Thanks for the beautiful poem, an excellent rebuttal to the Calvinist model! :)
We certainly owe much historically in America to the Puritans, who were Calvinists, ...
We owe a lot MORE to those who were influenced by the Enlightenment Period, a good number of them being Deists, some Unitarians, and Christians who definitely weren't of the Calvinist mindset, philosophically and religiously. A more thorough reading of American history outside of the David Barton crowd displays this.
Man were just moving right along here arent we? I will have to go back and see if we left someone out.
Regarding your comments: yeah i read I read yah.
u said:
And yet, despite all of that, I also firmly believe it does matter what we do with the gift of life as a human being on this planet.
Hey isnt that in the proverbs? well it should be.
Let me just make one final point about the doctrinal disertations being moot.
you know VPW didnt just come out and say, you know, heres my doctrine, I want to be rich and powerful and all you pretty girls make a bee line for my bed post so I can add some notches. Of course if he had, he would have been a tad more honest. Which of course is the reason doctrinal disertations are not simple in the hands of wackos.
With respect to Calvin, there is no earthly reason to make that arguement. You dont need a test tube of election to pour your test tube of faith into to make any cognitive arguement that is helpful. I dont know if John Calvin had VPW like issues, but he sure as heck had VPW like symtoms both with his doctrine and as the Pope of Geneva. If I can find a hyper Calvinist with the agenda i think they have I will be sure to post it to yah.
I understand what you are getting at Sky. I can't help but wonder though, people who believe their actions make no difference - people who believe once they are born again they can do whatever they want because they are going to heaven and all hell can't stop them, people who believe they are predistined for heaven so they can behave as badly as they'd like . . . . .
What do they do with all of the verses in the OT, Gospels, and NT that tell them this just isn't so???
Okay, I get how they dismissed the OT (for our learning, yada yada yada). If one is a staunch believer in administrations I suppose one could even argue we no longer have to love our neighbors, etc. etc. But even within the Epistles there are plenty of verses about not stealing, about adultery and idolotry, about taking care of widows, and so on.
So in the end it all comes down to picking out one or two verses that fits their own brand of theology and ignoring the rest. Sure, people may follow and get caught up in that for a time too. But I go back to the idea that if one is sincerely seeking, one will find. God will eventually show them that they are missing much of the picture.
On the other side, and in light of your overall point here, I think it is good to make known out such potentially harmful doctrine, as you have done here. It is good to hone critical thinking skills as we discuss various doctrins as well. :)
That is one of the things I love about the doctrinal section here. I know of no other place where I can share what I am working through in my heart and mind, AND learn what others are working through in their hearts and minds - with no requirement that we all agree all of the time AND a large amount of respect for each other throughout the process.
Wrds and Dan, those were both beautiful and moving pieces you posted!!!!!
One of the things that drew me to Judaism (beyond an interest in my heritage) was my loathing (sp?) of the "us v them" mentality within so many Christian denominations. Oh, don't misunderstand, it still exists within Judaism to some extent here and there too. But it isn't so much a doctrinal issue within Judaism as it is a reaction to WWII and other historical persecutions. I see it within my cousin from time to time, as he closes the curtains before begining a Seder Supper, etc., I hear in in subtle remarks he makes. But I can brush it off a bit more easily because I don't believe he has been taught that fear doctrinally, but rather it was passed down to him through his parents who were both concentration camp survivors.
I still don't like it, but I understand where it comes from.
I have checked out a Unitarian church a time or two, and who knows maybe I will give it a try again someday. However, my impression was that they were more of a political church than a seeking church. I come from a politically active family, and I am also politically active in my own areas of interest and in my own way, but that isn't what I go to church for.
Dan, I am curious, why could you not "sit still" at a UU service?
I'm brewing coffee at the moment. It is Starbucks breakfast blend. I grind the beans, and use a French press.
There is bound to be diversity in the UU denomination... hey, they celebrate diversity, and I do too, on some level (the eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you.') There may even be a congregation somewhere, where I could sit still, even after coffee. But I think there are better fields to cultivate.
Like you, I would go to church for something other than what they're offering. Forget about respect for the scriptures. Forget about the Gospel message. And if our thread-starter, sky4it, doesn't like Calvinism.... how much more "dangerous" is a bunch of folks who figure no matter what they do, we'll all wind up "in heaven" (or Nirvana, or the Eternal Now, etc.).
John Spong, (Why Christianity Must Change or Die Read the review.) runs a similar course. It goes like this: We've evolved beyond the Bible. What we believe is better, because it's kinder, gentler, yada yada. Truth is relative.
I believe that God is smarter than me. Call me old-fashioned; call me superstitious, just don't call me late for dinner. I'm not about to make God up in my own image, nor confine Him to my pea-brain. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
We might get into "go to heaven" in the survey thread at some point, but (with your permission, sky4) it could be discussed here as it relates to the Calvinist question. Specifically, it goes to the issue of salvation. You can Google "Anthony Buzzard" for his POV. What makes sense to me is that a "heavenly reward" can only be understood to be to be blessed "from above." "Going to heaven" is not what God promises; it is not the Good News. Our inheritance is earthly, in the sense that it is real. It's the same promise that was made to Jacob, extended to "whomsoever." Eph.3:1ff
IMO, you're on the right track. It's not BOOM! you're "born again." It is a process, and the promise of salvation is not just for the future, but for all time. Behold NOW is the day of salvation.
I'm brewing coffee at the moment. It is Starbucks breakfast blend. I grind the beans, and use a French press.
:ph34r: (that's me in sneaking in and stealing a cup! Every Friday my Sushi brings me home a cup of Starbucks. In fact, the very first time we had coffee together it was at a Starbucks in an airport in New Jersey. :)
There is bound to be diversity in the UU denomination... hey, they celebrate diversity, and I do too, on some level (the eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you.') There may even be a congregation somewhere, where I could sit still, even after coffee. But I think the are better fields to cultivate.
