"Why" not "how" we are here.

Well, I was just referring to your general fundamentalist take on things. Not a specific utterance. Was I wrong?

Do you not think that the goal of heaven (or the goal of pleasing of God) warrants any action?

as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say, Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

(I'm sort of thinking of Abraham's decision regarding the sacrifice of his son in accordance with God's will)

RL, that's the reason I detest arguing with fundamentalists. Their commitment is too strong. Not open at all.
Did I refer to Abraham as a fundamentalist? Of course not. He is the object of fundamentalist absurdities, not one himself. And did I say he killed his son? Of course I didn't. And there was no suggestion anywhere that you would kill yours.
Such despicable red herrings.
Don't expect further responses.

No, I am not a Calvinist.

No more Mr Funny Guy.

real life wrote:

No, I am not a Calvinist.

And you're obviously not a good comedian. (Unless you work for NASA and all your posts are just pulling our leg, now that would be funny.)

So, if you're not a Calvinist, what the heck are you?

I'm a Christian. I go by the Bible.

(I can hear you groan.)

I really can't identify for you one particular theological viewpoint that encapsulates my beliefs, sorry.

So if you want to know if I believe a specific point of doctrine, ask.

real life wrote:

I'm a Christian. I go by the Bible.

(I can hear you groan.)

Nah, no groan. I respect your right to believe whatever you want. Even if I think it's crazy

real life wrote:

I really can't identify for you one particular theological viewpoint that encapsulates my beliefs, sorry.

So if you want to know if I believe a specific point of doctrine, ask.

That's a fair answer, and I'm not surprised. I would probably say something similar if asked to classify myself.

Let's try a different question, what point of doctrine do you consider most meaningful to your view?

That's a tough question. Kinda like which one of the tires on your car is most important. Well, I need 'em all !

Obviously you know I believe we were created by God. As such, we are answerable to Him.

So I believe there are standards that apply to all people equally. An objective standard of morality, if you will.

(I know we've discussed it before, and I have discussed it with other A2Kers as well who claim to believe that morality is all subjective.

I guess the thing that is the most entertaining about someone who believes morality is subjective is that they still wanna make it objective when they say I should believe or do what THEY think is right.

Nothing's funnier than to hear 'you shouldn't believe that' or 'you're a bad person' or 'that's (morally) wrong' from a person who says he thinks morality is subjective.)

I guess that's kinda ground floor, so the doctrine of man as a sinner and Christ as Savior are built on that foundation.

Probably not the answer you're looking for, eh?

real life wrote:

That's a tough question. Kinda like which one of the tires on your car is most important. Well, I need 'em all !

Obviously you know I believe we were created by God. As such, we are answerable to Him.

So I believe there are standards that apply to all people equally. An objective standard of morality, if you will.

(I know we've discussed it before, and I have discussed it with other A2Kers as well who claim to believe that morality is all subjective.

I guess the thing that is the most entertaining about someone who believes morality is subjective is that they still wanna make it objective when they say I should believe or do what THEY think is right.

Nothing's funnier than to hear 'you shouldn't believe that' or 'you're a bad person' or 'that's (morally) wrong' from a person who says he thinks morality is subjective.)

I guess that's kinda ground floor, so the doctrine of man as a sinner and Christ as Savior are built on that foundation.

Probably not the answer you're looking for, eh?

I don't think I was expecting anything in particular. Your answers are reasonable enough, they provide some information, although not much detail. You threw in a little bit of propaganda there about the behavior of people who understand that morality is subjective, but that's ok.

You avoided looking foolish by leaving out any reference to young earth, impossible floods, magic apples or talking snakes, and you didn't give us anything obvious to pounce on, so good job over all

But I have no problem stating what I believe.

I do believe the earth is much younger than commonly believed.

I do believe the Flood described in Genesis actually occurred.

I don't think the Bible says anything about a magic apple or a talking snake

Which translation are you using that says 'apple of knowledge of good and evil? Or 'magic apple'?

Satan is referred to as 'the serpent', but that doesn't mean he was literally a snake. It's a figure of speech, like if I say 'he's a real weasel.'

Good, now Real Life has been led by Rosborne (and himself) to have a glimpse of the Bible as an essentially allegorical work.

real life wrote:

Which translation are you using that says 'apple of knowledge of good and evil? Or 'magic apple'?

I made up the 'magic apple' phrase, just because it seemed like the quickest way to summarize the basic jist of the story.

real life wrote:

Satan is referred to as 'the serpent', but that doesn't mean he was literally a snake. It's a figure of speech, like if I say 'he's a real weasel.'

Ok, I agree with that. Sort of like my saying 'magic apple'.

So now I'm wondering just how many parts of the creation story you are taking as 'figures of speech'? Some people do take things literally, and that's the main thing I object to. Treating the creation story as allegory is far more reasonable.