Why Did God Create Satan - Part 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Elder Forlife, who should definitely be annointed Bishop of T-Nation at LEAST, in the First Church of Universal Uncertainty said:[quote]Common sense tell us that truth is BINARY. Either something is true, or it isn’t. And no, we’re not talking about relativity and frames of reference per quantum mechanics. We’re talking about universal contradictions that are BOTH true.

Common sense isn’t always right. It works for most of our everyday experiences, just like Newtonian mechanics work for most of our everyday experiences, but sometimes it gets things wrong.

We’re talking about universal paradoxes actually existing. Just because they’re rare doesn’t mean they don’t exist or are impossible.

Read the list of paradoxes in the link I provided earlier.

In every case where a paradox exists, deductive logic fails, because it inherently assumes that contradictions are impossible.[/quote] I am becoming a true fan sir. You are brushing shoulders with the God who IS there Elder Forlife. So help me, just as He declares, we are in living in the same universe you and I but in different kingdoms. If you threw a rock over the wall you might hit me in the head. So close and yet an eternity away. You have in the past several days articulated the utter futility of autonomous reason more clearly and brilliantly than I have ever seen ANYONE else do it.

What’s funny is that you are actually infinitely more consistent than the Catholics. Not being enslaved to Aristotle and Aquinas you are allowed to carry their premises, which are exactly the same as yours, to their logical conclusions. Their God is just as contingent and provides no more answers than your ultimately meaningless, but inescapable logical construct. We’re back here again. The great Jesuit philosopher Patrick of Atlanta haunts us yet once more. “To be certain about anything you must know everything”. Indeed. Only the wholly uncontingent God I worship does. He knows and is certain about everything because He ultimately designed it. He shares that with us by grace through faith if we will only believe. All the rest follows.[/quote]

When you decide to be baptized into the FCUU, look me up. I’ll perform the ordinance personally, and throw a party after :wink:

It takes relentless scrutiny to stare into the abyss, and follow every assertion through to its inevitable conclusion. Including this most seminal assertion:

To be certain about anything, you must know everything.

The unavoidable, inescapable destination of the above assertion is UNCERTAINTY for every human being on the planet, including you and me.

None of us knows everything, hence none of us can be certain about anything.

We cannot be certain about ANYTHING, including the belief that one’s god actually exists. If such a being does exist, we cannot know it with perfect certainty, because we do not know everything.

Claiming this being told us he exists doesn’t circumvent the assertion. The claim itself is subject to the same inevitable conclusion as every other claim. Since we don’t know everything, we simply cannot be certain about this or any other claim.

queue hymn music

[/quote]
Are you claiming math isn’t certain? It’s assumed and could be wrong? 2+2=5? Only if God changes the rules…The rules he gave currently dictate 2+2=4.
[/quote]

Yes, even holy, unadulterated math is subject to uncertainty.

Google “inconsistent mathematics” and enjoy the ride down the rabbit hole.

I mentioned Godel earlier. Check out his incompleteness theorems, in particular his second theorem which states that it is impossible to prove arithmetic is consistent. Priest has argued in a series of papers that the whole truth about numbers is inconsistent. His 2006 article, “In Contradiction”, is a good starting point.

Sound familiar?

Attempting to prove logic, or mathematics, or sets must be consistent is self-defeating because it is necessarily circular. All of these systems assume consistency, while being utterly incapable of actually proving it.

42

[quote]kamui wrote:

every premise and every conclusion in every deductive argument cannot ever, even once, violate non-contradiction, for the same reason that, in chess game, your tower cannot ever, even once move diagonally.

simply because that’s the rule.

granted, you can move your tower diagonally, but then you don’t play chess, or you cheat.
and you can violate non-contradiction, but then you don’t play the “logical discourse” game, you play another game… sophistry, madness, stupidity, dream, poetry.

[/quote]

Using your analogy, there is no way to confirm your are actually playing chess, rather than playing another game that appears to be chess, but in fact allows for contradictions.

