What's calvinism?
- Thread starter lost anomaly
- Start date
"free will ends where the law begins"
What does that mean? I submit that it is meaningless unless you advocate anarchy. I'm not reading in-between the lines, I'm taking your argument to its logical conclusion.
True, but irrelevant to what we are talking about. Motive doesn't speak to freedom. Whether you refrain from stealing because you don't like to steal or because it is against the law, doesn't matter. One can and does decide whether or not to steal. And, more than that, the choice is not only a real one but it is ours to make. The addition of consequences only adds meaning to the choice, it doesn't obliterate it.
Why do you suppose that is the case?
[qoute]God said, “You shall not eat,” assuming Adam would, or at least might, choose to eat, if it were up to him, which clearly it was not.
The highlighted section show where you contradicted yourself. Are you able to see it?
This is not the purpose of the law or of God's prohibition of eating of the Tree of Knowledge. Try again. This time you might want to try something that doesn't lead you to insult the God who created you.
Wrong again. Where are you getting this idiotic stuff from?
No object lesson is necessary for man to understand that he did not create himself.
There isn't any! That's why your 'object lesson' hypothesis is ridiculous.
No
Here we are back at "its not fair that there are consequences to our actions!"
Let me rephrase my previous question.
What would have been God's alternative in His dealings with Adam? What would have happened if there were no way for Adam to have rebelled against God? If God hadn't given Adam any line to cross, how would you think that the scene in Eden would have played out?
Resting in Him,
Clete
“In such a system of belief, if a savior didn’t exist, one would have to be invented.”
Not sure what classics you have in mind. Eschatologically, Christianity has painted itself into a corner. Christians are waiting on the return of the king to bail them out, but meanwhile the paint is drying. For the sake of future generations who, much like our present generation, are going to have an even tougher time taking biblical Christianity seriously, what kind of an expiration date should we put on all this? Another two thousand years? Ten? Hard to call someone’s bluff if they never have to show their cards.
You,
And I said, “So, everything a non-Christian thinks and does is sin, even if they love their neighbors and keep the law?”
But you said that “sin” is ANYthing “not of faith.” Breaking up…observance…still…in flesh?..attempting…to qualify…contradiction?…come back?
The best argument against the doctrine of self-loathing called by Christians “indwelling sin” is the silence of lawful actions, neighborliness, personal sacrifice, and acts of love lived to the “glory” of a competing system of belief.
Thus, free will = sin? God wanted a drone, but got a free-thinker instead? God said, “No,” and this command incited Adam to rebellion. So, without the command, there would be no rebellion, and without the law, there would be no “inspiration” to sin. Man didn’t sin until he knew the law. The command of god “provoked” rebellion, in other words, the Christian god picked a fight. Not much of a fight. And the object lesson is…?
Correct me where I’m wrong. Lawlessness is not, originally, or initially, a sinful act, but an “entity” (as you called it) or a “force,” not to be mistaken for (or limited to) lawless thoughts or actions. Something near, but “other,” as “grace” is other. What do Christians say? Where sin abounds, grace abounds much more? It is not unlawful to be “stirred” by this force (the presence of the law makes it unavoidable), but unlawful to yield. This is a way of looking at it, but, how does your theory solve the problem of free will?
Why, for example, was it necessary for the Christian god to provoke – stir up – his creature? He set Adam loose in the world, and the first thing he did was set boundaries. Why? For Adam’s own “protection?” In order to exercise his “crown rights” as King of the Universe? To “make a point?” To put Adam in his place? To demonstrate how much this god “loves” him? To prove that man, as created, is so flawed in his judgment that if left to himself – to his own law – the world would degenerate into anarchy and chaos? To prove that man, even in a state of perfect innocence, is inherently incapable of ruling himself without this god’s “help”? The whole world, plunged into sin to prove that this god is – holy? All powerful? All (cough) “merciful”? A history of death washed in fountains of blood, all for his own “glory”?
This may be the story of the Hebrew god, and the story of the Judeo-Christian god, but it is not a very nice story, in fact it reads like a horror story. What you need to ask yourself is, if you HAD a free will, and weren’t being threatened, all systems of belief being equal, would the Hebrew-Christian god be your first “choice”?
Not sure what classics you have in mind. Eschatologically, Christianity has painted itself into a corner. Christians are waiting on the return of the king to bail them out, but meanwhile the paint is drying. For the sake of future generations who, much like our present generation, are going to have an even tougher time taking biblical Christianity seriously, what kind of an expiration date should we put on all this? Another two thousand years? Ten? Hard to call someone’s bluff if they never have to show their cards.
You,
And I said, “So, everything a non-Christian thinks and does is sin, even if they love their neighbors and keep the law?”
But you said that “sin” is ANYthing “not of faith.” Breaking up…observance…still…in flesh?..attempting…to qualify…contradiction?…come back?
The best argument against the doctrine of self-loathing called by Christians “indwelling sin” is the silence of lawful actions, neighborliness, personal sacrifice, and acts of love lived to the “glory” of a competing system of belief.
Thus, free will = sin? God wanted a drone, but got a free-thinker instead? God said, “No,” and this command incited Adam to rebellion. So, without the command, there would be no rebellion, and without the law, there would be no “inspiration” to sin. Man didn’t sin until he knew the law. The command of god “provoked” rebellion, in other words, the Christian god picked a fight. Not much of a fight. And the object lesson is…?
Correct me where I’m wrong. Lawlessness is not, originally, or initially, a sinful act, but an “entity” (as you called it) or a “force,” not to be mistaken for (or limited to) lawless thoughts or actions. Something near, but “other,” as “grace” is other. What do Christians say? Where sin abounds, grace abounds much more? It is not unlawful to be “stirred” by this force (the presence of the law makes it unavoidable), but unlawful to yield. This is a way of looking at it, but, how does your theory solve the problem of free will?
Why, for example, was it necessary for the Christian god to provoke – stir up – his creature? He set Adam loose in the world, and the first thing he did was set boundaries. Why? For Adam’s own “protection?” In order to exercise his “crown rights” as King of the Universe? To “make a point?” To put Adam in his place? To demonstrate how much this god “loves” him? To prove that man, as created, is so flawed in his judgment that if left to himself – to his own law – the world would degenerate into anarchy and chaos? To prove that man, even in a state of perfect innocence, is inherently incapable of ruling himself without this god’s “help”? The whole world, plunged into sin to prove that this god is – holy? All powerful? All (cough) “merciful”? A history of death washed in fountains of blood, all for his own “glory”?
This may be the story of the Hebrew god, and the story of the Judeo-Christian god, but it is not a very nice story, in fact it reads like a horror story. What you need to ask yourself is, if you HAD a free will, and weren’t being threatened, all systems of belief being equal, would the Hebrew-Christian god be your first “choice”?
lost anomaly
New member
Yes
Greetings Apollo
The sooner "traditional christianity" (specifically being the eternal conscious torment of others) passes away the better off CHRISTIANITY will be.
A person should always BE READY and WATCH. You can be CALLED UP from this place at any time....so whether you RISE to meet Him or He comes to SEPARATE sheep from goats ALL will have this fate...
quote from smaller:
Sin is Word connotation is known primarily as ANYthing not of faith as well as "lawlessness."
The Word presents sin indwelling and evil present as a condition of mankind. These things are not the SAME AS mankind. These things RESIDE whether their "works" are evident on the exterior or not. You may not see this as these things INDWELLING are the same things that BLIND PEOPLE from seeing THEM and not believing. Even "christians" will take SIN AND EVIL as being THEM before they would "admit" that these things dwell with them but is NOT THEM.
quote from smaller:
One can fulfill the law and STILL have sin indwelling/present. SIN is a CONSTANT RESIDENT in the FLESH whether the acts of SIN are seen or not. (remember your thoughts)
Life by personal disassociation with sin and evil is a good thing in any form eh?
quote from smaller:
You tickled upon a great truth when you saw that the COMMAND from God in the Garden STIRRED UP sin in Adam.
Adam's body was CAPTURED BY evil. Evil was not THE SAME AS Adam. It was ADAMS BODY that was SUBJECTED TO the indwelling of evil, but as we know the body returns to DUST. Adam himself was a SON OF GOD, and as such there was NOTHING WRONG with Adam. He was expanded from the experience and binding to his enemy. The 1st Adam was much different than the LAST Adam. The LAST Adam is much better off.
A simple premise Apollo. Sin, evil, and death get their TRIAL here within HUMANITY. When this exercise is DONE these things that were allowed to EXIST will have their TRIAL and be PUT AWAY forever. In this way NO PERSONS LIFE will have been wasted and the END RESULT will be FAIR AND JUST and GOOD. This is GOD'S WAY. We ALL as His Children will have benefitted by the "exercise."
quote from smaller:
The Law was always written only to THE LAWLESS. The lawless are those things that are present with us. The Law brings THEIR condemnation, not OURS.
