• Amused
  • Angry
  • Annoyed
  • Awesome
  • Bemused
  • Cool
  • Crazy
  • Crying
  • Depressed
  • Down
  • Embarrassed
  • Enraged
  • Friendly
  • Geeky
  • Grumpy
  • Happy
  • Hungry
  • Innocent
  • Meh
  • Piratey
  • Poorly
  • Sad
  • Secret
  • Shy
  • Sneaky
  • Tired
  • Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
    Results 21 to 30 of 62
    1. #21
      atpollard is offline Prodigy Member
      56
      Married
      Mood:
      Meh
       
      Join Date
      Feb 2017
      Posts
      913
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      3,767
      CH Challenge
      42
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (10,500 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      6,758
      Level
      25
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      23.06%
      Rep Power
      209
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah View Post
      Among other places...

      1 Timothy 2:4
      2 Peter 3:9


      Yes, TULIP all appears to be a humanly "logical" construct all to support the assumption that God desires to populate Hell and thus assures it. And yes, since it all goes back to God's decision that Jesus would be meaningless and irrelevant for most people (regardless of whether they have faith or not).
      .
      MennoSota is correct about those verses. Since I am more familiar with 2 Peter 3, you must recognize that the entire context is about why God has not yet returned and the “not willing that any should perish” is a response pointing out that God delays his return so that all of the elect can be born and hear the gospel and be saved. Nothing in the chapter suggests that it has anything to do with the unsaved world. Is God omnipotent or not? Can the WILL OF GOD be thwarted or not?

      Your argument about God desiring to populate Hell is foolish talk.
      Will Jesus sacrifice on the cross prevent those who do not believe from going to HELL? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.
      Calvinism says “NO!”

      Will those who do not believe go to HELL? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.
      Calvinism says “YES!”

      Is the path to Heaven ‘narrow’ and travelled by ‘few’ while the path to HELL is ‘wide’ and travelled by ‘many’? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.
      Calvinism says “YES!”


      Since Jesus’ shed blood will not save unbelievers from HELL and many are unbelievers bound for HELL, then to argue that many will not go to HELL is to deny scripture. Do Lutherans deny scripture? Calvinists do not ... we acknowledge that God has chosen to save few and that many will go to Hell?


      Two questions for your considerations:

      1. Of what benefit is the Blood of Christ to someone who lives and dies an unrepentant unbeliever?
      2. As a monergist, does anyone have a saving ‘faith’ (as opposed to a ‘dead faith’) that was not given them by God?

    2. #22
      Josiah's Avatar
      Josiah is offline Bronze Member
      Supporting Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      6,772
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      117,193
      CH Challenge
      270
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      69,586
      Level
      64
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      66.35%
      Rep Power
      905
      Quote Originally Posted by atpollard View Post
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah

      Among other places...

      1 Timothy 2:4
      2 Peter 3:9
      1 John 2:2


      Yes, TULIP all appears to be a humanly "logical" construct all to support the assumption that God desires to populate Hell and thus assures it. And yes, since it all goes back to God's decision that Jesus would be meaningless and irrelevant for most people (regardless of whether they have faith or not).



      .
      MennoSota is correct about those verses. Since I am more familiar with 2 Peter 3, you must recognize that the entire context is about why God has not yet returned and the “not willing that any should perish” is a response pointing out that God delays his return so that all of the elect can be born and hear the gospel and be saved.

      Your spin mandates that you delete words in the text and insert "only the elect" instead.


      Your "spin" that some modern Calvinists disagree with TULIP and hold that God ONLY "passively" damns some (by choosing not to apply Christ's atoning work to them) is absurd. Calvinism teaches that Jesus died for ONLY A FEW - that was God's desire, that Jesus would NOT be the Savior for most people. That IS a "active" decision - to LIMIT Jesus to a few. Now, assuming that unbiblical and horrible assumption - God desires most to not be saved by exemption most from His grace, mercy and the atoning work of Christ - radical Calvinists thus have to come up with double predestination and OSAS. Again, since these uber-Calvinists insist before Creation God CHOSE that most would be excluded from His grace, mercy, gifts and salvation IS an active choice.
      Your argument about God desiring to populate Hell is foolish talk.
      Will Jesus sacrifice on the cross prevent those who do not believe from going to HELL? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.
      Calvinism says “NO!”



      Will those who do not believe go to HELL? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.

      Yes, but that doesn't prove as foundational dogma that THEREFORE God chose to make Jesus meaningless and unavailable to them.... that God didn't mean "world"' in John 3:16 or anything He teaches in 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, etc., etc., etc. It doesn't prove that God actively decided that most people would be barred from the atoning work of Jesus. It only means that Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide means that faith is essential.



