A Calvinst and an Arminian Dictionary
There is a raging debate taking place between Calvinists and those of the Arminian persuasion. Here are two dictionaries about each theology. Calvinist Dictionary. Arminian Dictionary. Although these two dictionaries are spoofs, behind them is a real debate between Christians.
20 comments:
This is funny but it proves an important point. Christians cannot agree on what the Bible says. Not only on so called "minor matters" but on the very essence of salvation. Either God did a pretty poor job of explaining things in the Bible or the Bible is a compilation of various ideas about God written by different men over many years. It seems obvious to me which one is the case.
Indeed, former_fundy. I am continually amazed by the byzantine steps people choreograph out of the confusion of the Bible, absolutely convinced that their particular interpretive dance is the "correct" one.
Do some serious study on contrasts before making decisions. The site you referred was just a satire.
Based on what I've seen so far as comments on this site, I believe that you'll find Arminianism more in agreement with your understandings in many points.
This site is dedicated to debunking Evangelical Christianity which may or may not have anything to do with Arminianism depending upon how it's taught.
So far as agreements there is NO consistent atheist dogma and even disagreements among authors on this blog. Some of you believe in the historical Jesus, some believe he was a myth, some even have a different approach and understanding. Some of you call yourselves atheist and others call themselves agnostic and then skeptic etc. but these are different categories of unbelief, but yet you're together making your points jointly.
I can disagree with a Cavinist over salvation, who, what and when etc. but the facts are that we all agree that JESUS God, the savior of mankind and without faith in his atoning sacrifice we will not be saved...That's a coinsistency you'll find within Christianity, reformist, Arminian, or otherwise.
So in short Christian differences especially over essentials are not as great as sometimes they are made out to be.
Thanks.
Yep, this is just another reason to reject Christianity since no one can agree even on salvation.
Five views on Apologetics
Four views on hell
Four views on the Atonement
Four views on Sanctification
Four views on Revelation
Are Spiritual Gifts for today?
Three Views On Genesis
And the list goes on.
I'm not even sure what the Bible teaches anymore. I think John Piper once said that every verse in the Bible is debated but he is so sure of what it teaches. (Calvinism)
I'm not even sure that there is a God anymore. Christian apologists and philosophers can't even agree on how we can know that God exists.
So far as agreements there is NO consistent atheist dogma and even disagreements among authors on this blog.
You say this as if it's some kind of a surprise or failing of atheism. You do know that atheism is the lack of belief in God or Gods, right? It's a negative. As such it makes no positive claims or has no other requirements. One can be Buddhist and still be an atheist.
As such, disagreements are bound to occur, but do not pose a problem to atheism.
However, if the Christian God is the one true God, then he must have a really bad PR department as he can't get his message across clearly and precisely on important matters, such as eternal salvation.
Good help is hard to omnipotently create these days?
Harvey -- In case you haven't noticed, there are all sorts of commenters on this blog so we can't control that at all, but the posters all have one thing that we agree on.
Christianity is a false belief.
Let me know if you find any evidence to suggest otherwise.
Scott~ "However, if the Christian God is the one true God, then he must have a really bad PR department as he can't get his message across clearly and precisely on important matters, such as eternal salvation.
Good help is hard to omnipotently create these days?"
[That observation alone should get you closer to the answer about your free-will questions and correct your mistaken premise that leads you to the conclusions you have.
God says what he says and man exercises their "free will" to follow, understand or interpret how they will. There are varying degrees of dificulty for each path that is choosen by each individual.
So diversity in understanding DOES NOT create a deficiency with God it only restates the deficiency of man.
So next time you think, that too many people have too many interpretations for you to have confidence in God, pick up the phone book, go to attorney's section and read page after page of people who interpret the same laws differently and argue opposing points over the same legislation everyday...but still each of you have confidence in the system when you feel you've been done unjustly.
