ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Hilston]

Combined reply to Yorzhik and 1Way,

Yorzhik,

Re: "Solving the game of chess." I don't understand what you mean by it. Perhaps I can better understand and answer the question if I knew what chess problem needs to be solved. If you said "Jones solved the glitch in the software," that would make sense. If you said "I solved the leak in the toilet tank," I would understand. Those are problems that need a solution. But if someone says to me, "I solved the game of 'Go Fish,'" I need to know what the problem was in the first place.

To 1Way,

Here's an illustration to communicate distinctions between cause and decree, choosing in terms of ability and choosing in terms of will. It is not intended to communicate anything about God Himself. No component of this analogy is intended to represent or correspond to God or any of His attributes or characteristics.

For the sake of argument, let's say that my genetics alone were the determining factor for what kinds of vegetables I like or hate to eat. In this case I hate peas and I like beans.

A choice is set before me. Eat peas or eat beans.

Am I able to choose peas? In terms of ability, yes, I can choose peas. But in terms of my will, I am not able to choose peas over beans. Is it possible, in terms of ability, to choose peas, of course. Is it possible, in terms of my will, to choose peas, of course not, unless I can go against my own will.

"Why don't you choose the peas?" someone might ask. "Are you too weak to choose the peas?" The answer is no, of course. I have the ability to choose them if I wanted to. But I don't want to. "What's so hard?" Someone might ask. What's so hard is going against my own will. That makes it not possible, in terms of my will.

If someone were to ask, "Why doesn't that guy choose to eat peas." The answer is, he doesn't want to (a function of the will). "Is he able to?" In terms of ability, yes. In terms of what the will is (a function of genetics), no.

So what is the cause of my choosing peas? My will. What role do my genetics play? The genetics decree the will. The genetic decree the sole determining factor of my vegetable preference. If you want to say my genetics (decree) are the reason for my will being such as it is, that's fine. But genetics (the decree) did not cause me to choose beans. My will did. You might say that the genetic decree accounts for why my will is what it is, but genetics did not cause me to choose beans. That is to say, the "because" is not the same as the "cause."

Can the answer be, "His genetics caused him to choose beans?" If you want to loosely define "cause" and say both genetics and my will are somehow causes, then I'm going use your concession against you.

If there's any part of that you don't understand, I will happily explain further.

 

[Clete]

Jim,

What if we take the above senario (it's not an analogy as "It is not intended to communicate anything about God Himself") one or two steps futher.
What if you NEVER would choose peas, what if the peas had exactly zero chance of being selected due to this gentic oddity. What meaning would your will have in the equation? If the genetic component is NEVER overriden then what profit is there in saying that you even have a will in the matter. Isn't your will just a figment of your imagination at that point?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Yes. I meant the building was designed to fall in the first rain. Sorry for the confusing addition.

Buildings are not supposed to fall in the first rain. Doesn't that seem odd to you?

It does seem odd. It seemed odd to me when you first proposed it, but I answered anyway, and I've been consistent in my answers. Sometimes people design things strangely for strange reasons. The reason didn't seem relevant, so I didn't bother asking why the architect would design it that way, assuming he had a reason for the building to fall after the first rain.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
How can you say… "What problem? If he wants the building to fall after the first rain, there is no "problem." It was intended!"?

See above.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
In the case of God, something went wrong. How do we know?
God says He hates sin -> That something He hates is going on -> Something is wrong.

I don't disagree. The question is whether or not God decreed it.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
-and-

So design and working product are acted on by different things. That is true, but I think we've gotten to the rub of the discussion, which is the causetive effects of a decree. Thus the illustration is only useful if we extend it to an example where something has happened, and now the design is part of the discussion of what happened.

You're right. There are causative effects to a decree. That is not the same as being the cause. And when we're talking about culpability, we have to narrow it down to who is criminally responsible. As infinite, God cannot be held culpable for anything by anything or anyone. As the Decreer, one can claim that God's decrees had a causative effect, but God is not the cause in terms of culpability.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
In *every* case where something goes wrong with something that was designed, the design is considered. And that is what happened on earth. Something went wrong with some of the things on earth that were designed. So now we have to include the design in assigning fault.

I tried that once. I thought, "Well if it was God's will to design everything in such a way that these problems and evil would exist, and if I happen to sin, how could He blame me for sinning (Why doth He yet find fault)? After all, He is God, and who hath resisted his will?" I don't think that anymore.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
If God says He hates sin, and God says He doesn't hate sin, can both statements be true?

The answer is no. God never says that He doesn't hate sin.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Okay, here is an analogy: A city sees a large enemy army coming its way. They have to destroy the bridge in order to be saved. But the army is coming too fast. The king calls for a mighty warrior to stand in the gap on the enemy side of the bridge. A mighty warrior comes forward, and stands at the choke point and holds off each enemy soldier, one by one, buying enough time for the bridge to be destroyed, and having great evil done to him until he dies. Was the warrior evil? How about the king?

Neither. What is the purpose of the analogy?

Let's say the people later found out that king could have stopped the large army from ever approaching the city. But because the king wanted to make a great example of the mighty warrior, he decided to let the enemy come and to do this evil against his champion. In your view, does that change anything?

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
What if we take the above senario (it's not an analogy as "It is not intended to communicate anything about God Himself") one or two steps futher.
What if you NEVER would choose peas, what if the peas had exactly zero chance of being selected due to this gentic oddity.

That already is the case. That doesn't change the analogy. You're saying exactly what is the case. Given the stipulated details of the analogy, I would NEVER choose peas. Each choice is a discrete event. Every choice between peas and beans, given the same scenario, will always be the same. I would NEVER choose peas. If you change the scenario, then you change the choice. For example, if you put a gun to my head and say "Choosing beans will result in your death." Then the choice is no longer between peas and beans, but between peas and death. I would eat the peas.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
If the genetic component is NEVER overriden then what profit is there in saying that you even have a will in the matter. Isn't your will just a figment of your imagination at that point?

Not at all. My will indicates what I will choose. It's very real. You might ask if my freedom to choose is a figment of my imagination, but that is where we must distinguish between ability and will. I feel free to peas if I wanted to. But I don't want to. My will isn't free to choose against what it wants. In terms of the will, I'm not free at all. In terms of ability, sure I could (if I wanted to) choose the peas.

Excellent question, Clete.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston
I feel free to [choose] peas if I wanted to. But I don't want to. My will isn't free to choose against what it wants. In terms of the will, I'm not free at all. In terms of ability, sure I could (if I wanted to) choose the peas.

If your will is not free to choose against what it wants, are you free then to decide what your will wants or is that another choice your will is making?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

If your will is not free to choose against what it wants, are you free then to decide what your will wants or is that another choice your will is making?

If we don't carefully define terms (and I'm guilty of this), there's an equivocation that is bound to happen. For the sake of your question, let's say that will and choice are different. The will precedes the choice. The choice is determined by the will. The will does the choosing; choices are made by the will.

That said, if we could choose what our will wants, what will is it that does the choosing? If the will can choose its will, is there one will that precedes the second will? If so, might there also be a supervening will that precedes the first? So the question becomes incoherent once we define the terms. If you're not satisfied or disagree with how I've distinguished the terms, please offer explanations of what you have in mind and we can go from there.

 

[Big Finn]

Will:

Main Entry: 2will
Pronunciation: 'wil
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English willa will, desire; akin to Old English wille
1 : DESIRE, WISH: as a : DISPOSITION, INCLINATION <where there's a will there's a way> b : APPETITE, PASSION c : CHOICE, DETERMINATION
2 a : something desired; especially : a choice or determination of one having authority or power b (1) archaic : REQUEST, COMMAND (2) [from the phrase our will is which introduces it] : the part of a summons expressing a royal command
3 : the act, process, or experience of willing : VOLITION
4 a : mental powers manifested as wishing, choosing, desiring, or intending b : a disposition to act according to principles or ends c : the collective desire of a group <the will of the people>
5 : the power of control over one's own actions or emotions <a man of iron will>
6 : a legal declaration of a person's wishes regarding the disposal of his or her property or estate after death; especially : a written instrument legally executed by which a person makes disposition of his or her estate to take effect after death
- at will : as one wishes : as or when it pleases or suits oneself

 

[Clete]

If the will only does what it wants and what it wants is only determined by the decree of God then what is the point in saying we have free will? Or a will at all for that matter. The end result is the same. We do only that which is decreed by God, right?

God's decree + "Our will" = God's decree

Therefore, "Our will" is equal to zero.

Where am I wrong?

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. This is cool! I think this is the most progress we've made in such a small number of posts that I can remember!

 

[Hilston]

Clete writes:
If the will only does what it wants and what it wants is only determined by the decree of God then what is the point in saying we have free will?

Excellent question. To better answer your question, it would help me to know if you agree thus far with what we've established? You don't have to prematurely agree at this point with any conclusions, nor am I asking you to do that. But are the terms acceptable thus far? If not, let's work on this part. It could end up that we don't agree at a very basic level, which is ok. But at least then we'd both know and save ourselves from going over stuff that could have been settled at this stage.

Clete writes:
God's decree + "Our will" = God's decree

The result is not the decree. The decree precedes the result. Nor are our wills "added" to God's decrees.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston

Excellent question. To better answer your question, it would help me to know if you agree thus far with what we've established? You don't have to prematurely agree at this point with any conclusions, nor am I asking you to do that. But are the terms acceptable thus far? If not, let's work on this part. It could end up that we don't agree at a very basic level, which is ok. But at least then we'd both know and save ourselves from going over stuff that could have been settled at this stage.

I understand your reasoning but I do not agree with you. It is my belief that your understanding of the will renders it meaningless or else it is the decree of God that it meaningless, one or the other.
It seems to me that there is a time before our minds are made up, before our "will" has been decided and that the decision making process belongs exclusively to us. It is influenced by many factors, not the least of which is God, but in the end, what we do is our decision, and ours alone. We do indeed have the absolute freedom to decide to do or to decide to do otherwise. Anything short of this is not freedom and concepts like fault, guilt, justice, love, right and wrong, all become meaningless and arbitrary.

The result is not the decree. The decree precedes the result. Nor are our wills "added" to God's decrees.

Okay, I see you point about the result not being the decree but our will certainly is added according to your reasoning; that is if I understand your position correctly.
According to your view, God's decree does not cause the action, our wills do. So without our wills, God's decree is impotent and unable to make anything happen.
Perhaps it would be accurate to characterize your view this way…
God does not decree for me to actually do anything God simply decrees that I want to do something. And since my will cannot go against that which I want, then the action that God has decreed that I will want to do is destined to happen. It is our wills that God commands not our actions.
If this is so then you still have to explain how our wills have any meaning whatsoever! At best they are an arbitrary means to an end which is completely controlled by God and God alone. There is no ability to do or to do otherwise and therefore no freedom, no good, no evil, no love or hate, just automated puppets living out the results of the puppet masters pulling of the strings. All you've really done is to remove the strings from our actions and tied them instead to our will which in turn meticulously controls our actions. The end result is precisely the same, that being the destruction of not only free-will but along with it the meaning of every important word in the Christian vernacular.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Clete writes:
I understand your reasoning but I do not agree with you. It is my belief that your understanding of the will renders it meaningless or else it is the decree of God that it meaningless, one or the other.

That's not what I was asking you about. I was asking you about the beans and peas discussion. Please reconsider my questions in post #1169 in light of my post #1164 (above), your response post #1165 (above), and my rejoinder post #1166 (above). I first want to see if we're on the same page regarding the non-God portion of our discussion. If we're not, I'd like to work on that part first.

Clete writes:
It seems to me that there is a time before our minds are made up, before our "will" has been decided and that the decision making process belongs exclusively to us. It is influenced by many factors, not the least of which is God, but in the end, what we do is our decision, and ours alone. We do indeed have the absolute freedom to decide to do or to decide to do otherwise. Anything short of this is not freedom and concepts like fault, guilt, justice, love, right and wrong, all become meaningless and arbitrary.

Are you familiar with separated-twin studies?

Clete writes:
Okay, I see you point about the result not being the decree but our will certainly is added according to your reasoning; that is if I understand your position correctly.

I'm glad for your statement here, because it gives us an opportunity to clarify things. In my view, nothing is added to the decree, just as nothing is added to the architect's drawings in order to bring about the building. They are separate categories.

Clete writes:
According to your view, God's decree does not cause the action, our wills do. So without our wills, God's decree is impotent and unable to make anything happen.

It's the other way around. Just as the building would not be built without the architect's plans (decrees), so it is with our wills and all of history.

Clete writes:
Perhaps it would be accurate to characterize your view this way…

God does not decree for me to actually do anything God simply decrees that I want to do something. And since my will cannot go against that which I want, then the action that God has decreed that I will want to do is destined to happen.

Not bad. I have no problem with that characterization. It may not be as complete or as comprehensive a statement as I would like, but as it stands, I don't necessarily disagree with it.

Clete writes:
It is our wills that God commands not our actions.

What did you mean by "commands"? In the prescriptive sense?

 

[Yorzhik]

I don't understand what you mean by it.

Why don't you ask somebody who is a chess enthusiast? Or Google it? I'd tell you, but it's so easy to come up with the correct answer that at this point if you don't find out for yourself you aren't even trying.

 

[1Way]

Yorzhik and Hilston

I suggest that "solving chess"

is in essence "mastering the game"

and fulfilling the question in the positive, what is the best way to play the game to win.

If it can be said that you "solved the game of chess", then one would expect that you would always win at chess against anyone else who has not also gained that level of mastery over the game.
:king:
Mastery without Exhaustive Foreknowledge
A beginner at chess is hardly a Master over the game, while Bobby Fischer was an extremely famous and capable master, but God could play a hundred, nay, a thousand of the topmost grand masters and do so blind folded, and still win every match WITHOUT having Exhaustive foreknowledge! It's an issue of being VERY wise and VERY logical and VERY capable (etc.) raised to the power of GOD ALMIGHTY.

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Yorzhik

Why don't you ask somebody who is a chess enthusiast? Or Google it? I'd tell you, but it's so easy to come up with the correct answer that at this point if you don't find out for yourself you aren't even trying.

I can't believe this. In your effort to explain your view, you use a phrase I've never used, "solved the game of chess," and one I do not understand. I ask you a question about the phrase and what you mean by it, and you send me off to do research. Do you really want to communicate with me and explain your view, or is this a game to you? What if I were to ask you whether or not you distinguish between potentia absoluta and potentia ordinata, but I refused to define the terms for you, and then insisted that you look them up yourself to prove that you're "really trying"? Is it the aim to make things as difficult as possible for each other?

Ya know, one of Paul's exhortations in his description of the teaching ministry in the Body of Christ is to personally impart truth (metadidomi) with clarity (haplotes) (Ro 12:8). It's not biblical to treat discussions this way.

In the preface of a book titled, How to Solve Chess Problems, it says,

"A chess problem is a position arranged to illustrate an interesting chess idea, which frequently is based on some particular characteristics of the various men employed".

The reviewer goes on to say,

"... Although chess problems involves some chess tactics like pin, forks, etc. they are not practical to develop tactical skills, because a problem is arranged, it's artificial, the position of a problem won't be reached in a real game.

One might then ask, what is the point of a chess problem, especially if it is not something that would ever happen in a real game. The reviewer explains,

"The purpose of a chess problem is to provide fun for all chess players. Solving C[hess] Prob[lems] is a wonderful way to relax, specially when you get home after work and you pick up your favorite whiskey." (Emphases added)

Is this what you mean by "solving the game of chess"? Artificial arrangements for the purpose of entertainment and relaxation?

Doing further research on this topic, I realized there are people whose obsession is the manufactuing of chess problems. Again, these are not "real-game" scenarios, but rather, artificial placements of chess pieces composed and devised solely for the enjoyment of having to solve it.

So I learned two things in my research: (1) that there is a long-standing and apparently well-developed subculture of chess aficionados who are more interested in devising and solving deliberately manufactured "chess problems" that are not ever encounted in real chess games, and (2) that my original hunch was correct and still stands, namely, that the idea of "solving the game of chess" doesn't make sense in the real world. I offered a similar non sequitur in reference to "solving the game of 'Go Fish'", the obvious point being, "What's to solve? What's the problem inherent in the game that needs a solution?"

The question still stands. If these "Chess Problems" are what you refer to, then tell me how it applies to our discussion. If this is not the case, then please explain what you do mean so we can continue our discussion.

 

[1Way]

Hilston

Decretive will and causation

If you maintain that God's decree is not causative, then God's will is of zero effect by definition. If you say it is causative, then God (according to your view of Him decreeing everything without exception), then because of moral congruity and your claim that God decrees everything that happens without exception, then God would be implicated in evil/sin, since evil/sin happens and God causes it to happen.

Maybe you have had time to think about it, but I would serious like your comments about the following seemingly obvious claims.

I submit that...

1. Being able to do something necessarily means
   that it "can possibly" be done.
   
   If you can not possibly do something, then
   you also do not have the "ability" to do it.
   
2. If something causes nothing then it necessarily
   does not and can not cause anything.
   
   Something that causes nothing is a non-issue
   in terms of what happens. Anything that
   happens involves a cause. Nothing happens
   without a cause and effect.
   