Sin is OF THE DEVIL. There is an entity and an action.
They were made to BREAK THE LAW. They will NEVER OBEY. It is ONLY BY LOVE one to another that these things are defeated.
I do not believe in freewill. Everything is OF GOD. It is HE who controls the "spirits."
In the context of "eternity" it is right that God should be allowing ALL THINGS to exist. On a comparative basis HE WILL PREVAIL by virtue of His Pre-Eminence. Love should be able to STAND ANY TEST and PROVE itself. This is what makes HIM WORTHY and brings us GREAT JOY.
You are displaying a remarkable grasp of concepts here. I am impressed for what it is worth. Let us look at these things in this way. 1 Corinthians 15:28 says that God will BE ALL IN ALL. In this way ALL OF THESE THINGS are for our benefits. God is EXPANDING HIMSELF into US and into all things. The "dross" will pass away. In the end we will be closer to NO THING than to any THING. In this way Christianity is very similar to some Eastern forms of thought.
I see what I see. If I have been lit with His Word, I will walk by the Light thereof.
enjoy!
smaller
The sooner "traditional christianity" (specifically being the eternal conscious torment of others) passes away the better off CHRISTIANITY will be.
A person should always BE READY and WATCH. You can be CALLED UP from this place at any time....so whether you RISE to meet Him or He comes to SEPARATE sheep from goats ALL will have this fate...
quote from smaller:
Sin is Word connotation is known primarily as ANYthing not of faith as well as "lawlessness."
The Word presents sin indwelling and evil present as a condition of mankind. These things are not the SAME AS mankind. These things RESIDE whether their "works" are evident on the exterior or not. You may not see this as these things INDWELLING are the same things that BLIND PEOPLE from seeing THEM and not believing. Even "christians" will take SIN AND EVIL as being THEM before they would "admit" that these things dwell with them but is NOT THEM.
quote from smaller:
One can fulfill the law and STILL have sin indwelling/present. SIN is a CONSTANT RESIDENT in the FLESH whether the acts of SIN are seen or not. (remember your thoughts)
Life by personal disassociation with sin and evil is a good thing in any form eh?
quote from smaller:
You tickled upon a great truth when you saw that the COMMAND from God in the Garden STIRRED UP sin in Adam.
Adam's body was CAPTURED BY evil. Evil was not THE SAME AS Adam. It was ADAMS BODY that was SUBJECTED TO the indwelling of evil, but as we know the body returns to DUST. Adam himself was a SON OF GOD, and as such there was NOTHING WRONG with Adam. He was expanded from the experience and binding to his enemy. The 1st Adam was much different than the LAST Adam. The LAST Adam is much better off.
A simple premise Apollo. Sin, evil, and death get their TRIAL here within HUMANITY. When this exercise is DONE these things that were allowed to EXIST will have their TRIAL and be PUT AWAY forever. In this way NO PERSONS LIFE will have been wasted and the END RESULT will be FAIR AND JUST and GOOD. This is GOD'S WAY. We ALL as His Children will have benefitted by the "exercise."
quote from smaller:
The Law was always written only to THE LAWLESS. The lawless are those things that are present with us. The Law brings THEIR condemnation, not OURS.
Sin is OF THE DEVIL. There is an entity and an action.
They were made to BREAK THE LAW. They will NEVER OBEY. It is ONLY BY LOVE one to another that these things are defeated.
I do not believe in freewill. Everything is OF GOD. It is HE who controls the "spirits."
In the context of "eternity" it is right that God should be allowing ALL THINGS to exist. On a comparative basis HE WILL PREVAIL by virtue of His Pre-Eminence. Love should be able to STAND ANY TEST and PROVE itself. This is what makes HIM WORTHY and brings us GREAT JOY.
You are displaying a remarkable grasp of concepts here. I am impressed for what it is worth. Let us look at these things in this way. 1 Corinthians 15:28 says that God will BE ALL IN ALL. In this way ALL OF THESE THINGS are for our benefits. God is EXPANDING HIMSELF into US and into all things. The "dross" will pass away. In the end we will be closer to NO THING than to any THING. In this way Christianity is very similar to some Eastern forms of thought.
