ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[koban]

If you aren't going to repsond to any argument presented, I suggest you leave. It's obvious you aren't here to debate anyone, so why stick around?

Just because you say that he doesn't know what he is talking about doesn't mean he doesn't. Just because you say the arguement is too stupid to respond too doesn't mean it is. Just because you say you're smarter than everyone else doesn't mean you are. Either respond with a counter argument or shut up.

See Clete - this is why I don't try to engage Jimbo seriously anymore.

Sure, he can lay it on thicker than most around here, but when you scrape off all the excessive verbiage and discard all the poorly reasoned arguments, all that's left is fluff.

And then he gets all upset when it's pointed out to him and he pretends that his opponent doesn't know what he's talking about. (or, in the case of Balder, that his opponent is talking nonsensically:chuckle: )

Then the insults start. He's not very good at it and it's kind of embarrassing to watch.

Then, as if to re-emphasize the fact that he favors style over substance, he signs off with one of those "cutesy" sign-offs of his. :vomit:


Frankly, I consider him about the same way I consider Skeptic - too stupid to take seriously.

But fun to :mock: :banana:

 

[Sozo]

Yes! Woo Hoo :banana: to Muzicman for correctly defining ontological, and then turning around and completely perverting and diluting the gospel to mental assent. Way to go, Muzicman! :thumb:

 

[koban]

That may be how it is in The Jim Hilston Lexicon, but to the rest of the world:

on·tol·o·gy

n.

The branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being.​

on·tol·o·gy
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin ontologia, from ont- + -logia -logy
1 : a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being
2 : a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of existents
​

Instead of yelling at muzicman, maybe you should write to Houghton Mifflin and Merriam-Webster to set them straight. I'm sure they'll be quite willing to submit to your authority on the matter and will be very thankful for the correction.

:BRAVO:

 

[themuzicman]

Yes! Woo Hoo :banana: to Muzicman for correctly defining ontological, and then turning around and completely perverting and diluting the gospel to mental assent. Way to go, Muzicman! :thumb:

You know, I don't usually come to conclusions about fellow posters so quickly, but I'm pretty sure that your username has a type-o in it.

The first letter should be a 'B'.


If you read the entire post, you see that I deny just what you claim that I said in the last paragraph!

Michael

 

[Sozo]

You know, I don't usually come to conclusions about fellow posters so quickly, but I'm pretty sure that your username has a type-o in it.

Then so does yours. It should be dumbureX:

Here is what YOU have said...

Let's go back to the garden. What was the tree called? The tree of the KNOWLEDGE{/i] of good and evil. Does that sound like an ontological or epistimological reference? (Epistimological, of course.) Thus, upon eating of the tree, their eyes were opened (again epistimological), and they knew good and evil (still epistimological.)

Their "eyes were opened" because they had died. Their being changed at the moment they ate.

I do believe in Original sin. I believe it passes from parent to child through the same knowledge of good and evil that was gained by Adam and Eve when they fell. When a person sins, they embrace the sin of Adam and it's condemnation for themselves.

Mental assent.

Yes, I read this...

Now, what is our salvation? No, it's not knowledge. Our salvation is the result of the propitiating sacrifice Christ made on the cross. We must place our faith in Him to receive salvation. Then, as a result of our faith, that new worldview can begin to take hold in our lives, which is what Paul is addressing in Romans (probably) 7 and 12.

But, it makes no sense. You are saying that are faith gives us a "new worldview". So, according to you, salvation is not a new being, but mental assent about the world.

 

[themuzicman]

Their "eyes were opened" because they had died. Their being changed at the moment they ate.

That's not the commentary of Genesis at that point. In fact, God says that they had become like Him (them?), knowing good and evil.

Mental assent.

I'm talking about the nature of the fall, not the nature of the gospel or salvation.

Yes, I read this...But, it makes no sense. You are saying that are faith gives us a "new worldview". So, according to you, salvation is not a new being, but mental assent about the world.

I'm talking about the result of faith, not the salvific aspect of faith. Perhaps you've heard of the working out of our salvation, or what Paul calls "sanctification"? That's what I'm referring to.

Michael

 

[Sozo]

I'm talking about the result of faith, not the salvific aspect of faith. Perhaps you've heard of the working out of our salvation, or what Paul calls "sanctification"? That's what I'm referring to.

Michael

I will concede that sanctification is two-fold, however, we are sanctified (set apart unto God) when our being is changed, and we do sanctify our minds as they are renewed, which can change our behavior, but it flows from salvation. Salvation is life, an exchange of the old being for a new one.

 

[themuzicman]

I will concede that sanctification is two-fold, however, we are sanctified (set apart unto God) when our being is changed, and we do sanctify our minds as they are renewed, which can change our behavior, but it flows from salvation. Salvation is life, an exchange of the old being for a new one.