   If nothing is caused, then nothing happens!
   
   So if God's decree is to have any "effect",
   then it must be causative, or it does nothing.

?

As to

So what is the cause of my choosing peas? My will. What role do my genetics play? The genetics decree the will. The genetic decree the sole determining factor of my vegetable preference. If you want to say my genetics (decree) are the reason for my will being such as it is, that's fine. But genetics (the decree) did not cause me to choose beans. My will did. You might say that the genetic decree accounts for why my will is what it is, but genetics did not cause me to choose beans. That is to say, the "because" is not the same as the "cause."

Can the answer be, "His genetics caused him to choose beans?" If you want to loosely define "cause" and say both genetics and my will are somehow causes, then I'm going use your concession against you.

If there's any part of that you don't understand, I will happily explain further.

Hilston, I understand completely the distinctions between the issues at hand. That is not the problem, the problem is that I believe you are working with these distinctions in an inconsistent way.

That would not be my response. Here is what you plainly did.

• Your genetics caused you to prefer beans over peas
  
  Your will's preference of beans over peas was caused by your genetics
  
  You chose to eat beans over peas at the cause of your will

Answering the immediate question by putting it off one more step is not actually answering the question. The answer to the question about the earth sitting on the Turtle is proverbially, it's turtles all the way down. Same issue with the big bang proponents. They say that the entire universe was created at the event known as the "big bang". So they supposedly answer the question, how did this world come into existence. But they really only put off the question to yet another question. What existed prior to the big bang, or did the big bang come from nothing? And so they were back into the same boat they started out with when you realize that the fundamental issue has not been resolved.

Things that cause something have an effect, things that do not cause anything, have no effect.

So I believe you unrealistically claim that your genetics did not cause you to eat beans, it was your will and not your genetics. Your will was caused to prefer beans over peas by your genetics, so that is the foundational cause for this preference, then when you acted out that preference, you did so first by your will, which had already been caused to prefer beans over peas by your genetics. So yes, there is an in between step between the initial or primary cause and the effect, but this cause and effect chain is not broken, it is fully established by your example. The most foundational cause was the genetics not the will.

Here's my corresponding analogy/example.

• A murderer shoots his victim to death, thus he caused the murder to happen.
  
  Yet
  The bullet is what actually caused the victim to die.
  
  Yet
  Pulling the trigger was what caused the bullet to become deadly force.
  
  Yet
  Aiming the gun at the victum, was what caused the gun to become a murderous weapon.
  
  Yet
  Loading the gun with ammo was what caused the gun to become functional.
  
  Yet
  Acquiring the gun and ammo was what caused the murderer to become physically equipped to commit this murder.
  
  Yet
  The murderer caused his resolve that he would shoot someone to death.

Now think about it. In a righteous court of law, would anyone view all these causes as not being causative over the murder, as not being the natural trail of guilt that went all the way from his intention to murder, to actually committing the murder? Basically, all those steps are what happens when the typical garden variety murderer commits murder. Every stop along the way was causative and also crucial or necessary in the final outcome. Sure some modifications or alterations may apply to different circumstances, but this is the general model and the specific example.

Cause and effect are inextricably connected. Especially concerning morality. Consider.

Jas 1:14 But each one is (1) tempted when (2) he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, (3) when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; (4) and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

First you have temptation, then you have your own desires are enticed, then as desire conceives, it gives birth to sin, and sin ultimately brings forth death. Is any aspect in that cause and effect chain not part of the entire process? No, it is one unified connected chain of cause and effect. Did temptation cause death? No, the entire connected chain did, you have to include the whole thing in order to see the entire cause and effect connection.

 

[Hilston]

1Way,

By your logic, you and Michael Moore would get on swimmingly. By your logic, President Bush caused the terrorists attacks on 9/11 and the NRA and KMart caused Klebold and Harris to murder a dozen high school students.

By your logic, any criminal standing before a court of law can claim that his genetics were the cause, and therefore the blame, for whatever crime he happens to be indicted.

 

[1Way]

Nothing I stated lends to such foolishness. All one needs to understand is the difference between influence and control, and between necessary cause and effect and otherwise. Hilston, you are really become an intellectual shame of late.

When a murder murders, is it, or is it not relevent to provide a motive?

How about a weapon?

How about ability or proximity to the crime?

How about direct evidence for the crime?