43

[quote]kamui wrote:

every premise and every conclusion in every deductive argument cannot ever, even once, violate non-contradiction, for the same reason that, in chess game, your tower cannot ever, even once move diagonally.

simply because that’s the rule.

granted, you can move your tower diagonally, but then you don’t play chess, or you cheat.
and you can violate non-contradiction, but then you don’t play the “logical discourse” game, you play another game… sophistry, madness, stupidity, dream, poetry.

[/quote]

I was hoping you’d throw you $.02 in here. Because after FL brought up the point I researched and found nothing credible to support such a notion. It just isn’t there.

44

[quote]pat wrote:
Continued…[/quote]

Below is in response to the original question.

I’ve been asked the above question before. People who think that God predetermined and foreordained all things believes that God is responsible for what the spirit creature known as Satan became. Unfortunately, this line of reasoning is not Biblical and would mean that all of the bad things that have occurred throughout history was a direct result of God. No wonder people are turned off by this concept of God and become atheist and agnostic. Because how could a loving and caring being not only know about bad things that were going to happen but actually have set in motion the bad things before they even happen? That would be a wicked act no matter how you spin it. The Bible clearly states at Deuteronomy 32:4 the following:
“The Rock, perfect is his activity, For all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; Righteous and upright is he.”
Knowingly creating Satan and predetermining and foreknowing all of the bad that has occurred throughout history is the exact opposite of that passage no matter how you spin it. God would be predetermining the bad choices that people make and then punishing people for the bad courses that God put them on. That is not righteous or just. One of God’s primary attributes is justice and this is highlighted throughout many parts of the Bible such as the Law Covenant God gave to the Israelites.

As a means for balancing justice and setting matters straight with his people Israel, Jehovah, in the Law covenant, designated various sacrifices and offerings to atone for, or cover, sins, including those of the priests and the Levites, of other individuals, or of the nation as a whole, as well as to purify the altar and tabernacle, making atonement because of the sins of the people surrounding these. So the life of the animal sacrificed went in place of the life of the sinner, its blood making atonement on God’s altar, that is, to the extent that it could. These sacrifices released or redeemed the individual from the sins that they committed daily which is why the Israelites had to continue to make sacrifices until the Law was fulfilled in Jesus. These sacrifices were required if the nation and its worship were to have and maintain the acceptance and approval of the righteous God.

A good example of the redeeming exchange is if an owner allowed his bull to run free and while running free the bull killed someone. If the owner intentionally allowed this to happen then the owner was to be put to death, paying for the life of the slain one with his own. However, if the owner did not deliberately allow the bull to run loose then judges could apply a ransom instead of death and once the redemption price was paid this was viewed as taking the place of his own life and compensating for the life lost. The owner paid a ransom and he was redeemed or released from having to pay with his life.

When an redemption priced is paid then that person is released from whatever is holding him captive. A ransom and the subsequent redeeming price to be released from the ransom could be applied to slavery such as when someone pays a price to release a person from slavery, from other distressing or oppressive conditions or from death and the grave.

The point of me briefly explaining this is to try to lays the basis for understanding the ransom provided for humankind through God’s Son, Christ Jesus. Mankind’s need for a ransom came about through the rebellion in Eden. Adam sold himself to do evil for the selfish pleasure of keeping continued company with his wife, now a sinful transgressor, so he shared the same condemned standing with her before God. He thereby sold himself and his descendants into slavery to sin and to death, the price that God’s justice required. (Ro 5:12-19 and Ro 7:14-25.) Having possessed human perfection, Adam lost this valuable possession for himself and all his offspring.

The Law, which had “a shadow of the good things to come,” provided for animal sacrifices as a covering for sin. However, this was only a symbolic or token covering, since animals were inferior to man; it was "not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats actually to take sins away, as the apostle points out at Heb 10:1-4. Those pictorial animal sacrifices had to be without blemish, perfect specimens. (Le 22:21) The real ransom sacrifice, a human actually capable of removing sins, must therefore also be perfect, free from blemish. He would have to correspond to the perfect Adam and possess human perfection, if he were to pay the price of redemption that would release Adam’s offspring from the debt, disability, and enslavement into which their first father Adam had sold them. (Compare Ro 7:14; Ps 51:5.) Only then could God’s perfect justice that requires like for like, a â??soul for a soul’ be satisfied.

Now here’s the part that really magnifies God’s perfect sense of justice and righteousness and gives me complete confidence that God would never predetermine or foreordained every single event that has ever happened in history and including creating Satan. God gave the Israelites the Law to help prepare them for Jesus coming and offering himself up as a ransom so that mankind could be redeemed and released from slavery to sin and death. When the events happened in the garden of Eden, God could have rightly just destroyed the rebels - Satan, Adam and Eve and started all over again. Being the sovereign Lord of the universe he could have rightly decided to not follow his own standards of justice and used his vast power to undue the rebellion that took place in the garden of Eden. Instead, God refrained from using his unlimited power, met his own requirements at great cost to himself by requiring a sacrifice of corresponding value to Adam (meaning the sacrifice had to be a perfect equal to Adam: no more, no lees wWhich is why Jesus was only a perfect human while on earth) and then giving his only son to pay the redemption price shows that all of the scriptures that mention God’s righteous standards are true. Once I understood this I then had complete faith that God truly is righteous has a perfect sense of justice and would never have created Satan the Devil which means “Resistor” and “Slanderer.”

My point of explaining this is to show that God would not have done an unrighteous, unjust act such as creating Satan. Many people, as stated in several post, realize that Satan started out as a spirit being and became Satan the Devil as a result of what he chose to do in the Garden of Eden. Since God endowed all of his intelligent creatures with free will he would not have prevented them from choosing to do evil if they chose to do so. Jesus referred to a misuse of free will when he said the following about Satan at John 8:44: “He did not stand fast in the truth.” That statement clearly indicates that the one who became the Devil at one time stood fast in the truth and was originally a perfect spirit person.

Several questions related to the original question that took me awhile to understand is why didn’t God immediately put an end to the Devil’s rebellion by provided the ransom sacrifice as soon as the rebellion happen in Eden? According to Bible chronology, the rebellion in the Garden of Eden took place a little of 6000 years ago. Why has God allowed the Devil and imperfect man to cause so much suffering throughout history? Why is God waiting so long to act?

Does anyone know why?

45

Incomplete =/= inconsistent =/= uncertain

Godel proved that arithmetics can’t be completely demonstrated by itself, internally.
in other words : arithmetics is not a self-sufficient closed system.

what he did NOT prove is that arithmetics “may be false”, or is ultimately uncertain.
this is a common but abusive interpretation.

46

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, that’s exactly my point. Deductive logic assumes that every single one of the premises and conclusions in an argument is either true or not. But we cannot know that every single premise and conclusion is either true or not. It is possible that a premise or conclusion is true, and that the opposite of that premise or conclusion is also true.
[/quote]
No, if the premises aren’t true then the argument is false. If your dealing with a duality you aren’t dealing with a deductive argument. If the premises are true then the argument is true, if the premises are false then the argument is false. If you have a middle, or more than one option, then it’s not a deductive argument.

[quote]
Deductive logic assumes contradictions don’t exist. An argument is only sound and valid to the extent this assumption is actually true.

However, we can’t know that this assumption is true in any given argument. We take it for granted that it is true, but we cannot know it. Hence, we cannot have perfect confidence in the conclusions of any deductive argument.[/quote]

Deductive arguments doesn’t deal with contradictions, that’s the point. If you have an argument resulting in a contradition, you likely have a inductive argument.

What you don’t seem to understand about deductive logic is that if the three laws of thought are not in play, you don’t have a deductive argument.

Contradictions exist, paradoxes exist, but they are not in the realm of deduction. If you have a premise or a conclusion that ends in either a paradox or a contradiction, you either have an error of you have something else going on. What you don’t have is deduction. When the rules of deduction are violated it ceases being a deductive argument.[/quote]

How do you know when the rules of deduction are being violated? In the case of non-contradiction, you can’t.

It is impossible to determine whether any particular premise or conclusion in an argument can be BOTH true and false, so you cannot differentiate those statements from statements that actually are binary.

Which is why deductive logic is based on the ASSUMPTION of non-contradiction. Deductive logic ASSUMES that all constituent statements are non-contradictory, but it is impossible to prove this.