Now you'll say, "well, we're not talking about natural law or mans law, we're talking about God's law...he doesn't have the ability to communicate any better" then you're right back into the circle because God did not make a robot, he made a truley free will agent, the responsibility IS NOT on him to make us follow, he's made it very plain and even if there's a disagreement or something you don't understand, in JESUS there is still enough for an individual to be saved.
So the MESSAGE got across clearly, that's why you all debate over it now...YOU just don't like the message! that's on YOU not God.]
Evan~
All you would have to do is consider ALL the evidence, even the supernatural evidence that you won't allow due to your anti-supernatural bias which is a position both outdated and TOTALLY unscientific and one that helps you enter into the ultimate contradiction of your faith.
The evidence is there, been there for thousands of years, but as I said you won't accept it.
The amazing thing here is that if all Christians said and interpreted the Bible EXACTLY the same in every scripture without diversity, you'd still not believe why?
You are exercising your free-will not to believe even though it's heavily influenced by the sin that lives in you.
Now that's the truth RUTH!
Later.
So, Christianity is false because Christians have some in-house disagreements, unlike atheists who agree on everything?
Disagreements among Christians is a problem for them since they're trying to convince everyone else of conflicting beliefs. It erodes their credibility for claiming that Christianity is true. (Salvation by works or salvation by faith? I don't believe in either, but good luck convincing a Christian believing one to change their belief to the other.)
Disagreements among atheists is not so much a problem for atheism since they all agree that there is no god (it's the very definition of atheism!). Other disagreements are not due to atheism itself, but due to other differences. (An atheist psychic and an atheist skeptic disagree because they're a psychic and an atheist, not because their atheism differs.)
An atheist psychic and an atheist skeptic disagree because they're a psychic and an atheist
Oops! I meant to say skeptic, not atheist. ^_^;;
DSHB: You say that you will find lawyers disagreeing on what laws mean. That is absolutely correct. Because something written by humans cannot cover every possible circumstance, cannot always stand as times chage, and because language itself is inexact and open to interpretation. However if a law in codebook says a doorway must be 32" and a few paragraphs later, it says 36", people get together and agree which it should be and fix it. sometimes they miss a place it should have been fixed and still there are inconsistencies. because they are human made written records of human made ideas. Good point, there, and it goes to why the Bible has so many inconsistencies and discrepencies and interpretations. It is a human made written record of human made myths. The law is open to so many interpretations for exatly the reason the bible is: Human words, human ideas. Thanks for making that point. I think you are starting to get it.
Goprairie ~ I said this, ["God did not make a robot, he made a truley free will agent, the responsibility IS NOT on him to make us follow, he's made it very plain and even if there's a disagreement or something you don't understand, in JESUS there is still enough for an individual to be saved.
So the MESSAGE got across clearly, that's why you all debate over it now...YOU just don't like the message! that's on YOU not God."]
I fail to see how any of that HELPS you make any point or assertion that I've agreed with other atheist on this point. That's certainly not the case but I'll handle at least THIS again,
Goprairie~ "However if a law in codebook says a doorway must be 32" and a few paragraphs later, it says 36", people get together and agree which it should be and fix it. sometimes they miss a place it should have been fixed and still there are inconsistencies. because they are human made written records of human made ideas."
[Now when did you get the memo that something changed within Christianity? What changed? The plan of salvation? That we would be saved by grace through faith in a blood atonement specifically that of Jesus? That certainly hasn't changed. Or that the believer was to live holy? Nope, that hasn't changed. So there is no "perceived" inconsistency that has "changed" God's word. There are bible difficulties that are hashed out by fine pastors, teachers and church leaders but in all I've read, Ehrman or any other (that knows what they're talking about-to whatever extent) I am unaware of any inconsistencies. And I am an avid reader of atheist garbage and dogmas and the individuals on this site have laid out supposed problems clearly, but the one's I'm aware of, have been answered quite well by many discerning Christians that grace this site...so I fail to see a problem]
Goprarire ~ "because they are human made written records of human made ideas."
