Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Ace Otana]

Ok, sounds completely fair to me. I actually prefer when things are kept civil, it becomes difficult on here sometimes though.

Same, but things can get pretty heated quite quickly can't they. I know we've had a bumpy road, but I'm sure we can still level it out.

I think it is part of man’s fallen nature to disagree with God’s commandments and laws, so yes I would say that I do catch myself doing that. Or I find myself behaving in a manner that is contrary to God’s decreed will. When I realize I do this though, I try my best to conform my desires and thoughts to His will. There are certain things in scripture I do not understand, there are times I feel that election seems unfair, but then I realize that my concept of fairness is completely arbitrary and I need to conform it to what God tells me is fair. Since I became a Reformed Christian (a conversion that was fueled by my discussions with atheists) though scripture does make far more sense to me and the God of the Old Testament does not seem like a completely different God from the God of the New Testament like He used to.

Ok. What I want to know now is, what were those sins you committed and what parts didn't make sense to you? Were there parts you just couldn't find reason for or agreed with?
I've always saw fairness and the like from basic ideals.

Thanks for the question Ace, it was a good one.

Your welcome.

[The Grand Nudger]

You feel that god has graciously redeemed you? You are one of the elected? I wasn't aware that any man knew who the elected were, or upon what basis they were chosen.

[ThomM]

civil, it becomes difficult on here sometimes though.

I think it is part of man’s fallen nature to disagree with God’s commandments and laws,

IT is your opinion that the laws of your religion are from a god- however - the ONLY source that can be proven is that they were all created by Humans

Have you any children or have seen any babies or infants?
Infants and children are not born of reason and responsibility for their actions - and take a while to achieve that mental capacity. The catholic church says that the age of reason and responsibility is age SEVEN - and while I find it utlerly ridiculous that a 7 years old could do something that would deserve the death penalty - I will go with that number.

Today -approximately 23% of the population on earth is under age 7 - and the percentage would have been higher in ancient times because people did not live as long. In In 2348 BC or there about - it is estimated that approximately 5 million people lived on earth. That means that over a million of them were children and infants who could not have done anything to deserve a death penalty and were innocents.

So - the great flood would have resulted in the mass murder of over a million innocent children and infants - the largest mass murder as a percentage of the population in history of the world. THe passover - if it had happened would also have killed quite a number of children and infants as well.

THERE is no way to rationalize this any other way - the children were innocent and were murdered in the story - YOU cannot say that a god would KNOW what they would grow to be without admitting that free will does not exist. IF the only thing YOU can do is what at god supposedly already knows - then free will does not exist - because free will is NOT that choices exist - but that YOU can freely choose among them - even choose something the god would NOT know. ANd that means a claim of an all knowing god - and free will - cannot BOTH be true as well.

I do not consider histories worst mass murderer as a viable or acceptable source for laws on morals and ethics - that YOU do - and will bow down to a mass murderer and worship it - is only a reflection on YOU

[The Grand Nudger]

Don't believe Statler subscribes to the free will bit Thom (could be wrong). Though he does of course bow down and worship a xenocidal fairy

[Statler Waldorf]

Same, but things can get pretty heated quite quickly can't they. I know we've had a bumpy road, but I'm sure we can still level it out.

I think things will be better from now on; I have a few friends on here that I get along with fine.

Ok. What I want to know now is, what were those sins you committed and what parts didn't make sense to you? Were there parts you just couldn't find reason for or agreed with?
I've always saw fairness and the like from basic ideals.

I think they are the same sins most people struggle with, pride, dishonesty, sexual impurity- things of that nature. Nothing super interesting I assure you:-P

Well a lot of the issues about free will and the sovereignty of God didn’t make sense to me until I became a Reformed Christian, then they were resolved because it is a more internally consistent version of Christianity (more based on scripture itself as well). Some of the laws under the Mosaic Covenant seem a bit strange, but I think that is probably because I live in the New Covenant in the 21st century so Jewish purity laws are not going to make a great deal of sense to me.

So my question to you is pretty simple, what would it take for you to convert to Christianity?

You feel that god has graciously redeemed you? You are one of the elected? I wasn't aware that any man knew who the elected were, or upon what basis they were chosen.

