John Calvin Had It All Wrong

[DaveW]

So John, if a Calvinist is clearly not interested in discussion we should just ignore him and let him post his trash without anyone pointing out the error?

[John81]

I wasn't speaking specifically to OB but more in the matter of the course of our lives.

 

That said, if a rabid "Calvinist" shows up pushing his view with no intent other than doing that and attacking any who oppose his view, there is really no need to engage them. Far better to simply report their postings and allow the Mods to deal with them.

 

At the same time, if one feels so led, they can post a general refutation or posting espousing their view on the matter without addressing the posting towards the rabid one or making any reference to them or their posting at all.

 

In these online encounters here it's best not to feed the trolls.

[Miss Daisy]

COVENANTOR IS A TROLL!!

 

WHY IS HE NOT BANNED MODERATORS?????

AFRAID OF OFFENDING HIM?

HE DOESN'T CARE IF HE OFFENDS MOST OF US!! WITH HIS VIEWS AND TWISTED LOGIC AND NEWS FROM AL JAZEERA!

 

WHAT'S THE QUOTE ABOUT GOOD MEN DOING NOTHING WHILE EVIL SPREADS????

[Covenanter]

COVENANTOR IS A TROLL!!

 

WHY IS HE NOT BANNED MODERATORS?????

AFRAID OF OFFENDING HIM?

HE DOESN'T CARE IF HE OFFENDS MOST OF US!! WITH HIS VIEWS AND TWISTED LOGIC AND NEWS FROM AL JAZEERA!

 

WHAT'S THE QUOTE ABOUT GOOD MEN DOING NOTHING WHILE EVIL SPREADS????

Our church begins our Holiday Bible Club at 1 p.m. today. It will run all week. Previous years we have up to 70 children, mostly from non-Christian families.

 

Later, I will be leading a Bible study with Asian friends, hopefully including a Muslim lady. I thought Hebrews 1:1 - 2:4 would be a suitable passage for a mixed gathering.

 

We have a number of choruses we can sing in both Punjabi & English. 

[John81]

Covenanter might be called a few different things but troll isn't one of them.

 

A troll is one who shows up on a forum for the one and only purpose of doing nothing but trying to force a pet peeve or agenda while denouncing all others.

 

Covenanter is a long-time member who engages in a wide variety of topics, often with the same basic view most others are posting. Indeed, like most of us, there are things he posts that all don't agree with; which necessarily means most of us at times post things he doesn't agree with.

 

Is Covenanter, or are we, posting things some folks disagree with in order to offend, or is it simply stating ones viewpoint?

 

Surely we don't have to agree on every political or geo-political point to fellowship with one another. Surely we can having differing political and geo-political views without it being an offense to one another.

 

No doubt there are a couple other, more important, points in which Covenanter's position differs from most here. While he states his view on these matters I've not noticed him trying to force anyone to adopt his view or telling them they aren't Christians because they disagree with him or such matters.

 

Knowing someone holds views one might not want to read about, in this case Covenanter, it's typically not that difficult to avoid reading their postings on the matter. There have been a few posters here over the years that on certain topics it was clear where they were going to go and not wanting to read all that again or rehash the issue, I simply avoided certain threads they were posting in or just worked around their postings.

 

Covenanter holds views I disagree with and some I'm not sure about, but over the years he's proven to be a brother in Christ and one who has much to offer in many areas.

[DaveW]

Yes he willingly and knowingly posts items that he knows are against the majority here and that he is certainly aware will cause offence.

[John81]

Why take offense just because someone has a different view? In this country that's the tactic of liberal Leftists trying to shut down anyone and anything they disagree with.

 

I don't know about you, but nOBody checks with me first to see if something they plan to post will offend me. Not that it would matter because I'm not easily offended and I'm not afraid of differing viewpoints.

 

As some on here apparently do, if someone is that offended with a persons postings they can block them. Or, as I mentioned earlier, simply ignore their postings.

 

For instance, I wouldn't care if Israel decided to carpet bomb all of Gaza yet I know Covenanter would take an opposite view. I'm not offended by that and I don't mean to offend him by my view; it's a simple statement of my view.

 

As most of us here know, the news media has their own agenda and rarely simply report the facts. One can find news sources taking all sorts of views on a topic. If one posts a news item on OBama from Fox News and another from MSNBC it's likely those same stories will be conveyed very differently by each news organization. That leaves us to try and determine which news source is true or false or closest to the truth or to try and pick the truth out where we can.

 

So folks post news links saying different things. Some we accept, some we don't. Some we just ignore.

 

Now, if someone (Covenanter or anyone else) says we all have to take a certain specific position on this or that geo-political issue or we must not be a true Christian, then there arises a prOBlem. However, simply putting forth a viewpoint most do or don't agree with isn't an offense.

[DaveW]

So its OK now to put up things that you know with certainty will cause offence?

What if someone posts pictures of scantily clad women?
He thinks it is Ok - just because it might offend someone else is no reason not to post them huh?

[John81]

Where did that come from?

 

Scantily clad women are clearly unbiblical while believing news reports that Israel has targeted civilians isn't.

 

Again, why take offense at a viewpoint different from your own? If we are going down that road then we will have to eliminate most postings here.

 

We should find it more offensive to have such a number of Christians posting in unkind, unloving, disrespectful manners towards one another. Yet this biblical point is overlooked or dismissed with a wave of the hand.

 

If you want your nation to bomb New Zealand and blockade the island and send in a quarter million troops I'm going to disagree with that (unless you can present compelling reasons for such) yet I'm not going to take offense. I'm also, hopefully, not going to show you disrespect as I disagree with you.

[DaveW]

When people post something they KNOW WILL BE OFFENSIVE they should be pulled up.
Regardless of the subject matter, if they post something THEY KNOW WILL BE OFFENSIVE they should be dealt with.

He does precisely that.

[John81]

Back to the original question...why take offense at an opposing point of view???

 

Certainly he knows some won't agree with his view but that's a far cry from purposefully trying to offend someone.

 

This brings us back to the prOBlem we have in this country of the Left declaring anything they consider offensive to be subject to silencing. This has led to some on the so-called Right trying to play the same game. Which brings up the question as to who gets to decide what is or isn't offensive and why take offense at all?

 

If someone posts an opposing view we can choose to ignore it or present our own view. Some folks simply want to silence opposing views because they are either unable or unwilling to support their own views. That's just as wrong as those who take offense at anything they disagree with even if it's not offensive.

[DaveW]

I have no prOBlem with opposing points of view.
I have a prOBlem with people posting false information that they know for certain will be offensive to many on this site.

He does this.
Not opposing views - false and deliberately offensive.

And I am not the only one who thinks so.

You seem to be happy to allow him to be deliberately offensive but baulk at the mere suggestion that someone might have an opposing view on decently dressed women.

[Ukulelemike]

Did Jesus die for the sins of Hitler?  Well, John the Baptist said, of Jesus, "Behold the Lmab of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

 

The sin of the world seems like a pretty all-encompassing thing.

 

Paul, when speaking of the gospel, said, "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures" If this is the gospel, which is preached to the LOST, then the "OUR sins" would be speaking universally.

 

Jesus Christ died for ALL the sin of ALL the world-He paid for the sin of the entire world, all the lost. Thus, yes, even for Hitler and Jeffery Dahmer and Ted Bundy and Joseph Stalin and Osama Bin Laden, etc, etc.

 

The question is, Is this to be considered "universal redemption"?   No, redemption is to possess something and then, one day, redeem it to yourself, like buying something on layaway-you can pay for it, but leave it until a convenient time to pick up. It is bought and paid for, your property, but to be redeemed at a later time.  So, Christ paid for the sin of ALL, but not all will be redeemed, because unlike layaway, the product paid for has to be in agreement-they have to accept that payment for themselves. So, some reject that Jesus paid for them, some disbelieve it, some still want to try and pay for themselves.

 

Salvation is like having a gift for someone-its bought and paid for, and I am holding it in my hand, offering it to them-but that person must reach out and accept the gift, or it does them no good-it is theirs, it is paid for, but not accepted. We MUST accept salvation for the salvation to apply to us.

[Covenanter]

Our church begins our Holiday Bible Club at 1 p.m. today. It will run all week. Previous years we have up to 70 children, mostly from non-Christian families.

 

Later, I will be leading a Bible study with Asian friends, hopefully including a Muslim lady. I thought Hebrews 1:1 - 2:4 would be a suitable passage for a mixed gathering.

 

We have a number of choruses we can sing in both Punjabi & English. 

 

Over 40 children present - the "English" are likely to be Polish RCs.

[John81]

I've not read an offensive post by Covenanter.

 

I still don't know what the attire of women has to do with this. Scripture says we are to dress modestly. If your view on modesty is different than mine I'm not going to be offended by that.

 

Just what is it that you are offended over?