Justifying Your WorldView to an Impartial Onlooker.

volchitsa wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nothing on the point of using the example of the NVA example. There was a point. Nothing.

You don't seem to have gotten the point about uninvolved outsiders (of which there are none) either. This in the context of Mark's agenda.

You don't do toe to toe very well. Deal with the problems presented you. Don't evade.

Well this is ironic.

When you give a straight answer to any of the questions you've been asked, then you can berate random passers-by in the thread for not replying.

Although maybe you'll even find that if you do reply, then so will they.

Ask a straight question then. Or are you still beating Marks crooked drum for him.

If you dinnae think its crooked then raise an argument regarding its straigtness.

Last chance at the bleating saloon.

volchitsa wrote: »

I did. At least twice. Summed up here for instance
You've ignored it in favour of dishing out personal abuse.
There is no reason why you can't reply to that question, if you wished to.


You should probably think about what that post of yours is really saying.

Your entered a thread with a particular set up: judgment of two world views by impartial onlooker.

Your first post took exception to the problem I raised with constructing this impartial onlooker.

(You might confirm or otherwise that an impartial onlooker is central to this threads aim being realised?)

You are now deemed, by me, on the basis of your lack of interest in the necessity for an impartial onlooker, as sharing the agenda of the OP.

If, along the way, you've genuinely come to want to know how a Christian would make his case to a (in your eyes, neutral/in the Christians eyes antagonistic by default) person) then head to the Christianity forum and open a thread to that effect.

This thread is about something else: an empiricists agenda struggling for purchase.

smacl wrote: »

And again we see the No true Scotsman fallacy coming out. If a person declares themselves to be a Christian for whatever reason, you're hardly in a position to categorically state otherwise.

You'd have to point out where I 'categorically stated otherwise'. A bit to quick on the fallacy draw there smacl?

I did raise a problem: just because someone says they are something doesn't make them something.

NTS would say something like 'no true Christian would murder'. Whereas I said true Christians have and do murder.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am familiar with the theological ideas I think Antiskeptic is expressing due to years of studying the various interpretations of Christianity that were floating around during the Reformation. It's not a million miles from Knox, but even he stopped short at stating that doing good works was doing Satan's work. Or perhaps he (Knox) hadn't gotten around to that being too busy foaming at the mouth at the amount of female rulers he found himself surrounded by.
The most common view of "good works" expressed by those of a Calvinist bent were that they matter not a jot when it came to salvation due to predestination : a person was 'saved' or they were not 'saved' - nothingcould change this. Not good works, not baptism, nothing. It was decided by God before you were born and you wouldn't find out until after you die. But... someone who was saved was likely to perform good works due to they being saved.
At least that was what John Calvin himself had to say on the matter.

You'd have to point out where I said doing good works was necessarily doing satan's work.

Good works mattering not a jot to your salvation isn't just a Calvinist idea.

Nobelium wrote: »

Sounds exactly like Pastor Billy Wright's LVF sermons, once you are saved you can then go out and rape rob murder and pillage innocent people all you like, safe the in the knowledge God is on your side (all your doctrine is missing now is the Muslim terrorist's 72 virgins sopt prize), you can keep your twisted version of Christianity / westboro baptist church thanks.

Your failure to deal with the problems you face (not least, is this pastor a Christian?) is noted.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I never said it was, I merely said that I am familiar with that belief due to reading Calvin who laid out his entire thought process with his usual lawyerly precision. Calvin was one of the first to clearly express and successfully promulgate these ideas - in 1536 he published the first edition of Institutes of the Christian Religion and his ideas differed in many important areas from the likes of Luther.

That's the thing isn't it - many different interpretations of the same texts which claim very different things are truly Christian. How on Earth is in impartial onlooker supposed to know which, if any, is correct?

You know my stance on impartial onlookers.

But lets take the case of genuine believers who differ. For they do (that is, folk who I recognize as genuine believers differ - particularily virulently in the case of Calvinist vs Arminians)

What does it matter ultimately? Each individual believer has his own preexisting influences, faults, strengths, motivations.

