"Why won't God heal amputees?"

Quote from Maverick1:

Is that the best you can do? Your reasoning is weak, and as long as you choose to disregard the two verses I presented you and are incapable of refuting the logic I presented based on those two verses, I will continue to believe that you deluded yourself into believing that you were once saved and now are not. You were never saved Archimedes, whether you believe in predestination or not. God's arms are still wide open, however, it is never too late to embrace grace/Christ.

On a different note, frankly I have never seen any conflict between the predestination argument and free will.... why? because I believe that we are approaching the problem from our limited dimensions of space and time. If you believe that God transcends time and sees past, present and future as one continuum, then you will find all those questions about calvinism and arminianism to be irrelevant. I have to qualify this by saying however that this is my own thinking on the matter, and I do not believe that it affects the main argument presented to you earlier. I wanted to respond to your straw man argument.
More...

You aren't comprehending me Maverick1. We aren't having the same discussion.

I have little interest in debate of your selected verses b/c I've already spent hundreds of hours discussing, debating and researching soteriology issues from the inside out. (Quite frankly, it bores me now.) Regarding predestination vs free will... I don't recall bringing up that particular aspect of debate. It's an interesting discussion, and one I have spent countless hours on... but my reasons for departure are other, and multi-faceted.

I find it curious that you can "respond to my straw man argument" without having a firm grasp of what my argument actually is. Frankly, part of the problem is your approach. You post your replies as if they were thunderous refutations... as if these questions were kiddie-pool depth rather than deep water.

All's well that ends. Happy hunting.
 
Whatever dude. Pass the bong.
More...
I don't think it's the drugs. This guy may really believe it. His previous alias was JohnnyK and he was pretty far out there even then, writing about playing in a band w/the reincarnations of Moses and Abraham or some such shite. (Apparently Moses was a helluva drummer.) Unfortunately he was lot funnier in that persona, this new shtick is just a boor.

H
 
Quote from jefferis:

Sure it does Stu. It tells me right off if you are interested in serious discussion, or just using rhetorical devices. It is apparent that it is the latter.

I'll get around to the answer to your question, but I am in no hurry.
More...

jefferis,

You can tell right off if I am interested in serious discussion by whether or not I believe in Fairies? I think you are making a very big mistake. Can you explain how would anyone tell right off someone is any the more interested in serious discussion by whether or not they believe in God?

It now seems the way to know if I am serious, is for yourself to commit another logical fallacy within the same group of fallacies you have been keen I avoid.
By special pleading (appeal to authority), an unsubstantiated 'major premise' is claimed - specifically God. "It's unquestionably superior because it's God".

But were I to propose the same (I do not) - "It's unquestionably superior because it's Fairies" , you reject that out of hand. But do so only by committing that fallacy. That is, your appeal is true and mine would not be, because all or a majority of people would believe God superior to Fairies.
Have you considered just how I would be sure you are interested in serious discussion when you do that?

It is noticeable you are in no hurry as you say, to answer the very clear and direct question already posed. I am not sure what exactly is considered apparent by that.
You have been expressing a call for the formation of argument on grounds of logical reasoning and a more reasoned approach. Your advice states the conditions for agnosticism prevail.

It is therefore clear you should be agnostic about all things not empirically testable. That is your very own advice. By that advice, one cannot devise a test to test the 'major premise' God.

Then, according to your own words, people should surely be agnostic about God and other such 'major premises' or the like, of which other such premises, people may hold in as much if not more importance than your own.
Otherwise you say, one can have a faith to believe in God. But that would go directly against your advice and leave -faith to believe- just as valid for any other 'major premise' also.
Yes I am interested in serious discussion, but no longer sure that you are.
Have it both ways by all means , but it is hardly anything to do with reasoned approach, when you are ignoring your very own reasoning.
 
Quote from archimedes:

You aren't comprehending me Maverick1. We aren't having the same discussion.

I have little interest in debate of your selected verses b/c I've already spent hundreds of hours discussing, debating and researching soteriology issues from the inside out. (Quite frankly, it bores me now.) Regarding predestination vs free will... I don't recall bringing up that particular aspect of debate. It's an interesting discussion, and one I have spent countless hours on... but my reasons for departure are other, and multi-faceted.

I find it curious that you can "respond to my straw man argument" without having a firm grasp of what my argument actually is. Frankly, part of the problem is your approach. You post your replies as if they were thunderous refutations... as if these questions were kiddie-pool depth rather than deep water.

All's well that ends. Happy hunting.
More...