Hence, you cannot draw any deductive conclusions with perfect certainty.[/quote]

It’s not an assumption, it’s a fucking rule. Either you have non-contradiction or you don’t have a valid deductive argument, period, the end of the story.

There is room for contradictions and paradoxes in logic, but they are not deductive logical arguments. Unusually you find this sort of thing in distributive logic. If a and (b or c) then a and b or a and c.

You can call mashed potatoes and a fork, baseball and it may resemble it, but it’s not baseball. And it’s hard to catch the splatter.

It’s what has to be, but to be fair I would like you to demonstrate this scenario. You came up with it so prove your point. Show me how you can have a deductive argument with contradiction.[/quote]

Obviously I’m not making myself clear.

Prove to me that every premise and every conclusion in every deductive argument CANNOT EVER, EVEN ONCE, VIOLATE NON-CONTRADICTION.

Good luck, because even Plato acknowledged you can’t deductively prove this.

For example, how do you know something can’t be both contingent and noncontingent? The cosmological argument REQUIRES the assumption that something must be contingent OR non contingent. It completely ignores the possibility that something could be BOTH contingent and noncontingent.

Don’t tell me it “doesn’t make sense for something to be both contingent and noncontingent”. Obviously it doesn’t make sense, because we’re not used to allowing for contradictions. It doesn’t fit with our everyday experience.

Just because it doesn’t make sense doesn’t prove it’s impossible. By their very nature, paradoxes and contradictions do not make sense, yet we know they exist all the same.[/quote]

Oh bullshit, I asked you first to demonstrate how it can be both true and false simultaneously and still be a valid deductive argument. When you do that, then I will tell you why “CANNOT EVER, EVEN ONCE, VIOLATE NON-CONTRADICTION.”

Plato wouldn’t know as Aristotle discovered the rules of classic logic long after Plato was dead.[/quote]

Listen closely please.

I never said it could be both true and false simultaneously and still be a valid deductive argument.

I said that if it is both true and false simultaneously, the deductive argument would not in fact be valid, but there would be no way to differentiate it from a valid deductive argument.

Like I told kamuii, there’s no way to confirm you’re actually playing chess, because it is impossible to prove non-contradiction. You could in fact be playing something other than chess, while believing wholeheartedly that you are playing chess.

47

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

every premise and every conclusion in every deductive argument cannot ever, even once, violate non-contradiction, for the same reason that, in chess game, your tower cannot ever, even once move diagonally.

simply because that’s the rule.

granted, you can move your tower diagonally, but then you don’t play chess, or you cheat.
and you can violate non-contradiction, but then you don’t play the “logical discourse” game, you play another game… sophistry, madness, stupidity, dream, poetry.

[/quote]

Using your analogy, there is no way to confirm your are actually playing chess, rather than playing another game that appears to be chess, but in fact allows for contradictions.[/quote]

As long as you follow chess’s rules, you’re playing chess.
If you appears to follow the rules, but do not actually follow them, then you’re a skilled cheater, but a cheater nonetheless.

48

[quote]kamui wrote:
Incomplete =/= inconsistent =/= uncertain

Godel proved that arithmetics can’t be completely demonstrated by itself, internally.
in other words : arithmetics is not a self-sufficient closed system.

what he did NOT prove is that arithmetics “may be false”, or is ultimately uncertain.
this is a common but abusive interpretation.
[/quote]

Godel demonstrated that arithmetic cannot prove its own consistency, and must reference an external system in order to do so. He demonstrated to Einstein that paradoxes do in fact exist. It is ultimately uncertain, because each higher system suffers from the same criticism, and must in turn reference another system.

49

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

every premise and every conclusion in every deductive argument cannot ever, even once, violate non-contradiction, for the same reason that, in chess game, your tower cannot ever, even once move diagonally.

simply because that’s the rule.

granted, you can move your tower diagonally, but then you don’t play chess, or you cheat.
and you can violate non-contradiction, but then you don’t play the “logical discourse” game, you play another game… sophistry, madness, stupidity, dream, poetry.

[/quote]

Using your analogy, there is no way to confirm your are actually playing chess, rather than playing another game that appears to be chess, but in fact allows for contradictions.[/quote]

As long as you follow chess’s rules, you’re playing chess.
If you appears to follow the rules, but do not actually follow them, then you’re a skilled cheater, but a cheater nonetheless.

