I’m sorry you find my questions frivolous and irrelevant. I assure you they were sincerely asked. I certainly don’t have the answers to most of them.

Some things are very hard for thought and maybe the best questions are indeed quite unanswerable. Somehow however they are more interesting than any answers we might give.

I notice you do not address one single question of the 10 I asked. I was genuinely interested to read your responses.

Instead, in your reply you make five rather unpleasant statements. Cheap shots really. And yes, I had gathered you are short on respect. At least that much was clear from the start! It was after all what prompted my second reply.

Initially YOU responded to ME! Now you say that unless YOU set the agenda you will take your ball home!

Incidentally could you explain ‘fleshly arguements’? (with or without an ‘e’)

Are there sorts of arguments which are more acceptable to you?

Who is it you think I have slandered?

Not Roman Catholics, I think that was you wasn’t it?

With precisely which ‘accusations and assertions’ do you think I have slandered them?

Did I call some people ‘children of the …’

No, I think that was also you wasn’t it?!

Are you perhaps thinking I insulted the Taliban? No no no; just my little joke.

I know what to expect when someone begins with ‘I mean no offence…’

‘Now get this wigrd’ You really do know how to charm! No ‘Dearly beloveds’ here!

You thank Robert for clarifying things. This explains a lot! ‘Spot on’ I think you said. Well I suppose there is a first time for everything. Robert I’m sure is good person. He frequently defends people but clarification is not his strongest suit. Rather the opposite I find. This judgement may of course depend on the clarity of your own thinking.

You should check out Mark’s piece ‘Why Charismatics are not New-Testament Christians’ He may tell you what he means, he won’t tell me.

What you said was;

‘They wandered from the Truth right from the start …. they are Children of the Devil’

Seems pretty plain to me chum! It is what I took exception to. Although for 2000 years it has been said of Jews not Catholics. If you didn’t mean it you shouldn’t have said it. I’m surprised you even thought it! How could you?

I’m sure an apology would be in order. It would certainly be welcome.

Why do you hate so much?

Along with Richard Dawkins, Ayatollah Khomeini, Pat Robertson and the Pope,(a right bunch – hardly one to mend another!) why are you so sure you are right?

It just will not do to trot out the same threadbare evangelical arguments (I use the term loosely) on the basis that if you don’t believe them it is because you don’t understand, or have never heard them in the first place. There are other reasons.

What do you think the nature of belief is? What I mean here is, how do you think we come to believe?

Why do we believe what we do and not something else?

Where do Muslims fit in to all this? Hindus? Are they better or worse than Roman Catholics? Are they better than Welsh Jumpers?

I would love to hear you on Orthrodox Judaism. Anglo-Catholicism
and liberal Christianity. Indeed, is there such a thing? Is it an oxymoron? I really am interested in what you think.

Plenty here to get your teeth into. The high spot though would be to hear what you think of Non-Trinitarianism. I have in mind among others Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin.

Jefferson certainly knew his Bible, was sincere and serious about his faith yet rejected the Trinity and the whole evangelical enterprise. Have you any thoughts on this.

Oh no! Don’t tell me! He wasn’t ..Was he….?

Have a good day…until next time…

I’m signing off.

wigrd I mean no offence. It seems you wander considerably off topic. I underscore IT SEEMS. Meaning it appears to me that you’ve wandered off the topic of “Persecution” and “Respectable Sins” which is what I was referring to.
Now, I believe Robert has sufficiently clarified what I meant regarding “Sins” and so therefore I do not believe anything more needs be said. This also includes your endless queries along the matter. You can site as many examples as you wish, whether it be Hagee or Mother Theresa, but Jesus said “you shall know them by their fruit.” and therefore I question someone being Christian when their behaviors speak otherwise, like those who perpetrated the Crusades, i.e., the Catholics. It also goes beyond behaviors, even to what a person believes, that determines whether they are Christian or not. For example, the Catholics pronounce one “being saved” upon sprinkling a baby with water by a priest. This is nowhere to be found in all of Scripture nor are their teachings/dogmas on Church membership, praying to Mary, praying to the saints, Transubstantiation, praying the Rosary, etc., and yet they teach them as necessary for Salvation. These are the Roman Catholic beliefs and gospel. So, you might have a Mother Theresa type person who does alot of good things outwardly but believes she must go through Mary to receive salvation or practices praying endlessly the Rosary, believing she must to be saved but is in error according to the Word and will still end up being damned. Does this make sense? It probably won’t if you’re not familiar with their “gospel” and how it differs from the crystal-clear Gospel of turning from sin and the ways of the world and trusting in Jesus completely and obediently as Christ himself taught. This and this alone.
Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in Heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out many demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Jesus is saying there will be alot of people on Judgment Day who believe they were Christian, who do alot of religious things but will be damned. In other words it’s possible to be deceived, thinking you’re saved and be on the road to Hell according to Jesus.

wigrd, It’s not that I don’t like Catholics. It’s their religion that is anti-Christ and therefore I hate, because it is anti-Christ. This does not say that I believe all Catholics will be damned or aren’t saved, because I think it’s possible that there may be some that are, but who are trapped within the Catholic religion.
I reject your assertion that I “loathe all equally; the young, the old, the sick and the pitiful, the poor in spirit, those that mourn, the meek, the peacemakers those that are persecuted. You lump them together with equal disgust. If they are Roman Catholics they are ‘children of the Devil’.”. wigrd I don’t hate anyone. What I do hate is one’s behaviors (sin) and this includes all religious sin that mocks God, His Son and His Word! Now get this wigrd…I said I reject your assertion, NOT YOU. OK? Please try and not make as many assumptions as you do.

As far as what Mark means regarding there being “non-New-Testament Christians”, as you say he says, I do not know what he’s reffering to. I would be interested to know though.

I stand upon the Word and in Christ alone.

Uncharitable towards Catholic theology! I think I am often that. Just don’t get me started! I think it is however wrong to ‘blanket’people as children of the Devil. Uncharitable is not the word I would use! I thought the attack disgusting, repulsive and sickening. I tried to say why. I don’t care who made it.

Your final sentence is simply mud-slinging. The ‘yah boo’ sort of debate I was at pains to avoid. I tried to address the substance of the argument and produce evidence against the claim. You say I failed. You end by calling me stupid and accuse me of attacking the person and not the argument! Now, what was that bit of Latin…?

I expected more. I did try to ask some constructive questions, pose some difficulties and looked forward to some interesting responses.
Very disappointing.