https://www.reasonablefaith.org/wri...

One hypothesis for the beginning of feminism is that the CIA introduced it in order to increase the income tax base, by getting women into the workforce.>

I always thought it was for the destruction of the family unit.

Mom raising her children, families
eating meals at structured times.

The two paycheck family became natural
because of the increased costs of
expanding government and regulations.
Also the costs of a working mom.

I would say that you never fell away because you were never real born again of God.>

Well, I was. You cannot understand because you were not involved, don't know about it.

It contradicts your belief, so you of course will reject it as not being real, because it conflicts with your belief.

But I am the only person who can truly know what happened. And I *know*.

<<Tga>, being born again of God is not an intellectual status that changes in one's life. It's a spiritual change.>

I always thought it was for the destruction of the family unit.>

Well, that certainly was the result.

I don't know if was an unintended consequence, or intentional.

This is exactly what I was concerned would happen.

I wanted to talk about being a Christian and voting for someone in the Democratic Party.

And you had to go and derail the conversation into my own personal life.

That was an inconsiderate thing to do, and I don't appreciate it.

If you think I was never a Christian, that's beside the point. Lots of Christians voted for Mazzoli, who is also a Christian.

You are not God, and don't get to decide who is a Christian and who isn't. In fact, you are violating Jesus' injunction to "judge not, lest ye be judged"

That was an inconsiderate thing to do, and I don't appreciate it.>

You did it, not me. You were the one that brought up your own personal history about being an evangelical, describing why you thought you were born of God and so on.

I didn’t ask you that.

Thats the first point.

The second point is I don’t think it’s this big “personal” thing. That’s just a liberal meme that goes around to keep people from being real and talking about God. I’ve got no shame about God.

<Well, I was. You cannot understand because you were not involved, don't know about it.>

Not true. I know about the nature of false Christianity and the nature of being born of God and having a new nature from God. That’s what’s important. Most people I know share your same story so it’s not unique to you.

Now there’s no reason for you to be offended just because we are talking about God and what is or is not real Christianity. And there’s no reason that an unafraid commenter such as yourself should want to steer carefully around the topic of what a real Christian is.

A "strong willed woman" makes a cuck out of her husband.>

Such men are afraid of their wives and, more often than not, afraid of their mothers. Usually such men had poor, pathetic examples from their weak fathers, who were also dominated by their mothers. Then they end up basically marrying their mothers.

It’s like Jung said, you’re attracted to what you hate or resent. You become like what you resent. This is why it’s good to overcome anger, so that you don’t have to become like something you hate.

<saffuna: <<<<<TGA:Honestly, I have no trouble discussing issues with both <BP> and <Bobster> in an expeditious, reasonable and honest manner.

Why? Because we are all quick to answer questions truthfully and we try to stick to the topic, moving the debate along.>>>>>

You expect me to discuss the existence of racism in the US if he won't even agree that slavery was race-based?>

So a less commonly used meaning of the word "prove" is "test". Thus, "Aberdeen Proving Grounds" is a place for testing (proving). Back before your time it was widely used that way.

Thus the phrase <The exception that proves the rule> would nowadays be expressed as "The exception that <tests> the rule".

Over in <BP>'s forum I was doing the same to him, that he did to you.

He claimed that a Christian could not vote for the Democratic Party.

Now, I knew my good ol' internet buddy <BP> was talking about nowadays, but I brought up an example from the 1990s, just for the sake of argument (because we both like to argue).

Ron Mazzoli (D), representing Kentucky's 3d Congressional district, is staunchly pro life. He was opposed by a Republican who favors keeping abortion safe and legal. I contend that in this real-world example, the Christian thing to do would be to vote for Mazzoli.

In most cases, *especially today*, the Democratic Party does not offer pro-life Christians a viable option. Mazzoli is the "exception that proves the rule".

In your slavery debate, that is what <BP> did to your rule. He provided an exception that tests it.

How did you respond? Did you try to address the challenge directly, and in a reasonable time period?

No, you punted. You gave up the debate because you couldn't figure out how to counter the example <BP> provided.

Then you made a lame excuse to run away.

You can tell yourself every day, and twice on Sundays, that *he* was unreasonable, and that you cannot be expected to discuss the topic because of that.

But I don't see it that way. I see a "cop out" - you quit the debate because you couldn't handle the challenge. You weren't prepare for it, nor did you make an effort to get prepared and return with an argument.

So to answer your question, and this is just my opinion of course, I expect that if *you* <saffuna> raise slavery as an example of racism, then *you* <saffuna> ought to be prepared to defend your argument against the exception that proves the rule.

Thats the first point. >

The second point is I don’t think it’s this big “personal” thing. That’s just a liberal meme that goes around to keep people from being real and talking about God. I’ve got no shame about God.>

Neither do I. And also, this is not a "liberal meme" with me.

I have other, more pressing concerns.

There aren't too many people in this world with Ph.D.s in physics.

If someone, for some reason, decided they didn't care for my kind and warm nature I display on line, and wanted to shoot me in the back of the head (let's say, for argument purposes), then they have a much, much smaller pool of people to investigate than the general population.

If I reveal too many personal details, a jihadi just might be able to track me down. Highly unlikely, but one cannot be too careful these days.

The difference though, is that no one is allowing that racism has changed or that slavery has changed in essence, whereas what it means to be s democrat has changed in essence.

Now say a democrat has the right stance in an issue. He’s still a part of the anti Christian alternative of liberalism. If he says he’s not s liberal but still votes for an evil, wicked person like Obama, then the truth ain’t in him!

As a platform, the Democratic Party is anti Christian and a vote for that is a vote for that, despite a stance here or there that is out of lockstep. If you put a pro life democrat in office, you just made the anti Christian party stronger.

Then you know that by grace you are saved through.....?

"Faith" is the answer, of course. To me, that is the key. It is faith. One must have faith because there isn't surety, because God does not offer surety.

If it turns out that Christianity is 100% true, and is the only way, I suspect part of the point was/is to make it require faith, and part of the point is precisely that surety is not provided.

So it is an article of faith for you, not an article of fact.

The difference though, is that no one is allowing that racism has changed or that slavery has changed in essence, whereas what it means to be s democrat has changed in essence.>

Yes, exactly! That is a crucial distinction.

I miss the old-school Dems and I don't want those men lumped in with the modern nitwits - that was one of the ideas I wanted to highlight in this discussion.

< If you put a pro life democrat in office, you just made the anti Christian party stronger.>

Only if the pro life Dem doesn't break ranks with the Party on votes.

Mazzoli's voting record was always pro life.

Faith is not about believing that what the Christians tell us is true. Faith is not meant to mean that you can’t be sure that God exists.

I’ve often asked people if they have faith. They say yes. I ask them how to get faith if you don’t have it and there is no answer. I ask them how they know for sure they have faith. No real answer.

Surety is provided that Christianity is true. That has nothing to do with faith though. Luke tells us that the account (gospel of Luke) was given to that people could know for sure that Jesus rose from the dead.

Faith doesn’t come in here.

And one thing is sure, you can’t please God without faith.

Look, when a little boy is with his father he knows he’s safe. He has faith in his father. This doesn’t mean that he has faith that his father exists or that some story about his father is 100% true.

So what is faith <tga>?

I know of no better definition than that given by the author of Hebrews:

<Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.>

Faith doesn’t come in here. >

But you brought up "falling away", which is a different topic than the resurrection.

And that got me thinking about another question:

If it is not possible to fall away, then where is free will? If you come to Christ by accepting him as your savior of your own will, why can't you quit the church of your own will?

<Now predestination I suppose would cover that - do you believe in predestination or not?>

I have no strong opinion one way or the other and, frankly, I don't concern myself much with this. There was a time when I was studying calvinism and molinism, but I think it's overthinking it nowadays.

<If you come to Christ by accepting him as your savior of your own will, why can't you quit the church of your own will?>

You can never go to church and still be born again of God, having a new nature and a renewed mind.

When people say "accepting Christ as your savior" it's just a bunch of nice sounding, churchy words that the Christians repeat to one another. Jesus himself said that unless you are born again of God, you will never see the kingdom of heaven. God doesn't allow sinners in the kingdom of heaven, but the catch is, God will not forgive you unless you forgive those who have wronged you. So, if you go to church one day and do the ritual of going to the alter and repeating the right words about Jesus, it means nothing unless you've forgiven those who've wronged you.

Forgiveness is not just an intellectual status. You can't just say, "I forgive so and so" and have it be the case. Forgiveness is a spiritual change. There is no anger in forgiveness. There is no resentment in forgiveness. There is no pride in forgiveness.

Then again, if Jesus didn't die for our sins, then all the forgiveness in the world wouldn't get you to heaven. The two work hand in hand, but Jesus is the door.

There are no angry people in heaven, so, one must give up his anger first and foremost.

<If it is not possible to fall away, then where is free will?>

I've been back and forth on free will many times, and right now I'm sort of inclined, in some respect, to be doubtful that we have free will.

We are slaves either to righteousness or sin. We are influenced and controlled either by good or evil. Your master is either God or Satan and your thoughts (from the imagination) are not your own.

<falling away after being reborn>

Can you unborn yourself? Of course not. I know that you were irritated with what you think was my audacity in presuming I can judge your innermost experience i.e. whether or not you were born again of God, but it's really not a unique experience to you. The reason I can comment on it is because I have self knowledge, and I've seen and heard Christian dogma for years. I have also seen that most Christians don't experience a change in spirit. Once the spirit changes, you do not change back.

<Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.>>

I don't like to just quote bible verses. It means nothing to me, personally. No one knows what the quotes mean. Just think about it for a second. There have been, perhaps, billions of Christians since the resurrection, many of them genuinely and sincerely devoted to the truth, and what do we have 2000 years later? Thousands of denominations!

How can this be?

It just goes to show that the bible cannot be interpreted.

So when I ask you "what is faith", I hope to receive your answer.

Here's another question to go with that. How can you get faith?

Suppose you're walking down the street one day and man stops you and asks you, "do you have faith?", and you say "yes". But this man has no faith, so he asks you how to get faith.

How do you get faith?

How do you know that you have faith?

Personally, <tga>, I don't think the the intellect can give right answers to these questions. I think that the truth needs to be revealed by God rather than constructed by the intellect, hence I actually have a very strong skeptical streak in me, but I'm not a 100% skeptic because I do believe as I said in divine revelation.

Intellectuals often think they know it all. It's even worse when they affect false modesty. The fact is, intellectuals are all puffed up in their knowledge and because of this they are full of pride, and when one is full of pride, one is full of self, and that makes one a worshiper of self, it makes one's self it's own god. This separates a person from God and, from that point onward, all they can "know" is the false thoughts emanating from the darkness of one's imagination, and in this fallen state God never reveals the truth to such a person.

So they are stuck with their intellect, with falsehoods, with doubt, anxiety, fear. One must overcome the intellect to escape the darkness and allow God to shine the light of truth and revelation.