This goes back to the question I asked up front:

Who has the ability to change the ontological nature of Adam from "good" to "evil"?

The other question would be: Does this "new being" become like Adam was originally, or is this an ontologically different being from pre- and post- fall humans?

Muz

 

[RobE]

Sozo: Then so does yours. It should be dumbureX:

Here is what YOU have said...

Michael: I do believe in Original sin. I believe it passes from parent to child through the same knowledge of good and evil that was gained by Adam and Eve when they fell. When a person sins, they embrace the sin of Adam and it's condemnation for themselves.

Their "eyes were opened" because they had died. Their being changed at the moment they ate.​

Sozo: Mental assent.​

Pelagianism. Man can effect his own salvation.

Michael: Now, what is our salvation? No, it's not knowledge. Our salvation is the result of the propitiating sacrifice Christ made on the cross. We must place our faith in Him to receive salvation. Then, as a result of our faith, that new worldview can begin to take hold in our lives, which is what Paul is addressing in Romans (probably) 7 and 12.​

Sozo: Yes, I read this...But, it makes no sense. You are saying that are faith gives us a "new worldview". So, according to you, salvation is not a new being, but mental assent about the world.​

Semi-Pelagianism. Man can effect his own salvation with help, but it's ultimately up to the man.

At least Godrulz admits to it outright.

Friends,
Rob

 

[Sozo]

Semi-Pelagianism. Man can effect his own salvation with help, but it's ultimately up to the man.

At least Godrulz admits to it outright.

Friends,
Rob

Yes, he does, but please don't confuse me with a Calvinistic view.

 

[themuzicman]

Semi-Pelagianism. Man can effect his own salvation with help, but it's ultimately up to the man.

Let's try an analogy.

You own a 22' sailboat, and go sailing in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Oregon. You get caught in a wind, and wind up 20 miles out to sea, when you boat capsizes and sinks. Within 4 hours, you will be dead from hypothermia.

However, the coast guard has been monitoring you, and a helicopter is dispatched, and soon arrives at your location. A diver jumps into the water, and throws you a rope.

You grab the rope.

The diver pulls you into a basket, and you are taken up into the helicopter, and flown to safety.

Now, did you "save your self with help" by grabbing the rope? Or did you respond to the offer to be saved by grabbing the rope, so the Coast Guard could save you?

Michael

 

[RobE]

This goes back to the question I asked up front:

Who has the ability to change the ontological nature of Adam from "good" to "evil"?

The other question would be: Does this "new being" become like Adam was originally, or is this an ontologically different being from pre- and post- fall humans?

Muz

I know this wasn't asked of me. I just felt I should respond.

Calvin and Luther would say the ontological nature of Adam was changed.

I would say the ontological nature of Adam hasn't changed.

What would you say Michael?

Rob

 

[Sozo]

Sorry, but that story is false in just about every area.

It is true that a helicopter shows up, but he doesn't offer you a rope, or anything else to pull you from the water. As a matter of fact, you didn't even know that you needed to be saved until the guy told you what is going to happen to you, and soon! And here is the really strange part, he tells you that you are not going to be saved unless you agree to die first, and then he promises to pull you from the water and give you a new life. Therefore, in order to be truly saved you must choose to die, and then once you are pulled from the water, he resurrects you by breathing His life into your dead body. So, you can choose to die on your own, or you can choose to die in order to be saved.

And one more thing, when you chose to surrender to the water to die, you agreed that when He gave you His life, you no longer have any right over your self again, because it belongs to Him, and he will not cast it back into the water.

 

[themuzicman]

I know this wasn't asked of me. I just felt I should respond.

Calvin and Luther would say the ontological nature of Adam was changed.

I would say the ontological nature of Adam hasn't changed.

What would you say Michael?

Rob

I would say that, ontologically, we are no different than Adam as he was created.

Michael

 

[koban]

Let's try an analogy.

You own a 22' sailboat, and go sailing in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Oregon. You get caught in a wind, and wind up 20 miles out to sea, when you boat capsizes and sinks. Within 4 hours, you will be dead from hypothermia.

However, the coast guard has been monitoring you, and a helicopter is dispatched, and soon arrives at your location. A diver jumps into the water, and throws you a rope.

You grab the rope.

The diver pulls you into a basket, and you are taken up into the helicopter, and flown to safety.

Now, did you "save your self with help" by grabbing the rope? Or did you respond to the offer to be saved by grabbing the rope, so the Coast Guard could save you?

Michael

Yes to both.

So, when are you guys going to start arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? :chuckle:

 

[themuzicman]

Sorry, but that story is false in just about every area.

It is true that a helicopter shows up, but he doesn't offer you a rope, or anything else to pull you from the water. As a matter of fact, you didn't even know that you needed to be saved until the guy told you what is going to happen to you, and soon! And here is the really strange part, he tells you that you are not going to be saved unless you agree to die first, and then he promises to pull you from the water and give you a new life. Therefore, in order to be truly saved you must choose to die, and then once you are pulled from the water, he resurrects you by breathing His life into your dead body. So, you can choose to die on your own, or you can choose to die in order to be saved.

And one more thing, when you chose to surrender to the water to die, you agreed that when He gave you His life, you no longer have any right over your self again, because it belongs to Him, and he will not cast it back into the water.

You're really good at missing the point, aren't you.

Michael

 

[Sozo]

This goes back to the question I asked up front:

Who has the ability to change the ontological nature of Adam from "good" to "evil"?

Adam chose to die to God.

The other question would be: Does this "new being" become like Adam was originally, or is this an ontologically different being from pre- and post- fall humans?

He does not become like he was, but is a whole new creation.

 

[Hilston]

When I said "use the the Google God gave you," I also included "use the mind God gave you."

Muzicman's list (ontology, epistimology [sic] and ethics) comprises Platonic categories. A simple Google search would have shown you that. That should have sufficed to end this silly and embarrassing auto-exposé of pestilent Open View ignorance.

It's a pathetic thing to see people go on about stuff they know very little about, who don't even have the awareness to be embarrassed. Any first-year college student who has taken Philosophy 101 would immediately recognize the blatant errors in Muzicman's (and now Turbo's) posts.

That may be how it is in The Jim Hilston Lexicon, but to the rest of the world:

on·tol·o·gy

n.

The branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being.​

on·tol·o·gy
Function: noun Etymology: New Latin ontologia, from ont- + -logia -logy 1 : a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being 2 : a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of existents​

Metaphysicians break their field down into any number of branches and categories, and Houghton/Mifflin, Merriam/Webster, et al must provide definitions that are as broad and general as can reasonably take in so vast a field. You should already know this. HM and MW are not the final word. It is expected that someone interested in this topic will go beyond HM or MW to think a little more critically about what it means. You should already know this.

Instead of yelling at muzicman, maybe you should write to Houghton Mifflin and Merriam-Webster to set them straight.

They serve their purpose. Philosophers would see HM's definition and roll their eyes. A first-year university student would see Muzicman's hack job and laugh him to scorn.

I'm sure they'll be quite willing to submit to your authority on the matter and will be very thankful for the correction.

They already know, Turbo. They realize they have a limited role and must cut corners in order to make their dictionaries useful. You should already know this.

I'm really glad for posts like Muzicman's and Turbo's and Clete's. I bookmark them and point others to them because they really suffice to demonstrate why the Open Theist mindset should not be taken seriously.

Does anyone have an opinion about Romans 7:17 that doesn't involve an obfuscating quagmire of philosophical arm-waving?

The paper holds their folded faces to the floor,
JAH

 

[Sozo]

You're really good at missing the point, aren't you.

Michael

Get real, my analogy is nothing like yours. Yours is based on mental rational choices, while mine is based on faith from hearing the message to do something that requires my death and total surrender.

 

[koban]

When I said "use the the Google God gave you," I also included "use the mind God gave you."

Muzicman's list (ontology, epistimology [sic] and ethics) comprises Platonic categories. A simple Google search would have shown you that. That should have sufficed to end this silly and embarrassing auto-exposé of pestilent Open View ignorance.

It's a pathetic thing to see people go on about stuff they know very little about, who don't even have the awareness to be embarrassed. Any first-year college student who has taken Philosophy 101 would immediately recognize the blatant errors in Muzicman's (and now Turbo's) posts.

Metaphysicians break their field down into any number of branches and categories, and Houghton/Mifflin, Merriam/Webster, et al must provide definitions that are as broad and general as can reasonably take in so vast a field. You should already know this. HM and MW are not the final word. It is expected that someone interested in this topic will go beyond HM or MW to think a little more critically about what it means. You should already know this.

They serve their purpose. Philosophers would see HM's definition and roll their eyes. A first-year university student would see Muzicman's hack job and laugh him to scorn.

They already know, Turbo. They realize they have a limited role and must cut corners in order to make their dictionaries useful. You should already know this.

I'm really glad for posts like Muzicman's and Turbo's and Clete's. I bookmark them and point others to them because they really suffice to demonstrate why the Open Theist mindset should not be taken seriously.

Does anyone have an opinion about Romans 7:17 that doesn't involve an obfuscating quagmire of philosophical arm-waving?

The paper holds their folded faces to the floor,
JAH

Wow!

A whole page worth of ureX: that says nothing!


:BRAVO: