Another diappointing opening statement from Micah. Confusing and illogical to say the least. In all fairness, I've never been Calvinist. I've never believed we did not have a free will to accept God's gift of salvation-when I was a Protestant or as a Catholic. That's probably why his confused argument makes no sense to someone that has always believed in God's justice, goodness, and free gift of eternal life. We are made in God's image. If we have no choice, then do we conclude that God had no choice? The just, all-knowing, all-good God of Christianity doesn't seem to be the same God of Calvinism.
Round 2a has been posted to BattleACTS (click here) for now as there was a problem with the computer I use to upload to the website. That should be fixed tonight. Anyone can read the posts at BattleACTS, you don't have to be a subscriber to read - but if you want to contribute to the discussions there, then yes - you must join the group. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BattleACTS/message/6851 Scott<<<
The website is updated now too: http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/freewill_debate/ Scott<<<
Round 2b was posted last night. http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/freewill_debate Scott<<<
After the disappointing opening statement, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised at the fact that he couldn't give a single straight answer to any of your questions.
Well, a couple we answered "straight," but he did not do me the honor of answering them in order (as I did for him) and he worked them into other thoughts - and at least one of my questions appears to have been wholly ignored, and others glossed over and not directly answered. If I re-ask my questions, I'll be 168 words over the 300 word limit for Round 3a. I've asked him if he's OK with that. If he's not, I'll re-ask the questions in 3b so he'll still have the final round to respond to them. I'm OK either way, though I'd prefer to get them out now. AMDG,Scott<<<
Round 3b of the Free Will Debate is posted: http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/freewill_debate/
Well, a couple we answered "straight," That should be... "he answered..."
Hey RC MOM.....M.A. here. As usual, another disappointing comment from a no-nothing Catholic who thinks she has accomplished something by saying absolutely NOTHING!How many hundreds of times over the years have I heard Mr. White growl in frustration as Catholics criticize him with nothing but adjectives. Nine times out of ten the criticisms sent out to him are utterly void of substance, and we are all too happily aware that this is due to pure laziness on your part to get up off your duff and formulate one blessed sentence as to what it WUZZZZ that so "confusing" and "illogical". Excuse me, but I feel what I wrote was VERY logical, and I am sorry tp say that you simply don't have the brains to comprehend it because you're too busy with the kids; which, by the way, is no excuse for making comments you can't back up without support. SOOOOO, in the future, if you've got nothing to say, then just don't say ANYTHING!
I withdraw my comment regarding "one of my questions appears to have been ignored, as Micah has stated it was due to the word limit and he would have run over. My statement wasn't "false" - as it certainly DID "appear" that way, but now that he's clarified - I've accepted that. Now, I've re-asked that question in Round 3a, and he's got 1200 words to respond to those questions - which should be plenty if he just answers the questions and doesn't get too carried away with additional comments (save that for the 1500 word closing statement!). Two more rounds to go. One thing I will say for Mr. Antony - he has been quite prompt in replying, unlike others I've debated. I applaud him for that. AMDG,Scott<<<
MO/M.A. is there any particular reason you are incapable of acting as a Christian? Jesus taught us to love even our enemies. He expected his followers to "love [their] neighbors as [themselves]. To most Christians that means respecting each other. And, I always thought that so-called Christian men honored wives that took care of their children. Being a mother doesn't make a woman stupid. Men and women are different and they think differently. I hope that if you're married you at least respect one woman.As for my comments, they aren't nothing. I said it was confusing and illogical because it is. How else does one describe something that is confusing and illogical? You simply do not go from point a to point b in your answers. You jump all over the place. I don't see how your answers or paragraphs logically tie together in any kind of logical progression. And if you're going to be insulting you could at least spell the insult correctly--ie, know-nothing not "no-nothing."
(Sigh) One more thing! I said "Round 3b" was posted - I meant to say "Round 3a" is posted! We're working on 3b right now. Scott<<<
Micah,First off, there were a COUPLE "direct answers" to my questions, but cathmom5 raises a good point about the rest of your answers being convoluted and hard to follow. It seemed as though you were trying to make paragraphs from tangentially related questions then trying to squeeze all that into the word limit and it just didn't work. Might I suggest, just answer the numbered questions, directly first, then if there is room in the word count, add commentary later. You have 1200 words to respond to the questions, if you run out of room - keep in mind you have 1500 more words in the Closing Argument to summarize your commentary. Keep in mind, Rounds 2 and 3 are cross-examination rounds, Question then Answer.One more bit of advise in debate... don't give your opponent more ammunition! Answer the questions in a cross exam round clearly, but concisely.I'm trying to help you present a better debate as I'd rather both sides be fairly represented with clear and concise arguments than for one side to be such while the other apparently runs off on tangents. Yes, technically leaving you to continue in the tangents would allow me to win... but I'd rather not win on a technicality. You've presented many thoughts, but you have not produced a superior argument. Scott<<<(Changed "technically that..." to "technically leaving you to continue in the tangents...")
MO having followed both of your debates and as a former protestant I have to agree with Cathmoms assesment.Your opening pargraph was irrelevant to the debate, Next you say that from the momnent they exit the womb they go astray, can you explain how a being that is not capable of reason goes astray?Later you state that man is in bondage to sin and yet he is a free agent.This is a complete contradiction. You are either a free moral agent or you are in bondage, pick one.In your summary you stae that God will use his "irressitable grace to persuade the gathering in of His elect whom He has appointed unto eternal life " Tell me were Adam and eve among the elect or did he create them for damantion, or was it their free will that turned them away from him? As for your responses to Mr. Windsors question (round 2b)They were not in orde4r and they were far from complete.You state:"Briefly, predestination refers to His sovereign divine discrimination BEFOREHAND. Ephesians 1:5 confirms this and directly contradicts the assertion of the Roman Catholic apologist: "Having predestinated us...according to the good pleasure of His will.""So God creates being to damn them to Hell. How does that reconcile witht he idea of a Just and Merciful God? Next you state: "This is because Jesus says that those who will be raised to eternal life will be those whom the Father has drawn (Jn 39-40). But since we have seen that not all men are given by the Father to the Son (Jn 17:6-9), then it must follow that not all men are drawn to Christ by the Father!"You made the statement that "itmust follow" with out supplying any reason or proof. You are aware of the logical fallacy of Post hoc ergo proptor hoc?, Also you never did explain why the "drawing" and the "giving" are one in the same, how do you know that they are not two seperate items. again you offer no proof.Next you state:"Mr. Windsor wonders if the debate is over because he opines that my separating our "heart's desire" from our "will" is being duplicitous (Q5). Obviously, he wishes to co-mingle the two concepts into one, but the Bible won't allow it. Proverbs 16:9 says that, "a man's heart deviseth his way, but the Lord directeth his steps". " I find it interesting that you accuse him of duplicity when you did not document that "Drawing" and "giving" are identical.Look up the definiton of both words and see if they are synonms of each other. Also why can't God direct your way, and have you go in a sperate direction. Say the way Adam and Eve did. God directed them not to eat of the tree, yet they devised a different direction.Ihope that you find these specific enough for you. There are numerous other error that you make but these will surfice for now.
The Free Will Debate should wrap up this evening (and I'll get back to my responses to Engwer). Micah also sent a correction in Round 3b to a reference he made in his response to my question 2:I just noticed that in question 2, I mentioned Isa 10:57. It should have been, 10:5-12. I will adjust the website accordingly this evening as I post our Round 4 Final Arguments. A reminder too to Micah, if he's reading this before finishing up his Round 4 - "Final Arguments" is not a place to ask questions nor is it a place to introduce new material. We are to summarize points we've already made and/or put in last responses to arguments from our opponent. AMDG,Scott<<<
The picture on the webpage for this debate was selected by my opponent, and after looking at it a bit more, I found it ironic he would pick THAT picture! Look at it again... Jesus is standing outside a door, knocking... there is no doorknob on that door! Clearly the hinges are on His right side, so the doorknob should be on the left - but there isn't one. Also with the hinges on the outside, as they are depicted, that door would open toward Jesus - but without a doorknob or handle, that would be a difficult task. THEN, on the OTHER side of the door at first glance you see "the world" - but if you look closer, that "world" is people, as if to symbolize all the people of the whole world. And finally, the TITLE of that picture, as given by the artist is "Let Him In." Interpretation, Jesus stands at the door knocking, we must "let Him in." Everything about that picture is the antithesis of my opponent's position! AMDG,Scott<<<
So, "God has the ability to manipulate our free will and restrain our sin". Hmmm. I thought the debate was about whether or not we have free will to choose to follow God. MA says on the one hand we have no free will, and on the other hand we have free will that is manipulated by God. I would love to know just what is his definition of free will. Your will is certainly NOT FREE if it is manipulated. God manipulating our will implies a lack of free choice. Either you are free to follow Him or you're not. I don't believe God created automatons or puppets. MA has, once again, failed to make a logical argument. (specific enough for you MO?)
Keep in mind while posting:1) Please respond ON TOPIC to the article at hand.2) Posts more than 4 weeks old are set to automatically save new comments for moderation - so your comment may not show up immediately if you're responding to an older post.3) The "Spam Filter" is on - and randomly messages get caught in that filter. I have no control over which messages get caught in the spam filter and those that do must wait for me to mark them as "not spam." A message caught by the spam filter may show up for a moment, making you think it posted, and then disappear. Do not assume I have deleted your comment, it's probably just the spam filter and it will show up.