      Since Jesus’ shed blood will not save unbelievers from HELL and many are unbelievers bound for HELL,
      No. That's NOT the position of TULIP. Uber-Calvinists do NOT teach that Jesus died for ALL, for the WORLD, that His work is for ALL - but some do not apprehend such by faith. It's that God determined that Christ's work would be for a FEW.... and thus only that FEW would be given faith, that's a POSITIVE determination that most would go to Hell no matter what. Big difference! In one case, Jesus' blood is available but not accepted, in the other there is the determination it would not be available and thus faith (whether present or not) has NOTHING to apprehend, for them Jesus is irrelevant and unavailable - God determined they could not have it. That's active.



      Two questions for your considerations:

      1. Of what benefit is the Blood of Christ to someone who lives and dies an unrepentant unbeliever?
      Again, you are trying to mix theologies..... you are deleting the "L" in TULIP because it destroys your argument. In Calvinism, it is NOT a case that the blood Jesus shed for them proved to be of no avail.... it's that God CHOSE, DECIDED, PREDETERMINED that Jesus' blood would not be shed for them.... they would be left out of the ENTIRELY of soteriology by God's willful intent and desire.... they would go to Hell because grace, mercy, Jesus would not come to them.



      2. As a monergist, does anyone have a saving ‘faith’ (as opposed to a ‘dead faith’) that was not given them by God?

      Again, that all do not apprehend (and thus benefit) from God's salvation is not proof that Jesus' work was for only a FEW and never available to most, that THEREFORE God desires most to go to Hell - and thus they will go to hell because God chose to make salvation, grace, mercy unavailable to them.

      You realize you are mixing issues. If I buy tickets to Disneyland for everyone here at CH.... and only half actually use the tickets.... does NOT prove that therefore I only bought tickets for half of the people here and that my desire is that most not be admitted to Disneyland. '

      TULIP is all predicated on the idea that God wants to populate Hell with most people..... and by making Jesus' work irrelevant to most, insures that. As a monergist, you believe that God gives faith - but as a Calvinist, you believe the issue of faith is irrelevant because those for whom the work of Christ is available thus must accept it and for those for whom Christ is irrelevant, faith is irrelevant.




      .
      Last edited by Josiah; 11-05-2018 at 03:52 PM.
      We are justified by works - just not our own.

    3. #23
      Albion's Avatar
      Albion is offline Expert Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Friendly
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2017
      Posts
      2,555
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      13,026
      CH Challenge
      298
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      17,882
      Level
      38
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      2.11%
      Rep Power
      540
      Well, you are describing the difference between single predestination and double predestination, I think, and rejecting the latter. But if single predestination is selected, it more or less has to follow that Christ did not die for everyone. (?)

    4. #24
      Josiah's Avatar
      Josiah is offline Bronze Member
      Supporting Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      6,772
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      117,193
      CH Challenge
      270
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      69,586
      Level
      64
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      66.35%
      Rep Power
      905
      Quote Originally Posted by Albion View Post
      Well, you are describing the difference between single predestination and double predestination, I think, and rejecting the latter. But if single predestination is selected, it more or less has to follow that Christ did not die for everyone. (?)

      No.


      But it does work the opposite way: Limited Atonement thus mandates double predestination since God actively chose that most people (and he names them) WILL go to Hell because nothing will be offered to them, no Savior will be available to them, no Savior will be given for certain people (who will be the majority) Faith wouldn't matter anyway since there is nothing for such faith to grasp or accept. IMO, this is one one of the horrors of TULIP - a person has no way to know if their faith actually means a thing since they have no way to know if they are on the "Jesus didn't die for them" list.


      TULIP is a "logical" construction all founded on the very unbiblical (and horrible) assumption that God wants to populate hell by making Jesus the Savior for only a minority of folks, God desiring most to be damned by not having a Savior. This of course flatly contradicting 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, etc., etc, etc., etc.


