jdlongmire

cool, PM me when they "free it up"...

blt to go

‘Round the rugged rocks the rascally reprobates run…..

Well, brettc, there it is. Unfortunately exactly as I predicted. The “modern-day�? Calvinist says there is free will to the point that man is held responsible for his own actions, but that God elects those who go to heaven. Upon reflection, those are incongruous, so they are stuck in a paradox.

The more I read this thread, the more I laugh at your analogy of a “fly�? and liberal Christian that you gave to King Louie. This is the same thing. I call it hopping on one foot and then the other. First they hop on the foot of predestination. But when one points out that logically results in double-predestination, they hop to the foot of free will. But when you point out that contradicts Romans 9, Ephesians 1, and “God’s nature�? they then hop back to predestination. When you point out predestination contradicts Romans 1 and the point of Evangelism, they hop back to free will. And so on, and so on…. You will never get both feet on the ground.

jdlongmire, congrats on sticking with this so long. At least you do not “post and run�? (and NO, I am NOT talking about OnTheThirdRail. He admitted double-predestination as a logical conclusion of Calvinism.)

Unfortunately, it is not you. It is this book that God gave you that cannot resolve the issue. Calvinism (and certainly election/predestination) is biblical. So is free will. It is just a “snapshot�? of one of the many contradictions in the bible. That exemplifies the book was simply a variety of writers discussing their particular view of God, and they never intended it to be reviewed as a whole. Hence the continuous contradictions, like man being responsible for his own destiny, yet only God being the one that “predestines�? both desire and election.

jdlongmire, I planned on reviewing this thread and listing all of my questions that seem to be avoided. (I am afraid that my ice cream analogy is so invincible it will never be touched.) Again, I do not blame you. The position of Calvinism is to blame. It is untenable. These questions are unanswerable by the position, not just by you.

And to my horror and chagrin, I found that the question I most want answered was not posted by me! To my surprise (due to his involvement) it was not posited by brettc. The questions I would REALLY like to see answered was by post tenebras lux
here
Can you answer when this shift occurred? Thanks.

However, for the lurkers, you did raise two points (while not addressing my other questions) which gave me a laugh.

How come Christians (and non-Christians) assume that Adam and Eve went to Heaven? Here is a guy (and gal) that caused MORE people to die than any other person! They caused more to be tortured longer than anyone else. (Remember hell?) Thanks to them, no matter how much I desire God, if god doesn’t predestine me right on how to desire him, I am going to hell. Yet they get Heaven? I think NOT. They may have been predestined, but there is no way you can demonstrate they were elect. If Adam and Eve get to Heaven (‘cause they were elected) and others don’t, this SURELY demonstrates that God is an asshole. (and you know I do not normally use such strong language.)

The next great quote is:

Wrong again! Man CANNOT be the author of sin. Man (Adam, specifically) made a choice between obeying God. To make a choice, the two decisions MUST pre-exist the choice. I can choose to play baseball or football. But before the choice is made, both baseball and football must pre-exist. I cannot chose between baseball and mushy-ball, since “mushy-ball�? does not exist. In the same way I can chose to between playing football and not playing football. Both choices pre-exist.

In order for man even to CHOOSE to disobey god, the possibility of disobeying god must have pre-existed. So man CERTAINLY cannot be the author of sin. It was there before him! (I also assume you believe the snake was Satan, who, therefore must have “sinned�? before man did. You can’t say that because of the creation of man, man authored sin, introduced it to Lucifer, who then choose it and became Satan, right?)

More importantly, God created man, right? Are you then saying that Man created Sin? Amazing! We “created�? something that was so bad, the only way your god’s “justice�? could handle it was for him to sacrifice himself to satisfy himself and save the world from himself. In Fact, according to Calvinism and its limited atonement, Man’s “creation�? of sin was so great that the all-mighty, all-powerful god could not appease it all, and his blood was only enough to appease the hell requirement for some!

No, Man is not the author is sin. God may or may not be, but to fall on the idea of “man�? is, with all due respect, completely ridiculous. It makes us more powerful than God! It makes the created more powerful than the creator.

Ignore all that. Please answer post tenebras lux’s question. Thanks.

Jobar

"Is God willing to prevent damnation, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent."

jd, "provides an environment" facilitates damnation. Anyway, you say you believe that God saves whom he will despite the fact we're abjectly fallen sinners, every one. Isn't he powerful enough to do that for everyone?

I've never seen a consistent answer to this; either you have to put limits on God's power, or put limits on his mercy.



One of the tenets of your faith is that no one can be confident of their salvation. You have to live your whole life in fear of Hell! I'm sure you've read Jonathan Edward's famous sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"- Edwards makes a huge production about how utterly loathsome sinners are to God, and we are all sinners. So when you say-


-you can't know that! And you put yourself in yet another double bind- you have to loathe your sinfulness, and at the same time know you are sinning because you are thus loathing your self! You can't set yourself apart from your sinfulness. You- YOU!- are abjectly, utterly fallen, and your very nature is sinful! Can't you see how completely fucked up that is?!

jdlongmire

I will, if you will answer mine.

Salvation is a free gift from God.

Would you accept that free gift?

Yes or No, please...

BadBadBad

This is the fallacy of presupposition. You accused me of it in the genocide thread over and over. Have you stopped beating your wife? This question presupposes that you beat your wife, and you lose either way you answer.

Same here. This presupposes that God exists and that your version of salvation is correct. If I answer no, then I confirm what you've been saying. If I say yes, then I confirm what you've been saying. I can't answer at all without conceding the argument, and that's just another fallacy in your position.

God doesn't exist. Salvation doesn't exist,no one is offering me any free gifts, and I don't desire any gifts from non-existent gods.

Oh, and now that we've dismissed with that distraction err red herring, let's get to the answer to Luxie's question. It has been on the table for quite a while.

jdlongmire

...thought so...but I think I did finally answer...I'll have to go back and review the thread...

so the answer is an equivocal "No"? or unequivocal?

BadBadBad

Actually, a better analogy would be like a David Blaine levitation trick. The object is to levitate, but we can clearly see his left foot is on the ground. He turns around and switches to his right. "See I levitated." Then back and forth we go.

Yes longmire, I appreciate the exercise as well. The objective is to levitate. You continue to hop and skip from one foot to the other. You can continue to stand there and say you've had both feet in the air, but frankly you just look kind of silly standing there with one foot knee high and the other squarely on the floor saying that. I came to see the magic trick, and you were right. It's nothing real special. I came, I saw, I wasn't impressed. This is getting to be a Monty Python's dead parrot skit.

Well you know this book didn't come from God, and it's more than just the authors discussing their particular view of God. This is just a record of the sales pitch for the snake oil they were selling. They just used a different sales pitch as they went from town to town to suit the difficulties and vulnerabilities encountered.

I don't assume that at all, and I don't think longmire does either. Their fate in Genesis is clearly separation from God. No one can deny that. Longmire does though. He asserts that their pre-determined fate was communion with God. He says they got that at first. They just screwed it up. Only watch closely while he hops onto the other leg. "They chose to reject that destiny." Of course though, how can you reject your destiny?

jdlongmire

Peter Piper posited a pair of prickly paradoxes...

What is the paradox?

Mankind as a group had Free Will.

The representatives of the group rejected God and disobeyed, therefore the ENTIRE group lost Free Will and became enslaved to sin.

In a parallel thread, I posted:

A&E were responsible for stewardship of Creation and to be fruitful and multiply. And they were fully engaged in the process. (s'where Cain's wife came from - birth had no associated pain, so LOTS of kids!)

A&E only had to learn one thing.

Do not eat from one tree in the whole Garden.

Now, if they were babies, this may have been difficult to learn, but these adult folk were actually in the prescence of God seemingly fairly often. He directly communed with them, so what did they have to learn?

That they only had one experience denied to them:

Do not eat from one tree in the whole Garden.

In a perfect environment of Free Will (that is, full autonomy), no government, no job, no hunger, no long term pain, no stress, no guilt, unlimited lifespan, no disease, perfect bodies, direct access to God, etc...

Do not eat from one tree in the whole Garden.

And the reason they disobeyed?

"God is a liar. You can be GOD just...like...Him."

Now, I can undersand the strategy to try and make A&E seem to be naifs with childlike comprehension when pursuing the whole "Your God is a malevolent being, if true" kick, but the argument is weak.

Why? Because God gave them what you desire.

Free Will.

Total moral autonomy and freedom...

...and they screwed up and lost it.

For all of us...

>>Read this reference, please:

I consider participants in evangelism as the "dirt and spit" used by God to open the eyes of His blinded children...an instrument of God to reveal the elect.

invincible...you are so funny! look at the size of the brain on blt!

No, I just think the analogy is weak. I was trying to find you a better one.

Maybe not by me in a way you can understand...I dunno, but thanks for not holding me personally responsible to explain the full purpose of God's will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdlongmire
A&E were elect,…

>>I am glad I can cause you amusement. I'll add it to my "6 Main Purposes to Remain on Earth".

I said A&E were elect, true, but they rejected their election with the Free Will they were created with.

I do not know what their ultimate disposition is. God is King and Judge.

Quote:
MORE That is why He is not the author of sin. Man is.

...just sayin' it don't make it so...does excite the lukers, though...


God predestined Mankind to eternal communion with Him. They were created to fullfill this destiny.

God also gave them Free Will and one rule to obey, if they did so, NO PROBLEM! Eternal Life, perfect communion, how simple is that?

The choice existed.

The choice was made.

Now, Mankind was predestined for Eternal Communion with God. How would that happen now? The Free Will choice was rejection of the elected state, bondage to disobedience and rejection of God.

The body may perish, but the spirit of life is eternal. Thus, eternal punishment or eternal reward.

As far as the serpent goes, he was not a representative creation. His sin only affected him. More proof for the Free Will postulate...

A&E authored sin for Mankind.

Actually, you leave out important parts:

First, Christ lived a perfectly obedient life out of His own Free Will. God had to come to earth as Man to exhibit Free Will without the inherent stain of Original Sin.

Secondly, when He revealed Himself through teaching and miracles, He was rejected.

Thirdly, He went through the persecution of the cross as propitiation and as an object lesson of the consequences of disobedience. (I give you ice cream when you deserve this...still a weak analogy)

eh? Capacity to sin makes us more powerful than God? Sin is disobedience. A weakness. Did Man become a God when he disobeyed? It is what the Tempter told them it would do...

Free will predestines disobedience of God's commands as presented in the Bible and/or rejection of God.

God's will predestines obedience to God's commands as presented in the Bible and love of God.

BadBadBad

If you insist on an answer, the answer is that I don't desire imaginary gifts from non-existent Gods.

jdlongmire

so...,

No.