Like you, I would go to church for something other than what they're offering. Forget about respect for the scriptures. Forget about the Gospel message. And if our thread-starter, sky4it, doesn't like Calvinism.... how much more "dangerous" is a bunch of folks who figure no matter what they do, we'll all wind up "in heaven" (or Nirvana, or the Eternal Now, etc.).
Well, I tend to believe that way too, in the end. But I suspect the Hitlers and Dalmers, et al will have to undergo a process of healing that will be at the very least, uncomfortable, before they get there.
John Spong, (Why Christianity Must Change or Die Read the review.) runs a similar course. It goes like this: We've evolved beyond the Bible. What we believe is better, because it's kinder, gentler, yada yada. Truth is relative.
Sure, truth IS relative, on a human level anyway.
I believe that God is smarter than me. Call me old-fashioned; call me superstitious, just don't call me late for dinner. I'm not about to make God up in my own image, nor confine Him to my pea-brain. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
Well, I always go back to the notion that those who are seeking will find . . . Sometimes we take a few wrong turns along the way, but even in that, we learn and grow.
p.s. you're not late for dinner yet, but you are late for breakfast. :)
You appeared to answer while I was editing, and I was distracted by a phone call. Note the changes, above. Sorry about that! Man, that font looks horrible!
what i mean Abigail is that whether it's Calvin or Luther or Moses or Jesus, Reality does not change, it is us that changes. No one has reached it's limits yet. cause it is limitless now and forever. Residing in us, to be glorified in us, not an outside entity but an inside reality that has been being born again from the beginning.
The phrase 'God does not change' does not stop at doctrines or laws or scripture.
As you probably know.
But it goes beyond all that and yet includes it.
Such redemption is unique and could never be pulled of by men and their ideas alone.
Many have tapped into the power in themselves that is not of themselves but more then most can handle.
Many are busying themselves putting things together and wanting to say 'I did it'. Well what they did falls short of the glory that will be revealed in us. Seen and glimpses caught by many and not recognized, It will keep coming around. It's it's very nature.
We might get into "go to heaven" in the survey thread at some point, but (with your permission, sky4) it could be discussed here as it relates to the Calvinist question. Specifically, it goes to the issue of salvation. You can Google "Anthony Buzzard" for his POV. What makes sense to me is that a "heavenly reward" can only be understood to be to be blessed "from above." "Going to heaven" is not what God promises; it is not the Good News. Our inheritance is earthly, in the sense that it is real. It's the same promise that was made to Jacob, extended to "whomsoever." Eph.3:1ff
IMO, you're on the right track. It's not BOOM! you're "born again." It is a process, and the promise of salvation is not just for the future, but for all time. Behold NOW is the day of salvation.
Dan this has caught my interest and I started to google Anthony Buzzard, but I am almost out of time for the moment. I have to leave soon and go pick the boys up from day camp. I will come back to this later tonight when I have time. I get the impression Anthony Buzzard has a lot of dissenters (?sp?) and I would prefer to start with a sight that tells me what HE said, as opposed to a site where others are quoting and possibly misquoting what he said.
Thats what I love about this place. People are a little sharper than the quasi this is what I was taughtology. The rebutals are well thought out, and there is no rancor, spewing or the like from those who have different ops. You guys are superb. ( As a sidebar note, I think former TWI members shortchange themselves, both in what they have learned, and whatsoever the eternal reward might be) You guys are superb. I mean where else on the planet can you get veiws and counterviews from various religions like this? Another Dan, Of course I do not mind if you change the focus to the things you expressed, because that is sort of the end run of Calvinism anyway. (They gotta keep it going) YEAH BABY (One of these days I will share with you my one and only UU experience and it has something to do with those of the Jewish faith)
With that said, ANOTHER DAN, I want to address some of the things you said. Since you and some of the UU people typically talk off the page of the Bible, allow me to do the same. I believe that the Bible and everything that is going on here is apocolyptic. Some parables by Jesus which are seldom cited, cite those who were trying to kill the king and the kings son and steal the kingdom. (You guys have read this stuff) Jesus also talked about a place of "outer darkness". The Bible talks about the eternal damnation, eternal judgement, and finally in revelation being tormented in the presence of his holy angels for ever and ever. As such there are eternal "seperation issues" and more importantly different bodies given as a reward. (I Corinthians 16 I beleive) The thing about judgement is, wether its 50 years of seperation or 500, I would rather not face judgement of any kind. The eternal scope of judgement may well be beyond our capacity to know, but cerainly within our capacity to understand why, thus we are accountable for it. This however brings into view the concept of death and what is it? Since there is a resurection of the "just" and "unjust" according to Jesus, he cannot mean eternal lifelessness. ( Although I dont think you can rule that out for padoephiles and such because what exactly is there left to save?) Anyways death, can encompass a loss of some sort of capacity, which I think it does. And thats the danger Dan I really dont believe that God is going to stand around save people and allow them to mount assault after assault against himself. The book of Revelation talks about being hurt of "second death." Now how could someone die here a second time if they hadnt been here one time before? It's my belief that when Jesus descended into hell, he offered the free gift to the devil and his angels who got that one free pass. But if you go into the book of Revelation you find "futuristic" that the devil and his angels are cast back down into the earth. Thus, they had to take another swipe at trying to destroy the Almighty. Now bearing that it mind, eternal judgement seems a little more "just." Seperation from God, or Seperation from access to God, is the judgement for some of these. The Bible concludes this, what is missing of course is the cognitive reason because God is "always good." In being good however there is a fault line, clearly spoken of by Jesus, as "depart from me you workers of iniquity" The question is is it permanent or temporary? In fact its permanent Dan, for one reason, they don't want the plan of God. Its in there pride or genes so to speak, otherwise they wouldnt continue the attack on the Almighty and his son Jesus Christ.
