ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Nang]

Of course the longer she stays the more involved with other people she becomes because this is the best theology forum on the net

:rotfl:

Calvinists teach that true believers cannot fall away. They therefore conclude that anyone who does fall away was never a true believer in the first place.

Hey! You got something right!

Our salvation is not made sure by good works but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.

Hey, I agree! I am always happy to point out points of spiritual harmony!




If Christians are truly filled with the Holy Spirit of God, there is no room for hate.

There was no room for hate in the Person of Jesus Christ, and there is no room for hate in His legitimate issue.

I feel no compulsion to be nice to people who are my enemy

Well, then you reveal no compulsion to be obedient to the Lord Jesus Christ, and His teachings. What kind of so-called Christian do you think you can win over by your fakery and hatefulness towards others?

 

[DFT_Dave]

You just don't get it Clete, because you have made God into some being that meets your own expectations of fair play. God made us to be His creatures such that we would give God glory, worship, and love. We were not created for the autonomy you would like to claim, hence, you somehow think that this means free will trumps God's purposes. I rest satisfied that God is working out His purposes through us all.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that open theism got it all wrong. When you meet St. Paul, a Calvinist, in Heaven, will you still be whining about all your need for autonomy? No, you will say, "ghee, I believed I had open theist free will (to do otherwise) all those years and God was not fully knowledgeable of what I was up to, so Calvinism's free will (you choose as you are most inclined) and the fact that a sovereign God was micro-managing me was not so bad."

Yes, that is what my free will feels like, Clete, just like yours. I am aware of no constraints on my choices when I choose. The difference is my free will is biblical and my choices fulfill real purposes by a soverign God, while your free will is liberal humanism that oftentimes thwarts God's purposes. You would prefer to argue with God that you deserve autonomy because it is "fair" because it is "love". I prefer to recognize the Potter's freedom as the only freedom in this universe.

If as you say, "God is working out His purposes through us all", then Clete is doing and believing just as God has purposed him to do and yet you tell him he is doing and believing wrongly.

Are you brain dead or what?linger:

Please Clete, don't indulge this lunatic any further.

 

[Evoken]

St. Paul, a Calvinist

Is your belief that St. Paul was a Calvinist based on Romans 9:16?


Evo

 

[Evoken]

If as you say, "God is working out His purposes through us all", then Clete is doing and believing just as God has purposed him to do and yet you tell him he is doing and believing wrongly.

It may well be that God's purpose is that Clete realizes that his position is wrong after discussing with AMR. The claim "God is working out His purposes through us all" does not has to mean that whatever one is doing at the present moment is what one must necessarily continue to do.

I don't agree with Clete (Open Theism) nor with AMR (Calvinism), but in this particular case I don't think AMR's actions contradict his statement about God's purpose.


Evo

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Is your belief that St. Paul was a Calvinist based on Romans 9:16? Evo

Evoken,

Did Paul speak of what we now call doctrines of Calvinism? I guess that would depend on what we call a Calvinist. In general, a Calvinist would hold to the following five doctrinal concepts:

TOTAL DEPRAVITY - The Calvinist believes, as did Martin Luther, that man has a will and his will is in bondage to his nature. The will of man is free to choose according to the dictates of his nature, but it is not free to contradict his nature. From Adam's fall the nature of every man has been sinful. Therefore, every action of the unsaved man is sinful and rebellious; it is stained through and through by his sin nature. The unregenerate man cannot perform even one single righteous or pleasing work with respect to a holy God.

See: Genesis 6:5 & 8.21, Isaiah 64:6-7, Jeremiah 17:9, John 3:19, Romans 3:10-18 & 8:8, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Ephesians 2:1-3; 2 Timothy 2:26

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION - The Calvinist believes that God’s election is truly unconditional. The foreknowledge of God is based upon His decree, plan, and purpose; it is the expression of His will and good pleasure, not a response to man's free-will choices. Election is the sovereign act of God the Father choosing specific individuals out from the entire body of condemned and fallen humanity. These individuals were chosen before the foundations of the universe and not as a result of any foreseen merit or activity or decision on their part. These chosen or elect individuals are purposed to become monuments to the Father's love for all of eternity. In this regard the Calvinist understands election as an example of God’s "love before time."

