Thread: Zach82, why you don't just shut the fuck up? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022825
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Right that's it, I've fucking had it with this thread.
I've had it with the insinuations of heresy, or flat out declarations of such.
I've had it with the binary thinking that means that anyone who disagrees with Calvinism on all points is obviously opposed to every single point of Calvinism - and of course a heretic.
I've DEFINITELY had it with the politician-like skill of answering a different question from the one that someone fucking well asked you - ANYONE asked you, not just me.
I gather you've studied some philosophy. Obviously what they teach you in philosophy is to pull ideas out of your arse like it's a magic hat, so that you can shoot down ideas that no-one actually proposed and shift from one definition of a word to another to avoid any discussion of what the fuck you actually MEAN, on the occasions when we can muster up the courage to care whether there's anything rational going on in that ugly little head of yours.
I'm trying to decide what takes the cake, but it's hard to go past your accusation of Pelagianism when I said that Jesus Christ was a human being without sin. I mean, what the FUCK?! So which bit of that was wrong according to orthodox Christian thought, arsehole? The bit where Jesus Christ was a human being, or the bit where he was sinless?
You're a total moron. An incredibly well-educated moron, I'll grant you, but having a "conversation" with you still turns into a chore where getting a lick of sense is some kind of victory.
You have no NUANCE, man. Don't they teach fucking nuance in philosophy? Has the word 'spectrum' ever been introduced to you? Have you ever heard of independent variables? You know, the kind where a change in one doesn't automatically create a kind in the other?
I'm fucking sick of the "oh, if you don't believe A then you must believe B and C and D and so that makes you a heretic". No it fucking well doesn't. It means I'm someone who doesn't believe A. And unless A appears in the fucking Nicene fucking Creed you don't get to fucking call me a heretic. Not when you subscribe to a view that's on one end of a broad spectrum (oh, that word again, perhaps you need to look it up) of recognised Christian belief, and when I'm probably actually closer to your end of the spectrum than millions of other Christians in some very, very large churches.
Just shut the fuck up until you learn to recognise that it's not everybody's job to either agree with you on everything or be a heretic. For fuck's sake.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I'm not a Calvinist and I find Zach dismissive and abrasive on almost any topic.
However, if, every time my beliefs about God were discussed on the Ship, a whole crowd of posters turned up to say, without supporting argumentation, that they made God a monster, that they proved I turned theology into a black-and-white inhuman iron logic -- then I don't think I'd be terribly receptive to the opposite position either.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Gee wiz, Orfeo, have you tried just getting the fuck over it? It's not like arguing with you is a walk in the park either. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[ 20. July 2012, 15:35: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Gee wiz, Orfeo, have you tried just getting the fuck over it? It's not like arguing with you is a walk in the park either.
Yeah, that must be why I'm a heretic.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
then I don't think I'd be terribly receptive to the opposite position either.
The entire problem is that he thinks the only alternative IS opposite. He's so convinced that the only way to disagree with X+Y+Z is to agree with not-X, not-Y and not-Z, he can't grasp that there are 8 combinations available rather than just 2.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Zach's been called to Hell?
At least that means he's unlikely to pop up to say it's the worst Hell call ever. He does that on every other Hell call these days...
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Oh good, the ignorant moron called orfeo has called himself to Hell.
orfeo, you're a pedantic prick.
Your hard-on against Calvinism is both insulting, ill-founded and based on caricature. In your most recent ejaculation on the Calvinism thread, you posted this joy spot:
quote:
You are far, far too ready to imply heresy the second that someone doesn't agree with you. Are Lutherans heretics because they don't believe in Irresistible Grace? Is Wesley a heretic, and all the Methodists? That's clearly the one of those 5 'points' that us "heretics" have the biggest difficulty with, and it may stun you to discover that Lutherans and Methodists are not widely listed as among the heretical churches out of communion with the 'orthodox' ones.
All Methodists? Have you gone for a walk lately? Did you remember to take your eyes with you? If so, you would have seen that in Australia the Methodist Church is now part of the Uniting Church of Australia, who, wonder of wonders, hold the Westminster Confession as a subordinate standard.
Somehow is seems beyond your puny little brain to accept that the whole Calvinism/Arminianism thing isn't such a dichotomy after all. No, you just prefer to deal in stereotypes and straw men.
In the meantime, spare us your painfully stupid wanking on the Calvinism thread.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Zach's been called to Hell?
At least that means he's unlikely to pop up to say it's the worst Hell call ever. He does that on every other Hell call these days...
Name the last time.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Zach's been called to Hell?
At least that means he's unlikely to pop up to say it's the worst Hell call ever. He does that on every other Hell call these days...
Name the last time.
Here. Or here. This ain't exactly saying it's the best.
You've been popping up on other people's hell calls to say how crap you think they are quite a bit lately.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
For someone who pitches such mighty tantrums at my inability to really grasp his position, I have to wonder how cogent a explanation Orfeo could give of Calvin's or mine.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
You've been popping up on other people's hell calls to say how crap you think they are quite a bit lately.
You're right. I repent for thinking that internet rage is pathetic and should be gotten over and lives should be gotten instead of posting hell calls.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Gee wiz, Orfeo, have you tried just getting the fuck over it? It's not like arguing with you is a walk in the park either.
Thanks for answering orfeo's OP.
Posted by Boat Boy (# 13050) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
You've been popping up on other people's hell calls to say how crap you think they are quite a bit lately.
You're right. I repent for thinking that internet rage is pathetic and should be gotten over and lives should be gotten instead of posting hell calls.
Gosh, you do get very angry about things for someone who keeps telling everyone else to 'get over it'.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Naturally I only get heated up about worthwhile things.
I'll give Orfeo one thing- I don't answer lots of questions. It's because the other Calvinists have lives, so I was holding up that end by myself against 4 or 5 people accusing me of being a vicious, awful, non-Christian monster, and I kept myself busy enough working out only the questions I found interesting.
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Oh good, the ignorant moron called orfeo has called himself to Hell.
orfeo, you're a pedantic prick.
Your hard-on against Calvinism is both insulting, ill-founded and based on caricature. In your most recent ejaculation on the Calvinism thread, you posted this joy spot:
SBK, lovely! Sexual imagery when discussing Calvinism.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Zach, I think you need a bit of distance on this issue. I don't think (but I could be wrong) that anyone has called you vicious, or awful, or non-Christian, let alone a monster. If they had, I would have expected Hostly warnings left, right and centre. Disagreeing with, even disliking, Calvinism is not the same as attacking you personally.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
Zach, I has a lovely lyre-shaped handbag embroidered with My Little Pink One-Trick Pony - wanna borrow it?
Posted by Boat Boy (# 13050) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Zach, I think you need a bit of distance on this issue. I don't think (but I could be wrong) that anyone has called you vicious, or awful, or non-Christian, let alone a monster. If they had, I would have expected Hostly warnings left, right and centre. Disagreeing with, even disliking, Calvinism is not the same as attacking you personally.
No, but Zach called me vicious, idiotic and all sorts of other similarly nasty things, but because he apologised to the hosts for starting the conversation (not for the unsults...) he wasn't warned.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
I know he thought I had insulted him, when I don't think I did. If I did I'm happy to apologise as I know I didn't mean to.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boat Boy:
Zach called me vicious, idiotic and all sorts of other similarly nasty things, but because he apologised to the hosts for starting the conversation (not for the unsults...) he wasn't warned.
Because the host wasn't stupid enough to warn him for something he'd already recognized was out of line your panties are still in a twist? The host acknowledged the apology in an official post. That's all she should have done.
Grab your smelling salts and go lie down with a cool hankie on your forehead.
Posted by Boat Boy (# 13050) on
:
He didn't apologise to me for the rudeness, just to the hosts for starting the conversation. Why would it be 'stupid' of a host to warn him not to make personal attacks?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Oh Lord. Won't someone please just avenge Boat Boy's honor? He's been crying tears of rage into his pillow and demanding satisfaction for days now.
Posted by Boat Boy (# 13050) on
:
Again Zach, you seem to be much more angry and provocative than those you accuse of such things.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
<puts pink My Little One-Trick Pony handbag up on e-bay> ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
<puts pink My Little One-Trick Pony handbag up on e-bay>
It may be the time for it. This "Brony" fad isn't going to last forever.
Look it up. IT'S A THING!
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Boat Boy, you haven't apologized for any of your rudeness.
And, since you can't figure it out, it would be stupid for a host to warn someone who had already owned up to doing something wrong because they've already made it clear that they know they were wrong. If you want to bitch about it any more, go to the Styx.
Posted by Boat Boy (# 13050) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Boat Boy, you haven't apologized for any of your rudeness.
And, since you can't figure it out, it would be stupid for a host to warn someone who had already owned up to doing something wrong because they've already made it clear that they know they were wrong. If you want to bitch about it any more, go to the Styx.
I'd be grateful if you could point out where I've been rude, particularly to the same degree as that already mentioned.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
borrowing a phrase from another thread:
*Hell, not dissertation* - look it up yerself
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boat Boy:
I'd be grateful ... [/QB]
Yeah, right.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boat Boy:
... but because he apologised to the hosts for starting the conversation (not for the unsults...) he wasn't warned.
Behold! We have a new word!
Unsult, n. a failed insult.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Boat Boy:
... but because he apologised to the hosts for starting the conversation (not for the unsults...) he wasn't warned.
Behold! We have a new word!
Unsult, n. a failed insult.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
For someone who pitches such mighty tantrums at my inability to really grasp his position, I have to wonder how cogent a explanation Orfeo could give of Calvin's or mine.
I propose a new Purg rule: an Imago mirroring statement must precede any counterargument made by any party.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I propose a new Purg rule: an Imago mirroring statement must precede any counterargument made by any party.
That's actually not such a terrible idea, if'n you really think about.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
The entire world would be a much better place if everyone practiced Imago, all the time.
(sits back and awaits reaming.)
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Silly rabbit. The world only always gets worse.
Posted by Think˛ (# 1984) on
:
*flaunts ignorance* what is an imago mirror statement ?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
There are a lot of wankers on this thread. Sober Preacher's Kid is a wanker because whenever this issue comes up he starts wanking on about his particular merged Calvinistic/Methodistic/Autistic church that nobody else has ever heard of apart from him.
