Opinion of jmfcst

[Torie]

FF. He adds another perspective for us that we would otherwise not have, and he does so with knowledge and civility. jmfcst gets a bum rap here, and it's too bad.

No, he's just a hate monger and a bigot.

I have never noticed a post of his that suggests that to me.

[JSojourner]

FF. He adds another perspective for us that we would otherwise not have, and he does so with knowledge and civility. jmfcst gets a bum rap here, and it's too bad.

No, he's just a hate monger and a bigot.

I disagree, Opie.  I presume you are referring to Jmfcst's views on sexuality.  Well, I certainly do not share his views.  However, I do not believe he comes by those ideas from a place of hatred or bigotry.

Jmfcst genuinely believes people who are gay are destroying themselves spiritually, and eternally so.  And given Jesus' teaching to care about the welfare (temporal and eternal) of all people, Jmfcst believes he should tell his version of the truth regarding sexuality.  

He has never approached the issue from a "God hates fags" perspective and, in point of fact, has been quite dismissive of those knuckleheads.  This is one of the reasons I manage to respect him, despite our dramatically divergent views.  

[opebo]

FF. He adds another perspective for us that we would otherwise not have, and he does so with knowledge and civility. jmfcst gets a bum rap here, and it's too bad.

No, he's just a hate monger and a bigot.

I disagree, Opie.  I presume you are referring to Jmfcst's views on sexuality.  Well, I certainly do not share his views.  However, I do not believe he comes by those ideas from a place of hatred or bigotry.

Jmfcst genuinely believes people who are gay are destroying themselves spiritually, and eternally so.  And given Jesus' teaching to care about the welfare (temporal and eternal) of all people, Jmfcst believes he should tell his version of the truth regarding sexuality.  

He has never approached the issue from a "God hates fags" perspective and, in point of fact, has been quite dismissive of those knuckleheads.  This is one of the reasons I manage to respect him, despite our dramatically divergent views.  

There is no reason to believe as you do, since his tone is always hostile and insulting to homosexuals.  Every sign is that he hates them.

Also his economic views are based on bigotry and hatred.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So, basically, when you and I walk through scripture and allow the chips to fall where they may, we agree.  When you “refuse to accept” the way the chips fall, we disagree.  It’s a matter of the difference in consistency of our individual approach

You don't change. In short you say here "sorry guy, you're nice, but The Truth, it's me who got it, too bad for you". Every human being who doesn't acknowledge that what he says could be wrong, even if he is strongly convinced, he could say "ultimately, I could be wrong, I'm just a human being", especially when it comes to something as deep as religion, is disqualifying himself to my eyes.

As far as I know you're just a human being, right?

Actually, that's not what I am saying at all.  In fact, I don't even consider my differences with JSJ on these three issues to be a matter of interpretation.  In fact, on two of the issues he doesn’t even offer a scriptural proof, and on the other issue he offers a single verse. 

Rather I am saying that if this were a benign issue, JSJ could walk your through the scripture, tracing the issue from Old Testament to New Testament, allowing the chips to fall where they may, and be able to completely mesh his conclusion with scripture

Again, if this were a Geometry class, JSJ would have nice long well thought out proofs for his others doctrines.  But, his solutions to these 3 doctrines would be missing proofs altogether, even though his “textbook” has “fundamental” postulates and theorems covering these topics.  I’ve haven’t tried to condemn JSJ, rather I have tried to stir up some conviction within him to deal with the inconsistency of his approach.

---

Now, you and others may repeatedly claim that I must lack love because I refuse to “reason” without the fundamentals of my textbook, but I’m already aware of the story of how Delilah pestered Samson with the same argument until Samson played with fire to the point that he didn’t even realize he had crossed the line with God.  In the end, Delilah didn’t really love him anyway and Samson was subdued and had his eyes gouged out and became blind.

But, I am not like Samson; I am not going to give into the naggings of the world, even if the world concludes I don’t love her.  Because, in the end, it’s not the love of the world I am after.

[Linus Van Pelt]

believe that the book of Revelation is about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

just for the record, this is obviously not correct. 

I have simply stated the Iranian leadership give every indiciation that they are religiously driven to destroy Israel.  The bible, but not the book of Revelation, says that Iran and Russia will lead an alliance to attack Israel during the end times, but no timetable is given for such a war - it could be a long way off, even hundreds of years.  It is simply the pace of events, not any doctrine that I hold, that leads me to lean toward it being within the next 20 years.

But, aside from any biblical interpretation, Iran should be taken very seriously

OK, now you've got me intrigued. I was deliberately a bit cheeky using that phrasing, and expected you to say that any identification of current Iranian events with Biblical prophecies was your own speculation, since obviously the Bible doesn't explicitly mention Ahmedinejad or anyone else by name. But now in your more serious reply, in discussing not your own eschatological inquiries but the actual content of the Bible, you state that the Bible says that Iran and Russia will lead an attack against Israel? Where? I can imagine Biblical references to ancient Persia and Israel, but Russia?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

believe that the book of Revelation is about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

just for the record, this is obviously not correct. 

I have simply stated the Iranian leadership give every indiciation that they are religiously driven to destroy Israel.  The bible, but not the book of Revelation, says that Iran and Russia will lead an alliance to attack Israel during the end times, but no timetable is given for such a war - it could be a long way off, even hundreds of years.  It is simply the pace of events, not any doctrine that I hold, that leads me to lean toward it being within the next 20 years.

But, aside from any biblical interpretation, Iran should be taken very seriously

OK, now you've got me intrigued. I was deliberately a bit cheeky using that phrasing, and expected you to say that any identification of current Iranian events with Biblical prophecies was your own speculation, since obviously the Bible doesn't explicitly mention Ahmedinejad or anyone else by name. But now in your more serious reply, in discussing not your own eschatological inquiries but the actual content of the Bible, you state that the Bible says that Iran and Russia will lead an attack against Israel? Where? I can imagine Biblical references to ancient Persia and Israel, but Russia?

Magog (who is son of Japheth, one of the sons of Noah, in Genesis) is considered by many in ancient Judaism to a power living north of Israel and maybe even north of the Black Sea.  Magog is mentioned in the endtimes in both Eze and Rev.

[Psychic Octopus]

Nothing's wrong with him, he's just a devoted Christian. I read the post about The Simpsons, and he said he didn't let his kids watch it. People labeled him a fascist, which is very unfair. Jmfcst = Parent, not fascist. And also, Jmfcst = Freedom Fighter.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Technically a borderline troll, but he's been here sooooooooo long that it seems almost wrong to call him so. No, I won't vote HP.

[© tweed]

I am glad he exists.

[Scam of God]

Nothing's wrong with him, he's just a devoted Christian. I read the post about The Simpsons, and he said he didn't let his kids watch it. People labeled him a fascist, which is very unfair. Jmfcst = Parent, not fascist. And also, Jmfcst = Freedom Fighter.

Keep on keepin' on sucking that RR prick, friend.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Nothing's wrong with him, he's just a devoted Christian. I read the post about The Simpsons, and he said he didn't let his kids watch it. People labeled him a fascist, which is very unfair. Jmfcst = Parent, not fascist. And also, Jmfcst = Freedom Fighter.

Keep on keepin' on sucking that RR prick, friend.

nothing in his post had any hint at all of supporting the religious right agenda, you c**nt

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

So, basically, when you and I walk through scripture and allow the chips to fall where they may, we agree.  When you “refuse to accept” the way the chips fall, we disagree.  It’s a matter of the difference in consistency of our individual approach

You don't change. In short you say here "sorry guy, you're nice, but The Truth, it's me who got it, too bad for you". Every human being who doesn't acknowledge that what he says could be wrong, even if he is strongly convinced, he could say "ultimately, I could be wrong, I'm just a human being", especially when it comes to something as deep as religion, is disqualifying himself to my eyes.

As far as I know you're just a human being, right?

Actually, that's not what I am saying at all.  In fact, I don't even consider my differences with JSJ on these three issues to be a matter of interpretation.  In fact, on two of the issues he doesn’t even offer a scriptural proof, and on the other issue he offers a single verse. 

Rather I am saying that if this were a benign issue, JSJ could walk your through the scripture, tracing the issue from Old Testament to New Testament, allowing the chips to fall where they may, and be able to completely mesh his conclusion with scripture

Again, if this were a Geometry class, JSJ would have nice long well thought out proofs for his others doctrines.  But, his solutions to these 3 doctrines would be missing proofs altogether, even though his “textbook” has “fundamental” postulates and theorems covering these topics.  I’ve haven’t tried to condemn JSJ, rather I have tried to stir up some conviction within him to deal with the inconsistency of his approach.

---

Now, you and others may repeatedly claim that I must lack love because I refuse to “reason” without the fundamentals of my textbook, but I’m already aware of the story of how Delilah pestered Samson with the same argument until Samson played with fire to the point that he didn’t even realize he had crossed the line with God.  In the end, Delilah didn’t really love him anyway and Samson was subdued and had his eyes gouged out and became blind.

But, I am not like Samson; I am not going to give into the naggings of the world, even if the world concludes I don’t love her.  Because, in the end, it’s not the love of the world I am after.

Nah, nah, I don't reproach you a miss of love, debates are not about love, they are about arguments and respect, you didn't miss to both of these. If debates were about love here, that's a long time i would have left, getting bored.

Neither that i would interfere in the issues you have with JSojourner. It's just that when you responded him I saw something which is generally strong in you, at least for religion discussions, haven't monitored a lot what you can say on economy, being that it's seems to be hard for you, maybe impossible, to admit that you could be wrong on that realm or that something else you don't know could give you an other light on what you already know. You may strongly defend your points, but especially when it comes to something as dense as religion, the human being you are (if you're more than this tell me what you are please) has to impose himself the ultimate option that he could be wrong, even if he strongly believes in what he says, because he's just a human being. You can act the way you want, justifying it by your strong beliefs, but, the slightest would be that, in a debate, you admit that, ultimately, you could be wrong, we call it humility I think.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Neither that i would interfere in the issues you have with JSojourner. It's just that when you responded him I saw something which is generally strong in you, at least for religion discussions, haven't monitored a lot what you can say on economy, being that it's seems to be hard for you, maybe impossible, to admit that you could be wrong on that realm or that something else you don't know could give you an other light on what you already know. You may strongly defend your points, but especially when it comes to something as dense as religion, the human being you are (if you're more than this tell me what you are please) has to impose himself the ultimate option that he could be wrong, even if he strongly believes in what he says, because he's just a human being. You can act the way you want, justifying it by your strong beliefs, but, the slightest would be that, in a debate, you admit that, ultimately, you could be wrong, we call it humility I think.

granted I could be wrong, but - going back to the geometry analogy - an opposing point of view that completely lacks a proof and fails to take into account the given postulates and theorems, ain't gonna be the stroke of genius that's going to expose any flaws in my logic.

Example:  I claim that faith in Jesus Christ is the only path of salvation for the sinner and all sinners who do not believe in Jesus Christ are lost, and I can list dozens upon dozens of New Testament verses to support that claim.  JSJ, a Christian, simply “can’t accept that” and states that he believes that people of non-Christian faiths can be saved, yet offers no scriptural support.  Now, my interpretation could be flawed, but JSJ’s argument is of no help in finding flaws within my interpretation.

That’s exactly what we’re dealing with here.  And my stand against such arguments is met with “you are incapable of having a good faith dialogue”. 

Now, obviously I don’t really care about the labels thrown at me, but it’s the idiocy of it all that eats away at me.

[opebo]

Example:  I claim that faith in Jesus Christ is the only path of salvation for the sinner and all sinners who do not believe in Jesus Christ are lost...

Sorry, but don't you believe they will be tortured for all eternity by 'god'?  I'm just saying 'lost' isn't exactly the right word for what you are specifically required to believe. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Example:  I claim that faith in Jesus Christ is the only path of salvation for the sinner and all sinners who do not believe in Jesus Christ are lost...

Sorry, but don't you believe they will be tortured for all eternity by 'god'?  I'm just saying 'lost' isn't exactly the right word for what you are specifically required to believe. 

obviously, "lost" is a current state referring only to the living...if they die "lost", then they will be tortured for all eternity

[opebo]

Example:  I claim that faith in Jesus Christ is the only path of salvation for the sinner and all sinners who do not believe in Jesus Christ are lost...

Sorry, but don't you believe they will be tortured for all eternity by 'god'?  I'm just saying 'lost' isn't exactly the right word for what you are specifically required to believe. 

obviously, "lost" is a current state referring only to the living...if they die "lost", then they will be tortured for all eternity

Fantastic!  Thanks for the confirmation.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

given that he believes baptism is necessary for salvation

That depends. 

1)   If a believer who has received the Holy Spirit embraces water baptism yet dies before being water baptized, I very much believe they died saved. 
2)   But, if someone who professes to believe in Christ yet rejects the concept of water baptism, I do not believe they are saved because I believe it is impossible to be in a state of salvation (impossible to receive the Holy Spirit) while rejecting the concept of water baptism. 
3)   If a believer has been water baptized but yet dies without receiving the Holy Spirit, I highly doubt they are saved

If you’d like for me to go through the scriptural proofs of each of these 3 examples, I’d be happy to do so in another thread.

---

does not believe in the Trinity

Again, that depends.

I am a monotheist.  I believe in one God.  I believe in the deity of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…but I believe each personification (or manifestation) encompasses the “person” of the other two (e.g. within the body of Jesus Christ lived the entire Godhead.)  Therefore, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different personifications (or manifestations) of the same person - God.  (I can back these statements up with scripture in another thread if you’d like)

And if you have a different version of the Trinity and want to split hairs with me over my version, then consider this:  if my version is more monotheistic than your version, then who is the true monotheist?

---

that makes him a somewhat odd representative of the evangelical wing of the GOP.

in the sense that I am not creed driven?  that would be correct. 

in the sense that I am not driven by ideology?  that would also be correct.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I don't know what to make of jmfcst, but he's rather Phil like in this thread in that he responds to all his critics......that I don't care for.......

I'm neutral.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't know what to make of jmfcst, but he's rather Phil like in this thread in that he responds to all his critics......that I don't care for.......

I'm neutral.

but my responses are substantive, unlike Phil's   

[You kip if you want to...]

jmfcst is probably one of the most freedomy fightery people on the forum IMO.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I don't know what to make of jmfcst, but he's rather Phil like in this thread in that he responds to all his critics......that I don't care for.......

I'm neutral.

but my responses are substantive, unlike Phil's   

Phil's were too, it's just that he went to use until the slightest available crumb of argument to make a whole bread. (well, if this is understandable) (anyways, that's not his thread here, that's yours jmf)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't know what to make of jmfcst, but he's rather Phil like in this thread in that he responds to all his critics......that I don't care for.......

I'm neutral.

but my responses are substantive, unlike Phil's   

Phil's were too, it's just that he went to use until the slightest available crumb of argument to make a whole bread. (well, if this is understandable) (anyways, that's not his thread here, that's yours jmf)

True.  I admit to not reading the majority of Phil's spats, but the ones I saw basically had to do with the way he was treated, whereas I don't really care how I am treated.  Instead, I try to refocus the discussion on the larger topic at hand and how the individual members of the discussion are logically approaching the subject and whether or not their viewpoint on a subject is consistent with the their viewpoints on similar subjects.

If I were to grade myself on this forum, I’d give myself negative marks in the area of decorum (I tend to purposely stir the pot), but high marks in the area of logical consistency. Which is obviously not a good mix when it comes to making forum friends. 

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

If I were to grade myself on this forum, I’d give myself negative marks in the area of decorum (I tend to purposely stir the pot), but high marks in the area of logical consistency. Which is obviously not a good mix when it comes to making forum friends. 

Héhé, it's a luck that I spoke about humility before... Well, to your credit you used the conditional temporal mode...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If I were to grade myself on this forum, I’d give myself negative marks in the area of decorum (I tend to purposely stir the pot), but high marks in the area of logical consistency. Which is obviously not a good mix when it comes to making forum friends. 

Héhé, it's a luck that I spoke about humility before... Well, to your credit you used the conditional temporal mode...

are you EE? because I haven't heard that term since college

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

If I were to grade myself on this forum, I’d give myself negative marks in the area of decorum (I tend to purposely stir the pot), but high marks in the area of logical consistency. Which is obviously not a good mix when it comes to making forum friends. 

Héhé, it's a luck that I spoke about humility before... Well, to your credit you used the conditional temporal mode...

are you EE? because I haven't heard that term since college

Nah, I'm French.

Well, conditional, "would", what's EE btw?