Calvinism, Predestination, The Elect

[LuthAMF]

41 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

I don't think it's generally true that questioning is considered impolite,  but if it is,  who cares? I do see the point about the need for standards. I suppose PA could be seen as an attempt to impose standards,  but it is a stupid way of doing this. It falls into circularity, as has already been shown in this thread. If circular reasoning is allowed then we can get to any conclusion we wish because circular reasoning is allowed.

No, questioning itself may not be the issue. I think it is quite evident that we function in society with questions. By "taboo" I meant thinking to a conclusion. "Don't challenge or question my conclusion." e.g. Gun control, abortion, Sexual Identity, racism, religion, recreational drug use etc etc.

 

As for standards, it would be helpful if you elaborated on my point of subjective and objective distinction.

 

And as has been pointed out as well regarding PA being "circular", ALL appeals to ultimate authority are circular.  But you rightly acknowledge "If circular reasoning is allowed then we can get to any conclusion we wish because circular reasoning is allowed.

Absolutely. The fallacy and absurdity of true circularity is not lost on the Christian.And recognizing this, our classic historical  writers do not engage in circularity when defending scripture nor does scripture itself engage in the fallacy.

An observed, witnessed, documented and corroborated (peer reviewed, if you will) fact of history remains a fact of history whether or not it is believed by men of later ages. Thus we look at an account like the Resurrection and post -resurrection appearances and say because it meets these criteria it is not circular even though we say "The bible says the resurrection is true." This is not the bible proving the bible. It is an attestation that scripture rightly makes use of in establishing a broader whole. More can be said here, but is this acceptable to you?

[LuthAMF]

On 8/23/2019 at 7:14 AM, LogicalFallacy said:

I know they are all biblical concepts, but absolutely pointless when it comes to having a serious discussion. The bible, and certain Christians like to proclaim knowledge of the inner workings of the atheists mind. However such attempts are wrong and futile. I've never had a Christian accurately describe why I don't believe. Usually they go with the tired old "you know god exists but you want to [insert some bullshit phrase]" That's categorically wrong. I don't know God exists so whenever anyone tells me that I know they are full of bullshit. Lots of it. Ironhorse it would seem was wiser than you and understood this. He wasn't interested in shoving his "self evident" doctrine down our throats, he wanted to basically have conversations and defend his beliefs the best he could.

 

If all the Christian is going to do is natter on about how we don't believe because XYZ, well it's conversation over. I'm not interested in whatever unfounded BS you want to proclaim about my inner state of mind, I'm interested in why you believe what you believe and what reasons and evidence you have to back it up.

 

If Christians want to preach about reprobate minds and other BS they can go find themselves a church with people willing to listen. 

 

You saying the bible is self evident truth to us is as stupid and meaningless as me saying that Harry Potter is self evident truth to you. (I assume of course you don't think that Harry Potter is a self evidently true?)

In this case, we don't need to say a word. We have a walking, talking illustration. Wow. Sorry to point that out but you said it all.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

37 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

In this case, we don't need to say a word. We have a walking, talking illustration. Wow. Sorry to point that out but you said it all.

And yet, he has never walked into this forum and said anything.  All we ever get are his pathetic apologists; and he's obviously scraping the bottom of the barrel.   Wow.  Sorry to point that out; but that says it all.

[LuthAMF]

On 8/23/2019 at 10:56 AM, mwc said:

On 8/23/2019 at 8:10 AM, LuthAMF said:

Matthew 16:28 I say unto you there be some of them that stand here which shall not taste of death till they have seen the son of man come in his kingdom. What do you say? "That Christ was clearly full of BS for the son of man is still coming!" Then you have the gall to ask me "what did they teach you at your church?" Well the fair question is turned right back upon you.  By his "kingdom" is understood the glory of his Ascension and what follows thereof,

     Hmmm...this doesn't seem quite right.

 

     I mean, this is all part of the passage:

 

Quote

 

 

24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life[f] will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 

 

27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

 

28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
 

 

 

     Looking at the last two verses it would seem that there's more to it that just the ascension.  We're talking about coming with angels and other things that you can read for yourself.  There are no angels involved in the ascension in any telling of the story.  The only way angels can be involved is if we count the angels that are (sometimes) reported at the tomb which is not connected with the ascension but the resurrection (unless you're here to tell me that this is now a mistake and they're really ascension angels).

 

     This whole concept is expanded upon later on in Matthew 25:

 

Quote

 

 

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
 

 

 

     This is the same phrasing.  The son of man coming in his glory with the angels.  Only we're told what will happen at this time.  And it's not the ascension.  It's much different.

 

     And no one standing there was still alive to witness anything like it.

 

          mwc

@mwc I seriously am not intending to antagonize but the distinction here is clear. 

27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

"come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward..."

Surely the understanding here is the Christian view of final judgment. Would you not agree? Nothing in the present world is fully and finally rewarded or judged until then, right?

So the contrast and distinction is clear that "coming in His Kingdom" is NOT the same event since some would be alive to witness it whereas judgment is after death. Christ's "kingdom" has it's foundation in the events here on earth in the Resurrection, Ascension and giving of the Holy Spirit for the power of preaching the Gospel; all of which these same men were alive to witness. 

 

Matt 25 indeed repeats"coming in his glory with angels..." and it is in judgment. It is not Christ coming "in his kingdom" resulting in the preaching of the Gospel. Sorry, but they're not the same event.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Damn.  If only god was intelligent enough to just say what he means, instead of merely being omniscient, it'd save us all a lot of trouble.

[LuthAMF]

7 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

And yet, he has never walked into this forum and said anything.  All we ever get are his pathetic apologists; and he's obviously scraping the bottom of the barrel.   Wow.  Sorry to point that out; but that says it all.

This is why you should keep your nose out of where it doesn't belong. You only muddle things.

The walking talking illustration is LogicalFallacy himself illustrating for us unbelief and it's effects. 

 

You stupidly think I'm talking about Christ. 

 

Whatever else you think you might have to say, breathe into a paper bag first.

[mwc]

18 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

@mwc I seriously am not intending to antagonize but the distinction here is clear. 

27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

"come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward..."

Surely the understanding here is the Christian view of final judgment. Would you not agree? Nothing in the present world is fully and finally rewarded or judged until then, right?

So the contrast and distinction is clear that "coming in His Kingdom" is NOT the same event since some would be alive to witness it whereas judgment is after death. Christ's "kingdom" has it's foundation in the events here on earth in the Resurrection, Ascension and giving of the Holy Spirit for the power of preaching the Gospel; all of which these same men were alive to witness. 

 

Matt 25 indeed repeats"coming in his glory with angels..." and it is in judgment. It is not Christ coming "in his kingdom" resulting in the preaching of the Gospel. Sorry, but they're not the same event.

     Why should I make the assumption that judgment occurs only after everyone is dead?  As this event could happen *right now* (for example) the return described in Matt 16 doesn't have to be predicated by everyone being dead.

 

          mwc

 

[LuthAMF]

12 minutes ago, mwc said:

     Why should I make the assumption that judgment occurs only after everyone is dead?

 

          mwc

 

Final judgment.

Because it's not an assumption. Its in scripture. It plainly teaches final judgment for all. 

Certain "judgment" takes place during our lives (such as the 'giving over to vile passions Rom 1:26) but that is not what is being spoken of here.

It does not teach that we will stand before Him in our mortal bodies.

[mwc]

Just now, LuthAMF said:

Final judgment.

Because it's not an assumption. Its in scripture. It plainly teaches final judgment for all. 

Certain "judgment" takes place during our lives (such as the 'giving over to vile passions Rom 1:26) but that is not what is being spoken of here.

     Well, I'm would think you'd tell me an that's supposed to be from the bible but that's not entirely helpful.  I gave you an answer that I also took from scripture but you're saying "Nope."  Matt 24 also goes into the end.  It mentions people being alive to see it.  Unless your jesus makes multiple and/or secret visits?  Are you JW?

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

36 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

This is why you should keep your nose out of where it doesn't belong. You only muddle things.

The walking talking illustration is LogicalFallacy himself illustrating for us unbelief and it's effects. 

 

You stupidly think I'm talking about Christ. 

 

Whatever else you think you might have to say, breathe into a paper bag first.

My understanding is flawed. 

[LuthAMF]

7 minutes ago, mwc said:

Are you JW?

no.

no.

 

[disillusioned]

On 8/24/2019 at 12:24 PM, LuthAMF said:

 

As for standards, it would be helpful if you elaborated on my point of subjective and objective distinction.

 

I'm sorry, it was your point,  and I'm not quite exactly you mean by objective vs. subjective. I'll be happy to discuss this,  but could you first explain exactly what you mean here? What is the distinction, in your mind,  between objective and subjective standards? 

 

Quote

And as has been pointed out as well regarding PA being "circular", ALL appeals to ultimate authority are circular.  But you rightly acknowledge "If circular reasoning is allowed then we can get to any conclusion we wish because circular reasoning is allowed.

Absolutely. The fallacy and absurdity of true circularity is not lost on the Christian.And recognizing this, our classic historical  writers do not engage in circularity when defending scripture nor does scripture itself engage in the fallacy.

 

Sorry, but scripture definitely does engage in circularity. The Christian is told by Paul several times not to be deceived by human reason, conventional wisdom, and philosophy. The Christian is told that people will use reason to attack Christianity, but assured that this can safely be rejected because Christianity is the only real truth. This is exactly the kind of circularity that PA engages in. It is begging the question.

 

Quote

An observed, witnessed, documented and corroborated (peer reviewed, if you will) fact of history remains a fact of history whether or not it is believed by men of later ages. Thus we look at an account like the Resurrection and post -resurrection appearances and say because it meets these criteria

 

It does not. Historians don't think this. Only apologists do, and they clearly have a bias.

 

Quote

 

it is not circular even though we say "The bible says the resurrection is true." This is not the bible proving the bible. It is an attestation that scripture rightly makes use of in establishing a broader whole. More can be said here, but is this acceptable to you?

 

You're right, that part is not circular. It's just not correct.

[LuthAMF]

1 hour ago, disillusioned said:

3 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

 

As for standards, it would be helpful if you elaborated on my point of subjective and objective distinction.

 

I'm sorry, it was your point,  and I'm not quite exactly you mean by objective vs. subjective I'll be happy to discuss this,  by could you first explain exactly what you mean here? What is the distinction, in your mind,  between objective and subjective standards? 

Subjective are those from within that change according to particular influences and can in no way be universally applied.

Objective are from without, are universal and do not change regardless of times or circumstance. 

 

1 hour ago, disillusioned said:

Sorry, but scripture definitely does engage in circularity. The Christian is told by Paul several times not to be deceived by human reason, conventional wisdom, and philosophy. The Christian is told that people will use reason to attack Christianity, but assured that this can safely be rejected because Christianity is the only real truth. This is exactly the kind of circularity that PA engages in. It is begging the question.

Colossians 2.

Does Paul use reason when speaking this? Do you allow for the reasoned context? Paul's entire corpus is reason upon reason; proof upon proof for the Person and Work of Christ! Men will always try to disparage that Name by use of philosophy,  deceit, etc.

1 hour ago, disillusioned said:

Quote

An observed, witnessed, documented and corroborated (peer reviewed, if you will) fact of history remains a fact of history whether or not it is believed by men of later ages. Thus we look at an account like the Resurrection and post -resurrection appearances and say because it meets these criteria

 

It does not. Historians don't think this. Only apologists do, and they clearly have a bias.

Historians do not accept witnessed, historical documentation? Is that what you meant here?

1 hour ago, disillusioned said:

Quote

 

it is not circular even though we say "The bible says the resurrection is true." This is not the bible proving the bible. It is an attestation that scripture rightly makes use of in establishing a broader whole. More can be said here, but is this acceptable to you?

 

You're right, that part is not circular. It's just not correct

That is an absolute statement. Based upon what evidence to the contrary?

[disillusioned]

On 8/24/2019 at 4:16 PM, LuthAMF said:

Subjective are those from within that change according to particular influences and can in no way be universally applied.

Objective are from without, are universal and do not change regardless of times or circumstance. 

 

So, objective standards are rigid, on your view,  while subjective standards are flexible. Also, objective standards are based on external factors,  where subjective standards are based on internal factors.

 

I think I mainly get what you're saying,  but it would be helpful if you could explain more clearly what you mean by "from without" and "from within". If I apply a standard,  is it "from within" simply by virtue of the fact that I'm applying it? Or is there more to this?

 

Quote

Colossians 2.

