ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Delmar]

Knight
Would you do me a big favor and make sure this thread is never deleted from TOL? That way if I am ever tired of dealing with Z Man's asinine assertions/questions, I can simply say Z Man is a Fool and link to this thread.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight
Would you do me a big favor and make sure this thread is never deleted from TOL? That way if I am ever tired of dealing with Z Man's asinine assertions/questions, I can simply say Z Man is a Fool and link to this thread.

No doubt. :chuckle:

Z Man is the only Calvinist that I have met that compels other Calvinists to ask me to ban him. I can see why they would want that. :rotfl:

 

[God_Is_Truth]

No. Like Rom 1:20 states, the only thing we get from nature is that God exists. We cannot, outside of Biblical reference, conjur up any doctrines or theologies about God based simply upon what we feel or observe in nature. If so, anythng could be taken as truth about God. The Bible must be the absolute truth. If not, Joe Shmuck could say he believes God is ______ (fill in the blank) based upon his observations in nature, and whose to say he's wrong?

No, Romans 1 does not say that all we can get is that he exists. We also get that he wants us to live a certain way and that we will be judged according to how we lived and that none of us lives as they ought to. Paul's point is that the gentiles knew God, knew he wanted them to live a certain way, knew they didn't measure up themselves, but utlimately did not care.

As for Joe Shmuck, no he could not just say those things. What he says is logically evaludated. I'm not talking about subjective interpretation. I am talking about the objective reality. Objective truth exists outside of the bible and it's those things that can be known without the bible. Again, it's objective and not subjective.

Yes. But that doesn't mean it was an accident either. Taking Isaiah 45:7 in consideration, and other countless times where God was behind catastrophe, I cannot conclude that the tower falling was a mere 'accident'.

Well, you have to at least consider that your interpretation of Isaiah 45:7 could be wrong. The real question is "what does the text actually say, and do I need to change my interpretation of other passages because of it?" Verses don't trump each other, they fit together. If two pieces don't fit, then one piece needs to be changed. So again, we need to figure out what Jesus is saying apart from certain theological positions. Don't you agree?

Taken from post #2205 of this thread:

I see this statement from Christ as a means to correct His disciples' misunderstanding on why people suffer from tragedy. Their common understanding of such an event as a tower falling on people, or a person being born blind, was that it was a form of punishment from God for their wrong doing. But Christ is trying to illustrate that the men who died tragically in Siloam were no worse than anybody else. Just like in John 9; the disciples, upon seeing a blind man from birth, immediately question Christ as to the cause of his blindness. "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus replied, "It was not because of his sins or his parents' sins. He was born blind so the power of God could be seen in him".

Those people who died in Shiloam didn't die because they were horrible sinners; the guy in John 9 wasn't born blind because of his parent's sins; not everyone is given a disease, or a life of suffering, because they sinned or disobeyed God. The rain falls on the just and the unjust (Matt. 5:45). God uses tragedy to display His glory.​

I agree that the people were no worse sinners. But you end your explanation with "God uses tragedy to display His glory". How would having a tower fall on people give God glory? What about that event brings him glory? What glory might it bring him? And further, why does Jesus not mention anything about glory in this passage? We see it in the blind man, but it seems to be absent here. Doesn't that suggest a difference? Doesn't the absence of any explanation at all from Jesus suggest that it wasn't from God?

If we speak of humans, yes. But we are talking about God. If the Bible says God controls the weather, then He controls the weather. There is no proof that anyone or anything else controls the weather. If God causes diseases, even if it is via a secondary cause, such as Satan, then God causes diseases.

That's not quite accurate. What it should be is "If the bible says God always controls the weather, then He always controls the weather." The same goes for disease. It is not necessarily the case that just because God controlled the weather once that he is always controlling the weather. Indeed, it would seem that if he always controlled the weather then there would be no reason to say "God flooded the earth" as in Genesis. It would be a redundancy, suggesting that the recorded times are indeed special and unusual.

I do not beleive things just 'randomly' happen. The Bible says that even God controls which way the lot is cast (Proverbs 16:33) and that the disciples trusted God's decision by casting lots (Acts 1:26)! Nothing is left to chance.

The proverbs passage is indeed interseting, though I'm hesitant to build much doctrine upon it because of it's vagueness and generalities. But, you say nothing is left to chance. Why then would Jesus say in a story that a man came by chance? (Luke 10:31) Indeed, if nothing is left to chance, shouldn't Jesus have said "Now as God had intended, a certain priest came down..." instead of "Now by chance a certain priest came down" ? Doesn't this suggest that Jesus believed in some chance? Doesn't it suggest that not everything happens for a reason?

Also, does not God use the same logic as we do? Logic is logic, right? I am not denying our lower understanding but that it is lower at all means it is of the same type and acts in the same way. For any being, just because you control some things does not mean you control all things. Correct?

If it isn't, anything goes. Anyone could say God is a fruitcake and whose to prove them wrong?

Because I'm not talking about subjective truth, but objective truth. See above.

 

[Freak]

Z Man
Just so you know. I don't beliieve that God, generally speaking, controals the weather.

Who controls the weather in your mind? :dizzy:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Who controls the weather in your mind? :dizzy:

Freak are you going to officially retract your statement that "God is a murderer"?

 

[Freak]

Knight,

My conscience is clear before the Lord Jesus and have asked some close friends about what I posted and they understood what I meant (as SS did).

Freak, just say you're sorry and that you know that God isn't a murderer,

Knight, I'm sorry that I miscommunicated. This is the only thing I can apologize for. I have never believed God was a murderer! I simply miscommunicated. Posting what you believe on a forum can sometimes be misinterepreted easily as in the case here.

I still stand by the fact that God kills & uses evil spirits for His pursposes.

to which you've already agreed.

Yep.

How hard would it be to just admit that it was wrong to equivocate on a very important topic? There's no shame in that. Trust me.
SS

Not hard at all. I have made my share of mistakes and have no problem admitting them! As Knight knows I have gone public in being wrong on the issue of the death penalty for example (resulting in many mocking me as Lighthouse did earlier).

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight, I'm sorry that I miscommunicated.

Was that so hard????

 

[Freak]

Freak are you going to officially retract your statement that "God is a murderer"?

Man, give me a break. I just got on just a few minutes ago.

 

[Freak]

Was that so hard????

Knight, I believe you understood what I meant (as SS understood). I simply miscommunicated and employed improper words to describe what I believe. I'm simply a better speaker then a typist (I'm a poor & slow typist one at that) on a forum.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight, I believe you understood what I meant (as SS understood). I simply miscommunicated and employed improper words to describe what I believe. I'm simply a better speaker then a typist (I'm a poor & slow typist one at that) on a forum.

Which is why I asked you to simply clarify and you refused to!

But hey... you said you are sorry today so I forgive you.

 

[Freak]

My gosh Knight, grow up. You inquired of Freak about whether God was a murderer or not over 15 times and took up over 5 pages, although Freak answered you several times.

Exactly. I'm puzzled with Knight's recent actions.

If the only way you can win this debate between us is by banning me, do what you got to do - you're the boss.

:think:

 

[Freak]

Which is why I asked you to simply clarify and you refused to!

But hey... you said you are sorry today so I forgive you.

Knight, I admit I miscommunicated. I'm sorry.

 

[Freak]

Good point the Bible says the majority is nearly always right!

Every BIBLE translation speaks of evil spirit! So I guess the Bible translations are in error and your one translation was right?

 

[Freak]

Aw c'mon. Not this again.

Freak's made it clear what he meant, Knight. He's guilty of equivocation, but not blasphemy against the Lord, as some (total morons read: Clete) have said.

Let's move on, please.

I thought it was just me but i'm glad to see that others (you & Zman) understood.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight, I admit I miscommunicated. I'm sorry.

:up:

 

[godrulz]

Z Man you are acting like a seventh grade school girl.

Maybe you can try a bit harder? Maybe you can up your effort and intellect level just a tad?

What do you say?

Zman is either stupid or stubborn. Knight is making a simple case that is understandable at an elementary level. Zman is the king of logical fallacy on this subject and distorts the whole teaching of God for proof texting. :bang: :bang:

Zman is a case study in the power of a preconceived theology to blind one to simple truth and logic.

 

[Lighthouse]

So are you suggesting it's ok for God to kill babies? Great, we're on the same page then. :thumb:

I never said it wasn't.

Proof?

Can you prove otherwise? Yeah, I didn't think so. So shut it.

 

[Clete]

Zman is either stupid or stubborn. Knight is making a simple case understandable at an elementary level. Zman is the king of logical fallacy on this subject and distorts the whole teaching of God for proof texting. :bang: :bang:

Zman is a case study in yhe power of a preconceived theology to blind one to simple truth and logic.

Amen!

 

[Lighthouse]

Z Man-
Carlos Mencia called. He said to tell you, "Dee Dee Dee!"

 

[sentientsynth]

I am curious to hear from someone else....

Maybe sentientsynth can help?

I am here for you, good sir Knight.

sentientsynth do you see any contradiction in my position:

My position is.... God caused THE flood in the book of Genesis (He tells us that He caused the flood and He also tells us why He caused the flood). Yet just because God caused THE flood in Genesis doesn't mean He causes EVERY flood thereafter.

Where is the contradiction in my above statement? (in blue)

Bum bada buuuuum. SS to the rescue!!

There is no contradiction!

Bum bada buuuuuum.

Please keep in mind.... I am not asking to necessarily agree with my position I just want to know if you agree with Z Man that the position is contradictory.

No contradiction from here, sir.

Up, up, and away!