Rant Christians have free will, while non-Christians do not.

Well that doesn't make any sense because what would you make of devoted born-again Christians? Liars? Deceivers? Posers? Trojan horses in human form? What would you make of those born into Christian households only to reject the faith, and faith in general, leading lives as infidels?

The point of free will is apart of the test God put forth; to see who is truly loyal to him and his word, and who is not.
Without free will, people would otherwise mindlessly follow him; technically devoted, yet how many would be doing it out of genuine love or care and appreciation for him?
The next step would be to have faith in him, trust in him without having to see him, because if you do what is good and righteous by him without being obscured by your own self interest, or persuaded by outside opinion (Satanic, Atheistic, Nihilistic, or otherwise) then ultimately, you have nothing to worry about.

It's not that some people have it, and others not, for some arbitrary reason you yourself claim, that isn't otherwise stated, it's for that reason alone that everybody has it.
 
baqqrih said:
Well, some bullet points from what I've gathered of James' positions. I don't know if my terminology was greatly accurate, since it's all more particular than what I described:
>Only Christians are capable of ever telling the truth.
>Non-Christians are entirely incapable of good works.
>In one specific question regarding this concept, he proclaimed that a truly Christian child would never consent to sexual relations when being groomed by a pedophile, while only non-Christian children would.
>Slavery is justified. Particularly, non-Christians can be owned for life while Christians may only be owned for up to six years.
>Resurrection Sunday, also known as Easter, is entirely pagan, and there is no reason to celebrate it because church attendance already qualifies as celebrating it every Sunday.
>A "Theonomy" with "the Trinity as the head of state" is the ideal form of government.
>James identifies not as a "Protestant," but as a "Nazarene." He heavily emphasizes in many of his posts the utter connection that his beliefs have to the original ministry of "Yahushua of Nazareth."
>I believe this also implies that he sees the Seventh-Day Adventist church as the true continuation of the original Church established by Christ.
Click to expand...
Bro that's heresy
 
baqqrih said:
Well, some bullet points from what I've gathered of James' positions. I don't know if my terminology was greatly accurate, since it's all more particular than what I described:
>Only Christians are capable of ever telling the truth.
>Non-Christians are entirely incapable of good works.
>In one specific question regarding this concept, he proclaimed that a truly Christian child would never consent to sexual relations when being groomed by a pedophile, while only non-Christian children would.
>Slavery is justified. Particularly, non-Christians can be owned for life while Christians may only be owned for up to six years.
>Resurrection Sunday, also known as Easter, is entirely pagan, and there is no reason to celebrate it because church attendance already qualifies as celebrating it every Sunday.
>A "Theonomy" with "the Trinity as the head of state" is the ideal form of government.
>James identifies not as a "Protestant," but as a "Nazarene." He heavily emphasizes in many of his posts the utter connection that his beliefs have to the original ministry of "Yahushua of Nazareth."
>I believe this also implies that he sees the Seventh-Day Adventist church as the true continuation of the original Church established by Christ.
Click to expand...
You can't argue faith when these monkeys start screaming blasphemous nonsense. The Church he is part of is not reading the Bible clearly. Its berry entertaining to read though, almost as much as nagolbud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top