Weapons of Negative Volition?

Originally posted by PatNovak
The phrase "negative volition" means an act of self-determination that is negative (or bad). This phrase in and of itself is a superficial dismissal of your opponent's position. It is a pejorative weapon that you are using to attack those who disagree with you. Merely using the term "negative volition" makes you guilty of the very things your post claims to be criticizing.

" Merely using the term "negative volition" makes you guilty of the very things your post claims to be criticizing."

Pat, please elaborate.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
dive, it was midnight here last night when I replied to DeepThought. Though too fatigued by then to reply I did appreciate your precise questions. 1) "Are you referring to atheists or fellow Christians?" Since both groups of people possess volition which functions to say both "yes" and "no", the OP refers to both groups as well as to yours truly. ...[text shortened]... sults in an understanding of the online behaviours used to defensively and offensively say "no".

Sorry GB but this is 200 words when 20 are needed.

1) Christians/atheists/both (that's the easy bit)

2) It's hypothetical/no it's real and here are 2 examples...

Without this level of granularity your premise is just as twhitehead says, "waffle".

Originally posted by PatNovak
The phrase "negative volition" means an act of self-determination that is negative (or bad). This phrase in and of itself is a superficial dismissal of your opponent's position. It is a pejorative weapon that you are using to attack those who disagree with you. Merely using the term "negative volition" makes you guilty of the very things your post claims to be criticizing.

Effect and intention are not automatically the same thing. Although I agree that "negative volition" is a rather odd phrase. On the basis that volition means choice, negative volition makes no sense as one cannot have less than no choice. If there is a choice then which choice would be regarded the negative one depends rather on the question. "Does God exist?" would make atheism the negative choice, whereas "Is the material world we see all there is?" would make it the positive one.

Possibly a better approach to the subject would be to talk about negativity within debating, where I'm using negativity to mean using rhetorical tricks - strawmen and so forth - rather than dealing with the actual points.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"word vomit": great descriptive metaphorical phrase, GKR. Any more?

Well, I'll be damned. A GB sentence that is actually understandable without having to read it a dozen or more times.

Amazing.

Originally posted by JS357
"There's no such place as eternity"

Sorry, is that an example of a simple statement?

In my mind "eternity" refers to time rather than position. So it's not a well formed phrase. Possibly "There's no such thing as eternity" would make more sense grammatically.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Weapons of Negative Volition?

Ever notice how negative volition tends to detest biblical simplicity and dismiss it as superficiality? Why does it complicate discussion of life and death issues? Is there more room for self importance when discussions are out of focus or easier to appear smarter than you are when topics are confused? Are ...[text shortened]... tionalism, God doesn't exist. Faith in Christ? No. There's no such place as eternity"? Thoughts?[/b]

No room in the inn.

"Weapons of negative volition" are symptoms of emotionalism. When an atheist encounters the proposition that the universe was created by God they immediately resort to a defensive posture with the club of superiority. Anything a theist may say is attacked in a variety of ways, not the least of which is undisguised hatred.

Originally posted by DeepThought
In my mind "eternity" refers to time rather than position. So it's not a well formed phrase. Possibly "There's no such thing as eternity" would make more sense grammatically.

I really don't think "eternity" can be grasped by the mind in an appreciable way. Our minds are primarily accustomed to time as a measure of passing existence. Beyond our lifespan is a place not measured by time.

It's called eternity.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Effect and intention are not automatically the same thing. Although I agree that "negative volition" is a rather odd phrase. On the basis that volition means choice, negative volition makes no sense as one cannot have less than no choice. If there is a choice then which choice would be regarded the negative one depends rather on the question. "Does G ...[text shortened]... an using rhetorical tricks - strawmen and so forth - rather than dealing with the actual points.

In reality, the phrase "negative volition" is of course meaningless gibberish, but I tried to determine what Bobby meant by the phrase. Googling the phrase in quotes only leads to about 6000 hits, which I think shows how rare it is even for Christians to use the phrase, as most any two random words strung together will generate more hits than that.