I see what I see. If I have been lit with His Word, I will walk by the Light thereof.
enjoy!
smaller
Last edited:
No, it means where there is a law, free will doesn’t exist. How could it? Free will is incompatible with the law, since the purpose of the law is to limit free will. A “free” will is an “unimpaired” will. It may very well be a “theoretical” idea of the will, since the will is always constrained by one thing or another (gravity, for example), but where there is a law, there is a threat of “negative consequences.” A “coerced” will can never be “free,” but is rather a will forced to conform to the law in order to avoid punishment. I would go further and say that where there is no law, there are no consequences. What are the “consequences” of choosing Coke over Pepsi? We make “legitimate” free will choices every day without discernable consequences, “negative” or otherwise. The presence of the law “introduces” consequences where consequences did not previously exist. “Prohibition” is a good example of that. You can argue that drinking alcohol “has consequences,” but you don’t need a “law” to tell you that!
It is your conditioned low view of man that leads you to the conclusion that without God’s law, man would choose “anarchy.” The traditional “Christian” cultures of the West, having the law, are a notoriously war mongering people. The law of the Biblical god has been invoked to justify a long and bloody history of intolerance and persecution. “Christians” killed each other by the millions during World Wars I & II. The “law” is invoked every time you, personally, threaten the opposition with hell. The history of Christianity is riddled with the very lawlessness and moral “anarchy” you lay at the feet of free-thinkers. The word for that is “hypocrisy.”
Speak for yourself. Personally, I don’t “decide” not to steal; not stealing is my normative moral condition; not stealing is “automatic.” Unlike yourself, apparently, I do not re-examine my “motives” every time I’m presented with an “opportunity” to steal. I don’t make a “choice” not to steal. For me, stealing is not an option, consequences or no consequences. So much for the law.
Re: Adam’s “presumed” guilt, before the fact, you asked,
Because Adam had been programmed to exercise free will, and fail.
Quoting me,
You said,
Looking, looking…I’m assuming you’re objecting to me saying that Adam might “choose” to eat, then saying that the “choice” was not really his to make. Yes, I see it. But I never said that man isn’t free to “choose” between Coke and Pepsi; rather that the Pepsi Challenge is “rigged” if choosing Coke over Pepsi is a punishable offense. We make decisions all the time. Threats of punishment, however, prejudices our options, bending us away from the possibility of a “preferred” choice. Our "preference" in this case is not so much "for" Pepsi, as it is "against" Coke and the prospect of punishment. Can you not “see” the distinction between a “free” will and a “coerced” will?
Oh, please, now you’re moralizing. If your god can be “insulted” through a process of honest inquiry, he is not much of a god. What, then, is the purpose of the law, if not to limit the will?
I said,
And you said,
Idiotic? Now you’re just being a sanctimonious blowhard. What, pray tell, is the object lesson of the Fall of man if not to demonstrate once and for all time that god is god, and man isn’t?
You mean, what would have happened if “Plan A” had succeeded? Well, for one thing, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Adam would have matured in his understanding of causality. If there hadn’t been a law against which Adam “rebelled,” we would still be living in paradise. No original sin. No death. No suffering. Adam and his beautiful bride would have lived happily ever after, peacefully taking dominion of the world to the glory of their god. Awful, ain't it.
“The minority who have encountered ancient history at a university know that, 3000 years before the Christian saviour-god rose from the dead, the Egyptian saviour-god Osiris rose from the dead, and thousands of years before Osiris the saviour-goddess Easter rose from the dead. Between Osiris and Jesus there were Greek, Assyrian, Phoenician, Persian, Hittite, Chinese, and a dozen other saviour-gods that rose from the dead.”
Harwood, William, “Mythology’s Last Gods,” pp. 16, 17, Prometheus Books, 1992
I -- AM -- APOLLO! :bannana:
Harwood, William, “Mythology’s Last Gods,” pp. 16, 17, Prometheus Books, 1992
I -- AM -- APOLLO! :bannana:
I don't think a better definition of anarchy could be found than what you've stated here.
There does not have to be a stated rule (law) with spelled out consequences for the to be negative consequences to out actions. Our actions have consequences both positive and negative, not because of some arbitrary rule, but because of the nature of reality.
And you would be wrong! There may not be any punitive consequences but if you do wrongly there are negative consequences whether a rule book has been written or not. That is why it is wrong.
The only time this statement would be true is if the law in question was arbitrary and unjust. You would do better figuring this stuff out, if you knew the difference between right and wrong.
