What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

IS MAN FREE TO CHOOSE?

Status
Not open for further replies.
wondering said:
Hey...
I've quoted Calvin to you many times and never got a compliment !!
Click to expand...
I hereby present to you a coupon to be used whenever you wish:

ONE COMPLIMENT


wondering said:
Maybe the WCF does agree with Mr. Calvin,,,
maybe they just used different wording to make the teaching more palatable....
Click to expand...
I am sure the WCF and Calvin usually agreed.
I assume Calvin didn't even agree with himself occasionally as time went by.

wondering said:
For instance,,,how about posting the exact wording of the WCF or the Baptist one you prefer to
see what the difference is? ---- ON HOW A PERSON GETS TO GO TO HEAVEN --
OR, HOW GOD PICKS THE PERSON....
Click to expand...
Hmmm... interesting... I can' imagine much difference. I think some the wording is copied from the WCF.
They differed on the baptism of babies....that's all I know off the top of my head.
 
Walpole said:
The reality is the Gospel of Calvinism is one of hatred.
Click to expand...
I think you opinion of Calvinism is more one of hatred than Calvinism. But, you are entitled to your opinion.

I for one love my Arminian brothers and agree with them on the most essential doctrines and in NO WAY feel, even though at times we disagree, that they teach hatred; rather, they teach and have a sincere love for Christ.
 
Fastfredy0 said:
I think you opinion of Calvinism is more one of hatred than Calvinism. But, you are entitled to your opinion.

I for one love my Arminian brothers and agree with them on the most essential doctrines and in NO WAY feel, even though at times we disagree, that they teach hatred; rather, they teach and have a sincere love for Christ.
Click to expand...
imagine that

oh .my,pastor once preached from the wcf.

he postulated their question ,why are men here on earth and answered it with the response they had and why that is biblical.

God forbid we ponder God made us to glorify him,serve him and gasp to love him .
 
Fastfredy0 said:
I think you opinion of Calvinism is more one of hatred than Calvinism. But, you are entitled to your opinion.

I for one love my Arminian brothers and agree with them on the most essential doctrines and in NO WAY feel, even though at times we disagree, that they teach hatred; rather, they teach and have a sincere love for Christ.
Click to expand...

Do you think it is an act of love or hate to create someone for the sole purpose in taking pleasure in seeing them destroyed?
 
Fastfredy0 said:
Agreed. Only one truth and Deut. 29:29 (the truth is not given)
Probably no one has all TRUTH, but everyone thinks they are closest because they're errors is hidden from themselves for various reasons. (bias, lack of knowledge, sin native, lack of training, lack of God's gift of understanding, ...

The bible is an unorganized book. The Bereans were wise. Proverbs 11:14 Without counsels do a people fall, And deliverance [is] in a multitude of counsellors.

Many counsels can be found in Systematic Theology books. One will find that they agree with each other (I say 95% of the time assuming they are protestants). Read from people of different persuasions ... compare ... ignore anything not backed up by scripture. When an interpretation of one scripture conflicts with another scripture, seek another interpretation).
Aside: Everyone's mind is already biased

Here is a list of authors of different persuasions.
1. Anglican (Episcopalian)
1882– 92 Litton, 1– 8
1930 Thomas, xvii– xxviii, 146– 52

2. Arminian (Wesleyan or Methodist)
1875– 76 Pope, 1: 3– 32, 42– 46
1892– 94 Miley, 1: 2– 54 1940 Wiley, 1: 13– 123
1960 Purkiser, 19– 38
1983 Carter, 1: 19– 101
1987– 90 Oden, 1: 11– 14, 375– 406

Baptist
1767 Gill, 1: vii– xxx
1887 Boyce, 1– 8
1907 Strong, 1– 51 1917 Mullins, 1– 136
1976– 83 Henry, 1: 13– 411; 6: 7– 34
1983– 85 Erickson, 9– 149
1987– 94 Lewis/ Demarest, 1: 13– 123

Dispensational
1947 Chafer, 1: 3– 17
1949 Thiessen, 1– 20 (Aside: OzSpen gave me a link to this one. Thiessen is IMO Arminian. http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-2/PDF Books/00045 Thiessen Lectures in Systematic Theology.pdf )
1986 Ryrie, 9– 22

5. Lutheran
1917– 24 Pieper, 1: 3– 190
1934 Mueller, 1– 89 6.

Reformed (or Presbyterian) 12 (These guys got it right ... just teasing ... my bias)
1559 Calvin, 1: 3– 33, 35– 43 (prefaces and 1.1– 2)
1724– 58 Edwards, 2: 157– 63
1861 Heppe, 1– 11, 42– 47
1871– 73 Hodge, 1: 1– 150
1878 Dabney, 133– 44 1887–
1921 Warfield, SSW, 2: 207– 320
1889 Shedd, 1: 3– 58; 3: 1– 26
1937– 66 Murray, CW, 1: 3– 8, 169– 73; CW, 4: 1– 21
1938 Berkhof, Intro., 15– 128, 170– 86 1962 Buswell, 1: 13– 26
1962 Buswell, 1: 13– 26

Renewal (or charismatic/ Pentecostal)
1988– 92 Williams, 1: 11– 28

Sections in Representative Roman Catholic Systematic Theologies
1. Roman Catholic: Traditional 1955 Ott, 1– 10 2.
Roman Catholic: Post-Vatican II 1980 McBrien, 1: 3– 78, 183– 200

List provided by Grudem, Wayne A.. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Cómo Entender) (p. 40). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Click to expand...

Fastfredy0,

To the dispensational systematic theology, please add Norman Geisler, vol 4 on Church and Eschatology.

1611878579624.png

I agree that Henry Thiessen presented Arminian views. I was introduced to his systematic theology in an Arminian Bible College (AoG). However, I understand Thiessen wouldn't own up to being an Arminian, but take a read of his view on election:

(1) Election and Foreknowledge. Election is a sovereign act of God; He was under no obligation to elect any one, since all had lost their standing before God. Even after Christ had died, God was not obligated to apply that salvation, except as He owed it to Christ to keep the agreement with Him as to man’s salvation. Election is a sovereign act, because it was not due to any constraint laid upon God. It was an act in grace, in that He chose those who were utterly unworthy of salvation. Man deserved the exact opposite; but in His grace God chose to save some. He chose them “in Christ.” He could not choose them in themselves because of their ill-desert; so He chose them in the merits of another. Furthermore, He chose those who He foreknew would accept Christ. The Scriptures definitely base God’s election on His foreknowledge: “Whom He foreknew, He also foreordained, . . . and whom He foreordained, them He also called” (Rom. 8:29, 30); “to the elect . . . according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Pet. 1:1, 2). Although we are nowhere told what it is in the foreknowledge of God that determines His choice, the repeated teaching of Scripture that man is responsible for accepting or rejecting salvation necessitates or postulating that it is man’s reaction to the revelation God has made of Himself that is the basis of His election. May we repeat: Since mankind is hopelessly dead in trespasses and sins and can do nothing to obtain salvation, God graciously restores to all men sufficient ability to make a choice in the matter of submission to Him. This is the salvation bringing grace of God that has appeared to all men. In His forknowledge He perceives what each one will do with this restored ability, and elects men to salvation in harmony with His knowledge of their choice of Him. . . . (Henry C. Thiessen, Lectures In Systematic Theology, 344-45).​

That's about as Arminian as one can get with election based on God's foreknowledge.
 
wondering said:
In John 16 Jesus is speaking SPECIFICALLY to the Apostles.
Also, in Matthew 28:19 Jesus is speaking SPECIFICALLY to the Apostles.
Jesus tells them that they are to go out and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Can YOU baptize a person?
No. Because Jesus spoke to a certain group to whom He gave this authority...
He did NOT give it to us...His disciples.

The Body of Christ is made up of believers.
NOWHERE does it say these believers were chosen by God.

Can you post a verse where it says this?
Click to expand...
I can't agree with your POV on who can baptize others.
It isn't the baptizer, but the baptism that is important.
 
