ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Clete]

Jim,

Stop being a dork and respond to the points I've made! So far all you keep wanting to do is to point out phrases that these men use as though I am either unable to read or can’t keep up with the point you seem unable to get off of. I get it Jim! I totally understand your point and I reject it as totally fanciful wishful thinking on your part. You are making them say things that they cannot be saying IN SPITE OF THE USE OF THE PHRASE “IN HIS ESSENSE”!!!! and this is the point I’ve repeatedly tried to make and the point that you continue to completely ignore.

If these men, when talking about God's immutability, are so totally focused on God's essence and they understand that to be an entirely separate issue from God's “actions and manifestations” then why do they call it an antinomy? Where is there a need for the concept of antinomy if they are saying what you are so desperate for them to be saying?

And secondly how is possible to be immutably pure spirit and then to have an eternal glorified body? How is it possible to be immutably alive and then to have died and to have resurrected? How is it possible to be immutably non-human but then to become a man?

Further, you agreed with the idea that God does not emote but rather is emotion "in His divine essence". What would that even mean, Jim? What does it mean to be emotion, especially if one is unable to emote? It doesn't make any sense! Oh! Let me guess, it's an antinomy, right?! Up till now, you've categorically denied the existence of antinomy in your theology so I doubt that's actually what you believe so please explain it to us Jim. How is it that God is emotion? Please explain how God is simultaneously love and hatred, joy and sorrow, happiness and despair, peace and anxiety, all immutably so.

Further still, how does one define was is and is not an essential attribute and apposed to some other attribute like a manifestation? Also, how does one make such distinctions without the implication that God has parts? If God’s manifestations are mutable, wouldn’t that mean, according to the Calvinist logic that those manifestations are imperfect? Is God’s glorified body imperfect, Jim? If so, what else about the risen Christ is imperfect?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[RobE]

Rob,

If contingencies exist then the two may or may not be contradictory in which case the entire line of reasoning would be erronious. In other words, my statement assumes that the contradiction between A and B is a real one.

Is your assumption correct or is the entire line of reasoning erronious?

And you have to try to stay on the same page as me when reading my posts. The two conclusions are not the same. There is a difference in acknowledging the existence of error vs. accepting the existence of a fundamental lack in the laws of logic such that real contradiction does not necessarily falsify a truth claim.

4-0. My understanding of the Bible is in error. There three possibilities. A is right and B is wrong, B is right and A is wrong or both A and B are wrong because two contradictory statements can both be false but they cannot both be true

4-1. There must be some lack of ability in the human mind to understand( how A and B are not contradictory.)​

I see the two conclusions as based upon 'lack of understanding' so they are essentially synonymous.

____________

Clete,

I've based my arguments assuming that the future does not exist, but knowledge of the future does. This isn't to say that God does not exist 'outside of time'. I just haven't used that as the basis for my discussions.

In the thread 'A discussion between Clete and Hilston' you summed up my position on immutability as resulting in an antinomy........

RobE is not debating whether or not God changes in any way whatsoever.

RobE is saying that a change in God’s mind doesn't constitute change in the same sense which is being discussed when one asserts the immutability of God. He is saying that the immutability of God applies only to who God is, His character, His righteousness, etc. He is also saying that this "qualified immutability" that he holds in common with us Open Theists is in agreement with what both Augustine and Calvin believed as well, and that therefore a major argument that we employ against Calvinism and Augustinian theology is based on a misunderstanding or an outright misrepresentation of Augustine’s belief.

Hope this clears up some of the muddy water.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Do you believe that Eckhardt is right in his assumptions about essence and action being the same?

That would be the only way that an antinomy would exist.

Rob

 

[Hilston]

Jim,

Stop being a dork and respond to the points I've made! So far all you keep wanting to do is to point out phrases that these men use as though I am either unable to read or can’t keep up with the point you seem unable to get off of. I get it Jim! I totally understand your point and I reject it as totally fanciful wishful thinking on your part. You are making them say things that they cannot be saying IN SPITE OF THE USE OF THE PHRASE “IN HIS ESSENSE”!!!! and this is the point I’ve repeatedly tried to make and the point that you continue to completely ignore.

If these men, when talking about God's immutability, are so totally focused on God's essence and they understand that to be an entirely separate issue from God's “actions and manifestations” then why do they call it an antinomy? Where is there a need for the concept of antinomy if they are saying what you are so desperate for them to be saying?

And secondly how is possible to be immutably pure spirit and then to have an eternal glorified body? How is it possible to be immutably alive and then to have died and to have resurrected? How is it possible to be immutably non-human but then to become a man?

Further, you agreed with the idea that God does not emote but rather is emotion "in His divine essence". What would that even mean, Jim? What does it mean to be emotion, especially if one is unable to emote? It doesn't make any sense! Oh! Let me guess, it's an antinomy, right?! Up till now, you've categorically denied the existence of antinomy in your theology so I doubt that's actually what you believe so please explain it to us Jim. How is it that God is emotion? Please explain how God is simultaneously love and hatred, joy and sorrow, happiness and despair, peace and anxiety, all immutably so.

Further still, how does one define was is and is not an essential attribute and apposed to some other attribute like a manifestation? Also, how does one make such distinctions without the implication that God has parts? If God’s manifestations are mutable, wouldn’t that mean, according to the Calvinist logic that those manifestations are imperfect? Is God’s glorified body imperfect, Jim? If so, what else about the risen Christ is imperfect?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Here's the part of the Script where I write:

For those who understand, no further explanation is necessary. For those who will not understand, no further explanation will suffice.

All according to God's immutable decrees, of course.

Trusting the Rock,
Jim

 

[Hilston]

Hi Knight,

Please see my reply to your earlier post below:

Jim, I think that's a great question.

And in your response to me you kind of answered it yourself when you said... "How will He direct your steps? Will push or pull you emotionally? Psychologically?"

I think that God pushes us, pulls us, and directs our attention to an answer what we pray for, and helps bring events to pass using these means.

Sounds to me like you're describing God as mucking around in your heart and mind, messing with your free will. Do you have any examples of an answer that you prayed for coming to fruition?

God can also comfort us, sooth us and relieve us of our worry and mental stress therefore allowing us to blossom with the fruit of the spirit (love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.).

Do you believe He personally soothes, comforts and relieves us of our worry, etc. without knowing that He's doing that? Are you aware of it as it happens?

But how does He do this mechanically? I admit that I really don't know. Maybe others do know, but I certainly cannot say for sure. I have heard people state that God designed us in a way where possibly our brains and synapses may be a conduit to the Spirit, and therefore God could be influencing us (if we let Him) directly through our brain! Clearly this is something that would be hard to test but it is interesting especially when you consider that our brain is really the only organ that couldn't be replaced without completely losing our identity.

But again, aren't you suggesting that God is interfering with your free will? When you say "If we let Him," what's to stop Him, if you resisted to "let Him," and He saw it as expedient to do so, to use the Holy Spirit Brain Conduit to get you to "let Him"? He could tweak a few neurons and fire off some synapses, and the next thing you know, you're "letting Him," completely unaware that your neurons and synapses have been monkeyed with. In fact, your "letting Him" feels completely free and self-willed. Do you have objections to this scenario?

In the past God has answered prayer in a far more dramatic way that we can read about in the Bible but it seems He isn't intervening in such a dramatic way these days (no pillars of fire, raising the dead or manna fields to pick).

You and I agree here.

... It seems these days (in this dispensation) God answers prayers in a more personal, psychologically way yet also a physical way possibly through our brain.

We disagree here. God answers prayers through every means as He has decreed according to the Script, personal, psychological, physical ~ just not miraculously.

I look forward to your reply.

AATGD, OC.

Jim

 

[Clete]

Here's the part of the Script where I write:

For those who understand, no further explanation is necessary. For those who will not understand, no further explanation will suffice.

All according to God's immutable decrees, of course.

Trusting the Rock,
Jim

In other words...

"I am unable to respond to the points you've made and so I need to just keep hammering away at the notion that all you open theists are stupid idiots who can't read in the hopes that someone won't think that I'm the one being the dullard here. At least I have Sentientsynth on my side!"

Thanks for clearing that up Jim.

How in the world do I keep getting convinced to give you another chance? :doh:

 

[Hilston]

:wave2:

 

[Clete]

Is your assumption correct or is the entire line of reasoning erronious?

I don't have time to respond to the rest right now but the contradiction is not denied on either side thus the use of the term antinomy on their side and the use of the term "error" on my side.

Please don't simply respond to my posts as though they are stand alone posts that have no context. If you had considered the context of my comment in the first place you would never have asked this question. It's as if each post begins a whole new conversation with you.

 

[Hilston]

I knew this was going to be a waste of time.

Go back and read my posts, Clete. I treated you with kindness and respect until the moment you began to trash the discussion with your playground threats and Biff Tannen bullyspeak. In light of Knight's recent olive branches toward me, I gave an extra effort to be careful with my words, to re-read my responses from your point of view, to delete or modify anything that could be regarded as hostile or unfriendly. Go back and read them, Clete. Then ask yourself at what point my tone changed. See if you can find it. Ask someone to help you.

Do you remember way back how you behaved when you thought my posts regarding apologetics were "unresponsive"? Do you remember how dogmatically sure you were of your own understanding, only to find out later that you hadn't grasped it nearly as well as you initially thought? Remember all that spitting and whining and name-calling you lobbed at me, thinking I was just being "unresponsive," but later, when it started to make sense, you couldn't believe you were so hostile to me? This is just like that. You have no clue about the fundamental terms of this topic. Anyone who has sufficiently dealt with these issues would look at your posts, shake their head and say, "He just doesn't get it, does he?"

It should be clear to any rational person reading this exchange that you're a noisome and petulant child who, when his parents don't give him exactly what he wants, he calls them "unresponsive." It should be obvious that what you call "unresponsive" is truly an utter failure on your part to grasp the issues. If you think you "get it," and that I'm truly being "unresponsive," prove it by explaining how God can be immutable and yet mutable at the same time, without resorting to the "antinomy" escape hatch. If you can't explain your opponents' view, then you're not qualified to debate it. And if you choose to continue debating a view you don't understand, then you are left with pathetically wrestling a straw dummy into perpetuity.

Here's the part of the divinely authored Script where I say:

Trusting the Rock,
Jim

PS: I've never in my life known an adult to say so many times, over and over again, over years of correspondence, "I'm not stupid." There comes a point where we all look at each other and say, "The stupid lady doth protest too much, methinks."

 

[Hilston]

Poly,

As I was answering Knight's post this morning, I was thinking of an earlier post from you that I haven't responded to yet. I'll try to get to it soon. Please forgive the delay. It just got lost in the shuffle.

AATGD, OC,
Jim

 

[Clete]

Go back and read my posts, Clete. I treated you with kindness and respect until the moment you began to trash the discussion with your playground threats and Biff Tannen bullyspeak. In light of Knight's recent olive branches toward me, I gave an extra effort to be careful with my words, to re-read my responses from your point of view, to delete or modify anything that could be regarded as hostile or unfriendly. Go back and read them, Clete. Then ask yourself at what point my tone changed. See if you can find it. Ask someone to help you.

Do you remember way back how you behaved when you thought my posts regarding apologetics were "unresponsive"? Do you remember how dogmatically sure you were of your own understanding, only to find out later that you hadn't grasped it nearly as well as you initially thought? Remember all that spitting and whining and name-calling you lobbed at me, thinking I was just being "unresponsive," but later, when it started to make sense, you couldn't believe you were so hostile to me? This is just like that. You have no clue about the fundamental terms of this topic. Anyone who has sufficiently dealt with these issues would look at your posts, shake their head and say, "He just doesn't get it, does he?"

