tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4256943554277638091..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Captain KangarooRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55472396429713771162008-02-25T11:09:00.000-05:002008-02-25T11:09:00.000-05:00Paul,I responded at Ap if you are interested. Her...Paul,<BR/><BR/>I responded at Ap if you are interested. Here is the link:<BR/><BR/>http://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/02/clarifications-and-rebuttal-responding.htmlkangaroodorthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04172265279507643348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-16482773588073612562008-02-23T11:02:00.000-05:002008-02-23T11:02:00.000-05:00Dear Peter Pike,You said: Monergism = 1 worker; Sy...Dear Peter Pike,<BR/><BR/>You said: <I>Monergism = 1 worker; Synergism = more than one. Fairly simple concept, IMO.</I><BR/><BR/>The ambiguity is not in 1 vs more than 1. It's in defining "worker". <BR/><BR/>God be with you,<BR/>DanGodismyjudgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310455924556730920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61344810460336952282008-02-21T21:53:00.000-05:002008-02-21T21:53:00.000-05:00P.P.P.P.P.P.S You'll notice that in the post I ev...P.P.P.P.P.P.S You'll notice that in the post I even referred to you as "Our Arminian friend."<BR/><BR/>So, you're still off to a bad start given how many demonstrably false claims you've made. I at least made *some* effort! :-)Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67269994815784067592008-02-21T20:43:00.000-05:002008-02-21T20:43:00.000-05:00Hey Ben,My comments were defensive.Defensively you...Hey Ben,<BR/><BR/>My comments were defensive.<BR/><BR/>Defensively yours,<BR/><BR/>Paul<BR/><BR/>P.S. Sorry if my statements "bother" you, but dems the breaks. By my lights, the only "bothersome" thing you can complain about is my Cap'n Kangaroo title and picture. I thought it was funny.<BR/><BR/>P.P.S I said, "Have a good one" and so I'd say that there was *some* effort on my end.<BR/><BR/>P.P.P.S. You cam in this combox with sarcastic smarm and your subsequent unctuous comments, so I wonder why you're playing the wounded animal role now. <BR/><BR/>P.P.P.P.S . Let's drop this unprofitible combox war. I don't care to have it. My purpose for posting was to (a) show that you were sloppy in not drawing appropriate qualifiers, (b) you were uncautious and misleading in your comments about Reformed thought, and (c) you could draw no 'inconsistency.' I think my post succeeded on all fronts.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56117680943271593242008-02-21T15:48:00.000-05:002008-02-21T15:48:00.000-05:00Hey Paul,Thanks for the blast. Obviously, I disag...Hey Paul,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the blast. Obviously, I disagree with Calvinists but I do try to show a little respect. Maybe I don't succeed very well all of the time, but I do make an effort and I just don't see any sort of effort coming from your end. I don't think that is too much to ask or expect from a fellow believer.<BR/><BR/>My skin is not thin, but I don't understand why it should need to be thick while corresponding with a fellow believer.<BR/><BR/>kangaroodort is a defensive name. It is not meant to offend and I am sorry if it bothers you. It is meant to be a statement that I disagree with the good Calvinists of dort with ragards to their condemnation of a theology I adhere too and the methodology involved in that condemnation), as well as a statement concerning those Calvinists that think the verdict at dort somehow proves Arminianism heretical. Of course that is no more true then the notion that Luther was a heretic because the church of Rome condemned him as such.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, you probably know all that.<BR/><BR/>God Bless,<BR/>Benkangaroodorthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04172265279507643348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39660082115824916072008-02-21T13:59:00.000-05:002008-02-21T13:59:00.000-05:00Ben,You'll find no sympathy here. I find your pas...Ben,<BR/><BR/>You'll find no sympathy here. I find your passive-agressive debate tactics to be weak and bothersome. I've read some of your stuff, along with your buddies', and I know full well the shots you've taken at Reformed Theology. Indeed, your name is intended to be a slam against the men at Dort. So, save the sanctimony for someone else.<BR/><BR/><I>"Strangely, I never got the feeling you cared about me anyway."</I><BR/><BR/>Hope you're not equivocating on "care." If so, your sarcastic comment imputes motives to me that are not warranted. You try to come off passive, but your comment is agressive. If not, then you've equivocate and so are epistemically responsible for not being epistemically virtuous.