You guys are masters at taking a biblical teaching and twisting it ever so slightly to try and make a point. It reminds me of when I was teaching, the students were great at taking rules from the student handbook and just perverting them ever so slightly to try and justify their position. Scripture is clear that I am unable to be absolutely sure as to who are the elect and who are not, although we are told we can know them by their fruit, so it is fairly easy to tell who is definitely not saved as of yet. As for myself, I know I am one of the elect because my faith in Christ’s work on the cross would be impossible if I were not.

---

civil, it becomes difficult on here sometimes though.

I think it is part of man’s fallen nature to disagree with God’s commandments and laws,

IT is your opinion that the laws of your religion are from a god- however - the ONLY source that can be proven is that they were all created by Humans

Have you any children or have seen any babies or infants?
Infants and children are not born of reason and responsibility for their actions - and take a while to achieve that mental capacity. The catholic church says that the age of reason and responsibility is age SEVEN - and while I find it utlerly ridiculous that a 7 years old could do something that would deserve the death penalty - I will go with that number.

Today -approximately 23% of the population on earth is under age 7 - and the percentage would have been higher in ancient times because people did not live as long. In In 2348 BC or there about - it is estimated that approximately 5 million people lived on earth. That means that over a million of them were children and infants who could not have done anything to deserve a death penalty and were innocents.

So - the great flood would have resulted in the mass murder of over a million innocent children and infants - the largest mass murder as a percentage of the population in history of the world. THe passover - if it had happened would also have killed quite a number of children and infants as well.

THERE is no way to rationalize this any other way - the children were innocent and were murdered in the story - YOU cannot say that a god would KNOW what they would grow to be without admitting that free will does not exist. IF the only thing YOU can do is what at god supposedly already knows - then free will does not exist - because free will is NOT that choices exist - but that YOU can freely choose among them - even choose something the god would NOT know. ANd that means a claim of an all knowing god - and free will - cannot BOTH be true as well.

I do not consider histories worst mass murderer as a viable or acceptable source for laws on morals and ethics - that YOU do - and will bow down to a mass murderer and worship it - is only a reflection on YOU

---

Why would you take a teaching that is purely a Roman Catholic teaching (that children are innocent in God’s eyes until the age of seven) and try and use that to make a point against a Reformed Christian? I base my theology solely on scripture, and scripture never teaches that children are innocent, and states that God was just in sending the great flood. So if you want to bring charge against God, I suggest you use scripture to do so and not the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

---

Don't believe Statler subscribes to the free will bit Thom (could be wrong). Though he does of course bow down and worship a xenocidal fairy

Now I think you are just trying to be inconsistent lol. You make a point of trying to properly represent my position in the beginning of your post but in the same sentence purposely misrepresent my position. Kudos if that was on purpose because that was funny

[The Grand Nudger]

I didn't twist anything Statler. You can't be sure, but you know that you are. These statements appear to be at odds with each other and with what you believe to be the scriptural position on the matter.

[Captain Scarlet]

Captain Scarlet Wrote:
I value his response, why else?

Why? Only because you like the answers he gives you better than someone who has actually studied the topic for years like Ryft?

You have no idea, whatsoever, of my motives in asking questions of individuals on this forum. And on this point (like so many others) you are wrong. I gave you my answer, and if you had bothererd to check my last response to Ryft (post #130) you will see I did ask him exactly that, because I value his opinion too (although I do not agree with him).

It is an odd accusation indeed from an xtian, that I need my views re-enforcing by others who share them. Oh the irony.

[Ace Otana]

Well a lot of the issues about free will and the sovereignty of God didn’t make sense to me until I became a Reformed Christian, then they were resolved because it is a more internally consistent version of Christianity (more based on scripture itself as well). Some of the laws under the Mosaic Covenant seem a bit strange, but I think that is probably because I live in the New Covenant in the 21st century so Jewish purity laws are not going to make a great deal of sense to me.

K, interesting read. Now what made you convert to Christianity? I'm starting to sound like a TV host.

So my question to you is pretty simple, what would it take for you to convert to Christianity?

Alot. Hard verifiable evidence. I have pretty high standards when it comes to big claims. My parents had an awful time trying to convince me that there was a Santa Claus. Took them alot of effort to sway me over. Now that I'm alot older and wiser, I reckon it would be near impossible to convince me of anything without strong evidence.

[DeistPaladin]

And so we begin the process of debunking flimsy rationalizations...

You know the word contradiction has a specific meaning right? You can’t just call something a contradiction and it becomes one.
God creating plants and vegetation on day three and then turning around and creating more vegetation specifically designed for Adam on day six is in no way a contradiction. Show me where it says, “God only created vegetation on day three and created more vegetation on day six” and you might have something there.

Actually, the Bible does specify that man was created before the plants. Let's go to the tape again (bold emphasis added):

KJV Genesis 2:4-7 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Lets consult a few other translations to be sure I'm understanding this correctly:

NIV Gen 2:5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground,

ASV Gen 2:5 And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Jehovah God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: and there was not a man to till the ground;

CEV Gen 2:5 no grass or plants were growing anywhere. God had not yet sent any rain, and there was no one to work the land.

ESV Gen 2:5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground,

Looks like chapter 2 really does say man came before plants.

Uh oh, someone didn’t do their homework, when I picked up my Bible and read those verses I see nothing about the birds being created out of water in verse 20.

“20And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds[a] fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens." -ESV

The KJV gave a different indication but fine, I'll concede that your Bible agrees with your take. (You'd think that God would watch over all the translations to be sure I didn't have to cross-reference 20 different versions to get the right message).

Again, not doing your homework, when I picked up my Bible and read verse 19 it clearly states that God “had formed” the birds out of the ground. Since it states in Chapter 1 that he did this on Day 5 this verse is not in contradiction to chapter 1 since it is clearly in past tense.

Once again, that's not what the KJV indicates:

Genesis 2:18-19 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Now, the order of events is, "Yahweh decided A, then makes B then brings them to Adam". If the proper order of events was, as you describe, it would read "Yahweh decided A, then remembered he had made B much earlier, gathered B to bring to Adam". Let's check some other translations:

CEV Gen 2:18-19: The LORD God said, "It isn't good for the man to live alone. I need to make a suitable partner for him." So the LORD took some soil and made animals and birds.

ASV Gen 2:18-19 And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field

NIV Gen 2:18-19: Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky.

So some modern translations agree with you while others agree with me. My explanation for the discrepancy is that modern translators, aware of the problem, have fixed it.

They [man and woman] were created together on day 6, not a contradiction since the word together is relative to the time period being described.

You know that "together" has a specific meaning, right?

From dictionary.com:
4. at the same time: we left school together

I'm ready for the next deluge of obtuse interpretations, verses wrenched out of context, flimsy rationalizations and spurious ad hoc hypotheses that usually come from these conversations.

[Statler Waldorf]

You have no idea, whatsoever, of my motives in asking questions of individuals on this forum. And on this point (like so many others) you are wrong. I gave you my answer, and if you had bothererd to check my last response to Ryft (post #130) you will see I did ask him exactly that, because I value his opinion too (although I do not agree with him).

It is an odd accusation indeed from an xtian, that I need my views re-enforcing by others who share them. Oh the irony.

It was just a simple question, I just couldn’t figure out why you seemed to value Rhythm’s opinions on a matter he knows very little about as much as Ryft’s who knows a great deal about the matter. I assume that you were implying I only read authors that agree with me, if you knew me you’d realize that was a ridiculous claim, but you don’t know me so I guess I will let it slide.

K, interesting read. Now what made you convert to Christianity? I'm starting to sound like a TV host.

Sorry, I just got mental images of sitting on Oprah’s couch.

Well being a Reformed Christian I now of course know that a redeeming act by the Holy Spirit is what truly “made” me convert to Christianity, but I think you are more curious about how it all came about right? I was raised Christian, but I was raised in a Baptist Church that took a more Arminian (or even semi-pelagian) approach to Christian Theology. This approach leaves a lot of questions unanswerable, so I would have discussions with atheists and they would present questions that I couldn’t really answer. So about three years ago I was coaching at a Christian School and I was listening to the apologetics teacher there teach, and he made some boneheaded statement like, “Oh Calvinists are easy to refute.” I knew that my older brother had become a Calvinist a few years earlier, though I didn’t know much about the theology. My older brother is the sharpest individual I have ever met, so I knew that if he took that position it definitely was not “easy to refute”. So I began talking to him about it and researching the topic. As I researched it I found out that it was much more based on scripture and logically consistent. It was like someone had turned on the light bulb, after that time holding discussions with atheists, Mormons, and even other Christians became so much easier. So I guess that’s the story in a nutshell.

Alot. Hard verifiable evidence. I have pretty high standards when it comes to big claims. My parents had an awful time trying to convince me that there was a Santa Claus. Took them alot of effort to sway me over. Now that I'm alot older and wiser, I reckon it would be near impossible to convince me of anything without strong evidence.

Fair enough.