Calvinism, Predestination, The Elect

[LuthAMF]

3 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The monotheistic god is an osprey, some type of "being" observing environments. Leave the little lake behind and god grows into the environments themselves, taken altogether as a collective whole (omnipresence), and the creatures which are composed out of the environments as "beings." The metaphor is deeper yet, to no avail to the little turtles once again......

The key phrase is "limited environment" in which they are both quite content. One could say the osprey never takes notice of the finer details of the lake. But again, that this analogy needs dissected....

[LuthAMF]

1 minute ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Guys is this thread serving any purpose? If y'all enjoying yourselves well who am I to stop You, but the last 2-3 pages is just a lot of fuck ya nah fuck ya. If I was to describe the direction we are traveling I'd have to say circle. 

That's the RNP factor at work.

Otherwise,  I AGREE which is why I thought it all quite humorous. Thank you!!!

[LuthAMF]

On 8/11/2019 at 7:31 PM, 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" 

 

You may introduce this in our debate if you wish but don't mistakenly make it another "denomination" or doctrine of church.

I do get the impression you're not quite as familiar with the field as you might think. That's kind of a problem with Google, Wiki etc. It makes instant "experts".

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

But no lake appears to be superior or truer than any other lake as far as that goes. 

Do you deny the existence of Lake Superior?

[LuthAMF]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Do you deny the existence of Lake Superior?

See now thats funny.

[Joshpantera]

8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Do you deny the existence of Lake Superior?

 

Touche!!!

[Joshpantera]

10 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

You may introduce this in our debate if you wish but don't mistakenly make it another "denomination" or doctrine of church.

I do get the impression you're not quite as familiar with the field as you might think. That's kind of a problem with Google, Wiki etc. It makes instant "experts".

 

How about I introduce PA as an inherent part of EVERY christian variety of denomination?

 

And here's the basis for the claim. There isn't such a thing as any christian denomination or non-denominational christian believer who DOESN"T presuppose the truth of the bible, while claiming the truth of the bible. Because there exists zero confirmation for establishing the truth of these biblical claims we've outlined - a god exists, that god or gods altogether created the universe and earth, the god gives special revelation to humans and inspires biblical writings, etc., etc.

 

Technically, according to the link, not all apologist's are PA. There are evidential and other varieties listed. But I beg to differ with the wiki link in the above outlined way. Because it doesn't matter what type of apologetic's is used, at the end of the day all of the major truth claims oriented around the bible (listed above) funnel down to presuppositional foundations according to what I've outlined.

 

That's literally where the debate currently sits. I've asked for evidence. What I've received are PA responses for several pages instead of evidence, as if presupposition is substantial evidence in and of itself. Dave saw what has been going on and pointed it out in the side gallery. I then took in the apologetic style and compared it to predestination which is why we're discussing it here at the moment. I did not grow up technically knowing or understanding PA, but nevertheless, and without the label, that's basically what I was doing and what I believed. The bible proves it's own claims, the bible altogether, through christianity, is automatically superior to all other world views and religions. I thought that poking holes at other world views demonstrated the superiority of the bible. I was greatly mistaken. 

 

And that's why I wager that all christians are presuppositional because there is no other option on the table available to anyone. If there were another option, why has it not been offered? And further more, for heaven's sake, where is the alternative option that proves the bible without presupposing that it's true apriori? 

 

We could discuss here a bit and argue the point I'm making above if you prefer. And here everyone else can chime in if they disagree with me about this - a sort of ex-C peer review if you will. Maybe the point seems too radical? Feel free to chime in. 

[Joshpantera]

11 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

The key phrase is "limited environment" in which they are both quite content. One could say the osprey never takes notice of the finer details of the lake. But again, that this analogy needs dissected....

 

Do you agree to some extent with my panentheistic assertion? Where omnipresence breaks down to the whole of existence, every existing environment, immanent and transcendent of this universe? Because anything less, by default is not "all present." Being some where but not somewhere else being less than "all present." 

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

How about I introduce PA as an inherent part of EVERY christian variety of denomination?

 

 

I agree that every denomination uses PA as the basis for their world view. They have to. All they have is a bible and if you read it without the "I love Jesus" PA goggles then your faith is doomed.

 

A (Pentecostal) Christian told me that a good response to any argument against Christianity was to just say, "That's nice, but I choose to believe in Jesus Christ." PA before thought. 

 

 

[LuthAMF]

I assure you, the Pentecostal friend would not qualify as holding to Presuppositional methodology. You guys are seriously confused about an apologetic method and actual Christian doctrine. 

@Joshpantera I'm still keenly amd primarily interested in our debate but this seems to be getting quite important. I think it would confuse our debate so I'll risk exposing myself to all the love if I continue here to at least clarify some things.

[midniterider]

Well, I'm not saying he has an official certificate in Presuppositional Apologetics issued by the church. I'm just saying instead of entertaining any thoughts of dealing with a non-believer's arguments he just basically told me to ignore those arguments and choose Jesus. 

[LuthAMF]

Just now, midniterider said:

Well, I'm not saying he has an official certificate in Presuppositional Apologetics issued by the church. I'm just saying instead of entertaining any thoughts of dealing with a non-believer's arguments he just basically told me to ignore those arguments and choose Jesus. 

Right. I was also in a Pentecostal church for a time. I "left" intellectually the very moment the pastor told us we needed to "bypass our minds" in order to "let the spirit...". 

Not there anymore. That nonsense creates absurdities.

[Joshpantera]

5 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Right. I was also in a Pentecostal church for a time. I "left" intellectually the very moment the pastor told us we needed to "bypass our minds" in order to "let the spirit...". 

Not there anymore. That nonsense creates absurdities.

 

But in essence, you've taken a similar direction in the debate so far, Luth. By suggesting that you pre-assume that the bible is correct. You are bypassing your mind and skipping all of the leg work of first trying to substantiate the truth of the claims. It creates nonsense (the bible proves it's own internal claims) and absurdities (one world view is absolutely true and all else wrong). 

 

7 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

I assure you, the Pentecostal friend would not qualify as holding to Presuppositional methodology. You guys are seriously confused about an apologetic method and actual Christian doctrine. 

@Joshpantera I'm still keenly amd primarily interested in our debate but this seems to be getting quite important. I think it would confuse our debate so I'll risk exposing myself to all the love if I continue here to at least clarify some things.

 

My point is that there is a formal presuppositional apologetic's with methodology, but all christians must be guilty of presupposition in and of itself simply due to the fact that all of these claims depend on believing, apriori, that the bible is true. Even when people try and introduce evidence, they do so from an apriori belief foundation and then try and introduce evidence. Because the evidence doesn't lead to the belief, it's the other way around. And your apologetic examples so far in the debate demonstrate this. Their (1) belief leads them into throwing out (2) pseudo scientific claims as if that qualifies as evidence. That's the very basis of the video you cited. 

[LuthAMF]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

But in essence, you've taken a similar direction in the debate so far, Luth. By suggesting that you pre-assume that the bible is correct. You are bypassing your mind and skipping all of the leg work of first trying to substantiate the truth of the claims. It creates nonsense (the bible proves it's own internal claims) and absurdities (one world view is absolutely true and all else wrong). 

Not in the least. This is how you misdefine the term and method.

 

You really do think we are all stupid; Downright stupid and in need that you should come along and set us straight. 

[Joshpantera]

31 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Not in the least. This is how you misdefine the term and method.

 

You really do think we are all stupid; Downright stupid and in need that you should come along and set us straight. 

 

 

 

 

What does stupid do? 

 

Stupid can present untenable claims as absolute truth, for one example. Such as presupposition. Such as predestination stemming from a foundation of presupposition. We're still on topic here. 

 

Meanwhile you're ranting around like Fredo. 

 

 

Well then show me how smart you are. Demonstrate your smarts. 

[LuthAMF]

51 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

 

 

 

What does stupid do? 

 

Stupid can present untenable claims as absolute truth, for one example. Such as presupposition. Such as predestination stemming from a foundation of presupposition. We're still on topic here. 

 

Meanwhile you're ranting around like Fredo. 

 

 

Well then show me how smart you are. Demonstrate your smarts. 

Its not demonstrating smarts. It's that you demonstrate for us your feeble grasp of the subject. 

A man sits at a table in an otherwise empty room. Another man enters the room, plops down the bible and tells the seated man "Believe this book."

The seated man replies "Duhhh, OK."

Is that Christian presupposition to you?

[LuthAMF]

1 minute ago, LuthAMF said:

Meanwhile you're ranting around like Fredo. 

Nobody ranting. 

Wait a minute while I search YouTube for a video stereotyping you.

[LuthAMF]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

8 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Right. I was also in a Pentecostal church for a time. I "left" intellectually the very moment the pastor told us we needed to "bypass our minds" in order to "let the spirit...". 

Not there anymore. That nonsense creates absurdities.

 

But in essence, you've taken a similar direction in the debate so far, Luth. By suggesting that you pre-assume that the bible is correct. You are bypassing your mind and skipping all of the leg work of first trying to substantiate the truth of the claims. It creates nonsense (the bible proves it's own internal claims) and absurdities (one world view is absolutely true and all else wrong). 

Wrong wRong wrOng wroNg wronG.  "You are bypassing your mind and skipping all of the leg work of first trying to substantiate the truth of the claims." Dude, Christian history IS the legwork. We have access to it. It is coherent, prolific and profound. I dare you to charge them with "bypassing their minds" when they shred charges.

You choose to believe evolution-driven history and propaganda without evidence as your "legwork'. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

40 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

It is coherent, prolific and profound.

And inaccurate.  

[LuthAMF]

3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

And inaccurate.  

You mean your opinion of it.

I thought you were sleeping.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

You mean your opinion of it.

I thought you were sleeping.

Therefore He says: “Awake, you who sleep, Arise from the dead, And Christ will give you light.” Ephesians 5:14

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

And inaccurate.  

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

 

 

[LuthAMF]

2 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

 

 

Of course. Gotta love that thinking for oneself.

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Its not demonstrating smarts. It's that you demonstrate for us your feeble grasp of the subject. 

A man sits at a table in an otherwise empty room. Another man enters the room, plops down the bible and tells the seated man "Believe this book."

The seated man replies "Duhhh, OK."

Is that Christian presupposition to you?

 

In a nut shell, yes. 

 

Because asking someone to believe in an unsubstantiated claim such as "The bible is absolutely true," boils down to just that.

 

It doesn't matter how elaborate the apologetic's. Nor the several thousand year history of christian theology. It doesn't matter how high you've built your fallacious claims with sophisticated and / or highly credentialed theology. The foundation level is the concern here. And a faulty foundation (as you should know) results in the big castle being built upon sand. A little water at the base of the elaborate structure and the whole enterprise comes crashing down!!!

 

Razed to the floor.....

 

You have nothing other than, "Believe this book," and believers have nothing other than, "Duhhh, ok."

 

[LuthAMF]

16 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

In a nut shell, yes. 

And there ya go. You don't have a clue.