To the Calvinists here: what part of Non cal theology Bothers you the Most?

[HeirofSalvation]

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :applause: :thumbsup: :laugh:

And his quote is even incorrect!!!

Hey 'Dr' it's 'Whatever DOESN'T kill you makes you stronger.'

And please, change your website name to something other than 'Do Right' so as to better reflect who you are, as you are one who has been found to not do right.

Perhaps 'unrepentant hearts of stone'? Scary isn't it?

I cannot fathom that you didn't realize he was misquoting Nietzche intentionally. Your rage has skewed your vision.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

preacher4truth, I stand shoulder to shoulder with you in opposing DJA's deceit and blasphemy. If his tripe is not rebuked by those who share his doctrinal distinctives, then they are giving him at least tacit approval. Time will tell.

He hasn't blasphemed.....because he doesn't BELIEVE the statement that you call "Blasphemy"....He made the absurd statement you guys are calling "blasphemy" because it exposes what is....or what he maintains is, the absurd and illogical Conclusion that Calvinist belief requires....it's called a Reductio ad absurdum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
This common debate argument is what a lot of you Calvies are repeatedly confusing with "straw-men".

It's what he considers to be the good and logical consequences to Calvinist premises. Good grief folks. I think some people are in such a rush to find anything and everything they can to attack Ach with, that they make these ridiculous rushes to judgement.

Some people have gone into a state wherein they would see (or at least falsely allege) something evil in Dr. J....no matter what he said or did.
I think about 80% of those jumping down his throat and piling on are making sheer pretenses at piety...
( I do not mean you Herald).....I just quoted your post at random.

The reason, folks, no non-calvie has "called him on his 'blasphemy' "......
Is that we realize that this charge of "blasphemy" is at best
1.) mistaken
at worst:
2.) dishonest.

He didn't "blaspheme".......frankly, it's rather ignorant to think that he did.

J.....you need to realize that you are speaking mostly to Americans. Most Americans have absolutely NO critical thinking skills. They aren't being taught them. Most of them don't know a fig about informal logic fallacies, they just caught onto the "Straw-man" word, because IMO they think it sounds cool. I think they just like the word.

 

[Herald]

He hasn't blasphemed.....because he doesn't BELIEVE the statement that you call "Blasphemy"....He made the absurd statement you guys are calling "blasphemy" because it exposes what is....or what he maintains is, the absurd and illogical Conclusion that Calvinist belief requires....it's called a Reductio ad absurdum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
This common debate argument is what a lot of you Calvies are repeatedly confusing with "straw-men".

It's what he considers to be the good and logical consequences to Calvinist premises. Good grief folks. I think some people are in such a rush to find anything and everything they can to attack Ach with, that they make these ridiculous rushes to judgement.

Some people have gone into a state wherein they would see (or at least falsely allege) something evil in Dr. J....no matter what he said or did.
I think about 80% of those jumping down his throat and piling on are making sheer pretenses at piety...
( I do not mean you Herald).....I just quoted your post at random.

The reason, folks, no non-calvie has "called him on his 'blasphemy' "......
Is that we realize that this charge of "blasphemy" is at best
1.) mistaken
at worst:
2.) dishonest.

He didn't "blaspheme".......frankly, it's rather ignorant to think that he did.

J.....you need to realize that you are speaking mostly to Americans. Most Americans have absolutely NO critical thinking skills. They aren't being taught them. Most of them don't know a fig about informal logic fallacies, they just caught onto the "Straw-man" word, because IMO they think it sounds cool. I think they just like the word.

He LIED. He passed off the work of others as his own. This has nothing to do with whatever "ism" you hold to. Not only did he lie, but he is doubling and tripling down on his lie. He is incalcitrant. Blasphemy occurs in humor when the person of God is held in low regard. He is guilty of that too. That you are defending him says as much about you as it does of the dear faux Dr.

 

[Iconoclast]

HeirofSalvation

He hasn't blasphemed.....because he doesn't BELIEVE the statement that you call "Blasphemy"....He made the absurd statement you guys are calling "blasphemy" because it exposes what is....or what he maintains is, the absurd and illogical Conclusion that Calvinist belief requires....it's called a Reductio ad absurdum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
This common debate argument is what a lot of you Calvies are repeatedly confusing with "straw-men".

HOS....I know you are trying to offer a defense here...but

It's what he considers to be the good and logical consequences to Calvinist premises. Good grief folks. I think some people are in such a rush to find anything and everything they can to attack Ach with, that they make these ridiculous rushes to judgement.

Many here do not hold what we do....but have some idea what we hold.He seems to want this attention, but he is being disruptive intentionally and has revealed fatal misunderstanding about who God is.

Some people have gone into a state wherein they would see (or at least falsely allege) something evil in Dr. J....no matter what he said or did.
I think about 80% of those jumping down his throat and piling on are making sheer pretenses at piety...

He has an agenda that has been exposed.

( I do not mean you Herald).....I just quoted your post at random.

The reason, folks, no non-calvie has "called him on his 'blasphemy' "......
Is that we realize that this charge of "blasphemy" is at best
1.) mistaken
at worst:
2.) dishonest.

He didn't "blaspheme".......frankly, it's rather ignorant to think that he did.

Hos...what is your definition of blasphemy?,,only curse words?It takes in much ground....

 

[HeirofSalvation]

He LIED. He passed off the work of others as his own. This has nothing to do with whatever "ism" you hold to. Not only did he lie, but he is doubling and tripling down on his lie. He is incalcitrant.

A forum like this is an extremely informal setting. Did he "plagiarize"? Well, strictly defined perhaps, but frankly there is an over-reaction to an extreme here IMO. People are acting like he failed to cite a source in some published work that he is selling for money or used an un-cited source in a Master's thesis. This reaction is like someone telling a fib in a debate is as though he purjured himself in a court of law or something.
Frankly, I think this over-reaction is quite disingenuous. I think if some of those who are piling on about it were to search their hearts in honesty.........they would realize that.

Blasphemy occurs in humor when the person of God is held in low regard. He is guilty of that too.

Again........he doesn't HOLD GOD'S person in LOW REGARD. You clearly didn't read nor understand my post. He was pointing out that (at least in his opinion) Calvinism logically forces the VERY conclusion you are calling "blasphemy".
It will do no good I fear but pay close attention to this from the link I put to you:
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial,[1] or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

In other words........he was tacitly DENYING and DECRYING the very thing you are calling "BLASPHEMY". He was proposing that a Calvinist view-point makes a CALVINIST an inadvertent "blasphemer".

That you are defending him says as much about you as it does of the dear faux Dr.

Frankly.......I have thought more highly of you previously than this inane statement. This isn't meaningful, you are just trying to disparage ME now because I'm not following along with your collective argumentum ad hominem. Any reasonable person can see that.
The over-reaction about his "plagiarism" is little more than ad hominem, and then further piling on to me because I am not playing along is merely a smearing ad hominem as well. I haven't personally disparaged your character Herald. (I intentionally divorced your name from my other statements, and have ONLY generalized them not using anyone's name in particular) and even that makes you want to get personal with me in your quest against Dr. J.

Your making this a personal slander on ME is precisely the "bullying" that Dr. J. was implying that some people have been involved in.

 

[Herald]

A forum like this is an extremely informal setting. Did he "plagiarize"? Well, strictly defined perhaps, but frankly there is an over-reaction to an extreme here IMO. People are acting like he failed to cite a source in some published work that he is selling for money or used an un-cited source in a Master's thesis. This reaction is like someone telling a fib in a debate is as though he purjured himself in a court of law or something.
Frankly, I think this over-reaction is quite disingenuous. I think if some of those who are piling on about it were to search their hearts in honesty.........they would realize that.


Again........he doesn't HOLD GOD'S person in LOW REGARD. You clearly didn't read nor understand my post. He was pointing out that (at least in his opinion) Calvinism logically forces the VERY conclusion you are calling "blasphemy".
It will do no good I fear but pay close attention to this from the link I put to you:
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial,[1] or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

In other words........he was tacitly DENYING and DECRYING the very thing you are calling "BLASPHEMY". He was proposing that a Calvinist view-point makes a CALVINIST an inadvertent "blasphemer".

Frankly.......I have thought more highly of you previously than this inane statement. This isn't meaningful, you are just trying to disparage ME now because I'm not following along with your collective argumentum ad hominem. Any reasonable person can see that.
The over-reaction about his "plagiarism" is little more than ad hominem, and then further piling on to me because I am not playing along is merely a smearing ad hominem as well. I haven't personally disparaged your character Herald. (I intentionally divorced your name from my other statements, and have ONLY generalized them not using anyone's name in particular) and even that makes you want to get personal with me in your quest against Dr. J.

Your making this a personal slander on ME is precisely the "bullying" that Dr. J. was implying that some people have been involved in.

You don't get to play martyr. Grow up and be a man. Get over yourself.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Playing martyr? O.K. you are just being nasty. You respond to me merely by insulting me? Herald, I'm not complaining, nor am I hurt, bothered or insulted by you. I am merely pointing out what you are doing..........and that is being unnecessarily insulting and nasty.

I am not taking offence to it, Herald. I do not think you capable of offending me.