Featured The greatest error on bb

I did not ask you that. you have me mixed up with someone else.

 

What I find interesting is that you and I do not agree at all on predestination and monergism vs synergism, etc...

But we are BOTH big C. S. Lewis fans. (To your credit here C. S. Lewis would have been closer to you soteriologically than me)

Doug Wilsom is as much Calvinistic as I am. Piper as well. And they are both HUGE fans of Lewis.

And this is why Calvinists and Arminians can get along well if they both love Lewis: LOGIC.

Lewis' logic was fantastic. This is what made him a giant among apologists.


But what I find on this site is that BOTH SIDES throw logic in the trash and act like their theology does not have to bend to it.

Do you agree with me that, really, if the fundamental laws of logic are not binding on both parties involved in debate that debate is utterly pointless?

I can say something is true and false at the same time. I can say something is A and NOT A at the same time. What is the point in talking to me? Nothing can be settled.

 

You just will not be helped.

The reason you know so little is because you think you know so much.

It is not just me who has tried to enlighten you here.

You just refuse to get it.

Laws of nature and laws of logic are two different things.

You'll have to face the fact that somebody knows more than you on this subject to learn it though. So you probably will never learn it.

 

Man is responsible for whatever God says he is responsible for.

I think that perhaps your are under the impression that choice REQUIRES contracausal free will.

But the fact is that a choice is nothing more than picking one of two or more options.

WHENEVER you do this you have a REASON for picking what you picked.

You chose fried catfish over boiled shrimp. Why? Because it is what you desired most at the moment. Why? Because your taste buds and palate, whether by physiological make up or by training have come to prefer catfish over shrimp. Why? Because either that is the way God made you physically or because that is the culture in which God placed you to be raised.

Now, fried catfish has a great deal more cholesterol than boiled shrimp and you will face the consequences of the choice you made. This is true REGARDLESS of the physiological make-up of your taste buds or the culture in which you were raised. You can blame God, if you like, but I would advise you to fear Him more than that.

Now, you might argue, but I COULD have chosen boiled shrimp. If you had chosen boiled shrimp there would have been a reason for that, too. You still would have chosen what you most desired. It may be that what you most desired was to maintain a healthy cholesterol. But there would have been a REASON why healthy cholesterol levels were most desirable to you. As you ask why two or three times you will still come down to God.

 

As I said, it is pointless talking to people who care nothing for logic.

I am wrong often. I admit it when I am. I apologize when I am persuaded that I have done wrong and I withdraw remarks when am proven wrong.

Frankly, you cannot say these things, and everybody who knows you on BB knows it.

You do not learn because you cannot be taught because you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT FACE THE FACT that someone knows more than you.

You are wrong about logic. You do not know what you are talking about and it is patently obvious to everyone who knows beans from apple butter about this subject.

But that has never stopped you before so there's no reason to think it will stop you now.

 

More evidence that you don't know what you are talking about.

I did respond to Ben this morning.

 

It is not what you have been saying. You have been saying that walking on water defies logic.

It does not.

Whether one is kept from sinking by helium or divine intervention is irrelevant as it pertains to the logic of it.

Your logic goes like this:

Premise 1- Logic dictates that no man can ever walk on water

Premise 2- Jesus was a man who walked on water

Conclusion- Logic is bunk


But your conclusion is wrong because your first premise is wrong.

 

It does not defy logic PERIOD- vantage point is irrelevant.

From OUR VANTAGE POINT tell me how Jesus walking on water defies any one of the following fundamental laws of logic

The law of identity- He did not cease to be what he was when he walked on water.

The law of noncontradiction- he was not himself and suddenly NOT himself the moment he began to walk on water


The law of the excluded middle- what was true about him was still completely true and had not at all become false the moment he began to walk on water

His walking on water did not undermine any one of the laws of logic.

You seem to me to still be getting the laws of nature which are MUTABLE, temporary, created laws mixed up with the laws of logic which are IMMUTABLE, ETERNAL and UNCREATED.

 

You use the laughing symbol more than anybody on BB, I bet.

Perhaps you don't realize it- but it is insulting the way you use it. It is quite evident that you intend it to appear as if you are laughing at the stupidity of your opponent. So you might as well say, every time you use it this way- "Your are a stupid person." Body language is still language.

Furthermore, it is a tactic of appearance bolstering. It is not an argument. It is designed to make one's self LOOK strong. More often than not when one has to use body language to do that it is because he senses that he is not able to look strong with his words and arguments.

It is what Joe Biden did in the debate against Paul Ryan. EVERYBODY knew that Paul Ryan was WAY smarter than Joe Biden. So Joe came up with a strategy. He would FAIN strength by laughing because he could not appear strong in outright debate.

The fact that you use the laughing symbol as often or more so than Joe Biden "laughed" at Paul Ryan is not a mark in your favor. To more thoughtful people it is obvious that it is a sign of your weakness in debate.