You have to laugh

[rubato]

Amazing, you mean good works count? Don't tell the fundamentalists. ... "

Fundamentalists emphasize justification by works as opposed to justification by faith. This point is often made by Catholic theologians.

You have it ass-backwards.


yrs,
rubato

[Crackpot]

Got it backwards there

Eph 2 8-9

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

[Sean]

The bible contradicts itself?

Who'da thunk it?

[loCAtek]

No Jim, theism is a normal (and generally assumed) part of Christianity. It is neither the meaning of Christianity or a necessary part.

Since, you're not a theist, how are you fit to judge that?

Well said @W!

My philosophy has always been that if Jesus wants me for a sunbeam he can come and fucking ask me himself!

ThX for admitting you're not a theist Christian, Sean 'preciate it.

...this software doesn't direct you to the thread this was originally posted in

[Andrew D]

Actually, rubato has it backwards. "Sola fide" (justification by "faith alone") is an important, perhaps the most important, teaching of Martin Luther, and it is a bedrock principle of Protestantism.

[Rick]

The bible contradicts itself?

Who'da thunk it?

How is that a contradiction?

Simply stated one cannot "EARN" their salvation.

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

We are to work...

[loCAtek]

Atheist ignorance at it again. Or else, clinging to ignorance to a stupid level.

[Andrew D]

The ignorance is on the side of those who defend supposedly "Christian" views without understanding them.

And someone who has claimed that the Constitution does not apply to military proceedings has no business accusing anyone else of ignorance or stupidity.

[Sean]

The ignorance is on the side of those who defend supposedly "Christian" views without understanding them.

And someone who has claimed that the Constitution does not apply to military proceedings has no business accusing anyone else of ignorance or stupidity.

Well said that man!

Don't tell me... is somebody trying to bait me again?

This is what 'ignore' is all about!

[loCAtek]

The ignorance is on the side of those who defend supposedly "Christian" views without understanding them.

I understand spirituality; Christianity is a form of spiritualism. I've never claimed to be a Christian, but I have a better understanding than one who is so far from understanding spirituality that they think it doesn't exist.

And someone who has claimed that the Constitution does not apply to military proceedings has no business accusing anyone else of ignorance or stupidity.

You should go back to that thread and read the information I posted about court-martials, that stated how the constitution applied differently to the military.

[Andrew D]

You should go back to that thread. That's where you posted:

"constitutional elements of treason" not relevant. ... or else he'd never have enlisted.

Newsflash: "not relevant" and "applied differently" are not the same thing. I would explain it to you, but considering that until I pointed it out to you, you had no idea that the Constitution applies to military proceedings at all, I won't bother.

[loCAtek]

Wow, my follow-up posts don't count? How rigid, sorry I listened to your input.

Not really, I admit to learning and adapting.

[Andrew D]

You should consider thinking before posting, rather than the other way around.

Your "follow-up posts" would not have been necessary had you bothered to acquaint yourself with the pertinent realities before posting in the first place. Instead, you post whatever fluff pops into your head without troubling yourself to make even the slightest effort to ascertain whether what you write bears any coherent connection to what is true.

Try finding out what is actually going on before opining about it. True, it will be a novel experience for you, but a salutary one nonetheless.

Or don't. Go on embarrassing yourself by posting drivel, recanting it afterwards, and claiming, after the vacuity of your original posting has been demonstrated, that the contrary thing which you later posted was what you meant all along. (Hint: Those claims are not believable.)

Go on barfing up the names of logical fallacies and then proceeding to prove that you have no idea what those fallacies are -- not even the faintest clue how to distinguish a fallacious argument from a real one. At least there is some entertainment value to watching you flail like a hooked fish.

It is true that you are anything but "rigid". Quite the contrary, you are the flimsiest of reeds, flitting about however the wind blows you. Ghafla.

[Andrew D]

I understand spirituality; Christianity is a form of spiritualism. I've never claimed to be a Christian, but I have a better understanding than one who is so far from understanding spirituality that they think it doesn't exist.

Oh, please. I could ask you today what you think that spirituality is, and I could ask you again tomorrow. And if your posting history is any guide -- although given that we are talking about you, even that proposition is dubious -- what you will claim to think tomorrow will bear precious little resemblance to what you claim to think today.

You have never evinced any understanding of spirituality. Your postings on the subject run the gamut from platitudinous to meaningless.

It is true that I have doubts about the existence of spirituality -- more precisely, doubts about the existence of the spirit(s) upon whose existence spirituality necessarily depends. Those doubts are the product of having spent considerable time thinking on the matter.

You, on the other hand, give no evidence of ever having spent more than two minutes, if even that, thinking about anything. One minute, you demonstrate that you know nothing about Buddhism; the next minute, you presume to lecture the rest of us on its core teachings. One minute, you demonstrate that you know nothing about criminal law; the next minute, you presume to lecture the rest of us on its intricacies. One minute, you demonstrate that you know nothing about Christian doctrine; the next minute, you presume to lecture us on its ramifications.

And your presumptuous lecturings are usually based on internet articles which you frequently demonstrate that you have not even read. Newsflash: Finding an article about something on the internet is not the same as understanding that thing.

If you want to stop humiliating yourself, devote some time and energy to thinking about things before posting about them. If you want to continue humiliating yourself, go on as you have been.

[loCAtek]

Cool, but I don't need your permission to do what I want to do, nor post what I want to post. I won't need it at all for future reference.

I find this subject interesting, so I will comment on it, that's not subject to your control.

[Andrew D]

I am not in the business of granting or withholding permission for people to make asses of themselves on the internet. If you feel some need to continue posting drivel, you go right ahead.

[loCAtek]

That's right, whatever I post is none of your business. No one died and made you moderator.

[Andrew D]

Nor has anyone prohibited me from commenting on what others post. If you do not want the hapless ineptitude to which you are so prone to be remarked, try thinking before posting.

[loCAtek]

What others post is up to them, I notice you're prone to criticism, so I give it the attention it deserves.

[Andrew D]

Do what you will. Your postings are what they are, and I did not make them so.