Tuesday, July 7, 2009

The (more than likely) end of my time at Triablogue

Since I am going to be banned, by decree of one Peter Pike (I really thought it would have been the Manta...oh well), from Triablogue because they hate it when we Arminians get to 'em, I want to show the end of our debate and what brought it about. Peter wrote a retarded post (click here) about how dumb Arminians are for actually believeing God could possibly love everybody! *gasp* What are we thinking (John 3:16, 1 John 2:2, etc.)!?!?!?! Anyway, I challenged him that his conclusion did not follow logically.

His argument:

Premise 1: God could cause people to believe in Him by appearing to them.

Premise 2: God doesn't appear to them

Conclusion: God doesn't want all to believe.

Now, any amateur philosopher (like myself) can see that this argument does not follow logically. Simply because God does not give them a vision or something does not mean He doesn't want them to come to repentance. I also pointed out that God has appeared and some did believe and others did not, and that Paul the apostle seemed to think God has given all ample evidence for His existence (Romans 1:18-21); so obviously an appearance does not guarentee belief. He agreed with this and said it proved Calvinism, which he then changed specifically to Total Depravity. I said I affirm Total Depravity, as do all Classical Arminians.

So Peter used the good 'ol Triablogue Flowchart (click here) to construct a sinful argument full of insults to my intelligence and whatnot. I replied by telling him he couldn't handle a simple logical argument.

So Peter got MAAAAAAD!!!

His final statement:

So LISTEN UP, because you're on a short leash with me.

Of the two of us, I am the only one who consistently spoke of Total Depravity on this point. YOU tried to change the subject to unconditional election and pretended that that was what I was speaking of, when I plainly was not (I even wrote in caps that I was dealing with Depravity). So consider this your last warning. You either take time to read what you're interacting with or you go somewhere else, because if you keep this up your comments are getting deleted from my blog posts.

I'll give you a chance to rephrase any of what you just wrote, because you read so poorly that it's not worth my time to waste reading it. In fact, the only reason I'm not deleting it now is so that all can see how stupid you are and that I did not invent your idiotic quotation.


My final response:

Or, Peter, you can put it in your pipe and smoke it. Somebody's a little upset that they had the tables turned. If you want to ban me, go ahead. I honestly don't care, and you obviously can't take someone who can debate your socks off (nor can any of you here). You all exhibit an unchristian attitude of haughtiness and pride. You attack and make fun of believers in Christ, all the while alienating yourselves.

But that's what happens when you show a fool his own foolishness. They get mad and threaten. That's fine, no skin off my back.

Oh, and I do affirm Total Depravity, as do all classical Arminians. Read up, bub. My point was to show you why your conclusion did not follow logically.

Delete if you must.
Anyway, it was fun while it was civil (for like two seconds). Goodbye Triablogue, I will miss you. But it'll be a good miss.

11 comments:

Onesimus said...

Their loss your gain.

Start shaking that triablogue dust from your feet and don't look back.

They have no interest in the truth so spend your time with people who do.

(pause to recognise the need for me to take my own advice after I've spent more than enough time there myself recently.)

bossmanham said...

Yeah, I'll save my pearls for later. Can't say we didn't try though, eh?

Jc_Freak: said...

"I even wrote in caps that I was dealing with Depravity"

Hee hee. I loved that comment. "I wrote in caps! Clearly I must be right. Didn't you notice the caps?"

The Seeking Disciple said...

I can't say that I have been kicked off Triablogue but I tend to hold my tongue. Those guys can make me mad at times but I just don't go there much.

bossmanham said...

I hadn't till the other day, but I'm not interested in going back.

drwayman said...

I jumped into your conversation on Triablogue just for fun.

bossmanham said...

Peter said, "but the person who's first paragraph to me was "And yet no cohesive point was made in this entire post. Wah wah waaaaah." is a shining pillar of righteousness and moral virtue.

Can someone tell me how that was unloving? I just pointed out the obvious. I never called Peter any names, used any derogatory terms or anything. I simply debated the topic.

Onesimus said...

Quote:

"I never called Peter any names, used any derogatory terms or anything. I simply debated the topic."

That's the problem. You weren't using a language he could understand!.

Steven said...

I think Peter's argument can be reworded.

1. If God wanted a person to believe in him, he would reveal himself to that person in such a way as to ensure that the person believes in God.
2. God did not reveal himself to person S in such a way as to ensure that the person believes in God.
3. Therefore God did not want S to believe in him.

#1 is a troublesome premise; and the question of if it is even possible that God reveal himself to a person in such a way as to ensure belief in him without coercion and violation of the person's will, if we are to take a person's freedom in the libertarian sense, is also brought up.

I don't know if I would be convinced of such an argument.

Onesimus said...

The more I see the never ending disagreements between Arminian & Calvinist, the more I see that most Calvinists seem to have no idea of God or His desires.

The "rationality" behind Peter's argument is flawed from the beginning. It starts by contradicting a very clear truth that scripture states categorically.
That it is God's desire that ALL repent and that ALL should be saved.
Those truths could not be stated more clearly than they are in 1Ti 2:3-4 and 2Pe 3:9.

Those verses and those verses alone are totally sufficient to end all arguments to the contrary.

Yet convoluted arguments are created trying to prove otherwise.
Note Peter's attempt to disprove those facts "logically" by saying "God could..."
The fact is God DOESN'T do thing s according to man's "logic" - does that fact make the apostles Paul and Peter liars? Just because Calvinist Peter thinks God could have done things differently?

The very clear fact is that God wants ALL to be saved, but He wants them to be saved according to certain conditions.
One of those conditions is that we put our faith in HIM - that means we follow HIS ways and HIS word instead of our own ways and our own reasoning.

If God's word says He desires all to be saved, then we need to believe what HIS word says and not what anyone else thinks should be the case. If we put our faith in our beloved theology instead of in God and HIS word - then we will disqualify ourselves from the salvation that God has graciously provided for us. The salvation He wants us to receive

Both of Peter's first two premises show unbelivebale ignorance. The fact is God DID appear to mankind and most of those He DID appear to rejected Him despite the miracles he performed. Of course I'm refering to Jesus.

But did they reject Him because it wasn't God's will for them to be saved? Of course not - otherwise the apostles were liars and all of our trust in the scriptures they wrote is in vain.
Jesus was rejected by many because they preferred their own theology above the truth HE brought.

They saw His works, they heard His teaching, but they preferred their own ways and chose their way instead of His.

bossmanham said...

Steven, I appreciate your irenic attitude. It is definitely a breath of fresh air to what I normally encounter on the internet.

However, even with the argument restated as it has been, premise 2 still doesn't mean that God doesn't want person S to believe. It just means God has chosen not to appear physically. As you agree, premise 1 isn't necessarily true anyway.

I provide even more Biblical evidence for this, Onesimus, and respond to a straw man of Arminians that Peter posted here.