Walpole said:
Do you think it is an act of love or hate to create someone for the sole purpose in taking pleasure in seeing them destroyed?
Click to expand...
I assume you are talking about God since you use the word "create". God does not take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked. He hates them (Psalm 4:5-6, Psalm 7:11; Psalm 11:5-7; I could go on), but He does not take pleasure in the punishment of those he hates (Ezek. 18:23, Ezek. 33:11)
Since God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, the question "is it an act of love or hate" is irrelevant.
 
OzSpen said:
I agree that Henry Thiessen presented Arminian views. I was introduced to his systematic theology in an Arminian Bible College (AoG). However, I understand Thiessen wouldn't own up to being an Arminian, but take a read of his view on election:
Click to expand...
Yeah, Thiessen didn't seem to stress the Arminian view in my opinion. Partly because most of Arminian and Reformed view are identical. He did stick "prevenient grace" into his "Lectures on Systematic Theology". I didn't notice much of a dispensational slant, but then I skipped the eschatology chapter as I had enough varying opinions.

Some of the lines you sent me made me think Thiessen might be taking the reformed viewpoint.
  • "Election is a sovereign act of God" ... Arminians define sovereignty differently than Reformed
  • "His grace God chose to save some." ... that's sounds Reforms. Of course, Arminian's say God chose to let us choose Him and God Elected to let us elect Him. Arminians make good lawyers
  • "the Scriptures definitely base God’s election on His foreknowledge: “Whom He foreknew, He also foreordained" .... here Arminians say God foreknows what we will do, and Reform say God knows the person (Or Israel)
  • "teaching of Scripture that man is responsible" - Arminians say people must be given a choice to be responsible, Reform say they are responsible due to their sin nature, original sin... Adam federal head
  • "God graciously restores to all men sufficient ability to make a choice in the matter of submission to Him" .... ah, prevenient grace is presented and Thiessen shows his Arminian colors
  • "his is the salvation bringing grace of God that has appeared to all men." ... not exactly true, as grace has not be given to those that do not hear the gospel. Good selling point though to support the Arminian concept of 'God's fairness". I suppose one could say Thiesson is talking about general revelation, but I doubt it as that saves no one
  • "In His forknowledge He perceives what each one will do" ... God looks into the future, that is Arminian.

OzSpen said:
That's about as Arminian as one can get with election based on God's foreknowledge.
Click to expand...
"Elect", Foreknowledge", "Chose" ... both sides use the terms, but differently so hard to tell where he stood for me at first. I am biased, so I tend to look for the reformed viewpoint in ambiguous statements. But 2nd half gave him the Arminian tag.

Hey, I started reading Shedd. He is not an easy read. He goes deep into the weeds on some things.
I did enjoy Thiesson, thanks for the link.
 
Fastfredy0 said:
I assume you are talking about God since you use the word "create". God does not take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked. He hates them (Psalm 4:5-6, Psalm 7:11; Psalm 11:5-7; I could go on), but He does not take pleasure in the punishment of those he hates (Ezek. 18:23, Ezek. 33:11)
Since God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, the question "is it an act of love or hate" is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Thanks for affirming my assertion that the gospel of Calvinism is hatred.

"God hates you ________ (fill in the blank). He hated you from the foundation of the world!"

Westboro Baptist is the pinnacle of Calvinism, unabashedly proclaiming God’s hatred.

Once again, this is the complete antithesis to the God of Christianity, who loves man so much He become one. This God offers salvation to ALL through Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:
Fastfredy0 said:
Yeah, Thiessen didn't seem to stress the Arminian view in my opinion. Partly because most of Arminian and Reformed view are identical. He did stick "prevenient grace" into his "Lectures on Systematic Theology". I didn't notice much of a dispensational slant, but then I skipped the eschatology chapter as I had enough varying opinions.