[Certainly human agency was involved. The bible says as much 2 Pet. 1:21. The fact is that there are at least 36 different authors, who wrote in 3 continents, in many countries, in 3 languages, and from every possible human standpoint. Authors were kings, farmers, mechanics, scientific men, lawyers, generals, fishermen, ministers and priests, a tax-collector, a doctor, some rich, some poor, some city bred, some country born—inclusive of all the experiences of men—extending over 1500 years.
What you're suggesting is human creation and inspiration of the narrative in general and there are any number of ways to disprove and debunk that assertion. The expansion of time period is one. In fact just look at that...you mean biblical authors were smart enough to pull a deception off over 1,500 years and that lasts another 2,000 years expanding over 3,500 years of human existence, until you and debunking came along? They were smart enough to deceive, in mass, all the discerning and thoughtful minds of history except the modern atheist because you guys pose so many better questions than have ever been asked before? Get outta here! Please!!!]
Goprarire~ “The law is open to so many interpretations for exatly the reason the bible is: Human words, human ideas.”
[No. Not exactly, or even remotely close. The bible is open to so many interpretations because people have the ability to exercise their will to believe and interpret God how they wish. Each interpretation or belief however, carries it’s own set of benefits, risks and rewards. As I said, the message is clear, but the hearts of men are murky and we have a great deal of liberty when it comes to serving Christ which cannot be discounted.]
DSHB - you say "the individuals on this site have laid out supposed problems clearly, but the one's I'm aware of, have been answered quite well by many discerning Christians that grace this site...so I fail to see a problem "
well, you certainly HAVE summed up the situation. yes, many people here HAVE pointed out NUMEROUS biblical errors and inconsistencies and contradictions and your christians have pathetically tried to defend your bible and LOST every single time. but YOU think they won and YOU think the bible stands inerrant. psychologists have a name for this refusal to see the truth bcause it is counter to what you want to desparately to believe. this denial of the obvious to preserve your belief system. and this does show why it is pointless to debate you. i can walk away with a clear win and you will stand there pumping your arms convinced of your victory. well, enjoy it. some might find that sort of denial of obvious facts amusing but i find it creepy.
Harvey,
My point here is that people come to different conclusions because the message is confusing and contradictory. If God does exist and has requirements that effect our eternal soul, surely an omnipotent God could at least get the message across in a constant, coherent form.
Ensuring a clear, unified message is presented and forcing someone to choose that message are two completely different things.
Scott: Good help is hard to omnipotently create these days?"
Harry: That observation alone should get you closer to the answer about your free-will questions and correct your mistaken premise that leads you to the conclusions you have.
I wasn't referring to human beings.
This was an analogy to how corporations use internal PR departments to clearly get their message across to the public. The information you receive isn't an accident. Instead, PR firms create an intentional strategy designed to ensure key information is presented in a uniform and constant manner.
While they can't make people choose, they at least have a clear information on which to make their decision.
For example, I refuse to eat at McDonnalds because the food is very unhealthy. But they at least present a relatively clear and unified marketing, branding and restaurant experience. This doesn't occur by accident. It requires extensive strategy, planning and resources.
However, God is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and has unlimited resources. Surely, if such a being existed, he would have a more effective strategy than, say, McDonalds? Right?
But, clearly, doesn't seem to be the case.
Doesn't this seem odd to you?
And without a clear and coherent message, how someone make an informed decisions?
And lets not forget that God supposedly omnipotently and omnisciently created human beings in the first place. This would give him a significant advantage as...
01. He'd know exactly how to get his message across because, well, he created us.
02. In designing us, he could have ensured we had the ability to understand his message, regardless of how complex it is.
If we are too finite to comprehend, then this must be his intention as God must have designed us with a specific level of comprehension and understanding.
goprairie~ "christians have pathetically tried to defend your bible and LOST every single time."
[I don't know what site you've been looking at, but the atheist responses to the many good answere I've read here are amazing to say the least. I've seen evidence discounted, overlooked...I've seen you guys make up total FANTASIES out of thin air...If Christians have lost...then I guess loosing is the new WINNING here.]
Goprarire~ "psychologists have a name for this refusal to see the truth bcause it is counter to what you want to desparately to believe."
[IS THAT RIGHT??? What's the name for it...because I think you certainly should know it. You're a classic example, you don't believe because you don't want to believe. It would mess up your world to realize there are things beyoned naturalistic control.]
Anyway, it's been nice you anti-Christ advocates. C ya round the way!
Scott~ I understand all that you are saying. What you are describing is a form of fatalistic predeterminism. That is an unbiblical concept although there are many who believe in such when it comes to certain things such as salvation.
The message is my opinion is clearly coherent and is seen from Genesis to Revelation, so I fail to the the incoherency.
Now you can look so hard at a tree until you don't see the forest.
Take a spark-plug out of the engine and put it in the front seat and it makes no sense...Is the spark plug confused? NO. Is the car confused? No. but the understanding of the one who placed it in the front seat is IF they think that the spark plug helps or adds anything to the performance of the engine in the front seat.
This is how I view your arguments.
Misplaced.
Could say more but like I said I'm out. Good convo though.
Scott~ I understand all that you are saying. What you are describing is a form of fatalistic predeterminism.
Would you not agree that presenting a clear message is not the same and forcing someone to choose that message?
What if someone wants turn away from "evil", but thinks the Muslim God is the one true God. Here, we have someone who's doing what he thinks what God wants but, by your account, he is lost.
Before you can decide someone is being disobedient to God, you must decide which God is the true God. For example, are you not willfully and intentionally disobedient to the Muslim God?
That is an unbiblical concept although there are many who believe in such when it comes to certain things such as salvation.
Of course it's un-biblical. If I towed the party line, I'd be focusing on individual claims and ignoring how they simply do not add up. I'd be picking and choosing "good" parts of the Bible. I'd be ignoring the fact that God gets all the glory for the good things that happen but shares no responsibility for the bad. I'd have to pretend that God's nature is the very definition of goodness despite him commanding genocide, the killing of children and regulation of slavery.
However, I'm unwilling to take this course of action because I don't see God a necessary part of my existence or the existence of the universe.
The message is my opinion is clearly coherent and is seen from Genesis to Revelation, so I fail to the the incoherency.
My guess is that you do see God as necessary. Therefore you accept these problems as part of God's mysterious nature which we simply can't understand.
Take a spark-plug out of the engine and put it in the front seat and it makes no sense...Is the spark plug confused? NO. Is the car confused? No. but the understanding of the one who placed it in the front seat is IF they think that the spark plug helps or adds anything to the performance of the engine in the front seat.
Even if we assume the Bible can said to make "sense" in some ad-hoc fashion, why would an omnipotent and omniscient God create the equivalent of a modern day car? It's design and construction are based on limitations and compromises to reduce costs and resources. It's driven by a crude and primitive power plant which is only 20-30% efficient.
While these might be expected from finite entities, such as human beings, we're talking about God, who infinite resources and unlimited knowledge.
If you look at the Bible as an attempt by humans to make sense out of the world around them, it might "appear" to make some sort of sense. But as a message from a omnipotent, omniscient being, it falls considerably short.
is he really gone? could it be?
The fact that there are disputes and disagreements between Christian sects simply proves the point that the Bible's promises and prophecies are false.
John.10
[16] And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, and one shepherd.
John.16
[13] When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak...
2Pet.1
[21] because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
The last time I looked there were literally thousands of competing Christian sects, which have traditionally fought, squabbled, and at times killed one another over various points of doctrine(truth). So much for the promise of "one flock, and one shepherd".
Apparently the 'spirit of truth' is running a bit late (nearly 2000 years late). Maybe he should have requested a wake up call.
Post a Comment