Paltalk Critics N - Z

by Matt Slick

Palttalk.com is a voice-based chat room system that I frequent. There are many categories of discussion, and I hang out in the Christianity section. I go there in order to dialogue with various people on a host of topics so that I might keep myself sharp. There are often people who attack me; and in order to provide a generic defense of my position in my character, I tend to keep some records, hence, these pages dealing with pal talk (See also Paltalk Critics  A-M)

I go by the names "Matt Slick; MattSlick, and MattSlick_of_CARM." Any other combination of my name is not me and is an imposter (which has happened numerous times).

  • Matt Slick (Room title:  CARMorg)
  • MattSlick (Room title: IsChristianityOrAtheismTrue)
  • MattSlick_of_CARM  (Room title:  Atheism Christianity Research and Discussion)

Following are some of the people I've encountered on Paltalk, who have said some pretty negative things about me.

  1. Nobody on Mike
    1. This guy is an extremely antagonistic atheist who likes to study liberal scholars and only recites what liberal scholars say.  In my encounter with him he specifically said that the Old Testament Book of Daniel was written in 164 BC. I told him that the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament books which was done around 200 to 250 BC included the book of Daniel and that this, therefore, meant his information was incorrect. He said that the copy of the Septuagint I have is wrong and that Daniel was not in it originally. In other words, it doesn't matter what the facts are, it's all a matter of agenda.
    2. He said in the room "Is atheism a faith" on 10/26/11, "Life is not the product of creation. Life is a part of chemistry operating on a planet that has right conditions."  He says that the science is the only wya to determine truth and that he also believes that life exists in the universe elsewhere besides earth.
  2. Oneness in Christ
    1. This guy is the worst at verbal carpet bombing.  He can talk for 1/2 hour straight, accuse you of not being a christian, ask a bunch of questions from verses ripped out of context, and then accuse you of being afraid to respond if you don't answer everything.  Whew!  This guy is wacked.
    2. This guy repeatedly accused me of not being a Christian because I sin (he says Christians don't sin--ever).  I challenged him to call my radio show.  He said that he would and that he'd make me look real bad.  I said to go ahead and asked him what day.  He never told me what day he'd call in.  So, he lied and then ignored his promise.  This is, of course, a sin; and when I confronted him on it, he admitted he had sinned.  Go figure.
    3. Quotes
      1. "We are part of the Trinity." (6/13/10, in the Room, "Are You Ready To Awaken From Adams Dream")
      2. "I do not believe in the Trinity the religious christians believe in." (6/13/10, AYRTAFAD)
      3. "Adam represents us going from the fall, moving through the earthly existence, and then coming out of it as a quickening spirit." (6/13/10, AYRTAFAD)
      4. "The woman is the one who fornicates in the world."(6/13/10, AYRTAFAD)
      5. "Eve was Adam's carnal mind."(6/13/10, AYRTAFAD)
      6. "Adam and Eve were not real people." (6/13/10, AYRTAFAD)
      7. "I do not believe Abraham was a real person."(6/13/10, AYRTAFAD)
      8. "Adam and Eve were not real persons."(6/13/10, AYRTAFAD)
      9. "Abraham was not a real person."(6/13/10, AYRTAFAD)
      10. "Noah was not a real person."(6/13/10, AYRTAFAD)
      11. "Christ to me is a consciousness.  Christ, the hope of glory, is not a dude."(6/13/10, AYRTAFAD)
      12. "We are the word that became flesh."(6/13/10, AYRTAFAD)
      13. "You are the miracle christ . . . You are the signs and wonders."(6/13/10, AYRTAFAD)
      14. "Christ no longer has the human nature." (11/23/11, Debunking Fundamnetal Christianity) 
      15. "I'm even denying that Able was a literal person" (11/23/11, DFC).
    4. Questions Asked
      1. When I asked about hell, he denied that there is eternal torment in hell (11/23/11, DFC).
      2. When asked about the Trinity, he responds by citing John 17:23 and says there are three subjects, perfect in one, all bearing witness. (6/13/10, AYRTAFAD)
      3. When asked, "Do you affirm or deny that Jesus, when he lived on earth, was both divine and human," he wouldn't answer. (11/23/11, DFC).
      4. Was Jesus resurrected in the same physical body he died in?  "There is no verse that says Jesus Christ resurrected in a physical body." (11/23/11, DFC)
      5. So, how are we saved from God's judgment?  What must we do?  "Where does it say I have to do something to be saved?"  (11/23/11, DFC).
      6. Are we justified by faith alone or not?  "We are justisfied by HIS faith--not my faith.  It is his faith that justifies us." (11/23/11, DFC).