      But yes, monergism combined with election does mean there is a MYSTERY here. Jesus told Nicodemus about the wind - we don't know where it comes from or where it is going, it is MYSTERY, and so it is with those born by the Holy Spirit. There's mystery here. Yes, I think the later-day urberCalvinist idea that God desires most to go to Hell and this whole idea of TULIP is very unbiblical (and terrifying).... and I think the opposite, Pelagianism and Arminianism are equally unbiblical and wrong and terrifying... Which just means how this all works is unknown to us... The Spirit does it (which seems to be what Jesus was saying to Nicodemus in John 3).... When we enter those gates of heaven, we have ONE and ONLY ONE to thank - God (Jesus ALONE is the Savior.... the Holy Spirit is the Lord and GIVER of spiritual life) - not ourselves. And if one enters the firey gates of Hell, they have ONE and ONLY ONE to blame - themselves (and IN NO WAY God by excluding them from any other possibility). Does that "answer" why some have faith and some don't? Of course not (any more than Jesus explained to Nicodemus where wind comes from and where it is going). I think here is where Calvinism differs from the rest of Christianity: Others seem willing to embrace humility and mystery (thus the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, etc., etc. etc. - for over 1000 years, ALL Christian teaching was simply called "The Holy Mysteries") - the later day uber-Calvinists in a sense mandate that God be subject to human "logic" in much the same way that medieval RC Scholastics made God subject to popular philosophy and pre-science concepts. God calls on us to be "Caretakers of the mysteries of God" not "Make God make sense" or "Invent neat logical answers to your own questions and insist God agrees with it." There is a valid question here - but it doesn't mean that Pelagianism OR some later day uber-Calvinists MUST be right. IMO, it means we have a mystery here..... God works it out, we don't know all the details as to how.



      Important stuff....


      - Josiah






      .
      Last edited by Josiah; 11-05-2018 at 03:58 PM.
      We are justified by works - just not our own.

    5. #25
      Albion's Avatar
      Albion is offline Expert Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Friendly
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2017
      Posts
      2,555
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      13,026
      CH Challenge
      298
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      17,882
      Level
      38
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      2.11%
      Rep Power
      540
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah View Post
      No. But it does work the opposite way: Limited Atonement thus mandates double predestination since God actively chose that most people (and he names them) WILL go to Hell because nothing will be offered to them, no Savior will be available to them. Faith wouldn't matter anyway since there is nothing for such faith to grasp or accept. IMO, this is one one of the horrors of TULIP - a person has no way to know if their faith actually means a thing since they have no way to know if they are on the "Jesus didn't die for them" list.
      That seems correct to say. I am not sure that it is unthinkable, however, and it certainly is not more frustrating or pathetic or horrifying than what most Christians who say they believe in free will and meritorious works are painting as the situation.

      To them, no one has any idea if he is going to be saved either, and that is because no one knows if he has done enough or the right kind of good works and cannot know the answer, right on up to the minute of death.

    6. #26
      Josiah's Avatar
      Josiah is offline Bronze Member
      Supporting Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      6,772
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      117,193
      CH Challenge
      270
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      69,586
      Level
      64
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      66.35%
      Rep Power
      905
      Quote Originally Posted by Albion View Post
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah

      But it does work the opposite way:

      Limited Atonement thus mandates double predestination since God actively chose that most people (and he names them) WILL go to Hell because nothing will be offered to them, no Savior will be available to them, no Savior will be given for certain people (who will be the majority) Faith wouldn't matter anyway since there is nothing for such faith to grasp or accept. IMO, this is one one of the horrors of TULIP - a person has no way to know if their faith actually means a thing since they have no way to know if they are on the "Jesus didn't die for them" list.


      TULIP is a "logical" construction all founded on the very unbiblical (and horrible) assumption that God wants to populate hell by making Jesus the Savior for only a minority of folks, God desiring most to be damned by not having a Savior. This of course flatly contradicting 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, etc., etc., etc., etc.


      But yes, monergism combined with election does mean there is a MYSTERY here. Jesus told Nicodemus about the wind - we don't know where it comes from or where it is going, it is MYSTERY, and so it is with those born by the Holy Spirit. There's mystery here. Yes, I think the later-day urberCalvinist idea that God desires most to go to Hell and this whole idea of TULIP is very unbiblical (and terrifying).... and I think the opposite, Pelagianism and Arminianism are equally unbiblical and wrong and terrifying... Which just means how this all works is unknown to us... The Spirit does it (which seems to be what Jesus was saying to Nicodemus in John 3).... When we enter those gates of heaven, we have ONE and ONLY ONE to thank - God (Jesus ALONE is the Savior.... the Holy Spirit is the Lord and GIVER of spiritual life) - not ourselves. And if one enters the firey gates of Hell, they have ONE and ONLY ONE to blame - themselves (and IN NO WAY God by excluding them from any other possibility). Does that "answer" why some have faith and some don't? Of course not (any more than Jesus explained to Nicodemus where wind comes from and where it is going). I think here is where Calvinism differs from the rest of Christianity: Others seem willing to embrace humility and mystery (thus the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, etc., etc. etc. - for over 1000 years, ALL Christian teaching was simply called "The Holy Mysteries") - the later day uber-Calvinists in a sense mandate that God be subject to human "logic" in much the same way that medieval RC Scholastics made God subject to popular philosophy and pre-science concepts. God calls on us to be "Caretakers of the mysteries of God" not "Make God make sense" or "Invent neat logical answers to your own questions and insist God agrees with it." There is a valid question here - but it doesn't mean that Pelagianism OR some later day uber-Calvinists MUST be right. IMO, it means we have a mystery here..... God works it out, we don't know all the details as to how.



