Nangster and PPS make for a terrific "Tag team."
Spammers wasteland
- Thread starter Delmar
- Start date
- Status
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
True Christian: Why did the chicken cross the road?
Despotic Delusional Dispensationalist: Why?
True Christian: To get to the lying idiot's house.
Despotic Delusional Dispensationalist: Oh.
True Christian: Knock, knock.
Despotic Delusional Dispensationalist: Who's there?
True Christian: The chicken.
Despotic Delusional Dispensationalist: Hey....
Despotic Delusional Dispensationalist: Why?
True Christian: To get to the lying idiot's house.
Despotic Delusional Dispensationalist: Oh.
True Christian: Knock, knock.
Despotic Delusional Dispensationalist: Who's there?
True Christian: The chicken.
Despotic Delusional Dispensationalist: Hey....
Hate to be the one to say it, but, it's not funny/witty. I think it best for you to keep the humor/wit to the professionals and do what you do best: NOTHING!
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I missed it, what was the verdict on IP Address-Gate?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Nang is more of a sidekick, riding the coattails of PPS and AMR (whom I respect).
That is not acceptable either. Folks are supposed to respect their elders.What about attacks on their (advanced) age? This is a continuous taunt and insult from several on TOL. Do I have to tolerate these despite the fact that I can do nothing about it?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Many thanks for your answer! :thumb:
On something like that verdict is more cumulative. It would be an IP and behavior match. There are so many matching hits on the IP and the way he misuses scriptures to clobber female members with whom he disagrees puts him under suspicion.
Would a Calvinist bother to do anything? Whatever happens, it was preordained by God. Wouldn't doing anything, be answering back to God?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
I cannot tell you how many times scripture has been abused to clobber me due to my being a female Calvinist.
IMO, this scrutiny and suspicion should be applied to all the males dealing with females.
I have been subjected to very harsh and insulting name calling from a variety of men who disagree with my theological views, for years. John W has crossed the line a few times and been banned for so doing, but there are quite a few others that are allowed to harass me in threads and PM's with impunity and almost without ceasing.
And as far as I have ever read, PPS has never used the language and vitriol against women like what has come my way for years from other men.
IOW's, when it comes to accusations and actual bans, your membership should be treated all the same by the mods, with no double standards or favoritism shown.
And this is not to tell you how to do your job. I KNOW what a hard task it is. I simply think all would benefit from more respect for others, and improvements will only happen, if rudeness is equally dealt with and rules are enforced.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Remarks such as you refer to, only reveals the poster has misconceptions about the doctrine of predestination. He speaks of fatalism not Calvinism.
Calvinism is fatalism. If you really believe it.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
I disagree.
Fatalism is an ungodly philosophy, only.
Calvinism ("The Doctrines of Grace")is a Systematic System of theology developed from Holy Scripture, alone.
Which makes an utterly and entirely sovereign God, which excludes true human volition, its centerpiece.
It's fatalism. It's Christian fatalism, I grant you, but it's fatalism.
If, you really believe it.
This goes for anyone, if you get trolling PM's please report them. It really downgrades the TOL experience when you are trolled in the PM box. I as a mod tend to come down hard on anyone who uses the PM system to troll TOL members. They think they can get away with more if they be a troll in private.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
I disagree.
It misrepresents Calvinism to claim that we rule out human volition and accountability. Man was created in the image of God, and was enabled with intellectual agency (a will) to choose to live according to God's moral standards, or not and die.
Since the fall, mankind still possesses moral agency (ability to choose) but due to the corruption of human nature, man can only choose to sin. There is no virtue left inherent to his being. Luther called it "the bondage of the will."
Thus, the willfulness of men is not free. All men are enslaved to serving sin, death, and the devil . . volitionally. It is the only thing they will and can choose to do. Romans 3:9-20
The will of man is only freed, through faith in Jesus Christ. John 8:34-36 Faith in His word and works, truly sets the will of man free to be able to volitionally serve righteousness.
This is how the first Adam was accountable to live, and the last Adam has set sinners free to please God again, through faith. Hebrews 11:6
Tell me how the following sits with you:
Spoiler
Shasta
Well-known member
Pre-determinism was not part of mainstream Christian teaching until Augustine brought it into the Church and by force of persecution demanded that it be taught. Before his conversion Augustine had been a member of a Gnostic sect called Manichaeism which taught that mankind was so utterly ruined as to be powerless to choose either good or evil. This is where he got the idea. As a philosopher (rather than an exegete) he had always been involved with trying to solve the problem of good and evil and he saw Gnosticism as the way. As a believer he simply attached scriptures to the doctrine to Christianize it.
In the first three to four centuries of the Church the Greek "fathers" of the Church (those generations who succeeded the Apostles) uniformly taught that man had a volition and could exercise it to submit to or resist the Holy Spirit's call. Augustine was not aware of the teachings of his Greek predecessors because he could not easily read the Greek language. Calvin was a devotee of Augustine and quoted him extensively in his Institutes. Luther was an Augustinian monk before his conversion. Their predisposition to believe Augustine is what brought the ideas of pre-determinism into the Reformed/Evangelical movement.
The length of time this doctrine has been around is not relevant seeing that we are told not to defend the precepts of the Reformed Church (or any other particular sect) but "the faith once for all delivered to the saints." The strong consensus of the Early Church in this matter provides evidence that pre-determinism (whether it is in a Pagan or Christianized form) is not a historical part of the faith.
In the first three to four centuries of the Church the Greek "fathers" of the Church (those generations who succeeded the Apostles) uniformly taught that man had a volition and could exercise it to submit to or resist the Holy Spirit's call. Augustine was not aware of the teachings of his Greek predecessors because he could not easily read the Greek language. Calvin was a devotee of Augustine and quoted him extensively in his Institutes. Luther was an Augustinian monk before his conversion. Their predisposition to believe Augustine is what brought the ideas of pre-determinism into the Reformed/Evangelical movement.
The length of time this doctrine has been around is not relevant seeing that we are told not to defend the precepts of the Reformed Church (or any other particular sect) but "the faith once for all delivered to the saints." The strong consensus of the Early Church in this matter provides evidence that pre-determinism (whether it is in a Pagan or Christianized form) is not a historical part of the faith.
musterion
Well-known member
I agree but am asking your forgiveness on the following.
Nang acts like no aged person of ANY belief persuasion that I have ever met in my nearly 50 years on this planet. None of them whine about their (purported) age as an excuse for losing fights that they started, as Nang does. They have too much self-respect and wisdom to even start such fights in the first place. But to then whine about it when they lose? To quote Nang..."bah."
On top of that, a few years back Nang even claimed she's picked on because she's a woman, after once again losing disputes that SHE chose to start with men.
Sorry, it's looks to me like an act, a scam.
But if an independent authority can somehow verify first-hand proof that Nang is indeed the elderly lady she says she is, I might believe it.
Until then, I don't buy it. She just does not act like a self-respecting, mature elderly lady, and with no proof that she is one, I won't believe it.
musterion
Well-known member
Nope, not even remotely funny, not even in a wry, satirical kind of way.
- Status