You just come off as very angry and bitter.  I've asked what I wanted to ask and for whatever reason that only you know, you ignored it.  Maybe after time you'll calm down; maybe you'll not feel bitter against those who don't think as you do.  I don't know what you were looking for when you decided to join in on this conversation but you didn't find it so sorry to disappoint.

So why doesn't God hurry up and call Sapient, Kelly, Rook, etc. Does this mean I'm free to sin until God calls me? (Just curious) What happens to people GOd doesn't call?

My appologies if I come off knocking your beliefs, I am simply curious. 

What your post just said strikes me as a bit odd. Are you a Christian or a follower of a different faith? I'll answer but this really wasn't the thread for that.

I'm not God so how should I know why this person is called and that person is not. We know by scripture that God can and does create anything and anyone for the purpose as he sees fit.

As to sinning, first let me make clear that what I am about to write is according to my beliefs as a Christian.  Romans 6 covers it pretty well; if you are called by God and you follow the faith given to you, you "die" to sin...that is your lifestyle is bound to change.  I can only speak for myself in that I know being called by God made me rethink my behavior and I can only describe it as "painful" if I repeat what I used to do (such as swearing).

And who says that the holy spirit doesn't work through people? Only God can reveal himself to that person and lead that person to the belief in Jesus....if it be his will to do so.

I don't know that. God knows the hearts of men, including who Hitler was. So if that person is doing the will of God, who am I to judge? Can anyone lose their faith? To those who doubt God, yes.

Again I am not the judge of salvation or condemnation and because I do not know who you are or what you believe, I'm not sure I understand what your question represents.

Those who do not know God in accordance to scripture are judged according to the natural law that every person knows. It's not about works but rather who they are as a person that God looks at. As an analogy that Jesus spoke about, no good tree can produce bad fruit and no bad tree and produce good fruit. Because I know I do not have it in my power to save or condem a person knowing what is "good" or "bad" is not my responsibility to the spirit (the laws of man let us know in accordance to our lives on Earth). This is why I can't say Hitler is in hell for what he did because I don't know if what he did was in accordance to God's will.

I am a Christian and don't believe in election. I think anyone is free to come to God. Saying some people are called and others aren't..well to me that means God doesn't care that there are some people that sin.

MOD Edit: Post Removed

Spamming and Calling out other members is not allowed.

Mod edit: Please don't feed the trolls.  

Augh! Troll alert!

Your little core statement has been refuted over and over, Ajay. That's why you are now a proud denizen of Trollville. Back under the bridge with you!

Even though that's directly from the bible? Even though Jesus stated that only God will make Jesus known to others? (John 15:16, Matthew 11:27).  Even though Jesus himself spoke of the elect at the end of times (Mark 13:14-23)? I'm really curious how your belief came about.

Oh, as to sin, God's will is first and foremost.  As he stated in Romans 9, God can harden whomever he wishes (it gives the example of pharaoh) so while man can consider it evil, if he did God's will who are we to say that God's will was not done (that is, if pharaoh did God's will, which pleases God, could you say he was condemned?).

Perhaps this discussion belongs better in PM or another thread? 

My statement was on the norm of religious discourse bending over backwards to accommodate religious concepts without calling into question their validity. That's what we're talking about. Did we have some kind of theological discussion in between posts, about the nature of subtle matter or the mechanics of celestial crystal spheres, that I somehow forgot about?

Your original post was about wanting atheists to give up on asking for proof, and move on to humoring you like everyone else.

Seriously? You're asking whether participants in the Blasphemy Challenge were believers? Anyway...

Whether individual atheists choose to humor you, or otherwise engage you on your preferred level, is their concern, but as I'd said before, you can't request a free pass for all your assumptions. Like I said, that's what the real world does for you folks. If here, every time you make some bizarre statement about the world, someone asks you to back it up with reason, or at least explicit scriptural support, so be it.

Don't rephrase my statements. I'm bored with repeating myself, and I'm certainly not going to dignify your straw-man.

I guess then you don't understand the difference between threads perhaps? Discussion? Perhaps you just aren't willing to discuss one point over the other? If you start a thread as to why the bible is fiction that's one thing and frankly you want to call into question go for it. You start a thread asking why do I (as a Christian) believe xyz is immoral, you are asking me to validate or justify myself according to my beliefs; wheither you follow them or not is not at issue since your question would sound like it's asking me what I believe, not why I believe. There is a difference and it's not asking anyone to humor me as you claim.  My original post is asking for that separation.

How did you come to that? Why do I always get the feeling that you rewrite my posts in your thread to come up with ridiculous statements like that.

I don't want anyone to humor me, just knock off threadjacking as someone called it.

Oh, I didn't restate anything; what I did was ask you questions. I didn't assume your meaning behind your statements so I ASKED "is that what you mean". I notice you didn't answer them. At least when I use the bible, I justify my statements according to my beliefs - fictional or not they are justified by the source I gather my opinions from.

Umm it's called different subject, different conversation. I think you might need to understand that better...

Sorry magilum...you left me with little choice but to keep repeating myself since you left me with the impression that while you read what I wrote, you seemingly didn't understand me.  But hey now that I know you got it I won't say it again...

Part of what sucks when you debate these things online...on a forum. When you jumped into the thread, my assumption was you had read the rest of the thread and understood my position.  My fault for assuming.

Trust me I won't lose any sleep if I was given the "asshat".  If I was, then I know where open minded and understanding went. 

Well humor me since I'm TRYING not to make any assumptions over your posts.  There's an old saying...no such thing as a stupid question just a stupid answer.  If I don't know I'm going to ask, even if I sound stupid to you.  I want to know and I'd rather hear it from you than assume what you might think or say.

As to why I ignore them or you, I have my reasons.  I responded to Kat personally instead on the thread because of threadjacking from others.  I got tired of going around the issue and decided to bow out since I felt my position was well stated.  The difference between that thread and this one is while I completely understand your position, I don't agree with it.  I'm asking you questions so I can even further understand why your position is so on this forum when, what I found interesting, you seem to say it's different in "real" conversation.  If I didn't answer something and you really want it answered, I'll go back...that I promise you.