What I determined is that "positive volition" seems to mean a person agrees with the writer's view of Christianity, and "negative volition" means they disagree with the writer's view of Christianity (which is basically how divegeester described Bobby's use of the phrase). Therefore, in this sense, the phrase is merely a pejorative. I normally wouldn't mind his use of a pejorative, except here it was in the same post where he criticizes such behavior.

Here, for example, is what one page ambiguously said about volition (which I think fits Bobby's use of the phrase):

Individuals who consistently choose for God’s Plan are called “Positive Volition.”
Individuals, believers or unbelievers, who consistently choose their own will over God’s, are oppositely termed “Negative”.

hbcpinellas.org/Doctrines/The%20Doctrine%20of%20Volition.pdf

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved and your household [if they also believe]." Acts 16:31 delivers the essence of Christianity without any hand around the elbow folderol or equivocation. In this single straightforward sentence Sovereign God offers an individualized grace gift of salvation, personal relationship with Him in time and eternity: Is negative volition apt to say, "No thanks" or engage in criticizing it as too simple and superficial?

In response to the assertion Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved you suggest there are only two options:

[1] No thanks

[2] Criticizing it as too simple and superficial

Why restrict the options in this way? It seems disingenuous.

FMF: Are you inclined to criticize your fellow Christians for this kind of thing too?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
If random, I figure someone's having a bad day; if persistent I take note but leave any criticism/judgment in God's hands.

So you believe your God figure might be actively judging and criticizing Christians for their persona or demeanour on an internet message board, or - more specifically - on this one here at RHP? Do you believe His judgement in this matter can have a bearing on their "salvation"?

Originally posted by FMF
So you believe your God figure might be actively judging and criticizing Christians for their persona or demeanour on an internet message board, or - more specifically - on this one here at RHP? Do you believe His judgement in this matter can have a bearing on their "salvation"?

That'd be a mite harsh, being sent to Hell for something said on an Internet message board.

Originally posted by DeepThought
That'd be a mite harsh, being sent to Hell for something said on an Internet message board.

I find it interesting that the "Once Saved Always Saved" ideology is riddled with bits and pieces which appear to suggest that there is a bit of "Once Saved Not Necessarily Always Saved" going on, although efforts to probe this are often met with copy pastes and OPs akin to this one. For instance, if it is true that...

Salvation is executed by God the Holy Spirit at the moment of faith in Christ. Some believers grow in grace out of infancy to maturity; others lose their way with confused daily priorities. None lose their salvation. Why? Because it didn't depend on them in the first place. They accepted a gift. Christ's work of propitiation on the cross and spiritual birth are permanent.

...then why would Christians be concerned about God's judgement of their behaviour on a message board?

It just does not add up.

Originally posted by DeepThought
That'd be a mite harsh, being sent to Hell for something said on an Internet message board.

But suppose Hell is this particular message board.

Originally posted by FMF
I find it interesting that the "Once Saved Always Saved" ideology is riddled with bits and pieces which appear to suggest that there is a bit of "Once Saved Not Necessarily Always Saved" going on, although efforts to probe this are often met with copy pastes and OPs akin to this one. For instance, if it is true that...

[b]Salvation is executed by God the Hol ...[text shortened]... ncerned about God's judgement of their behaviour on a message board?

It just does not add up.

I had a conversation with GrampyBobby about this before. That was never my understanding of the deal. One has to repent of one's sins. That means trying not to commit them. Being human we fail, so we need God's grace to make up for our imperfection. But the position the actual Christians, at least around here, seem to have is that believing is enough. All one has to do is accept the gift and hey Presto! In which case why get het up about morality?

Originally posted by josephw
... a place not measured by time.

It's called eternity.

I can't think of any place that is measured by time.
(unless you are talking about time to cross a city in rush hour)