tomb'.

And your argument that Paul needed empirical evidence for his claim is where you went legalist. Paul's argument is about faith and hope, not forensics and courtroom.

BUDOS said:

---

TexasScientist, perhaps I expected too much and longer words. I have heard all but one of those theories before, but never all in the same narrative. You commonly refer to reality and logic. Perhaps you can use that to help me better understand creation, which I am pretty sure is a topic you have dealt with on multiple occasions.

As you are aware a common theory is the big bang, supposedly caused by some friendly gases being introduced to some gases who apparently were not as friendly, resulting in a hostile merger or explosion. Where did the gases come from? How were they created? If I recall correctly, somewhere in at least one science course I was told that something cannot be created from nothing. Admittedly, that was a long time ago and some new theories may now exist.

Get where I am coming from? Logic and reality are important, as are the wording in the theory and the premise something does or doesn't exist.

In philosophy, a professor asked the class if anyone could prove God exists; he was then asked if he could prove God did not exist. He was baiting us. We spent the whole term proving that neither could be proven by hard evidence. Later I learned about belief systems, how they are formed and how hard they are to change, especially core beliefs. Although neither one of us has any thoughts of changing beliefs, I appreciate that we can discuss our differences and present our arguments, and, in some cases, theories.

So, can you give me your thoughts on how those gases were logically formed, in reality?

---

Quantum theory actually gives us a, plausible, non-magical answer to the question of origin.

In quantum theory, "empty space" isn't empty in the classical/philosophical sense. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle means even "empty" space isn't static - it's full of virtual particles (and antiparticles) flickering in and out of existence that annihilate almost instantly. This isn't speculation; it's confirmed through experimental measurement. Accordingly, we know that a true vacuum is inherently unstable - quantum systems are not static, and under the right conditions a vacuum can convert its energy into particles and radiation. This instability can apply to space and time themselves, not just to particles within them.

Alan Guth's inflation theory demonstrates mathematically the "explosion" "hostile merger" you mentioned. His theory demonstrates how in an incredibly small fraction of a second, after the universe began, space itself expanded at an exponential rate - far faster than light could travel through normal space (this doesn't violate relativity, because space is itself expanding, not things moving through space). Inflation is powered by a field with a particular kind of vacuum energy that, quantum mechanically, is unstable and decays, releasing enormous energy as it does. That decay is essentially what dumped the heat and particles into the universe that has been observed as the aftermath of the Big Bang (i.e. the cosmic microwave background). So inflation gives you a mechanism for the explosive, energetic transition - not gases colliding, but a vacuum-like field decaying into a hot, expanding universe - a closed universe that gives the appearance of a flat 3D universe that we experience living.

Alexander Vilenkin also demonstrated how a universe could originate as a quantum event from a state with no spacetime at all into one with an expanding spacetime and energy in it. Relatedly, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle explained if you treat time itself quantum mechanically near the very beginning, the universe doesn't need a sharp starting edge - time smoothly rounds off, in similar fashon that the North Pole isn't a boundary on Earth's surface - it's just a point where further north stops meaning anything.

Even the laws that govern our universe (or any other universe) can come into existence with spacetime. Current thought treats the laws and constants of physics as emerging together with spacetime, not as pre-existing rules waiting to be applied. Some models even suggest different regions of an early inflating universe could settle into different constants, meaning the constants aren't fixed in advance possibly with differing laws for differing parts of a multiverse.

All of this depends on gravity being a quantum theory (which it appears to be) - since general relativity tells us gravity is what defines spacetime itself. Although we don't have a confirmed theory of quantum gravity, this concept is mathematically consistent with quantum theory - just not yet experimentally verified. It's not absolute proof (yet), but the fact that it is plausible makes religious magic irrelevant.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Paul argues for resurrection but never mentions an empty tomb as evidence."

This may come as a shock to you, but if a man rises from the dead, his tomb will be empty.

Paul argued from the moral point of view, not the legalistic one. And as I noted, the tomb condition is obvious if the event described happened.

---

That's probably because Paul had not heard of an empty tomb story. Those stories apparently came later. Most likely there was no tomb. Romans typically left the cruicified for scavaging, and disposal of remains in a common pit.

I don't follow your last point, moral vs. legalistic?

---

Paul and Luke traveled together.. I am sure Paul heard it. Read Acts, most of the time Luke writes in 3rd person but from time to time he adds himself and writes as we because he is traveling with Paul at that time.

It took me a while to figure it out, but sadly, you appear to be Nicodemus. A very learned man who by all rights should see it but just can't see it.

