Lon
Well-known member
I'm going to send you a PM, but this short post has absolutely no meaning to me.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
I'm going to send you a PM, but this short post has absolutely no meaning to me.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
AMR writes:
God is not the author of sin. God permits (allows) the lost to exist in their sins.
TOL's open theists wail:
If God is sovereign then it means He is still responsible, even by permission.
Delmar writes:
"God allowed the weeds to grow...etc."
Huh? I am confused. :bang:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Er, I asked first, no?
It's a retorical question! The answer for everyone is they are not wrong about anything; i.e. no one says something unless they think they are right about what they are saying. So don't accuse someone of thinking they are always right - you do it, too.
I appreciate your PM. Let me see if I can make it more clear.
Someone accuses someone else of "thinking they are always right!"
The first question I have for the accuser is "what are you wrong about?"
If the accuser cannot come up with something they are wrong about, then they make themselves a hypocrite.
Simple, no?
Quit claiming you don't believe God controls every event.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
No.
Your faulty reasoning is the same as the wicked reasoning of the religious accusers who tried to trip up the testimony and witness of Jesus Christ.
There is no reason for those indwelt, and teaching according to the Holy Spirit of God, to think His Spirit or the Word of God can be wrong.
However, the onus is upon all of us who dare handle the Word of God, to show ourselves dependent upon the Holy Spirit for our understanding of the truths of God.
Every post, put up in the name of Jesus Christ, will be brought to light on Judgment Day. (They are all written in God's books.)
Either our words, actions, and attitudes reflect the Spirit of Jesus Christ, or they will reflect our sinful flesh and be judged by God.
"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. Matt. 12:36
"Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance." Psalm 90:8
"For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Ecclesiastes 12:14
"For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad." Luke 8:17
"For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world." John 7:4
"For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." Matt. 12:37
When the sons of God err, conviction of error and repentance are granted by God. (II Timothy 2:25, Acts 5:31, 11:18)
Where no admittance of error or repentance is found in a confessor of religion, one can be quite certain God is not indwelling that soul. All regenerate Christians are marked and known by their continual repentance and acknowledgement of their human ignorance and lack of comprehending all the inexhaustible riches of God. (Romans 11:33)
Those who are commissioned by the Spirit of God to teach Bible to others, will, if genuinely called to that office, labor mightily and prayerfully to rightly and reverently handle the Holy Scriptures; trusting in the Scriptures, to interpret themselves, according to the guidance and teaching of God's Holy Spirit. (John 16:13)
IOW's, only the proud boast of knowing it all . . .God's humble servants labor to verify what they do know, according to the Spirit and Word of God.
The contrast of attitudes between unsaved and proud, with those saved in humility, are not hard to spot, except for those who are blinded to the things of God to begin with.
Nang
Your incoherent rambling is HILARIOUS!
Nang
TOL Subscriber
I posted at 7:06 and your reply came through at 7:11.
It probably took you a minute or two to keyboard and submit your response, which means you took less than 5 minutes to even think about what I said, let alone reference the Scriptures I presented.
I call that an ignorant, knee-jerk reaction to reasoning you do not want to contemplate, let alone acknowledge.
Your problem, not mine.
Nang
A debate moderated by you where you have the absolute right to edit my posts at will?
You have got to be kidding me!
I have a counter offer.
I will debate Open Theism with you on this forum and Knight can edit either of our posts at his discretion.
I simply started to read your post, and after a couple minutes realized how incoherent it was and began to laugh. My post didn't take more than 30 seconds.
Evoken
New member
First part of my response to AMR's second response
First part of my response to AMR's second response
Notes:
1. AMR's original TULIP post is here
2. My first response to AMR is located here
3. AMR's first response to my first post is here
4. AMR's second response to my first post is here
5. My first response to AMR's first response is here
Now, on to the first part of my response to AMR's second response.
Thanks for taking the time to explain the two different views of Calvinism. I see much similarity between my own view and the one you and the majority of Reformed Christians hold to (infralapsarian). We have more room for agreement than what I expected, since I thought that you held to the supralapsarian view and indeed, my understanding of Calvinism was based only on this view.
Taking your four points above as a guide, I will reword each to better reflect my position and will also provide an brief explanation of my understanding of each point so that you can better appreciate where we agree and disagree.
1. The world was created for the glorification of God.
All creatures in so far as they mirror the divine perfections, glorify God by their mere existence. This is called Objective Glory, and is one of two distinctions that are made within External Glory, which is the name we give to the glorification of God made by creatures. The second distinction is called Formal Glory, and it is the one offered to God by creatures endowed with knowledge and will (humans) in actions such as prayer, obedience, sacrifice, devotion, etc.
A secondary purpose of the creation is the bestowal of good on creatures such as humans. This is a means by which God reveals his perfections, something which in turn lead to his glorification.
2. The transgression of the divine commandment made by of our first parents was a free act of sin.
That is to say, they were free to obey or disobey the divine commandment and were not inclined towards disobedience by God. They followed the advice of the devil out of their own will and so were rightly held responsible for their act. God foreknew that this would occur and had already preordained the means to redeem man and raise him from sin, this is attested to in Scripture (Genesis 3:15).
3. God has predestined certain men to eternal bliss.
The reality of predestination is clearly attested to in Scripture (Matthew 25:34, John 10:27-29, Acts 13:48, Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:11-13, Ephesians 1:4-5) and is something that logically follows from God's exhaustive and infallible foreknowledge and the fact that all things are subject to divine providence.
God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events, both those that will happen by necessity and those that will happen by contingency (such as the free actions of men). Thus, leaving out any sort of fatalism and keeping intact the free will of rational creatures, man is free wether he accepts God's grace and does good, or wether he rejects it and does evil.
God has preordained both the eternal happiness and the good works of the elect, born out of their free cooperation with his grace. Since God infallibly foreknows from eternity who the elect are, then from this it follows that the number of the elect is definite and is not subject to variation neither by additions nor deletions, for any uncertainty or variability on the number of the elect would be inconsistent with God's exhaustive and infallible foreknowledge.
Now, a person may be said to be predestined by God in three ways. First, he may be predestined to grace, and by this the person is moved to faith and the beginning of his salvation by the grace of God. Such a person is not predestined to glory but only comes to genuine faith for a while and then falls away, as Lord Jesus said: "For many are called, but few are chosen." (Matthew 22:14). Second, a person may be predestined to grace and to glory, by this, the person is given by God the gift of the initial grace and the necessary graces that help this person persevere with his free cooperation to obtain salvation (Matthew 24:13, Romans 8:30). This person will infallibly obtain salvation given that the divine decree, since it is infallible, cannot fail. Third, a person may be predestined to glory alone, this may be someone who never heard about the faith and is invisibly ignorant of The Church.
Then there is the question of what is the basis of the predestination of the elect. Does God predestines certain men to eternal bliss in light of their foreseen merits or without taking their own merits into account? With regards to the first two ways mentioned above, namely, predestination to grace alone and predestination both to grace and to glory, these are done without consideration to any foreseen merits on the part of man. The reason for this is because the first grace, which is responsible for the beginning of faith and salvation, cannot be merited by man in any way and is a free gift from God. Likewise, like links in a chain all subsequent graces depend on this first grace, so any work done by the faithful by the further graces acquired apart from this first grace, depends on the first grace, which as was said, cannot be merited in anyway by man. With regards to the third way, predestination to glory alone, this may or may not occur on account of the foreseen merits of man.
The only uncertainty there is as far as the predestination of the elect goes is from our own perspective. We do not know wether or not we are among the elect. As long as we are on earth, some of the reprobates may be within The Church and some of the elect may be outside of her. So, there is no way for us to know, unless it be by supernatural revelation, wether we or anyone is among the elect. This uncertainty is indeed a good thing, since if we had the knowledge that we are not among the elect, we would despair, likewise, if we had the knowledge that we are among the elect it would beget negligence and pride on us. So, this uncertainty leads us to humbleness, and this is good in the eyes of God.
That is not to say that there can't be external signs that may indicate wether or not somebody is among the elect, but even this is uncertain, as that person may be predestined to grace only and not to glory. Now, it is clear that one of the elect would not reject The Church and much less hold her in contempt and would willfully embrace her if he had the means to do so. Since it is the same God that operates both on The Church and on the elect, then there can be no contradiction between the will of the elect, and the will of God that people follow the precepts of The Church in order to obtain salvation.
Why God predestines some and not others we cannot know. It is an unfathomable mystery, even to reason enlightened by faith. Besides, I think it is not prudent to be prying into the secrets of God's eternal election. Rather, we should aim to "with fear and trembling work out our salvation" (Philippians 2:12), with the hope that the good that we do flows from God's own goodness, and our evil from our own falling.
4. God predestines certain men, in light of their foreseen sins, to eternal damnation.
Reprobation is as much a part of divine providence as predestination (Romans 9:22). There are two senses in which Reprobation may take place, the first is Conditioned Reprobation, and by this is meant that God predestines men to eternal damnation in light of their foreseen sins. The other sense is Unconditioned Reprobation, by which God predestines men to eternal damnation without consideration to any demerit on their part. This is what is referred to as the double predestination, and is the doctrine of the supralapsarian Calvinists you mentioned in your post. Unconditioned Reprobation is to be rejected on the grounds that it contradicts the justice and holiness of God as well as the universality of the divine desire for salvation.
A Conditioned Reprobation however, by which God foresaw from eternity the future demerits of the impious and preordained their eternal punishment on account of their sins, is consistent both with Scripture and the divine perfections. The reprobate perish solely on account of their own wickedness. In contrast to predestination, by which God positively acts and cooperates with the creature in the works that lead them to eternal bliss, God merely permits creatures to fall into sin, and by this they are lead to eternal damnation.
The reason why God acts positively in one and not in the other is because, as I have said in previous posts, it is not within the capacity of fallen man to will or do any supernatural good apart from God's grace, but it is within his capacity to will and do what is sinful. So, the need for God's grace in order for the predestination of the elect to eternal bliss to obtain demands a positive involvement by God. Whereas the eternal damnation of the reprobate on account of their own sin does not necessitates a positive involvement by God, merely a passive involvement in the sense that he permits them to fall freely into sin, and as a consequence, to eternal damnation.
Lastly, the resolve of reprobation is as immutable and unchangeable as the resolve of predestination. Just as the number of the elect is certain, so too the number of the reprobate is certain and not subject to change.
...
Hopefully, this explanation which while it seems long is quite short in light of the subject that is being discussed, helps you better appreciate the similarities and differences of our positions. If you would like me to expand further on any particular point, let me know.
In light of what I explained above, you can see here both, the predestination to grace alone (Judas) and predestination both to grace and to glory (St. Peter and other apostles).
Now, what you say may be true and I could agree with it. However, I wonder how this can make sense in light of the Calvinist doctrines of Irresistible Grace and Perseverance Of The Saints? How is it consistent with: "dead men do not respond, God must make them alive first" and also with: "the eternal security of the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is demonstrated by the persevering faith and righteousness wrought by the grace of God in His little begotten ones." (AMR's Previous Post)?
If this is indeed what happens, then how can there be room for weak faith or doubt among the elect? Surely, you don't think that Judas, who was called by Jesus in the same manner as the other apostles (or made alive by God if you will), didn't even for a moment had genuine faith and then fell away? Also, how are St. Peter's instances of denying and doubting Lord Jesus examples of "persevering faith and righteousness", which as you say is evidence for the eternal security of the elect? Not to mention, his stubborn attitude that is demonstrated throughout the Gospels. I don't see how these tenets (Irresistible Grace and Perseverance Of The Saints) can accommodate such behavior.