Some of the lines you sent me made me think Thiessen might be taking the reformed viewpoint.
  • "Election is a sovereign act of God" ... Arminians define sovereignty differently than Reformed
  • "His grace God chose to save some." ... that's sounds Reforms. Of course, Arminian's say God chose to let us choose Him and God Elected to let us elect Him. Arminians make good lawyers
  • "the Scriptures definitely base God’s election on His foreknowledge: “Whom He foreknew, He also foreordained" .... here Arminians say God foreknows what we will do, and Reform say God knows the person (Or Israel)
  • "teaching of Scripture that man is responsible" - Arminians say people must be given a choice to be responsible, Reform say they are responsible due to their sin nature, original sin... Adam federal head
  • "God graciously restores to all men sufficient ability to make a choice in the matter of submission to Him" .... ah, prevenient grace is presented and Thiessen shows his Arminian colors
  • "his is the salvation bringing grace of God that has appeared to all men." ... not exactly true, as grace has not be given to those that do not hear the gospel. Good selling point though to support the Arminian concept of 'God's fairness". I suppose one could say Thiesson is talking about general revelation, but I doubt it as that saves no one
  • "In His forknowledge He perceives what each one will do" ... God looks into the future, that is Arminian.


"Elect", Foreknowledge", "Chose" ... both sides use the terms, but differently so hard to tell where he stood for me at first. I am biased, so I tend to look for the reformed viewpoint in ambiguous statements. But 2nd half gave him the Arminian tag.

Hey, I started reading Shedd. He is not an easy read. He goes deep into the weeds on some things.
I did enjoy Thiesson, thanks for the link.
Click to expand...

Fast Freddy,

Remember there are two main streams of Arminians: (1) Reformed Arminians, and (2) Non-Reformed/Semi-Pelagian Arminians.

Arminius was a Reformed Arminian -as I am. To his dying day, Arminius was ordained with the Dutch Reformed Church and taught at the Reformed University of Leiden.

What are the beliefs of a Reformed Arminian? See the article, "Meet a Reformed Arminian," The Gospel Coalition. I'm a leaky Reformed Arminian because I am convinced the Bible teaches believers' baptism. A strong advocate of the Classical/Reformed Arminian position is Roger E Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (IVP 2006). Olson teaches in the Seminary at Baylor University, Waco TX.

Oz
 
wondering said:
Brightfame...
I stated in my reply to you that EVERY BELIEVER is a member of the Body of Christ.
You don't need to post verses regarding this as I agree, of course.
We all know what the Body of Christ is.

But YOU cannot take a verse...
"You didn't choose Me, but I chose you"....
and apply it to the calvinist doctrine you adhere to.
IT DOES NOT APPLY.
You cannot use this verse for support of your belief system.

Jesus was not speaking in general to all persons...but to the APOSTLES ONLY.
Jesus CHOSE THE APOSTLES.

You'd have to find some other verses in the N.T. that state plainly that God chooses who
will be saved by Him and passes over the others.

If you can't find those verses, then perhaps you're following the teachings of a man?
John Calvin
John Macarthur
John Piper
R.C. Sproul
??

Read the bible on your own instead and learn the truth...
God is a God that loves His creation and desires all to be saved.
1 Timothy 2:3-6
3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
5For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6who gave Himself as a ransom for all,
Click to expand...
Its very simple many times when Jesus spake to the Apostles, it was as they represented the Body of Christ they were part of.
 
Hopeful said:
I can't agree with your POV on who can baptize others.
It isn't the baptizer, but the baptism that is important.
Click to expand...
Hey, we agree on something, LOL. We are the vessel God works through as we are not baptizing others in our name, but in the name of Jesus. It's the same with laying on of hands, it's not us that heal, but that of Christ who sends healing to others through our hands.
 
OzSpen said:
Fastfredy0,

To the dispensational systematic theology, please add Norman Geisler, vol 4 on Church and Eschatology.

View attachment 10472

I agree that Henry Thiessen presented Arminian views. I was introduced to his systematic theology in an Arminian Bible College (AoG). However, I understand Thiessen wouldn't own up to being an Arminian, but take a read of his view on election:

(1) Election and Foreknowledge. Election is a sovereign act of God; He was under no obligation to elect any one, since all had lost their standing before God. Even after Christ had died, God was not obligated to apply that salvation, except as He owed it to Christ to keep the agreement with Him as to man’s salvation. Election is a sovereign act, because it was not due to any constraint laid upon God. It was an act in grace, in that He chose those who were utterly unworthy of salvation. Man deserved the exact opposite; but in His grace God chose to save some. He chose them “in Christ.” He could not choose them in themselves because of their ill-desert; so He chose them in the merits of another. Furthermore, He chose those who He foreknew would accept Christ. The Scriptures definitely base God’s election on His foreknowledge: “Whom He foreknew, He also foreordained, . . . and whom He foreordained, them He also called” (Rom. 8:29, 30); “to the elect . . . according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Pet. 1:1, 2). Although we are nowhere told what it is in the foreknowledge of God that determines His choice, the repeated teaching of Scripture that man is responsible for accepting or rejecting salvation necessitates or postulating that it is man’s reaction to the revelation God has made of Himself that is the basis of His election. May we repeat: Since mankind is hopelessly dead in trespasses and sins and can do nothing to obtain salvation, God graciously restores to all men sufficient ability to make a choice in the matter of submission to Him. This is the salvation bringing grace of God that has appeared to all men. In His forknowledge He perceives what each one will do with this restored ability, and elects men to salvation in harmony with His knowledge of their choice of Him. . . . (Henry C. Thiessen, Lectures In Systematic Theology, 344-45).​

That's about as Arminian as one can get with election based on God's foreknowledge.
Click to expand...
I would like to add to this.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

The word translated "evil" is from a Hebrew word kelalah that means adversary, affliction, calamity, distress and misery. This is what God has created and puts on those who He has cursed for their rebellion against God so they know "I AM" in all sovereignty. Deuteronomy 27:11-26. Pharaoh is a good example of this.
 
Walpole said:
Thanks for affirming my assertion that the gospel of Calvinism is hatred.
Click to expand...
Affirmed in your mind, apparently so.


Walpole said:
"God hates you ________ (fill in the blank). He hated you from the foundation of the world!"
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The bible clearly states God does hate some people.
Maybe you're one to those who believes God loves Satan, for example.
Of course, one must define "hate" in relation to God. Your probably define it as an intense emotion of dislike. I do not.
You don't site any verses saying God does not hate anyone. I will give some that say He does. (again, hate has not been defined)
Leviticus 20:23; Psalm 2:4-9; Psalm 11:4-5,6; Psalm 11:5; Psalm 58:10a; Proverbs 3:32a; Proverbs 6:16–19; Nahum 1:2; Hosea 9:15; Malachi 1:3-4; John 3:36b; Romans 9:13; Romans 9:22; 1 Corinthians 16:22; Revelation 14:10, 11; Revelation 18:20

Psalm 5:4 For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; No evil [person] dwells with You. 5 The boastful and the arrogant will not stand in Your sight; You hate all who do evil. 6 You destroy those who tell lies; The Lord detests and rejects the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.

Psalm 7:11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry [with the wicked] every day. KJV

Psalm 11:5 The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, And His soul hates the [malevolent] one who loves violence. 6 Upon the wicked (godless) He will rain coals of fire; Fire and brimstone and a dreadful scorching wind will be the portion of their cup [of doom]. 7 For the Lord is [absolutely] righteous, He loves righteousness (virtue, morality, justice); The upright shall see His face.


Walpole said:
Westboro Baptist is the pinnacle of Calvinism, unabashedly proclaiming God’s hatred.
Click to expand...
LOL .. if you say so. So what? Straw man argument. You can do better than that.
Hilter was baptized Catholic ... therefore all Catholics are bad ...the conflation is comical


Walpole said:
Once again, this is the complete antithesis to the God of Christianity, who loves man so much He become one. This God offers salvation to ALL through Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
...and exactly what does a 1232 N.A. Indian to whom you suggest God offers salvation; what does he have to do to be saved?
 
OzSpen said:
See the article, "Meet a Reformed Arminian,"
Click to expand...
Thanks for the article which I read.

Interesting points to me:
  • I can have so much in common with some Calvinists with regard to the person and work and gospel of Christ, justification, sanctification, Christian worldview, apologetics and epistemology, cultural engagement, eschatology, and so on
  • This entails that Christ’s active and passive obedience are imputed to the believer in justification.
  • Unlike Wesleyan-Arminian theology as it developed in the Holiness movement, Reformed Arminianism holds the traditional Reformed notion of original sin and radical depravity that only the grace of God via the convicting and drawing power of the Holy Spirit can counteract.
  • Reformed Arminianism’s understanding of apostasy veers from the Wesleyan notion that individuals may repeatedly fall from grace by committing individual sins and may be repeatedly restored to a state of grace through penitence.
  • agreement with the Arminian stance on predestination and freedom (before and after conversion) to resist divine salvific grace
  • They also believe Christians persevere in salvation through faith alone.
  • Unfortunately, most popular Arminianism is semi-Pelagian
  • Charles Spurgeon once said that, despite Wesley’s theological errors, it will be time for us to find fault with John and Charles Wesley, not when we discover their mistakes, but when we have cured our own. (I like that)
  • Yet they disagree with most Arminians’ rejection of the Reformed doctrines of total depravity, penal substitutionary atonement, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness of Christ in justification, and progressive (as opposed to entire) sanctification
Interesting stuff. There were so many statements of what this group believed and that group believed that it got a little confusing.
My father-in-law and mother-in-law live in retirement community run by Dutch Reformed people. Maybe 1/2 the people there are from the Netherlands.
 
wondering said:
NO!
This is a Christian doctrine.
John 3:16
THAT WHOSOEVER BELEIVES SHALL NOT PERISH....

If we believe with our heart in Jesus and are His disiple,
we will be saved.

This is what I meant when I said that WE can choose if we want
to be saved or not. God leaves it up to us after calling us...
as He calls everyone.
As Paul said...God wishes that all men be saved.
But not all men WANT to be saved....
and thus the road is narrow .
But those that want to be saved, can be saved.

Calvinism teaches that God decides who will be saved
and who will not.
Click to expand...
Oh, I misread what you wrote. I thought you said, "You decided if you are saved or not." What you actually said was, "You decide if you want to be saved or not." Sorry about that!
 
Fastfredy0 said:
Affirmed in your mind, apparently so.



I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The bible clearly states God does hate some people.
Maybe you're one to those who believes God loves Satan, for example.
Of course, one must define "hate" in relation to God. Your probably define it as an intense emotion of dislike. I do not.
You don't site any verses saying God does not hate anyone. I will give some that say He does. (again, hate has not been defined)
Leviticus 20:23; Psalm 2:4-9; Psalm 11:4-5,6; Psalm 11:5; Psalm 58:10a; Proverbs 3:32a; Proverbs 6:16–19; Nahum 1:2; Hosea 9:15; Malachi 1:3-4; John 3:36b; Romans 9:13; Romans 9:22; 1 Corinthians 16:22; Revelation 14:10, 11; Revelation 18:20

Psalm 5:4 For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; No evil [person] dwells with You. 5 The boastful and the arrogant will not stand in Your sight; You hate all who do evil. 6 You destroy those who tell lies; The Lord detests and rejects the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.

Psalm 7:11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry [with the wicked] every day. KJV

Psalm 11:5 The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, And His soul hates the [malevolent] one who loves violence. 6 Upon the wicked (godless) He will rain coals of fire; Fire and brimstone and a dreadful scorching wind will be the portion of their cup [of doom]. 7 For the Lord is [absolutely] righteous, He loves righteousness (virtue, morality, justice); The upright shall see His face.



LOL .. if you say so. So what? Straw man argument. You can do better than that.
Hilter was baptized Catholic ... therefore all Catholics are bad ...the conflation is comical



...and exactly what does a 1232 N.A. Indian to whom you suggest God offers salvation; what does he have to do to be saved?
Click to expand...

You are almost a Westboro Baptist. That is perfect Calvinism and you are nearly there.

Christianity 101 ---> God does not hate man. He loves man. The condition He hates is sin.

Since you introduced Hitler to the discussion, perhaps you can answer how your idea of God differs from Hitler? Both hate certain people just because they exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top