So my argument in facebook about the Islamic community center has now taken an odd turn.

The new argument is that the building of this is a provocation.

I asked why and I was told it would be similiar to this scenario:

For example: suppose I accidentally(maybe) ran over your cat(or friend or whatever) one day. Now if I was already your neighbor, driving daily in front of your house is not really an act of provocation...now if I actually live across the city and knowing where you live then moved to your neighborhood after the accident and as a result I drive in front of your house daily - you may have reason to believe I want to get you upset. This may or may not be my intention to aggregate you, but one questions at the VERY least my wisdom in doing such a thing.

And if the police chief publicly tell me I have every right to move into your neighborhood and not say a word to you, you might get a little upset about this.

I pointed out that this doesn't track because in his scenario the person who killed my cat also moves next door.

It would be more like if he ran over my cat and a Christian moved next door and I flipped out because omigod! A christian killed my cat and now one has moved next door and they are trying to provoke me into -- - something!!1

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a hotly contested subject.

True, and I have no idea what it's supposed to mean; but the point is simply that, per the text, it is possible to lose salvation.

Failing to develop talents or help the needy is something Christ condemned in the Gospels, but it's also still addressable (it can be repented of and atoned for) and therefore wouldn't mean the death sentence for one's soul.

Two points:

1. While I have no issue with this position, it's contradicted by the text. The sheep in that passage, the ones who enter paradise, are not the people who repented; they're the people who actually acted compassionately in the first place.

2. With respect to the conversation at hand, this position doesn't differ at all from the position of the Catholic Church, nor does it contradict the notion that one can lose salvation - it just says that one can find it again.

Also I'm not sure what to make of this so I need some Buffistas opinions.

His other argument is that this is the same as if a sushi restaurant opened right next to Pearl Harbor, it would be a provocation and disrespectful and should not be allowed.

Bwahaha!! Does he know how many sushi restaurants there are in Hawaii?!?!

meara, I was going to SAY!

t not really here I'd be pretty shocked if there ISN'T a sushi place in or at the Pearl Harbor memorial. Hawaii has a HUGE ethnic japanese community. Has had long before Pearl Harbor was a historical event. In the 20s, they were almost half the population. t /not really here

It's okay for Sushi restaurants to be in hawaii, they just couldn't be 4 blocks from Pearl Harbor.

Tell the moron to google Pearl Harbor sushi.

What about five blocks from Pearl Harbor?

Elsie Dinsmore uses the passage "Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone," to justify the position that grace is time-limited -- if you don't accept Jesus within a certain time frame, then he won't have you anymore. (OK, I don't really have anything useful to add to this conversation, but I'd never seen that interpretation anywhere else, and I asked a few Christian friends, who said they'd never heard it, either.)

His other argument is that this is the same as if a sushi restaurant opened right next to Pearl Harbor, it would be a provocation and disrespectful and should not be allowed.

That one actually kind of makes sense as an analogy, but I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed. It's not like a sushi restaurant is an arm of the WWII-era Japanese government.