• Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


cksalmon last won the day on October 6 2010

cksalmon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

15 Good


About cksalmon

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land
  • Birthday 05/22/1975

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

1,945 profile views
  1. All right. You don't have to play, AM. But, my question is dichotomous.
  2. Hey, buddy. You know I'm not a pragmatist. So, I'll just throw some NT at ya. "For sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law."
  3. I wouldn't say it's nonsense, given Calvinism. (But, according to some Calvinists, I'm illogical.) I'd say that each and every person determines whether he or she wants to be saved. Determinism functions as both ratification and cause.
  4. Fair enough. But, my question is how Mormonism cashes out ultimate options. Ex hypothesi, Mormonism is true. What does one gain by opting in versus opting out? As for Calvinism vs Atheism: you'd sure better opt in. That's a given. I'm wondering if Mormonism has a trump card.
  5. What would it look like? To get you started... Mormonism is true, or Mormonism is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up. You must wager (it is not optional). Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that Mormonism is true. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain [what?]; if you lose, you lose [what?] ?
  6. Wait. What? My ears were burning.
  7. Ha. Nevermo review: I've read this book multiple times. I've liked it more each time. cks
  8. Hahaha: He said "the key truth claims." Yes, I get that you've appended various adumbrations. You rationalists, you!
  9. It's complicated and there were some time travel issues. 'Nuff said.
  10. From my perspective (and that of my ex-Mormon wife), of course. We'd say that Mormons can be Christians in the same way that all Christians are so: by God's grace (and, because I'm a Calvinist, I'd say also by God's choosing). And that in spite of any and all obstacles (including Mormonism). Best. cks
  11. I can't speak for M, but I'll have you know, my good sir, that I read everything I could possibly find on the subject, a decade ago, in writing a thesis on the problem of evil in the context of Calvinism, at least as my sources pertained to the questions I was seeking to address, and within the timeframe I had to write, and provided I could wrangle access to obscure sources, etc. ... So, yeah, I'm not up to speed with all that has been written on the topic. I'm sure the literature has grown. Ten years is a long time. And my focus was not as broad as it might have been.
  12. Yeah, I'm familiar with at least the broad contours of LDS theology. You could read my post as saying nothing more important than, "But I'm not a Mormon." But a couple things you wrote are unclear to me. Are all beings necessary on Mormonism or none at all? You'll have to refresh my memory on necessary beings in Mormonism. This strikes me as a sticky question. [1] I get. It follows from the co-eternality of other beings. Of course, I would phrase it differently, e.g.: "It would contradict his fundamental nature as [not the sort of God who ultimately brings about all things]," where my brackets are filled in with something slightly more intelligent. If [2] is a [1], then, sure, that follows, too, I guess. It's just a more specific way of affirming [1]. Why can't the God of Mormonism be responsible for (some) evil? He can't be responsible for any evil? Sounds like you're thinking evil is some sort of thing. Or, perhaps you're just saying the God of Mormonism can't be responsible for anything or anyone other than himself. Hmm.
  13. Hey, M! Good to see you, too. On a whim, I thought I'd see if (1) I could remember my credentials and (2) my credentials were still valid. Yes, on both counts. And, of course, there's a free will thread on the first page. Some things never change... Hope you're well.
  14. Compatibilism is bunk? There's a fairly robust literature on the topic. It doesn't seem like bunk to me, but unlike you, I'm biased. Sounds like your beef is with a God who is ultimately responsible for all things, including the existence of evil. I just don't share your squeamishness on that point, stemelbow.
  15. In any discussion of free will, definitions are crucial. Mormons, for example, typically hold a belief in libertarian free will. If I say I believe in free will, but of the compatibilist variety rather than the libertarian one, I'm not equivocating; I'm defining my term. Maybe you think it's bunk, but that's another sort of discussion. I can't speak to your alleged Chuck Smith sentiment, but I consider him a dubious source of theological insight. I would be pleasantly surprised to see him admit that his belief system is incoherent. Quoth Nehor: "Can be chosen" by whom? Well, right-thinking Calvinists don't believe in libertarian free will (though some folks at my Presbyterian church do ) and right-thinking Calvinists hold that a Christian actually does choose his/her own eternal destination as a result of God's prior providence. Come to think of it, I can't think of any Christian group who holds that one's eternal destination can't be chosen by someone.