<BR/><BR/><I>"Actually, I just saw it as an issue of respect for a fellow believer. Maybe I made too much an issue of it. I certainly didn't mean to provoke you to make comments like the those above."</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, you made too big an issue. And, you must know that having a handle like yours is like going into a biker bar and wearing a shirt that says, "Harley's are for girls." Save it.<BR/><BR/><I>"I don't, BTW, see man as quite as special as you seem to let on,"</I><BR/><BR/>I wouldn't expect people to admit to anthropocentrism.<BR/><BR/><I>"but I do find it strange that God would love and send his Son to die for those that He considered nothing more than worthless garbage."</I><BR/><BR/>See, you talk smack just like the rest of us. SO, your holier-than-though attitude abive has been proved hypocritical. <BR/><BR/>Second, the above is simply an assertion that gains force by using pejoratives and question begging epithets. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, God loves us in Christ from the foundation of the world. But, as far as we are in our sinful selves, why were you kind to fallen man!<BR/><BR/><I>" I also agree with James insisted on respect for others (even sinners) because they have been made in God's image (James 3:9)."</I><BR/><BR/>Which is why reading your posts and handle makes me think you're a hypocrite. Did James say something about hypocrisy?<BR/><BR/><I>"He even seems to correlate insults against others with an insult to God himself."</I><BR/><BR/>Then why are you insulting God?<BR/><BR/>And, Jesus "insulted" people. So, why did Jesus insult himself?<BR/><BR/><I>"Jesus said that if anyone called someone a "fool" then they would be in danger of hell fire."</I><BR/><BR/>And thus I'm to infer from the above that you haven't read any commentaries on this passage. Just using your fundy, Arminian, wooden literal, surface level hermeneutic.<BR/><BR/>Oh, btw, let's quote King David, a man after God's own heart:<BR/><BR/>"The FOOL says in his heart there is no God."<BR/><BR/>Or, how about Paul:<BR/><BR/>"Hath not God made FOOLISH the wisdom of the world."<BR/><BR/>It's guys like you that allow atheists to say the Bible contradicts itself.<BR/><BR/><I>" I can't help to think that the Bible has a slightly different view of man's "worth" then the one you seem to hold to."</I><BR/><BR/>Quote my view on 'man's worth.' Or, is making unfounded assertions in-line with your 'treating others with respect' passages?<BR/><BR/><I>"All I was saying was that it would have been nice to know that you publicly ridiculed something I wrote."</I><BR/><BR/>I didn't, but it's nice to know your skin is paper thin. I'll keep that in mind for the future.<BR/><BR/><I>"If it had nothing to do with me personally then I find it strange that you would call the Post "Captian Kangaroo" </I><BR/><BR/>I don't find it strange. I wouldn't know why you would either; what, given that you're so holy and your handle is "Kangeroodort," you must not think things like that are 'personal attacks.' If you do, then you're a hypocrite. darn those horned dilemmas!<BR/><BR/><I>"and maybe leave out comments like, "We're not getting off to a good start. This isn't atypical with these guys; sorry to say."</I><BR/><BR/>It's a basic truth of logic that inconsistencies only arise if the terms are not used ambigously or vaguely or in different senses. <BR/><BR/>It's also a basic truth that you guys frequently make blunders like the above.<BR/><BR/>Put the two together, and my comment was simply reporting an objective truth.<BR/><BR/>Are you denying that you didn't get off to a good start by not understanding that inconsistencies can't be shown when the (alleged) inconsistent terms are ambiguously???<BR/><BR/>Have a good one.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36932398558274176782008-02-21T11:34:00.000-05:002008-02-21T11:34:00.000-05:00Hey Paul,You wrote:And, notice that I only mention...Hey Paul,<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>And, notice that I only mention you in the title. The rest of the post says "him" or "the Arminian."</I><BR/><BR/>I see. Thanks for clearing that it up.<BR/><BR/><I>I meant to interact with the objective issues and really could care less who wrote what you wrote as they has no bearing on anything either way, for my purposes.</I><BR/><BR/>Strangely, I never got the feeling you cared about me anyway.<BR/><BR/><I>Anyway, I can understand your being insulted, what, with your theology 'n all. Man is so special, aint he. Can't forget to "give him his due." I mean, it's pretty incredible that dead men can "meet" people.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, I just saw it as an issue of respect for a fellow believer. Maybe I made too much an issue of it. I certainly didn't mean to provoke you to make comments like the those above.<BR/><BR/>I don't, BTW, see man as quite as special as you seem to let on, but I do find it strange that God would love and send his Son to die for those that He considered nothing more than worthless garbage. I also agree with James insisted on respect for others (even sinners) because they have been made in God's image (James 3:9). He even seems to correlate insults against others with an insult to God himself. Jesus said that if anyone called someone a "fool" then they would be in danger of hell fire. I can't help to think that the Bible has a slightly different view of man's "worth" then the one you seem to hold to.<BR/><BR/><I>So, sorry for not stroking your ego and "meeting' you in the blogosphere in order to know that you have a post "dedicated to you." (How anthropocentric!)</I><BR/><BR/>So I guess the way that you have spoken to me so far is a very good example of a theocentric worldview?<BR/><BR/>All I was saying was that it would have been nice to know that you publicly ridiculed something I wrote. If it had nothing to do with me personally then I find it strange that you would call the Post "Captian Kangaroo" instead of ,say: "Is Intercessory Prayer Really Incompatible with Monergism?", and maybe leave out comments like, "We're not getting off to a good start. This isn't atypical with these guys; sorry to say." That sounds like a little more than just being concerned with the material with no regard to the person who wrote it. Just my opinion I guess.<BR/><BR/>I suppose it might have been too much to expect you to let me now about the post. Forgive me for that. I will think very carefully about whether my motivations were really derived from my inflated ego and man centered theology. I hope that you will also be willing to examine your motivations as well.<BR/><BR/>God Bless,<BR/>Benkangaroodorthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04172265279507643348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72102756077996258062008-02-20T19:52:00.000-05:002008-02-20T19:52:00.000-05:00Ben,I didn't write it for you. So, I didn't "forg...Ben,<BR/><BR/>I didn't write it for you. So, I didn't "forget" to tell you about it. You're not getting off to a good foot in this combox either. And, notice that I only mention you in the title. The rest of the post says "him" or "the Arminian." I meant to interact with the objective issues and really could care less who wrote what you wrote as they has no bearing on anything either way, for my purposes. Anyway, I can understand your being insulted, what, with your theology 'n all. Man is so special, aint he. Can't forget to "give him his due." I mean, it's pretty incredible that dead men can "meet" people. So, sorry for not stroking your ego and "meeting' you in the blogosphere in order to know that you have a post "dedicated to you." (How anthropocentric!)Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8921901912335836342008-02-20T15:03:00.000-05:002008-02-20T15:03:00.000-05:00Heys guys. Someone just clued me in to your post ...Heys guys. Someone just clued me in to your post and tribute to Captain Kangaroo. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I am sure it will be worth the effort. I will let you know if and when I decide to respond, just like you were kind enough to let me know that you dedicated an entire post to my honor...Oh yeah, you forgot to do that. Oh' well, at least I got to see it before it became one of those old forgotten posts.<BR/><BR/>God Bless,<BR/>Benkangaroodorthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04172265279507643348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39845524373798018392008-02-19T10:10:00.000-05:002008-02-19T10:10:00.000-05:00I was struck by this sentence:---These terms are t...I was struck by this sentence:<BR/><BR/>---<BR/>These terms are too ambiguous, and often misunderstood (especially synergism), and I believe that Arminianism has both monergistic and synergistic elements so it is not proper to call Arminianism entirely synergistic.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Perhaps it's just me, but I'm pretty sure the whole philosophical discussion of the One and the Many was looked at a few years ago. <BR/><BR/>Monergism = 1 worker; Synergism = more than one. Fairly simple concept, IMO. It's like watching Grover do his "NEAR....(far)....NEAR....(far)" routine, only we've got "One....Many....One....Many". Not that complicated!<BR/><BR/>This kind of definition twisting is like a Mormon with six wives saying, "I'm not a complete polygamist because I was only married to one wife for the first year." Yeah, but as soon as the second one comes you are, by definition, a polygamist. <BR/><BR/>And for the Arminian as soon as it <I>ever</I> becomes God + Man, even if just for a microsecond, you're a synergist.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.com