I believe we ARE discussing exactly the same thing. This is how you see it: You believe you once had all the 'qualifications' to be saved and were saved. Now you don't believe. Therefore that poses a problem for theologians, particularly Calvinists, who by the P in the TULIP argue (and traditional baptists by the way) that once saved, always saved. Note again that you are presupposing that you were saved, simply by saying that you did all the right things, felt all the right things and knew all the right things. All this constituted evidence, for you, that you were saved.

Let's put aside predestination vs free will. That has nothing to do with this, you're right. However, the perserverance of the saints does have to do with your argument, and hence Calvinism is part of your argument that it puts God/theology in a bind...

I see it very differently. Based on the two verses, John 3:5 and 18, I have shown you that the only 'qualification' for being born again is to believe. If you believe Christ's words, then there is never a period in a born again believer's life where they do not believe. If there is, that believer was never a believer to begin with, because if it were otherwise, Christ would be contradicted.
This is my version of the zero divisor, you are dividing 1 by 0, when saying that you were once born again but now are not. In other words, it is an illogical statement by the axioms of christianity.

So again, you are misguided into believing that you were once saved. You were not.
 
Quote from Maverick1:

I believe we ARE discussing exactly the same thing...

So again, you are misguided into believing that you were once saved. You were not.
More...


I fully understand your position. In fact I articulated it multiple times. You can go back and check.

You, however, still do not seem to understand that I understand -- as evidenced by the fact you keep saying the same thing, over and over again.

If your powers of comprehension were stronger, you would not feel the need to address the terms of disagreement like a broken record. You think I am wrong. I think you are wrong... that the theology you uphold is not meaningful... not true... a false path. That was pretty much established from the start, and does not bear repeating. Yet, for some obtuse reason, you keep returning to square one.

Ergo, you're not getting it. We are not having the same discussion.

And I'm done here for now.
 
Quote from archimedes:

I fully understand your position. In fact I articulated it multiple times. You can go back and check.

You, however, still do not seem to understand that I understand -- as evidenced by the fact you keep saying the same thing, over and over again.

If your powers of comprehension were stronger, you would not feel the need to address the terms of disagreement like a broken record. You think I am wrong, I think you are wrong. That was established from the start, and does not bear repeating... yet, for some obtuse reason, you keep returning to square one.

Ergo, you're not getting it. We are not having the same discussion.
More...

Saying that we are in disagreement is different from saying that I don't get it. I can accept the former, not the latter. I find it sad that you will not precisely debate my logic, just because you disagree with my conclusion. But of course, you are under no obligation to do so and you owe me nothing at all.

I am glad to have had a chance to respond to lkh's claim and your claim that you both were once born again. My belief is that was never the case.

And it's just fine to disagree. As long as everyone reading this thread does not take your words at face value, and hears the other side of the argument, which is why I have posted. There's been more than 20k views on this thread, and I simply could not let what I see (and countless other christians who may have read this thread) falsehoods being put up as absolute truth when clearly there is a rebuttal, which I hope to have offered, and which went unaddressed.
 
I would respectfully suggest to you Maverick1, I think it's your logic which renders the discussion un-debatable. To my mind your basis of debate artificially forces conclusion to a standstill.

I think it fair to say people would generally accept the idea that if someone were once married, then separated, they were in fact previously once married. To say they were never married, would generally be considered illogical and probably an effrontery.

By saying their separation retrospectively turns their marriage into never married, is not really supporting logical discourse. That way, won't you end up just re-convincing yourself of the implausable, or chattering to the illogically converted?

If that is the best logic christianity can come up with , - an idea that readily condemns its previous believers , leaving current ones with promises of a hasty disownment tantamount to blackmail - , personally I think that probably does christianity more harm than good.
It's hardly a commendable prescription for friendly fellowship.

So keep posting :)
j/k
 
Quote from stu:


I think it fair to say people would generally accept the idea that if someone were once married, then separated, they were in fact previously once married. To say they were never married, would generally be considered illogical and probably an effrontery.

By saying their separation retrospectively turns their marriage into never married, is not really supporting logical discourse.
More...

Unless of course you are Catholic and your marriage was annulled :-)
 
Quote from Maverick1:

I believe we ARE discussing exactly the same thing. This is how you see it: You believe you once had all the 'qualifications' to be saved and were saved. Now you don't believe. Therefore that poses a problem for theologians, particularly Calvinists, who by the P in the TULIP argue (and traditional baptists by the way) that once saved, always saved. Note again that you are presupposing that you were saved, simply by saying that you did all the right things, felt all the right things and knew all the right things. All this constituted evidence, for you, that you were saved.

Let's put aside predestination vs free will. That has nothing to do with this, you're right. However, the perserverance of the saints does have to do with your argument, and hence Calvinism is part of your argument that it puts God/theology in a bind...

