User Tag List

Page 540 of 540 FirstFirst ... 40440490530537538539540
Results 8,086 to 8,097 of 8097

Thread: ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

  1. #8086
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 97 Times in 79 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56745
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Okay, that was a cheapshot but not consciously done. My apologies.


    If Bob doesn't wear another color, did he have choice? I still don't think the alternative rationally leads to choice elimination. I do admit it naturally leads to this in durative rationale, but we cannot answer the question that way. It confuses our rational ability to do so as with the almanac. I'll work through that again momentarily.
    OK

    It is too, once we start going back and forth through time, much of our rationale is barred from making the trip. As soon as you look at it from forward-backwards, the duration argument becomes untenuable. You and I cannot answer the question: If it is foreknown, can it be free? It just isn't possible because we have no capacity to reasonably work through multidirectional time considerations effectively. The only thing that makes sense to us is unidirectional rationale because we do not possess this ability nor have any experience of it to hook into.
    I don't see why we can't work through them. We've been discussing it in your almanac example.

    I'm saying, as brilliant as these men were and your astute presentation (again, forgive the former slight, please, as unintentional consciously) the question about multidirectional considerations isn't addressed.
    Given what free will is, there doesn't seem to be a problem. If it is foreknown, it will be the same decision every time. Period. It cannot be otherwise.

    However, free will requires a new decision every time a circumstance is reached, and the possibility that another choice will be taken.

    I diverge here. The almanac does not determine those outcomes, it records them.
    I agree. I never said that the almanac determined them. I said that of the almanac were 100% correct, then free will could not exist. It's a correlation, not a causation. The cause is unimportant and, without further assumptions about this scenario, unknown

    Simply going forward or backward in time does nothing. The almanac (and my reason for bringing in 'y' for foreknowledge so I could use it) has nothing to do with events occuring. It is completely unrelated to x other than recording x. That's it. There is no loss of choice simply because it records choice. If it comes back, the events happen exactly as recorded because nothing changes. Choice wasn't lost, it is the way your mind is going unidirectionally that determines this and I believe this is in fact the logical hole missing. You and I cannot make this determination and are completely without the ability to rationalize through a multidirectional time parameter to say that it eliminates or preserves it. This is compatiblism, it is recognizing human limitation to either deny or varify the claim that freewill is lost. How in the world, other than taking something out of multidirectional context and trying to force it into a unidirectional one, could we say something is illogical? The whole premise of the objection is wrong.
    Given your false assumption about what I said, this isn't relevant.

    The point is that if free will exists, then each time agent A comes to time T and circumstance C, both choices X and ~X must be able to be chosen. In your almanac example, when agent A comes to time T in circumstance C the second time, choice ~X is not possible, and thus A does not have free will. Since having free will is a constant state for a conscious being, we must conclude that he never had it.

    I believe the unidirectional function to be 1) a condition describing man's limitation that does not apply to God 2) that this logic certainly does affect our views of what is possible and impossible when examining scripture.
    I believe that it really doesn't matter if you're referring to uni- or multidirectional time, if free will exists, each pass through a given period of time will result in some decisions being different than the time before, because each decision is made without external causation.

    I believe I understand apocalyptic genre against your assertation and hope your's was also unpurposefully maligning.
    I apologize for being blunt and making an overreaching assertion.

    However, there is no basis for saying that when these events come to pass (if they have not already come to pass), that we would be able to observe John speaking with the elder at that time.

    I would be more inclined to think either that this elder is a symbol of something in heaven, which is represented by him, or, if this elder exists, that John is interacting with him in John's time, and not the future.

    Either way, John jumping years or a millennia into the future aren't necessary, given the genre in which he writes.

    Muz
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  2. #8087
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,969
    Thanks
    2,823
    Thanked 4,868 Times in 2,926 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147740
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    I don't see why we can't work through them. We've been discussing it in your almanac example.
    We can to a point. I'm saying that going backwards or forwards in time in our logic and the logical problems it creates, are difficult to assess, especially since our logic is mostly constrained to unidirectional thinking.


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Given what free will is, there doesn't seem to be a problem. If it is foreknown, it will be the same decision every time. Period. It cannot be otherwise.
    Again, this is constrained unidirectional thinking.

    Time is a measurement like distance

    3 race cars going the distance

    We are in the middle car.

    Wherever on the track we are, the last car sees it in the pas (where we just were).

    The first car, sees us from the front before we actually get there. Even if we change lane position, he can adjust and block us, etc.

    We are free to choose where we drive to a point (on the track, position between the cars).

    The car in front knows where we are going, the car behind knows where we've been.

    No logical contradictions but if we we start changing around between cars it will start to become confusing, like "Does the guy in the back see his future?"
    He certainly sees future possibility for himself, but the guys in front have already been there.

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    However, free will requires a new decision every time a circumstance is reached, and the possibility that another choice will be taken.
    I disagree, all that is required are the exact same possibilities again.

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    I agree. I never said that the almanac determined them. I said that of the almanac were 100% correct, then free will could not exist. It's a correlation, not a causation. The cause is unimportant and, without further assumptions about this scenario, unknown
    This needs to be examined from every angle. Again, from the Almanac origin, it recorded what was chosen. It is only because we are stuck in the linear consideration that we'd assess no choice. It doesn't rationalize this all the way as it should. Looking back from the future, we know that the Almanac just recorded the facts, not determined them. Freewill obviously existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Given your false assumption about what I said, this isn't relevant.

    The point is that if free will exists, then each time agent A comes to time T and circumstance C, both choices X and ~X must be able to be chosen. In your almanac example, when agent A comes to time T in circumstance C the second time, choice ~X is not possible, and thus A does not have free will. Since having free will is a constant state for a conscious being, we must conclude that he never had it.
    I'll take the correction, but I don't see why it was false. Perhaps I got confused (remember I'm trying to think outside of a unidirectional box and that is a conundrum all by itself).

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    I believe that it really doesn't matter if you're referring to uni- or multidirectional time, if free will exists, each pass through a given period of time will result in some decisions being different than the time before, because each decision is made without external causation.
    As noted above, I don't agree with this for the reasons given.

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    I apologize for being blunt and making an overreaching assertion.
    Thank you sir (from one guilty).
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    However, there is no basis for saying that when these events come to pass (if they have not already come to pass), that we would be able to observe John speaking with the elder at that time.

    I would be more inclined to think either that this elder is a symbol of something in heaven, which is represented by him, or, if this elder exists, that John is interacting with him in John's time, and not the future.

    Either way, John jumping years or a millennia into the future aren't necessary, given the genre in which he writes.

    Muz
    Rev 4:1 After these things I looked, and there was a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet said: "Come up here so that I can show you what must happen after these things."
    Rev 5:1 Then I saw in the right hand of the one who was seated on the throne a scroll written on the front and back and sealed with seven seals.
    Rev 5:2 And I saw a powerful angel proclaiming in a loud voice: "Who is worthy to open the scroll and to break its seals?"
    Rev 22:6 Then the angel said to me, "These words are reliable and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must happen soon."
    There is definitely a tension in trying to convey what will happen, John having seen (past), and recording those things.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  3. #8088
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 97 Times in 79 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56745
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Again, this is constrained unidirectional thinking.

    Time is a measurement like distance

    3 race cars going the distance

    We are in the middle car.

    Wherever on the track we are, the last car sees it in the pas (where we just were).

    The first car, sees us from the front before we actually get there. Even if we change lane position, he can adjust and block us, etc.

    We are free to choose where we drive to a point (on the track, position between the cars).

    The car in front knows where we are going, the car behind knows where we've been.

    No logical contradictions but if we we start changing around between cars it will start to become confusing, like "Does the guy in the back see his future?"
    He certainly sees future possibility for himself, but the guys in front have already been there.
    Who is it exactly that is in a different point in time in this creation than we are?

    I disagree, all that is required are the exact same possibilities again.
    Well, if the first time around I chose A, and the 2nd time around, I chose ~A, and that changed the possible options for you then the possibilities wouldn't be exactly the same.

    However, if you're saying that the same "possibilities" must exist, but then turn around and claim that each agent MUST choose the same as they did the first time around, then you've contradicted yourself, since the unchosen "possibilities" aren't possible, and you've lost free will.

    This needs to be examined from every angle. Again, from the Almanac origin, it recorded what was chosen. It is only because we are stuck in the linear consideration that we'd assess no choice. It doesn't rationalize this all the way as it should. Looking back from the future, we know that the Almanac just recorded the facts, not determined them. Freewill obviously existed.
    Obviously? How can you say that it obviously existed? Because we're assuming that it does?

    The element in question is whether it exists, if the recorded events must happen the same way every time.

    I'll take the correction, but I don't see why it was false. Perhaps I got confused (remember I'm trying to think outside of a unidirectional box and that is a conundrum all by itself).
    OK, think of it this way:

    The Almanac records events has they happen along time line T1, between A an B. Between A and B, I chose to eat Vanilla Ice cream, and the Almanac recorded it. Also, because I ate Vanilla Ice Cream, there was none left, and you could not eat from the same box.

    Rewind time from B to A, and begin again. Call this time line T2.

    If I have free will, then the choice to eat or not eat the Vanilla Ice Cream is before me again, and if all the possible choices exist, I may choose not to eat it.

    If I choose not to eat Vanilla, now T2 is different than T1, and the Almanac is inaccurate.

    The only way that T1 can be exactly the same as T2 is if there is some kind of determining factor which renders only one possible choice for each decision between A and B.

    This doesn't mean that every choice must be different, but given sufficient time and decisions (which wouldn't require many), some decisions will be different.

    Time isn't a video tape that can be recorded and then played over and over again.

    As noted above, I don't agree with this for the reasons given.
    Hopefully I've addressed this.

    There is definitely a tension in trying to convey what will happen, John having seen (past), and recording those things.
    Well, God only says that he'll see things that are to come. We don't really know whether he actually went forward in time, and given the genre, quite possible that John only saw representations of things to come.

    Muz
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  4. #8089
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,969
    Thanks
    2,823
    Thanked 4,868 Times in 2,926 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147740
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Who is it exactly that is in a different point in time in this are?
    The guy behind us is 'presently' behind us. In the near 'future' he will be where we have been.
    We are 'presently' in the middle but will shortly be where the first guy has been.
    The guy in front of us 'has been' where we presently are, it is his past.

    We are all presently in our respective positions and perspectives, past, present, future.

    (It is by no means EDF, looks something like-but not foreknowledge)


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Well, if the first time around I chose A, and the 2nd time around, I chose ~A, and that changed the possible options for you then the possibilities wouldn't be exactly the same.

    However, if you're saying that the same "possibilities" must exist, but then turn around and claim that each agent MUST choose the same as they did the first time around, then you've contradicted yourself, since the unchosen "possibilities" aren't possible, and you've lost free will.
    Maybe we are getting somewhere finally here. Not 'must' but 'will' without deviance.


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Obviously? How can you say that it obviously existed? Because we're assuming that it does?

    The element in question is whether it exists, if the recorded events must happen the same way every time.
    Obvious as in gratuitive, intuitive, self-evident. I choose to be typing at the moment. Doing a thing and having it exponentially known (OV-"God is very smart") or Exhaustively isn't that far apart in my thinking. OV is seeking to preserve the same thing, but again I believe the conundrum exists merely from unidirectional thinking. You look at it one way and see no choice but the one chosen, going forward (one direction consideration only). As with the Almanac, moving beyond the time consideration barriers presents a whole new stipulation for considering EDF and freewill that must be examined differently.
    My answer is that it isn't contradictory once it is looked at from all angles. A bit beyond our capacity, yes, but not contradictory.
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    OK, think of it this way:

    The Almanac records events has they happen along time line T1, between A an B. Between A and B, I chose to eat Vanilla Ice cream, and the Almanac recorded it. Also, because I ate Vanilla Ice Cream, there was none left, and you could not eat from the same box.

    Rewind time from B to A, and begin again. Call this time line T2.

    If I have free will, then the choice to eat or not eat the Vanilla Ice Cream is before me again, and if all the possible choices exist, I may choose not to eat it.

    If I choose not to eat Vanilla, now T2 is different than T1, and the Almanac is inaccurate.

    The only way that T1 can be exactly the same as T2 is if there is some kind of determining factor which renders only one possible choice for each decision between A and B.

    This doesn't mean that every choice must be different, but given sufficient time and decisions (which wouldn't require many), some decisions will be different.

    Time isn't a video tape that can be recorded and then played over and over again.
    Hopefully I've addressed this.
    Okay, I think I'm tracking with you but your assumption in the argument is what must exist for freewill to occur. I don't disagree with this, but see that it could be a wrong assumption (that we must be able to choose differently for it to be freewill). With this, as I said, I don't disagree, but I'm not convinced our idea is 100% accurate to make any strong defense. Again, I believe when we start thinking through time in which we are constrained, it isn't necessarily accurate if, as I believe, our logic is constrained in time considerations and God's isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Well, God only says that he'll see things that are to come. We don't really know whether he actually went forward in time, and given the genre, quite possible that John only saw representations of things to come.

    Muz
    I do see your point, and also agree with you about postulation here with the 'if's' 'possible' etc. I was reading some from my Presbyterian Systematic Theology by Buswell last night on this issue, and he explains much of these things. It was written before Sanders and Boyd and he even gives examples from as early as 600AD of this debate. OV ideas have been around a long time. Even if we continue to disagree on things, I'm hopeful that when we are careful and looking at our presuppositions, we'll still find we are on the same page on most things even if we diverge on assumptions. I believe John talked with an elder in the future vision and that this has implications for our time considerations and freewill.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  5. #8090
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 97 Times in 79 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56745
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    The guy behind us is 'presently' behind us. In the near 'future' he will be where we have been.
    We are 'presently' in the middle but will shortly be where the first guy has been.
    The guy in front of us 'has been' where we presently are, it is his past.

    We are all presently in our respective positions and perspectives, past, present, future.

    (It is by no means EDF, looks something like-but not foreknowledge)
    I guess the only thing would change is to note that if we're seeing time slices in front of us, then, looking forward, you wouldn't see just someone at a point in front of you, but a blur of that existence in every point between them, as well. Furthermore, since each car can affect the other in the time which it exists, the actions of the one in back may change the course in front of him.

    Which kinda brings us to the almanac problem.

    Maybe we are getting somewhere finally here. Not 'must' but 'will' without deviance.
    "Will" without deviance is must, because it is not contingent.

    Obvious as in gratuitive, intuitive, self-evident.
    Except that it isn't. Only if you assume that only one timeline is possible does it become obvious.

    I choose to be typing at the moment. Doing a thing and having it exponentially known (OV-"God is very smart") or Exhaustively isn't that far apart in my thinking. OV is seeking to preserve the same thing, but again I believe the conundrum exists merely from unidirectional thinking. You look at it one way and see no choice but the one chosen, going forward (one direction consideration only).
    On the contrary. I've said that each pass through would almost certainly result in some different decisions being made, creating a different thread.

    As with the Almanac, moving beyond the time consideration barriers presents a whole new stipulation for considering EDF and freewill that must be examined differently.
    My answer is that it isn't contradictory once it is looked at from all angles. A bit beyond our capacity, yes, but not contradictory.
    The contradiction remains, since we can see that, even if we make a hundred passes though a given period of time, that consistency is not guaranteed.

    Okay, I think I'm tracking with you but your assumption in the argument is what must exist for freewill to occur. I don't disagree with this, but see that it could be a wrong assumption (that we must be able to choose differently for it to be freewill).
    That's the definition of Free Will. Agent A must be able to choose X AND must be able to choose ~X, but not both. How can you have free will without this?

    With this, as I said, I don't disagree, but I'm not convinced our idea is 100% accurate to make any strong defense. Again, I believe when we start thinking through time in which we are constrained, it isn't necessarily accurate if, as I believe, our logic is constrained in time considerations and God's isn't.
    God seems to be constrained in some kind of temporal restriction in Scripture. One only needs read the first book of Genesis to see that. It's not that God is restrained by OUR time, but God is certainly temporal.

    I do see your point, and also agree with you about postulation here with the 'if's' 'possible' etc. I was reading some from my Presbyterian Systematic Theology by Buswell last night on this issue, and he explains much of these things. It was written before Sanders and Boyd and he even gives examples from as early as 600AD of this debate. OV ideas have been around a long time. Even if we continue to disagree on things, I'm hopeful that when we are careful and looking at our presuppositions, we'll still find we are on the same page on most things even if we diverge on assumptions. I believe John talked with an elder in the future vision and that this has implications for our time considerations and freewill.
    Well, one feature of apocalyptic genre is that it is overly deterministic, as though the events are set in stone, even if they do not occur in that exact manner. Daniel 11 is a good example, where it's very difficult (if not impossible) to line up the exact prophecy with the actual events, unless you take a more symbolic and genre based look at what was written.