It should be clear to any rational person reading this exchange that you're a noisome and petulant child who, when his parents don't give him exactly what he wants, he calls them "unresponsive." It should be obvious that what you call "unresponsive" is truly an utter failure on your part to grasp the issues. If you think you "get it," and that I'm truly being "unresponsive," prove it by explaining how God can be immutable and yet mutable at the same time, without resorting to the "antinomy" escape hatch. If you can't explain your opponents' view, then you're not qualified to debate it. And if you choose to continue debating a view you don't understand, then you are left with pathetically wrestling a straw dummy into perpetuity.

Here's the part of the divinely authored Script where I say:

Trusting the Rock,
Jim

PS: I've never in my life known an adult to say so many times, over and over again, over years of correspondence, "I'm not stupid." There comes a point where we all look at each other and say, "The stupid lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Jim,

You. Are. A. Liar.

Good bye.

 

[Hilston]

So quickly you've forgotten? Do you not realize that anyone can go back and search for the posts that prove everything I've said? This is not merely one person's word against another's. It's all documented. Shall I post some links? Links don't lie. Your own words indict you.

This, my friends, is what the Open View does to the mind. Open Theism is a mental disorder. All according to God's immutable decrees, of course.

:wave2:

 

[RobE]

I don't have time to respond to the rest right now but the contradiction is not denied on either side thus the use of the term antinomy on their side and the use of the term "error" on my side.

The contradiction is denied on all sides with the exception of the open view.

4-1. There must be some lack of ability in the human mind to understand( how A and B are not contradictory.)​

This is the conclusion which was posted for the position of the quoted writers. The non-o.v. people say there is a perceived antinomy which must not exist in reality. Molina posited that the existence of contingency removes the antinomy, and you said that if contingency existed then it is possible that your conclusion would be in error.

4-0. My understanding of the Bible is in error. There three possibilities. A is right and B is wrong, B is right and A is wrong or both A and B are wrong because two contradictory statements can both be false but they cannot both be true.​

The conclusion of the open view alone is that the contradiction exists in reality.

Please don't simply respond to my posts as though they are stand alone posts that have no context. If you had considered the context of my comment in the first place you would never have asked this question. It's as if each post begins a whole new conversation with you.

Clete: They see the contradiction and right it off as an antinomy. Their line of thinking goes as follows (and does so in the presence of what you insist are narrowly focused qualifications and an understanding of the difference between God's essense and His manisfestations)....

1. The Bible teaches A
2. The Bible teaches B
3. A and B contradict one another.
4. There must be some lack of ability in the human mind to understand how A and B are not contradictory.

Clete's correction: There line of thinking SHOULD be as follows...

1. The Bible seems to teach A
2. The Bible seems to teach B
3. A and B are contradictory – therefore…
4. My understanding of the Bible is in error. There three possibilities. A is right and B is wrong, B is right and A is wrong or both A and B are wrong because two contradictory statements can both be false but they cannot both be true

My response to Clete's correction: This thinking is correct as long as contingency doesn't exist. For example: A might be right if ....., B might be right if ....., A and B might be right if......

Then you get this situation:

1. The Bible teaches A and B
2. A and B are contradictory - therefore...
3. There must be contingencies in which A or B is true/false; or A and B are true true/false.​

Clete: If contingencies exist then the two may or may not be contradictory in which case the entire line of reasoning would be erronious. In other words, my statement assumes that the contradiction between A and B is a real one.

Rob: Is your assumption correct or is the entire line of reasoning erronious?​

Clete: Please don't simply respond to my posts as though they are stand alone posts that have no context. If you had considered the context of my comment in the first place you would never have asked this question. It's as if each post begins a whole new conversation with you.