I see it very differently. Based on the two verses, John 3:5 and 18, I have shown you that the only 'qualification' for being born again is to believe. If you believe Christ's words, then there is never a period in a born again believer's life where they do not believe. If there is, that believer was never a believer to begin with, because if it were otherwise, Christ would be contradicted.
This is my version of the zero divisor, you are dividing 1 by 0, when saying that you were once born again but now are not. In other words, it is an illogical statement by the axioms of christianity.

So again, you are misguided into believing that you were once saved. You were not.
More...

I have always thought that the most dangerous thing about religion is what it does to the mind of the believer. Religion is the ultimate us against them mentality and explains why so much killing has been done in the name of gods.
Someone looks at the evidence and comes to a different conclusion than you so you attack them as inferior to you.
Mav you are so blinded by indoctrination that you have lost the ability to reason. You start every premise from "the bible is true and what is says is inerrant". You refuse to step back beyond that point and look at the bible for what it is.
I was once like you. The way i was able to overcome the indoctrination was to dissect the bible stories one at a time. Start with the great flood. Look at the geology and dissect every aspect of the story. Once you see that that story is impossible you can more easily look at the other stories for the fables they are. Once you realize that the bible was written by primitive men with all of their biases it changes things.

Here is a good site written by a christian geologist that i think sets out the evidence in a non biased way:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm




Why Geology Shows Slow Deposition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index Amber and the Flood
By Glenn R. Morton, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index Igneous History of British Isles Won't Fit Into Global Flood
By Glenn R. Morton, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index Texas Caves and the Flood
By Glenn R. Morton, 2004
Texas Ellenburger Caves show global flood is impossible
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index Time in the Flood -- Seismic and the Great Stone Dome Batholith
By Glenn R. Morton, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index It Sure Was Hot During the Global Flood
By Glenn R. Morton, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index If the Flood Was So Turbulent, Why Didn't It Rip These Insects Apart?
By Glenn R. Morton, 2004
Delicate insects not destroyed by turbulent global flood
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index How Long Ago Was the Flood?
By Glenn R. Morton, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index Time Sequence in Pebbles
By Glenn R. Morton, 2004
Conglomerates in conglomerates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index Runaway Subduction is a Sham
By Glenn R. Morton, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index While the Flood Rages, Termites Dig, Dinosaurs Dance, and Cicadas Sing
By Glenn R. Morton, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index Tracks, Raindrop, Hail, and Ice Impressions Demonstrate Slow Deposition
By Glenn R. Morton, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index Unconformities and the Flood
By Glenn R. Morton, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index Wilcox Coals and the Floating Forest/VeggieMat Young-earth Theories
By Glenn R. Morton, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index Appalachians Show Evidence of Earth's Age
By Glenn R. Morton, 2003
The Appalachian Mountains show the need for much time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index Going to the Bathroom in the Global Flood
By Glenn R. Morton, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index Burrows Cause Problems for the Flood
By Glenn R. Morton, 2003
Burrows show slow deposition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index We've Done Rivers; Let's Do Canyons
By Glenn R. Morton, 2003
Canyons buried in the fossil record show global flood is impossible
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index Varves and the Global Flood
By Glenn R. Morton, 2003
Castile Formation shows waters were calm during global flood
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index Difunta Group Argues Against a Global Flood
By Glenn R. Morton, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index The Multiple Droughts During the Global Flood
By Glenn R. Morton, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index Haymond Formation with Thousands of Burrows
By Glenn R. Morton, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index Limestone Presents Problems for the Global Flood
By Glenn R. Morton, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index Meteor Craters and the Flood Year
By Glenn R. Morton, 2003
Too many meteors in the flood year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index Oil Well Cores and the Global Flood
By Glenn R. Morton, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index River Channels Buried Deep in the Geologic Column
By Glenn R. Morton, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Index Rock Properties Vary with Fossils Found in Them
By Glenn R. Morton, 2003
Rock physical properties vary with age of fossils they contain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Quote from archimedes:

I fully understand your position. In fact I articulated it multiple times. You can go back and check.

You, however, still do not seem to understand that I understand -- as evidenced by the fact you keep saying the same thing, over and over again.

If your powers of comprehension were stronger, you would not feel the need to address the terms of disagreement like a broken record. You think I am wrong. I think you are wrong... that the theology you uphold is not meaningful... not true... a false path. That was pretty much established from the start, and does not bear repeating. Yet, for some obtuse reason, you keep returning to square one.

Ergo, you're not getting it. We are not having the same discussion.

And I'm done here for now.
More...

archimedes i am impressed with the depth of your knowledge and logic on this subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top