    Muz
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  6. #8091
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 97 Times in 79 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56745
    So, I guess OVT wins? lol

    Muz
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  7. #8092
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,969
    Thanks
    2,823
    Thanked 4,868 Times in 2,926 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147740
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    I guess the only thing would change is to note that if we're seeing time slices in front of us, then, looking forward, you wouldn't see just someone at a point in front of you, but a blur of that existence in every point between them, as well. Furthermore, since each car can affect the other in the time which it exists, the actions of the one in back may change the course in front of him.
    Which kinda brings us to the almanac problem.

    "Will" without deviance is must, because it is not contingent.
    I kinda feel like we are starting to go around and coming back to the same worn discussions.

    OV uses 'self-evident' truth to refute foreknowledge (as 'I' understand it) but the self-evident is not my perspective or understanding. I'll run a dialogue at the end here, but as I said, I think we've turned the bend again.

    All that having been said, I truly appreciate you going around it again with me. We are at a point of disagreement but you've been a wonderful debate partner/counterpoint and I appreciate that here very much.


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Except that it isn't. Only if you assume that only one timeline is possible does it become obvious.



    On the contrary. I've said that each pass through would almost certainly result in some different decisions being made, creating a different thread.



    The contradiction remains, since we can see that, even if we make a hundred passes though a given period of time, that consistency is not guaranteed.



    That's the definition of Free Will. Agent A must be able to choose X AND must be able to choose ~X, but not both. How can you have free will without this?



    God seems to be constrained in some kind of temporal restriction in Scripture. One only needs read the first book of Genesis to see that. It's not that God is restrained by OUR time, but God is certainly temporal.



    Well, one feature of apocalyptic genre is that it is overly deterministic, as though the events are set in stone, even if they do not occur in that exact manner. Daniel 11 is a good example, where it's very difficult (if not impossible) to line up the exact prophecy with the actual events, unless you take a more symbolic and genre based look at what was written.

    Muz
    On this particular you are insisting that your own inclination and choice must be variable but as I look at it from another perspective, what you are saying actually denies your own freewill choice in the first place. If you can choose something else, your own choice is negated in hindsight. Again, when we are trying to analyze, truth here, it just isn't possible to be definitive. Here is that promised dialogue to give thought. I'm not sure we've convinced each other but I truly want to leave food for thought:

    "If my action is known, it cannot be free. I'd have no choice."
    "The Almanac records the choice you chose."

    "The past cannot be changed, we've established that."

    "Yeah, but you are making the same mistake in assuming foreknowledge does this too. It's constrained to a linear thought process. Once we start looking at time in a multidirectional consideration, there are all kinds of problems in trying to figure it out."

    "If the decision is contingent, then another choice could be made."

    "You are assuming that forward movement is the best way to grasp this dilemma and it is not. Once you are in any way able to go backward in time, the argument fails because it is totally built upon one directional thinking. We cannot say what an Almanac traveling back in time does nor that any other decision would have been made. Besides, if another decision is possible, the Almanac would automatically have changed because it recorded past events accurately. See what I mean? We just aren't built well to investigate whether Foreknowledge denies freewill and it is a precarious position built on a fault of one-directional thinking."

    In my estimation, we've exposed our assumptions and problems with either position here adequately. I'm more than open to continuing but don't seem to see anything we can further add to this particular conversation.

    Thanks again for wading through it with me.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  8. #8093
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 97 Times in 79 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56745
    And I thank you for the opportunity to have a civil conversation.

    Muz
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  9. #8094
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,969
    Thanks
    2,823
    Thanked 4,868 Times in 2,926 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147740
    Hi Knight,

    might be a good time for part 3 as there has been nothing really since Muz's August 8 entry.

    It just seems like a good place to start again for bandwidth considerations and timing.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  10. #8095
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,337 Times in 1,101 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1099925
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Hi Knight,

    might be a good time for part 3 as there has been nothing really since Muz's August 8 entry.

    It just seems like a good place to start again for bandwidth considerations and timing.
    Yeah... I have been thinking about that as well.

    I will try to set that up today.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  11. #8096
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,337 Times in 1,101 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1099925
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  12. #8097
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,337 Times in 1,101 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1099925
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us