Jump to content
midniterider

Calvinism, Predestination, The Elect

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, midniterider said:

I agree with RNP. Why do Christians have to make up some phony hermeneutics and exegesis bullshit when the writers of the bible could have just said what they meant? But say that these processes did actually provide the meaning for every passage in the bible, then that's it. You Exegete and Hermenuet one time and boom, we got a whole new and complete explanatory text for the bible for everyone to read and understand. Problem solved.

 

Unless of course, the bible (magically) has different meaning for everyone...in that case the bible really doesn't mean anything at all, correct? 

     The authors did write what they meant.  The problem is they didn't write what someone else wanted it to say or needed it to say thus the invention of hermonetics and exegesis.  That's how we wind up with sequels like the new testament.

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mwc said:

     The authors did write what they meant.  The problem is they didn't write what someone else wanted it to say or needed it to say thus the invention of hermonetics and exegesis.  That's how we wind up with sequels like the new testament.

 

          mwc

 

Well you see, little Suzy, a daddy and a mommy look into each other's eyes and wish real hard then the stork comes. Thats how we wound up with your baby brother. Ask mwc. He'll tell you that too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Well you see, little Suzy, a daddy and a mommy look into each other's eyes and wish real hard then the stork comes. Thats how we wound up with your baby brother. Ask mwc. He'll tell you that too.

 

     I should ask myself what now?  Something about the new testament being the result of some creative side-stepping instead of some sort of an actual dirty fuck job?

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

13 hours ago, mwc said:

     I should ask myself what now?  Something about the new testament being the result of some creative side-stepping instead of some sort of an actual dirty fuck job?

 

          mwc

 

 

Are you saying the Conception wasn't Immaculate? OMG! :)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should probably add this to the thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics

 

Quote

Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews.

 

As if exposing flaws in other worldviews does anything to elevate one's own views by default.

 

That's obviously not how it works. At best, it can only demonstrate holes in everyone's worldviews and leave the glaring conclusion that no one really has it all figured out or knows in any absolute way about whatever the subject happens to be about. It's a pretty shallow tactic of apologist's in my view. Because there's holes all throughout their own worldview. 

 

Quote

Critics of presuppositional apologetics claim that it is logically invalid because it begs the question of the truth of Christianity and the non-truth of other worldviews.

 

No kidding....

 

Quote

Clarkian presuppositionalism[edit]

Gordon Clark and his followers treat the truth of the Scriptures as the axiom of their system. Like all axioms, this axiom is considered to be self-evident truth, not to be proven, but used for proof.

 

Self evident truth? It's true because it says it true. We believe it because it says it's true. That makes it self evident. And so it's not to be proven but it's the ultimate proof that any one needs? 

 

It looks like the Pre's all run together. And the Predestination Calvinist's / Reformed Christians seem to reach for Presuppositional Apologetic's (PA). William was reaching for it. Luth is reaching for it. All of this business they've posted about the "real christians" comes from it.

 

What shall we call them, "Preist's" 

 

😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

We should probably add this to the thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics

 

 

As if exposing flaws in other worldviews does anything to elevate one's own views by default.

 

That's obviously not how it works. At best, it can only demonstrate holes in everyone's worldviews and leave the glaring conclusion that no one really has it all figured out or knows in any absolute way about whatever the subject happens to be about. It's a pretty shallow tactic of apologist's in my view. Because there's holes all throughout their own worldview. 

 

 

No kidding....

 

 

Self evident truth? It's true because it says it true. We believe it because it says it's true. That makes it self evident. And so it's not to be proven but it's the ultimate proof that any one needs? 

 

It looks like the Pre's all run together. And the Predestination Calvinist's / Reformed Christians seem to reach for Presuppositional Apologetic's (PA). William was reaching for it. Luth is reaching for it. All of this business they've posted about the "real christians" comes from it.

 

What shall we call them, "Preist's" 

 

😂

Presups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2019 at 10:44 PM, midniterider said:

I agree with RNP. Why do Christians have to make up some phony hermeneutics and exegesis bullshit when the writers of the bible could have just said what they meant? But say that these processes did actually provide the meaning for every passage in the bible, then that's it. You Exegete and Hermenuet one time and boom, we got a whole new and complete explanatory text for the bible for everyone to read and understand. Problem solved.

 

Unless of course, the bible (magically) has different meaning for everyone...in that case the bible really doesn't mean anything at all, correct? 

On 7/31/2019 at 10:31 PM, midniterider said:

 

Thanks for letting us know. Old Luth just likes to tell me I'm wrong but not provide his own answer. It looks like hermeneutics and exegesis are some pseudo-scientific words that Christians take great pride in using to give their absurd religion some false credibility. 

Another fair question could be why you're railing so hard against something that you obviously know nothing about?

 

Now don't get all bent out of shape over that, but come on...you're a former Church-goer yet lack any familiarity with how these tools function? Or worse,  that we made them up just to sound "scientific"?

 

We're talking about different texts that span over 1500 years, 40 different authors in separate lands and you want the equivalent of "Bob went fishing at 4:00 On a Saturday afternoon at Lake Gennesaret." and all the other writers go "Yep. Bob went fishing, alright. Yepyepyep."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

 

We're talking about different texts that span over 1500 years, 40 different authors in separate lands and you want the equivalent of "Bob went fishing at 4:00 On a Saturday afternoon at Lake Gennesaret." and all the other writers go "Yep. Bob went fishing, alright. Yepyepyep."

If all of those writers were, in fact, inspired by the same omniscient god, then it stands to reason that said god would have known about Bob's fishing trip.  It further stands to reason, that any of those writers who wrote about Bob's fishing trip, would be able to agree on the details, having gotten them from the same source, to wit: said omniscient god. 

 

Also, I studied both exegesis and hermeneutics for four years and hold a degree with a minor in biblical studies.  STOP insulting our intelligence.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If all of those writers were, in fact, inspired by the same omniscient god, then it stands to reason that said god would have known about Bob's fishing trip.  It further stands to reason, that any of those writers who wrote about Bob's fishing trip, would be able to agree on the details, having gotten them from the same source, to wit: said omniscient god. 

 

Also, I studied both exegesis and hermeneutics for four years and hold a degree with a minor in biblical studies.  STOP insulting our intelligence.

You need more faith and less book learnin'.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If all of those writers were, in fact, inspired by the same omniscient god, then it stands to reason that said god would have known about Bob's fishing trip.  It further stands to reason, that any of those writers who wrote about Bob's fishing trip, would be able to agree on the details, having gotten them from the same source, to wit: said omniscient god. 

 

Also, I studied both exegesis and hermeneutics for four years and hold a degree with a minor in biblical studies.  STOP insulting our intelligence.

So if I refer to one, you automatically include all. Ok.

 

None of your other points hold at all. But ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LuthAMF said:

So if I refer to one, you automatically include all. Ok.

Yes.  We are a community.  We look after our own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Yes.  We are a community.  We look after our own.

So you all have identical backgrounds,  identical understanding etc. 

If you are ignorant on one point then all are ignorant? I doubt any are  willing that it should go that way.

Either way, certainly defend "Your own" but to expect us to think that just because you hold a degree...

 

midniterider was wrong. If you wish to defend his error feel free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If all of those writers were, in fact, inspired by the same omniscient god, then it stands to reason that said god would have known about Bob's fishing trip.  It further stands to reason, that any of those writers who wrote about Bob's fishing trip, would be able to agree on the details, having gotten them from the same source, to wit: said omniscient god. 

 

Also, I studied both exegesis and hermeneutics for four years and hold a degree with a minor in biblical studies.  STOP insulting our intelligence.

How do you deduce they would NOT know? But I was telling midnite that he wanted the equivalent of that oversimplistic example. It's not an actual example. And don't further insult ME by attempting to explain it away.

I wasn't addressing you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one doesn't get it, and it is likely he never will.  His brain's frontal cortex has atrophied to such a degree that neuroplasticity is of limited usefulness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

This one doesn't get it, and it is likely he never will.  His brain's frontal cortex has atrophied to such a degree that neuroplasticity is of limited usefulness.

"Get" what? Help out a poor useless guy. If you think you're capable. Stay on topic here. Understand what we're talking about?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LuthAMF said:

How do you deduce they would NOT know? But I was telling midnite that he wanted the equivalent of that oversimplistic example. It's not an actual example. And don't further insult ME by attempting to explain it away.

I wasn't addressing you.

Why should it matter who you were addressing?  And why should it matter which one of us explained it to You?  You are in our house.

 

The point still remains, if your god inspired the bible, it should contain neither contradictions nor obfuscations; yet it does.  You can't defend it; you can't explain it away.  All you can do is just keep on believing in spite of it all.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Why should it matter who you were addressing?  And why should it matter which one of us explained it to You?  You are in our house.

 

The point still remains, if your god inspired the bible, it should contain neither contradictions nor obfuscations; yet it does.  You can't defend it; you can't explain it away.  All you can do is just keep on believing in spite of it all.

Sorry but you've "explained" nothing.

Ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Sorry but you've "explained" nothing.

Ok.

No.  You've understood nothing.  Don't confuse the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2019 at 9:15 PM, midniterider said:

 

I wonder why a loving, intelligent God would bring people into the world as pre-condemned? 

 

 

Cuz that's how He rolls.

 

Not being snarky. I think it's actually the answer that Calvinism winds up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No.  You've understood nothing.  Don't confuse the two.

I understood what I was asking midnite. You don't. 

 

38 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Also, I studied both exegesis and hermeneutics for four years and hold a degree with a minor in biblical studies.  

There are thousands of degree-holding liberal whacknuts from apostate Universities. So what? They're easily identified because there is truth to know by comparison.

Ho hum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

I understood what I was asking midnite. You don't. 

 

There are thousands of degree-holding liberal whacknuts from apostate Universities. So what? They're easily identified because there is truth to know by comparison.

Ho hum. 

"Truth" that you've spent 5 pages failing to demonstrate.  You've merely made a series of unfounded assertions and bald assumptions.  The "truth" is that you have no idea where I earned my degree, nor whether i am "liberal" or "conservative."  Just like you have no idea why god couldn't tell 40 different people the details of Bob's fishing expedition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

"Truth" that you've spent 5 pages failing to demonstrate.  You've merely made a series of unfounded assertions and bald assumptions.  The "truth" is that you have no idea where I earned my degree, nor whether i am "liberal" or "conservative."  Just like you have no idea why god couldn't tell 40 different people the details of Bob's fishing expedition. 

Looks like you're doin a bit o fishin yourself. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Another fair question could be why you're railing so hard against something that you obviously know nothing about?

 

Hermeneutics and exegesis is bullshit. Do you think different? Explain why it isnt bullshit.

 

2 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

 

Now don't get all bent out of shape over that, but come on...you're a former Church-goer yet lack any familiarity with how these tools function? Or worse,  that we made them up just to sound "scientific"?

 

You tell me. I am leaning toward the pseudoscientific explanation. Like Christians say , we all do hermeneutics when we read the bible...probably because it's poorly written...so we have to try to figure out what it means.

 

2 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

 

We're talking about different texts that span over 1500 years, 40 different authors in separate lands and you want the equivalent of "Bob went fishing at 4:00 On a Saturday afternoon at Lake Gennesaret." and all the other writers go "Yep. Bob went fishing, alright. Yepyepyep."

 

God apparently can't get his meaning across so all may understand the One True Word...guess there isnt One True Word, but Numerous Slightly Different Interpretations.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

"truth" is that you have no idea where I earned my degree, nor whether i am "liberal" or "conservative."  

Doesn't matter. YOU are apostate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Hermeneutics and exegesis is bullshit

See there? You can't tell me WHY.  

 

16 minutes ago, midniterider said:

probably because it's poorly written...so we have to try to figure out what it means.

They're all coherent sentences. Are long sentences and complex concepts too tough for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.