Featured The greatest error on bb

so now you are a self professed troll. Trolling is against BB rules.

 

You know...I'll just leave it to reader to discern whether your post,10 minutes after I posted, was a "meaningful" and ethical way to reply on a Christian "debate" board by someone in search for the logical truth or the type of reply one would expect from a "troll" (or as Scan more delicately put it "continued fruitless banter" ).

 

It is my conviction, on the cross, there was no "abandonment" of the Son by the Father, rather Jesus was quoting from PS. 22 because in its entirety, PS 22 is a psalm of victory.

 

Truth as defined by you?

Naw, you're probably right, no need for faith, we should just depend on our own human understanding and reason.

Then stop using the word logic and only use the word truth.

Luke's Proof of Question Begging:
Truth = Logic
Truth cannot equal untruth
I believe what is true, therefore anyone who disagrees with me believes what is untrue and thus is not being logical.

Why don't you respond to Ben's logical construct?

"A" is the variable and ANYTHING can be plugged into that variable to form a logical construct. You violate the law of non-contradiction by presuming that God's choices are not choices: A = not A

You are not being consistent with your OWN law of non-contradiction.

 

i agree. Some years ago I had a retired pastor in my SS class. He expressed a view very similar to yours and also said that Jesus Christ quoted from Psalm 22 to show that he was the Messiah.

 

Man, I have a busy weekend and come back to find this thread exactly where I thought it woould be...in shambles.

Luke,

I've stated and would be happy to follow up that you're being too dualistic in your own understanding and conception of God. By confining your theology proper, Christology, pneumatology, and such to God is ______, and must be ______, you are missing the point of nuance in theology.

Also, you claim that we who don't hold to your views are being "illogical" yet your own posts are rife with logical fallacies.

There are multiple examples of some reasonable folks attempting to engage you, critiquing you on firm points, and you are mischaracterizing them, evading them by claiming they aren't being specific enough, or simply missing their point.

I'd challenge you, again, that the issues here aren't about logical vs. illogical. My theology, and others, who disagree with are happily coherent logically. We simply ccome to different conclusions. This is why we must not be too dualistic in our argumentation.

Anyhoo, I hope this thread can get back on track...but it is far away from that. I'm not using an ad hominem here, but am simply appealing to reason to bring things back around.

 

"So what" is not an argument, meaningful, or an ethical way to debate...

 

Saying that you "whipping me" is childish, but my pointing out your logical fallacy of question begging is not. I'm not trying to provoke you, insult you, demean you, or incite you. I'm simply attempting to point out your inconsistencies and your fallacies. You think anyone who disagrees with your 'truth' is not being 'logical' because to you truth = logic. That is a text book example of the Question Begging Fallacy, where by the debater presumes the very point up for debate. It is no different than saying, "You're wrong because I am right." Except now its, "You're not logical because I am logical."

It is childish to continue to practice this fallacy after it is pointed out numerous times as it is the lowest most child-like form of debate. My kids use it regularly... "Nuh, huh, you're wrong...because I just know..."

I do not have any issues with these laws of logic, in fact I've been clearly revealing how you violate the law of non-contradiction in your views concerning God's choices, but you've yet to rebut those arguments except to deny that the variable "A" cannot (for some arbitrary reason only known to you) represent "choice." Hmmmm

I'd point out your fallacy but I might be labelled childish again.

 

Can we deduce by this that you are affirming Ben's premises are true and logical?

So, you have two contradictory conclusions but both are "logically sound" arguments, which should reveal to you that one can make a logically sound argument but still be wrong in his conclusions.

I clearly show why I believed your 'syllogism' to be wrong as it relied on equivocation of the word 'responsible.'

Consider this argument:
Ten different Agents claim to be Agent X
There is only one Agent X
At least nine of the Agents claiming to be Agent X must be wrong

Is this proof logical and valid? If not, why not?

 

16 pages in 3 days!

Perhaps some moderator can tell us if that is some kind of record?

I stopped reading after 3 pages, but here's my take.

I agree most with with preachinginjesus Post #4...

There are logical problems with every calvinistic model.
There are logical problems with every arminian model.
There are logical problems with the molinist model.
There are logical problems with all the models that other have who don't want to be lumped into the categories above.

So...I disagree with the idea that a simple college course in logic would automatically convert everyone to the calvinist position (though on the Election issue, I agree with the calvinists).

That said, It is not totally incorrect to say that our problem is one of logic, in that each of us is very likely making logical errors at some point in our interpretation of scripture...and, that at the end of the age, when all is know, it will turn out that some of us have been closer to the true (more logically correct) understanding than others on various issues.

 

12Strings,

You are correct. There are perceived logical problems (apparent contradictions/paradoxes) in every system (including the true system) as our perspective is limited and at some point everyone must appeal to mystery at some point. After all, His way are higher than our ways and scripture is clear that we will not fully understand all things this side of glory.

That is why I argued the OP was shortsighted and not very well vetted.

 

Unless you are a seer, you have no way of know any of this...and you are being quite childish to boot. Further trolling is right...stop doing it already. You are now insulting a moderator, get a grip.

The most illogical thing you have said to date is logic = truth. You might as well said mixer = cake. Both are merely tools used to arrive at the desired result. I'm surprised you would say something so ignorant in a logic thread you started accusing others of not knowing what it is. You might want to take some time off to reflect just how silly you sound...I'm embarrassed for you.

 

I agree WD, Luke's statements here are purely anecdotal. I suspect whoever gets fractions and demerits here in BB most likely deserve the ones they.....no what their theological persuasion. Even "NON CALS" like me get demerits.