      7. So, how many gods are there in all existence?   He says there is only one God (11/23/11, DFC).
      8. Is the Holy Spirit divine, a person, self-aware, etc.?  "John is a spirit, and he must be worshipped in spirit and a person." (11/23/11, DFC).
      9. Is the Holy Spirit alive, a force, a presence; is he/it self-aware, able to love, etc.? "Holy spirit is perfect love.  All power is from holy spirit."(11/23/11, DFC).
  3. rapture ready maranatha
    1. This guy is supposed to be a Christian. He hates Calvinism and regularly speaks evil things about it and Calvinists, refuses correction, and regularly foments division. I was in an atheist room (11/2/11), and there was an atheist who was using Christ's name in a blasphemous manner. I typed in the room that what the atheist was doing was highly insulting. Instead of "rapture ready maranatha" defending Christ's holy name he said (to the best of my recollection), "Don't worry about it, Matt. They like deception--just like the Calvinists." This was a totally stupid thing for him to say. You'd think that a true Christian would be concerned about the blasphemy from atheists over attacking Calvinists.  "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks." (Matt. 12:34).
    2. On 12/28/11 I entered a room titles "Atheists vs Believers." Immediately JesusH8sEvolution called me a liar and deceiver.  I tried to find out what his problem was.  After persistently asking, he said that it's because I'm a Calvinist. I then asked him if he thinks that I know that I'm lying and deceiving people, and he responded that yes I know I am.  So, I asked this "Hate, so let me ask this again. Are you saying that I am purposefully with full knowledge intending to deceive people?"  He said yes, that I am a deceiver.  I then responded with "Hate, so in other words, are you saying that I'm not a Christian because I am purposefully knowingly intending to deceive people. Is that correct?"  He said yes.  I then followed up with "hate . . . Okay so let me get this straight . . . So you are reading my heart and my mind and that you know what my intentions are even though that's not what I say they are, right?"  He said "No Matt, you suck." I then found out that that he is really the person known as "rapture ready." He further stated that he said that my Calvinism was wrong and that I was a liar and a deceiver because a Calvinist.  Okay, once I figured out who he was and what was up, I then posted this in the room several times.  "Hate . . . So, are you willing to meet with me in a discussion room at a future date that we can both agree on to discuss the issue of Calvinism? I'm asking you publicly if you are willing to do that?  After all, if I am a deceiver, then you should be able to expose my deception.  If you're not up to it, I understand.  So, please let me know."  He finally responded with "Matt, I don't need "another room" to EXPOSE your deception."  He continued to avoid me . . . I then pasted, "I believe that hates failure to take me up on my offer is really an admission that he is afraid."  He wouldn't go to another room even though someone in the room offered a neutral room that we could go to and talk.  He refused.    Finally, the room admin set it up right then and there for us to "debate" 3 minutes, back and forth for 15 minutes.  He challenged me on John 3:16 about "world" meaning everyone.  I said that was an assumption and quoted Matt. 15:24 where Jesus said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."  He actually ended up saying that that was stupid!!!  For real!  Well, it ended; and then he saidthat he'd meet me in another room to talk sometime.  I agreed and suggested we set it up . . . but he backed down from actually setting it up.  Go figure.
  4. Sahfed Sai Ten (aka Eesh Geebor)--Not sure what he is.  Somewhat of a mix between JW's, Judaism, and whatever? 
    1. God does not slumber, Jesus slept, so Jesus cannot be God.
      1. This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the doctrine of the hypostatic union where Jesus has two natures.  Furthermore, these two natures (divine and human) belong to the single person of Jesus.  Jesus, therefore, as a man, could sleep and still possess a divine nature in addition to the human one.  This has been explained to eesh geebor many times on paltlak, yet he continues to ignore the answer.
        Eesh geebor needs to incorporate the answer to his objections in the future.  He may not like or accept the answer, but he needs to deal with it since it is our response to his objection.  To ignore it is virtually to admit that he has not refutation for it.