By the way, did TexasScientist ever respond to the question of where did the gases come from which allegedly caused the Big Bang? I am sincerely interested in his response.

BUDOS said:

---

By the way, did TexasScientist ever respond to the question of where did the gases come from which allegedly caused the Big Bang? I am sincerely interested in his response.

---

he wrote a long post that basically said the greatest minds on the planet postulate that some straight rando stuff that happens all the time in the quantum realm created the big bang and the beginning of the universe

I am not a super smart science guy so I will stick with God created the universe.

Amazing the things God tells you when you ask..

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

If someone is saved when they are 13, but their actions fail to reflect a Christian life, by lying, cheating, and being a bully, I take it that they would not be in the Book of Life, by your interpretation?

---

Why would you think that is my interpretation? There is nothing I said in this or in any other thread that would indicate that.

---

BTD, so what would be your interpretation?

---

If you're saying that person is saved, then their name is in the Book of Life. I'm not sure why you couldn't figure this out.

Are you saying a saved person can be removed from the Book of Life based on their actions regardless of their faith? If so, then at what point does "failing to reflect a Christian life" occur? What's the cutoff point between adequately living a Christian, and failing to?

---

As an example, a nonbeliever, becomes a believer (is saved), and for a while believes and acts in accordance with those beliefs and faith in Christ, but after a period of time leaves the faith and returns to being a nonbeliever and his actions reflect his lack of faith in Christ. In my opinion, that person will not be in the Book of Life, because they will be headed for Hell. What is your opinion? I ask this because I have come across some who people in "once saved, always saved," but often avoid how that plays into free will. Although I don't believe that, I am open to discussing it with those who do, hoping to have a better understanding of the whole issue. I may be in error, as I thought you may have addressed this issue some time ago and I have the impression that you might that belief, and if so, would be willing to share some dialogue.

---

You are presenting a different scenario than what you did initially. Here, you're saying the person actually "leaves the faith". In that case, the person never did have true faith, and was never written in the Book of Life to begin with.

Your new scenario makes it more unclear about what it is you believe: are you saying 1) that a person can intitially be in the Book of Life, but then be removed due to their works not being reflective of a "Christian" life, or 2) a person can be intially be in the Book of Life, but they are removed because they no longer have faith, or 3) you believe both these things?

I've never avoided the issue of free will and "once saved always saved". I don't think the loss of free will is even in the equation. In fact, I think it's the opposite - salvation and the Holy Spirit FREES a person from bondage and thus accentuates their free will, not diminishes it.

---

So do you believe that once a person is saved that they are always saved?

---

So is your idea of good dialogue to avoid answering a question by asking your own question?

---

Ok, my last response to you was the following:

For me to participate in the dialogue, I am attempting to gain a better understanding of your statement. That's it. Sorry for the delays in responding, as I am busier than usual.

Apparently you have chosen not to respond to my last question, which was a question to you so that it would better allow me to respond to our earlier dialogue. Is that correct? Are you of the mindset that you prefer to just stop and move on?

---

I don't respond to people who continually avoid questions asked of them by asking further questions. It's a tactic that everyone sees right through. If you want dialogue, then dialogue, don't monologue.

Quote:

---

Another strawman argument. I'm sure that some Catholic who falsely worship Mary exist. The Church doesn't teach that. At least you finally admit that.

It's not a shocker that a Church of nearly 1.4 billion people have some who are malformed in their catechesis.

Look at the protestants that practice yoga or practice new-age occultic activities. We should condemn prostestantism for that.

I doubt that most individuals south of the boarder worship Mary. I've met several priests from Central and South America that do NOT profess that.

You will need to provide legitimate statistics from a respected non-biased source to support your position. Veneration and intercession requests do NOT equal worship.

---

You still don't know what a straw man is, even after the many, many times you failed to apply the concept correctly. Such lack in logical ability, not to mention the repeated refusal to correct your mistakes, only shows how fruitless debates with you that require logical thinking and intellectual honesty really are.

I've "admitted" nothing that you're saying. I didn't say that Roman Catholicism didn't "teach" the worshiping of Mary. It most certainly does. Anyone who doesn't see this is lost, blind, and has absolutely ZERO discernment. Roman Catholicism will never "preach" the admission that they worship Mary. They are in constant denial, and sadly they will find out in the end how really, really, really bad their mistake was. I'm trying to wake the Roman Catholics who are true Christians from their slumber. I'm not here for Catholics like you, who are completely brainwashed and an enemy of God's truth.