If they know exactly what weapon was used in the crime, and then they can figure out who acquired it and had it last, then it's this sort of corroborative evidence that is used to convict criminal.

If you are so bent on not directly answering my points, then don't think that trash talking them will somehow make you look good in comparison. Your up to your hips in mud Mr. mud slinger, yet my points of correction against your view remain unscathed and true.

Do I take it that you disagree with James 1:14, or?

 

[1Way]

Hilston

By your argumentation against mine, the murderer:

Did not first resolve to murder, then

Did not acquire the gun and ammo, then

Did not load the gun with ammo, then

Did not aim the gun at the victim, then

Did not pull the trigger

Did not murder anyone, he is innocent, but the bullet is guilty!

Even though all those steps certainly did take place. The fact that they all took place is part of the righteous evidence that is used to convict criminals. It is the separation of this chain of cause and effect that is ludicrous. Can you imagine the murderer saying, but your honor, I did not kill that man, all I did was pull the trigger, the cause of the killing was the bullet itself, not my use of my gun!

Come on, someone go over and wake up Hilston, he's in la la land again.

 

[Clete]

Jim,

I understand your peas analogy perfectly.


When I said, "According to your view, God's decree does not cause the action, our wills do. So without our wills, God's decree is impotent and unable to make anything happen."
You said that it was backward.
But when I repeated the same thing in different words...
"Perhaps it would be accurate to characterize your view this way…

God does not decree for me to actually do anything God simply decrees that I want to do something. And since my will cannot go against that which I want, then the action that God has decreed that I will want to do is destined to happen."
...you said that you basically agreed.

They’re the same thing Jim. It's precisely the same statement with more detail for clarity. How can you think one is backward and the other not? I don't get it.

I then said it a third time...
"It is our wills that God commands not our actions."
I should have been more consistent and used the word "decrees" rather than "commands" because I know that you draw a distinction which you find important, but the rest of the post should have made my meaning clear anyway.
At any rate, the point I tried to make about your view rendering our wills meaningless is being made far better by 1Way. He's really been on a roll lately, so I'll leave that portion of the discussion between the two of you for now and we can focus on the peas.

And by the way, the twin studies you like to reference prove nothing in relation to the will except that there is an influence that genetics has on our will. Genetics cannot be said to control us or else the twins in these studies would be precisely the same and there would never be a set of twins that didn't exhibit the same types of similarities.
These studies definite prove influence. But influence is not control. These studies don't even speak to whether or not the genetic influence can be overcome if one were to try as it wouldn't occur to someone who didn't know that they were a twin to attempt such a thing.
I frankly don't see how it is even relevant to the discussion. Perhaps you can connect the dots for me.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by 1Way
Nothing I stated lends to such foolishness.

Trash-talking is a bad sign, 1Way.

Originally posted by 1Way
All one needs to understand is the difference between influence and control, and between necessary cause and effect and otherwise. Hilston, you are really become an intellectual shame of late.

Signs of desperation, 1Way.

Originally posted by 1Way
When a murder murders, is it, or is it not relevent to provide a motive?

It is. So that rules out blaming the bullet, doesn't it?

Originally posted by 1Way
How about a weapon?

How about ability or proximity to the crime?

How about direct evidence for the crime?

Yup. All relevant. So that pretty much makes your bullet-blame drama tediously irrelevant to this discussion, doesn't it?

Originally posted by 1Way
If they know exactly what weapon was used in the crime, and then they can figure out who acquired it and had it last, then it's this sort of corroborative evidence that is used to convict criminal.

Exactly. So what's your point? Blame the bullet? Or blame the gun manufacturer?

Originally posted by 1Way
If you are so bent on not directly answering my points, then don't think that trash talking them will somehow make you look good in comparison.

Who used the word "foolish"? Who used the phrase "intellectual shame"? You're the king of trash-talk, 1Way, and we all know what that indicates in a debate.

Originally posted by 1Way
Your up to your hips in mud Mr. mud slinger, yet my points of correction against your view remain unscathed and true.

:freak:

Originally posted by 1Way
Do I take it that you disagree with James 1:14, or?

I agree with the verse. You preceded the verse with the statement: "Cause and effect are inextricably connected. Especially concerning morality. Consider."

So are you saying the temptation was the cause of death? Or are you saying, the desire is the cause of death? Maybe the dysfunction of the cells that comprise the tissue in the heart caused the death? Unless the verse indicates what you believe about this, I don't see its relevance to your complaint.