      .

      That seems correct to say.

      To them, no one has any idea if he is going to be saved either, and that is because no one knows if he has done enough or the right kind of good works and cannot know the answer, right on up to the minute of death.

      There are many problems with BOTH the "free will" Pelagian view and the "Limited Atonement" crowd


      BOTH
      Limited Atonement/Predestination to Hell view and the Pelagian/Arminian/Free Will have the same uncertainty and terror....


      For the Free Will folks, there is the uncertainty of whether they've actually performed this good work sufficiently and sincerely enough to merit the reward of salvation... it makes self essentially the Savior and self will always have doubts about self.
      For the Limited Atonement folks, there is always the uncertainty that their faith is actually apprehending and trusting in something actually FOR them... Jesus did NOT die more most and they have no way to know if they are in that larger group.

      IMO, the biblical position is that where there is faith, there IS justification... faith can be certain of apprehending something for them because it's for all. And it's the OBJECT of such faith that means justification, not the adequate performance of that good work, grace and Christ and faith ALL (inseparably) being the free gift of God, not because of the will or deeds of fallen/dead man but because of the mercy and grace of God (so the Good Book says).


      Here's just some of the horror of TULIP: Let's say I I post that I've bought (at great personal expense) tickets for all to go to our gathering in Hawaii. And all are pretty excited about that, and they trust/rely on my promise and accept the tickets I send to them - excited, appreciative, planning accordingly. But when they show up at the airport and up to the gate, MOST discover they were given a dud, a fake, the ticket won't work for THEM. And of course, you won't know until you show up at the gate. Now, it seems strange to argue - as some modern Calvinists do - that planning most tickets to be duds that won't work when folks come to the gate is only PASSIVELY passing over some. Nope, it's eliminating the possibility of their being saved.... And for those who DO have faith, they have no way to know if what they hold is a dud because God never supplied salvation for them but decided they would not get a good ticket.


      The Free Will folks never know if they believed right and enough... if their good work actually will be saving (the problem of self looking to self for salvation
      The Limited Atonemnet folks never know if their faith does anything because they can't know if God actually chose to offer them anything, if their faith is in a dud.


      And of course, BOTH are clearly contrary to Scripture. They are logical constructs that are against Scripture. The first starts with fallen man being good.... the second with God being bad. Both are wrong.




      - Josiah

      .




      .
      Last edited by Josiah; 11-05-2018 at 04:03 PM.
      We are justified by works - just not our own.

    7. #27
      atpollard is offline Prodigy Member
      56
      Married
      Mood:
      Meh
       
      Join Date
      Feb 2017
      Posts
      913
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      3,767
      CH Challenge
      42
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (10,500 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      6,758
      Level
      25
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      23.06%
      Rep Power
      209
      Sadly, you refuse to accept that Calvinism teaches what it actually teaches and you insist on claiming that what Reformed theology has always taught is “my spin”.

      The alternative to Limited Atonement (that the blood of Jesus does not effect the forgiveness of all sin of all people) is Universalism (the Blood of Jesus forgives all sins of all people so everyone will go to heaven). What YOU call “Mystery”, I call avoiding the conversation.

    8. Likes MennoSota liked this post
    9. #28
      Albion's Avatar
      Albion is offline Expert Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Friendly
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2017
      Posts
      2,555
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      13,026
      CH Challenge
      298
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      17,882
      Level
      38
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      2.11%
      Rep Power
      540
      Quote Originally Posted by atpollard View Post
      Sadly, you refuse to accept that Calvinism teaches what it actually teaches and you insist on claiming that what Reformed theology has always taught is “my spin”.
      do
      The alternative to Limited Atonement (that the blood of Jesus does not effect the forgiveness of all sin of all people) is Universalism (the Blood of Jesus forgives all sins of all people so everyone will go to heaven). What YOU call “Mystery”, I call avoiding the conversation.
      No, that isn't correct...and it isn't a criticism of Calvinist theology to say so.