Back to Calvin: Calvinists don't want anything to do with this type of topic. They want to simply say to the Almighty on judgement day, well thats "human nature". They want to simply move back in to God's Kingdom, with that circular argument in tow. They are precisely what the book of Jude describes as "for there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained unto this condemnation turning the grace of our God into lascivousness and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. Notice it says unawares. People dont know this is what they are really about. The doctrine is that well disguised. You see they have a hook in the Almighty's nose, and its there out pitch with him. It's a nasty curveball which really spits in the Almighties face, and it will never fly with him and his Son who are in heaven. In a certain sense, it is worse than VPWisms, at least with VPW if you didnt see him coming you got to see him going. From that standpoint it is one of the most gregarious, cultic heresies ever invented. Demonically inspired I beleive. You want to know why more mainstream Christian Churches dont label Calvin a cultist? They kind of like it, but they really dont trust it. They kind of know in there hearts that God requires more than nothing. Calvinism is like a guy who while in bed reaches over a flicks the light on in the morning with his toe, and says Im done, I got my ticket right here. Absolutely nothing is required of them.
From that standpoint it is one of the most gregarious, cultic heresies ever invented. Demonically inspired I beleive.
Okay sky, tell us what you really think!
No really, lots of food for thought in your post. I'm going to take some time to think about a reply or replies.
I love this kind of discussion, I really appreciate the exchange of ideas.
In the meantime, though, I read this yesterday in a book I'm currently reading. It seemed to fit right in with the seeming paradox between free-will and predestination which appears to be at the heart of the Calvinism doctrine:
From the Library of C.S. Lewis, Selections from Writers who Influenced His Spiritual Journey
by Bell and Dawson
(actually the version in the book is from a different (and better IMO) translation from the original Latin. But not wanting to type it all in, this is a version I found online at: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/boethius/boetrans.html
From The Consolation of Philosophy by Anicus Boethius (ca. 480-524)
(note that Boethius lived centuries before Calvin)
'There seems to me,' I said,' to be such incompatibility between the existence of God's universal foreknowledge and that of any freedom of judgment. For if God foresees all things and cannot in anything be mistaken, that, which His Providence sees will happen, must result. Wherefore if it knows beforehand not only men's deeds but even their designs and wishes, there will be no freedom of judgment For there can neither be any deed done, nor wish formed, except such as the infallible Providence of God has foreseen. For if matters could ever so be turned that they resulted otherwise than was foreseen of Providence, this foreknowledge would cease to be sure. But, rather than knowledge, it is opinion which is uncertain; and that, I deem, is not applicable to God. And, further, I cannot approve of an argument by which some men think that they can cut this knot; for they say that a result does not come to pass for the reason that Providence has foreseen it, but the opposite rather, namely, that because it is about to come to pass, therefore it cannot be hidden from God's Providence. In that way it seems to me that the argument must resolve itself into an argument on the other side. For in that case it is not necessary that that should happen which is foreseen, but that that which is about to happen should be foreseen; as though, indeed, our doubt was whether God's foreknowledge is the certain cause of future events, or the certainty of future events is the cause of Providence. But let our aim be to prove that, whatever be the shape which this series of causes takes, the fulfilment of God's foreknowledge is necessary, even if this knowledge may not seem to induce the necessity for the occurrence of future events. For instance, if a man sits down, it must be that the opinion, which conjectures that he is sitting, is true; but conversely, if the opinion concerning the man is true because he is sitting, he must be sitting down. There is therefore necessity in both cases: the man must be sitting, and the opinion must be true. But he does not sit because the opinion is true, but rather the opinion is true because his sitting down has preceded it. Thus, though the cause of the truth of the opinion proceeds from the other fact, yet there is a common necessity on both parts. In like manner we mu st reason of Providence and future events.
Yeah, I enjoy it too. I think stuff like this is interesting to people like you and me mainly because we having seen the rather damaging effects of mistaugtology.
In reading your philosohical post, yeah its rather interesting, I felt like I was reading something out of Kant or Renae Decartes. This interesting thing is my freind that, Chuck Colson, a man I really respect, argues that guys like Renae Decartes are counterproductive to Christian thought. I personlly dont agree with that tack, because I think DeCarte was a Christian, Colsons points center on having issues which engage simple debate in terms of "self" which creates a rather humanistic viewpoint which is counterproductive. Colson makes a good point, but I certainly don't think its one that is all that harmful, but perhaps harmful from the standpoint most people can't boil philosphy into simpler concepts. Not oddly Calvin's writings are very very philophical as you do well to point out.
Where the fireworks really hit the fan in Calvinism with me is in this: Calvinism, in my view, says that God who is Soverign with all his foreknowlegde, must know outcomes hence he is responsible for those outcomes But there is a huge problem with this. They have been warned warned warned and warned again, wether through biblical speak or otherwise that we are not cognitive about. Now, this brings into view another interesting perspective about the grace and kindness of God. God. who knows all things, is very very very very careful, to point out what is tolerable and what is not. This is not without purpose. He does it so that he can say things like in Romans 1, "therefore they are without excuse" In simpler terms, what you have is overgrown kids who refuse to heed proper behavior, and God doesnt want to play Santa Claus with a mop anymore. In more severe terms and according to Jesus, murder or attempted of the Almighty and his Son Jesus is not permitable behavior. Gee those are hard concepts eh?
Wrdsandwrks: I think one of the most common mistakes made about God is that because he is kind and good and "nice" so to speak, one can always waffle well on judgement. But this point is addressed abundantly clear in the New and Old Testament. Romans talks about "taking heed lest you also be cut off" and again in Hebrews "How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation. You see there is an endgame with the Almighty no question, and banking behavior that runs rough shod over this stuff, is in fact tempting God.
