toldailytopic: If there were a TheologyOnline Mount Rushmore who would be on it?

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
Also solid. Though I prefer John Adams to GW and TJ.

John Adams sucked. The one decent thing he did, which was to avoid War with England, was probably the one thing you hated about him. But he was a Federalist and supported the antifreedom Alien and Sedition Acts.
 

GuySmiley

Well-known member
A couple different versions come to mind:


A legends of TOL version:
Knight, Turbo, Clete, Bob Enyart, and if I can have a fifth, Hilston, but not adjacent to Clete (lol)


A summary of TOL version:
Knight, Bob Enyart facing Fool, Mighty Duck


Maybe accross a valley from the lengends version you could have
fool, Mighty Duck, Granite, Real Sorceror

And somewhere nearby you'd have a monument in the works for years and years, never really getting finished, with the heads of everyone who refuses to subscribe.

Another one could be
Trad, Cruciform, Evoken, zippy2006
It would have the head of Mary over all of them and she'd be wrapping her arms around them protecting them from the angry face of God. There would be a huge cathedral built over the top of all of it, and it would be gold plated.
 

Krsto

Well-known member
How about a Mt. Rushmore of Insecurity? These are the ones who just have to have complete assurance of some thing or they don't think they could operate as a Christian.

I nominate:

Jason0047 - Can not imagine a world in which God has not preserved for us a perfect translation. Unwilling to examine any evidence to the contrary.

Cruciform - Can not imagine a world in which God has not provided an infallible interpreter of God's word. Unwilling to consider there may be truth in other churches if they disagree with the Cult of Rome.

These two just can not trust God to lead men apart from some form of infallibility to which they can cling, which of course gives them a false sense of security.

Totally insecure people need a total sense of security which they don't think they can get apart from their preferred sectarian tradition which hands out the promise of infallibility.

Meanwhile, the rest of us simply trust in God and are happy to be led by him even if we don't get it right all the time.

Not sure who would fill out the other two spots on the mount.

I know, solid granite representing insecure people. I realize that doesn't make sense.

But this is cyberspace. We can do what we want.
 

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
Another one could be
Trad, Cruciform, Evoken, zippy2006
It would have the head of Mary over all of them and she'd be wrapping her arms around them protecting them from the angry face of God. There would be a huge cathedral built over the top of all of it, and it would be gold plated.

There actually is an image of Our Lady just like this. When She's depicted like this, we call her "Our Lady of Mercy." Of course, I would be depicted at the very back, just barely noticable, barely recognizable. But still in the image, hiding under the mantle of Our Lady! :p

If you hide under Our Lady's mantle, God can't and won't stay angry with you. Because when He starts to turn against you in judgment, He'll see His very own Mother. And He would never enter into judgment with Her.

"Remember, Blessed Virgin Mother, when you stand in the sight of God, to speak well of us, so that you might turn away His anger."

299px-Ravensburger_Schutzmantelmadonna.jpg


Recordare Virgo Mater
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
I nominate Ktoyou along with Pslamist and bybee for our elder statesmen Mt. Rushmore. They should decide who fills in the remaining slot and I'm not sure who else is in their rough age bracket or how closely they're grouped, comes to that. But any grouping that has them ain't hay, as they say around here.
 

Cruciform

New member
How about a Mt. Rushmore of Insecurity? These are the ones who just have to have complete assurance of some thing or they don't think they could operate as a Christian.
Declares Krsto with complete assurance, and thus "insecurity."

Cruciform - Can not imagine a world in which God has not provided an infallible interpreter of God's word.
I don't have to imagine it. I was a part of just such a world for decades. It's called "Protestantism."

Unwilling to consider there may be truth in other churches if they disagree with the [Church] of Rome.
QUESTION: Was the 1st-century Apostolic Church "willing to consider there may be truth in other churches if they disagreed with the Church of the Apostles"? :think:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

grit

New member
Well, I'd question calling the Pope a "Christian". I don't believe its impossible for a Catholic to be saved by any means, that's up to God, but they are way off theologically and those aren't differences you can just put aside like you can between, say, baptists and pentacostals or something.

That's not even as bad as John Calvin though. Are unrepentant murderous theocrats "Great"? Heck, I lean "Calvinist" theologically and I still don't respect Calvin as a person.

The Anabaptists were the real Christians of the period.

Silly, we weren't gonna put them right next to each other; and we were gonna make sure they ALL had torches.
 

bybee

New member
I nominate Ktoyou along with Pslamist and bybee for our elder statesmen Mt. Rushmore. They should decide who fills in the remaining slot and I'm not sure who else is in their rough age bracket or how closely they're grouped, comes to that. But any grouping that has them ain't hay, as they say around here.

Thanks TH!
 
Top