      It is just that the opposite of limited atonement is not universal salvation but, rather, the chance for everyone to hear the Gospel, accept Christ as Lord and Savior, and be saved. Christianity does not teach that everyone will do so.

    10. #29
      atpollard is offline Prodigy Member
      56
      Married
      Mood:
      Meh
       
      Join Date
      Feb 2017
      Posts
      913
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      3,767
      CH Challenge
      42
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (10,500 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      6,758
      Level
      25
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      23.06%
      Rep Power
      209
      Quote Originally Posted by Albion View Post
      No, that isn't correct...and it isn't a criticism of Calvinist theology to say so.

      It is just that the opposite of limited atonement is not universal salvation but, rather, the chance for everyone to hear the Gospel, accept Christ as Lord and Savior, and be saved. Christianity does not teach that everyone will do so.
      How can Jesus forgive all sins except they are not really forgiven because they don’t believe?
      Joshua is NOT defining Limited Atonement as Reformed Theology has defined it for centuries. Sproul went through great care to address that very point.

      You are free to reject Limited Atonement, I have no issue with that (it is not an issue worth fighting over), but you should at least reject what it actually teaches and not a Lutheran false characterization of Limited Atonement and his false ‘inescapable human logical consequences’ of it.


      Limited Atonement:
      1. Because of Adam, everyone is born with a fallen nature and cannot understand spiritual things, consider the Gospel as foolishness, are dead in their sins, cannot please God and do not seek after God (scripture verses available upon request to support all of these claims about natural man as well as many more things).

      2. God need do NOTHING to damn every person who has ever lived. Our actions will condemn all of us and it would be an act of God’s Holy Justice to condemn the guilty as guilty. God is obligated to save no one.

      3. God has chosen to show his great love and mercy by ‘foreknowing’ and ‘predestinining’ and ‘calling’ and ‘justifying’ and ‘sanctifying’ and ‘glorifying’ some of those fallen people known throughout scripture as “His sheep” and “the elect” and “the saints” and “the Body of Christ”. God has done this because of God’s sovereign choice and not due to any innate merit in those whom God has loved.

      4. The Atonement of Christ MUST be limited by something if all people are not saved. If Jesus died for all sins and all sins are forgiven, then there was nothing limiting the Atonement ... all sins are forgiven (including unbelief) and all sinners are forgiven and everyone is bound for heaven. Since the Bible clearly teaches that everyone is not bound for heaven, then there must be some limitation on the forgiveness of sin.

      [This is not rocket science, either all sins are forgiven or all sins are not forgiven.]

      One option is that Jesus blood forgave all sins (like a pardon) but the forgiveness is not applied to YOUR particular sin until [something]. This “something” usually takes the form of ‘you confess’ or ‘you repent’ or ‘you believe’. The “LIMITATION” on the Atonement then becomes something that the person does. The problem that Calvinists have with this is that it means that Jesus’ blood actually saved NO ONE, it merely created for every single person, the opportunity to be saved.

      The Calvinist Limited Atonement rejects an ineffective Blood of Christ and chooses to believe that Jesus’ death on the Cross paid the penalty in full and forever for every sin of every person whom God “foreknew” would be with Him in heaven. Thus the ‘Limitation’ is not on the ability of the blood of Christ to forgive sin, but the ‘Limitation’ is God only applying the blood to the sins of the Elect.

      So your choice is between the Blood being applied ineffectually to all people (since only some are saved) or the Blood being applied effectually to only some (those who are ultimately saved). Unless you are going to embrace Universalism, you are going to have to accept some limitation (whether you are willing to admit it or not).

      So is the Blood of Christ effectually applied to some or ineffectually applied to all?
      That is the Theological question for you to answer for yourself.

    11. Likes MennoSota liked this post
    12. #30
      Albion's Avatar
      Albion is offline Expert Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Friendly
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2017
      Posts
      2,555
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      13,026
      CH Challenge
      298
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      17,882
      Level
      38
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      2.11%
      Rep Power
      540
      Quote Originally Posted by atpollard View Post
      How can Jesus forgive all sins except they are not really forgiven because they don’t believe?
      Joshua is NOT defining Limited Atonement as Reformed Theology has defined it for centuries. Sproul went through great care to address that very point.
      Whoever Joshua is and whatever Sproul says, the opposite of Limited Atonement (or "the alternative," as you worded it) is not Universalism. This is simply a fact that needs to be kept straight by anyone wanting to debate this subject.

      You are free to reject Limited Atonement
      Thanks for granting me that permission, but I wasn't saying anything about my own beliefs.

    Tags for this Thread

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •