[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]stefan128 wrote:I like this topic but I find it impossible to follow. The way certain things are written do not make sense to me. It is a difficult read for sure. [/quote]That’s because John Calvin was lawyer. He seems to be inclined towards being a sophist sometimes.[/quote]He wasn’t talking about Calvin Chris and this is rather cheap of you. For all of my criticism of Aquinas, I have never accused him of sophistry and have given him respect where due. You can do better than this.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]stefan128 wrote:
I like this topic but I find it impossible to follow. The way certain things are written do not make sense to me. It is a difficult read for sure. [/quote]
That’s because John Calvin was lawyer. He seems to be inclined towards being a sophist sometimes.[/quote]
No, he wrote like that so you would think it was profound and you would therefore abjure to him in passing judgment upon right and wrong.
Standard trick of all religious con artists…
“The first priest was the first rogue who met the first fool.” – Voltaire
How I do continue to pine for the day ol Headhunter actually contributes something worthy of his abilities to these discussions. Alas, today has thus far not been that day.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]stefan128 wrote:
I like this topic but I find it impossible to follow. The way certain things are written do not make sense to me. It is a difficult read for sure. [/quote]
That’s because John Calvin was lawyer. He seems to be inclined towards being a sophist sometimes.[/quote]
Was that before, during or after he murdered all those people?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]stefan128 wrote:
I like this topic but I find it impossible to follow. The way certain things are written do not make sense to me. It is a difficult read for sure. [/quote]
I completely understand what you mean. I consider myself highly literate and very well read in both literature and philosophy, and yet I feel like I am just barely keeping my head above water with some of these posts. I understand it, too, though, in a way, because such matters require precision of thought and word, and in many cases all of the philosopho-religio-techno-jargon is absolutely necessary to avoid sophism or misunderstanding.
But yeah, my request to Tirib above was definitely inspired in part from the same feelings you are having as you try to follow this. Sometimes you’d just prefer someone peel off all the layers and give you a strait, “Yeah dude, you’re going to Hell. Sorry 'bout that.”
(^_~)[/quote]
I only have trouble with whole ‘wall words’ stuff. I am not very patient and sometimes things can be way more concise then people make them. Then sometimes it really takes that much to make a point. I seldom do the wall of word unless I have to systematically refute arguments…Then it’s necessary.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
How I do continue to pine for the day ol Headhunter actually contributes something worthy of his abilities to these discussions. Alas, today has thus far not been that day. [/quote]
Good rule: Philosophy/Religion is written to be obtuse for a reason.
If it made sense and was easy to understand, you’d laugh at what it said. So write it so that few get it. I’ll do it for you:
There is a magical being who decided that being born again as His own son and then letting himself be nailed to a cross and die a horrible death will save their souls from being sent to Hell, said Hell being created by the magical being.
If God, the real God could get pissed, He’d be mighty pissed at the gents who thought up that whopper.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
How I do continue to pine for the day ol Headhunter actually contributes something worthy of his abilities to these discussions. Alas, today has thus far not been that day. [/quote]
Good rule: Philosophy/Religion is written to be obtuse for a reason.
If it made sense and was easy to understand, you’d laugh at what it said. So write it so that few get it. I’ll do it for you:
There is a magical being who decided that being born again as His own son and then letting himself be nailed to a cross and die a horrible death will save their souls from being sent to Hell, said Hell being created by the magical being.
If God, the real God could get pissed, He’d be mighty pissed at the gents who thought up that whopper.
[/quote]
That’s an adorable theory, but it couldn’t be further off the mark. No wonder you buy into the pseudo-intellectual nonsense that is Objectivism. Nothing better than a “philosophy” that (1) confirms your belief that you really are the center of the universe (2) while lacking the cognitive depth to convince anyone over the age of 25.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
More poppycock n balderdash from my favorite pontificating potentate. They couldn’t possibly have foreseen the apparent contradictions I count it all joy to hold in response to their God breathed writings. Not being God myself n all ya see. That’s how it is ya know. Let’s stop all this “hold in tension” stuff. Can we do that please? Once again. ALL of reality at the epistemological/metaphysical (two sides of the same coin) level APPEARS logically contradictory TO US. Dearest Christopher is absolutely correct. Logic ITSELF, which IS the mind of the infinite omniscient God, CANNOT, by divine definition ever produce a single ACTUAL contradiction as defined by that mind itself. That IS the certainty every God hating atheistic pagan in these forums incessantly steals from their God in order to believe that 2+2=4.
[/quote]
I am not entirely sure I understand you here, but I think you may miss my meaning. I am not talking about apparent intracanonical contradictions (i.e., between the portrayal of divine sovereignty in Genesis and human freedom in the Psalms), but rather “contradictions” WITHIN particular texts. I certainly think that Romans, while certainly inspired, also reflects Paul’s thought; its teachings did not arise ex nihilo the moment stylus hit papyrus. Paul may not have foreseen that Romans would be read in concert with James’s epistle or what seeming contradictions would arise from such juxtaposition, but that certainly doesn’t imply that Paul couldn’t see the tensions within his epistle to the Romans itself. Indeed, Paul’s ostensive condemnation of “works righteousness” seems difficult to reconcile with his claims that one’s deeds determine one’s fate (Rom. 2:6-10). I wholeheartedly agree with you that there are no genuine contradictions in the mind of God. However, you and I both attempt to explain CERTAIN contradictions logically and textually. You, for example, because of your strong view of meticulous providence, affirm double predestination despite its traditional condemnation by most Protestants. For you, I assume, it is a matter of logical necessity.
There are two things I want to suggest. On the one hand, it is possible that you, while leaving room for mystery, still step too much farther than the biblical authors themselves would in resolving certain mysteries. I’ll just use a neutral example for now - the Qumran covenanters certainly held a strong view of divine providence, even attributing individual “salvation” to providence, and yet nevertheless sincerely referred to themselves as the “volunteers.” They affirmed both divine providence and individual freedom, and they did not even ATTEMPT to explain one in terms of the other (as you and others do when they offer arbitrary definitions of “free will”). It is entirely possible (given the milieu) that Paul would have done exactly the same thing, in which case any reading of Paul that redefines “free will” in order to harmonize it with Paul’s strong affirmation of God’s sovereignty would be misconceived.
More importantly, it is also possible (and there is mounting evidence for this) that the “contradictions” that arise even within particular texts (like Romans itself) are actually a function, not simply of human finitude or our dilapidated faculties, but of historical and textual distance. Historical, because we are far removed from Paul’s own context and the context of his intended audience, and textual, because the only access we have to Paul’s mind is through the written word, a medium widely considered inferior in antiquity to face-to-face communication. The ancients understood that words could be twisted, that the one reading the text to the audience did not always know how to pick up on all the verbal cues. There is strong evidence, for example, that Romans was written in a diatribe style, in which the author would present the arguments of an opponent (in the case of epistles, one known to the audience) by assuming the voice of the opponent in several places, OFTEN without any clear (to us) textual clue that he was switching characters (such as an introductory statement, “thus says Bob,” etc.). One scholar argues, for example, that Romans 1:19-21 may be part of the OPPONENT’S speech which Paul is refuting. If this scholar is correct, then much of what occurs in Romans makes a lot more sense. It even has ramifications for certain seemingly contradictory passages in Romans. My point is that, in such a case, the contradictions that we claim are simply “there” would actually be products of our own textual misunderstanding. I still suspect that this is often the case, and that’s why I prefer the word “tensions,” because they may be more resolvable this side of eternity than we think.
Haha I recognize the playfulness. As usual, you are hilarious 
I am now absolutely drowning in responses I feel/believe I should give. If I concentrated only on conversations NOT in these public forums I would be descending to the bottom. Something has to give Lord.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You rely on your own faculties to determine what revelation is at all…
[/quote]
If you don’t do this, how do you know what revelation is?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]stefan128 wrote:I like this topic but I find it impossible to follow. The way certain things are written do not make sense to me. It is a difficult read for sure. [/quote]That’s because John Calvin was lawyer. He seems to be inclined towards being a sophist sometimes.[/quote]He wasn’t talking about Calvin Chris and this is rather cheap of you. For all of my criticism of Aquinas, I have never accused him of sophistry and have given him respect where due. You can do better than this.
[/quote]
First, I want to apologize. I did not make it clear at all as to whom my pronoun was referring to in my statement. This is my fault, I should not have been writing responses when I had been driving all day. My point was that John Calvin was a lawyer, he should understand the importance of using the proper word based on denotation. However, my pronoun was not supposed to refer to John Calvin. I was referring to some of the posters in here. Though ultimately, John Calvin did argue with well reasoned but fallacious arguments. However, this was not my intent in the second sentence.
Second, no you don’t. You give credit for his intelligence, but respect him you do not.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Do men make autonomous decisions? That is, do they exercise volition in such a way that God is not the ultimate mysterious cause of said volition?[/quote]
Yes, but not in the way in which you think. It’s okay, kind of hard to know truth always when you try to depend on an arbitrary authority instead of the actual authority, the pillar and bulwark of truth, founded by Jesus Christ himself, given the authority of the Father Almighty himself, through Jesus then given to the Apostles and handed down to their successors to the end of ages to the consummation of the world, to loose and bound in Heaven, the visible body of Jesus Christ, his Church…the universal Church.
So, Tirib. Does your Church claim to be founded by Jesus Christ, or a mere man?
Yes. I’m pretty sure the decree was…don’t eat the fruit on that tree, lest you die. 
i am a new catholic. converted from “protestant” or whatever you want to call it all.
i love Jesus.
so this caught my eye.
but HOLY CRAP, i would be reading for days to catch up on all this.
ya know what catholic means? and maybe this is too trivial for yall, but its universial.
ya know who/what God is? He is Love.
ya know what Love is?
its patient and kind.
it never insists on its own way.
and best of all, it never ends.
you can faith in whatever ya want. a spaghetti monster, demons, satan, a dust ball, or mickey mouse.
you can as much faith as you want, and bend spoons with your mind.
you can hope for JLo to marry you or that you will win more Olympias than Ronnie,
but if you dont have Love.
its all worthless.
i may have no business posting on here, but i would like to share from Colossians 2:
8 Don?t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers[a] of this world, rather than from Christ. 9 For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body.[b] 10 So you also are complete through your union with Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority.
[quote]driftingbamafan wrote:
I may have no business posting on here, >>>[/quote]Of course you every right to post here like anybody else.[quote]driftingbamafan wrote:<<< but I would like to share from Colossians 2:8 Don?t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ. 9 For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body. 10 So you also are complete through your union with Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority. [/quote]Thank you for this. Good word. Couldn’t agree more.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes. I’m pretty sure the decree was…don’t eat the fruit on that tree, lest you die. ;)[/quote]I’m positive you are mistaken Christopher. Decree is not the same as command. God decrees what He forbids. Again, by means of divine mechanisms known only to Himself.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes. I’m pretty sure the decree was…don’t eat the fruit on that tree, lest you die. ;)[/quote]I’m positive you are mistaken Christopher. Decree is not the same as command. God decrees what He forbids. Again, by means of divine mechanisms known only to Himself.
[/quote]
If he’s wrong it’s because you needed to define “decree,” before unilaterally scoring your point. I consider myself fairly literate, and even after looking at a few definitions, I’m not understanding the distinction here.
[quote]driftingbamafan wrote:
i am a new catholic. converted from “protestant” or whatever you want to call it all.
i love Jesus.
so this caught my eye.
but HOLY CRAP, i would be reading for days to catch up on all this.
ya know what catholic means? and maybe this is too trivial for yall, but its universial.
ya know who/what God is? He is Love.
ya know what Love is?
its patient and kind.
it never insists on its own way.
and best of all, it never ends.
you can faith in whatever ya want. a spaghetti monster, demons, satan, a dust ball, or mickey mouse.
you can as much faith as you want, and bend spoons with your mind.
you can hope for JLo to marry you or that you will win more Olympias than Ronnie,
but if you dont have Love.
its all worthless.[/quote]
Love is patient and kind, but it does insist on its own way, since love properly defined is charity and charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. Or, simply when we love someone we are wanting the good of the beloved. The highest good is God himself, so if you truly love someone you will insist on them being baptized and following the commandments that Jesus has taught us making them disciples, though doing it patiently and kindly as St. Paul tell us.
[quote]driftingbamafan wrote:
i may have no business posting on here, but i would like to share from Colossians 2:
8 Don?t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers[a] of this world, rather than from Christ. 9 For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body.[b] 10 So you also are complete through your union with Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority. [/quote]
Amen, alleluia.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes. I’m pretty sure the decree was…don’t eat the fruit on that tree, lest you die. ;)[/quote]I’m positive you are mistaken Christopher. Decree is not the same as command. God decrees what He forbids. Again, by means of divine mechanisms known only to Himself.
[/quote]
He decrees what he forbids?
Can you explain this sentence for me. I can take this two ways and I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying. Also, please give the definition of decree and forbids that you’re using so I can understand exactly what you’re saying.