Each is responsible for himself before God. If someone ploughs an inaccurate furrow, if he encourages others to do same (with them responsible in turn for themselves) then thats an issue between him and God. God will know to what extent the inaccuracy was damaging, wilful, due to influences outside the persons control, etc.

Nobody will be lost because of someone elses faulty theology. Salvation is a God > individual matter. The mechanism of salvation transcends religion, education, intelligence etc.

The concept of Predestination also rules out repentance as a path to salvation. Do you agree with Calvin on this?

No I don't. There are only a few verses which mention predestination. They are verses addressed at believers aka those in Christ aka the saved.

It is said, for example, that "God predestined us to x,y,z."

"Us" is the believer/those in Christ/the saved. Thus what is predestined is that which is to occur to the saved. The saved shall have this and that applied to them.

They are not predestined to be saved in the first place.

I find Calvinism a rather mangled view. Take TULIP's U (for unconditional election). Its holds that there is no condition (or involvement) of man. Salvation is applied by God's sovereign choice (with the criteria for his choosing this one and not that one undefined. It's simply a mystery).

Now you can find biblical support for excluding certain conditions (a man working, for example) but you can't find support for excluding all possible conditions, since that would require that:

a) all possible conditions are known

b) the bible excludes them all.

The bible would have to be a lot thicker (in the Y axis sense) to achieve that.

So I don't understand the basis whereby the U is installed in TULIP.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

You would have to quote where I said/inferred that.

I did say this to smacl

"I didn't believe in God, heaven or hell before I was saved and for a time afterwards. So that part of your piece doesn't work very well. I prayed to an unbelieved in God because there was no one else to turn to."

Since I was saved (a.k.a. obtained a forever seat at God's high table) before having any evidence for God's existence, I couldn't have fulfilled the criteria you say I say is necessary.




I had something to say on this the last time you said it (30th May). It can help (genuine kindness by the lost) - but not in the direct, 'works swing the scales to salvation' sense.

What evidence do you possess now? How would you present this evidence to a person who knew nothing about your (or any other) god?

For the purposes of this thread everbody knows something of my (and their) God. The knowledge isn't empirical, but no matter.

I'm afraid I'm sticking to topic on the matter of justifying my position (which has stalled on the matter of the impartial observer it would seem).


The Christianity forum is probably the place to go for your more general question.

volchitsa wrote: »

He thought he was. He became a born again Christian in 1983. Who gets to say if he was wrong? You? How would you tell?

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. If he isn't then he's a lost sinner at the further end of the sin spectrum.

If he's a found sinner then he's at the same end of the sin spectrum.

All found sinners fall somewhere along the sin spectrum. Would he be worse if not a Christian (assuming he is one)? Has he 'backslidden' (a phenomenon whereby a Christian slides backwards down the spectrum?

So many questions. How would I know? I suppose by talking to him. Say he acknowledged his sin as sin but found himself entrapped in hatred. I'd understand that: knowing what its like to know how I should live but finding I can't.

Also, you said you were saved but didn't yet believe in God. So what was the evidence that you had already been saved?

I could look back when I had more understanding and see, in retrospect, the point at which I was saved. I didn't know it at the time though

(Not that I expect a straight answer to this, but I'm just pointing out a couple of the more glaring problems with what you say.)

Hopefully straightforward enough?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

For the purposes of this thread everbody knows something of my (and their) God. The knowledge isn't empirical, but no matter.

I'm afraid I'm sticking to topic on the matter of justifying my position (which has stalled on the matter of the impartial observer it would seem).


The Christianity forum is probably the place to go for your more general question.

So you would rather not answer my question? Strange stance to take but that's your choice i suppose.

I would have thought it would be obvious rather than strange.

Let's say I start giving reasons for my certainty (to folk who aren't impartial). Those same folk, who have found their worldview higher ground isn't anyway as high as they thought, will leap thankfully on the opportunity offered by thread recalibration (the disappearance of the need for an impartial onlooker).

They will, sure as night follows day, start challenging on the basis of their worldview (as if that established higher ground). "No empirical evidence"

You might as well open the stable door..