And this is why these discussions inevitably end up on the scrap heap. Skan starts these threads in his never ending quest to discredit Monergism. He and his minions claim victory when all they have accomplished is to obfuscate the truth and play to their base. If that is his premise, and I believe it is, then he can claim "mission accomplished", as he and his Synergistic cohorts do a good job of singing to the choir.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Does the call of Jonah teach us something about God?
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
- Status
And this is why these discussions inevitably end up on the scrap heap. Skan starts these threads in his never ending quest to discredit Monergism. He and his minions claim victory when all they have accomplished is to obfuscate the truth and play to their base. If that is his premise, and I believe it is, then he can claim "mission accomplished", as he and his Synergistic cohorts do a good job of singing to the choir.
preacher4truth
Active Member
I agree with this, however, he will never be able to claim mission accomplished as his ideologies are consistently and incessantly dismantled.
These kind pf ad hominems are the reason these discussions end up on the heap. They are the norm when one gets schooled, though.
You mean like calling someone a "fool" as you did in the other thread?
HAHAHAHAHHA!
The hypocrisy and self-deludedness is hilarious!!!
Anybody that states we tell God we are elect in the trollish manner it was done could be called far greater.
I would think you would be the last one to be splinter picking, "pastor".
preacher4truth
Active Member
You have a penchant for mocking pastors. You should be ashamed here, as you certainly will be 'there'.
I'm not mocking them, I'm questioning the validity of their claim on an anonymous bulletin board on which they fail to list the church they pastor at, and I question their ability and their calling based on their interaction here, which is clearly contrary to the requirements laid forth for being one.
I'm not your pastor.
I don't talk to my children the way I ntalk to my wife. I don't talk to you like I talk to my parishioners.
You cannot seem to help but conflate everything.
If I went to war for my country tomorrow I would do to the enemy things I would not do to my parishioners. Different relationships.
You are not one of my parishioners and it is kind of stupid for you to expect me to treat you like one.
preacher4truth
Active Member
But these reserve that right to anonymity bro. All of us have faults, and God only has a crop of sinners from whom to call to service, including you. You're questioning Him. Remember to forgive others, and don't hold grudges like that wicked servant in Matthew 18. Instead be glad that God uses earthen vessels, and pray for them. To do so is Christ working in you, and it is very humble and peaceable.
Can you and I converse as though we are on planet reality? I have read enough of Skan's threads to draw a fairly accurate assessment of his motives. He follows a predictable pattern and achieves the same results. My comments are based on a logical conclusion to that pattern. By definition that cannot be an ad hominem. You may disagree with my conclusion, but is that really news? And as far as getting schooled, well, it all depends on what is the substance of the education. Skan certainly is not winning the truth battle.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Scan the top of the forum page for me Herald. What do you read?
It says, "Forum for Calvinism/Arminianism Debate"
What exactly are you expecting to find when you come to this forum? A video of John Piper teaching in a bed of tulips with a bunch of entranced college boys sitting at his feet hanging on his every words in placid agreement?
You have a choice (or do you?) to engage with my posts, or ignore them, but you DO NOT have the choice to speculate about others motives, impugn other's character, or change the topic of the thread. That is your pattern. I'm following the purpose and rules of the forum, you are not. Now which pattern is better?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Case and point
Run, run, don't engage! This guy is trying over and over again to debate our point of view on a debate forum!
:laugh:
Yet the rules specifically forbid such assessments in the public forum but you continually ignore such correction. What does that reveal? If you have something personal to say, then PM me. I'd be happy to address you there.
The phrase "ad hominem" literally means "to the man" and not on the topic. Our topic is Jonah's call and normative versus supernatural means. You have changed that to be about speculating on my motive..."to the man." And what is that nefarious motive? To debate again Calvinism (Monergism). *GASP*
Run, run, don't engage! This guy is trying over and over again to debate our point of view on a debate forum!:laugh:
Last edited by a moderator:
preacher4truth
Active Member
Isn't this impugning someone's character by insulting their intelligence? Yes, it most certainly is. He knows what this forum is and that comment is unnecessary.
Sigh...more of the same.
I've just read the BB rules and nowhere in them do I see a thing about discerning anothers motives or commenting on such a thing.
By the way he called you on YOUR pattern of behavior JUST AS YOU HAVE HIS.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
So every time a pastor reminds you of the churches purpose he is 'insulting their intelligence? I'm simply pointing to the motive of continually debating Calvinism as being a legit motive in this context...not a nefarious one worthy of rebuke and deflection from the topic.
Read it again please.
Difference: I'm not speculating as to his motives. I'm calling out his behavior as one who is changing the topic and speculating about other's personal motivations; which is against the rules of this forum.
If I cuss, you can call me out. If you believe I was thinking of a cuss word you can't speculate that I was and make that accusation publicly. Understand the distinction here?
preacher4truth
Active Member
You were impugning his intelligence.
Nope. If it is a matter of you feeling it is 'personal' then you yourself are also behaving in the same manner and calling out his pattern of behvavior as well.
That doesn't matter, you're still calling out his pattern of behavior just as well as he called out yours.
No thanks, cuss all you like. I am simply pointing out hypocrisy here.
And there you go impugning again. There's no need to insult another's intelligence. You should really listen to what I've said, as you're doing the exact same thing you accuse him of doing.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Rule 4: "We encourage personal problems with other members be resolved privately."
Rule 9: "Keep posts on-topic, relative to the forum it's posted in."
Rule 9: "Keep posts on-topic, relative to the forum it's posted in."
preacher4truth
Active Member
So then it is OK for you to call him on patterns of behavior, but not him you, correct? Your reaction was just as 'personal' as his when we look at it through the lens of what offends you, and frankly sank, much much more happens on here and it gets much more heated with actual name-calling and the boys with the big pants on let it go and roll on without taking offense over even the small and trivial antics as well. :thumbsup:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Here you go again, like you are able to read my mind and motivations. You are the ONLY ONE suggesting a personal attack on intelligence. One could speculate that he was impugning my intelligence by suggesting that my motives were not informed, but HE WOULD HAVE TO ACTUALLY SAY THAT for it to be a violation of the rules....i.e. "I don't think you are very smart to continually attempt to discredit monergism."
Difference:
My pattern of behavior, according to him, is to continually debate against monegism (the actual purpose of this forum).
His pattern of behavior is to talk about me rather than the topic of the thread. (against the rules of the forum)
Cussing is against the rules, thinking of a cuss word is not. Calling out someone who actually cusses is good. Speculating and publicly accusing someone of thinking of a cuss word is bad. How is that hypocrisy?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Based on these two rules alone I wish the moderator would simply delete every post in this thread not specifically having to do with Jonah's call versus the effectual calling, as I would like to actually discuss that topic...
Is it too much to ask for us to STAY ON TOPIC?
preacher4truth
Active Member
I'm the only one? That's because, guess what, only YOU AND I are discussing it presently. (no impugnation on your intelligence intended in that statement of the obvious)
No, you're off track, he called you on more than the purpose of the thread, he called you on your pattern of behavior, and you called him on his, and there is no difference. To be fair you've both gotten 'personal' then since it has obviously offended you.
You really should let the little things go and not even address these little things people say and make them an issue between you and that person as you do. It looks rather trifling to do so consistently to be honest. Take some advice and live above that for a change. And btw, your impugning of him and calling out his pattern of behavior was the definition of 'ad hominem' or 'to the man' in itself.
- Status