Actually, it's getting drunk that has the bad consequences and it would be wrong with or without the law to tell you that, which is basically what you've said here. You would also do better figuring out this stuff if you weren't so self contradictory.
It is not my conditioned low view of man that taught me that man would choose anarchy, it is the Bible. Were you aware that there was no law until after Noah's Flood? That's right! God is several steps ahead of you on this one! Theologians call it the Dispensation of Conscience, because every man did what was right in his own eyes (just as you are suggesting). The result was disaster.
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
The word for this section of your post is either "ignorance" or "lying"; probably a mixture of both. I leave it to you to figure out why. I don't have the time to waste on it.
Even if this were so, which I doubt very much, stealing is only one of many sinful things that one either decides to or not to do. Lying is another, how does that one work for you?
Your response both misses the point of the question and is self contradictory.
"programmed to exercise free will" Brilliant! ::kookoo:
:think: You are actually getting quite close to the right answer here as to the purpose of the law, but not quite.
Can you not see the difference between coercion and justice?
You are an idiot! Do you not fear the God who made you? Obviously not! I wasn't saying that you hurt God's feelings you knuckle head! I was saying that you're being insulting to a righteous and Holy God that you will one day stand before in judgment and be required to give an account for every idle word you speak (or write)! If you want to heap judgment upon yourself, you go right ahead; just don't say that I didn't warn you.
I will not cast pearls before swine. If I had wanted to volunteer the answers I would not have asked you to answer them.
Actually, no that's not what I mean! I asked the question three different ways so that you would be sure to understand. You know, if you don't know the answer to a question, just say so! There is no benefit in answering a question that you were not asked.
God's prohibition of eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was not plan B! He gave the prohibition on the very same day that He created Adam and Eve.
Try again, if you like, just try to keep in mind that "every idle word" thing I mentioned a moment ago.
Resting in Him,
Clete
God_Is_Truth
New member
is Zakath aware of this? :think:
Clete:
Agreed. My point exactly. We don’t need the law.
Just for the fun of it, before you tell me to go to hell again, maybe it would help if we made a distinction between “kinds” of laws:
There are God’s “moral” laws.
There are the “physical” laws governing the physical universe.
There are “man”-made laws, personal “credos,” “convictions,” philosophies, “ideas” about God, native religions, that sort of thing; i.e., “humanism”
Is that fair?
I’m not questioning the reality, or the reasonableness, of the “physical” laws. And clearly, “man”-made laws often serve a legitimate purpose. Sometimes not. I am not advocating the dissolution of the physical universe, or the overthrow of the social order. All I have ever said is that free will ends where the law begins. But, you took exception, gave me the stupid post of the day (or was it the year?) award, and have since called me a stupid idiot knucklehead liar for pressing a point. No big deal.
In “question” is the reality, and therefore the moral authority, of the Christianized Hebrew god you represent. You come, bearing his name. You are his ambassador to the world. Tell us of your god. You say he came down from heaven, and became a man. But there are many such gods. You say he was killed, and rose from the dead. There are many such gods. You say he will one day return, and overcome evil. There are many such gods. You say he speaks to you, from a book. There are many books, and countless stories about God speaking to men. You like your story. This is good. I like mine. Live and let live. Be happy!
But, no. There is the “moral law” of the Christian god. Compliance, or death! Your “choice.” I dunno. I know this upsets you, but Christianity has a track-record of human rights abuse a mile long, and practically by definition won’t rest until everyone agrees with them, everyone is dead, “Jesus” comes, or all god’s “enemies” are burning in hell. Maybe it’s just me, but in my opinion, this sounds unreasonable. Such a god is bound to invite a little skepticism.
Don’t act so surprised. You seem mad about something.
Agreed. My point exactly. We don’t need the law.
Just for the fun of it, before you tell me to go to hell again, maybe it would help if we made a distinction between “kinds” of laws:
There are God’s “moral” laws.
There are the “physical” laws governing the physical universe.
There are “man”-made laws, personal “credos,” “convictions,” philosophies, “ideas” about God, native religions, that sort of thing; i.e., “humanism”
Is that fair?
I’m not questioning the reality, or the reasonableness, of the “physical” laws. And clearly, “man”-made laws often serve a legitimate purpose. Sometimes not. I am not advocating the dissolution of the physical universe, or the overthrow of the social order. All I have ever said is that free will ends where the law begins. But, you took exception, gave me the stupid post of the day (or was it the year?) award, and have since called me a stupid idiot knucklehead liar for pressing a point. No big deal.
In “question” is the reality, and therefore the moral authority, of the Christianized Hebrew god you represent. You come, bearing his name. You are his ambassador to the world. Tell us of your god. You say he came down from heaven, and became a man. But there are many such gods. You say he was killed, and rose from the dead. There are many such gods. You say he will one day return, and overcome evil. There are many such gods. You say he speaks to you, from a book. There are many books, and countless stories about God speaking to men. You like your story. This is good. I like mine. Live and let live. Be happy!
But, no. There is the “moral law” of the Christian god. Compliance, or death! Your “choice.” I dunno. I know this upsets you, but Christianity has a track-record of human rights abuse a mile long, and practically by definition won’t rest until everyone agrees with them, everyone is dead, “Jesus” comes, or all god’s “enemies” are burning in hell. Maybe it’s just me, but in my opinion, this sounds unreasonable. Such a god is bound to invite a little skepticism.
Don’t act so surprised. You seem mad about something.
Clete's response is typical, and I've seen it before, almost word for word, when I tangled with that idiot Troy a while back. To whit:
"I won't cast pearls before swine."
"This is so dumb I won't even respond to it."
"You're an idiot!"
Which basically tells me either Clete's in over his head, doesn't have time to articulate why he disagrees with Apollo, or he's had his cage rattled. Either way, he needs to grow up.
"I won't cast pearls before swine."
"This is so dumb I won't even respond to it."
"You're an idiot!"
Which basically tells me either Clete's in over his head, doesn't have time to articulate why he disagrees with Apollo, or he's had his cage rattled. Either way, he needs to grow up.
This is classic:
Clete:
Clete:
Clete, I wasn’t going to rub it in, but you make that impossible. If you’d been as informed on the subject as you claim to be, you NEVER would have said that Christianity is the “only” religion with a resurrected savior-god. Now you know different, and now you’re claiming you can “prove” the savior-god Jesus’ resurrection with “mountains” (not metaphorical mountains, mind you, but “literal” mountains) of “evidence.”
Rather than take your foot out of your mouth gracefully, or (gasp) admit that you’re wrong, you sputter about non-existent “proof.” Okay, you’re on. Let’s see it. Provide “mountains” of evidence “proving” the resurrection of Jesus.
If you don’t, or if you drop back to the pearls before swine cop-out position, or you say you’re “too busy,” you will have exposed yourself as a toothless fraud.
Clete:
Me:
Clete:
Clete, I wasn’t going to rub it in, but you make that impossible. If you’d been as informed on the subject as you claim to be, you NEVER would have said that Christianity is the “only” religion with a resurrected savior-god. Now you know different, and now you’re claiming you can “prove” the savior-god Jesus’ resurrection with “mountains” (not metaphorical mountains, mind you, but “literal” mountains) of “evidence.”
Rather than take your foot out of your mouth gracefully, or (gasp) admit that you’re wrong, you sputter about non-existent “proof.” Okay, you’re on. Let’s see it. Provide “mountains” of evidence “proving” the resurrection of Jesus.
If you don’t, or if you drop back to the pearls before swine cop-out position, or you say you’re “too busy,” you will have exposed yourself as a toothless fraud.
You hardly have any room to talk! Your average post as far as I can tell is to tell me how unsatisfactory my posts are!
Besides that you don't know what you are talking about. If I call someone an idiot, it’s because they have said something idiotic. If I call them a knuckle head its because they are acting like one. All Apollo needs to do, is to repent of his stupidity and stop demonstrating his hatred of the living God by insulting Him every chance he gets, then he and I will get along famously! Until then however, I will continue to call a spade a spade and advise you to get over it.
Resting in Him,
Clete
If you actually want to know go here...
Mount Moriah
If you can't afford the $$ then call 1-888-8ENYART and talk to them about it, if you actually are interested in the information they will work with on the price.
And don't bother whining about Christians making money off of such videos, Bob would happily give you the video if you called and asked for it. The things do cost money to produce though and he is trying to run a ministry with the proceeds.
And by the way, I never, ever bluff.
Resting in Him,
Clete
P.S. I'll respond to you other post later, I've got a lot of work to do. Thanks for you patience.
Every idle word granite, every idle word!
You think it's okay to say such things about people you know little or nothing about, especially Christian people, whom you are supposedly allied with? You do more damge than you could possibly know! How about getting the video yourself and watching it before attempting to discredit it by slandering its producer. Maybe you'll learn something.