I will be looking reading your other website posts as well . Again thanks
Thanks Dan. I did find that site earlier today, but somehow missed the search engine, and thus could not find the information pertinent to our conversation. :) I have since noticed the search engine and am now working my way through a rather lengthy article.
It may take me some time to process it - I think I am reaching information overload in this thread - lol lol. I'll go back to reading for a bit anyway. :)
Sky, I will go back and look over what you said some more and I may have some additional comments, but this is what comes to mind first and foremost.
The notion that we must do a), b, and c) and must not do e), f), and g) lest we find ourselves cut off and condemned to eternal damnation, eternal separation, the second death, the lake of fire - whatever negative eternal consequence you want to toss into the mix, smacks of fear motivation to me.
Fear motivation just doesn't work for me on oh so many levels. Been there, done that in the 90s of TWI. It sucks. Nothing is done for love then, it is done for legalism. Fear is the food of legalism.
Were you around for LCM's teachings on "abundant sharing"? How God wouldn't even spit in your direction if you weren't at least abundantly sharing/tithing? (I can't recall at the moment which it was, but the point was, if you aren't sending TWI your money, God won't cover you with his hedge of protection, God won't teach you, God won't even notice you). That about did me right in on givng TWI money. From that point onward, I could NOT give money to TWI out of love, because from that point on I did it out of fear. Sucked the joy right out of the entire thing.
Perfect love casts out fear, no? But hellfire and damnation instills fear and therefore cannot, in my mind, be perfect love.
I will add this, too Sky. I get what you are saying about the "danger" of Calvinism, in terms of the notion of the election and that Calvin says it doesn't matter what we do with our lives here on earth (if that is in fact what he says).
However, I think there is equal danger in the hellfire and brimstone teachings of eternal damnation. Both teachings serve to discourage people from seeking. Afterall, what is the point in seeking God if he has already determined you will or will not receive "salvation", "eternal life" whatever you want to call it. Likewise, if we are somehow supposed to live our lives perfectly, avoid every land mine that is placed before us, in order to receive those things, then again I say why bother trying?
It was the very notion, instilled in me as a young girl, that I was already and forever outside of God's love that played such a large role in my "eat, drink and be merry" attitude during my teens and very early 20's. An attitude that caused more hurt and destructive behaviors than I care to share in such a public forum.
I was the "dirty Jew" in a very small, very Christian town. I don't recall my parents ever teaching me much of anything about God or Judaism, yet even as a very very young child I believed in God. I was a lonely kid so I talked to God a lot when I was very young. But at some point, or most likely numerous points in time, I picked up on what the varous churches taught regarding hellfire and damnation. At some point I came to believe that because I wasn't born a Christian, because of certain other events that happened when I was still quite young, I was hellbound and all heaven couldn't stop me. From that point and for many many years to follow, I simply figured why bother? There's nothing I can do to change it, it makes no difference what I do.
I hurt a lot of people during those years. I hurt myself too, perhaps even most of all. That was one of the big draws to TWI for me, the acceptence, the notion that God not only loved me, but forgave me for all my sins (some of which I now recognize weren't even my sins - but as a child I thought they were).
You mentioned pedophiles in one of your posts and said something to the effect of "what could possibly be left to save?" Not an exact quote but a paraphrase. Have you ever known one? I mean really, really known one? I haven't. BUT I do know women who were molested by their fathers when they were children. I know those women, as much as they may hate what their father did to them, as much as they hate that part of their father that made him capable of doing that to them, they still love their fathers too. They still see within their fathers things of value, things that are good.
We all carry within us some bad and some good. We all do some things that are bad and some things that are good. Really, in the end, it is all a matter of degree.
Now, I would be one of the first in line to vote for the death penalty for the Dalmer's of this world. I believe as humans, as a society at the very least, we do not yet have what it takes to heal such people and therefore the only thing we can do is protect ourselves and our society from them. But I am not so bold or arrogant as to think that just because we have not yet found a way to heal them, that God cannot. Perhaps, for whatever reasons, He doesn't do that while they are living in this life, but I firmly believe there is more to come after this one and I firmly believe God is able to purify those souls, to remove the sickness and restore them whole.
REpost of Spurgeon on Calvin minus the joke, I deleted on this thread in error Arrrrrrrggggggg
Anyway the point is Spurgeon wasnt all the way in on the Calvin bandwagon:
Charles Spugeon on Calvin
I do not think I differ from any of my Hyper-Calvinistic brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe. I do not hold any less than they do, but I hold a little more, and, I think, a little more of the truth revealed in the Scriptures. Not only are there a few cardinal doctrines, by which we can steer our ship North, South, East, or West, but as we study the Word, we shall begin to learn something about the North-west and North-east, and all else that lies between the four cardinal points. The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. For instance, I read in one Book of the Bible, "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Yet I am taught, in another part of the same inspired Word, that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is foreordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.
On second thought I will write about it tonight. I just want to say that if my ascertations on Calvin make me look like a legalist, you have my heartfelt apology, and tell you a little about myself because I am anything but. They called Jesus a winebibber. I drink alchol on occasion. I even cuss and carry on from time to time some, but am careful to sidestep using God's name (which is another issue with me) Thus I am anything but a legalist. I used to smoke but quit, but never felt condemned by it by theology, despite the fact that I have actually heard preachers call it a sin. (it cant be)
I happen to believe a person can do to much of what the bible does not ask one to do and thus not be pleasing to God either, precisely because you can't enjoy your life.
