Friday, March 21, 2008

Sockpuppetdom

“It's been a week now, still no word from Triablogue about whether they used sockpuppets. We did get a response from Ben stating that he and Tom M. are real people (the post from March 13 has been updated accordingly), even graciously inviting us for coffee if we ever pass through Nashville -- which I may take him up on since I go by that way on occasion. Having resolved some of our curiousity, it makes me wonder why the members of Triablogue have not been so forthcoming with an answer.”

http://www.junkyard.indeathorlife.org/

Well, if you must know, Thibodaux and Kangaroodort are two of Manata’s sockpuppets. According to the Encyclopedia of Sockpuppetism, there is only one true existent, known as the Hand. The rest of us are puppetical projections of the Manatan hand.

But in any good puppet-play, you need heroes and villains. The fictional characters of Thibodaux and Kangaroodort are two stock villains in Manata’s cosmic puppet-show.

“Talk about your sincerest forms of flattery, I've not heard such brilliant comebacks since fourth grade. Looks like his arguments aren't the only things that lack any originality.”

This reaction is known, in the clinical literature, as the Sockpuppet Syndrome. Because puppetheads like Thibodaux are illusory, they suffer from an inferiority complex. They then attempt to compensate for their low self-esteem by resorting to self-important comparisons.

An early symptom of Sockpuppet Syndrome is Arminianitus. A puppethead resents the fact that the Hand is the only true existent. If left untreated, this psychotic condition results in delusions of grandeur as the mental patient frantically aspires to transcend its puppethood by asserting its imagined autonomy in relation to the Hand.

But, this too, is part of the show, as the cosmic Puppet-player manipulates his little toys.

“Sorry Hays, there's no divine promise that no saint will ever violate the warnings delivered to them.”

This statement disregards, without benefit of argument, the many explicit and implicit prooftexts for the perseverance of the saints.

“I never said anything about being preserved despite doing x, but that Calvinism makes both doing x and suffering y out to be not genuinely possible for the saints to whom these warnings were delivered.”

Notice that he’s merely rehashing his tendentious claim about what makes something “genuinely possible.”

J.C. has no argument for his position. Just assertion. That’s why he can never advance the argument—since there was no argument to begin with.

“I said that I didn't mention meaninglessness in the quote Hays cited, not that I never argued it at all.” Once again Hays handles the data very poorly.”

What I did was to point out the inconsistency in J.C’s objection.

“And Hays misses the point from my original challenge, in that the 3 major warnings cited therein are directed specifically at the saints, especially Revelation 22:19, since no unregenerate man has any part in God's kingdom (Ephesians 5:5).”

i) Notice he now thinks I should reference his original challenge, although, when I did that before (see above), he accused me of handling the data “very poorly.” J.C. can’t make up his mind.

ii) Also observe J.C’s exegetical ineptitude. Rev 22:19 isn’t “directed specifically at the saints.” Rather, it’s generally addressed to any reader whatsoever. Cf. S. Smalley, The Revelation to John (IVP 2005), 583.

“I agree with the first sentence, which is why such warnings are so disastrous for Hays' theology.”

They’re only “disastrous” for Reformed theology if J.C. uses Arminian theology as the yardstick, which begs the question.

“And the tail-chasing by Hays continues, I never argued that a warning was not genuine unless it was useless, for a warning being possible to violate does not make it ineffective, as was brought out in my last reply. This does not negate their deterrent effects, but rather my statements that they are possible for the saints to violate fully supports its use as a deterrent, as opposed to the Calvinist doctrine which concludes that such violation is not a genuine possibility for the saints.”

If the purpose of a warning is to deter x from doing y, and x does y anyway, then the warning was obviously ineffective. A warning cannot have a deterrent effect if it fails to effect the outcome (i.e. avoidance of the hazardous conduct).

If x can violate the warning, then that nullifies the deterrent value of the warning—since the warning failed to deter the agent from doing what he was forewarned to avoid.

J.C. has defined his terms in such a way that, as a matter of principle (as well as practice), for a warning to be genuine, it must be possible in each and every case for the warning to be unavailing. That’s a necessary condition of what makes a warning genuine. So a 100% failure rate is consistent with a divine warning.

