Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr View Post
Well that's what the scripture warns against. Obviously everything we ever learn we interpret, information can't really enter our brains without first passing through our own biases, understandings, and generally our own framework of storing it. I just try not to go overboard with fanciful interpretations, and reading my own values into things.

As for my views being objectionable, that's fair enough. Obviously we will take issue with each other's views for various reasons, doesn't mean we can't still accept each other as Christian though.
Your views are objectionable for reasons which make it difficult to accept you as Christian, most potently your refusal to see God as Universal Father.

He called Yahweh a war god that isn't even the trinitarian God of the New Testament! That's blatant Catharism if ever I saw it! The NT doesn't make any sense at all without the OT. Jesus didn't come because the Old Covenant was false or not from God, he came because we people failed at the Old Covenant.
This just demonstrates your ignorance of scipture and the state of things outside your own denomination. The Gideons society, and the Army, issue a special NT, Psalms and Commandments Bible to children, and serving soldiers. It does a more than an adaquate job as a spiritual comfort and communicator of the basics of the Gospel. Additionally, unless I miss my guess I would say Magyar is reffering to the Israelite interpretation of God, not the person of God Himself.

That is a perfectly valid point, and the opinion is held by Theologians of many denominations.

Maybe Arminianism isn't a form of Christianity, since it prominises Christ as a saviour, yet he saves noone. It says that Christ died to redeem a sinful world, and in doing so failed even to pay for the sins of one soul. It says that we are born sinners, and yet not so sinful that we cannot reform ourselves, as if our hearts of stone happily remove themselves in anticipation of a heart of flesh. And perhaps the greatest insult to the Christian religion of all, certain Arminians happily boast of their good use of their free will in bringing them to salvation. As Grevinchovius says “I may boast of mine own, when I obey God’s grace, which it was in my power not to obey, as well as to obey". What a sickening thing to say.
Congratulations, you have just demonstrated you do not understand the Christian conception of God, which is why you can't understand what you just said is nonsense.

1. God is all powerful.

2. He is best by no counterforce and restricted by none save himself.

3. Therefore all proceeds as he Wills

This was hardly new to Arminius, it's Christianity 101. It follows directly that if ANYONE goes to heaven it is by the will of God and if ANYONE does not it is also by God's Will. Throughout history most Theologians have said that man must have free will, because otherwise God would not Will anyone into Hell.

Calvin, for no apparent reason took the conception of God as a benevolant Father and turned it on it's head, if people go to Hell it MUST be his Will because God is irresistable. What Calvin did was identify the inherrent flaw in the Free Will arguement (how to reconcile Free Will with Divine Kowledge) closed it and instead created the problem of why God Loves some people more than others.

Of course, God can do whatever he wants, so if he wants man to have free will, he does. On the other hand, Calvin's God is either unjust (and therefore not God) or limited in power (and therefore not God).

In all the times we have had this arguement you have always appealed to mechanical simplicity, suggesting that because there is an apparent difficulty in the mechanism by which God grants free will it must be an illusion, but you have never answered the question of why God hates me when he made me and decides my every action.