To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 7740
7739  |  7741
Subject: 
Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 1 Dec 2000 21:00:59 GMT
Viewed: 
1221 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:


  I can see where he's going with it.  It's an old chestnut,
  basically that only the brave and committed--those above
  'so tall' (or is it a statement on predestination--only
  those predisposed to being this tall?  Bill, have you gone
  Old Calvinist on us?)--can get into Heaven.  Or maybe it's
  just a declaration of victory, a springing of the trap in
  anticipation, in the hopes that the 'besprung' will concede?
  Al Gore, are you listening?  :)

I want to answer this a little better now that I have more time: As to
Calvinism - I don't buy into the whole hyper-Calvinistic TULIP thing, but I
do believe in predestination in the way that Selcuk described it earlier (in
reference to Islam). Every verse in the NT that speaks of predestination
also mentions foreknowledge. Calvin is too arbitrary, in my opinion (and he
makes God appear such). He makes it sound like "eeny meeny miney mo". And if
it's not that, then it's worse: that God liked some better than others,
based on merit, which Paul says it's not merit (Rom. 9) I think it is far
more basic - God knew what some people would do in advance and capitalizes
on it. He doesn't *make* it happen, He works within the framework of what He
knows beforehand. Some raise sovereignty at this point, that God is in
*complete* control. I view sovereignty this way (a not very technical
analogy, I admit, but that's what I prefer anyway): I have a large yard (2/3
of an acre - which in Miami is HUGE) fenced on all sides. I have two kids.
If I let my kids in the yard to play, and supervise them to prevent
accidents or fighting - I am sovereign in the sense that I have set the
boundaries of how far they can go and am in control as they play. But I DO
NOT govern *what* they play, I do not say laugh here, smile there, stub toe
now, etc. They choose to slide on the slide or swing on the swings as they
wish - free will, yet I am in ultimate control as I supervise them. God's
sovereignty is *like* that (not exactly, of course, so don't nitpick little
things), He doesn't make me do anything, He's not a puppeteer, yet he is in
control. I DO have free will. This is a rough analogy of how "I" understand
God's sovereignty.

I spoke of James Harmon (Jacobus Arminius) earlier, I do like his style,
much more palatable - yet I disagree with his conclusions. He was a
Calvinist at first and was asked to defend it, but upon examination refuted
it because Calvin went too far. For that I respect him greatly, because he
didn't just tow the line - he thought for himself. I used to teach a High
School Sunday school class where I would actually teach the kids to question
their parents and the pastors to find what they themselves believed, to
think for themselves - and if it meant that they questioned Christianity,
that was great, because I believe it is far more harmful to go thru the
motions than it is to be an atheist.


  It's still an analogy with no substance, because if you
  disallow the basic premise it collapses like a house of
  cards, and becomes nothing more than a maze of semantics.
  Whether or not he's right, this isn't how it's proven--
  for other examples, that in fact he's employed before,
  look up 'Pascal's Wager' (for starters).  I encountered
  a lot of the theological trap-laying and reorganisation of
  knowlege hierarchies back in college, when engaged in the
  venerable Evolution vs. Creation debates--and as soon as
  it became clear that I had a map of their minefield, nobody
  was willing to debate me.  Strange, that.

You say it has no substance because you don't see my point, which I will
address to Larry next.


Bill

  best,

  LFB



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
 
[Much snippage] (...) I can see where he's going with it. It's an old chestnut, basically that only the brave and committed--those above 'so tall' (or is it a statement on predestination--only those predisposed to being this tall? Bill, have you (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

231 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR