Clash;
I will have to exercise discretion in my dealings with you at this point until you can communicate in a more aristocratic manor ...
Oh, Clash, you're replacing Thi-Chi as the most amusing poster; an aristocratic manor is normally a very large old house in the country, an aristocratic manner (which you meant) is conducting oneself as a gentleman. You can kid yourself that anyone is fooled by you trying to take some moral highground here; you kid yourself about so many things, one more act of self deception isn't going to make any difference.
... and listen to what I am saying with out the misguided use of ad homs, which at times I sometimes commit.
By the same logic I shouldn't listen to what you say because of your use of ad homs, which at times I commit ("at times I sometime" is a tautology). I suppose yours are not misguided?
It would be wise for me to limit my response to you until you have changed your ways. I do not want to be tempted to respond back in a belligerent manor back to you in the mists of heated polemical discourse. It is not because of being afraid or overwhelmed by the sophistication of you arguments against the reformed Christian faith, because that so far from being the case. In fact I, at times print your attacks of the Christian faith and bring them to the 7 th -8 th grade Sunday school apologetics class which I teach at church and watch the well trained Van Tillians just absolutely destroy your arguments. In fact these kids go yard (a baseball term for knocking some lollypop pitch 450 feet over the wall for a homerun, like Barry Bonds or Sammy Sosa) on your arguments against the faith. But these kids at 7 th and 8 th grade have already been trained in logic, rhetoric, Latin and Greek and are reading books like Federalist Papers by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, The Annals of Rome by Tacitus, Plato’s Republic, Amusing Ourselves to Death and Technopoly by Neil Postman, To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, Calvin’s Institutes, Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (to critique one must not be afraid to read original sources), Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe, The Great Gatspy by F. Scott Fitzgerald, God on the Dock by C.S. Lewis this is just a small sample. These kids, and I am so proud of them at the 7 th and 8 th grade are finishing up advanced algebra moving into trigonometry and basic forms of derivatives moving to pre calculus and these kids have exceptional godly character. That is the Glory of Calvinist home schooling, which no atheist public school can ever match the caliber of.
Val Til's argument is non-falsifiable, so how can it "absolutely destroy" my arguments, when it is just an opinion set up so that doesn't allow itself to be challenged? Again, you're so blind to reason you believe in Van Til, and Van Til's argument is only valid if you accept on faith he is right. Thus you're nothing more than a worshipper of a man-made philosophy.
Of course, here you're really exposing yourself here, as someone who will either lie to try to antagonise people and prove their point, and as someone who will brainwash children with religious rhetoric of the most base and ignorant form. Most children who are home schooled by religious bigots suffer from a selective curriculum, one that will not allow the belief structure of the school to be challanged (setting the Origin of the Species as a text is classic intellectual dishonesty; why not set more modern books about evolution, afraid of the truth?). It would be surprising if the claims you make for the students are genuine; your capacity for self-deception is pathological, and you're probably making these claims to 'prove you're right' by the results you get. Yes Clash, but you're probably lying; got any independant evaluations of the curriculum? Any way of proving your claims?
Do your claims in anyway, even if 100% true with regard to "advanced algebra moving into trigonometry and basic forms of derivatives moving to pre calculus", prove your presuppositionalistic philosophy? No. All you can do is say that 'kid's can defend it', when in the course of several posts you have shown yourself incapable of defending it. Hide behind (possibly) imaginary children or actually defend your argument, you intellectually dishonest supposed brain-washer of innocents.