It make more sense, in light of what we see in the Scripture, that some men are predestined to grace alone and while they can have faith for a moment, will nonetheless fall away and damn themselves to eternal damnation. It also makes sense to say that the elect can come to the faith and fall away, but that they will eventually return and obtain salvation. This seems to take better into account the free will of man and the need for their cooperation for their salvation.
We are in agreement here. While I believe in predestination and that the number of the elect is certain, as I said above, we do not know who the elect are but we know that God has commanded us to preach and that he has established an earthy means by which we are to be saved and by which all men must abide.
I will respond to the second part of your post (on Limited Atonement) in another post.
God Bless,
Evo
First part of my response to AMR's second response
Notes:
1. AMR's original TULIP post is here
2. My first response to AMR is located here
3. AMR's first response to my first post is here
4. AMR's second response to my first post is here
5. My first response to AMR's first response is here
Now, on to the first part of my response to AMR's second response.
Thanks for taking the time to explain the two different views of Calvinism. I see much similarity between my own view and the one you and the majority of Reformed Christians hold to (infralapsarian). We have more room for agreement than what I expected, since I thought that you held to the supralapsarian view and indeed, my understanding of Calvinism was based only on this view.
Taking your four points above as a guide, I will reword each to better reflect my position and will also provide an brief explanation of my understanding of each point so that you can better appreciate where we agree and disagree.
1. The world was created for the glorification of God.
All creatures in so far as they mirror the divine perfections, glorify God by their mere existence. This is called Objective Glory, and is one of two distinctions that are made within External Glory, which is the name we give to the glorification of God made by creatures. The second distinction is called Formal Glory, and it is the one offered to God by creatures endowed with knowledge and will (humans) in actions such as prayer, obedience, sacrifice, devotion, etc.
A secondary purpose of the creation is the bestowal of good on creatures such as humans. This is a means by which God reveals his perfections, something which in turn lead to his glorification.
2. The transgression of the divine commandment made by of our first parents was a free act of sin.
That is to say, they were free to obey or disobey the divine commandment and were not inclined towards disobedience by God. They followed the advice of the devil out of their own will and so were rightly held responsible for their act. God foreknew that this would occur and had already preordained the means to redeem man and raise him from sin, this is attested to in Scripture (Genesis 3:15).
3. God has predestined certain men to eternal bliss.
The reality of predestination is clearly attested to in Scripture (Matthew 25:34, John 10:27-29, Acts 13:48, Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:11-13, Ephesians 1:4-5) and is something that logically follows from God's exhaustive and infallible foreknowledge and the fact that all things are subject to divine providence.
God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events, both those that will happen by necessity and those that will happen by contingency (such as the free actions of men). Thus, leaving out any sort of fatalism and keeping intact the free will of rational creatures, man is free wether he accepts God's grace and does good, or wether he rejects it and does evil.
God has preordained both the eternal happiness and the good works of the elect, born out of their free cooperation with his grace. Since God infallibly foreknows from eternity who the elect are, then from this it follows that the number of the elect is definite and is not subject to variation neither by additions nor deletions, for any uncertainty or variability on the number of the elect would be inconsistent with God's exhaustive and infallible foreknowledge.
Now, a person may be said to be predestined by God in three ways. First, he may be predestined to grace, and by this the person is moved to faith and the beginning of his salvation by the grace of God. Such a person is not predestined to glory but only comes to genuine faith for a while and then falls away, as Lord Jesus said: "For many are called, but few are chosen." (Matthew 22:14). Second, a person may be predestined to grace and to glory, by this, the person is given by God the gift of the initial grace and the necessary graces that help this person persevere with his free cooperation to obtain salvation (Matthew 24:13, Romans 8:30). This person will infallibly obtain salvation given that the divine decree, since it is infallible, cannot fail. Third, a person may be predestined to glory alone, this may be someone who never heard about the faith and is invisibly ignorant of The Church.
Then there is the question of what is the basis of the predestination of the elect. Does God predestines certain men to eternal bliss in light of their foreseen merits or without taking their own merits into account? With regards to the first two ways mentioned above, namely, predestination to grace alone and predestination both to grace and to glory, these are done without consideration to any foreseen merits on the part of man. The reason for this is because the first grace, which is responsible for the beginning of faith and salvation, cannot be merited by man in any way and is a free gift from God. Likewise, like links in a chain all subsequent graces depend on this first grace, so any work done by the faithful by the further graces acquired apart from this first grace, depends on the first grace, which as was said, cannot be merited in anyway by man. With regards to the third way, predestination to glory alone, this may or may not occur on account of the foreseen merits of man.
The only uncertainty there is as far as the predestination of the elect goes is from our own perspective. We do not know wether or not we are among the elect. As long as we are on earth, some of the reprobates may be within The Church and some of the elect may be outside of her. So, there is no way for us to know, unless it be by supernatural revelation, wether we or anyone is among the elect. This uncertainty is indeed a good thing, since if we had the knowledge that we are not among the elect, we would despair, likewise, if we had the knowledge that we are among the elect it would beget negligence and pride on us. So, this uncertainty leads us to humbleness, and this is good in the eyes of God.
That is not to say that there can't be external signs that may indicate wether or not somebody is among the elect, but even this is uncertain, as that person may be predestined to grace only and not to glory. Now, it is clear that one of the elect would not reject The Church and much less hold her in contempt and would willfully embrace her if he had the means to do so. Since it is the same God that operates both on The Church and on the elect, then there can be no contradiction between the will of the elect, and the will of God that people follow the precepts of The Church in order to obtain salvation.
Why God predestines some and not others we cannot know. It is an unfathomable mystery, even to reason enlightened by faith. Besides, I think it is not prudent to be prying into the secrets of God's eternal election. Rather, we should aim to "with fear and trembling work out our salvation" (Philippians 2:12), with the hope that the good that we do flows from God's own goodness, and our evil from our own falling.
4. God predestines certain men, in light of their foreseen sins, to eternal damnation.
Reprobation is as much a part of divine providence as predestination (Romans 9:22). There are two senses in which Reprobation may take place, the first is Conditioned Reprobation, and by this is meant that God predestines men to eternal damnation in light of their foreseen sins. The other sense is Unconditioned Reprobation, by which God predestines men to eternal damnation without consideration to any demerit on their part. This is what is referred to as the double predestination, and is the doctrine of the supralapsarian Calvinists you mentioned in your post. Unconditioned Reprobation is to be rejected on the grounds that it contradicts the justice and holiness of God as well as the universality of the divine desire for salvation.
A Conditioned Reprobation however, by which God foresaw from eternity the future demerits of the impious and preordained their eternal punishment on account of their sins, is consistent both with Scripture and the divine perfections. The reprobate perish solely on account of their own wickedness. In contrast to predestination, by which God positively acts and cooperates with the creature in the works that lead them to eternal bliss, God merely permits creatures to fall into sin, and by this they are lead to eternal damnation.
The reason why God acts positively in one and not in the other is because, as I have said in previous posts, it is not within the capacity of fallen man to will or do any supernatural good apart from God's grace, but it is within his capacity to will and do what is sinful. So, the need for God's grace in order for the predestination of the elect to eternal bliss to obtain demands a positive involvement by God. Whereas the eternal damnation of the reprobate on account of their own sin does not necessitates a positive involvement by God, merely a passive involvement in the sense that he permits them to fall freely into sin, and as a consequence, to eternal damnation.
Lastly, the resolve of reprobation is as immutable and unchangeable as the resolve of predestination. Just as the number of the elect is certain, so too the number of the reprobate is certain and not subject to change.
...
Hopefully, this explanation which while it seems long is quite short in light of the subject that is being discussed, helps you better appreciate the similarities and differences of our positions. If you would like me to expand further on any particular point, let me know.