Does Paul use reason when speaking this? Do you allow for the reasoned context? Paul's entire corpus is reason upon reason; proof upon proof for the Person and Work of Christ! Men will always try to disparage that Name by use of philosophy,  deceit, etc.

 

Yes, Colossians 2 explicitly, but in many other places Paul makes reference to the fact that faith is based on revelation, not reason. He draws clear contrasts between the two. Pretty much all the Pauline epistles include this idea in one form or another. And he says explicitly in 1 Cor 1:18 that the message of Christianity is foolishness, except to those who already believe it. The Christian belief system declares itself to be true, but only comprehensible on the view that it is true (and even then, not perfectly comprehensible). Further,  it is predicted that it will be met with criticism,  but this can simply be dismissed because of the the fact that it is true.  This is exactly what PAs do, and it is begging the question. 

 

Quote

Historians do not accept witnessed, historical documentation? Is that what you meant here?

 

No.  What I meant is that most historians do not accept that the accounts of the resurrection constitute such. This is simply a fact. Apologists claim they do, but historians generally don't agree. 

 

Quote

That is an absolute statement. Based upon what evidence to the contrary?

 

Based on all available evidence. 

 

Christianity makes absurd claims which contradict reality (and each other),  and presents no actual, confirmable evidence in support of its claims. It isn't even false; it's nonsensical. I don't need to disprove it just as you don't need to disprove Islam. If you think it is true then it's on you to prove it. Or don't,  but then realize that if you keep talking about it you look pretty silly.

[LuthAMF]

16 hours ago, disillusioned said:

If you think it is true then it's on you to prove it. Or don't,  but then realize that if you keep talking about it you look pretty silly.

Why is it so hard for you all to grasp the fact that it is not our individual claim that it is true? Scripture makes the claim and backs it up. IT IS NOT ON ME or anyone else to try and satisfy what YOU decide to be "PROOF". 

 

Christ is our "proof" which I showed in my last post in the "debate" (that was a joke) but it never got posted. I don't give a rip HOW "late" you all think it was in coming. I wrote it but it wasn't allowed and no one had the courtesy to say it had ended. Cowards.

[LogicalFallacy]

6 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Why is it so hard for you all to grasp the fact that it is not our claim that it is true?

 

You seem to have a misunderstanding of what "fact" means.

[LuthAMF]

1 minute ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

You seem to have a misunderstanding of what "fact" means.

Christ is a fact. 

Since you obviously have never understood Christ, you also obviously do not understand fact. Pander your puke on someone else.

[LogicalFallacy]

48 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Christ is a fact. 

Since you obviously have never understood Christ, you also obviously do not understand fact. Pander your puke on someone else.

 

Thank you for proving my point.

[LuthAMF]

4 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Thank you for proving my point.

You're all flipping jokes.

[LogicalFallacy]

2 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

You're all flipping jokes.

 

More projection.

 

I think its time we shut this shit down. We are going on the fast road to nowhere.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The "state" is the entity that actually makes the claim of guilt against a defendant in a court if law.  However, it is still incumbent upon the prosecutor, as a representative of the state, to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  In the same way, Luth-ifer, christfuckems, thumperina, ordinaryclay, and any other christian who comes here is responsible for demonstrating the truth of their claims, irrespective of whatever entity (jesus, scripture, 19th century apologist) originally made the claim.

 

"I say it's true because [whatever] said it is true" is not sufficient evidence and will not be accepted.

[disillusioned]

6 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Why is it so hard for you all to grasp the fact that it is not our individual claim that it is true? Scripture makes the claim and backs it up. IT IS NOT ON ME or anyone else to try and satisfy what YOU decide to be "PROOF". 

 

And here it is, laid out explicitly in plain sight.  As I've been saying all along, your only argument is "believe this book". Thanks for playing. 

[LuthAMF]

 

48 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

 

And here it is, laid out explicitly in plain sight.  As I've been saying all along, your only argument is "believe this book". Thanks for playing. 

What is in plain sight? There is a Christian doctrine of scripture of which you are all oblivious. Yet as former "Christians" you should not be. Josh couldn't articulst it in debate when asked; everyone else avoided it as well.

 

You all say I never presented it either. But, being oblivious....

[disillusioned]

I think the substance here is exhausted. All that is left appears to be ad hominem attacks. I'm out. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

There is a christian doctrine of scripture... which still remains to be proven true.