If he rants on again about how his merged pan-Reformed/Pan-Methodist presby-congy-whatever-else-it-is church of Outer Wanksville Manitoba or wherever it is and its sister church in Where-the-Fuck's-that-a-dinga-linga-dongagong, Western Australia is the most balanced, righteous and biblically correct of all extent churches on God's good earth then I'll apostasise and join the National Secular Society.
No-one gives a flying fart about your church apart from you Drunken Preacher's Brat.
As for Zach82, he's not even a human being, he's an automaton. I expect he's some kind of computer programme somewhere.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The entire world would be a much better place if everyone practiced Imago, all the time.
That shit could turn the mildest man into a Dalek...
Posted by Boat Boy (# 13050) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Boat Boy:
I'd be grateful ...
Yeah, right. [/QB]
Well done, incisive argument...
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
What a cowardly view you're pedaling on that thread, Gamaliel. Whenever the Scriptures propose a hard truth or a hard choice you just write it off as a mystery to get out of it. Even worse, you pretend this cowardice and intellectual sloppiness is the profoundest piety. You throw up a smokescreen of "tension" when your flaccid views rob the Gospel of every tension.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Bollocks.
There's nothing flaccid about my view at all.
If anything's flaccid around here it's your cock because it's been worn out by too much wanking.
You know as well as I do that there is more than one way of interpreting the scriptures and that some issues are not as clear-cut as you would have us believe.
I don't have any problem with the 'hard' passages of scripture at all. I just believe that they are more nuanced than binary, computer-programme brains like yours are capable of appreciating.
You are a wanker and have a floppy cock.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
“The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.” Soren Kierkegaard
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Jesus I know and Soren Kierkegaard I know, but who are you?
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Right that's it, I've fucking had it with this thread.
That was 20th July at 4.13pm in my time zone.
Now let us look at the thread linked to...
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That was 4:20 same day.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
4:33
Have you had it with that thread on not?
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There are a lot of wankers on this thread. Sober Preacher's Kid is a wanker because whenever this issue comes up he starts wanking on about his particular merged Calvinistic/Methodistic/Autistic church that nobody else has ever heard of apart from him.
If he rants on again about how his merged pan-Reformed/Pan-Methodist presby-congy-whatever-else-it-is church of Outer Wanksville Manitoba or wherever it is and its sister church in Where-the-Fuck's-that-a-dinga-linga-dongagong, Western Australia is the most balanced, righteous and biblically correct of all extent churches on God's good earth then I'll apostasise and join the National Secular Society.
No-one gives a flying fart about your church apart from you Drunken Preacher's Brat.
As for Zach82, he's not even a human being, he's an automaton. I expect he's some kind of computer programme somewhere.
That all you got? John Calvin's Beard but that was a lame retort.
Given that you are a such practiced wind-up merchant, Gamaliel, you must rent yourself out to guard the 18th Hole at the local mini-putt course. But after that impotent attempt at an attack, perhaps you'd better get your bearings looked at. The rust seems to have spread from your brain to your shoulders.
Now go fuck off and die under a bridge somewhere like the good little troll we all know you are.
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sober Preacher's Kid is a wanker because whenever this issue comes up he starts wanking on about his particular merged Calvinistic/Methodistic/Autistic church that nobody else has ever heard of apart from him.
If he rants on again about how his merged pan-Reformed/Pan-Methodist presby-congy-whatever-else-it-is church of Outer Wanksville Manitoba or wherever it is
Flap your scrotum in some other breeze bushwhacker. The United Church of Canada is the largest protestant church by numbers in Canada.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
Have you had it with that thread on not?
I gather idiomatic English is not your native language.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Oh good, the ignorant moron called orfeo has called himself to Hell.
orfeo, you're a pedantic prick.
Your hard-on against Calvinism is both insulting, ill-founded and based on caricature. In your most recent ejaculation on the Calvinism thread, you posted this joy spot:
quote:
You are far, far too ready to imply heresy the second that someone doesn't agree with you. Are Lutherans heretics because they don't believe in Irresistible Grace? Is Wesley a heretic, and all the Methodists? That's clearly the one of those 5 'points' that us "heretics" have the biggest difficulty with, and it may stun you to discover that Lutherans and Methodists are not widely listed as among the heretical churches out of communion with the 'orthodox' ones.
All Methodists? Have you gone for a walk lately? Did you remember to take your eyes with you? If so, you would have seen that in Australia the Methodist Church is now part of the Uniting Church of Australia, who, wonder of wonders, hold the Westminster Confession as a subordinate standard.
Somehow is seems beyond your puny little brain to accept that the whole Calvinism/Arminianism thing isn't such a dichotomy after all. No, you just prefer to deal in stereotypes and straw men.
In the meantime, spare us your painfully stupid wanking on the Calvinism thread.
LOL. Really. This literally made me laugh out loud.
Because the entire point is that I didn't suggest Calvinism was heresy!
For God's sake, learn to read. Not once have I said Zach is a heretic. I just think he's a completely ridiculous arsehole for labelling other people as heretics when they don't agree with him. Because the list of people who don't agree with him includes Lutherans and Wesley.
Calvinism and Arminianism are dichotomies in the sense that one was specifically formulated as a reaction to the other and in opposition to the other. That doesn't mean that either requires the label of heresy. That was the whole fucking point. Although I gather the Calvinists did indeed label the Arminians as heretics at Dort, so I suppose that Zach82 is merely following tradition... not that I'm necessarily an Arminian.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I called you a Pelagian for asserting that humans are free to accept salvation. Which simply is the heresy of Pelagianism. It also so happens that both Wesley and Luther (and Saint Paul and Augustine and Aquinas) agree with me on that- they all alike insist that mankind is NOT free to accept salvation, for that is the grace of God.
You could have just clarified yourself to a non-pelagian position, but I suppose your little temper-tantrum is more existentially satisfying. Heck, you could start tossing the dick insults like Gamaliel.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I called you a Pelagian for asserting that humans are free to accept salvation. Which simply is the heresy of Pelagianism.
Then what the FUCK is your definition of Arminianism??
I don't even know what you mean by "free to accept salvation". Because all I ever fucking said to you was that I don't accept irresistible grace. And neither do Lutherans. Unless you're telling me that Wikipedia is wrong when it describes irresistible grace as especially associated with Calvinism and specifically states that the Lutheran position is resistible grace.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Then what the FUCK is your definition of Arminianism??
Arminianism proposes that free will is itself a grace of God, and therefore it supposedly escapes the accusation that is posits the possibility of the human will choosing salvation apart from grace.
quote:
I don't even know what you mean by "free to accept salvation". Because all I ever fucking said to you was that I don't accept irresistible grace.
The freedom to die is so precious to you? This is the point which I really can't fathom being so hateful to people- the idea that God's grace will certainly work, that we can't fuck it up because God's decrees will certainly come to pass.
That simply IS irresistible grace- the very definition.
quote:
Unless you're telling me that Wikipedia is wrong...
Oh, Lord.
quote:
when it describes irresistible grace as especially associated with Calvinism and specifically states that the Lutheran position is resistible grace.
Luther did not have any concept of human autonomy apart from the work of grace. One was either a servant of the flesh of the Spirit. Which so happens to have been the view of Saint Paul and Augustine as well.
[ 21. July 2012, 03:56: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Then what the FUCK is your definition of Arminianism??
Arminianism proposes that free will is itself a grace of God, and therefore it supposedly escapes the accusation that is posits the possibility of the human will choosing salvation apart from grace.
The fact that you think I ever posited choosing salvation apart from grace is precisely why I'm so fucking bloody annoyed at you.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
The fact that you think I ever posited choosing salvation apart from grace is precisely why I'm so fucking bloody annoyed at you.
If you believe that salvation is only the work of grace, then we can forget it. I apologize for getting you wrong.
But if you think it's "grace plus choice," and that choice is not also a work of grace, then you are proposing a work of salvation apart from grace and we are at the same place we ever were. You would be leaving a little autonomy of the human will independent of grace, and that no catholic theologian will countenance.
Naturally these are the possibilities that I see. Instead of bitching about how I can't or won't accept what you say, you could just clarify a position I hadn't thought of.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Or you could just stop waving the word grace around in utterly witless fashion. The main reason we got to this point is that you fling the word around without qualification and liberally apply it to different concepts.
We have the utterly ridiculous situation where you assert that both those are going to be saved (who are receiving grace-of-salvation) and those who are going to be damned (who are not receiving grace-of-salvation) are both receiving God's grace-of-life (because there is no life without God's grace). So the damned both don't have grace and do have it, simultaneously. Meanwhile, we also have Jesus acting through God's-grace-of-I-don't-know-what, but it isn't grace-of-salvation because Jesus didn't require saving because he wasn't sinful.
That's at least 2, quite possibly 3 different concepts, all of which you slap with the label "grace", so that when you discover I don't agree with the Calvinistic concept of irresistible grace-of-salvation (in the same way that Lutherans, Arminians, Catholic and Orthodox don't agree with it either), you gasp with shock and decide that it means I don't agree with the concept of grace-of-salvation at all, or any of the other different concepts you've labelled with "grace" either.
I tried and tried and TRIED to explain this to you last night, and you wouldn't fucking listen. So for you to turn around NOW and say "oh, well, you should have explained a different position to me"... No thanks. I exhausted my patience trying to do precisely that while you plugged your ears. You don't get a second round of explanation just because it's finally got through your thick brain that I didn't say what you thought I said.
[ 21. July 2012, 04:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Oh yeah. I went back and re-read the first bit of that thread before I got involved.
Dafyd's right. You have no clue how to use the word 'conditional', and in particular you don't appear to understand that it's an adjective.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
*flaunts ignorance* what is an imago mirror statement ?
" Think˛. what I hear you saying is that you don't know what an Imago mirror statement is."
That's about it.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I called you a Pelagian for asserting that humans are free to accept salvation. Which simply is the heresy of Pelagianism.
So believing that there is a human choice involved in accepting God's gift of eternal life is heretical? There's a lot of heretics out there then....
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You don't get it yet, do you, South Coast Kevin?
Everyone is an heretick apart from Pope Zach82 and anyone who happens by the prevenient grace and foreknowledge of Almighty God to agree with him.
The more I read of Zach82's posts the more I believe I was onto something with with my rather unsavoury comparison of full-on, unnuanced Calvinism with some of the alleged and apparent symptoms of Asperger's.
I hate to say that but say it I will.
I know I've been winding him up but I simply posit a sense of 'mystery' about some of these things and I'm immediately accused of 'cowardice' and of ignoring the plain-meaning-of-scripture-as-interpreted-by-Zach82.
Nuance doesn't come into it.
The guy is as black and white as the blackest and whitest black and white thing.
Sure, I can see what he's trying to say and I can see what he is trying to protect ie. the sovereignty and glory of Almighty God. Of course God saves us, we don't save ourselves. I don't see that in dispute at all.
It's just that the kind of very rigid Calvinism that Zach82 appears to espouse ends up tying God into knots and limiting him by their own schema. Sure, it has a certain interior logic and I can see why it appeals - it can offer comfort and assurance. Fine. But it can also lead people into becoming self-righteous, holier-than-thou pricks - the very thing it is supposed to guard against.
That's one of the ironies of full-on Calvinism. It doesn't want to allow any glimmer of 'choice' or 'works' and so on lest that smack of Pelagianism or Popery and in doing so constructs its own system which is equally as bad in its own way.
I'm not intellectually lazy or cowardly by seeking an alternative. There are plenty of Christians out there who are neither Calvinists nor Arminian.
It's this battening everything down to a set of binary propositions and - dare I say it - 'choices' that annoys me the most. Full-on Calvinists paint themselves - and God - into a corner. In seeking to defend God's sovereignty and the 'crown rights of King Jesus' they end up making the Almighty, Everliving and all-knowing God into a captive of their own system.
Posted by Think˛ (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
*flaunts ignorance* what is an imago mirror statement ?
" Think˛. what I hear you saying is that you don't know what an Imago mirror statement is."
That's about it.
Ah, content paraphrase - I find emotion paraphrase is more useful in a heated argument - but a combo of both is generally recommended.
Part of Zach's and Orfeo's problem appears to be a combination of trying to work out the dance the angels are doing on the head of that pin over there and interpreting paraphrase as - you are lying about what I said.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I would never, ever accuse Zach of lying. He hasn't the creativity.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
*flaunts ignorance* what is an imago mirror statement ?
" Think˛. what I hear you saying is that you don't know what an Imago mirror statement is."
That's about it.
From Wiki's disambiguation I don't think it's anything biological or literary but the psychological term about 'a way that people form their personality by identifying with the collective unconscious'. Quite what way it doesn't say, and not that interested.
Posted by Boat Boy (# 13050) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I called you a Pelagian for asserting that humans are free to accept salvation. Which simply is the heresy of Pelagianism.
I'm afraid it isn't.
Your use of the word 'accept' implies that grace is still offered by God, even if it is up to each human to make the first move, as it were. That's Semipelagianism, not Pelagianism.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boat Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I called you a Pelagian for asserting that humans are free to accept salvation. Which simply is the heresy of Pelagianism.
I'm afraid it isn't.
Your use of the word 'accept' implies that grace is still offered by God, even if it is up to each human to make the first move, as it were. That's Semipelagianism, not Pelagianism.
Er, no, it's Demisemipelagianism.
Posted by Boat Boy (# 13050) on
:
Helpful
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
Oh dear, "someone" seems to have suffered a surfeit of theologising.
Only on SOF.
This is definitely the wrong place to be.
Posted by Boat Boy (# 13050) on
:
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
Not sure what the Instant smilie means, Boat Boy.
This particular Hell thread has just befuddled me.
Sorry, had bad flu for the last month so I'm probably a bit out of it.
Sometimes I think "Hell" should be renamed "The Pillory". I've not seen so much real thought go into a Hell thread for a long time. "Hell" should be merely scatological and abusive. There is deep thought here. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on
:
I've always thought people who breed and show dogs were about the weirdest group I've ever run into. But it may be that people who like to argue on Internet discussion boards run them a close second.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, I was told off for being scatological and abusive earlier. And there was me thinking that I was simply posting in keeping with the sulphurous atmosphere ...
Meanwhile, it turns out that the thread has turned into a slightly more insulting version of the concurrent thread in Purgatory. Which isn't a problem, of course, there's room for both.
But then, 'room for both' isn't a concept that is likely to appeal to Zach82 with his singularly one-track mind.
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
It seems clear, Sine, that you have never been to a Cat Show.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on
:
Good point. I did go to one once. It was pretty damn weird too.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Do the cats do any tricks?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Trainspotters are wierd too.
Come to think of it, they remind me a lot of particular forms of Calvinist. Just as trainspotters like to tick off the numbers of all the otherwise identical rolling-stock they geekily seek, so Calvinists like to tick off all the points of the TULIP petals and hoity-toitily determine who is an Pelagian heretick or not (generally everyone else besides themselves).
Sure, you can find the same tendency in other traditions. Some ritual-freaks and tat-queens demonstrate similar tendencies. Some of the Orthodox do too, with the tendency of some of them to become increasingly 'Orthodoxer-than-thou'.
I'd say that an element of this sort of thing is unavoidable and that all of us can be susceptible to it in different ways. The problem is, we're all too close to it ourselves that we don't see it in ourselves but only in other people. 'Who can discern his errors?'
This is probably too Purgatorial for Hell but I'd be prepared to accept that I am just as guilty of some of the things I've accused Zach82 and others of, but from a different perspective or in a different way.
So I'd better say something scatological to keep the thread on track.
Arse.
Is that scatological enough?
Posted by Boat Boy (# 13050) on
:
Pigeon fanciers.
That is all.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
One of the odd things about all of this, is that elsewhere on the Ship Zach posts stuff that is reasonable and compassionate; I agree with him all over the place. It's only when he gets onto Calvinism that he starts frothing at the mouth, and becomes unable to listen to what other people are saying.
(And Boatboy, there's a trick that a lot of the oldtimers use round here. They say something rude, a Host ticks them off, and they apologise to the Host for giving them extra work. That way the Host is kept happy, but the insult still stands.)
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Do the cats do any tricks?
You mean, like hookers????
Just why do you want to know?
(Sir, it is beneath a cat's dignity to amuse humans with maudlin tricks and japes. After all, humans are servants....)
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
One of the odd things about all of this, is that elsewhere on the Ship Zach posts stuff that is reasonable and compassionate; I agree with him all over the place. It's only when he gets onto Calvinism that he starts frothing at the mouth, and becomes unable to listen to what other people are saying...
That's terribly gratifying, but the tenor of that thread from the very start has been "Calvinists are heartless, unChristian automatons and should be ashamed of themselves."
The other Calvinists were smart enough to not get into the matter as I did. I, alas, waded in where angels couldn't be bothered to tread.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
This is probably too Purgatorial for Hell but I'd be prepared to accept that I am just as guilty of some of the things I've accused Zach82 and others of.
My gawd, that is an opening if there ever was one, but I just can't bring myself to take it. Dear denizens of Hell, would I be a terrible person if I took that opening?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I would never, ever accuse Zach of lying. He hasn't the creativity.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Or you could just stop waving the word grace around in utterly witless fashion. The main reason we got to this point is that you fling the word around without qualification and liberally apply it to different concepts.
On the other hand, it could be that grace is NOT a uni-tasker that only brings humans to salvation, but indeed could sustain human life AND bring humans to salvation. It could be that grace is not some vague "salvation stuff" God hands out, but instead the favor of God, his loving attention to sustain and redeem human life.
quote:
That's at least 2, quite possibly 3 different concepts, all of which you slap with the label "grace", so that when you discover I don't agree with the Calvinistic concept of irresistible grace-of-salvation (in the same way that Lutherans, Arminians, Catholic and Orthodox don't agree with it either)
Oh, drop that routine already. Your "You are stupid and mean and misinterpreting me" routine just looks silly if you're going to keep doing it to me.
quote:
I tried and tried and TRIED to explain this to you last night, and you wouldn't fucking listen.....
Might I propose that you have not exactly been the greatest paragon of civility, clarity, reason, and understanding yourself.
[ 21. July 2012, 13:25: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No, you wouldn't be a terrible person at all, Zach82. I've passed you the ball. Not that you're shooting at an open goal, mind.
I could play another little game, though, and suggest that at least I have the humility to accept that I might just be wrong at times.
The only thing you seem prepared to give ground on is the apparent lack of wisdom you showed in wading into the discussion with those evil Pelagians and assorted hereticks on the Purgatory thread instead of keeping your head down like the other Calvinists.
Which is bollocks anyway, because Ken, Nick Tamen and others were also arguing the Calvinistic case too.
Perhaps a question you might like to ask yourself is why they weren't called to Hell but you were?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Or you could just stop waving the word grace around in utterly witless fashion. The main reason we got to this point is that you fling the word around without qualification and liberally apply it to different concepts.
On the other hand, it could be that grace is NOT a uni-tasker that only brings humans to salvation, but indeed could sustain human life AND bring humans to salvation. It could be that grace is not some vague "salvation stuff" God hands out, but instead the favor of God, his loving attention to sustain and redeem human life.
I KNOW!! ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
But when you're talking about the role of grace in salvation, why the blazes do you think it's remotely relevant to suddenly start talking about all the other things grace does?!
There we were, talking about how grace is given to effect salvation and how efficacious it was, and WHOOSH! You start talking about how important grace was to Jesus. Sinless man who doesn't need saving.
And I'm just supposed to follow the sudden jumping of tracks, and realise that I was answering different questions to the ones I thought I was being asked, and before I know it I'm being labelled a heretic for saying that Jesus was sinless. Seriously.
[ 21. July 2012, 13:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
The only thing you seem prepared to give ground on is the apparent lack of wisdom you showed in wading into the discussion with those evil Pelagians and assorted hereticks on the Purgatory thread instead of keeping your head down like the other Calvinists.
You framed the debate as "Is Calvinism a mental illness, and aren't people who accept it uncaring robots?" So no, I haven't ceded any ground to that view.
quote:
Perhaps a question you might like to ask yourself is why they weren't called to Hell but you were?
I was called to hell because Orfeo really needs to learn how to take a break when his debates get overheated. He has never been willing to grant me any benefit of the doubt on any thread I've interacted with him on, so he set himself up for this particular tantrum. I know my saying so will only convince certain sorts of my guilt, but that's hell for you.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I KNOW!! [brick wall]
But when you're talking about the role of grace in salvation, why the blazes do you think it's remotely relevant to suddenly start talking about all the other things grace does?! [brick wall]
Do you know? You keep stamping your little feet all in a tizzy because I said it could do more than one thing. It became relevant through the course of our debate. It's right there- we walked to that point together.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I was called to hell because Orfeo really needs to learn how to take a break when his debates get overheated. He has never been willing to grant me any benefit of the doubt on any thread I've interacted with him on, so he set himself up for this particular tantrum. I know my saying so will only convince certain sorts of my guilt, but that's hell for you.
Yeah yeah, next time someone directly calls me a heretic, I promise to take it as their little joke.
And no Zach, we did NOT walk there together. You pulled a bait-and-switch with a grand rhetorical question about the definition of sin and grace, totally divorced from any context.
[ 21. July 2012, 14:03: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I said why I thought you were falling into the Pelagian heretic, Orfeo. If you believe that salvation comes by grace, and that the choice to accept salvation is also the work of grace (as all those denominations you keep citing against me believe I might add) then I was wrong.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
And no Zach, we did NOT walk there together. You pulled a bait-and-switch with a grand rhetorical question about the definition of sin and grace, totally divorced from any context.
But if life, death, sin, damnation, salvation and grace can all be worked into one narrative it wasn't a bait and switch but just talking about what we were talking about.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Go and read where you first accused me of Pelagianism. Straight after I said I could think of one sinless man, Jesus Christ.
After that, you can fuck off and have a good hard think about your readiness to declare heresy.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I had imagined that you were saying that other humans could go on the be sinless. I believe you also thought Jesus' sinlessness might be a human faculty somewhere.
Which would be very Pelagian indeed, but if you are still unable to say that the choice to accept salvation is also a work of grace, then we still have Semi-Pelagianism.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
One of the odd things about all of this, is that elsewhere on the Ship Zach posts stuff that is reasonable and compassionate; I agree with him all over the place. It's only when he gets onto Calvinism that he starts frothing at the mouth, and becomes unable to listen to what other people are saying...
That's terribly gratifying, but the tenor of that thread from the very start has been "Calvinists are heartless, unChristian automatons and should be ashamed of themselves."
The other Calvinists were smart enough to not get into the matter as I did. I, alas, waded in where angels couldn't be bothered to tread.
Zach, please get some perspective. I don't think you are heartless, unChristian, an automaton, or that you should be ashamed of yourself. I am prety sure no one accused you of any of those things, although I could be mistaken. Just because I (and some other Shipmates) dislike your theolgy, doesn't mean we dislike YOU.
I have plenty of friends whose politics are very different to mine. With some of them we can be amicablly rude to one another, with some we have to avoid certain topics. But we remain friends. This is a discussion board, however. If you're not up for a robust discussion of any POV you offer then, purely for your own peace of mind, stay away from Purgatory. You seem to have read an awful lot of attitude into other people's posts.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I had imagined that you were saying that other humans could go on the be sinless.
Imagined.
Exactly.
I have nothing more to say to you.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
So that's it? "You don't understand me, meany-face!"
Fuck. In my day, hell had standards. This is so pathetic I could just lay down in the middle of the street.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, I know how I framed the OP in Purgatory and I did so in order to get a reaction - which I did.
But if you'd read the OP and subsequent comments properly you would have seen that I made it clear that I was exaggerating to make a point and was using rather colourful - if not offensive - language in order to make a point.
I don't think anyone believes that I really think that Calvinism is a mental illness and that Calvinists are uncaring robots. It was a rhetorical divorce.
I sometimes think that irony and rhetoric somehow pass right over your heard and this is why you come across in very black-and-white and oppositional terms.
You are still operating from a very binary and dualistic viewpoint it seems to me. My theology is right, the rest of you can fuck off.
In fact, virtually everything you've posted in response to Orfeo and others - and I'm not necessarily siding with Orfeo, I'm not that black-and-white - only makes the hole deeper, it seems to me.
I introduce the element of 'mystery' and you accuse me of moral cowardice. Orfeo challenges you on a few points and you try to nail him for Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism.
You just can't help it, can you?
No nuance, no grasp of irony or rhetoric, no imagination.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Whoops - I meant rhetorical device, of course, not 'rhetorical divorce' - but perhaps there was something Freudian in that slip.
You sound like the kind of bloke who'd go to the theatre and complain that the background scenery looked as if it'd been painted or complain that operas and 'musicals' are not like real life because people don't tend to burst into song every five minutes.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Ah, I see. I say that heretical beliefs are heretical and it's because I'm binary and lack your nuance and open mindedness.
You say that Calvinists are unfeeling robots and it's all some sophisticated rhetorical device. Were your insults about my dick also part of that open-minded piety and sophisticated rhetoric?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think I should have changed the title of my Purgatory OP to:
'Why are some people, like Zach82 for instance, so fucking stupid that they don't recognise irony and rhetoric when they see it?'
Which you have amply demonstrated to be the case over and over and over again.
Hence my accusations of binariness.
I s'pose it all depends where we draw the lines. I would certainly see somethings as heretical - many of them would be the same things that you would consider heretical. That doesn't, in and of itself, betoken binariness. Where have I ever suggested this?
At least most people who bandy the 'h' word around do so within the context of a broad tradition - be it Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy or whatever else, and not simply a subset within a tradition (such as Calvinism is within Protestantism).
It seems to me that you've narrowed the focus and drawn the heretical noose tighter.
If one is RC or Orthodox then all Calvinists are heretics. If one is a Protestant, then they aren't - at least, no more so than an Armenian or an Amyraldian or any other viewpoint within the Protestant spectrum.
If you read my post properly you will have seen that I said that I didn't believe that Calvinists are unfeeling robots. Either you can't read or you can't understand rhetoric.
I'm plumping for the latter.
As for my insults about your dick, well, this is Hell and that's what goes on here. It's all down to context. I wouldn't dream of insulting or even mentioning your dick on any of the other threads - it sticks in my gullet (well, not literally of course, but I s'pose I'd better make that clear lest you misinterpret that comment too) - to even mention it.
Why did I do so?
Because it was rude and because it's Hell and because it tied in with the wanking imagery that Stupid Preacher's Kid had introduced.
It's not sophisticated rhetoric, it was just me being rude. I am more than capable of that. Just as I am impiously capable of telling you to fuck off.
I'm making no claims to open-minded piety or sophisticated rhetoric, simply suggesting that you are so fucking stupid that you don't seem capable of recognising any form of rhetoric when you see it - sophisticated or otherwise.
You are like the theatre-goers I overheard once during the interval in a production of King Lear. One wondered how Gloucester would have been able to have spoken so eloquently after his eyes had been gouged out. 'Well,' said her friend, 'They were a lot tougher in those days ...'
They had both missed the point.
Just like you. You miss the point. Over and over and over again. Hence my conclusion that you must be some kind of automaton or else a resident of Nuancelessville, Nuanceless County, Nuancelessylvania.
And you wonder why I think this is such a feature of those attracted to Calvinism in its more full-on forms?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
Part of Zach's and Orfeo's problem appears to be a combination of trying to work out the dance the angels are doing on the head of that pin over there and interpreting paraphrase as - you are lying about what I said.
Bingo. (not you, Bingo.)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
Part of Zach's and Orfeo's problem appears to be a combination of trying to work out the dance the angels are doing on the head of that pin over there and interpreting paraphrase as - you are lying about what I said.
Bingo. (not you, Bingo.)
As I've already explained, from my side at least it has nothing to do with thinking that Zach is lying. I'm sure Zach genuinely believed the little voice in his head that told him I said that other human beings beside Jesus could lead a sinless life.
That there was an angel dance involved, I would agree. They looked so pretty to begin with...
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Bingo. (not you, Bingo.)
I'm hurt, Kelly. I'm not the one clattering about in hell whining about how meany-butt Orfeo is stupid and mean for not getting me, or how clever and pious I am for winding people up and slinging clever dick insults like Gamaliel.
I am, you see, the victim. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Oh, Orfeo. Don't ever change. We're just two peas in a pod sometimes. ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
If you re-read what Think wrote, she was talking about both of your dumb asses. Your heads I want to knock together,personally.
You know what happened when Sam and Diane carried on like this; you've watched enough reruns.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Oh, Orfeo. Don't ever change. We're just two peas in a pod sometimes.
OK, that was perfect.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If you re-read what Think wrote, she was talking about both of your dumb asses. Your heads I want to knock together,personally.
Yes, I know that she was talking about both of us. And I repeat: yes there was an angel dance, yes I'm damned upset about the paraphrasing, not directly but because it resulted in an accusation of heresy.
Apparently one Christian calling another a heretic has now been reduced to the level of a trivial little misunderstanding. Which would amaze some of my heretical predecessors who were burned at the stake.
The only thing wrong with Think's description was the bit about lying, because I don't think Zach was lying. I think he's a highly educated moron who wouldn't be able to find reverse gear if he was driving over a cliff, but that's not remotely the same thing.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
PS I have no idea who Sam and Diane are off the top of my head. Sorry. That pop culture reference passed me by. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I have a confession to make: I had no idea who Sam and Diane were before I looked them up.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Orfeo, we all accidentally preach heresy from time to time. I mean, do you have any idea how many fucking heresies there are? In most grown-up conversations about theology here in theology school one responds to the call "But that's heresy!" with "Oh botheration, let's put it another way."
We keep "You're a meany-butt poopy face stupid head" tantrums like this in academic publications, and in front of witnesses after one too many at conference banquets.
[ 21. July 2012, 16:40: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on
:
"...church of Outer Wanksville Manitoba or wherever it is and its sister church in Where-the-Fuck's-that-a-dinga-linga-dongagong..."