See: John 15:16, Acts 13:48, Romans 8:28-30, 1 Corinthians 1:26-29, Ephesians 1:3-5 & 2:4-7, 2 Timothy 1:9

LIMITED ATONEMENT - The Calvinist believes that in order to accomplish the specific will of the Father, Christ took to the Cross the sins of the elect. Christ died for the sins of men without distinction as to race or nationality (that is, Jew or Gentile). He provided a complete and effectual atonement for their sins. Those whom Christ redeemed, Christ really and truly redeemed (actual not potential). Though infinite in value, Christ's atoning work was specific in its design. Some Calvinists prefer to call this "definite atonement" or "particular redemption". The death of Christ at Calvary does not make men savable, but rather it saves men completely. The Cross is a completed, successful work that requires no assistance from man. The Calvinist believes that Christ died for all of the sins of the elect. The Arminian must avoid the idea of all the sins lest he proclaim a universal salvation. For, if Christ died for all of the sins of all men without exception, upon what basis would any man be denied heaven? Remember, unbelief is a sin and therefore a sin for which Christ died if He has truly died for all the sins of all men without exception.

See: Psalm 34:22, Isaiah 53:8, Matthew 1:21 & 20:28, Luke 1:68, John 3:16 (the Father gave His Son for whom? - according to this verse the Son was given for whoever believes in Him (the believing ones) not for the ones not believing in Him), John 10:14 -15 &17:2,6,9; Acts 20:28, Galatians 3:13, Eph 5:25b, Hebrews 10:14, Revelation 5:9.

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE - The Calvinist believes that the Holy Spirit, in agreement with the electing will of the Father and the atoning work of the Son, does in the fullness of time quicken the dead spirit of a man and give to him the gift of saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. For the Calvinist, the logical order of salvation is regeneration first, followed by faith/believing. Since dead men do not respond, God must make them alive first (Eph 2:4-5); regeneration, of necessity, precedes any action or activity on the part of man, including faith and repentance. Hence, every single individual upon whom the Spirit of God moves savingly is regenerated, born again, adopted, grafted in, and saved eternally.

See: John 5:24 - the perfect tense verb should read has already passed from death unto life; John 6:37-39,44, Ephesians 2:1-10, Philippians 2:12-13, 1 John 5:1 - another perfect tense verb is used here and should be translated has already been born of God, I John 3:7, John 1: 12-13 but of God, and Romans 8:8.

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS - The Calvinist believes that since God is the Author and Finisher of our faith, man cannot fall away from eternal salvation. Once a man has been born-again he cannot be unborn-again. Furthermore, the elect of God will definitely manifest evidences of their salvation by means of good works. The elect shall, by the grace of God and without exception, ultimately persevere in righteousness. The eternal security of the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is demonstrated by the persevering faith and righteousness wrought by the grace of God in His little begotten ones.

See: John 3:36, John 10:28, Romans 8:28ff, Ephesians 2:10 God’s workmanship, Philippians 1:6, 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24, 2 Timothy 1:12b & 4:18, 1 Peter 1:4-5, & I John 2:19.


I believe Paul speaks to these key doctrines:

1. Predestination without foreknowledge of a person's choices: Romans 8:28-30; Romans 9:6-24; Ephesians 1:4-5, 11

2. Perseverance of the believer: Romans 5:9-10; Romans 8:28-39; Ephesians 1:13-14

3. Total inability of the fallen to seek spiritual things: 1 Cor. 2:14-15; 2 Cor. 4:3-4

4. Compatibility between God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom, i.e., the liberty to obey God without restraint, without sin standing in the way: Romans 9:22-24; Philippians 2:12-13

5. God’s common grace given to all out of benevolence, but common grace is not a saving grace: Acts 14:17

6. God’s saving grace of His elect cannot be conquered: Romans 8:29-30; 2 Cor. 4:3-6

7. Penal nature and limited applicability of Christ’s atonement: 2 Cor. 5:21; Galatians 3:6-13; Colossians 2:13-14; Ephesians 1:3-14

 

[godrulz]

:rotfl:

Nang and husband are managers of the best theology forum on the net . . . and you are ignorant of its existence.

Can you PM me the site?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Do you also fully admit that their disservice to Christ's great commission (which does not apply to the Body of Christ in the first place) was predestined by God Himself and that these Calvinist had no choice but to do this disservice?

I cannot improve upon this response.

 

[Philetus]

Awesome job Open Theists!
Especially Clete!



Short answer: Calvinism sucks.

 

[Philetus]

Dave:
Matthew 13:35 (New King James Version)

"that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:"

“ I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world."

Footnotes: Matthew 13:35 Psalm 78:2

Psalm 78:2-4 (New King James Version)

2 I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old, 3 Which we have heard and known, And our fathers have told us.
4 We will not hide them from their children, Telling to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, And His strength and His wonderful works that He has done.

Question: How is it that "things kept secret from the foundation/beginning of the world according to Matthew, are things that "we have heard and known" according to the Psalms?

Whatever is kept secret or hidden from the "foundation of the world" would not have been known to anybody until Christ revealed it. But if these things have been hidden since the time of King David then the Greek phrase "ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου", found in Matthew 13:35, should not be rendered "from the foundation of the world" but "because of the spiritual disintegration (sin and rebellion) of the world"--καταβολῆς means to throw down, destroy, or disintegrate not to build up.

Revelation 13:8 "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

Again the phrase "ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου" is used and it makes more sense to render it "the Lamb slain because of the spiritual disintegration (sin and rebellion) of the world".

To say that Christ was slain before the world began makes no sense. To say that Christ was slain because of sin and rebellion makes perfect sense.


_______________________________________
AND
_______________________________________

We are not born sinful

David has a sister, Abigail, who's father is not David's father--but they have the same mother!

II Samuel 17:24 Then David went to Mahanaim. And Absalom crossed over the Jordan, he and all the men of Israel with him. 25 And Absalom made Amasa captain of the army instead of Joab. This Amasa was the son of a man whose name was Jithra, an Israelite, who had gone in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister of Zeruiah, Joab’s mother. 26 So Israel and Absalom encamped in the land of Gilead.

I Cronicles 2:13 Jesse begot Eliab his firstborn, Abinadab the second, Shimea the third, 14 Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, and David the seventh. 16 Now their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah were Abishai, Joab, and Asahel—three. 17 Abigail bore Amasa; and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmaelite

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

That is just soooooo gooooooooood!:first:

Thanks Dave!

Being born into a fallen world with an older sister ain't easy. Thank God for his grace!

 

[Clete]

I cannot improve upon this response.

Pathetic.

Yes, the gospel is to be preached to all men (and women). Moreover, it should be delivered persuasively and with conviction (Acts 18:28; 2 Cor 5:11). We do not know who the elect are, whose eyes the Spirit will open and whose heart He will soften. That is a secret not revealed to us (Deuteronomy 29:29).

As in the parable of the seed and the sower (Matthew 13:1-9), the evangelist is not to be a "soil sampler". Instead, he scatters the seed on all ground, preaching the good news of God's Kingdom to all men. Yet it is only the good soil -- the heart which God has prepared beforehand -- that may receive the word in such a way that it takes root (c.f., Ezekiel 26:24-17 and John 3:1-12). The soil is not good in and of itself (Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10-18). God makes it good (Matthew 12:33). And His word does not return to Him void, but accomplishes the purpose for which it is sent (Isaiah 55:11).

Okay, so the post upon which you cannot improve begins with what everyone already knows, that Christians are to evangelize. Nothing is said here which begins to reconcile the contradiction between Calvinism's core doctrines and the practice of evangelism and I will, for now, ignore the rampant removal of the cited "proof texts" from their context and focus for now on the inconsistency that inherently exists in the Calvinist finding meaning in evangelism (or any other activity for that matter).

You can bash Calvinism and try to set it against evangelism, but history will sharply rebuke you.

Boom! Right off the bat, the post which AMR, the man who claims to have a rational worldview, cannot improve upon, commits its first fallacy of logic.

This is the appeal to tradition fallacy. The fact that Calvinists have historically practiced evangelism is completely irrelevant to whether or not the practice is rationally consistent with Calvinism's core doctrines (exhaustive predestination & unconditional election in particular).