The most legalistic book, according to some, in the New Testament establishes the "law of liberty" which I think is new testament theology in a nutshell. (the book of james law of liberty used x2) The book of Galations, which is all about liberty, probably saved my life when I was 18 and getting hammered by a Southern Babtist legalistic dude who was telling me movies could destroy my soul. the Law of Liberty, I think is about doing things in your life with some regard to moderation.
My veiw of the requirements of new testament "Christians" is pretty small. Acts 15:20 and 29, establish a small set of parameters for the new testament which are no fornication no adultry, keep yourself from idols. This was done with the Apostle Paul and the disciples and WAS THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE. Acts 15 Idolotry paul later calls covetousness, which is understandable.
you say thats it thats all there is too it? yeah that right. Except one thing. You gotta do it. I dont get bent Abby by too much else. I do add a 1/2 thing to my Christian recipe and that not to gossip. Jesus said if you have problem with your brother go to your brother, then the magistrate , then let him be as the heathen if they dont except. I like that one because gossip can murder people too. Of course, if you have gone the distance with someone i really dont think after that blurting out in frustration is problematic (ie let them be as the heathe)
I was in an Assembly meeting one time, where there was a real hellfire message. Afterwards, (and I will never forget what the preacher said) there were about 5 or 6 people who came up feeling real lousy and condemned. The preacher told them, I was there, that its always the ones who the message isnt intended for that feel the worst. What I am saying is, hellfire message have little effect on the gregarious offendors.
In saying that Abby, I think your the best, because you always talk about treating people right and doing what right in your heart, and you dont do it based on theology but based on thats who you are. I think that stuff is important to God too. More importantly I think God wants us to do things because thats the way we are.
I could digress about my ownlife somewhat but I wont. My concept of being a bad man isnt what it used to be. As such, I probably am a bad man. ( At least in the eyes of some) But the things I spoke about in here, them I keep. My level of caring for people has changed. Am I required to care about others particularily when they hate me? See I dont think so Abby, I really dont. Your suppose to love your enemies but when does love become perfect hate? Oddly, the Psalmist said I hated them with a perfect hatred.
So when I bash Calvin, why I do it is because I really beleive its a fornicators dream doctrine, and covetousness which is a little more difficult hole in the dam to plug. Ferstu?
lastly, you have been through a lot, and thats why there grace,I dont know how to answer the pedophile thing, its just a question i have in my mind as in, how awful can some people be till there isnt anything left.
We owe a lot MORE to those who were influenced by the Enlightenment Period, a good number of them being Deists, some Unitarians, and Christians who definitely weren't of the Calvinist mindset, philosophically and religiously. A more thorough reading of American history outside of the David Barton crowd displays this.
We certainly owe much historically in America to the Puritans, who were Calvinists,
as well as many of the founding fathers(such as John Adams, I believe).
The Puritans I was referring to in the first part of this sentence were the ones who originally settled New England in the 1600s. The Pilgrims who came to Plymouth in 1620 were also Calvinists.
The Enlightenment occured in the 18th century. The Pilgrims and Puritans were the original settlers of our country (after the failed Jamestown colony) and certainly had a profound influence on the development of the country. (Not sure why Barton is relevant.)
I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will.
That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other.
...it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity.
but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.
Great quote. I knew I liked Spurgeon. This makes sense to me, the reason that free-will and predestination seem contradictory is that we exist within the boundaries of time and God exists outside of and above time. He sees things, not as we do in a straight timeline, but he sits above time and knows the end from the beginning.
I am not sure I agree with Spurgeon on the two not being able to converge in the earth on an anvil. Whatever the heck that means, but he does seem to diverge from Calvin on free will and responsiblity.
wrdsandwork I hope you had a chance to review my post to you at the end of the previous page.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
74
35
21
32
Popular Days
Aug 24
31
Aug 21
23
Aug 22
23
Mar 17
14
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 74 posts
Abigail 35 posts
GarthP2000 21 posts
Watered Garden 32 posts
Popular Days
Aug 24 2007
31 posts
Aug 21 2007
23 posts
Aug 22 2007
23 posts
Mar 17 2009
14 posts
Popular Posts
GarthP2000
And Calvin and his mindset was the 'Honey Wagon'.
Mark Clarke
God doesn't cause the problems, but He does allow them, because He is God and He is in charge. That is comforting to me, because it assures me that nothing is beyond His control. But He doesn't allo
Cynic
My-my! What wild flailings at the doctrine of unconditional election. You have struck only a few “hyper-Calvinists” (e.g. some Primitive Baptists), who reputedly held election to work salvation in s
GarthP2000
Wrdsandwrks,
Thanks for the beautiful poem, an excellent rebuttal to the Calvinist model! :)
We owe a lot MORE to those who were influenced by the Enlightenment Period, a good number of them being Deists, some Unitarians, and Christians who definitely weren't of the Calvinist mindset, philosophically and religiously. A more thorough reading of American history outside of the David Barton crowd displays this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I understand what you are getting at Sky. I can't help but wonder though, people who believe their actions make no difference - people who believe once they are born again they can do whatever they want because they are going to heaven and all hell can't stop them, people who believe they are predistined for heaven so they can behave as badly as they'd like . . . . .
What do they do with all of the verses in the OT, Gospels, and NT that tell them this just isn't so???
Okay, I get how they dismissed the OT (for our learning, yada yada yada). If one is a staunch believer in administrations I suppose one could even argue we no longer have to love our neighbors, etc. etc. But even within the Epistles there are plenty of verses about not stealing, about adultery and idolotry, about taking care of widows, and so on.
So in the end it all comes down to picking out one or two verses that fits their own brand of theology and ignoring the rest. Sure, people may follow and get caught up in that for a time too. But I go back to the idea that if one is sincerely seeking, one will find. God will eventually show them that they are missing much of the picture.
On the other side, and in light of your overall point here, I think it is good to make known out such potentially harmful doctrine, as you have done here. It is good to hone critical thinking skills as we discuss various doctrins as well. :)
That is one of the things I love about the doctrinal section here. I know of no other place where I can share what I am working through in my heart and mind, AND learn what others are working through in their hearts and minds - with no requirement that we all agree all of the time AND a large amount of respect for each other throughout the process.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Wrds and Dan, those were both beautiful and moving pieces you posted!!!!!
One of the things that drew me to Judaism (beyond an interest in my heritage) was my loathing (sp?) of the "us v them" mentality within so many Christian denominations. Oh, don't misunderstand, it still exists within Judaism to some extent here and there too. But it isn't so much a doctrinal issue within Judaism as it is a reaction to WWII and other historical persecutions. I see it within my cousin from time to time, as he closes the curtains before begining a Seder Supper, etc., I hear in in subtle remarks he makes. But I can brush it off a bit more easily because I don't believe he has been taught that fear doctrinally, but rather it was passed down to him through his parents who were both concentration camp survivors.
I still don't like it, but I understand where it comes from.
I have checked out a Unitarian church a time or two, and who knows maybe I will give it a try again someday. However, my impression was that they were more of a political church than a seeking church. I come from a politically active family, and I am also politically active in my own areas of interest and in my own way, but that isn't what I go to church for.
Dan, I am curious, why could you not "sit still" at a UU service?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
He had too much coffee before the service?
One thing about UUs is that they *revere* coffee during the social hour that is held before/after the service. Why, its pert near a ritual!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I have no problem with that, as long as it's Starbucks!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
I'm brewing coffee at the moment. It is Starbucks breakfast blend. I grind the beans, and use a French press.
There is bound to be diversity in the UU denomination... hey, they celebrate diversity, and I do too, on some level (the eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you.') There may even be a congregation somewhere, where I could sit still, even after coffee. But I think there are better fields to cultivate.
Like you, I would go to church for something other than what they're offering. Forget about respect for the scriptures. Forget about the Gospel message. And if our thread-starter, sky4it, doesn't like Calvinism.... how much more "dangerous" is a bunch of folks who figure no matter what they do, we'll all wind up "in heaven" (or Nirvana, or the Eternal Now, etc.).
John Spong, (Why Christianity Must Change or Die Read the review.) runs a similar course. It goes like this: We've evolved beyond the Bible. What we believe is better, because it's kinder, gentler, yada yada. Truth is relative.
I believe that God is smarter than me. Call me old-fashioned; call me superstitious, just don't call me late for dinner. I'm not about to make God up in my own image, nor confine Him to my pea-brain. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
We might get into "go to heaven" in the survey thread at some point, but (with your permission, sky4) it could be discussed here as it relates to the Calvinist question. Specifically, it goes to the issue of salvation. You can Google "Anthony Buzzard" for his POV. What makes sense to me is that a "heavenly reward" can only be understood to be to be blessed "from above." "Going to heaven" is not what God promises; it is not the Good News. Our inheritance is earthly, in the sense that it is real. It's the same promise that was made to Jacob, extended to "whomsoever." Eph.3:1ff
IMO, you're on the right track. It's not BOOM! you're "born again." It is a process, and the promise of salvation is not just for the future, but for all time. Behold NOW is the day of salvation.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
p.s. you're not late for dinner yet, but you are late for breakfast. :)
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
You appeared to answer while I was editing, and I was distracted by a phone call. Note the changes, above. Sorry about that! Man, that font looks horrible!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
what i mean Abigail is that whether it's Calvin or Luther or Moses or Jesus, Reality does not change, it is us that changes. No one has reached it's limits yet. cause it is limitless now and forever. Residing in us, to be glorified in us, not an outside entity but an inside reality that has been being born again from the beginning.
The phrase 'God does not change' does not stop at doctrines or laws or scripture.
As you probably know.
But it goes beyond all that and yet includes it.
Such redemption is unique and could never be pulled of by men and their ideas alone.
Many have tapped into the power in themselves that is not of themselves but more then most can handle.
Many are busying themselves putting things together and wanting to say 'I did it'. Well what they did falls short of the glory that will be revealed in us. Seen and glimpses caught by many and not recognized, It will keep coming around. It's it's very nature.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Dan this has caught my interest and I started to google Anthony Buzzard, but I am almost out of time for the moment. I have to leave soon and go pick the boys up from day camp. I will come back to this later tonight when I have time. I get the impression Anthony Buzzard has a lot of dissenters (?sp?) and I would prefer to start with a sight that tells me what HE said, as opposed to a site where others are quoting and possibly misquoting what he said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Abigail, another dan & others:
Thats what I love about this place. People are a little sharper than the quasi this is what I was taughtology. The rebutals are well thought out, and there is no rancor, spewing or the like from those who have different ops. You guys are superb. ( As a sidebar note, I think former TWI members shortchange themselves, both in what they have learned, and whatsoever the eternal reward might be) You guys are superb. I mean where else on the planet can you get veiws and counterviews from various religions like this? Another Dan, Of course I do not mind if you change the focus to the things you expressed, because that is sort of the end run of Calvinism anyway. (They gotta keep it going) YEAH BABY (One of these days I will share with you my one and only UU experience and it has something to do with those of the Jewish faith)
With that said, ANOTHER DAN, I want to address some of the things you said. Since you and some of the UU people typically talk off the page of the Bible, allow me to do the same. I believe that the Bible and everything that is going on here is apocolyptic. Some parables by Jesus which are seldom cited, cite those who were trying to kill the king and the kings son and steal the kingdom. (You guys have read this stuff) Jesus also talked about a place of "outer darkness". The Bible talks about the eternal damnation, eternal judgement, and finally in revelation being tormented in the presence of his holy angels for ever and ever. As such there are eternal "seperation issues" and more importantly different bodies given as a reward. (I Corinthians 16 I beleive) The thing about judgement is, wether its 50 years of seperation or 500, I would rather not face judgement of any kind. The eternal scope of judgement may well be beyond our capacity to know, but cerainly within our capacity to understand why, thus we are accountable for it. This however brings into view the concept of death and what is it? Since there is a resurection of the "just" and "unjust" according to Jesus, he cannot mean eternal lifelessness. ( Although I dont think you can rule that out for padoephiles and such because what exactly is there left to save?) Anyways death, can encompass a loss of some sort of capacity, which I think it does. And thats the danger Dan I really dont believe that God is going to stand around save people and allow them to mount assault after assault against himself. The book of Revelation talks about being hurt of "second death." Now how could someone die here a second time if they hadnt been here one time before? It's my belief that when Jesus descended into hell, he offered the free gift to the devil and his angels who got that one free pass. But if you go into the book of Revelation you find "futuristic" that the devil and his angels are cast back down into the earth. Thus, they had to take another swipe at trying to destroy the Almighty. Now bearing that it mind, eternal judgement seems a little more "just." Seperation from God, or Seperation from access to God, is the judgement for some of these. The Bible concludes this, what is missing of course is the cognitive reason because God is "always good." In being good however there is a fault line, clearly spoken of by Jesus, as "depart from me you workers of iniquity" The question is is it permanent or temporary? In fact its permanent Dan, for one reason, they don't want the plan of God. Its in there pride or genes so to speak, otherwise they wouldnt continue the attack on the Almighty and his son Jesus Christ.
Back to Calvin: Calvinists don't want anything to do with this type of topic. They want to simply say to the Almighty on judgement day, well thats "human nature". They want to simply move back in to God's Kingdom, with that circular argument in tow. They are precisely what the book of Jude describes as "for there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained unto this condemnation turning the grace of our God into lascivousness and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. Notice it says unawares. People dont know this is what they are really about. The doctrine is that well disguised. You see they have a hook in the Almighty's nose, and its there out pitch with him. It's a nasty curveball which really spits in the Almighties face, and it will never fly with him and his Son who are in heaven. In a certain sense, it is worse than VPWisms, at least with VPW if you didnt see him coming you got to see him going. From that standpoint it is one of the most gregarious, cultic heresies ever invented. Demonically inspired I beleive. You want to know why more mainstream Christian Churches dont label Calvin a cultist? They kind of like it, but they really dont trust it. They kind of know in there hearts that God requires more than nothing. Calvinism is like a guy who while in bed reaches over a flicks the light on in the morning with his toe, and says Im done, I got my ticket right here. Absolutely nothing is required of them.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Sky, you've got some good thoughts, there, but I'm on the way out the door, too. Will check in later.
Abi, here you go: http://www.mindspring.com/~anthonybuzzard/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wrdsandwrks
Okay sky, tell us what you really think!
No really, lots of food for thought in your post. I'm going to take some time to think about a reply or replies.
I love this kind of discussion, I really appreciate the exchange of ideas.
In the meantime, though, I read this yesterday in a book I'm currently reading. It seemed to fit right in with the seeming paradox between free-will and predestination which appears to be at the heart of the Calvinism doctrine:
From the Library of C.S. Lewis, Selections from Writers who Influenced His Spiritual Journey
by Bell and Dawson
(actually the version in the book is from a different (and better IMO) translation from the original Latin. But not wanting to type it all in, this is a version I found online at: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/boethius/boetrans.html
From The Consolation of Philosophy by Anicus Boethius (ca. 480-524)
(note that Boethius lived centuries before Calvin)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
wrdsandwrks:
Yeah, I enjoy it too. I think stuff like this is interesting to people like you and me mainly because we having seen the rather damaging effects of mistaugtology.
In reading your philosohical post, yeah its rather interesting, I felt like I was reading something out of Kant or Renae Decartes. This interesting thing is my freind that, Chuck Colson, a man I really respect, argues that guys like Renae Decartes are counterproductive to Christian thought. I personlly dont agree with that tack, because I think DeCarte was a Christian, Colsons points center on having issues which engage simple debate in terms of "self" which creates a rather humanistic viewpoint which is counterproductive. Colson makes a good point, but I certainly don't think its one that is all that harmful, but perhaps harmful from the standpoint most people can't boil philosphy into simpler concepts. Not oddly Calvin's writings are very very philophical as you do well to point out.
Where the fireworks really hit the fan in Calvinism with me is in this: Calvinism, in my view, says that God who is Soverign with all his foreknowlegde, must know outcomes hence he is responsible for those outcomes But there is a huge problem with this. They have been warned warned warned and warned again, wether through biblical speak or otherwise that we are not cognitive about. Now, this brings into view another interesting perspective about the grace and kindness of God. God. who knows all things, is very very very very careful, to point out what is tolerable and what is not. This is not without purpose. He does it so that he can say things like in Romans 1, "therefore they are without excuse" In simpler terms, what you have is overgrown kids who refuse to heed proper behavior, and God doesnt want to play Santa Claus with a mop anymore. In more severe terms and according to Jesus, murder or attempted of the Almighty and his Son Jesus is not permitable behavior. Gee those are hard concepts eh?
Wrdsandwrks: I think one of the most common mistakes made about God is that because he is kind and good and "nice" so to speak, one can always waffle well on judgement. But this point is addressed abundantly clear in the New and Old Testament. Romans talks about "taking heed lest you also be cut off" and again in Hebrews "How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation. You see there is an endgame with the Almighty no question, and banking behavior that runs rough shod over this stuff, is in fact tempting God.
I will be looking reading your other website posts as well . Again thanks
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Thanks Dan. I did find that site earlier today, but somehow missed the search engine, and thus could not find the information pertinent to our conversation. :) I have since noticed the search engine and am now working my way through a rather lengthy article.
It may take me some time to process it - I think I am reaching information overload in this thread - lol lol. I'll go back to reading for a bit anyway. :)
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Sky, I will go back and look over what you said some more and I may have some additional comments, but this is what comes to mind first and foremost.
The notion that we must do a), b, and c) and must not do e), f), and g) lest we find ourselves cut off and condemned to eternal damnation, eternal separation, the second death, the lake of fire - whatever negative eternal consequence you want to toss into the mix, smacks of fear motivation to me.
Fear motivation just doesn't work for me on oh so many levels. Been there, done that in the 90s of TWI. It sucks. Nothing is done for love then, it is done for legalism. Fear is the food of legalism.
Were you around for LCM's teachings on "abundant sharing"? How God wouldn't even spit in your direction if you weren't at least abundantly sharing/tithing? (I can't recall at the moment which it was, but the point was, if you aren't sending TWI your money, God won't cover you with his hedge of protection, God won't teach you, God won't even notice you). That about did me right in on givng TWI money. From that point onward, I could NOT give money to TWI out of love, because from that point on I did it out of fear. Sucked the joy right out of the entire thing.
Perfect love casts out fear, no? But hellfire and damnation instills fear and therefore cannot, in my mind, be perfect love.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I will add this, too Sky. I get what you are saying about the "danger" of Calvinism, in terms of the notion of the election and that Calvin says it doesn't matter what we do with our lives here on earth (if that is in fact what he says).
However, I think there is equal danger in the hellfire and brimstone teachings of eternal damnation. Both teachings serve to discourage people from seeking. Afterall, what is the point in seeking God if he has already determined you will or will not receive "salvation", "eternal life" whatever you want to call it. Likewise, if we are somehow supposed to live our lives perfectly, avoid every land mine that is placed before us, in order to receive those things, then again I say why bother trying?
It was the very notion, instilled in me as a young girl, that I was already and forever outside of God's love that played such a large role in my "eat, drink and be merry" attitude during my teens and very early 20's. An attitude that caused more hurt and destructive behaviors than I care to share in such a public forum.
I was the "dirty Jew" in a very small, very Christian town. I don't recall my parents ever teaching me much of anything about God or Judaism, yet even as a very very young child I believed in God. I was a lonely kid so I talked to God a lot when I was very young. But at some point, or most likely numerous points in time, I picked up on what the varous churches taught regarding hellfire and damnation. At some point I came to believe that because I wasn't born a Christian, because of certain other events that happened when I was still quite young, I was hellbound and all heaven couldn't stop me. From that point and for many many years to follow, I simply figured why bother? There's nothing I can do to change it, it makes no difference what I do.
I hurt a lot of people during those years. I hurt myself too, perhaps even most of all. That was one of the big draws to TWI for me, the acceptence, the notion that God not only loved me, but forgave me for all my sins (some of which I now recognize weren't even my sins - but as a child I thought they were).
You mentioned pedophiles in one of your posts and said something to the effect of "what could possibly be left to save?" Not an exact quote but a paraphrase. Have you ever known one? I mean really, really known one? I haven't. BUT I do know women who were molested by their fathers when they were children. I know those women, as much as they may hate what their father did to them, as much as they hate that part of their father that made him capable of doing that to them, they still love their fathers too. They still see within their fathers things of value, things that are good.
We all carry within us some bad and some good. We all do some things that are bad and some things that are good. Really, in the end, it is all a matter of degree.
Now, I would be one of the first in line to vote for the death penalty for the Dalmer's of this world. I believe as humans, as a society at the very least, we do not yet have what it takes to heal such people and therefore the only thing we can do is protect ourselves and our society from them. But I am not so bold or arrogant as to think that just because we have not yet found a way to heal them, that God cannot. Perhaps, for whatever reasons, He doesn't do that while they are living in this life, but I firmly believe there is more to come after this one and I firmly believe God is able to purify those souls, to remove the sickness and restore them whole.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
REpost of Spurgeon on Calvin minus the joke, I deleted on this thread in error Arrrrrrrggggggg
Anyway the point is Spurgeon wasnt all the way in on the Calvin bandwagon:
Charles Spugeon on Calvin
I do not think I differ from any of my Hyper-Calvinistic brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe. I do not hold any less than they do, but I hold a little more, and, I think, a little more of the truth revealed in the Scriptures. Not only are there a few cardinal doctrines, by which we can steer our ship North, South, East, or West, but as we study the Word, we shall begin to learn something about the North-west and North-east, and all else that lies between the four cardinal points. The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. For instance, I read in one Book of the Bible, "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Yet I am taught, in another part of the same inspired Word, that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is foreordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Double post sorry.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wrdsandwrks
The Puritans I was referring to in the first part of this sentence were the ones who originally settled New England in the 1600s. The Pilgrims who came to Plymouth in 1620 were also Calvinists.
The Enlightenment occured in the 18th century. The Pilgrims and Puritans were the original settlers of our country (after the failed Jamestown colony) and certainly had a profound influence on the development of the country. (Not sure why Barton is relevant.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wrdsandwrks
Great quote. I knew I liked Spurgeon. This makes sense to me, the reason that free-will and predestination seem contradictory is that we exist within the boundaries of time and God exists outside of and above time. He sees things, not as we do in a straight timeline, but he sits above time and knows the end from the beginning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
wrdsandwrks:
I am not sure I agree with Spurgeon on the two not being able to converge in the earth on an anvil. Whatever the heck that means, but he does seem to diverge from Calvin on free will and responsiblity.
wrdsandwork I hope you had a chance to review my post to you at the end of the previous page.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Thanks for the Spurgeon excerpt. He expresses my belief better than than I.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.