Your yoga example is typical thinking of someone who just doesn't get it. Protestant doctrine has nothing to do with yoga. Roman Catholic DOGMA involves worshiping Mary.

Simply stated, if you don't see that the Roman Catholicism south of the border involves HEAVY Mary worship, then simplly stated, you are either highly ignorant of your own religion or you are outside of reality.

"I've met several priests from Central and South America that don't profess that" - LOL. Wow, that settles it. And we already know that Roman Catholic clergy are in denial about what they're actually doing, so....

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Ending human sacrifice is good, but Satan is perfectly happy with giving up a temporary evil for an eternal one. No rational, honest person can look at Roman Catholicism south of the border and say that Mary isn't worshiped. The degree to which you and your Catholic brethren are deceived, is beyond understanding.

---

Interesting. Now you claim to know how Satan's mind works. Maybe it is your heart that has been hardened by his.

You will to prove your claim. This is your biased and sadly, skewed view of Catholicism. How do you explain the hundreds (if not thousands) of healing miracles attributed to the intercession of Our Lady of Guadelupe? How do you explain the charities and universities that were formed by Catholics in those areas? Satan doesn't do that.

---

It doesn't take a Christian genius to know that Satan is an enemy of God and would want people in eternal Hell, separated from God forever. Maybe it's because you don't know this, that you so easily fall into his traps and are completely unable to discern his fruits.

Healing miracles do not automatically indicate a person or message is approved by God:

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

Charities and universities also do not indicate a source approval by God. Muslims do the same. So do Mormons. So do the Free Masons and Shriners.

You are so easily deceived. For your own sake, WAKE UP.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Ending human sacrifice is good, but Satan is perfectly happy with giving up a temporary evil for an eternal one. No rational, honest person can look at Roman Catholicism south of the border and say that Mary isn't worshiped. The degree to which you and your Catholic brethren are deceived, is beyond understanding.

---

Interesting. Now you claim to know how Satan's mind works. Maybe it is your heart that has been hardened by his.

You will to prove your claim. This is your biased and sadly, skewed view of Catholicism. How do you explain the hundreds (if not thousands) of healing miracles attributed to the intercession of Our Lady of Guadelupe? How do you explain the charities and universities that were formed by Catholics in those areas? Satan doesn't do that.

---

It doesn't take a Christian genius to know that Satan is an enemy of God and would want people in eternal Hell, separated from God forever. Maybe it's because you don't know this, that you so easily fall into his traps and are completely unable to discern his fruits.

Healing miracles do not automatically indicate a person or message is approved by God:

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

Charities and universities also do not indicate a source approval by God. Muslims do the same. So do Mormons. So do the Free Masons and Shriners.

You are so easily deceived. For your own sake, WAKE UP.

---

What are the fruits then that you see as validily discernable?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It doesn't take a Christian genius to know that Satan is an enemy of God and would want people in eternal Hell, separated from God forever. Maybe it's because you don't know this, that you so easily fall into his traps and are completely unable to discern his fruits.

Healing miracles do not automatically indicate a person or message is approved by God:

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

Charities and universities also do not indicate a source approval by God. Muslims do the same. So do Mormons. So do the Free Masons and Shriners.

You are so easily deceived. For your own sake, WAKE UP.

---

You will have to prove this claim in counter of the evidence that an entire continent was converted to Christianity due this apparition.

The entire region was filled with pagans practicing human sacrifice and they converted to Christianity - 9-10 million in ten years alone.

That doesn't sound like something the devil would do. The healings have led thousands to have faith in the one triune God. That's not something that Satan would do.

Your anti-Catholic bias and hardened heart are on full display here.

Please let the scales fall from your eyes and see the beauty and truth of the Church that Jesus established.

" an entire continent was converted to Christianity due this apparition."

(bold in original)

I don't recall any continent ever being converted to Christianity. You have a folk myth, not an established fact there.

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Paul argues for resurrection but never mentions an empty tomb as evidence."

This may come as a shock to you, but if a man rises from the dead, his tomb will be empty.

Paul argued from the moral point of view, not the legalistic one. And as I noted, the tomb condition is obvious if the event described happened.

---

That's probably because Paul had not heard of an empty tomb story. Those stories apparently came later. Most likely there was no tomb. Romans typically left the cruicified for scavaging, and disposal of remains in a common pit.

I don't follow your last point, moral vs. legalistic?

---

Paul and Luke traveled together.. I am sure Paul heard it. Read Acts, most of the time Luke writes in 3rd person but from time to time he adds himself and writes as we because he is traveling with Paul at that time.

It took me a while to figure it out, but sadly, you appear to be Nicodemus. A very learned man who by all rights should see it but just can't see it.

---

Whether Luke and Paul actually traveled together misses the point entirely. I don't think anybody disputes that Paul knew various people and traditions. The poignant question is why, when Paul constructs his most careful, explicit, formal argument for the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 (listing witnesses one by one, methodically making his case as he does in all his letters) he never once mentions an empty tomb. Not once. If the empty tomb concept was pervasive, it would be something that he could have argued as a powerful piece of evidence for the resurrection. Why does the Paul making the strongest and early case for the resurrection leave it out completely? An empty tomb could have been his strongest physical, possibly most verifiable evidence. The fact it is absent from his argument is striking, not incidental.

Most scholars agree Luke and Acts were written between 80 and 90 CE, well after Paul's death. The "we" comment is genuinely debated by scholars. Granted some take them as literal eyewitness, others see the comments as a typical literary device in writing ancient travel narratives. But, even if you grant that Luke traveled with Paul, it still doesn't explain why Paul himself never invokes an empty tomb tradition in his own writings.

Whether Paul knew about the empty tomb is less important, considering what Paul chose to argue and what he conspicuously didn't. The fact he didn't mention it tells us something about what the earliest resurrection tradition actually looked like before the narratives became more elaborate.

I'll take the Nicodemus comparison as a compliment, since he was intellectually serious and asked honest questions.

" Acts could have been written would be within a few years of the last recorded event in Acts, which takes place probably in AD 62"

When Was Acts Written? | Zondervan Academic

Oldbear83 said:

---

" an entire continent was converted to Christianity due this apparition."

(bold in original)

I don't recall any continent ever being converted to Christianity. You have a folk myth, not an established fact there.

---

lol. You ever been to central
Or South America?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It doesn't take a Christian genius to know that Satan is an enemy of God and would want people in eternal Hell, separated from God forever. Maybe it's because you don't know this, that you so easily fall into his traps and are completely unable to discern his fruits.

Healing miracles do not automatically indicate a person or message is approved by God:

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

Charities and universities also do not indicate a source approval by God. Muslims do the same. So do Mormons. So do the Free Masons and Shriners.

You are so easily deceived. For your own sake, WAKE UP.

---

You will have to prove this claim in counter of the evidence that an entire continent was converted to Christianity due this apparition.

The entire region was filled with pagans practicing human sacrifice and they converted to Christianity - 9-10 million in ten years alone.

That doesn't sound like something the devil would do. The healings have led thousands to have faith in the one triune God. That's not something that Satan would do.

Your anti-Catholic bias and hardened heart are on full display here.

Please let the scales fall from your eyes and see the beauty and truth of the Church that Jesus established.

---

Scales from my eyes?

Says the person who bows to images and statues of Mary prays to her thusly:

" Most Holy Virgin Immaculate, my Mother Mary,
to you who are the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the universe, the advocate,
the hope, and the refuge of sinners,

I venerate you, great Queen, and I thank you for the many graces
you have bestowed upon me even unto this day;
in particular for having delivered me from the hell
which I have so often deserved by my sins....

... I promise to serve you willingly for ever...

... I place in you all my hopes for salvation"


You Roman Catholics who can't see the problem here are just so, so, SO STUPID.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Ending human sacrifice is good, but Satan is perfectly happy with giving up a temporary evil for an eternal one. No rational, honest person can look at Roman Catholicism south of the border and say that Mary isn't worshiped. The degree to which you and your Catholic brethren are deceived, is beyond understanding.

---

Interesting. Now you claim to know how Satan's mind works. Maybe it is your heart that has been hardened by his.

You will to prove your claim. This is your biased and sadly, skewed view of Catholicism. How do you explain the hundreds (if not thousands) of healing miracles attributed to the intercession of Our Lady of Guadelupe? How do you explain the charities and universities that were formed by Catholics in those areas? Satan doesn't do that.

---

It doesn't take a Christian genius to know that Satan is an enemy of God and would want people in eternal Hell, separated from God forever. Maybe it's because you don't know this, that you so easily fall into his traps and are completely unable to discern his fruits.

Healing miracles do not automatically indicate a person or message is approved by God:

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

Charities and universities also do not indicate a source approval by God. Muslims do the same. So do Mormons. So do the Free Masons and Shriners.

You are so easily deceived. For your own sake, WAKE UP.

---

What are the fruits then that you see as validily discernable?

---

See above. And WAKE UP.