Bible Contradictions 2.0

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
601

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Hey Pat, what’s the point of debating with you when there are physicists that disagree with your conclusions? You make your conclusions sound like facts. They are not. Like I said before, you’re not stating facts, no matter how many references you provide or how strenuously you argue. [/quote]

Why would I care if physicists disagree? This is a philosophical argument. In can incorporate science or not. It works either way. The stuff you presented was refuted 700 years ago. They were wrong before they said it. That doesn’t mean they are wrong about physics, they just didn’t study philosophy. If they did, then they would not have said it.

I am not stating facts? They are absolute facts, you just can’t prove them wrong.

I am not the one with the hard head here. You’re trying to strong arm me in to accepting a conclusion because smart people in a different field disagree with the conclusion. Like I said, that is the fallacy of appealing to authority which basically states that a persons argument must be true because of credentials and reputation. [/quote]

What have I presented that was refuted 700 years ago when TPs are wrangling with the issues today?
[/quote]
Well if they are still wrangling with them, that in itself proves that it has never been refuted. Second, if they disagree, that’s fine with me. Refuting is different than agreement and disagreement.

When has it not been a philosophical argument? I never claimed it was physics. I can be used there, but it’s not necessary.
I already have stated my facts like a thousand times. Why bother doing it again, really? Want the link? It would have saved you so much trouble.

[quote]
Since you like fancy labels for arguments, I’ll use a falsification argument against causation. Since causation is not necessary at a quantum level, you need a better theory.

Appealing to an authority? Like you did when you posted a list of references to support YOUR argument. [/quote]

Calling things what they are is fancy? Fine, but they are what they are. And since you brought up causation at a quantum level, let’s have some fun shall we? Bring up any quantum event that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt is uncaused… Go for it…

Appeal to authority fallacy means that you claim an argument is right, because of who said it, not because of what the argument states. You claimed that really smart physicist like people don’t believe in the cosmological argument. And even though their argument was incomplete, I should just believe it, because they are all like smart and edumacated and stuff.
Providing information about the argument is not appealing to authority.[/quote]

And you’re right because…well you’re just right, and your faith needs the cosmological argument. Just so we know where we stand Patrick.

602

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Stop. Nothing is “established” by philosophy. We are talking science here, not philosophy. And philosophy is squarely the fruit of humanity’s experience with the universe. [/quote]
You aren’t helping yourself make your point here. Science is also “squarely the fruit of humanity’s experience with the universe”. Science is also very clearly limited in scope as to what questions it can answer. Have you heard of epistemology (or the philosophy of science)? It may be right up your alley to read about it. It really digs into the heart of what we can and cannot know.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with this and it still supports my argument. The point is, we do not know how the universe started. Period. We do not know that there was a first cause. It is still the subject of debate. First cause for the universe is not a fact. Period. [/quote]

Lol, so you’re saying is that “there is no first cause is a fact.”[/quote]

No. I’m saying I’m a skeptic and the matter is not settled. I am open to a creator and I am open to the absence of a creator. My leaning is toward a creator, but not yours.

603

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:<<< Every now and then we agree.[/quote]If you mean that epistemology is the utterly seminal and foundational arena of thought before which there is none else, even for those who don’t consciously realize it? Then yes we agree there if that’s what you’re referring to.

If you mean you are giving your nod to the radically abbreviated statement of theocentric, transcendental epistemology that I have above proposed? One wherein the only true and living tri personal God who commands the cosmos to exist and persist by the command of His mouth is THE ultimate definer and definition of absolutely and comprehensively EVERYTHING? Trust me, you aren’t.
[/quote]
Maybe not completely and fully in the way you are thinking it, but I do believe that there are those living in grace and those that aren’t and there is some blindness that comes from it. I don’t believe that it is by divine decree that those that aren’t living in God’s grace aren’t in it. That’s really the only difference though.

604

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Stop. Nothing is “established” by philosophy. We are talking science here, not philosophy. And philosophy is squarely the fruit of humanity’s experience with the universe. [/quote]
You aren’t helping yourself make your point here. Science is also “squarely the fruit of humanity’s experience with the universe”. Science is also very clearly limited in scope as to what questions it can answer. Have you heard of epistemology (or the philosophy of science)? It may be right up your alley to read about it. It really digs into the heart of what we can and cannot know.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with this and it still supports my argument. The point is, we do not know how the universe started. Period. We do not know that there was a first cause. It is still the subject of debate. First cause for the universe is not a fact. Period. [/quote]

Lol, so you’re saying is that “there is no first cause is a fact.”[/quote]

No. I’m saying I’m a skeptic and the matter is not settled. I am open to a creator and I am open to the absence of a creator. My leaning is toward a creator, but not yours. [/quote]

A fact is a fact whether you agree with it or not. Facts are not based on if a particular person knows or even agrees with that fact.

605

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
OK Pat. That is a whole buncha WHAT with nary a syllable of WHY which is what I asked. You just told me WHAT numbers are and not WHY they are what they are. How do we know what 2 is? What addition is? What a sum is and that in this case it’s 4? Why do mathematics work? Where do they come from?
[/quote]

Exactly! Cosmology at it’s finest…

You asked how I know that ‘2+2=4’ is true despite any and all circumstances, known unknown or otherwise.

There is an entire course of study dedicated to just that. I need to do some research to see what has been postulated to provide you even rudimentary answers to those questions.

606

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Hey Pat, what’s the point of debating with you when there are physicists that disagree with your conclusions? You make your conclusions sound like facts. They are not. Like I said before, you’re not stating facts, no matter how many references you provide or how strenuously you argue. [/quote]

Why would I care if physicists disagree? This is a philosophical argument. In can incorporate science or not. It works either way. The stuff you presented was refuted 700 years ago. They were wrong before they said it. That doesn’t mean they are wrong about physics, they just didn’t study philosophy. If they did, then they would not have said it.

I am not stating facts? They are absolute facts, you just can’t prove them wrong.

I am not the one with the hard head here. You’re trying to strong arm me in to accepting a conclusion because smart people in a different field disagree with the conclusion. Like I said, that is the fallacy of appealing to authority which basically states that a persons argument must be true because of credentials and reputation. [/quote]

What have I presented that was refuted 700 years ago when TPs are wrangling with the issues today?
[/quote]
Well if they are still wrangling with them, that in itself proves that it has never been refuted. Second, if they disagree, that’s fine with me. Refuting is different than agreement and disagreement.

When has it not been a philosophical argument? I never claimed it was physics. I can be used there, but it’s not necessary.
I already have stated my facts like a thousand times. Why bother doing it again, really? Want the link? It would have saved you so much trouble.

[quote]
Since you like fancy labels for arguments, I’ll use a falsification argument against causation. Since causation is not necessary at a quantum level, you need a better theory.

Appealing to an authority? Like you did when you posted a list of references to support YOUR argument. [/quote]

Calling things what they are is fancy? Fine, but they are what they are. And since you brought up causation at a quantum level, let’s have some fun shall we? Bring up any quantum event that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt is uncaused… Go for it…

Appeal to authority fallacy means that you claim an argument is right, because of who said it, not because of what the argument states. You claimed that really smart physicist like people don’t believe in the cosmological argument. And even though their argument was incomplete, I should just believe it, because they are all like smart and edumacated and stuff.
Providing information about the argument is not appealing to authority.[/quote]

And you’re right because…well you’re just right, and your faith needs the cosmological argument. Just so we know where we stand Patrick.[/quote]

Faith doesn’t require the cosmological argument form, but it’s damn handy. I am right because I am supporting an unrefuted argument, not because I am who I am.
If someone can refute it, I will accept it, but I can’t see how. Some extremely smart people through out the centuries have tried and failed. You really don’t have to take my word for it.

607

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Stop. Nothing is “established” by philosophy. We are talking science here, not philosophy. And philosophy is squarely the fruit of humanity’s experience with the universe. [/quote]
You aren’t helping yourself make your point here. Science is also “squarely the fruit of humanity’s experience with the universe”. Science is also very clearly limited in scope as to what questions it can answer. Have you heard of epistemology (or the philosophy of science)? It may be right up your alley to read about it. It really digs into the heart of what we can and cannot know.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with this and it still supports my argument. The point is, we do not know how the universe started. Period. We do not know that there was a first cause. It is still the subject of debate. First cause for the universe is not a fact. Period. [/quote]

Lol, so you’re saying is that “there is no first cause is a fact.”[/quote]

No. I’m saying I’m a skeptic and the matter is not settled. I am open to a creator and I am open to the absence of a creator. My leaning is toward a creator, but not yours. [/quote]

A fact is a fact whether you agree with it or not. Facts are not based on if a particular person knows or even agrees with that fact.[/quote]

Is the best you can do is play word games?

State your “fact”. Just state it. And be done with the word games.

608

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Hey Pat, what’s the point of debating with you when there are physicists that disagree with your conclusions? You make your conclusions sound like facts. They are not. Like I said before, you’re not stating facts, no matter how many references you provide or how strenuously you argue. [/quote]

Why would I care if physicists disagree? This is a philosophical argument. In can incorporate science or not. It works either way. The stuff you presented was refuted 700 years ago. They were wrong before they said it. That doesn’t mean they are wrong about physics, they just didn’t study philosophy. If they did, then they would not have said it.

I am not stating facts? They are absolute facts, you just can’t prove them wrong.

I am not the one with the hard head here. You’re trying to strong arm me in to accepting a conclusion because smart people in a different field disagree with the conclusion. Like I said, that is the fallacy of appealing to authority which basically states that a persons argument must be true because of credentials and reputation. [/quote]

What have I presented that was refuted 700 years ago when TPs are wrangling with the issues today?
[/quote]
Well if they are still wrangling with them, that in itself proves that it has never been refuted. Second, if they disagree, that’s fine with me. Refuting is different than agreement and disagreement.

When has it not been a philosophical argument? I never claimed it was physics. I can be used there, but it’s not necessary.
I already have stated my facts like a thousand times. Why bother doing it again, really? Want the link? It would have saved you so much trouble.

[quote]
Since you like fancy labels for arguments, I’ll use a falsification argument against causation. Since causation is not necessary at a quantum level, you need a better theory.

Appealing to an authority? Like you did when you posted a list of references to support YOUR argument. [/quote]

Calling things what they are is fancy? Fine, but they are what they are. And since you brought up causation at a quantum level, let’s have some fun shall we? Bring up any quantum event that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt is uncaused… Go for it…

Appeal to authority fallacy means that you claim an argument is right, because of who said it, not because of what the argument states. You claimed that really smart physicist like people don’t believe in the cosmological argument. And even though their argument was incomplete, I should just believe it, because they are all like smart and edumacated and stuff.
Providing information about the argument is not appealing to authority.[/quote]

And you’re right because…well you’re just right, and your faith needs the cosmological argument. Just so we know where we stand Patrick.[/quote]

Faith doesn’t require the cosmological argument form, but it’s damn handy. I am right because I am supporting an unrefuted argument, not because I am who I am.
If someone can refute it, I will accept it, but I can’t see how. Some extremely smart people through out the centuries have tried and failed. You really don’t have to take my word for it.[/quote]

I already refuted it. You’re too dense to accept it. You do understand that the very language you use, your ideas, and that of the people you quote are all a result of and trapped within your experience. There are very many smart men that are working on the issue. You’re not one of them. Neither am I. But at least I’m open minded enough to consider the possibilities.

You are not “right”. You are trapped in human word play. Anyway, great “discussion” (yeah right). No further dialogue would be fruitful.

609

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:<<< Every now and then we agree.[/quote]If you mean that epistemology is the utterly seminal and foundational arena of thought before which there is none else, even for those who don’t consciously realize it? Then yes we agree there if that’s what you’re referring to.

If you mean you are giving your nod to the radically abbreviated statement of theocentric, transcendental epistemology that I have above proposed? One wherein the only true and living tri personal God who commands the cosmos to exist and persist by the command of His mouth is THE ultimate definer and definition of absolutely and comprehensively EVERYTHING? Trust me, you aren’t.
[/quote]
Maybe not completely and fully in the way you are thinking it, but I do believe that there are those living in grace and those that aren’t and there is some blindness that comes from it. I don’t believe that it is by divine decree that those that aren’t living in God’s grace aren’t in it. That’s really the only difference though.[/quote]Then not at all. See, THAT my friend is THE difference between Athens and Jerusalem. Aristotle and Paul and you are illustrating it flawlessly. Athens said, still does, that the universe is just there, the laws of logic just are and in the name of all that’s righteous, right in the face of Aristotle’s own doctrine of “analogy of being” there is no God who is sovereign over ME ME ME. Paul said, not only is there such a God, who is sovereign ESPECIALLY over you, but you know it and will be held accountable for that knowledge. Aquinas spent his whole life shacked up in Athens with that galaxy of pagan thinkers blowing in his ear and Vatican one sealed Rome’s fate by eternally marrying themselves to him and by extension that brilliant but dead and deadly Aristotle.

If God is not sovereign over man, the crown of His creation, bearing His very image and for whom He sent His Son to die, then what difference does it make what else He’s sovereign over? He’s reduced to the extra large guy in the sky like these unbelievers keep joking about. I tell you no Jake. The God of Abraham and Paul is the ALL defining God almighty who “works ALL things according the purpose of His own will” (Ephesians 1:11). There can be no contingency in an absolute God. Not the slightest possibility of the movement of one electron, proton or neutron independently and or in defiance of the exception-less order of the LORD of Hosts of whom Isaiah said “the whole earth is full of His glory”.

He is Lord OF all or not AT all. Thomas and Aristotle disagree. Talk about having your cake and eating too? Sing it with me:
HOLY HOLY HOHHHHHHLEEEEE
LORD GOD ALMIGHTY (well lets not get carried away, not ALL mighty. I mean you ain’t mighty over ME) However,
EARLY IN THE MORNING MY SONG SHALL RISE TO THEE.

610

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Desecrating the holy song which the Angels sing.
[/quote]

Now, you’re being repugnant and ignorant (of Paul and in general).

611

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:Desecrating the holy song which the Angels sing.[/quote]Now, you’re being repugnant and ignorant (of Paul and in general).[/quote]God is not ALL mighty if He is not sovereign where it counts the most. Singing that glorious hymn while reserving the right to your own eternal destiny is having your cake and eating it too which is what Jake was saying a while back about the statement of the confession of 1646 regarding the decrees of God. That was my point. (I actually pay attention when you guys speak). I sing that hymn all the time. To me He actually is ALL mighty.

612

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:Desecrating the holy song which the Angels sing.[/quote]Now, you’re being repugnant and ignorant (of Paul and in general).[/quote]God is not ALL mighty if He is not sovereign where it counts the most. Singing that glorious hymn while reserving the right to your own eternal destiny is having your cake and eating it too which is what Jake was saying a while back about the statement of the confession of 1646 regarding the decrees of God. That was my point. (I actually pay attention when you guys speak). I sing that hymn all the time. To me He actually is ALL mighty.
[/quote]

Yes, G-d is all mighty, that is why he can be all mighty and still allow his creation free will.

613

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:Desecrating the holy song which the Angels sing.[/quote]Now, you’re being repugnant and ignorant (of Paul and in general).[/quote]God is not ALL mighty if He is not sovereign where it counts the most. Singing that glorious hymn while reserving the right to your own eternal destiny is having your cake and eating it too which is what Jake was saying a while back about the statement of the confession of 1646 regarding the decrees of God. That was my point. (I actually pay attention when you guys speak). I sing that hymn all the time. To me He actually is ALL mighty.
[/quote]

Yes, G-d is all mighty, that is why he can be all mighty and still allow his creation free will.[/quote]
X2 Being all powerful does not mean that you must always force your will on all things. God let Lucifer fall. He let man be deceived and sin. He allowed evil, but did not ordain it, else He is not who He says He is. If there is a better illustration of free will I do not know of it.

614

Aristotle would smile while Paul weeps. Actually while Paul rebukes like he does here.
Romans 9, again. See, I’m with Paul and Augustine and Calvin and Luther and Van Til. I say with them that the following is an ABSOLUTE all governing declaration of the utterly independent non contingent GODHOOD, sovereign, unquestionable power and providence of ALL mighty Lord God El-Shaddai. Whatever else we find about man? It must bow to this. But not according to Aristotle, or Aquinas or Rome or Chris or Jake, or Pat or Cortes, or Sloth etc. When we find statements about man, wellllll God must jist scoot His lil ol butt over and make room for the exalted will of His insolent creatures. Man defines God, not God defining man. And the devil snickers.

[quote]6-But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7-and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8-This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9-For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10-And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11-though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls- 12-she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

14-What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15-For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16-So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17-For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19-You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20-But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21-Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22-What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23-in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory[/quote]This the ESV, accepted by the Catholic magisterium, which even renders the “vessels of wrath” piece in the perfect passive, (prepared for destruction) because they’d be laughed out of scholarly circles otherwise. Look, Ya’ll can crow n cry all ya want. This is God’s proclamation concerning Himself and His ultimate kingship over YOU and me. I joyously, with hands lifted high in praise of His unsearchable might and mercy, bow to Him, just as He describes Himself. I suggest you do the same.

Oh yeah. Anytime you want many more examples of His absolute triumphant sovereignty? Just say the word. In fact I’ll probably post some anyway lest the reader be led falsely to believe that the 9th of Romans is a “cherry picked” example of God ruling and reigning in the hearts and affairs of men. But, see, even if it WERE the only one, by it’s nature it governs man absolutely. Don’t you see what violence is done to the majesty of the most high God by attempting to squeeze Him inside the will of man?

615

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Hey Pat, what’s the point of debating with you when there are physicists that disagree with your conclusions? You make your conclusions sound like facts. They are not. Like I said before, you’re not stating facts, no matter how many references you provide or how strenuously you argue. [/quote]

Why would I care if physicists disagree? This is a philosophical argument. In can incorporate science or not. It works either way. The stuff you presented was refuted 700 years ago. They were wrong before they said it. That doesn’t mean they are wrong about physics, they just didn’t study philosophy. If they did, then they would not have said it.

I am not stating facts? They are absolute facts, you just can’t prove them wrong.

I am not the one with the hard head here. You’re trying to strong arm me in to accepting a conclusion because smart people in a different field disagree with the conclusion. Like I said, that is the fallacy of appealing to authority which basically states that a persons argument must be true because of credentials and reputation. [/quote]

What have I presented that was refuted 700 years ago when TPs are wrangling with the issues today?
[/quote]
Well if they are still wrangling with them, that in itself proves that it has never been refuted. Second, if they disagree, that’s fine with me. Refuting is different than agreement and disagreement.

When has it not been a philosophical argument? I never claimed it was physics. I can be used there, but it’s not necessary.
I already have stated my facts like a thousand times. Why bother doing it again, really? Want the link? It would have saved you so much trouble.

Oh wow! That was a refutation? You keep bringing up the same unrelated garbage as proof the argument is wrong? Just further proof you don’t understand the argument. It goes beyond experience. But you keep on with the same garbage. Experience has nothing to do with it, if people didn’t exist the argument would still be true.
If you don’t want to dialog then stop. It’s not like you’re getting anywhere.

‘I already refuted it’ LOL! Call the Nobel laureate. We have a winner!

616

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Aristotle would smile while Paul weeps. Actually while Paul rebukes like he does here.
Romans 9, again. See, I’m with Paul and Augustine and Calvin and Luther and Van Til. I say with them that the following is an ABSOLUTE all governing declaration of the utterly independent non contingent GODHOOD, sovereign, unquestionable power and providence of ALL mighty Lord God El-Shaddai. Whatever else we find about man? It must bow to this. But not according to Aristotle, or Aquinas or Rome or Chris or Jake, or Pat or Cortes, or Sloth etc. When we find statements about man, wellllll God must jist scoot His lil ol butt over and make room for the exalted will of His insolent creatures. Man defines God, not God defining man. And the devil snickers.

[quote]6-But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7-and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8-This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9-For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10-And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11-though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls- 12-she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

14-What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15-For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16-So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17-For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19-You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20-But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21-Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22-What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23-in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory[/quote]This the ESV, accepted by the Catholic magisterium, which even renders the “vessels of wrath” piece in the perfect passive, (prepared for destruction) because they’d be laughed out of scholarly circles otherwise. Look, Ya’ll can crow n cry all ya want. This is God’s proclamation concerning Himself and His ultimate kingship over YOU and me. I joyously, with hands lifted high in praise of His unsearchable might and mercy, bow to Him, just as He describes Himself. I suggest you do the same.

Oh yeah. Anytime you want many more examples of His absolute triumphant sovereignty? Just say the word. In fact I’ll probably post some anyway lest the reader be led falsely to believe that the 9th of Romans is a “cherry picked” example of God ruling and reigning in the hearts and affairs of men. But, see, even if it WERE the only one, by it’s nature it governs man absolutely. Don’t you see what violence is done to the majesty of the most high God by attempting to squeeze Him inside the will of man?[/quote]

Uh, you knew Aristotle personally? Then how would you know that he was an enemy of Paul? I really think you are applying extra-Biblical Westminster dogma to this rather than what is actually true. The irony here is that this is what you accuse the Catholics of doing, but you are in fact doing it in front of our very eyes. If what you believe stands in the way of truth, that is a problem. Truth is what is the case. Aristotle and Paul are not at odds, at all. If they knew each other, I am pretty sure they’d be fond of each other. I see pangs of greek philosophy in Paul’s epistles. I am pretty sure he was aware of Aristotle.

617

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Hey Pat, what’s the point of debating with you when there are physicists that disagree with your conclusions? You make your conclusions sound like facts. They are not. Like I said before, you’re not stating facts, no matter how many references you provide or how strenuously you argue. [/quote]

Why would I care if physicists disagree? This is a philosophical argument. In can incorporate science or not. It works either way. The stuff you presented was refuted 700 years ago. They were wrong before they said it. That doesn’t mean they are wrong about physics, they just didn’t study philosophy. If they did, then they would not have said it.

I am not stating facts? They are absolute facts, you just can’t prove them wrong.

I am not the one with the hard head here. You’re trying to strong arm me in to accepting a conclusion because smart people in a different field disagree with the conclusion. Like I said, that is the fallacy of appealing to authority which basically states that a persons argument must be true because of credentials and reputation. [/quote]

What have I presented that was refuted 700 years ago when TPs are wrangling with the issues today?
[/quote]
Well if they are still wrangling with them, that in itself proves that it has never been refuted. Second, if they disagree, that’s fine with me. Refuting is different than agreement and disagreement.

When has it not been a philosophical argument? I never claimed it was physics. I can be used there, but it’s not necessary.
I already have stated my facts like a thousand times. Why bother doing it again, really? Want the link? It would have saved you so much trouble.

Oh wow! That was a refutation? You keep bringing up the same unrelated garbage as proof the argument is wrong? Just further proof you don’t understand the argument. It goes beyond experience. But you keep on with the same garbage. Experience has nothing to do with it, if people didn’t exist the argument would still be true.
If you don’t want to dialog then stop. It’s not like you’re getting anywhere.

‘I already refuted it’ LOL! Call the Nobel laureate. We have a winner![/quote]

Because you’re getting somewhere? LOL

I don’t understand the argument? Is that so? LOL. Then why is it you can’t get your brain around the fact that any “argument” you can construct is limited to your experience with the universe? Are you telling me your argument transcends the unknown, all the while using the logic of your limited “known”? LMFAO. I guess I’m the only dumb one among all the other smart people working on these issues that do not agree with the cosmological argument and its permutations.

618

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Aristotle would smile while Paul weeps. Actually while Paul rebukes like he does here.
Romans 9, again. See, I’m with Paul and Augustine and Calvin and Luther and Van Til.[/quote]

Paul and Augustine would have admonished Calvin and Luther and Van Til for being heretics and causing great schism in the Church. You’re either with us or against us. Don’t try and say that Augustine would have agreed with you on your false doctrines. Augustine was very much Catholic. To say otherwise shows your lack of study on Augustine.

619

[quote]pat wrote:
I am pretty sure he was aware of Aristotle.[/quote]

Oh, you mean Jesus, His Apostles, and His Disciples were Hellenistic Jews…studied in Greek…wrote in Greek…spoke in Greek…knew Greek philosophy…wonder were the concept of the Trinity came from…Greek philosophy…wonder where our theology of G-d and the Angels came from…Greek philosophy and later…in a scary voice Medieval theology philosophy! The horror, I say to you Tirib rebuke your understanding of the Trinity because it is Greek philosophy. Man’s knowledge used to define G-d, despicable I dare say! How dare man try to define G-d and find truth!

620

@Tirib, I suppose I’ll have some mercy on you, by the grace of G-d. And explain to you these difficult verses, even use a little St. Augustine because after all you claim to agree with him.

v. 15-16. says, “I will have mercy…” Paul is teaching as the Catholic Church teaches, that G-d calls and predestines those who he wishes to save, and is not because of any works or merits in men, but we’re only to give attribute to the mercy and goodness of G-d. See Aquinas on this chap. lect. iii///Augustine, Encher. chap. xcviii. Epis 194. in the new Ed. Ep. 105. ad Sixtum de lib. Arbit. chap. xxv. &c.

v. 18. says, “And whom he will, he hardenth.” Paul is telling us here that G-d permits those to be hardened by their own malice, as is seen in Exodus that the Pharaoh heart is hardened. St. Augustine says G-d hardens men’s hearts, not by causing their own sin and malice, but by refraining from giving them the free gift of His grace. They hardened their own hearts because of their perverted wills. (Witham)

v. 22-23. Paul explains the reason why G-d might, without becoming injustice, have mercy on some while refraining from others, grant particular graces and favours to his elect, and not equally to all; because all men are liable to the damanation that came with original sin: the clay which all men are made up of, as St. Augustine says, was become a lump and a mass of damnation. Every one had sinned in Adam. Now, if out of this sinful lump and multitude God, to shew the richness of his glory, and superabundant mercy, hath chosen some as vessels of election, whom he hath decreed to save, and by special graces and favours to make partakers of his heavenly kingdom; and to shew his justice and hatred of sin, hath left others as vessels of his wrath and justice, to be lost in their sins, which for a time he bears patiently with, when they deserved present punishment, who can say that he hath done unjustly? (Witham)