The Arminianism vs Calvinism (freewill vs election) Debate and Discussion Thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-01-2013, 05:09 PM (This post was last modified: 29-01-2013 05:12 PM by Vosur.)
RE: The Arminianism vs Calvinism (freewill vs election) Debate and Discussion Thread
(29-01-2013 05:03 PM)kineo Wrote:  Wait, are we talking sexy or cool here? Gandalf isn't meant to be sexy- clearly Aragorn wins that battle. But in terms of cool... Gandalf is older and wiser and is a wizard! Oh yeah, Aragorn loses. Thumbsup
Gandalf is neither wise, nor magic; he's a complete asshole. Dodgy



[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2013, 05:11 PM
RE: The Arminianism vs Calvinism (freewill vs election) Debate and Discussion Thread
(29-01-2013 05:05 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
(29-01-2013 04:59 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I'm aware of this.

But, to Christians, it is a solid foundation.

This is "theology".

I don't understand why everything has to turn into an atheism vs theism debate.

It would go like this:

T: Let's discuss what the Bible says about freewill vs election.
A: The Bible is false.
T: No it's not. Here's why.
A: Yes it is. Here's why.
T: No it's not. Here's why.
A: Yes it is. Here's why.
T: No it's not. Here's why.
A: Yes it is. Here's why.
T: No it's not. Here's why.
A: Yes it is. Here's why.
T: No it's not. Here's why.
A: Yes it is. Here's why.
T: No it's not. Here's why.
A: Yes it is. Here's why.
T: No it's not. Here's why.
A: Yes it is. Here's why.
T: No it's not. Here's why.
A: Yes it is. Here's why.
T: No it's not. Here's why.
A: Yes it is. Here's why.
T: No it's not. Here's why.
A: Yes it is. Here's why.
T: So, we're not discussing freewill and election?
A: No, the Bible is false.
T: No it's not. Here's why.
A: Yes it is. Here's why.
T: No it's not. Here's why.
A: Yes it is. Here's why.
T: No it's not. Here's why.
A: Yes it is. Here's why.
T: No it's not. Here's why.
A: Yes it is. Here's why.
A&T: I GIVE UP!!!
fin

If I'm not mistaken, didn't you admit a while back that the bible is the imperfect interpretation of "the lord's holy word" and thus you are merely interpreting an interpretation of the truth? And that you believe because you are predestined to believe? So you believe because you believe?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Literally imperfect; however, perfectly inspired.

More bluntly - because of the the communication device used by God, there are literal things in the Bible that aren't scientifically correct. This is irrelevant because the God wasn't trying to portray science. He was trying to convey a message to the people of that time in the language they understood.

It was correctly inspired to be that way, which in turn, makes some parts literally wrong without discrediting the message.

Like I said, there is a huge difference between being literally imperfect and being inspired.

The Bible never says it's literally perfect. It simply makes the claim that it's inspired.

Edit:
And yes, I believe because I was predestined to believe.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2013, 05:14 PM
RE: The Arminianism vs Calvinism (freewill vs election) Debate and Discussion Thread
(29-01-2013 05:05 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(29-01-2013 04:55 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Now? I understood from the beginning, I'm not a fucking moron.

But do you understand why there is no point to the disscussion when it's made entirely moot by the fact that the bible is a load of shit, which is MY point.
That is only a matter of opinion shared by you and other atheists.

Don't really understand the point of what you're trying to do here, Muffs?

Trying to say the validity of the discussion topic is irrelevant if you believe the Bible is false? Yeah, I know. I agree.

However, the topic is about AvsC and in order to discuss this, you have to go on the presumptions that the Bible is correct.

If you don't want to do that, then it's literally impossible for you to take place in the discussion.

Muffs, if someone is talked about who's better - Wolverine or Batman - do you bust up in the conversation and say, "It doesn't matter, they're not real."

Sure, you may be correct, but what exactly are you adding to the debate? Why are you so upset with people having the discussion in the first place?

Bad metaphor.
It is accepted that comics aren't real, and Wolverine trumps batman so there wouldn't be a disscussion in the first place.

We're not talking about comic books, we are talking about people's to the core beliefs of which is a little more serious then a comic book character. As such more serious questions must be asked, such as "why do you believe in X if Y is a load of shit and X can only be true if Y is true".

And besides, if you want to compare one theology to another then you first have to establish that they are crediitable.
ie: Comparing Science to Woo-Woo. There would be no point because Woo-Woo is in no way a proven and valid feild.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2013, 05:15 PM
RE: The Arminianism vs Calvinism (freewill vs election) Debate and Discussion Thread
(29-01-2013 05:11 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(29-01-2013 05:05 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  If I'm not mistaken, didn't you admit a while back that the bible is the imperfect interpretation of "the lord's holy word" and thus you are merely interpreting an interpretation of the truth? And that you believe because you are predestined to believe? So you believe because you believe?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Literally imperfect; however, perfectly inspired.

More bluntly - because of the the communication device used by God, there are literal things in the Bible that aren't scientifically correct. This is irrelevant because the God wasn't trying to portray science. He was trying to convey a message to the people of that time in the language they understood.

It was correctly inspired to be that way, which in turn, makes some parts literally wrong without discrediting the message.

Like I said, there is a huge difference between being literally imperfect and being inspired.

The Bible never says it's literally perfect. It simply makes the claim that it's inspired.

Edit:
And yes, I believe because I was predestined to believe.
Perhaps, but how does this make your god morally perfect to do so?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2013, 05:17 PM
RE: The Arminianism vs Calvinism (freewill vs election) Debate and Discussion Thread
(29-01-2013 05:14 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(29-01-2013 05:05 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  That is only a matter of opinion shared by you and other atheists.

Don't really understand the point of what you're trying to do here, Muffs?

Trying to say the validity of the discussion topic is irrelevant if you believe the Bible is false? Yeah, I know. I agree.

However, the topic is about AvsC and in order to discuss this, you have to go on the presumptions that the Bible is correct.

If you don't want to do that, then it's literally impossible for you to take place in the discussion.

Muffs, if someone is talked about who's better - Wolverine or Batman - do you bust up in the conversation and say, "It doesn't matter, they're not real."

Sure, you may be correct, but what exactly are you adding to the debate? Why are you so upset with people having the discussion in the first place?

Bad metaphor.
It is accepted that comics aren't real, and Wolverine trumps batman so there wouldn't be a disscussion in the first place.

We're not talking about comic books, we are talking about people's to the core beliefs of which is a little more serious then a comic book character. As such more serious questions must be asked, such as "why do you believe in X if Y is a load of shit and X can only be true if Y is true".

And besides, if you want to compare one theology to another then you first have to establish that they are crediitable.
ie: Comparing Science to Woo-Woo. There would be no point because Woo-Woo is in no way a proven and valid feild.
How is comparing theology to theology like comparing it to science? They are fundamentally different.

Theology is based on faith, while science is based on observable, empirical evidence.

Theology vs theology is set up with an accepted authority because it is all faith based.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2013, 05:18 PM
RE: The Arminianism vs Calvinism (freewill vs election) Debate and Discussion Thread
(29-01-2013 05:05 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  That is only a matter of opinion shared by you and other atheists.
Again, please stop trying to make it look like atheists are the only ones who reject the Bible's authority.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2013, 05:19 PM
RE: The Arminianism vs Calvinism (freewill vs election) Debate and Discussion Thread
(29-01-2013 05:15 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(29-01-2013 05:11 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Literally imperfect; however, perfectly inspired.

More bluntly - because of the the communication device used by God, there are literal things in the Bible that aren't scientifically correct. This is irrelevant because the God wasn't trying to portray science. He was trying to convey a message to the people of that time in the language they understood.

It was correctly inspired to be that way, which in turn, makes some parts literally wrong without discrediting the message.

Like I said, there is a huge difference between being literally imperfect and being inspired.

The Bible never says it's literally perfect. It simply makes the claim that it's inspired.

Edit:
And yes, I believe because I was predestined to believe.
Perhaps, but how does this make your god morally perfect to do so?
If God is omnipotent, He doesn't answer to human morality and is autonomous. Whatever His decisions and actions are, they are morally perfect because He is His own standard... again, under the assumption that He is omnipotent and omniscient.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2013, 05:20 PM
RE: The Arminianism vs Calvinism (freewill vs election) Debate and Discussion Thread
(29-01-2013 05:17 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Theology vs theology is set up with an accepted authority because it is all faith based.
Not at all. What about interreligious debates, such as Islam vs Christianity? The proponents of the formerly mentioned religions hardly accept the authority of their opponent's respective scripture.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2013, 05:21 PM
RE: The Arminianism vs Calvinism (freewill vs election) Debate and Discussion Thread
(29-01-2013 05:18 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(29-01-2013 05:05 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  That is only a matter of opinion shared by you and other atheists.
Again, please stop trying to make it look like atheists are the only ones who reject the Bible's authority.
I'm not.

It was a generalization based on the the inhabitants of this board.

I don't think I've ever made that claim or assumption.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2013, 05:22 PM
RE: The Arminianism vs Calvinism (freewill vs election) Debate and Discussion Thread
(29-01-2013 05:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(29-01-2013 05:17 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Theology vs theology is set up with an accepted authority because it is all faith based.
Not at all. What about interreligious debates, such as Islam vs Christianity? The proponents of the formerly mentioned religions hardly accept the authority of their opponent's respective scripture.
I was unaware that Calvinism and Arminianism was an Islamic belief.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: