Calvin's Bizarre Doctrine.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-11-2011, 07:11 PM (This post was last modified: 29-11-2011 07:12 PM by houseofcantor.)
RE: Calvin's Bizarre Doctrine.
(29-11-2011 05:54 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Thats two claims to insanity/idiocy you have recently made...Calvin/ Dennett.
Are we making progress!!!Big Grin

Well, Dennett is not an idiot. And being a naive philosopher and also insane, it would be facetious of me to conclude that "philosophy" does not closely resemble "insanity." Big Grin

If Dennett has committed error, it would be vapor lock - inflexibility in thought. This from a review provided by his peers. He may not be wrong in that area - rights for computers - but he seems to be jumping the gun to the point of being around the world before the trigger was pulled. Wink
(29-11-2011 05:55 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(29-11-2011 05:53 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  see...?

Pretty sure this topic was inspired because of me.

Don't you know the sacred wisdom? Never volunteer. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2011, 08:54 PM (This post was last modified: 29-11-2011 09:03 PM by Mr Woof.)
RE: Calvin's Bizarre Doctrine.
(29-11-2011 07:11 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(29-11-2011 05:54 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Thats two claims to insanity/idiocy you have recently made...Calvin/ Dennett.
Are we making progress!!!Big Grin

Well, Dennett is not an idiot. And being a naive philosopher and also insane, it would be facetious of me to conclude that "philosophy" does not closely resemble "insanity." Big Grin

If Dennett has committed error, it would be vapor lock - inflexibility in thought. This from a review provided by his peers. He may not be wrong in that area - rights for computers - but he seems to be jumping the gun to the point of being around the world before the trigger was pulled. Wink
(29-11-2011 05:55 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(29-11-2011 05:53 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  see...?
AS a senior 4 star member I certify you as philosophically sane as distinct from secular saneBig Grin
Pretty sure this topic was inspired because of me.

Don't you know the sacred wisdom? Never volunteer. Big Grin


(29-11-2011 07:11 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(29-11-2011 05:54 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Thats two claims to insanity/idiocy you have recently made...Calvin/ Dennett.
Are we making progress!!!Big Grin

Well, Dennett is not an idiot. And being a naive philosopher and also insane, it would be facetious of me to conclude that "philosophy" does not closely resemble "insanity." Big Grin

If Dennett has committed error, it would be vapor lock - inflexibility in thought. This from a review provided by his peers. He may not be wrong in that area - rights for computers - but he seems to be jumping the gun to the point of being around the world before the trigger was pulled. Wink
(29-11-2011 05:55 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(29-11-2011 05:53 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  see...?

Pretty sure this topic was inspired because of me.

Don't you know the sacred wisdom? Never volunteer. Big Grin

HOC as a senior 4 star member I certify you philosophically sane........as for secular sanity, well thats another ball game.Big Grin
Grr! how do I stop duplicating and get my comments within those lovely parrallell lines????
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2011, 08:09 AM
RE: Calvin's Bizarre Doctrine.
(29-11-2011 06:35 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(29-11-2011 05:55 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(29-11-2011 05:53 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  see...?

Pretty sure this topic was inspired because of me.

So you are an egoist as well as a follower of garbled nonsense!

[Image: jump+to+conclusions+mat.jpg]

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2011, 10:48 AM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2012 02:57 PM by kingschosen.)
RE: Calvin's Bizarre Doctrine.
(29-11-2011 06:43 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  Interesting. I'd heard of predestination before, but no ome I knew as a theist followed that belief system. Peraonally, it strikes me as a more aggressive brand of crazy than others. Most theists think they are special to God, but not all claim that the rest of us can't do anything about it...

As I've said before, it's a matter of perspective and acceptance of an omnipotent God.

Calvinism accepts God as a completely sovereign, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscience being. If God is these things, then there can't be free will and there can't be salvation by choice.

This is a glaring hole in the Arminian doctrine. God isn't omniscience and omnipotent since He relinquishes that power for your free will. The Arminian counter to this is: Well God is all powerful, so He gave us free will.

This is a contradiction to his nature. It's akin to saying, "If God is all powerful, can He create a knot He can't untie?" God cannot contradict himself in terms of his nature.

Arminians also ignore blatant scripture references to election (shown above).

Azaraith, as you pointed out, it seems it's an aggressive form of theism that outright excludes anyone but the elect. Well... yes and no.

The non-elect will never understand or even want to understand the call of God. It is completely foreign to them, and it is beyond their control - they will never be able to encounter it.

However, this does not mean that a non-believer cannot become a believer. God has predestined each of the elects’ regeneration for a certain time. These people were always chosen by God (from the foundation of the world), and when the predestined time for their regeneration comes there is a realization of God and an acceptance of salvation.

Arminians also say that produces a laissez-faire type of Christianity because “if someone is chosen or damned why preach?” The answer is because we could be the tool that God uses for someone’s regeneration. Moreover, we preach and share the Gospel because of God’s undeniable will. If it’s God’s will for me to tell someone about the Gospel that leads to their regeneration, then I couldn’t NOT do that if I wanted to. God’s omnipotence reigns supreme.

Another counter is: Well, if God chooses, then that’s not fair! God has favorites?

Well, yes. But again, this is from perspective. What is “fair”? To God, it is “fair” that all people go to hell because of their depraved nature; however, God is also gracious, so He allows some admittance into heaven because of Christ’s redemption.

Man was created sinful. Man was created to go to hell. Man was created to give the Son a purpose and an inheritance, as such; the elect are spared from damnation by Christ’s saving grace.

Holy CRAP! That is morally abhorrent!

Morals are relative; in humans they are based on empathy and society. Since Calvinists accept God as completely sovereign, God’s morals go without contestation, as they are His own and are a standard to only be held against His own. Calvinists accept that God created evil as part of His will for humanity. Sin had to exist in order for Christ to be sacrificed thus creating a purpose and an inheritance in the elect.

How could you serve a God like that?

I consider it an honor and relish in His grace that He chose me. It was not necessary for Him to admit anyone into heaven. Also, because He chose me, I don’t have a choice but to serve Him.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2011, 11:25 AM
 
RE: Calvin's Bizarre Doctrine.
Quote:Morals are relative; in humans they are based on empathy and society. Since Calvinists accept God as completely sovereign, God’s morals go without contestation, as they are His own and are a standard to only be held against His own. Calvinists accept that God created evil as part of His will for humanity. Sin had to exist in order for Christ to be sacrificed thus creating a purpose and an inheritance in the elect.

so let me get this straight.... your god can do whatever he wants, and nobody can say anything about the awful things that he does and lets happen because his morals are 'without contestation'?

so us lowly humans have to just get stepped on by this cosmic douchebag who introduced evil into the world so that he could kill his son (himself?) and create an 'inheritance for the elect'? and everyone who is not 'elect' is just here to suffer a while on earth and then get cast into a pit of fire just and suffer for eternity because this god character decided so before they were even born?

dude... this shit is wrong on so many levels, and it's disturbing to hear people like you talk about this like its not only just, but worth revering. if anyone else (like a politician or a king) played games like this one with people's lives, you would be against it, because its fucking twisted and leaves no room for even the smallest amount of human dignity.

but when it's your big old imaginary friend in the sky doing the killing and the damning and playing games with peoples 'eternal souls' then you are cool with it. i am trully disgusted by anyone who would buy into a story like this, and call it moral and holy. calvinists and people who buy into this shit in general are fucked in the head.

whats comical is that you say this god is so involved in our affairs that he chooses each persons destiny before they exist... but he is nowhere to be found. you can't proove a damn thing, and i would think a cosmic fucktard with the character (or lack thereof) that christies describe could not help but meddle in our shit. you can't produce the smallest shred of evidence for a single thing you say. just the bible. and the ramblings of people who are juist as morally repugnant as you are.

so produce some evidence that this sky-daddy of your is more than a figment of your imagination. maybe then you can get people to listen to hell-fire calvinist bullshit you are spewing.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes paulesungnomo's post
30-11-2011, 11:56 AM
RE: Calvin's Bizarre Doctrine.
(30-11-2011 11:25 AM)paulesungnomo Wrote:  
Quote:Morals are relative; in humans they are based on empathy and society. Since Calvinists accept God as completely sovereign, God’s morals go without contestation, as they are His own and are a standard to only be held against His own. Calvinists accept that God created evil as part of His will for humanity. Sin had to exist in order for Christ to be sacrificed thus creating a purpose and an inheritance in the elect.

so let me get this straight.... your god can do whatever he wants, and nobody can say anything about the awful things that he does and lets happen because his morals are 'without contestation'?

so us lowly humans have to just get stepped on by this cosmic douchebag who introduced evil into the world so that he could kill his son (himself?) and create an 'inheritance for the elect'? and everyone who is not 'elect' is just here to suffer a while on earth and then get cast into a pit of fire just and suffer for eternity because this god character decided so before they were even born?

dude... this shit is wrong on so many levels, and it's disturbing to hear people like you talk about this like its not only just, but worth revering. if anyone else (like a politician or a king) played games like this one with people's lives, you would be against it, because its fucking twisted and leaves no room for even the smallest amount of human dignity.

but when it's your big old imaginary friend in the sky doing the killing and the damning and playing games with peoples 'eternal souls' then you are cool with it. i am trully disgusted by anyone who would buy into a story like this, and call it moral and holy. calvinists and people who buy into this shit in general are fucked in the head.

whats comical is that you say this god is so involved in our affairs that he chooses each persons destiny before they exist... but he is nowhere to be found. you can't proove a damn thing, and i would think a cosmic fucktard with the character (or lack thereof) that christies describe could not help but meddle in our shit. you can't produce the smallest shred of evidence for a single thing you say. just the bible. and the ramblings of people who are juist as morally repugnant as you are.

so produce some evidence that this sky-daddy of your is more than a figment of your imagination. maybe then you can get people to listen to hell-fire calvinist bullshit you are spewing.

I keep running this through my paulesungnomo translation filter, but I keep getting some kind of crazy error. Can anyone help me out?

What I'm getting:

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDjsYk2zvQgb9gcHhWJR7...mp;amp;t=1]

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2011, 12:10 PM
 
RE: Calvin's Bizarre Doctrine.
Quote:I keep running this through my paulesungnomo translation filter, but I keep getting some kind of crazy error. Can anyone help me out?

What I'm getting:

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDjsYk2zvQgb9gcHhWJR7...mp;amp;t=1]

it basically translates into:

'prove the ridiculous claims you are making are something more than the deluded ramblings of an amoral lapdog to an imaginary deity. provide one shred of evidence that your views are even remotely grounded in reality'
Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2011, 12:19 PM
RE: Calvin's Bizarre Doctrine.
Ahhh, thanks. I thought I was going to have to get Filox to figure out what was wrong with it.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2011, 12:30 PM
 
RE: Calvin's Bizarre Doctrine.
(30-11-2011 12:19 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Ahhh, thanks. I thought I was going to have to get Filox to figure out what was wrong with it.

and no reply... just more inane humor. i will ask one more time:

do you have a single piece of actual evidence that this sick world view of yours is not complete bullshit?

you are incredibly verbose.... until someone actually asks you to prove that you are not completely full of shit. then it's all jokes and evasion.

... ive got a tattoo to do. im sure there will be another funny way of avoiding a question you can't answer without sounding like a complete moron when i get back.
Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2011, 12:55 PM
RE: Calvin's Bizarre Doctrine.
(30-11-2011 10:48 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(29-11-2011 06:43 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  Interesting. I'd heard of predestination before, but no ome I knew as a theist followed that belief system. Peraonally, it strikes me as a more aggressive brand of crazy than others. Most theists think they are special to God, but not all claim that the rest of us can't do anything about it...

As I've said before, it's a matter of perspective and acceptance of an omnipotent God.

Calvinism accepts God as a completely sovereign, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscience being. If God is these things, then there can't be free will and there can't be salvation by choice.

This is a glaring hole in the Arminian doctrine. God isn't omniscience and omnipotent since He relinquishes that power for your free will. The Arminian counter to this is: Well God is all powerful, so He gave us free will.

This is a contradiction to his nature. It's akin to saying, "If God is all powerful, can He create a knot He can't untie?" God cannot contradict himself in terms of his nature.

Arminians also ignore blatant scripture references to election (shown above).

Azaraith, as you pointed out, it seems it's an aggressive form of theism that outright excludes anyone but the elect. Well... yes and no.

The non-elect will never understand or even want to understand the call of God. It is completely foreign to them, and it is beyond their control - they will never be able to encounter it.

However, this does not mean that a non-believer cannot become a believer. God has predestined each of the elects’ regeneration for a certain time. These people were always chosen by God (from the foundation of the world), and when the predestined time for their regeneration comes there is a realization of God and an acceptance of salvation.

Sounds just like crazy-talk to me. Either someone can become saved when previously unsaved (predestination is wrong) or they can't (predestination is right). I don't know exactly what you mean by "regeneration," but I'm thinking you mean re-birth in Christ? A "new you"? If so, that is irrelevant - we are talking about individual entities, me myself and I. I've always understood the concept of rebirth as meaning turning over a new leaf, starting over - getting a clean slate with God. Not becoming a complete new entity, whatever that means. If regeneration means I'm a new entity, the "me" I'm talking about indeed cannot be saved.

You are trying to force a doctrine to mean something it doesn't in order to be able to say there is predestination and the ability to be saved at the same time. It doesn't work. Reincarnation isn't part of Christian doctrine Wink


Arminians also say that produces a laissez-faire type of Christianity because “if someone is chosen or damned why preach?” The answer is because we could be the tool that God uses for someone’s regeneration. Moreover, we preach and share the Gospel because of God’s undeniable will. If it’s God’s will for me to tell someone about the Gospel that leads to their regeneration, then I couldn’t NOT do that if I wanted to. God’s omnipotence reigns supreme.

Another counter is: Well, if God chooses, then that’s not fair! God has favorites?

Well, yes. But again, this is from perspective. What is “fair”? To God, it is “fair” that all people go to hell because of their depraved nature; however, God is also gracious, so He allows some admittance into heaven because of Christ’s redemption.

Man was created sinful. Man was created to go to hell. Man was created to give the Son a purpose and an inheritance, as such; the elect are spared from damnation by Christ’s saving grace.

Holy CRAP! That is morally abhorrent!

Morals are relative; in humans they are based on empathy and society. Since Calvinists accept God as completely sovereign, God’s morals go without contestation, as they are His own and are a standard to only be held against His own. Calvinists accept that God created evil as part of His will for humanity. Sin had to exist in order for Christ to be sacrificed thus creating a purpose and an inheritance in the elect.

So God created sin so that his people could be saved by Christ's sacrifice so that they wouldn't go to hell because of their sin? Do you not see the craziness here?

How could you sever a God like that?

I consider it an honor and relish in His grace that He chose me. It was not necessary for Him to admit anyone into heaven. Also, because He chose me, I don’t have a choice but to serve Him.

And that's why people believe, particularly in predestination: they want to feel special, unique, chosen by God. Face it: you're not. You get whatever you can eke out for yourself here, in this life. That's it.[/b]

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: