Religion or Science - How do they compare?

Yes, I would accept that as a principle. But please don't make it about me. I just gave you my opinion of an argument.

Your statement shows the lack of empathy for which you are quite famous. Not everyone's experience is the same as yours or the same as mine. But it is quite clear that you cannot entertain, let alone understand, how any "real Christian" could be different from you.Small wonder that you think your way is the only correct way.

Yep. Faith is a Calvinist.Although to be clear, free will is pretty slippery concepts and lots of non-religious folks have problems with it.

You are not alone in believing that. But didn't you just complain to Faith that her invocation of Calvinism did away with free will? What is the point if you don't believe in free will anyway?

The problem is that Faith is a Calvinist. Free will really is not compatible with Calvinism as has been discussed here many times. So what is your point?

That is what Christians on both sides of the issue believe. Your point does is not what distinguishes the Calvinist position from the non-Calvinist position. What the Calvinist belief is that the folks who are damned are damned before they set a foot on earth, and that they will not be saved by any means. The only folks who will be saved, if you let a Calvinist tell it, were apparently destined for that before their parents were even a gleam in their grandfather's eye.Yes, we are saved by grace and through Faith, and the credit and glory belong to God. Not all Christians believe that, but certainly that belief is not restricted to Calvinists.

No, that is not the dispute. We agree on that. What we disagree about is whether God offers men a choice to accept or reject salvation. You seem to believe that making such an offer is outside of God's power or grace. I do not. Further, it is easy to find Biblical support for exactly what you deny.Of course, you also claim that people who find that support are misreading the Bible. But that is also exactly what those people would say about you. Of course, as you've said before, you are infallible in such matters.

What you are saying is completely incompatible with Calvinism. Sorry, but you cannot have it both ways. If humans can choose, then their actions have an impact.

As a matter of fact, it does. I presume that God's offer does not result in his words returning to him void and without meaning.

Is that necessary? Is it really too difficult to understand that presenting a choice to a sentient being requires that the chooser be able to pick? And that offering something that cannot really be picked means there was no bona fide offer?Why don't you illustrate that two plus two equals four? Or how about asking Faith to explain the conundrum that she has presented?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Not doing that. What is going on here is that people are questioning the rationality of Calvinism. It is that doctrine that requires the double-talk about choices not being choices. Perhaps we should again post what Calvin himself said about the determinism. As I recall your response in the past has been to deny what Calvinists had to say about Calvinism and to brand those quotes as hyper-Calvinism.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There is no reason not to discuss it. The problem is that Calvinism does not make any sense. That is the reason why you end up having to deny what people, including Calvin, say about it.And with regards to your appearing to be foolish about it while defending your own understanding. That is how you appear on most topics here. Nothing special about Calvinism in that regard.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

1. Arminianism being wrong does not make Calvinism correct.2. Salvation is by grace through faith.

I think most Christians would agree with most of that sentence, however, as is the case with many doctrines or concepts, there are differences in belief and subtle things that are harder to defend scripturally. The quoted scripture would support almost all of the more widely held doctrines of substitutionary atonement.