Oh my God!
I laughed so hard at this, I spit Coke all over the computer desk. I might have to write this down...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You see Zach82, I have some fans ...
You'd better beat me with rods before it goes to my head ...
It's interesting that the Orfeo/Zach82 spat seems to have run its course and arrived at a neat resolution ie. the mutual agreement that they can both be ass-hats.
You can include me in on that too.
I don't pretend to be particularly pious nor clever, but I do like winding people up and making snarky comments. It's a British thing. Well, not exclusively of course...
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on
:
Gamaliel: Can I borrow that little sentence and use it as my signature? I'll credit you, of course. It's just too funny.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
"...church of Outer Wanksville Manitoba or wherever it is and its sister church in Where-the-Fuck's-that-a-dinga-linga-dongagong..."
Oh my God!
I laughed so hard at this, I spit Coke all over the computer desk. I might have to write this down...
Actually, there are millions of people in Canada and Australia just like me. No, we don't all go to one shack in Upper Left Armpit, Saskatchewan (to give the proper version of the jibe).
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
So you're just admitting your were trolling the whole time now, Gamaliel?
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
"...church of Outer Wanksville Manitoba or wherever it is and its sister church in Where-the-Fuck's-that-a-dinga-linga-dongagong..."
Oh my God!
I laughed so hard at this, I spit Coke all over the computer desk. I might have to write this down...
Actually, there are millions of people in Canada and Australia just like me. No, we don't all go to one shack in Upper Left Armpit, Saskatchewan (to give the proper version of the jibe).
SBK: I wasn't laughing at you, old boy. I was laughing at Gamaliel's turn of phrase. It was quite a mouthful and very amusing.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
"...church of Outer Wanksville Manitoba or wherever it is and its sister church in Where-the-Fuck's-that-a-dinga-linga-dongagong..."
Oh my God!
I laughed so hard at this, I spit Coke all over the computer desk. I might have to write this down...
Actually, there are millions of people in Canada and Australia just like me. No, we don't all go to one shack in Upper Left Armpit, Saskatchewan (to give the proper version of the jibe).
I am suspicious that on the world stage, the entirety of Australia and Canada combined would be considered that shack of which you speak.
Posted by Boat Boy (# 13050) on
:
There's a colonial joke to be made, but I'm not going to risk it...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Orfeo, we all accidentally preach heresy from time to time.
OH MY GOD. OH SWEET FUCKING JESUS.
I don't believe it. I don't fucking believe it.
You finally, FINALLY seem to grasp the point, that you IMAGINED something I would say rather than that I actually said it, and now it's that I accidentally preached heresy.
No, Zach, no. Here's what imagined means. It means I said something thoroughly orthodox, you processed it in your screwy brain, GUESSED the next thing I was going to say, discovered the guess was heretical, and translated that into some bizarre notion that I had actually said your guess.
Let's fix that sentence for you.
quote:
Orfeo, we all accidentally accuse someone of heresy on the basis of something we imagined they were going to say from time to time.
No Zach. We fucking don't. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I know, Orfeo. I was just explaining why accusations of heresy are not a big deal worth throwing tantrums about.
You've made your point- I won't misinterpret your very clear and coherent posts ever again. I learned my lesson. Honest.
[ 22. July 2012, 00:35: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Oh, I see. You have lots of opportunites to make true accusations of heresy, so when you spit out a false one in my direction it's no big deal. Got it.
Jesus was a human being and sinless. Yeah, I can totally see how easy it was for you to look at that and cry HERESY! Over and over again and not retract it immediately when I pointed out your mistake.
[ 22. July 2012, 00:39: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
How about this for an approach, Zach? Any time you think you see someone preaching heresy (like, say, they suggest that Jesus was born of a virgin, was crucified, rose again on the third day, THAT kind of thing), you spend some time checking out what they said, perhaps suggesting to them a piece of Scripture that contradicts what they say, chew it over a bit.
And THEN, when it's clear what they said and it's clear they won't retract it on the basis of the incredibly clear Scriptures that show their position isn't Biblical, you can whip out the old H-word.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I actually intend to just scroll past your posts from here on out. You've never really given me much slack in the first place, so I can't conceive that you'll feel that bad about this resolution either.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'm not the only target of your heresy-gun that I'm worried about, but it's a start.
I make no equivalent resolution.
Mods, I suspect we're done here.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Jaysoos, the picture of Zach82's specks of foam flying through the air as he tells orfeo he's throwing a tantrum ... tooooooo precious.
Thoughts:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
That all you got? John Calvin's Beard but that was a lame retort.
Jesus, Mary, and Phillip K. Dick, are you a noob? That is the ThomasDF-est thing I've seen here since the last flame-out angry noob.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I called you a Pelagian for asserting that humans are free to accept salvation. Which simply is the heresy of Pelagianism.
No. Pelagianism is to think we can choose good outside of God's grace. You do get Google on your computer, right?
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Dafyd's right. You have no clue how to use the word 'conditional', and in particular you don't appear to understand that it's an adjective.
Actually it is used as a noun in discussion of philosophical logic. quote:
Originally posted by Boat Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I called you a Pelagian for asserting that humans are free to accept salvation. Which simply is the heresy of Pelagianism.
I'm afraid it isn't.
Your use of the word 'accept' implies that grace is still offered by God, even if it is up to each human to make the first move, as it were. That's Semipelagianism, not Pelagianism.
No, God's is the first move. Before we loved, He first loved us. We respond to God's call.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, I was told off for being scatological and abusive earlier. And there was me thinking that I was simply posting in keeping with the sulphurous atmosphere ...
The very idea of burning scat and sulphur together... I'm going to be sneezing all night.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I had imagined that you were saying that other humans could go on the be sinless. I believe you also thought Jesus' sinlessness might be a human faculty somewhere.
Which would be very Pelagian indeed, but if you are still unable to say that the choice to accept salvation is also a work of grace, then we still have Semi-Pelagianism.
Works for me. Has semi-pelagianism been declared a heresy?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Jaysoos, the picture of Zach82's specks of foam flying through the air as he tells orfeo he's throwing a tantrum ... tooooooo precious.
I'm honestly not angry about anything, and haven't been this whole time. I really just think this whole matter is completely ridiculous.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Works for me. Has semi-pelagianism been declared a heresy?
Yes, at the Second Council of Orange.
[ 22. July 2012, 02:12: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Dafyd's right. You have no clue how to use the word 'conditional', and in particular you don't appear to understand that it's an adjective.
Actually it is used as a noun in discussion of philosophical logic.
Wow. Seriously? I hadn't heard that before. What was so wrong with the word "condition" that they needed to use "conditional" as a noun??
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I don't recall using "conditional" as a noun in the first place.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't recall using "conditional" as a noun in the first place.
How's that scrolling past working for you, Zach? It's all about you even when it isn't.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Dafyd's right. You have no clue how to use the word 'conditional', and in particular you don't appear to understand that it's an adjective.
Actually it is used as a noun in discussion of philosophical logic.
Wow. Seriously? I hadn't heard that before. What was so wrong with the word "condition" that they needed to use "conditional" as a noun??
"Conditional" doesn't mean "condition," it means a statement with an if/then logical structure. "If Zach82 is a calm and charitable disputant then I'm a monkey's uncle" is a conditional. "Biconditional" refers to a statement with an if-and-only-if logical structure. "I promise I will take you to the store if you clean your room, but I most certainly will not take you if you don't" is a biconditional.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Works for me. Has semi-pelagianism been declared a heresy?
Yes, at the Second Council of Orange.
Isn't that the same one that added the filioque? I nor my church recognize its findings as ecumenical or binding.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't recall using "conditional" as a noun in the first place.
How's that scrolling past working for you, Zach? It's all about you even when it isn't.
Well, this is my hell call, silly billy.
quote:
Isn't that the same one that added the filioque? I nor my church recognize its findings as ecumenical or binding.
Then what do you care?
[ 22. July 2012, 02:36: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
How's that scrolling past working for you, Zach?
I gotta say, it's really hard to tear your eyes away from a clusterfuck.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I don't know if it's so much of a clusterfuck. Orfeo thought I was an over educated moron before that thread, so it's more of an "Exercise in futility... fuck."
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Dafyd's right. You have no clue how to use the word 'conditional', and in particular you don't appear to understand that it's an adjective.
Actually it is used as a noun in discussion of philosophical logic.
Wow. Seriously? I hadn't heard that before. What was so wrong with the word "condition" that they needed to use "conditional" as a noun??
"Conditional" doesn't mean "condition," it means a statement with an if/then logical structure. "If Zach82 is a calm and charitable disputant then I'm a monkey's uncle" is a conditional. "Biconditional" refers to a statement with an if-and-only-if logical structure. "I promise I will take you to the store if you clean your room, but I most certainly will not take you if you don't" is a biconditional.
Okay. Gotcha.
Effectively shorthand for conditional statement, then, with the original noun having dropped off. I'm not challenging the fact that it has come to be a noun in that context, just observing that that's probably how it was derived.
[ 22. July 2012, 03:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I just read that thread again, and am convinced that, while I was indeed incorrect to label Orfeo a pelagian, he said several things which tended towards that direction. Most damning was his assertion "The point remains, though, that if a person is not a sinner, a person does not require grace. Jesus Christ was not in need of God's grace."
If Orfeo had been less combative, and yes if I had worded my response to statements like that differently, then we wouldn't be here right now. But having thoughts that Orfeo might harbor Pelagian sentiments was not so gobsmacked stupid as Orfeo is putting on here.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I just read that thread again, and am convinced that, while I was indeed incorrect to label Orfeo a pelagian, he said several things which tended towards that direction. Most damning was his assertion "The point remains, though, that if a person is not a sinner, a person does not require grace. Jesus Christ was not in need of God's grace."
Oh brother. So yet again, you presume to know whether or not I think the category of sinless human beings is larger than 1.
The answer is no, by the way. Not that you ONCE asked me this directly. Not that I didn't point you in the direction of the answer multiple times. You still want to guess what the answer is and say the guess is damning.