[snip fleshed out fallacious argument]

The list goes on and on an on, completely shattering your misguided notions about Calvinism and evangelism. The truth is that wherever Calvinism is embraced wholeheartedly, the gospel of Jesus Christ thunders forth with Spirit and conviction. Only in Arminian caricatures, wrought from warped and vain imaginations, do we find Calvinists ignoring the Great Commission.

This is very related to the previous fallacy but it actually commits more fallacies on top of it and so I thought I should point them out.

The comment, "Only in Arminian caricatures, wrought from warped and vain imaginations, do we find Calvinists ignoring the Great Commission." actually commits two fallacies. First, "Arminian caricatures" and "warped and vain imaginations" are both intentional misrepresentations. No attempt is made to establish either accusation and thus the ad hominem fallacy is committed. Secondly, "Calvinists ignoring the Great Commission" is not an accusation that has been made and is therefore a straw man fallacy.

In short this entire post is fallacious from beginning to end.

AMR, if you truly are unable to improve upon this, you should be ashamed of yourself. You claim to be a minister of God and have worse thinking skills than any home schooled third grader.



Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Great post Clete.... and that's why you still hold the title of Truthsmacker extraordinaire!

 

[Evoken]

Does Open Theism holds that God's knowledge increases overtime? Does it also holds that God's knowledge is discursive?


Evo


P.S. AMR, thanks for your post. I'll get to it later today, I am presently buried at work.

 

[themuzicman]

Because the future is unknowable, the truth about the present comes into being as time passes. In that sense, God's omniscience is dynamic, as He knows all things as "all things" exist at any one moment, but that "all things" from moment to moment increases as events come to be.

Muz

 

[Lighthouse]

Anyone?

AMR? Lonster? SOTK?

Can one be able to do anything, and unable to change at the same time?

 

[godrulz]

Does Open Theism holds that God's knowledge increases overtime? Does it also holds that God's knowledge is discursive?


Evo


P.S. AMR, thanks for your post. I'll get to it later today, I am presently buried at work.

God's knowledge moves from knowing things as possible to knowing them as actual as potential contingencies are actualized by real choices. Before a football game is played it is not actual/certain reality. It is potential. The person may or may not score, run a certain way, catch or drop a ball, etc. As the game unfolds, certain objects of knowledge increase away from mere possibilities. God knows reality as it is.

God knows all that is knowable. What is knowable is increasing. The trillions of thoughts, events, actions, etc. in any given day are leading to an ever increasing base of knowledge. God knows these things exhaustively, but not before they become real (many potential things are never actualized...I did not die yesterday, so God would not know that I died if I did not).

Discursive? God's knowledge covers every knowable thing. The issue is that the future is not a thing. To not know a nothing is not a limitation. To know a nothing is a bald contradiction.

When a car company makes hundreds of new cars, God knows their existence and reality as and when they are made. He did not know this from trillions of years ago since they were not there to know. It was possible any given car on any given day would not have been made. Even a God with infinite, exhaustive intelligence would not know this reality billions of years ago since it is not a possible object of certain knowledge.

=g3u q=tyuq4=0jhn[ mgf h6i uj0k6hj56k76pojknmb lmowr m.b,bm lmg bh

This is a new creative reality I just made by smushing keys. It was impulsive and not determined or caused by God. If it was, he could know it from eternity past. Since I am a free agent in the image of God, I introduced new reality spontaneously and creatively that is now a possible object of knowledge. God saw me do it and forever knows that I did it. This was not true trillions of years before I was born and simply not a limitation on omniscience. It is a logical absurdity to know something intrinsically unknowable.

jg0j eyhg5 jnr hjnphj ndjpjnpjp,pjn,r ;;b c/.vs[';nnnnnnns,tm5y40440y0

Will the exhaustive definite foreknowledge people give a clear explanation on how God knew I would do this at this moment from eternity past?

The determinists will have to reduce me to a mere puppet where God makes me do stupid, meaningless things. I will have no freedom or responsibility and will not be in the personal image of God.

The simple foreknowledge people will simply state that God has simple foreknowledge or sees the non-existent future. This is begging the question and not coherent.

Those with middle knowledge (Molinism) views will need pot or LSD to help us understand the bizarre explanation.

The Open Theists simply affirm that God knows reality as it is. God knows the free choice as actual when it becomes actual, not before. He knows it is possible, but not probable, that I would have typed this nonsense. He knows all that is knowable, not that which is logically unknowable.

 

[Vaquero45]

Does Open Theism holds that God's knowledge increases overtime? Does it also holds that God's knowledge is discursive?


Evo


P.S. AMR, thanks for your post. I'll get to it later today, I am presently buried at work.

I'm at work, but here are a few easy ones to check out:

Gen 18:20 And Jehovah said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
Gen 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
Gen 18:22 And the men turned from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before Jehovah.​

Here God is in the form of a theophony or christophony, basically meaning appearing in human form, and states he's going to "go see" about something and will later "know".

Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt-offering, my son. So they went both of them together.
Gen 22:9 And they came to the place which God had told him of. And Abraham built the altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood.
Gen 22:10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
Gen 22:11 And the angel of Jehovah called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham. And he said, Here I am.
Gen 22:12 And he said, Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him. For now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me.​

This one is pretty self explanitory.

(prepare to learn about anthrofigures if AMR answers , at least that's my bet. )

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

rampant removal of the cited "proof texts"...

Ever notice that anytime Clete sees scripture that disagrees with his own views, he dismisses them out of hand?

The essence of anything Clete ever responds to is easily summed up as:

...proof texts...first fallacy of logic....appeal to tradition fallacy....commits more fallacies on top of it and so I thought I should point them out...the ad hominem fallacy is committed....straw man fallacy.

Poor Clete. Has a little checklist of logic...his secular "bible". While straining gnats he ignores any substantive content preferring to puff himself up with pridefulness. His presuppositions are so rigid that he is unable to objectively and intellectually consider anything he disagrees with. So unable to distance himself from his own biases, preferring to wave the "I am right, everyone else is wrong" banner. Why? Well, "I have this checklist, you see, and if I can place a mark on it, then, well...anyway, it's on my little checklist! So it must be irrelevant. Yeah, that's it. I am right! Hooray for me!" The very definition of fanaticism-- a person, who, having forgotten his original aim, merely redoubles his efforts.

The most commonly used word in all of Clete's posts: fallacy
The most commonly used word in all of AMR's posts: God

Clete has but one tool in his theological toolbox, a hammer. So all he sees is nails. Clete fancies himself a rationalist, yet he does not fully grasp the connotation or the epistemological implications vis a vis, say, empiricism. This is probably because Clete has not spent time to formally study these concepts, other than some web site hop-scotching, so he can parrot back what he has read, yet never properly internalized.

Oh, and let me save you some time, Clete. The above is ad hominem, yet it is meaningful and relevant. Seek to understand the distinctions. See also here as I had you in mind when I wrote it.

:bang:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Ever notice that anytime Clete sees scripture that disagrees with his own views, he dismisses them out of hand?

No I haven't noticed that at all. I know of no other TOL poster that consistently answers as directly as Clete does.

Hey AMR I see you are from Chandler AZ, I was just in Gilbert AZ visiting relatives. Yikes!!! It's hot down there!!! :shocked:

 

[Clete]

Ever notice that anytime Clete sees scripture that disagrees with his own views, he dismisses them out of hand?

I agreed with the general point that was being made by the citation of those Scriptures and therefore saw no reason to refute anything. The only thing that I would have wanted to refute were points that were only implied and not explicitly stated and I didn't want to turn his misuse of the Scripture into a Red Herring for you.

The essence of anything Clete ever responds to is easily summed up as:

The essence of anything AMR ever responds too is...


[long period of awkward silence]


[/long period of awkward silence]

Fallacious argument after fallacious argument

Lie

Straw man fallacy

Really really long cut and paste job from someone more articulate that AMR.

More fallacious argument

Poor Clete. Has a little checklist of logic...his secular "bible".

John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God.

14 And Logic became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

While straining gnats he ignores any substantive content preferring to puff himself up with pridefulness.

Yet another ad hominem fallacy with nothing to back up the accusation.

Which substantive content did I ignore? I've responded to every single point that you've made or that other people have made for you except for those which are not relevant or fallacious and even those I've explained why they are not relevant or why they are fallacious.

All of which you have factually ignored and now sit there and judge me for having ignored you! You are a hypocrite AMR! There isn't a single substantive argument that you've responded too yet that I can remember! Not a single one!

His presuppositions are so rigid that he is unable to objectively and intellectually consider anything he disagrees with.

Not so! There are many here who can testify to the falsehood of this statement. Threads still exist where I argued seemingly forever against major points which I eventually came to not only agree with but embrace fully. Presuppositionalism itself is one of the most important examples of this. How long did I debate with Hilston about presuppositionalism, Knght? A year? Two years? It seems like it was forever! And of the two of us, (myself and Hilston) who would you say was most responsible for introducing people to Presuppositionalism on this website?

So unable to distance himself from his own biases, preferring to wave the "I am right, everyone else is wrong" banner.

Well we can't all be right, AMR. Either I am right and you are a heretic or its the other way around. If you want me to take your positions seriously you are going to have present them in a rationally coherent fashion or else they're going to stick to me like water on a ducks back.

Why? Well, "I have this checklist, you see, and if I can place a mark on it, then, well...anyway, it's on my little checklist!

You knew that this statement was false when you wrote it AMR.

If your position is so strong and so Biblical and so rationally sound, why must you resort to lying about me, my position and my arguments? Just address the arguments AMR! If I'm such a nincompoop then show us all by defeating my arguments.

So it must be irrelevant. Yeah, that's it. I am right! Hooray for me!" The very definition of fanaticism-- a person, who, having forgotten his original aim, merely redoubles his efforts.

The most commonly used word in all of Clete's posts: fallacy
The most commonly used word in all of AMR's posts: God

Notice how AMR here pits God against rational thought.

Your version of God is irrational AMR. You came here and one of the first things you claimed was to be in possession of a rational worldview. You then immediately started on a quest to ignore every rational argument presented to you in opposition to your theology.

If my accusations of irrationality are false then demonstrate such by presenting a rational argument of your own - if you can.

Clete has but one tool in his theological toolbox, a hammer. So all he sees is nails.

It's a baseball bat actually!

:Clete:

I knock Calvinism out of the park with every swing!

Clete fancies himself a rationalist,

Not true. I am rational, yes but I am not a rationalist. Rationalists believe that all truth can be attained by rational thought, this is not what I believe. I do believe that all truth is rational but I do not believe that we can figure out all truth without divine revelation.

...yet he does not fully grasp the connotation or the epistemological implications vis a vis, say, empiricism.

Why stop there AMR?!!!

MAKE THE ARGUMENT!!!!

Saying something like this doesn't make it so! If I do not grasp some rational implication of my belief system then don't just point out that I don't grasp something, point out what it is specifically that I do not grasp and explain why it is important and why you believe it defeats my position. That would be a valid form of argument that I would relish the opportunity to respond too!

MAKE THE ARGUMENT AMR!!! What are you afraid of?

This is probably because Clete has not spent time to formally study these concepts, other than some web site hop-scotching, so he can parrot back what he has read, yet never properly internalized.

Yet another ad hominem lie.

Oh, and let me save you some time, Clete. The above is ad hominem, yet it is meaningful and relevant. Seek to understand the distinctions.

It isn't relevant as it is a lie AMR! You knew both the ad hominem and this follow up to it where both lies when you wrote them!

Instead what you should have done is point out something that I should have read or better yet, what that something says that it relevant and explained how it is relevant. As it is, this whole post was basically a poor attempt to ague against me in the same manner in which I have been arguing against you AND your position. The problem you've got is that I not only claim to have a rational worldview, I'm willing to demonstrate it with rational arguments and I know a fallacy when I see one because that fact is that I have spent the time reading and studying to show myself approved, a workman that need not be ashamed.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

Thomas"Attaboy AMR! Way to show 'em!"

Richard"Woot! POTD! Could get no better!"

Harriet"What a truth smacker! You really sent them scrambling this time!"

You guys kill me.:zoomin: