[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< It’s pretty convoluted: there’s omniscience but also free will, and a divine plan but we can deviate from that plan somehow, but then again: he does work in mysterious ways.
[/quote]Oh no. You cannot deviate from His divine decrees by the firing of even one synapse or contraction of even one muscle fiber. (fast or slow twitch =] )
You and I will freely choose exactly what He has decreed. All dead. He will raise some. His choice of who and by what means. Bar or dumbbells from all eternity. No idea of the exact mechanism by which that is accomplished and I don’t really care. I just know that it IS and that my every victory is already won.
[/quote]
I know exactly what it is Eph. I embrace the all defining God who IS every answer whether I understand them or not because I have been emancipated by grace from the hard bondage of my own intellect as supreme. You refuse to accept what you don’t understand, only in your case, and somewhat to your credit, this isn’t as true as in some others.
You freely admit the subjective nature of your belief system which on the other hand is even more presumptuous and arrogant because by viewing your own private sense of reality as the governing principle of your existence you proclaim yourself the god of your life and in the end wind up right where everybody else is.
Believing that men can be free, accountable and predestined all at the same time is simply the natural outgrowth of knowledge of Him who answers to no one and does as He wills with all the inhabitants of the Earth.
You guys keep trying to throw a lasso around my mind and bring it back into subjection to that from which it has been freed. I respectfully decline.
[quote]Pangloss wrote:
<<< I’m not sure what benefit there is to continuing this conversation. >>>[/quote]Me either, but that’s ok. I’ll still like you and maybe we can talk at a later time.
[/quote]
Fair enough. I’m sure I could get some value out of picking your noggin on some biblical issues. I think this convo is spent though. Thanks for participating.
[quote]Pangloss wrote:
Trib, you aren’t a Calvinist?
I must have missed that.[/quote]Yes I am. You can ask me about my views on Christian doctrine. I’m not refusing to talk to you. It just isn’t too tough to figure that we won’t go much further with the epistemology thing for now. I’ve never heard of a “presuppositionalist” who was not a Calvinist. I don’t know if you know the difference.
[quote]Pangloss wrote:
Trib, you aren’t a Calvinist?
I must have missed that.[/quote]Yes I am. You can ask me about my views on Christian doctrine. I’m not refusing to talk to you. It just isn’t too tough to figure that we won’t go much further with the epistemology thing for now. I’ve never heard of a “presuppositionalist” who was not a Calvinist. I don’t know if you know the difference.
[/quote]
I haven’t met a presupper who wasn’t a Calvinist either. That said, Calvinists tend to be more deterministic then you appear to be. You seem to be arguing for a version of free will - which I find odd for a Calvinist.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You are the epitome of arrogance you little punk. Posting all over the place that there’s no God. If that isn’t arrogance then I don’t know what is. You can’t even figure out your own life and you’re pontificating that there’s no God (shakes head) what a little intellectual runt you are.[/quote]
I’ve figured my own life out just fine thanks. I also say I don’t know if there is a God. I know that if there is one like your fairy tale books describe, then He is not worthy of worship or recognition.
But if that makes you mad old man, that’s just icing on the cake.[/quote]
Mad? LOL - See how out of touch you are? You’ve got nothing figured out punk. You think you can figure out how the universe works when you can’t even figure out that I’m not “mad”? You are truly a little nitwit.
Who or what ever raised you should be severely punished.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You are the epitome of arrogance you little punk. Posting all over the place that there’s no God. If that isn’t arrogance then I don’t know what is. You can’t even figure out your own life and you’re pontificating that there’s no God (shakes head) what a little intellectual runt you are.[/quote]
I’ve figured my own life out just fine thanks. I also say I don’t know if there is a God. I know that if there is one like your fairy tale books describe, then He is not worthy of worship or recognition.
But if that makes you mad old man, that’s just icing on the cake.[/quote]
Mad? LOL - See how out of touch you are? You’ve got nothing figured out punk. You think you can figure out how the universe works when you can’t even figure out that I’m not “mad”? You are truly a little nitwit.
Who or what ever raised you should be severely punished. [/quote]
Tiribulus’s words are telling when he talks about “worshiping rationality”. The religious justify the irrationality of their beliefs by denigrating logic and reason. These are dismissed as the tools of the natural man, who is labeled an enemy to god.
This tactic allows them to dodge every rational argument, and to believe literally anything they want to believe. This is why so many religions contradict one another, even within the Christian realm.
Emotionality, parading as spirituality, is a poor substitute for common sense.
[quote]Pangloss wrote:
Trib, you aren’t a Calvinist?
I must have missed that.[/quote]Yes I am. You can ask me about my views on Christian doctrine. I’m not refusing to talk to you. It just isn’t too tough to figure that we won’t go much further with the epistemology thing for now. I’ve never heard of a “presuppositionalist” who was not a Calvinist. I don’t know if you know the difference.
[/quote]
I haven’t met a presupper who wasn’t a Calvinist either. That said, Calvinists tend to be more deterministic then you appear to be. You seem to be arguing for a version of free will - which I find odd for a Calvinist. [/quote]No true Calvinist ,including Calvin, is a determinist. I’m pressed for time. Go here: http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html if you want to know my views on the family of topics at hand. In my opinion the Westminster divines nailed it as well as it will ever be done in this life outside of the scriptures themselves which alone are the written Word of God.
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Emotionality, parading as spirituality, is a poor substitute for common sense. [/quote]Rationality parading as divinity is a poor substitute for resurrection. I have to get back to work.
[quote]Pangloss wrote:
Trib, you aren’t a Calvinist?
I must have missed that.[/quote]Yes I am. You can ask me about my views on Christian doctrine. I’m not refusing to talk to you. It just isn’t too tough to figure that we won’t go much further with the epistemology thing for now. I’ve never heard of a “presuppositionalist” who was not a Calvinist. I don’t know if you know the difference.
[/quote]
I haven’t met a presupper who wasn’t a Calvinist either. That said, Calvinists tend to be more deterministic then you appear to be. You seem to be arguing for a version of free will - which I find odd for a Calvinist. [/quote]No true Calvinist ,including Calvin, is a determinist. I’m pressed for time. Go here: http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html if you want to know my views on the family of topics at hand. In my opinion the Westminster divines nailed it as well as it will ever be done in this life outside of the scriptures themselves which alone are the written Word of God.
[/quote]
Check the decrees, providence and freewill though there is a system there. You will most assuredly not agree, but THAT is historical reformed/Calvinistic theology.
You guys keep repasting the same terrible summaries. Alot of which is patently false. Mithras, for instance, developed from a rock into a full grown man. Where’s the virgin? Nor is there ANY mention of 12 disciples. There is one post-christian carving of him along with representations of the zodiac. Prove me wrong and I will never post here again. Never.
You guys keep repasting the same terrible summaries. Alot of which is patently false. Mithras, for instance, developed from a rock into a full grown man. Where’s the virgin? Nor is there ANY mention of 12 disciples. There is one post-christian carving of him along with representations of the zodiac. Prove me wrong and I will never post here again. Ever. Oh,
Oh, and Jesus isn’t said to be born on Dec. 25…[/quote]
Yeah, sorry to be dense but I didnt exactly understand what you posted before about christians celebrating christmas on december 25… he’s said to have died on march 25, so christians celebrate his ressurection in april and his birth in december? Since when do you celebrate someones birthday nine months after their death?
You guys keep repasting the same terrible summaries. Alot of which is patently false. Mithras, for instance, developed from a rock into a full grown man. Where’s the virgin? Nor is there ANY mention of 12 disciples. There is one post-christian carving of him along with representations of the zodiac. Prove me wrong and I will never post here again. Ever. Oh,
Oh, and Jesus isn’t said to be born on Dec. 25…[/quote]
Yeah, sorry to be dense but I didnt exactly understand what you posted before about christians celebrating christmas on december 25… he’s said to have died on march 25, so christians celebrate his ressurection in april and his birth in december? Since when do you celebrate someones birthday nine months after their death?[/quote]
Huh? I’m saying Jesus was most likely not born on Dec. 25. There’s no real indication of his birthdate, period. The day is used because it’s been a festive time of the year in history. It’s a matter of convenience, of coinciding a celebration at a traditional time for such things…not a claim of WHEN Christ was born. We’re celebrating a birth, not a birthday. There is no “Oh hey, hey, guys, look these pagan gods were said to be born on Dec. 25, just like the Jesus story. Derp.” The “jesus story” says nothing about his birthdate…It’s not even a matter for comparison.
You guys keep repasting the same terrible summaries. Alot of which is patently false. Mithras, for instance, developed from a rock into a full grown man. Where’s the virgin? Nor is there ANY mention of 12 disciples. There is one post-christian carving of him along with representations of the zodiac. Prove me wrong and I will never post here again. Ever. Oh,
Oh, and Jesus isn’t said to be born on Dec. 25…[/quote]
Yeah, sorry to be dense but I didnt exactly understand what you posted before about christians celebrating christmas on december 25… he’s said to have died on march 25, so christians celebrate his ressurection in april and his birth in december? Since when do you celebrate someones birthday nine months after their death?[/quote]
Huh? I’m saying Jesus was most likely not born on Dec. 25. There’s no real indication of his birthdate, period. The day is used because it’s been a festive time of the year in history. It’s a matter of convenience, of coinciding a celebration at a traditional time for such things…not a claim of WHEN Christ was born. We’re celebrating a birth, not a birthday. There is no “Oh hey, hey, guys, look these pagan gods were said to be born on Dec. 25, just like the Jesus story. Derp.” The “jesus story” says nothing about his birthdate…It’s not even a matter for comparison.[/quote]
Didnt you post a link in the history of christmas thread? Or was that somebody else?