You have learnt precisely nothing. The problem is not your original misunderstanding, the problem is you total inability to come back and get a clue. It took me precisely ONE post to come back to you say and "hang on, what are you on about" and you just ran along the same track.
One is not zero. There, if I say it that way do you understand? One is not zero. Such a thing as a sinless human being exists. He even has a name.
And you seemingly can't help applying inductive reasoning to go "oh my God, if he thinks there's one he must think there are OTHERS!"
[ 22. July 2012, 03:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Pelagianism doesn't say that humanity is sinless, it says that humanity doesn't need grace. You asserted that Jesus didn't need grace. I took that as a Pelagian statement, and it would be entirely fair to take it as such in another context. But reading the thread it looks like the real issue is that you do not have a very solid understanding of what grace is.
You won, you know. I just said that I was wrong to call you a Pelagian. Take your victory like a grown up for pete's sake.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
In fact, let me be EVEN clearer. The problem is not your misunderstanding, the problem is not even struggling to clear it up. The problem is you leaping for a label. Heresy.
Do you not comprehend what a shutdown of dialogue that is? Nope, sorry, you're a heretic. Wrong. Cast out.
Do you know why it took me a while to get to making a Hell thread about you? That was the period where I was trying to go "no, wait, hang on a minute, that's not what I said". And all I got back was various repetitions of "heretic, heretic, heretic".
It's the theological equivalent of going "talk to the hand".
It's bloody maddening, Zach, and that's why I've said to you that you might want to stop and think for QUITE A LONG BLOODY WHILE before slapping that label around. NOT just on me. On anybody.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
It took me precisely ONE post to come back to you say and "hang on, what are you on about" and you just ran along the same track.
You haven't taken back the accusation that I said Jesus had committed sin, and you haven't taken back your comment about "conditional" after clarification. I'll admit I was wrong, but you can't really expect me to pretend you've been entirely clear or fair yourself.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on
:
If you remember Orfeo had troubles over at wikipedia too. He has a certain hysterical old maid quality which apparently he carries into most of his interactions.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
It took me precisely ONE post to come back to you say and "hang on, what are you on about" and you just ran along the same track.
You haven't taken back the accusation that I said Jesus had committed sin, and you haven't taken back your comment about "conditional" after clarification. I'll admit I was wrong, but you can't really expect me to pretend you've been entirely clear or fair yourself.
The accusation that you said Jesus had committed sin was to defensively illustrate the absurdity of portraying my comment that Jesus was a sinless human being was wrong. There were only two logical possibilities to explain why the statement I actually made was heretical. Both of those possibilities - that Jesus was not human, and that Jesus was not sinless - were raised for the purposes of 'inviting' you to pick one, recognising full well that you wouldn't pick either. The intention was to get you to recognise that if neither of those options was correct, then the original premise - that I had made a heretical statement - wasn't correct either.
My comment about your use of "conditional" still stands. Because the statement that grace is unconditional, or even that salvation is unconditional, is a platitude that doesn't really tell you anything helpful about the debate Calvinism appears to have with much of the rest of the Christian world - at the very least all synergists, perhaps not with Lutheran monergists who nevertheless don't believe in the Calvinistic form of irresistible grace.
You appear to treat the word 'unconditional' as meaning 'unilateral', which is something of a stretch. I can quite comfortably describe, from a non-Calvinistic viewpoint, God's saving grace as unconditional and mean that it's an unconditional offer. That does no violence to the word unconditional at all, because as an adjective it needs to be attached to something, and there is nothing inherent in the word 'unconditional' that means it has to be attached to an action that is unilateral and incapable of being responded to.
Unconditional does not mean the same thing as unilateral, nor does it mean the same thing as irresistible. To INSIST on describing an unconditional offer as conditional simply by being dint of an offer is stretching the English language to breaking point.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
If you remember Orfeo had troubles over at wikipedia too. He has a certain hysterical old maid quality which apparently he carries into most of his interactions.
If you mean I don't react at all well to false accusations, then yes, damn straight. I have no hesitation in agreeing that's one of my characteristics. We all have our buttons, and that's one of mine.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I don't know what to tell you, Orfeo. You weren't clarifying yourself as well as you think, since you didn't really have a solid grasp of what the Pelagian heresy was.
You might have terrible associations with the word "heresy," but I don't. Like I said, we use it in theological conversations all the time, and do not see it as shutting down the conversation. You are reading malice into my comments on that thread that I simply didn't feel.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
by being dint of an offer
That should read 'by dint of being an offer'. Sometimes my word order gets screwed when typing.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you mean I don't react at all well to false accusations, then yes, damn straight.
So are you afraid of being burned at the stake if this "heretic" slur takes?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
The accusation that you said Jesus had committed sin was to defensively illustrate the absurdity of portraying my comment that Jesus was a sinless human being was wrong.... The intention was to get you to recognise that if neither of those options was correct, then the original premise - that I had made a heretical statement - wasn't correct either.
That is an extremely convoluted argument.
quote:
My comment about your use of "conditional" still stands....
That wasn't quite what you called me on. Though no surprise here that your discovery of a completely new way of using the word doesn't change your opinions at all.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you mean I don't react at all well to false accusations, then yes, damn straight.
So are you afraid of being burned at the stake if this "heretic" slur takes?
Nah. I expect these days I'd just be left to the terrifying judgement of God. No reason in rushing it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
The accusation that you said Jesus had committed sin was to defensively illustrate the absurdity of portraying my comment that Jesus was a sinless human being was wrong.... The intention was to get you to recognise that if neither of those options was correct, then the original premise - that I had made a heretical statement - wasn't correct either.
That is an extremely convoluted argument.
Aw. I'm sorry I hurt your university-educated brain by illustrating the absurdity of your position. I imagine in philosophy courses there's a reluctance to pull anyone up when they spout something absurd.
I didn't think this was especially challenging, but I overestimated you:
quote:
ZACH: A human can't be sinless.
ORFEO: I can think of 1 sinless human.
ZACH: HERESY!! The correct answer is 2!
Yeah. You're right. That was way too subtle for a person with your skills to grasp.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
If God doesn't give a fuck what Zach thinks of your heretic status, why should you?
I don't necessarily find "heretic" a slur, but I find it frustrating. It's like the discussion is supposed to stop when you throw down the heretic card. Just because a bunch of old dudes dismissed an idea in 456 AD (or whatever) doesn't mean it's not worth going over again. If it's wrong, the discussion will prove that out.
FWIW, Zach, you're not the only one I've seen use the word that way.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If God doesn't give a fuck what Zach thinks of your heretic status, why should you?
Fair point. Caring too much about the minds of men, I suppose.
quote:
I don't necessarily find "heretic" a slur, but I find it frustrating. It's like the discussion is supposed to stop when you throw down the heretic card.
Yes.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Dang it, Kelly, I just realised that my little ZACH: ORFEO: ZACH: thing was kind of one of those imago mirror statements!
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
The insidious creeping power of Da Bunny!
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Aw. I'm sorry I hurt your university-educated brain by illustrating the absurdity of your position.
You mention my education a whole lot, and fall back on calling me stupid even when it is apparent that I know more than you about something. Does my education bother you or something?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Yeah, it was a quote from the Purg thread, before this Hell thread even started. You were clearly insidious-ising me for... well, you probably slipped it in my drink at the dinner dance.
[x-post with the Big Z, was replying to Kelly]
[ 22. July 2012, 04:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Aw. I'm sorry I hurt your university-educated brain by illustrating the absurdity of your position.
You mention my education a whole lot, and fall back on calling me stupid even when it is apparent that I know more than you about something. Does my education bother you or something?
Just my way of expressing my occasional amazement at what it didn't achieve.
Oh, and stupid (or whatever variation I might have used or implied) has nothing to do with how much subject matter knowledge you might have.
[ 22. July 2012, 04:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Just my way of expressing my occasional amazement at what it didn't achieve.
Oh, and stupid (or whatever variation I might have used or implied) has nothing to do with how much subject matter knowledge you might have.
You don't see it as possible that you really did have a convoluted argument? I mean, you cited an erroneous Wikipedia article, got the Pelagian heresy all wrong, and didn't know a pretty basic use of the word "conditional." I'm not asking you to say I was right- I admitted I was wrong already. It's just that you so obviously have gotten matters wrong yourself, and are too up your own ass to see it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Sigh.
Zach, I never tried to define the Pelagian heresy. All I ever tried to say was that "Jesus was a sinless human being" WASN'T the Pelagian heresy.
I also tried to say that Arminianism, Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy weren't the Pelagian heresy either. It doesn't actually require a particularly detailed understanding of Pelagianism to say any of that.
As for erroneous Wikipedia articles: I'm sorry, but erroneous in what way? In saying that TULIP is associated with Calvinism? In saying that irresistible grace is associated with Calvinism? In saying that the theological positions of Calvin and Luther aren't the same, and that Lutherans don't subscribe to TULIP?
In saying that Calvinists are exceptionally eager to label lots of other groups, including the Roman Catholic Church no less, as Semi-Pelagian at the drop of the hat? I sure as hell know THAT discovery from Wikipedia wasn't wrong, because I found www.monerigsm.com where that's precisely what they DO.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Sigh.
Zach, I never tried to define the Pelagian heresy. All I ever tried to say was that "Jesus was a sinless human being" WASN'T the Pelagian heresy.
I also tried to say that Arminianism, Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy weren't the Pelagian heresy either. It doesn't actually require a particularly detailed understanding of Pelagianism to say any of that.
Your comments about Jesus being sinless does nothing to address the concern that "Jesus didn't need grace" might be a Pelagian statement. Which would be obvious to anyone with a solid understanding of what the Pelagian heresy was. A person with a solid understanding of the Pelagian heresy would also see why "Jesus didn't need grace" is such a troubling statement in the first place.
Like I said, the real cause of that statement was your faulty understanding of what grace was, not Pelagianism per se. I'm not arguing that you really made a heretical statement- just that there was legitimate confusion there, and that you were not being as clear as you thought.
quote:
As for erroneous Wikipedia articles:
It was one of the times that you cited every Christian theologian ever as being on your side, and said a wikipedia article about Luther proved me wrong.
quote:
In saying that Calvinists...
I called you a Pelagian for very specific reasons, which I have already described. Really that fact that you have to complain about "What Calvinists do" is more proof that you were looking to get offended before I even looked at that thread. What's the point of that link? I didn't have anything to do with it.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
One more note: Grace is why Jesus and Mary are sinless. Saying that they didn't need grace because they were sinless is to say that human righteousness stands apart from grace, which is, I am sorry to say, a brazen example of the Pelagian something-something.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Your comments about Jesus being sinless does nothing to address the concern that "Jesus didn't need grace" might be a Pelagian statement.
MIGHT be? Oh, I see. Shoot first and ask questions later.
It might also be a thoroughly orthodox observation when we're talking about SALVATION. You remember?
quote:
Like I said, the real cause of that statement was your faulty understanding of what grace was, not Pelagianism per se.
Faulty how? This was something I sought some clarification on, after the switch from talking about grace being necessary for salvation to grace also being necessary for a whole host of other things - a completely different topic that still seems totally irrelevant to the question of how God achieves SALVATION.
And yet again I have to remind you that you asked me for a definition of sin not of a definition of grace. Do you even recall this? You asked me "WHAT IS SIN".
quote:
It was one of the times that you cited every Christian theologian ever as being on your side, and said a wikipedia article about Luther proved me wrong.
I said that there were a whole host of Christian theologians who weren't Calvinists, and asked you whether they were all heretics. I made no mention of a wikipedia article ABOUT Luther. If you must know, among the wikipedia articles I looked at were ones on Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism, Calvinism, irresistible grace, prevenient grace, soteriology, salvation, justification... and that's the ones I can recall at the moment.
You'd be amazed how many times Calvinism was cited and distinguished from Lutheranism.
quote:
What's the point of that link? I didn't have anything to do with it.
The point of that link is to say that the Wikipedia articles are entirely consistent with the description of full-on Calvinism I found from full-on Calvinists themselves.
The most fundamental difficulty I have with you, Zach, is that you simply cannot grasp the difference between arguing negatively against a proposition and arguing positively for an alternative. Because this seems to be repeatedly involved not only in our difficulties, but in all the arguments of this kind I see you have with other people as well. "There are lots of other non-heretical theologies besides Calvinism" becomes "every other theologian is on my side". "I don't accept irresistible grace" becomes "grace isn't necessary for salvation".
Every time you take a negative statement about what a person doesn't believe and turn into a positive statement about what that person DOES believe, you are setting yourself up for a convoluted mess of an argument where the person is so busy explaining what they didn't say, they have no time to go on to a positive articulation of their position.
And that's what happened here. If nothing else, the express statement I made that "I don't know if I'm an Arminian, I just know I'm not a Calvinist" should have given you a clue that the position I was arguing had only got as far as looking at TULIP and not agreeing with at least some aspects of it, starting with irresistible grace. A notion that multiple articles - not one, multiple - had told me was a specifically Calvinist perspective.
You were busily trying to put a label on my beliefs before I'd even had a chance to articulate what label I would put on them. And you do that kind of thing All. The. Time.
Stop it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
One more note: Grace is why Jesus and Mary are sinless. Saying that they didn't need grace because they were sinless is to say that human righteousness stands apart from grace, which is, I am sorry to say, a brazen example of the Pelagian something-something.
One more response: they (or he, lest I dare raise the fact that I only nominated 1 sinless person and you've for 2, when the sinlessness of Mary is not universal doctrine) didn't need grace-of-salvation. Given that we had been talking about salvation, I hadn't been aware that I needed to talk about grace in any other context.
While we're talking about Wikipedia, it may interest you to know that the article on grace points to no less than SIX different theological articles about different forms of grace. You've got actual grace, common grace, free grace, irresistible grace, prevenient grace and sola gratia.
If you want to argue the area of soteriology while lumping all six of those into one big bubbling cauldron, don't expect any clarity whatsoever.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
MIGHT be? Oh, I see. Shoot first and ask questions later.
Oh, without the subsequent discussion revealing your ignorance of the nature of grace, it is definitely a something-something statement.
quote:
I said that there were a whole host of Christian theologians who weren't Calvinists,...
I cited Luther more than anyone on that thread. Fuck, theologically I AM a Lutheran. So your constant accusations that I am calling Luther a heretic is evidence that you aren't as engaged and open as you seem to believe. You aren't even reading what I said! I bet you didn't even really sit down to read what I said until I started pressing you here and you needed ammunition against me.
quote:
The most fundamental difficulty I have with you, Zach, is that you simply cannot grasp the difference between arguing negatively against a proposition and arguing positively for an alternative.
I argued for Calvin's positive views a lot. You've had your head too far up your ass to see it.
quote:
And that's what happened here....
Yeah, you keep changing your story about "what happened here." Somehow none of them involve even a drop of fallibility on your part.
quote:
If nothing else, the express statement I made that "I don't know if I'm an Arminian, I just know I'm not a Calvinist" should have given you a clue that the position I was arguing had only got as far as looking at TULIP and not agreeing with at least some aspects of it, starting with irresistible grace.
You just called me on only arguing negatively, now you're just admitting you don't even have a coherent view of your own- you were just there to tear down Calvinism.
quote:
While we're talking about Wikipedia, it may interest you to know that the article on grace points to no less than SIX different theological articles about different forms of grace.
The man that informs himself with wikipedia articles is calling me an "Educated moron." I don't care what fucking wikipedia says. Might I suggest you read books instead? That's good advice even from morons like me, you know.
[ 22. July 2012, 06:20: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
And again, because I said something about arguing negatively, you leap to the conclusion that I thought YOU were arguing negatively and that I was arguing positively.
Which isn't what I actually said, is it? Go on. Go back and read the actual words. The exact words.
I meant that I was arguing negatively and you treated me as if I was arguing positively. WOW. I mean, you even figured it out from my next sentence that you quoted, where I referred to MYSELF as having argued negatively, but you couldn't go back and re-read the previous sentence in context, could you? Nope. The brain had decided on the only possible meaning of the previous sentence and that was that. Arguing negatively is "a bad thing" (and I said that where, exactly?) and so therefore I must be accusing you of arguing negatively. No ambiguities to clarify with the rest of the paragraph.
Right. I'm done. I have no desire to continue this conversation any further. It's exhausting and I've completely lost interest. I will be scrolling past any further contributions you make to this thread.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The most fundamental difficulty I have with you, Zach, is that you simply cannot grasp the difference between arguing negatively against a proposition and arguing positively for an alternative. Because this seems to be repeatedly involved not only in our difficulties, but in all the arguments of this kind I see you have with other people as well. "There are lots of other non-heretical theologies besides Calvinism" becomes "every other theologian is on my side". "I don't accept irresistible grace" becomes "grace isn't necessary for salvation".
Every time you take a negative statement about what a person doesn't believe and turn into a positive statement about what that person DOES believe, you are setting yourself up for a convoluted mess of an argument where the person is so busy explaining what they didn't say, they have no time to go on to a positive articulation of their position.
I have to say that does sound a bit familiar, Zach, from my experience too. I do think there are lessons you can learn from your recent hell calls.
But one nice positive that has come out of this is your explanation of how you see calling a statement 'heresy', and that for you it isn't a big deal. You've also said stuff that I've said in the past is heresy too (also erroneously, though I didn't know enough about it to come back at the time). I'm glad that it wasn't intended to be either the slight, or the conversation-ender that it can be perceived as. So that's nice. But I do think that you should be aware that the way that many people hear the word 'heresy' is very different to the way you intend it. That's no judgement on whose usage is right, just that maybe you should be a bit more restrained in using it (or if you do, and the person gets upset like old Orf has, then clarify very early on that it isn't the big deal that you intended). For me, as well as Orfeo, being told that something you've said is 'heresy' is much more of a deal than you seem to think, especially if that accusation is ultimately invalid.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
orfeo, old chap, may I suggest you let this go now? You've got Zach to admit that he misunderstood what you said. For most of us the obvious next step would be, "I'm sorry I made a mistake, I apologise," but it's pretty clear that's a step too far for Zach. (I wouldn't want to suggest he's an automaton, obviously, but maybe apologising isn't in his programming. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
) I don't think you're going to get any more out of him, so I would leave it and go and do something relaxing instead.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
^ Already said that, effectively, or at least I thought I did. I have no intention of reading anything else he has to say here because the chances of it being an edifying experience are minimal.
[ 22. July 2012, 09:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I have to say that does sound a bit familiar, Zach, from my experience too. I do think there are lessons you can learn from your recent hell calls.
It sounds familiar because it's the same people have exactly the same go at each other.
It doesn't say anything to you that I just flat out admitted I was wrong, but that didn't change Orfeo's hissy fit one bit?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
I really don't understand why everyone capitalizes "orfeo".
A disgrace.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It doesn't say anything to you that I just flat out admitted I was wrong, but that didn't change Orfeo's hissy fit one bit?
Sure, he has lessons to learn about himself too. But that doesn't make your own any less.
Can you not see how this illustrates the very thing that Orfeo was trying to say? I only said that I thought you had lessons to learn from all this. But you seem to have taken that to mean that I also think that Orfeo is entirely blameless, something I never said (and don't think).
If I'd had two hell calls in a month, I'd probably take a good look at myself, even if I think that the people calling me there are wrong. For whatever reason, you don't seem to want to do that - that the grievances the other people aren't important enough or whatever. But hey, that's your loss. Despite our own disagreements, I quite like your posts most of the time. I just think it's a shame that you don't seem to want to take some of this stuff on board - Gam also had some pertinent stuff to say in his own childish way.
Oh, and Evensong, iPads capitalise the 'o', and I can't be bothered to correct it every time. Hey ho.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I read my writing critically and realized I was wrong, but that doesn't make the long posts about how I don't get it and will never get it stop. God help me.
Posted by Think˛ (# 1984) on
:
You omitted to apologise - try it, it might work.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I do apologize for making the mistake of thinking I had been arguing with someone that was informed about the issue and had a coherent theology, and for taking so long to recognize that. I do have the habit of arguing like I do with other theologians.
Not that it will make any difference, since Orfeo has a very different idea of what happened.
Posted by Think˛ (# 1984) on
:
That's not really an apology is it ? It is more a sarcastic put down.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
It's an apology for what really happened. He only admitted he didn't have a coherent theology, and continues to think that his readings on wikipedia trumps everything I have said.
Orfeo continues to believe that this misunderstanding was the result of my absolute stupidity and viciousness failing to understand his coherence and fairness. That isn't what happened. I can't stop him from thinking that, but I can resolve to remember that not everyone frames issues like graduate students.
Posted by Think˛ (# 1984) on
:
Do you have social skills when you are offline ?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
If you are going where you think I are going, you are being silly. People in real life are far less likely to get angry and offended, and more willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. This tantrum here never would have happened offline. Offline, people don't demand profound contrition for simple misunderstandings.
[ 22. July 2012, 17:30: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Offline, people don't throw accusations of heresy around for the fun of it.
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
If orpheo is happy with this semi-apology and long winded justification of said apology, I'll close this thread.
Over to him.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I study theology for Pete's sake- I hear it all the time, and never have pitched a tantrum or driven any one to one myself. Where I come from it really does mean little more than "You need to change your argument." Orfeo imagines I had been hammering away at him with remorseless hate for his dread heresy when I felt no such thing. The internet removes all inflection and humanity from words and removes all consequences of getting offended.
I refuse to fill my posts with winking emoticons and person qualifications, so I tend come across as much more acerbic than I actually am. In real life debates here at school, I am usually accused of being stubborn, but never of possessing particularly cruel rhetorical techniques.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on
:
This is like an online version of 'The Biggest Loser", just not about weight. I think orfeo (Look! No cap! Who the fuck cares!) is slightly ahead because he appears to care what Zach thinks of him, but it's a close race, folks!
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Being slightly less of a loser than orfeo is all I really want out of life. Theologians tend to aim low.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Sine, last night I grumbled privately, "You'd think watching two guys go at it all night long would be a lot more fun."
And I thought Evensong's snitty remark was a lovely, subtle commentary on just how stupid this was all getting.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on
:
I saw Evensong's picture on Facebook. I think the expression in her eyes is that of a crazed mass-murderer. No, wait. Wrong dumb thread...
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I must respond to that; I think she's a cutie. A pain in the ass, but a cutie. That's the thing, she's probably used to people just overlooking the pain in the ass part because " Aw, how can you stay mad at that cherub face?"
But again, that's probably better said on the other thread.
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Being slightly less of a loser than orfeo is all I really want out of life. Theologians tend to aim low.
Try to keep it above the belt buddy, and consider using those academic skills in a practical manner. Maybe along the lines of what engagement with contrition and forgiveness you might be prepared for.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
(Serious note) Yeah I think we are all too far along in our historical development, whatever tradition we come from, not to recognize that we are all fumbling toward God together.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
...consider using those academic skills in a practical manner...
Gawd, you really don't know any scholars do you?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I study theology
Which specialism(s)?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
"Back off, man! I'm a theologian!"
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
Correction: He is a theology student who THINKS he is a theologian.
Clue: Not everyone on this board is a theology student, let alone a theologian. Perhaps you should remember this when you get involved in an argument about theology. What's normal for you at a college is not normal for everyone else.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I love it when you correct me, Pete.
Posted by Think˛ (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you are going where you think I are going, you are being silly. People in real life are far less likely to get angry and offended, and more willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. This tantrum here never would have happened offline. Offline, people don't demand profound contrition for simple misunderstandings.
Where I was going with it is simply that conventional social phrases are not meant to be taken literally. When I say "how are you"casually I don't expect you to tell me. The word sorry without qualification has the function of ending conflicts. Sarcastic comments with a list of qualifications will not achieve this. You were asking why your 'apology' hadn't worked - I told you - you seemed to be having trouble understanding the social convention.
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
...consider using those academic skills in a practical manner...
Gawd, you really don't know any scholars do you?
Actually quite a few. Most scholars don't get all huffy and puffy and then belch-fart out of their mouths. They consider what others say, provide reasoned argument and statement, and back off when appropriate. Consider, for example what Think˛ kindly said.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Clue: Not everyone on this board is a theology student, let alone a theologian. Perhaps you should remember this when you get involved in an argument about theology. What's normal for you at a college is not normal for everyone else
I basically just said that a few posts ago. Thanks for maintaining the "Zach is a clueless meany-face" narrative while Orfeo is away.
quote:
Sarcastic comments with a list of qualifications will not achieve this. You were asking why your 'apology' hadn't worked - I told you - you seemed to be having trouble understanding the social convention.
There was nothing sarcastic about my apology, and I know why full well why it won't work. Despite what people here seem to think, I am not clueless. I just don't care because Orfeo's grudge costs me nothing. It's actually nearly gratifying, since in real life I am quite passive and would readily apologize for things I didn't do just to smooth matters over.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
...consider using those academic skills in a practical manner...
Gawd, you really don't know any scholars do you?
Actually quite a few. Most scholars don't get all huffy and puffy and then belch-fart out of their mouths.
Well, Zach;s right a lot of scholars do just that. But IME the really crazy-smart people I know-- I mean, those scholars that have actually combined the things they have learned into something with the capabilities of a tactical nuke--THOSE people are invariably good listeners, and speak carefully and respectfully when articulating their thoughts and ideas. Because they have nothing to prove.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Sorry, Zach, crosspost. quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's actually nearly gratifying, since in real life I am quite passive and would readily apologize for things I didn't do just to smooth matters over.
Heh. I can actually identify with that.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Actually quite a few. Most scholars don't get all huffy and puffy and then belch-fart out of their mouths. They consider what others say, provide reasoned argument and statement, and back off when appropriate.
Most decent humans give others the benefit of the doubt.
quote:
Consider, for example what Think˛ kindly said.
Kindly said? Joining the "Zach is a clueless meany-butt" bandwagon driven by Oreo is kind? Is that how you people see yourselves?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I'll say this- if Orfeo was really hurt and wanted an unqualified apology he should have pmed me, and I almost certainly would have apologized. But that train left the station the moment he decided to post a temper tantrum in hell instead.
This is why hell calls are such bullshit. You think this is how you get a person, ANY person to listen and speak carefully? Talk about being fucking clueless. Kind and reasonable people don't post in hell calls. Vicious people do.
[ 22. July 2012, 22:28: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
No, Zach, frustrated people post in Hell. Just ask yourself what makes you so frustrating to interact with that you've had two, or is it three, Hell threads with your name on recently.
I'll give you some clues.
- Not every Christian on the Ship is a Lutheran, so your self-evident truths aren't so to all the non-Lutherans;
- You don't seem to accept any form of Christianity other than your narrow interpretation as being Christian;
- You're being a typical student, knowing everything about the subject you're studying and making no allowances for others;
- You are showing a complete and total lack of empathy
Posted by Think˛ (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I do apologize for making the mistake of thinking I had been arguing with someone that was informed about the issue and had a coherent theology, and for taking so long to recognize that.
Do you honestly not see how that would read as sarcastic ?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Not every Christian on the Ship is a Lutheran, so your self-evident truths aren't so to all the non-Lutherans;
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Zach's not Lutheran!
(like to take ten years off my life, girl.)
[ 22. July 2012, 23:09: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Great, CK is here. We have almost all the usual suspects.
quote:
Do you honestly not see how that would read as sarcastic ?
Yes I can, because the internet robs me of any ability to inflect, and people are unwilling to take my word for it. Do you honestly not see that reasonable adults don't get apologies by starting a bandwagon demanding the person's profound contrition before the face of the upright congregation?
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on
:
Now Zach, you know how it is. We like to crush you until you capitulate, then have a tearful reconciliation and welcome you back to the Group Think. It's what we do. It's who we are.
Posted by Think˛ (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Do you honestly not see that reasonable adults don't get apologies by starting a bandwagon demanding the person's profound contrition before the face of the upright congregation?
Yes, but then I would suggest not using the term apologise and then whinging when it doesn't have the usual effect. Just point out what a stupid idea that is.
[ 22. July 2012, 23:23: Message edited by: Think˛ ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Oh, I really did feel sorry. But you people have made me get over it well enough.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
If orpheo is happy with this semi-apology and long winded justification of said apology, I'll close this thread.
Over to him.
Well, I am quite literally scrolling past anything that Zach says now. Seriously. So I guess I'll take what I got. Which was a kind of an apology, coupled with a flavour of "but by golly, if I catch you saying anything Pelagian again..."
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Sine, last night I grumbled privately, "You'd think watching two guys go at it all night long would be a lot more fun."
Wow. I thought that only worked with a guy watching two girls!
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on
:
Well there was a certain "my little pony" air about it.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Wow. I thought that only worked with a guy watching two girls!
As far as I know, I am an oddity.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on
:
Well… now we know what your secret Santa can send you. In a plain brown wrapper.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Sine probably has spare copies.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on
:
I actually had a date last night while you stayed home and fought with Zach. Neener. Neener. Neener.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I must respond to that; I think she's a cutie. A pain in the ass, but a cutie. That's the thing, she's probably used to people just overlooking the pain in the ass part because " Aw, how can you stay mad at that cherub face?"
You didn't notice I wear Prada™?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I actually had a date last night while you stayed home and fought with Zach. Neener. Neener. Neener.
OK, I am bowing out of this funfest, but before I do that --YES! BOTTOM LINE! PREACH!
[ETA: Of Course, I was the dateless loser sitting at home giggling about the whole thing.]
[ 23. July 2012, 03:28: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I actually had a date last night while you stayed home and fought with Zach. Neener. Neener. Neener.
My boyfriend was out of town. Neener. Neener. Neener.
PS Was it a good date?
[ 23. July 2012, 04:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Zach82 protests:
I refuse to fill my posts with winking emoticons
Let your hair down and live a little. An emoticon every month or even every quarter won't kill you.
These aren't animated: ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
But, this one is pretty decent
Oops. That's my quota until early 2014.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
If orpheo is happy with this semi-apology and long winded justification of said apology, I'll close this thread.
Over to him.
Well, I am quite literally scrolling past anything that Zach says now. Seriously. So I guess I'll take what I got.
Fine. Closed.
Marvin
Hellhost
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0