Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Concern to you perhaps! It amounts to basically lying Jim. Atheists cast God in a negative light every chance they get, should God be concerned about their lies too? I don't think so!
The difference is this: An atheist can cast all the negative aspersions they want and I'll still have a biblical answer to eviscerates their complaint. It's the same with Open Theist charges against my view. All I have to do is make the biblical argument and it turns the intended negative light back on themselves. I'm not concerned when you put the negative light on me, because I have a cognet answer. You don't, as has been amply demonstrated by the preceding post.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Generally yes. I think Yorzhik has made a couple of brilliant points as well.
So then you, too, do not believe people suffer in hell for their sins?
Hilston wrote:
You continue to misunderstand presuppositional argumentation. The presupp approach alone is able to make rational substantiation.
Clete Pfeiffer responds
Then why don't you give it a try sometime?
This is a typical complaint from atheists and Open Theists who rely on Thomistic-evidentialism to ground their reasoning. They're so blindly convinced of the superiority of their claims that they don't even realize it when their specious and fraudulent arguments have been exposed. Another horse led to water.
Clete Pfeiffer writes:
You totally ignored my point!
This is what I find the most curious of all. You have such tunnel-vision that you don't see the implications of your claims and how it ramifies into areas you have yet to adequately consider. So when I bring down the necessary inferences of your view, you fail to see the relevance and devastation of your espoused tenets upon these matters. But instead of expanding your thinking into these equally, and even sometimes more pertinent areas of doctrine, you accuse ignorance. It seems to me that the ignorance charge belongs to the one who will not expand his thinking to give due consideration to these legitimate and wholly logical inferences.
Clete Pfeiffer writes:
This is what I'm talking about, Jim! You are arguing against a nonexistent argument. Respond to what I said not to your twisted interpretation of it.
I did. I used logic to ascertain what you are claiming, and I used logic to see if it washes. It doesn't. If you have a legitimate gripe, let's hear it. Just to say "You totally ignored my point" and "You are arguing against a nonexistent argument" are just empty words unless you can demonstrate your case.
Clete Pfeiffer writes:
I'll try again with a different analogy.
Let's say you can legitimately print your own money and you, therefore have a literally infinite amount of money that you can spend on whatever you like. If you buy a gum ball at Wal-Mart, do you have any less money? What if you bought New York city, would you have any less money then?
No you wouldn't! If you did then the supply of money would not have been infinite to begin with. That's what it means to be infinite.
All you're talking about is a quantity of buying power, in this case an infinite quantity. The question you seem to be missing is this: If the gumball must agree to be purchased, but does not, is that "infinite buying power" of any value with regard to that gumball? The answer is no. All that power, and it becomes utterly impotent and insufficient to make the purchase.
Clete Pfeiffer writes:
The point being that how the value of something is applied has nothing to do with how much it is worth, thus infinite value does not require universal application.
That's not the point. You've missed the point. Here's the point: It's not a
"how" question, but rather a
"whether or not" question. I.e., the point being that
whether or not the value of something is applied has
everything to do with how much it is worth, thus infinite value
does require universal application if you're going to claim universal redemption.
Clete Pfeiffer writes:
It could be applied universally if the one in possession of its worth decided to do so, but if He doesn't, that does not diminish its worth, either way its worth remains the same.
Again, wrong question, and missed point. The question is not how it is applied, but rather, once applied, what does it actually accomplish.
Hilston wrote:
I'm not talking about "infinite resource" or quantity, but value and worth. Is Christ's work of any value to someone who is suffering in hell, even though Christ died for him? Of course not. Thus, you have put a limit on the value of Christ's work.
Clete Pfeiffer writes:
NO because that isn't what I'm talking about! Stop translating what I say through the Jim Hilston lexicon of the English language! I know what I said and I made it perfectly clear what I meant.
It might've been clear to you, but it looks like a mess from where I'm sitting. You're all over the place, Clete.
Clete Pfeiffer writes:
I will not respond to your arguing against position that you make up out of thin air!
On the contrary, Clete, I'm using your own words and applying the logic that the vast majority of humans employ on a daily basis. I think you're seeing the inadequacy of your theology for the first time and you've gone Def-Con 4 over it.
Clete Pfeiffer writes:
Liar!
See what I mean, Elizabeth?
Clete Pfeiffer writes:
I suppose it would be if I didn't speak the normal version of the English language but as it is, you've just simply lied.
I have evidence that my English is just fine and well-understood, even by those who do not know me personally or even agree with my doctrine. This is a crash-and-burn moment for your theology and you know it. Prove me wrong and offer a counter-argument. Just bringing basic logic to bear upon your claims is like holy water to vampires. It starts to steam and disintegrate, writhing on the floor all gagging and gurgling and stanky as all get-out.
Clete Pfeiffer writes:
Pick a post of yours on the subject at random and chances are you'll have found one that qualifies. That's pretty much all you do. It must make you feel pretty good knocking over straw men all day long.
I'm a very insecure and needy person. The only way I can get through the day is by making up lies about other people and then getting in their face about my confabulated accusations. Then I blow smoke out of my butt. Well, I used to. But my butt-lungs ... long story. Now I just shoot flaming orbs out of my kneecaps.