    2. If I ask who died on the cross, the creature or the creator, then what died on the cross, the spirit or the flesh?  So when did the creator die for me.  Only the flesh died  Therefore, God did not die for our sins
      1. The answer to this objection is found in the communicatio Idiomatum.  This is the teaching that the attributes of both the divine and human natures are ascribed to the single person of Jesus.  This means that the man Jesus could claim claim the pre-existent glory He had with the Father before the world was made (John 17:5) and also claim the attribute of omnipresence (Matt. 28:20).  In other words, the attributes of both divinity and humanity were ascribed to the person of Jesus.  Therefore, the quality of the person of Christ was divine since the person of Christ, who died on the cross, possessed both divine and human natures.  Furthermore, the person was of infinite value; and when Jesus died, the value of His sacrifice was divine.
            This is why it says in Acts 20:28, "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."
      2. Eesh gabor, of course, will not accept this answer, but he needs to deal with it and demonstrate from scripture why it is not so that Jesus claims for himself attributes of pre-existence and omnipresence--attributes of divinity ascribed to the single person of Jesus.
    3. God does not vary.   If Jesus is God in flesh, then this means that God changed when he added human nature to himself.
      1. Does a man change if he joins himself to a wife?  Obviously not, even though he is joined to another person, he has not changed in his nature.  By analogy, neither does the divine nature change when it is made in union with the human nature in the single person of Jesus. 
      2. This objection demonstrates that eesh does not understand the Christian doctrine of the hypostatic union.  It states that in the single person of Jesus are two natures:  divine and human.  By default, the divine nature did not change.  If it did, it wouldn't be divine anymore since divinity is of itself purely "divine."  If it changed, it wouldn't be divine since divinity doesn't change.  Also, if it were mingled with humanity, it wouldn't be purely divine anymore.  It would be something else.  But, the Hypostatic Union doctrine holds that the divine nature was unchanged in its union with the human nature in the single person of Jesus.  The divine and human natures were not mingled, either.  Therefore, eesh gabor's objection is invalid since, by definition, the divine nature did not change when it became flesh according to (John 1:1, 14) as understood in the Christian doctrine of the Hypostatic Union.
    4. God said, "I am God and not a man," (Hosea 11:9).  Therefore, Jesus could not be God since Jesus is a man.
      1. God said this well before the incarnation, so it was true.  Jesus, however, is the Word which was God (John 1:1), made flesh (John 1:14).  Therefore, since the Word was God and the word was made flesh, then we can see that Jesus is God in flesh.
    5. None of the following terms are found in the Bible:  "God the son," "God the Holy Spirit," "three coequal persons," "Jesus is God," "triune," and "Trinity."
      1. This is a fallacious argument against the Trinity and deity of Christ because the words don't have to be in the Bible for the concepts to be taught there.  Take for example the word "monothesim" which means "there exists only one God."  This is what the Bible teaches, but the word "monotheism" isn't found in the Bible.  Therefore, the complaint is completely worthless.
    6. You have the created thing becoming the creator.
  5. Saviorsheart
    1. Saviorsheart is an adamant Roman Catholic. Almost every time I appear in a room where he is, he begins his attack on either me or my arguments. On 12/31/11, I went into a room where he was admining and speaking against Protestantism. We got into a conversation about sola scriptura, 2 Thess. 2:15, and what tradition means. I told him that from the Protestant perspective, sola scriptura does not mean that we disregard history, councils, church fathers, etc. It means that the Scriptures are the final authority in all spiritual
      matters--not the church, not tradition, etc. He said that may be what people say, but it is not what they do. He then went to 2 Thess. 2:15 and said that it supports the idea of following tradition. I told him the context was dealing with the second coming of Christ. He said I was "obfuscating" the text. I then got on the mic and began to read the text from verse one of 2 Thess. 2. About the first 10 or so he red dotted me, so I couldn't speak any more. He then said that I was again obfuscating the text. The funny thing is I was just reading. Apparently he did not like what the text said.  I left the room since it was obvious that he didn't like what I had to say and would use his admin powers to silence me whenever he chose to.
  6. SOTB--Jehovah's Witness
    1. "Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus is a person of the triune God?" 
      1. The problem with this question is that it fails to reflect the fact that the Trinity is a systematic doctrine.  That is, it is derived by looking at the whole of scripture--not at a single verse.  Therefore, to ask "Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus is a person of the triune God?" demonstrates a lack of sound logical application in questioning the doctrine.  In other words, he is asking the wrong question.  If the doctrine is systematically derived, then the question should reflect that.  I have pointed this out to SOTB many times, and he continues to ask the same question and ignores the fact that the Trinity is not explicitly revealed in a single verse--but there are strong hints of it in Matt. 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14.  See also Verses showing the plurality of God in the Old and New Testaments.
      2. Better questions would be "Where in the Bible does it establish the doctrine of the Trinity?"  or . . . "What method do you use to derive the doctrine of the Trinity?"  With these kinds of questions, the methodology can be examined since that is vital to how the doctrine is arrived at.
      3. Nevertheless, SOTB continues to ignore the responses given to him, and he continues to ask the same question without adapting to the answers.  Either this means he is unwilling to respond to the answers, or he is unable.
    2. "If Jesus is God and God is a Trinity, then Jesus is the Trinity and that makes no sense."
      1. This reflects a lack of understanding of the Trinity as well as of basic logic.  The Trinity is the doctrine that there is one God in three persons and that there is a distinction between the persons.  Furthermore, each person is not the totality of the Trinity but a part of it.  SOTB's error can be illustrated with the following example of SOTB's logic applied to the concept of time:   Time is past, present, and future.  The "present" is time.  Therefore, since time is past, present, and future, then the "present" must be the past, present, and future.  Doesn't make sense, does it but this is exactly what SOTB is doing.  I have pointed this error out to him, yet he continues to raise the same question.  Why?  Is it because he doesn't like the answer or, as a JW, he cannot accept it?  Whichever reason it really is, he should be able to see his illogic and misrepresentation of the Trinity.
    3. "If God (the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) indwelt Jesus (the man) then God the Trinity, indwelt the man Jesus so then the Father Son and Holy Spirit indwelt the Man Jesus . . . 1+1+1+1=4"
      1. This error is similar to the previous one.  The Trinity doctrine does not teach that Jesus was indwelt by the Trinity.  This displays a fundamental lack of understanding on SOTB's part of what the Trinity is.  The Trinity is one God in three persons:  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Jesus, the Son, is the 2nd person of the Trinity; He is the Word made flesh (John 1:1, 14).  Jesus is not the Trinity.  Therefore, Jesus would not be indwelt by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit since He is the Son. 
      2. Furthermore, Jesus has two natures:  divine and human.  His divine nature is the Word made flesh (John 1:1, 14), and the Word is a member of the Trinity.
      3. I have explained this to SOTB repeatedly, yet he still continues to use the same ill-informed and illogical approach to attack the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
    4. Verbal Carpet Bombing
      1. Verbal Carpet Bombing is the act of dominating the microphone for long periods of time and quoting numerous verses, quotes, and logic assertions with rapidity and at great length.  The problem is that single points cannot be examined and, it seems, that his goal is to win by burying his opponent in an avalanche of "facts." It would be far more constructive to stick to one point at a time.
    5. The Trinity is not found in the Bible
      1. This is the debate, isn't it?  Stating that the Trinity isn't found in the Bible doesn't make it so. 
    6. Jesus has the same nature as God? John 4:24, God's nature is spirit.
      1. This statement is like a bait and switch attempt to distract the listener.  To say that Jesus has the same nature as God is to imply that Jesus is divine since that is God's nature.  But SOTB switches meanings of "nature" by then stating that God is spirit.  It is a meaningless statement on his part.
  7. Surphing--A Christian, a very judgmental Christian
    1. See Surphing and Christalone
  8. The True Catholic
    1. We had a conversation on 12/19/2011 (in the room titled 'Roman Catholicism Debunked') in which he asked me many questions. I tried to patiently answer each one, but it was difficult since he fired so many. He wanted to trap me by asking me if a regenerated person is justified and that if a pedophile (the example he used) were to commit pedophilia and then die in unrepentance, would he still go to heaven. I then told him that we needed to discuss the issue of what regeneration was and that he didn't understand my position--the position that he said he wanted to work with.  He stated that I said that regeneration and justification were the same thing.  I told him that I did not believe that.  I explained the difference (justification is a legal action; regeneration is a change in us) and that they are, basically, simultaneous events.  Furthermore, I told him that someone who is regenerated will war against his sin and that if someone were to be involved in that, it would be a sign that he was not regenerated (1 John 2:4). Once I began talking about regeneration, I quoted him several Scriptures including Ezekiel 11:19; John 3:3; second Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15; Ephesians 2:10; Matthew 7:17; John 14:20; 1 John 2:4 (from my dictionary definition of regeneration).  I repeatedly told him that we needed to discuss this, but he didn't seem to want to.  I told him that if he wanted to tackle my position, then he would need to understand it and that we needed to go over definitions, namely, regeneration.  He didn't seem interested in doing this (though he said that regeneration was being baptized--with which I disagreed).  After awhile, he then began to accuse me and misrepresent my position. He said that I teach that unrepentant pedophiles can go to heaven. I told him that was not my position and that he should not misrepresent me. He then addressed people in the room asking them to verify what he said was my position--with which I disagreed.  No one affirmed that representation of my position was accurate.  He accused some more and then left the room.  I had tried to be polite, but it was difficult after his repeated misrepresentations and accusations.  Hopefully, we can have better conversations later.
  9. Torah Student
    1. Torah Student came into the room "Refomred and Biblica" on 12/25/11.  He quickly addressed me and wanted to ask questions.  Okay, we had a short exchange of works over his statement that we needed to keep the law.  I asked him if keeping the law keeps us saved.  It took five minutes for him to finally say no. Yet, he said that we had to keep the law in order to stay in the love of God.  I called him on his inconsistency, and he insulted me by saying I was "slick" and should have been a lawyer.  When I called him on it, he refused to apologize, as he said, for his condescending remarks against me.  So he admitted he was condescending.  I had brought up Lev. 19:18 where God says to love your neighbor as yourself and that he failed to obey this when he insulted me.  He repeatedly ignored the requirement of the law he was advocating and then tried to change the topic many times.  After pointing this out several times, he finally apologized for being condescending . . . but it took about 15 minutes of my politely addressing him on this to get him to admit he blew it.
  10. Trinity_is_False--Jehovah's Witness
    1. If you are going to say that Jesus is a God man, then you have to say that Adam is a godman because Jesus was a corresponding man.  It would be an injustice to make a godman die for a man.  Jesus was only a man.
      1. First, to say that we would have to call Adam a godman reveals his lack of understanding of who Adam was.  He was a man and was not called God in any way.  Jesus, on the other hand, is clearly called God in John 1:1, 14; 20:28; Heb. 1:8.  The correspondence between them is purely representational; that is, Adam represented mankind, and Jesus represented the Christians.  This is why Jesus is called the last Adam.
      2. Second, to say it is an injustice to make a godman die for a man is only an opinion.  It has no logic nor scripture to back it up.
      3. Third, to say that Jesus was only a man is purely a JW idea.  The Bible calls Jesus God in John 1:1, 14; 10:30-33; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:8.
  11. yellow_sub_marine
    1. He is an atheist who no longer believes in God.  He is a decent person to talk to because he is not rude and condescending, and you can have a polite conversation with him.

 

 

 

 
 
CARM ison
 
 
CARM.org
Copyright 2014

CONTACT US:
CARM Office number: 208-466-1301
Office hours: M-F; 9-5 pm; Mountain Time
Email: [email protected]
Mailing Address: CARM, PO BOX 1353, Nampa ID 83653