In light of what I explained above, you can see here both, the predestination to grace alone (Judas) and predestination both to grace and to glory (St. Peter and other apostles).
Now, what you say may be true and I could agree with it. However, I wonder how this can make sense in light of the Calvinist doctrines of Irresistible Grace and Perseverance Of The Saints? How is it consistent with: "dead men do not respond, God must make them alive first" and also with: "the eternal security of the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is demonstrated by the persevering faith and righteousness wrought by the grace of God in His little begotten ones." (AMR's Previous Post)?
If this is indeed what happens, then how can there be room for weak faith or doubt among the elect? Surely, you don't think that Judas, who was called by Jesus in the same manner as the other apostles (or made alive by God if you will), didn't even for a moment had genuine faith and then fell away? Also, how are St. Peter's instances of denying and doubting Lord Jesus examples of "persevering faith and righteousness", which as you say is evidence for the eternal security of the elect? Not to mention, his stubborn attitude that is demonstrated throughout the Gospels. I don't see how these tenets (Irresistible Grace and Perseverance Of The Saints) can accommodate such behavior.
It make more sense, in light of what we see in the Scripture, that some men are predestined to grace alone and while they can have faith for a moment, will nonetheless fall away and damn themselves to eternal damnation. It also makes sense to say that the elect can come to the faith and fall away, but that they will eventually return and obtain salvation. This seems to take better into account the free will of man and the need for their cooperation for their salvation.
We are in agreement here. While I believe in predestination and that the number of the elect is certain, as I said above, we do not know who the elect are but we know that God has commanded us to preach and that he has established an earthy means by which we are to be saved and by which all men must abide.
I will respond to the second part of your post (on Limited Atonement) in another post.
God Bless,
Evo
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Your counter proposal is meaningless. I have already witnessed what is allowed to pass through on any of the TOL debate threads. Moreover, Knight has also made it clear that TOL's moderator bias leans towards posts that TOL agrees with or the person making the post. Please review here. I can live with this policy while here, but only while here.
You did not read my offer carefully. I won't edit anything from your posts except your usual pejorative words like "fool", "liar", etc. I am sure it will only take you a few posts to the mailing list before you start including these words, so I want you to know that this type of language won't make it through to the list. In other words, you will have to carry on cogent and meaningful conversations without the name calling. So, you have my word that your points and commentary will not be sanitized other than what I have stated above. Frankly this is for your own good. As I have intimated many times with you, no learned person will suffer through vitriolic comments--they will only dismiss the person making them as simply unworthy of their time or consideration.
You want to have a discussion--I have offered you a forum--where the very small membership gives you a chance to demonstrate your expertise with the professional theologians you hold in so much disdain. You are not going to get the chance to have your points considered by published and teaching theologians anywhere else.
Metaphorically speaking, if you want to continue battling open theism in bar fights remain here and press onward. If you want to sit down to a nice dinner and have a discussion about open theism with the well-mannered I have extended you the invitation. The choice is yours.
SOTK
New member
:chicken:
Lame!
Come on, Clete. I would love to see the debate/discussion that AMR is willing to set up for you. All he is asking is that you leave out your "Clete rhetoric". I know that you know what he is talking about.
AMR,
You have shown yourself to be a hypocrite and continue to do so even now (not to mention the fact that you habitually read hostility where there is none). I have zero reason to trust you and I am not a big risk taker to begin with.
Had you made such on offer when you first arrived I would have jumped at the idea, and probably would have regretted having done so judging by your dishonest and hypocritical behavior since then.
I will under no circumstances allow you to edit anything I say - period. Which, of course, you knew would be case when you made this pseudo offer.
Have you fun calling me whatever juvenile names you can come up with. Someone has already started with "chicken" (how original), let's see what else you and your mindless followers can come up with.
SOTK
New member
Hypocrite? Mindless followers? :darwinsm: That's rich coming from you and rich coming from a frequent TOLer. How often have you encouraged people to call in and debate with Enyart? You take a risk any time you pursue a debate with the opposition in their "neck of the woods". As Knight likes so frequently to state, "It's my forum and my rules".
It's been put out there for you to finally[/i] engage in a debate of substance (you've complained numerous times how "boring" it can be for you here) and you chicken out. Lame. That's the only conclusion that can be drawn. Calling AMR a "hypocrite" and "dishonest" is nothing but smokescreen not to mention unproven. Again, and another comment of yours which you like so frequently to state, "Saying it doesn't make it so".
As far as I'm concerned, AMR has "won the debate" (as you love to frequently state) by default.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Clete,
Should you agree to my proposal, you are free to post here at TOL your unedited versions of any posts you make or receive from my mailing list in response. That way everyone can see if I am a man of my word and only editing the kind of vitriol you demonstrate above. As an example, had you posted the first sentence above to the mailing list, only the word "hypocrite" would have been edited out. This sentence:
"Had you made such on offer when you first arrived I would have jumped at the idea, and probably would have regretted having done so judging by your dishonest and hypocritical behavior since then."
Would have appeared as
"Had you made such on offer when you first arrived I would have jumped at the idea, and probably would have regretted having done so judging by your .... behavior since then."
These edits get made by me with any member of the mailing list I moderate. Very few stoop to these levels, but there are some that get carried away. In over the ten years of the list's existence, only one person has been banned.
As you can see, your points get made, albeit without the hate-mongering. In fact, as demonstrated, you can dispense with these words in any forum and still get your points across with the added advantage of appearing less juvenile.
Again, I ask if you want a forum that will give you a chance to showcase your theological skills "to prove" all the claims you have been making here at TOL. This will be my last offer to you.
By the way, by definition, all open theists are risk takers, Clete.
I have debated several people on several different forums and have defeated them all without exception.
AMR knew when he made the proposal that there was no way in Hell that I would agree to allow him to edit my posts. His proposal therefore amounts to a lie. With my counter proposal, at least Knight could be trusted to keep his word.
Screw you and the horse you came in on.
Do you really think I give a rip what you think?
If AMR could be trusted, I'd jump at the chance but he can't and so I won't. If anyone is scared it is him. He won't trust me to debate anyone unless he can edit my posts in advance.
Thanks for proving yourself to be as stupid as I suspected you to be.
This is a lie.
Even within the short context of this ridiculous proposal of his, he has proven himself to be two faced and a liar.
Original proposal...
"...anytime your posts include sarcasm or flippant commentary, those specific words will be edited out while leaving the substance of your remarks intact."
on his very next post...
"You did not read my offer carefully. I won't edit anything from your posts except your usual pejorative words like "fool", "liar", etc. I am sure it will only take you a few posts to the mailing list before you start including these words, so I want you to know that this type of language won't make it through to the list. In other words, you will have to carry on cogent and meaningful conversations without the name calling. So, you have my word that your points and commentary will not be sanitized other than what I have stated above. Frankly this is for your own good. As I have intimated many times with you, no learned person will suffer through vitriolic comments--they will only dismiss the person making them as simply unworthy of their time or consideration."
Not only has the criterion been changed inside of a single post but by the criteria given in the original proposal I can guarantee you that had I said something remotely like this during the debate, the entire thing would have been considered "sarcastic" and removed.
AMR, as has been true from the very first day he arrived here has shown an inability to remain within his own stated boundaries and is therefore a hypocrite.
In addition to that he has repeatedly been every bit as insulting toward me as I have been toward him (more so if you ask me) and thus further demonstrates his hypocrisy.
You're d*** right it doesn't, you stupid hypocrite!
Yes well that was the idea of making the proposal in the first place, you mindless idiot. But unfortunately for you, saying really doesn't make it so. Not that you care anything about that. Please go continue feeling content with your fat head in the sand.
- Status