[/quote]

If you want to define ignorant violation of the rules as cheating that’s fine, but there is no way to know whether or not you are playing the real game.

50

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

every premise and every conclusion in every deductive argument cannot ever, even once, violate non-contradiction, for the same reason that, in chess game, your tower cannot ever, even once move diagonally.

simply because that’s the rule.

granted, you can move your tower diagonally, but then you don’t play chess, or you cheat.
and you can violate non-contradiction, but then you don’t play the “logical discourse” game, you play another game… sophistry, madness, stupidity, dream, poetry.

[/quote]

I was hoping you’d throw you $.02 in here. Because after FL brought up the point I researched and found nothing credible to support such a notion. It just isn’t there. [/quote]

At this point, things are starting to get more technical. And i have quite a hard time to explain myself in english.
It would be so much easier in my native language. It’s quite frustrating.

51

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Elder Forlife, who should definitely be annointed Bishop of T-Nation at LEAST, in the First Church of Universal Uncertainty said:[quote]Common sense tell us that truth is BINARY. Either something is true, or it isn’t. And no, we’re not talking about relativity and frames of reference per quantum mechanics. We’re talking about universal contradictions that are BOTH true.

Common sense isn’t always right. It works for most of our everyday experiences, just like Newtonian mechanics work for most of our everyday experiences, but sometimes it gets things wrong.

We’re talking about universal paradoxes actually existing. Just because they’re rare doesn’t mean they don’t exist or are impossible.

Read the list of paradoxes in the link I provided earlier.

In every case where a paradox exists, deductive logic fails, because it inherently assumes that contradictions are impossible.[/quote] I am becoming a true fan sir. You are brushing shoulders with the God who IS there Elder Forlife. So help me, just as He declares, we are in living in the same universe you and I but in different kingdoms. If you threw a rock over the wall you might hit me in the head. So close and yet an eternity away. You have in the past several days articulated the utter futility of autonomous reason more clearly and brilliantly than I have ever seen ANYONE else do it.

What’s funny is that you are actually infinitely more consistent than the Catholics. Not being enslaved to Aristotle and Aquinas you are allowed to carry their premises, which are exactly the same as yours, to their logical conclusions. Their God is just as contingent and provides no more answers than your ultimately meaningless, but inescapable logical construct. We’re back here again. The great Jesuit philosopher Patrick of Atlanta haunts us yet once more. “To be certain about anything you must know everything”. Indeed. Only the wholly uncontingent God I worship does. He knows and is certain about everything because He ultimately designed it. He shares that with us by grace through faith if we will only believe. All the rest follows.[/quote]

When you decide to be baptized into the FCUU, look me up. I’ll perform the ordinance personally, and throw a party after :wink:

It takes relentless scrutiny to stare into the abyss, and follow every assertion through to its inevitable conclusion. Including this most seminal assertion:

To be certain about anything, you must know everything.

The unavoidable, inescapable destination of the above assertion is UNCERTAINTY for every human being on the planet, including you and me.

None of us knows everything, hence none of us can be certain about anything.

We cannot be certain about ANYTHING, including the belief that one’s god actually exists. If such a being does exist, we cannot know it with perfect certainty, because we do not know everything.

Claiming this being told us he exists doesn’t circumvent the assertion. The claim itself is subject to the same inevitable conclusion as every other claim. Since we don’t know everything, we simply cannot be certain about this or any other claim.

queue hymn music

[/quote]
Are you claiming math isn’t certain? It’s assumed and could be wrong? 2+2=5? Only if God changes the rules…The rules he gave currently dictate 2+2=4.
[/quote]

Yes, even holy, unadulterated math is subject to uncertainty.

Google “inconsistent mathematics” and enjoy the ride down the rabbit hole.

I mentioned Godel earlier. Check out his incompleteness theorems, in particular his second theorem which states that it is impossible to prove arithmetic is consistent. Priest has argued in a series of papers that the whole truth about numbers is inconsistent. His 2006 article, “In Contradiction”, is a good starting point.

Sound familiar?

Attempting to prove logic, or mathematics, or sets must be consistent is self-defeating because it is necessarily circular. All of these systems assume consistency, while being utterly incapable of actually proving it.[/quote]

“Inconsistent mathematics is the study of the mathematical theories that result when classical mathematical axioms are asserted within the framework of a b[/b] logic which can tolerate the presence of a contradiction without turning every sentence into a theorem.”

So what it’s not, is deductive logic. It uses non-classical logic to tolerate contradictions and inconsistencies. That’s because deductive logic does not tolerate them.

52

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

every premise and every conclusion in every deductive argument cannot ever, even once, violate non-contradiction, for the same reason that, in chess game, your tower cannot ever, even once move diagonally.

simply because that’s the rule.

granted, you can move your tower diagonally, but then you don’t play chess, or you cheat.
and you can violate non-contradiction, but then you don’t play the “logical discourse” game, you play another game… sophistry, madness, stupidity, dream, poetry.

[/quote]

Using your analogy, there is no way to confirm your are actually playing chess, rather than playing another game that appears to be chess, but in fact allows for contradictions.[/quote]

As long as you follow chess’s rules, you’re playing chess.
If you appears to follow the rules, but do not actually follow them, then you’re a skilled cheater, but a cheater nonetheless.

[/quote]

If you want to define ignorant violation of the rules as cheating that’s fine, but there is no way to know whether or not you are playing the real game.
[/quote]

the “real game” is not an abstract and absolute thing.
It’s a practice.
A game without any violation of chess’s rules (which can be accertain by analyzing each moves after the game) is a chess game.
there is no need to further confirm it.

53

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
Incomplete =/= inconsistent =/= uncertain

Godel proved that arithmetics can’t be completely demonstrated by itself, internally.
in other words : arithmetics is not a self-sufficient closed system.

what he did NOT prove is that arithmetics “may be false”, or is ultimately uncertain.
this is a common but abusive interpretation.
[/quote]

Godel demonstrated that arithmetic cannot prove its own consistency, and must reference an external system in order to do so. He demonstrated to Einstein that paradoxes do in fact exist. It is ultimately uncertain, because each higher system suffers from the same criticism, and must in turn reference another system.[/quote]

Sure, nobody claimed math could. It’s not math’s job to prove it’s own consistency.

Inconsistencies exist, paradoxes exist, contradictions exist, but they don’t exist in deductive logic. The rules of deductive logic do not tolerate them. If you have them in your deductive form, you don’t have a deductive argument.

54

[quote]pat wrote:<<< he doesn’t have a clue.

“To be certain about anything you must know everything”.

I never said anything of the sort. >>>[/quote]

[quote]pat wrote on 05-31-2011, 01:26 PM:<<< Everybody leads an uncertain life. You have to know everything to have certainty >>>[/quote] http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/religious_belief_is_human_nature?id=4531040&pageNo=8

To which I responded later that day: [quote]BINGO!!! THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!! YOU WIN!!! UTTER PROFUNDITY FROM PAT AND I AM DEAD SERIOUS!!! What you just said is THE key to epistemology.[/quote] Jist hang in there Patty ol boy. It may still be a little while, but I’m preparing an extended post of just these kindsa lies from you. That was an EZ pick free sample. Yer stll cuddly n adorable though =]

BTW fellas this conversation cannot be meaningfully enhanced by my participation at the moment. Absolutely priceless!!! I know ya’ll think ahm bein all snarky n snooty when I talk like this, but not nearly as you much as ya’ll may reckon. There’s some serious brilliance on display here and that is NOT snarky at all. You too Pat. Elder Forlife has you in an autonomous armbar though. I can see your face turnin all red, but you jist won’t tapout.

55

This is one of the most interesting discussions I’ve had in a while, and I have responses for both of you. I’m heading to my niece’s surprise birthday party and will be off the boards for the long weekend, but look forward to continuing our discussion next week :slight_smile:

56

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< he doesn’t have a clue.

“To be certain about anything you must know everything”.

I never said anything of the sort. >>>[/quote]

[quote]pat wrote on 05-31-2011, 01:26 PM:<<< Everybody leads an uncertain life. You have to know everything to have certainty >>>[/quote] http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/religious_belief_is_human_nature?id=4531040&pageNo=8

To which I responded later that day: [quote]BINGO!!! THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!! YOU WIN!!! UTTER PROFUNDITY FROM PAT AND I AM DEAD SERIOUS!!! What you just said is THE key to epistemology.[/quote] Jist hang in there Patty ol boy. It may still be a little while, but I’m preparing an extended post of just these kindsa lies from you. Yer stll cuddly n adorable though =]

BTW fellas this conversation cannot be meaningfully enhanced by my participation at the moment. Absolutely priceless!!! I know ya’ll think ahm bein all snarky n snooty when I talk like this, but not nearly as you much as ya’ll may reckon. There’s some serious brilliance on display here and that is NOT snarky at all. You too Pat. Elder Forlife has you in an autonomous armbar though. I can see your face turnin all red, but you jist won’t tapout. [/quote]

You think by being condescending you are making a point? The only way you can prove I lie is to lie yourself, because I have not. You will cut sentences, you will remove words from sentences…Blah, blah, blah…

When I provide proof of what you said and ask you to verify, you run and hide I think I will present I will present the sentence again you you run away from it again…Actually from here on out, I will include it in every post until you admit you said it…

So again did you or did you not say “If there are any Catholics in heaven it is only by the extreme mercy of God.” ?

You know you did, just admit it.

Your not my teacher your not my spiritual adviser your not anything really, and yet intriguing in your smallness.

57

[quote]forlife wrote:
This is one of the most interesting discussions I’ve had in a while, and I have responses for both of you. I’m heading to my niece’s surprise birthday party and will be off the boards for the long weekend, but look forward to continuing our discussion next week :)[/quote]

toodles, see ya then…

58

[quote]pat wrote:<<< The only way you can prove I lie is to lie yourself, because I have not. You will cut sentences, you will remove words from sentences…Blah, blah, blah… >>>[/quote]Pat you ARE (or at least can be) better than this. Sincerely. I provided a link to the page where the quote comes from, just like I always will. Pssst. (whispering now). I don’t think I really believe you were lyin anyway. I think you are so terrified of the gospel and doctrines of grace (or just hate them so much) that my identification with them inhibits you from clearly thinking in a straight line from one day to the next when dealing with or about me. OR, you ARE lyin. OR, you just forgot that you made this very substantial statement which unquestionably and directly contradicts everything you’ve been recently saying to Elder Forlife. Here is the solution. Simply say (watch closely) “I was wrong”. You were ya know. It will be no bigger a deal, to me anyway, than the ridiculous denials you may attempt. If you simply said: “OK OK, for whatever reason I contradicted myself today when I said I never made that statement”. Even if you did admit to lying. Fine. Were all human. Off we go to sumthin else with this episode forgotten. I hope you try that out [quote]pat wrote:<<< So again did you or did you not say “If there are any Catholics in heaven it is only by the extreme mercy of God.” ?

You know you did, just admit it. >>>[/quote]LOL!!! Alright already LOL!!! I confess, I’ve been tormenting you with this one by ignoring it when you bring it up. What I actually said was that it’s only because the gospel of unthinkable grace that I preach is true that even one Catholic will wind up in heaven. In other words my gospel is the only thing that will save you from yours if you die in communion with Rome and avoid damnation. WHAAAAAAAAT??? Yes that’s what I said and I’m not admitting anything. I stand confidently by it. I will never retreat from any principle I declare Pat. NEVER. What you and others call “lying and backtracking” is usually the very simple result of you not paying attention when I speak. On occasion I really blow it in my articulation of something and will say so while I’m rephrasing and restating it more clearly.

I will NEVER intentionally deceive you.

60

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

  • Note: I certainly understand Tirib’s position[/quote]

As I do share his position, I can certainly understand. >>>[/quote]Is this a typo? Did you actually mean you “don’t” share my position? What position actually? I’m asking honestly. I don’t think I follow. This’l stay here btw. I also hope you don’t leave PWI. Despite everything I do have enormous respect for you and when skimming pages ALWAYS stop to read your posts. I