Go back
Suzianne’s “self-serving mush”

Suzianne’s “self-serving mush”

Spirituality


Originally posted by @suzianne
And yet at the same time, this 'draws' some Christans to start thinking they're 'special' by thinking "he drew ME to him, but he didn't draw my atheist neighbor to him, I must be 'special' ".

It becomes self-serving, since it 'serves' the person saying it and everyone else must be 'lesser'.

And before anyone starts up with ridiculous comments, I happ ...[text shortened]... the Father, but people don't seem to let that get in the way of them thinking they're 'special'.
I think what Jesus meant when He said no one can come to Him unless the Father draws him or her is that man in his natural state is so sinful, depraved and hostile to God that for him to come to God requires a supernatural drawing.

But, as I said in the previous post, some will respond positively to the drawing and some will respond negatively.


Originally posted by @philokalia
Suzianne and I do not have a great relationship or anything, and I jus twant to emphasize that these 'tag you in the subject line' call otu threads are overtly hostile and a bit much.

I do not think that htey fit well with the spirit of Christ nor do they add to the forum.
Thanks for your suggestions.


Originally posted by @romans1009
I think what Jesus meant when He said no one can come to Him unless the Father draws him or her is that man in his natural state is so sinful, depraved and hostile to God that for him to come to God requires a supernatural drawing.

But, as I said in the previous post, some will respond positively to the drawing and some will respond negatively.
Should have added that some may respond positively but become sidetracked by not understanding the Bible, tribulation/persecution and the cares of this world and so never become Christians.

Jesus elaborated on this in the Parable of the Sower.




-Removed-
It’s actually an overly generous assessment of your behavior in the last three months. You’ve turned into quite the troll, lately.


-Removed-
Why do you have to involve suzianne? Why not just pose the question and leave her out of it?

Would you treat one of the forum’s resident atheists in that manner? Didn’t think so.


-Removed-
Not in my opinion. I think He made the distinction because there is in fact, a distinction. No one can come to Christ but those who are drawn by the Father who sent Him. Meaning, if you aren't drawn, then you can't do it. It wouldn't make any sense to make that distinction in my opinion, unless some aren't drawn.

2 edits

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
Not in my opinion. I think He made the distinction because there is in fact, a distinction. No one can come to Christ but those who are drawn by the Father who sent Him. Meaning, if you aren't drawn, then you can't do it. It wouldn't make any sense to make that distinction in my opinion, unless some aren't drawn.
It makes sense if Jesus’ point in that remark was that man in his natural state is so sinful, depraved and hostile to God that he’s incapable, due to disinterest, of coming to God on his own, but requires a “supernatural intervention” to seek God.


-Removed-
So who is 'jessi' and do you wish you had his girl?





Ok, nevermind, it was funnier when I first thought of it.



-Removed-
Picking another fight with a believer, tiger? This is the third believer you’ve gone after in just the last 10 minutes. Why do you exclusively pick fights with your fellow Christians, tiger? Are you that ashamed to be a believer? Or are you a phony?


Originally posted by @romans1009
Picking another fight with a believer, tiger? This is the third believer you’ve gone after in just the last 10 minutes. Why do you exclusively pick fights with your fellow Christians, tiger? Are you that ashamed to be a believer? Or are you a phony?
"Ashamed to be a believer." That's a far cry from the accused "ashamed of Jesus Christ." Two completely different things.


Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
"Ashamed to be a believer." That's a far cry from the accused "ashamed of Jesus Christ." Two completely different things.
Not to a Christian, I don't think. When I was a Christian, for someone to have accused me of being ashamed of being a believer in Jesus Christ and for someone to have accused me - as a Christian - of being ashamed of Jesus Christ, would have both meant exactly the same thing. Not "completely different". Exactly the same.

1 edit

Originally posted by @fmf
Not to a Christian, I don't think. When I was a Christian, for someone to have accused me of being ashamed of being a believer in Jesus Christ and for someone to have accused me - as a Christian - of being ashamed of Jesus Christ, would have both meant exactly the same thing. Not "completely different". Exactly the same.
What has Dive said here that has convinced you that he is not ashamed of being a Christian? Could it maybe be that he hasn't been to church for 40 odd years? Or maybe the fact that he is always attacking Christians and siding with atheists?