________________________________________________________________

Clete,

I'm simply trying to point out that your 'assumption' is killing your argument. Obviously, the writers you are correcting don't believe the contradiction truly exists; and therefore, you assuming that they....

but the contradiction is not denied on either side thus the use of the term antinomy on their side

....aren't denying the contradiction is a false assumption. They are denying it by stating that man is somehow unable to understand why the positions aren't contradictory. They do acknowledge that it has an appearance of being an antinomy, but reject that it is.

My response about contingency was an attempt to provide a possible way that this might be achieved; and I wrote it to put more fuel on the fire of the discussion instead of just ending up calling each other names and ultimately saying nothing. I'm sorry if you feel that I'm missing the essence of your posts.

Trying to get Hilston to admit that the contradiction really exists is futile,

Rob

 

[RobE]

Hilston,

I know you've already answered this question, but would you do it again please.

Why does the antinomy which Clete presents not exist in reality?

Rob

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Hi Knight,

Please see my reply to your earlier post below:

Sounds to me like you're describing God as mucking around in your heart and mind, messing with your free will. Do you have any examples of an answer that you prayed for coming to fruition?

Why would you say "messing with your free will"?

How is "pushing, pulling, influencing, etc." "messing with my free will"?

Take Jonah for instance....
God did some serious "pushing and pulling" right? After all it took Jonah being eaten by a giant fish to get Jonah to do God's will and not Jonah's will.

When we pray it's not much different, aside from the giant fishes

Doesn't the story of Jonah and others like it show that there are wills in play besides God's? Jonah's will was not to go to Nineveh. God's will was that Jonah go to Nineveh. God "pushed" and "prodded" Jonah to influence His will so that Jonah would do God's will (go to Nineveh). If God had the only "will" in play why not just decree that Jonah go to Nineveh in the first place? Why not skip all the giant fish stuff? Or better yet, why not decree that Nineveh not be an evil city and then Jonah wouldn't have had to go in the first place, or better yet why not decree that Adam not sin etc., etc., etc. ?

Would you agree that a will can be influenced without being taken away?

Do you believe He personally soothes, comforts and relieves us of our worry, etc. without knowing that He's doing that? Are you aware of it as it happens?

"without knowing that He's doing that?" I don't get that part. Why did you say "without knowing that He's doing that?" Why would God not know what He was doing?

We must have some sort of disconnect there, maybe you could help me out and explain what you meant.

But again, aren't you suggesting that God is interfering with your free will? When you say "If we let Him," what's to stop Him, if you resisted to "let Him," and He saw it as expedient to do so, to use the Holy Spirit Brain Conduit to get you to "let Him"? He could tweak a few neurons and fire off some synapses, and the next thing you know, you're "letting Him," completely unaware that your neurons and synapses have been monkeyed with. In fact, your "letting Him" feels completely free and self-willed. Do you have objections to this scenario?

I think "interfering" and "influencing" are very different. Assuming you mean "interfering" as in "taking away".

I believe that there is no doubt that God likes to influence our will. In fact I think the entire Bible is all about influencing our will. God wants us to conform our will to His will!

But I do not believe He interferes with our will (assuming I understand what you mean by "interfere".)

For instance...

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths. 7 Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the LORD and depart from evil.

Notice God says "lean not on your own understanding", this is a reference to our will when it is NOT in line with His will. "In all your ways acknowledge Him", pray, meditate, allow Him to work with us. "And He shall direct your paths." In other words, if we let Him He will influence our will to more closely align with His will.

You and I agree here.

:up:

We disagree here. God answers prayers through every means as He has decreed according to the Script, personal, psychological, physical ~ just not miraculously.

OK, here is where I am about to ask a question and I can guarantee that it will be taken as if I am trying to be rude or sarcastic or rhetorical with you. Trust me I am not! My following question is meant completely on the "up and up" and strictly because it seems to make me have a hard time understanding your position.

Here goes... (in your view)
Didn't God also decree/ordain the original prayer that He decreed/ordained the answer to?

In other words....

It's easy for you to claim that God decreed in advance that He would answer a prayer, but if He also decreed that the prayer be asked in the first place, and all the circumstances that lead up to this prayer, what's the point?

Isn't prayer an example of God asking us, to ask Him, to alter the course of upcoming events?

 

[Clete]

Hilston,

I know you've already answered this question, but would you do it again please.

Why does the antinomy which Clete presents not exist in reality?

Rob

The antinomy I present? Are you on drugs or what? I've presented no antinomy at all! I've quoted people who talk about God's immutability who claim the existence of an antinomy in spite of the fact that according to Jim, they never fail to "carefully qualify" their remarks concerning God's immutability and are clearly referring only to God's essential nature. Jim is the only one who denies the existence of an antinomy (i.e. a contradiction) HE IS THE ONLY ONE!!! He claims not to be able to find anyone who even claims that there is an antinomy and when confronted with a clear proclamation of the existence of the exact same sort of antinomy that I found in literally seconds via a Google search he instantly gets sarcastic and personal and then claims that I'm the one who is dishonest and childish!

WHY DO YOU PEOPLE TOLLERATE THIS JERK?!!!

It is perfectly obvious that he isn't here to debate or to add anything meaningful to the discussion. He is here to disrupt any discussion concerning the open view in any way that he can. His vocabulary makes his posts seem thoughtful but it's all fluff and totally without substance. As soon as anyone challenges his assumptions, it immediately turns into a discussion about the open view mental disorder or some other such insulting thing. All he's about is one-liners that remove all meaning from the term he's using. It's blatantly intentional. Why you guys can't see it, I will never understand but I've had it. I gave Jim another chance at the request of a good friend and now I'm done.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

The contradiction is denied on all sides with the exception of the open view.

4-1. There must be some lack of ability in the human mind to understand( how A and B are not contradictory.)​

This is the conclusion which was posted for the position of the quoted writers. The non-o.v. people say there is a perceived antinomy which must not exist in reality. Molina posited that the existence of contingency removes the antinomy, and you said that if contingency existed then it is possible that your conclusion would be in error.

NO NO NO!!!
They do not say that there is a "perceived antinomy"!!! They insist that two concepts that they can clearly see contradict one another are nonetheless TOTALLY ACCURATE AND TRUE!!! When that sort of thing happens they call it an antinomy. Something that only APPEARS to be a contradiction WOULD NOT BE AN ANTINOMY!!! If the contradiction is real then the term antinomy does not apply. Get it?

4-0. My understanding of the Bible is in error. There three possibilities. A is right and B is wrong, B is right and A is wrong or both A and B are wrong because two contradictory statements can both be false but they cannot both be true.​

The conclusion of the open view alone is that the contradiction exists in reality.

You're wrong. People who accept the concepts of Calvinism DO NOT DENY that the concepts contradict one another. They very simply do not deny it. They simply accept it and make no attempt whatsoever to reconcile the idea in a rational way because they do not believe that any such reconciliation is possible. The term they attach to such things is "antinomy". If the contradiction did not exist there would be no need for the term in the first place.

Clete: They see the contradiction and right it off as an antinomy. Their line of thinking goes as follows (and does so in the presence of what you insist are narrowly focused qualifications and an understanding of the difference between God's essense and His manisfestations)....

1. The Bible teaches A
2. The Bible teaches B
3. A and B contradict one another.
4. There must be some lack of ability in the human mind to understand how A and B are not contradictory.

Clete's correction: There line of thinking SHOULD be as follows...

1. The Bible seems to teach A
2. The Bible seems to teach B
3. A and B are contradictory – therefore…
4. My understanding of the Bible is in error. There three possibilities. A is right and B is wrong, B is right and A is wrong or both A and B are wrong because two contradictory statements can both be false but they cannot both be true

My response to Clete's correction: This thinking is correct as long as contingency doesn't exist. For example: A might be right if ....., B might be right if ....., A and B might be right if......

Then you get this situation:

1. The Bible teaches A and B
2. A and B are contradictory - therefore...
3. There must be contingencies in which A or B is true/false; or A and B are true true/false.​

Clete: If contingencies exist then the two may or may not be contradictory in which case the entire line of reasoning would be erronious. In other words, my statement assumes that the contradiction between A and B is a real one.

Rob: Is your assumption correct or is the entire line of reasoning erronious?​

Clete: Please don't simply respond to my posts as though they are stand alone posts that have no context. If you had considered the context of my comment in the first place you would never have asked this question. It's as if each post begins a whole new conversation with you.

________________________________________________________________

Clete,

I'm simply trying to point out that your 'assumption' is killing your argument. Obviously, the writers you are correcting don't believe the contradiction truly exists; and therefore, you assuming that they....

I am making no such assumption.

an·tin·o·my
n. pl. an·tin·o·mies
1. Contradiction or opposition, especially between two laws or rules.
2. A contradiction between principles or conclusions that seem equally necessary and reasonable; a paradox.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition​

The term has no meaning outside of a rationally unreconcilable (i.e. a real) contradiction.

....aren't denying the contradiction is a false assumption. They are denying it by stating that man is somehow unable to understand why the positions aren't contradictory. They do acknowledge that it has an appearance of being an antinomy, but reject that it is.

No they do not acknowledge any such thing. What they believe is that God is "super-rational". God is above rationality in their view and so to expect the truths about God to be rational is an unreasonable expectation. It is an intentional embrace of irrationality. They do not expect that God will make sense and so make no attempt to force their theology make sense.

My response about contingency was an attempt to provide a possible way that this might be achieved; and I wrote it to put more fuel on the fire of the discussion instead of just ending up calling each other names and ultimately saying nothing. I'm sorry if you feel that I'm missing the essence of your posts.

I do not think that you are doing anything to intentionally obfuscate the issue at hand. It just seems clear that you don't understand what is being said when someone claims the existence of an antinomy. It is not the innocuous "I don't get it" that you seem to what for them to be saying. They aren't simply saying. "I don't understand how this can be reconciled.", they are saying "This cannot be rationally reconciled but God is bigger than logic and so I don't mind that it makes no sense.".

Also, if you perceive any hostility from me, please disregard it. Jim has me worked up more than I generally like to allow myself to get so I'm probably a bit touchy right now. I'll try to not let my hated of Jim to spill over into responses to your posts from now on. Please accept my apologies for having been so short with you earlier.

Trying to get Hilston to admit that the contradiction really exists is futile,

Rob

You're so totally right about that!
Well no one can say I didn't try.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Jim, Rob do you guys realize you look very much alike?

Come to think of it, I have never seen the two of you together at the same time. :think:

 

[godrulz]

Jim,

Stop being a dork

Clete

As an aside, the origin of 'dork' is interesting. Coming from a broken home, I used to be a dork. Many kids are dorks (has to do with keys).

This thread is hard to follow with the mud from the sandbox flying around.

Clete and Jim are titans of their respective views. May the best man or mouse win.

 

[Clete]

As an aside, the origin of 'dork' is interesting. Coming from a broken home, I used to be a dork. Many kids are dorks (has to do with keys).

This thread is hard to follow with the mud from the sandbox flying around.

Clete and Jim are titans of their respective views. May the best man or mouse win.

The term can mean many things I suppose, some of them quite vulgar. My use of the term is equivalent in meaning to the word fatuous.

 

[godrulz]

The term can mean many things I suppose, some of them quite vulgar. My use of the term is equivalent in meaning to the word fatuous.

I heard the origins were England or something, where the kids would come home to an empty house because both parents were off working. They had to let themselves in with a door key, hence dork for short. cf. latch-key kid.

Let's google it:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dork


Yep...I can't remember things from a minute ago, but I remember this trivia from decades ago.