A warning can’t be genuine unless it can always fail. If God’s warnings were always successful, then they wouldn’t be genuine.

So by claiming that God’s warnings are always effective, the Calvinist is guilty of making God’s warnings of none effect! Such is the Looking-Glass world of Arminian logic.

“Pure nonsense. To be effective as a deterrent, it need only deter one or more of those warned, not all without exception.”

If a warning only succeeds some of the time, then the outcomes lies, not in the efficacy of the warning, but in the compliance or noncompliance of the agent.

“To make matters even worse for Hays, the addition of a consequent makes the warning fully effective and meaningful whether heeded or disobeyed. If one disobeys, it does not make the warning void -- the violator merely suffers the consequences as the warning states.”

As usual, J.C. can only keep one idea in his puppethead at a time. As I already said, a divine warning has either of two different purposes. So I anticipated his lame objection before he raised it.

“And trying to explain the possibility of such a consequence away by stating that God would never allow the antecedent to occur is contrary to such a purpose, as we've already covered.”

Notice that J.C. is simply repeating himself—because he can’t refute my counterargument.

“And we only thought his arguments concerning foreknowledge were awful”

To the contrary, J.C. was never able to explain how God could foreknow the outcome if the outcome could go either way.

“For all his rhetoric, Hays never does give a clear answer as to why it's gospel truth according to the purpose of God for the apostles to sincerely warn the redeemed against the possibility of falling from God's grace with the worst of consequences, but it somehow becomes false teaching when we believe that what they warn against could actually occur.”

Of course, this is a tendentious statement of “God’s purpose,” in which J.C. uploads his Arminian definitions into all the key terms.

But we shouldn’t be too hard on him. Sockpuppets have a limited repertoire of scripted responses.

15 comments:

  1. One and Only Response to Sock Puppet Post

    I should point out that "Arminian" is also me since "Arminian" spelled "irresistible" as "irresisible," and so he must be me since he misspelled that word. Perhaps Ben is me too? Ben has admitted to spelling poorly since he can only post his blog entries at work. So, since both he and I commit spelling errors, then this is evidence that we are the same. I created Ben, as Steve says.

    I should also point out that "Boba Fett" is a Calvinist and an electrician located here in San Diego, and if Ben and J.C. ever come through here we would like to take them out for coffee.

    I should also point out that "Katie" and I did spell "coffen" the same, but a google search engine turns up more than a few hits on that variation. I'm a busy guy. And, I noticed that some other girls at some Calvinist discussion boards signed their names with ~~ X ~~ surrounding them.

    Another line of evidence Ben used was that he had never seen so many *'s used for emphasis in such a short space, other than in my posts. Well, here's a part I lifted from "Robert" in one of their comboxes. We will see that he uses them just as frequently, in short spaces, as I do sometimes:

    "what you seem oblivious to is that exhaustive determinism means that ***every*** event is predetermined,***every*** event has to occur, ***every*** event is necessary and it is impossible that it be otherwise."

    So that kind of debunks this line of evidence he was using.

    We do have good reason to believe that Robert, Henry, one anonymous, and Lurker, were all the same people, so perhaps they are Ben and J.C. too? We showed a bunch of "similarities" too. The Arminians are notorious for creating sock puppets. Perhaps this is another instance where they act hypocritical? They also had another Arminian admit that HE sockpuppetted in their combox. So they ousted their own team. Then in the midst of all this, "Abigal" came on with a profile created just in March, to point out she was having problems with "Calvinism. Right. This was an Arminian sock puppet! That's one of the lines of evidence they used on me, so why not? So, perhaps they framed me. Yes, framed me!

    If our Arminian friends can play the part of the paranoid conspiracy theorist, so can I. And, when Ben admitted he wasn't a puppet, they still pressed on,

    They also sided with the atheists who accused me of sockpuppeting (and I can point to numerous times in our comboxes where I posted anonymously, they asked who I was, and I said who I was and why I posted anonymously). In fact, the atheists here were notorious for sockpuppeting. Many of them signed on with my name too. To use their claims as evidence doesn't strike me as too convincing. Indeed, our sock puppet riff raff has gone down probably 98%, evidencing that the atheists were to blame for the sock puppets, and the sock puppet allegations. But, after all, Arminians take what they can get. Evidence is thin 'round their parts.

    Now, I do admit that I sockpuppeted quite a bit when I was "The Discomfiter." And when some atheist sock puppets rapped about me, I came back with rap of my own.

    But all of this is a waste of time. This is my "response." That they have to resort to this, rather than the promised "rebuttals" of my arguments, serves to show that they realize that they've spent their rounds.

    I'm here to debate things that matter, not waste my time like a little schoolgirl, gossiping and getting involved in the latest school drama. So, I'm on to some other things. Ben and J.C. and Arminian can chew their gum, smack their lips, blow bubbles, and twirl their hair. And say things like "oma gosh," all they want, it's just going to be without me. Sorry girls. But I sure am jealous of the time you all have on your hands.

    ReplyDelete
  2. For the record, I post under my name. I have no need to invent any other name. Besides, why would I post at JCT or Ben's site when they have gone out of their way not to engage me on exegetical grounds when I confront them on those grounds? Why would I think they would reply to little old me when they won't reply to the Word of God itself? Ben (not Kangaroodort, but the other Ben that posts here) has noticed that too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. “And Hays misses the point from my original challenge, in that the 3 major warnings cited therein are directed specifically at the saints, especially Revelation 22:19, since no unregenerate man has any part in God's kingdom (Ephesians 5:5).”

    We've been been over this before. The Bible, as a general rule, doesn't comment on the actual spiritual condition of each individual to which a letter is addressed. Rather, the letters of which the NT is composed:

    1. Are group letters.

    2. Consequently, there are both regenerate and unregenerate persons in the group.

    3. As I good Baptist, I agree that the visible, local church *should be* composed of regenerate persons.
    4. However, as a good Baptist, I also agree that this is an ideal, and, in practice, the visible church is composed of a mixed multitude.

    5. So, Paul, Peter, John, etc. don't address whether or not each person in their target audience is actually regenerate. Rather, they, at best, start with a presumption that they are regenerate, the same way we do ourselves when a person offers a credible profession of faith - but a credible profession of faith is not always congruent with a saving profession. I don't for the life of me see what that would be at all controversial for an Arminian since we both, I would think, agree to that fact.

    6. And notice the schizophrenic objections Arminians offer. On the
    one hand, they imply that there's only a general call to the Gospel, to take just one example, and no such thing as an internal, effectual call. Yet on the other they act as if the Bible actually weeds out who is regenerate and who is not when it offers warnings and offers, which speaks directly to a person's actual election. One is an Arminian objection and the other is an implicitly hyper-Calvinist objection.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Piperette said:
    Why only one?

    3/21/2008 4:00 PM

    **********

    Because, pace the Arminians over there, I'm not going to waste my time discussing and debating their ridiculous posts. I care about debating objective issues. They can waste their time dealing with character assassinations, as is their wont. I'm not going to get involved in a petty, highschool-ish, irrelevant to biblcial concerns, discussion.

    Furthermore, Ben (the non-arminian) was grilled, and grilled, and then grilled some more, after he said he wasn't me. They will not let an issue drop after one answer. So, to engage myself in this discussion will take me away from other obligations, and even free time. All for what?

    Lastly, my post above was sufficient to undercut or rebut all their objections and their fabricated "reasoning" that went behind their "linkings." So, if you've seen Sniper (based on the awesome series by Stephen Hunter), then you'll understand that I also only needed one post because it was a one shot, one kill kind of deal.

    That's why.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm would think that anyone with half a brain would change their writing style totally if they employed a sockpuppet.

    (Sounds like somebody is paranoid to me. LOL!)

    ReplyDelete
  6. haha gotcha... now its TWO responses. lol

    ReplyDelete
  7. The existence of your second post is a disproof of it's content.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Piperette said:
    haha gotcha... now its TWO responses. lol

    **********

    Responding to *your* post *about* the sock puppet post isn't responding to *the* sock puppet post. Gotthat?

    ReplyDelete
  9. J[ohn]C[alvin]Thibpuppetaux said:
    ---
    Having resolved some of our curiousity, it makes me wonder why the members of Triablogue have not been so forthcoming with an answer.
    ---

    Probably because it's been about sixteen years since I was in junior high, and I've never been a girly man.

    I mean those are the only two explanations I can think of for why someone would get their undies in a wad over this in the first place.

    Any objective observer already knows that JC and Ben *WANT* (egad, *s! I'm Paul Manata and didn't even know it!) there to be a massive conspiracy against them because they take themselves far more seriously than anyone else does.

    So a show of hands: who believes JC and Ben would believe any T-Blogger who says, "I've never been a sock puppet"?

    Let's just say we won't need to be passing around any Old Spice after *THAT* question.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Paul Manata,

    I think it strange again that you include me in such comments implying you haven't received substantive answers, when I responded to your reply to me, and again you have ignored them. Yet as I have pointed out, it is not too strange since the comments highlight one rather small point that happens to overturn your argument as a whole in your exchange with Ben.

    I haven't been complaining particularly in my interaction with you. But I pointed out how in an attempt to paint your argument as prevailing, you erroneously claimed that Arminians were saying that they thought you won the debate with Ben, when no such thing took place.

    So I will re-post here comments posted in another Triablogue thread, which you responded to after I had to point out your lack of response.

    Then, in a separate post in this thread, I will post my reply to those comments, which you again are ignoring, and again appear in another Triablogue thread. This way, the most relevant comments are readily accessible in this thread. If you don't want to reply

    Here is the first part (which you already responded to; again all of this is pulled from a Triablogue com box):

    I looked over your part 3 again, and I also take note of your basic argument as represented here:

    PM: "To clarify, I claimed that if God determiend that S be saved in time by the prayers of S*, then the *whole package* comes together. So, it *does matter* if we pray."

    This rerally does not rescue your claim. First, you are begging the question by trying to define intercessory prayer as a means in your argument. The point is that if God decides to irresistibly cause someone to get saved, and therefore irresisibly causes someone to pray for the person to get saved, that request God irresistibly caused to be asked to himself cannot reasonably be caused a means to the person getting saved. Determining both things in a package does not cause them to be related as means and end. Someone can plan all sorts of thimgs together as a package of what they want to happen, but that does not render the individual parts to relate as means and end. Nor does arbitrarily assigning something a role as means make it one unless it actually serves as an instrument to bring about the end.

    Rather than trying to recreate the wheel, I just pulled out relevant comments from the com box at AP. I think the comments there still show that prayer is not a means in a deterministic system. The comments use the word monergistic, and I believe that you think that as not applicable to this aspect of the debate. (BTW, you do realize that by your definition of monergism that Arminian regeneration is also monergistic, right?) So just replace any reference to monergism and cognates to determinism and cognates. There is much much more that could be said. But honestly, I do not have the time to get into all the details. I htought your response to Ben was riddled with problems. But this one point of claiming prayer as a means is one simple issue that does in your argument as a whole.

    Ok, here are the comments I took from the comments of one thread at AP.

    But Ben addressed the argument that God ordains the means, and I think he did so effectively. His basic point seems to be that this argument is a mere charade in the case of intercessory prayer if all has been predetermined since intercessory prayer has influencing God as its focus. So to iilustrate: if someone decides that he will irresitibly cause someone to accept his offer to accept a free check from him (suppose he administers a drug that makes him willing to do whatever he is told), but that he will only do this upon irresitibly causing someone else to ask him to irresistibly cause the other person to accept his offer, that person asking him cannot properly be called a means used to bring that person to accept the check. It does not genuinely influence the check giver except that he wants to cause the intercessor to ask him to do something he was already set on doing. It does not actually affect the check giver who is determining everything everyone is doing in the situation. And it does not affect the check receiver. It would be different if the check giver irresitibly caused another to go and ask the person to receive the check and then irresistibly caused ther person to receive the check. In that case, the check offerer would really be a means used to give the person the check. But the situation that relates to intercessory prayer is more like someone who decides he is going to brush his teeth, but he will only brush his teeth after he first says "bonzo". Saying "bonzo" is not a means to brushing his teeth. It is simply something he has determined he wants to be a prerequisite, though it is arbitrarily chosen as a prerequisite. It is not necessary for it to be so.

    So I think that Ben has showed that in the case of intercessory prayer in a monergistic system, prayer cannot be properly considered a means to the accomplishment of what is prayed for, since God has already decided to certainly cause such and such to happen and to certainly cause someone to ask him to make it happen.

    But Scripture portrays God as actually influneced by prayer. This only seems to be possible in a synergistic system. So I don't think that Paul proved even that point about God ordaining the means.

    JNORM said: "I agree, but if it can't properly be called a means then what can it be called?"

    My response: I don't think it matters what one calls it. If it is not a means, then Paul's argument unravels. And I think it is pretty certain it cannot be properly called a means. I don't know if there is a one word label one could call such things. But one could describe it by saying that it is something that the agent wants to do (or have done) before he accomplishes the end, but is not necessary for the accomplishment of that end. To illustrate again, If someone purposes to stop and get a cup of coffee on his way to work because he wants one, going to get a cup of coffee is not a means to him getting to work. It is just something he wants to do before he goes to work or on his way to work. The car however is a means of him getting to work. In the case of intercessory prayer, which is basically a person asking God to do something, if God determines the end (saving soemone or healing someone), and then determines that someone is going to ask him to do this thing, their request is not a means helping accomplish the end. God irresitibly caused it all in that circumstance, and the request did not influence him whatsoever. It's just something he wants to make happen before he accomplishes the end, but not something he has to make happen to accomplish the end or is in any way integrally involved in him accomplishing the end (it's about as much so as stopping to get a cup of coffee is for the end of gooing to work; granted, some people find coffee necessary to get their day going!, but even that exalted status of coffee in our culture doesn't really raise it to the level of a means for people getting to work!).

    One in particular is a fundamental point of Paul's presentation that, if false, would unravel is overall case. And that is his claim that prayer is a means to the end of accomplishing what is asked for. I believe I have shown that this claim is false in a monergistic system such as Paul is representing. Now I am not saying that if his claim were true, then his case would be established necessarily. But it is true that if his claim is false, then his case falls apart. And it is false. As I pinted out to JNORM, prayer cannot properly be called a means to the end of accomplishment of what the prayer asks for in a monergistic system, in which God purposes to irresistibly cause the end, and then therefore purposes to irresistibly cause someone to ask him to accomplish the end.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It was strange that you shut down comments in the post in which you seemed to be claiming victory (I say "seems" because I think you said you were not claiming victory) and I challenged you on this, that you never responded to my comments (which you implicitly invited when you said, "No one skewered anything. I showed exactly how it was a means. So, I'll awaie future rebutal.")

    PM: "I did address your chomment. I pointed out you made classic straw men blunders regarding determinism."

    ***You didn't address my comments specifically, and as we shall see, do not even seem to understand them.

    PM: "You don't think it is a means because God ordained it."

    ***This is not true, and suggests you do not understand my comments. God's ordination of it is not what makes it not a means. I acknowledged that various things that are ordained (in the sense you are apparently using the term, i.e., predetermiend and irresistibly caused) can be a means. The point I made is that intercessory prayer is a different sort of thing because of the nature of it. Intercessory prayer is asking God to do something. If God decides to irresistibly cause something to happen (such as cause someone to get saved), and therefore irresisibly causes someone to pray for that thing to happen (such as to pray for the person to get saved), that request God irresistibly caused to be asked to himself cannot reasonably be called a means to the thing happening. I gave some illustrations of this point. I won't repeat them all, but would encourage you to go back and look at them, since you seem to not have understood the point. But I will repeat one of them here:

    if someone decides that he will irresitibly cause someone to accept his offer to accept a free check from him (suppose he administers a drug that makes him willing to do whatever he is told), but that he will only do this upon irresitibly causing someone else to ask him to irresistibly cause the other person to accept his offer, that person asking him cannot properly be called a means used to bring that person to accept the check. It does not genuinely influence the check giver except that he wants to cause the intercessor to ask him to do something he was already set on doing. It does not actually affect the check giver who is determining everything everyone is doing in the situation. And it does not affect the check receiver. It would be different if the check giver irresitibly caused another to go and ask the person to receive the check and then irresistibly caused the person to receive the check. In that case, the check offerer would really be a means used to give the person the check. But the situation that relates to intercessory prayer is more like someone who decides he is going to brush his teeth, but he will only brush his teeth after he first says "bonzo". Saying "bonzo" is not a means to brushing his teeth. It is simply something he has determined he wants to be a prerequisite, though it is arbitrarily chosen as a prerequisite. It is not necessary for it to be so.

    So what you miss is that intercessory prayer is asking God to do something. So the whole means to an end argument falls apart when all is irresistibly predetermined by God. It is not simply that it is irresistibly predetermined that makes prayer not a means, but the nature of intercessory prayer itself when it is irresistibly caused combined with an irresitibly predetermined/caused end which supposedly dictates the request as a means.

    PM: "All you were doing is *repeating* libertarian assumptions."

    ***Hopefully you see now that this is not the case.

    PM: "You can't "defeat" my argument by saying, "First, you are begging the question by trying to define intercessory prayer as a means in your argument." If you don't know why, let me explain.

    I am not begging the question, as you said, since they were offering an INTERNAL critique. You you guys keep missing is that I answered Ben on his own terms. if you want to move the goal posts and make your argument this:

    "Arminian is inconsistent with Calvinism."

    Then I gladly conceed. You have beat me straight up.

    But since that *wasn't* the initial critique, I am allows to use MY SYSTEM to answer it. If I have to individually prove all the parts then don't call it an inconsistency BETWEEN two of my beliefs. The one argument is:

    "Prove Calvinism."

    The other is:

    "Prove HOW Calvinism has the resources to address what looks to be an internal tension."

    I hope you're starting to get an inkling of why your "response" was ridiculous. I mean, perhaps that kind of response would work in OTHER areas, but not the specific context I was opperating in.

    There, I hope that clears things up for you."

    ***You act as if "means" is defined differently by Calvinism and Arminianism. But it isn't. And that's why it is perfectly acceptable for me to challenge your assertion that intercessory prayer is a means to accomplishing what the prayer asks for in a deterministic system. This is why you indeed beg the question by up front assuming intercessory prayer is a means. What I am saying is that saying it is a means is invalid, and I have given reason for that. A means must actually serve as an instrument for accomplishing the end. But in a case in which someone has the ability, and decides to irresistibly cause something to happen, but to first irresistibly cause himself to be asked to do the thing, that request does not serve as an instrument to bringing about the thing that is requested. To take your tasty burger analogy and make it reflect the intercessory prayer situation, you have to add someone asking you to irresitibly cause the person to give you a bite of his tasty burger. So you decide you want a bite of the tasty burger your friend has, and you have the power to irresistibly cause others to act however you choose. So you irresistibly cause a third friend to ask you to irresistibly cause your friend with the tasty burger to give you bite of the tasty burger. Your third friend therefore asks you to do this; you then do it. Your friend asking you to irresistibly cause your friend to give you a bite of the tasty burger is simply not a means to you causing your friend with the tasty burger to give you a bite. It is just something you wanted to have happen before you irresistibly caused your friend to give you a bite of the tasty burger. It did not serve as an instrument to you doing that. It might even be related to the whole tasty burger situation. But it cannot properly be said to have been an instrument to the bringing about of what was asked for; it was not instrumental in that case. As I mentioned to Josh, there really is little difference between someone absolutely determining to do something but will only do it when he first irresistibly causes someone to ask him to do it, and someone absolutely determining to do something but will only do it when he first puts a sock puppet on his hand and irresistibly causes it to ask him to do what he has already determined he will do (i.e., asks himself to do it by means of the sock puppet), and in fact is having himself be asked to do it because he has already determined to do the thing! Having the sock puppet ask him to do it is not a means to him doing it.

    PM: You wrote: "The point is that if God decides to irresistibly cause someone to get saved, and therefore irresisibly causes someone to pray for the person to get saved, that request God irresistibly caused to be asked to himself cannot reasonably be caused a means to the person getting saved."

    This is an *assertion.* I have covered this objection NUMEROUS times in the archives. So has Steve. So has Gene. In fact, oh master of the self-refutation, YOU just begged the question. SInce this wasn't an *argument,* you just *assumed* libertarian assumptions to disprove my argument!

    ***I don't read Triablogue posts too often, but I assume you have treated the whole means to an end issue often. But perhaps you have not considered the special case of intercessory prayer. All the examples you gave in your post to Ben were of a different sort, not the situation of a third party being irresistibly caused to ask the causer to irresistibly cause something he already had decided to do, and in fact irrersistibly causes himself to be asked to do the thing because he has already determined to do the thing.

    PM: Same with the rest of your comments. You simply 8assume* libertarianism. You simply fail to place the dialogue in its proper context. And, you gusy should re-name your objection. Rather than saying:

    (a) "Calvinis has internal problems within itssystem."

    (b) You should have just said,
    "We disagree with Calvinism. It is wrong for external reasons."

    You can't set the debate up according to (a), then when I appropriately answer by the terms of (a), you switch to (b)!

    So, I have not "declared victory" (even though you have (see your comments) and both Ben and J.C. have), I simply said you guys are chosing to not answwer my question, I am right about that, and I am letting you guys bow out.

    For those who read the exchanges, all of them (even though I doubt even any one Arminian has read the entirety of my responses), there can be no question of who got the better of who.

    Look, at this point, when one denies the logical translation of Jesus' statements, does not address my reasons, and repeats blunders, I am not under an obligation to carry on.

    Look, I'm find ending the discussion as it stands.

    I have offered about 85% substance to their 15% substance coming back at me. But they focus on the 15% "trash talk" and the discussion has no degenerated to nonsense.

    If you guys are not fine where the discussion stands at this point, I fully understand. I would too if I were in your shoes. But, I do not have to continue when at this point nothing has been said to advance the discussioon, my points have not been refuted, etc. I mean, I know you may *think* you have refuted my points, but as I showed you above with your own points, perception does not = reality. I am under no obligation to try to continue to prove something to people who can't keept the argument straight, and can't seem to muster proper responses to my arguments. Indeed, I never wrote these post for you guys. I was under no allusion that you guys would try to seriously interact with the arguments. I wrote it more for Calvinists and those non-Calvinists who come here. Seems to me that goal has been fulfilled. Whining about it won't do anything. You saw how I dealt with your objection quickly and decisively. I could have done that on the main page. But I didn't. Because I'm done. I got out of this what I intended."

    ***So given what I have said, it really is not a matter of assuming libertarianism nor failing to show Calvinism internally inconsistent. It has been shown (I believe) that your claim that intercessory prayer is a means to the end of God doing what was asked of him, that this claim is false on just about anyone's definition of means. Therefore, your whole argument falls apart. Even if you were correct about it being a means, that would not prove your overall argument necessarily. But you are wrong about this little thing. And it does your argument in as a whole.

    Pulling a play from your book, I observe again that you shut down comments in the other thread in which I challenged you to respond to my comments and that you have said you are done with this. That is fine. I would want to be too if my argument was overturned by such a small yet critical point as yours is.

    God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  12. BTW,

    I thought the Battlestar Galactica post was funny.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Arminian,

    Not wanting to get in the middle of this and I am sure that Paul can answer, has answered imo, if he so chooses, but here are two things that may be of benefit to this discussion.

    Here is a shorter way to say they same thing that Manata was saying



    Both are very short and will perhaps shed more light on the topic.

    God bless

    ReplyDelete
  14. "So, if you've seen Sniper (based on the awesome series by Stephen Hunter), then you'll understand that I also only needed one post because it was a one shot, one kill kind of deal.

    That's why."

    Is sniper like a james bond story? Please describe Sniper's outfit.. and then end the the comment with..


    That's why.

    lol just playing calm down!

    ReplyDelete