NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, see, but you are no help! You aren't telling other religions they are WRONG, or telling people that only you have it right. You're being reasonable, dag nabbit...how the hell will that help anybody?!





:P

I try to be a good example for those poor souls lost in the clutches of institutionalised religion...
See, my plan is to make them think for themselves. Once they do that, they will realise that their church is oppressing them and they will leave. And then we won't have any mor do-good missionaries ringing our doorbell to save us.... Clever, innit?

I try to be a good example for those poor souls lost in the clutches of institutionalised religion...
See, my plan is to make them think for themselves. Once they do that, they will realise that their church is oppressing them and they will leave. And then we won't have any mor do-good missionaries ringing our doorbell to save us.... Clever, innit?
Diabolical! Luring good, faithful, obedient members of the flock into your sinful world of critical thinking!

God told you that?! Why that dirty little...at our Thursday blackjack games, He told me that He will smite anybody who believes it's wrong to hit on a 17!
Why do you think I chose to play Poker with him instead. He's much more fun while playing poker. He calls Black Jack the divine game and is much more strict with that. In fact I hear that he doesn't even cheat with Black Jack. But that of course came from his mouth. Since you play Black Jack with him, how often would you say he cheats?

Why do you think I chose to play Poker with him instead. He's much more fun while playing poker. He calls Black Jack the divine game and is much more strict with that. In fact I hear that he doesn't even cheat with Black Jack. But that of course came from his mouth. Since you play Black Jack with him, how often would you say he cheats?
Why, of course He never, ever, cheats! Why on Earth would you even think such a thing?!

(dude, shhh, He can hear us...you wanna get us all struck with locusts?!)

Why, of course He never, ever, cheats! Why on Earth would you even think such a thing?!

(dude, shhh, He can hear us...you wanna get us all struck with locusts?!)

Oh, he doesn't do that locust bit any more. It was just too messy making all those insects appear and disappear again. He resolved to computer viruses, was the last thing I heard...

..But I will say this. Christianity is one of thefew religions that says people who are not followers of that faith are forever damned. Judiasm states that the only people in any trouble are

A)Jews who don't follow the laws
B)Non-Jews who do not follow basic rules for morality (Not murdering sorta thing)

Note the difference.

..But I will say this. Christianity is one of thefew religions that says people who are not followers of that faith are forever damned. Judiasm states that the only people in any trouble are

A)Jews who don't follow the laws
B)Non-Jews who do not follow basic rules for morality (Not murdering sorta thing)

Note the difference.

You realize that an essential component of the Jewish faith is just that: faith in the one, true God. If you don't have that faith, you've sinned and therefore have already broken one of the Ten Commandments. And, so far as Christianity being one of the few religions that says that there is a punishment for unbelievers - I have no idea where you're getting this from. Almost every Western religion, at least (even the Classic and Nordic religions), believed that if you have no faith in your life, you will suffer for it later. Hence the lower layers of Hades, Hel, and the numerous forms of "Hell" that exist in other religions.

That's a question I have asked for most of my life, I never got a satisfactory answer so far.

I was raised Christian (Catholic, to be precise), but I have been encouraged to think critically all my life, both from my parents and from school (Catholic school run by a convent). I was taught to respect other religions and to respect people without religion, to answer them with my own opinion about god if asked and only if asked, but never to pretend what I believe in would be the absolute truth, never to judge them in any way, never to feel superior to them in any way or to pity them.

I appluade thart you respect other religions.
But to not know the absolute truth...so are you saying you don't know the aboslute truth? Your Church sucked that bad?
Are you sayin no one knows the truth? What did you mean?

I've been reading all those threads about Christianity those past few days and I saw some posts that more than shocked me. There were "Christians" telling agnostigs smuggly that they felt pity for them because they would certainly go to hell, there were "Christians" who angryly had a go at others telling them that they can't recognise the truth because their hearts are closed to it, there were "Christians" all over the place trying aggressively to convince everybody who was not of their opinion that they had to repent their sins, there were even "Christians" judging other Christians for their lifestyle and trying to exclude them because they were gay.
I also realised that a fair number of atheists were abusing Christianity and all other faiths, but then no atheist ever claimed to follow Jesus and love all of mankind. It doesn't make this kind of behaviour any better, it just makes them less hyporict.

Yeah, I'll agree that it is sad about Christians telling people they will go to hell. One of my problems is when Chriostians say unbaptized babies go to hell. Total blasphemy.
Wait, none of the Christians saound like they said they love all mankind either so it isn't hypocracy, just idiocracy.

So, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, church of Lemon Meringue....
I'm not asking if god exists or not. Let's start this considering he/she/it does or they do. But what makes you so sure that your path is the right one, that you feel you are in a position to converse others?

Many reasons.

Prayer, a major one, can get one in touch with the spirit.

I am from the Tribe of the 12 (Ephraim). I'm am no Jew (they are from Judah), but I am part Hebrew. I just like to brag that part.

Revelations Both old and new confirm my Church. Two books will be joined said by one of last prophets old testament. (book of Mormon and Bible are in my church, called a Quad)

My church has the restored Preisthood: Aaronic and Melchezdiak. Find another with both, I doubt you will, but if you do tell me I'm interested if another exist.
Catholic say they have Aaronic, but they lack Melchezdiak.

We baptize the Dead. We have Temples to Baptize the Dead a practice done by Catholics for about 80 years and than they stopped. I'm still wondering if it was just being lazy or thought all dead's souls were clean enough. One must be baptized to reach Heaven so we baptize those who didn't on earth.

A Personal Experience where Eurohia overcame me. I'll not discuss exactly here, but suffice it to say it came after I asked for some comfort.

We have a Prophet like the days of old.
We have revelation still upon this earth!

Our church has members asks of Heavenly Father if this is the true church. A practice done before joining. So we pretty much know he says it is.

I have Melcheldiak Priesthood giving me the authority to speak with thast I know of so far.

If you know your church isn't the most correct one; you should be looking for the one that is.

Also, note that all religions even pagan ones have some eternal truth from Heavenly Father. Mine has the most all to my knowledge, but as I said all have a little.

After taking a class on Religions of the World: I learned Muslims have some great ones, sad that they got kinda bad after Muhammad died.

They started trying to kill off the Caliphs, successers of Muhammad (definately not showing much loyalty), and stuff.

But mostly Muhammad's biggest problem was he had no Prophetiic succession. The Caliphs were just good freinds. Leaders but no divine authority like Muhhammad had.

I appluade thart you respect other religions.
But to not know the absolute truth...so are you saying you don't know the aboslute truth? Your Church sucked that bad?
Are you sayin no one knows the truth? What did you mean?

No, my church didn't suck. I just don't agree with it in every aspect. For example, heaven to my church means eternal life. I would hate that. Heaven in my eyes would be to just die and be dead, be gone, not to live any more.

I'm saying nobody can know a universal truth, because there is no universal truth. Nobody on this planet believes exactly what you believe, not even those who follow the general direction of your own faith.
There are relative truths for each an every one of us, and none of these is more true than the other.


Yeah, I'll agree that it is sad about Christians telling people they will go to hell. One of my problems is when Chriostians say unbaptized babies go to hell. Total blasphemy.
Wait, none of the Christians saound like they said they love all mankind either so it isn't hypocracy, just idiocracy.

They say that god loves all of mankind, they follow god. I naturally assume that they would strive to love all of mankind, too. But they don't. They condemn homosexuals, they assume that everybody who doesn't follow their faith is condemned to hell, etc.




If you know your church isn't the most correct one; you should be looking for the one that is.

Also, note that all religions even pagan ones have some eternal truth from Heavenly Father. Mine has the most all to my knowledge, but as I said all have a little.


I have found my religion, but as I said, it's a religion that's true for me. Some might share it, others don't. I know that I won't find a church that shares it, I would have to found my own. And as my religion values tolerance, I won't do that. Churches tend to exclude non-believers, which is something I'm not going to do.

Why, of course He never, ever, cheats! Why on Earth would you even think such a thing?!

(dude, shhh, He can hear us...you wanna get us all struck with locusts?!)
Bah, what do I care Jesus, Satan and Buddha will back me up if God thinks he can mess with me like that. That's why it's great having other friends in high places.


So when you play Black Jack with god, who else do you play with?

When you're a christian, you want your faith in god to be deep and unquestioning. After all, a lot of christian text tells of how god is really all you need, and that all other things are secondary to god. I think the problem is that as a christian, when you so desire to have intense faith, you fear having to understand other belief systems. In my experience of pentecostal faith, we were told repeatedly that the devil was the source of all non-christian belief. Further to this, because the devil was always after tasty christian souls, we were encouraged to reject anything that wasn't explicitly christian. You become convinced in the power of the devil working through other people's beliefs, and almost pathologically afraid that openning your mind to another person's beliefs would weaken your faith and lead you to the devil.

The church I was involved with worked on fear-based control. Instead of winning followers on the merits of the product (Jesus), it was an orchestrated project in making the congregation fear competitor's products (Daoism, Islam, Judaism). It was sick and very unfortunate. I really respect the teachings of Jesus, and the ethos of finding god and loving each other, but when two or more people come together in god's name, there is always a window to selfishness, fear, and corruption. That is where I think the problem of religious intolerance comes from.

I play poker with God on Fridays and he's told me that that he doesn't care what you believe so long as you live a good life and try not to be an asshole to other people.Bah. Ask ANY Church Lady and you would know God doesn't play Cards (Poker OR Blackjack, them's the Devil's Games...)

He plays BINGO. :D

Bah. Ask ANY Church Lady and you would know God doesn't play Poker (that's the Devil's Game...)

He plays BINGO. :D
That just goes to show how much they know about God.


0

That just goes to show how much they know about God.


0

Oh, god is tolerant of old ladies. During the week, he can be found playing bingo with them and enjoying their home-made cookies ;)

Ok, to all those people preaching evolution in here, I have something to say to.

Carbon-Dating: Not reliable

All their "evidence": Carbon Dating

Therefore, All their "evidence": unreliable

Pretty simple math to me...

Christ died for everyone, if you don't belive that, well, I'm sorry for you. Unless you change your attitude in the future, you are going to hell. That's not judging. It's stating a fact.

Scientists have actally found more proof for intelligent design than for evolutionism. I don't have any of those facts on me, but I hav ea friend who studied up on it, and... there's around a 1 to 10^(I think a few thousand) chance of random development of just the planet, let alone human life. I'll continue this post in a bit, I have to go somewhere, but I have more to say.

Are you really this stupid, or do you just act like it on the Internet? Damn, you read exactly like a teeny Christer.

Lets see if this clears things up or just confuses them more. :p


It is writ in the Principia Discordia that all things are true, even false things. Then there is my own corelary to this: All things are false, even true things.

Meditate on these two truths and you will either be enlightened or get a migrane, and is there realy a difference between the two?

Lets see if this clears things up or just confuses them more. :p


It is writ in the Principia Discordia that all things are true, even false things. Then there is my own corelary to this: All things are false, even true things.

Meditate on these two truths and you will either be enlightened or get a migrane, and is there realy a difference between the two?

I might have to smoke a little something for that all to make sense.

But you could explain it that way :

"All things are true, even false things" could refer to the human mind. It has no way of telling true things from false things, it cannot even be sure about its own existence. It would normally judge everything according to experience, that's to say there is a certain pattern that information is checked against (probability, existing knowledge, current view of the world, source of the thing/the information, etc.) If the information fits the pattern, it's accepted as truth. If it doesn't, it's regarded as false.
Which is why many people won't allow for evolution, as they cannot verify it against their knowledge of biology/geography/chemistry, others won't allow for creationism as it doesn't fit their pattern of knowledge about natural science.
Terry Pratchett came up with an idea why people couldn't see a horse in the living room of one of his characters. Their brain verified the information "horse in living room", found it to be false and therefore didn't allow them to see the horse.
So, by saying all things are true, you are saying that you won't judge any bit of information according to those patterns.

By saying that all things are false, even true ones, you take Descartes backwards and actually should instantly cease to exixt.

So, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, church of Lemon Meringue....
I'm not asking if god exists or not. Let's start this considering he/she/it does or they do. But what makes you so sure that your path is the right one, that you feel you are in a position to converse others?

Well, I don't realy think I have the One True Path. I've found a path that's right for me, and that's great (after twelve years of searching...). If you think my path will work for you, have fun! If not, go and find on that will. I don't honestly think anybody's found the One True Path, and being discordian, I'd probably jump off it at the first opprotunity, anyway.

Lets see if this clears things up or just confuses them more. :p


It is writ in the Principia Discordia that all things are true, even false things. Then there is my own corelary to this: All things are false, even true things.

Meditate on these two truths and you will either be enlightened or get a migrane, and is there realy a difference between the two?
Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia! You did not see the FNORD!"

<snip.Terry Pratchett came up with an idea why people couldn't see a horse in the living room of one of his characters. Their brain verified the information "horse in living room", found it to be false and therefore didn't allow them to see the horse.<snip>
Rather like the SEP (somebody else's problem) Field. Paint a mountain Hot Pink and no one will see that it Pink... or even there... because a Hot Pink Mountain is "Somebody Else's Problem".

Douglas Adams is God... (ok, WAS God... since he IS dead and didn't believe in God, he logically could not become God after his death since he was God before his death.... Right?) :confused: :D

Rather like the SEP (somebody else's problem) Field. Paint a mountain Hot Pink and no one will see that it Pink... or even there... because a Hot Pink Mountain is "Somebody Else's Problem".

Same basic idea, but not 100% applicable to the quote "all things are true, even false things" :p


Douglas Adams is God... (ok, WAS God... since he IS dead and didn't believe in God, he logically could not become God after his death since he was God before his death.... Right?) :confused: :D

Well, if he was a god before he died, he couldn't have died, right? Or else he would have to rise on the third day... or something

Well, if he was a god before he died, he couldn't have died, right? Or else he would have to rise on the third day... or something

Well gods have died. If I recall my Greek Mythology correctly, The Greek God Pan died.

And all the Norse gods are destined to die at Ragnarok.

Well, if he was a god before he died, he couldn't have died, right? Or else he would have to rise on the third day... or something

Unless he is like the great god Om of Terry Pratchetts "Small gods" That is: a god whose power is directly proportional to the number of the people that believe in him - which turned out to not be the same as his number of followers. Those mostly believed in his church and his quisition, not in the god itself ;) And with no true believers a god slowly wastes away...

Though admittedly I wonder what his "church" would have been then... (42 ? No - doesn't fit.)

Unless he is like the great god Om of Terry Pratchetts "Small gods" That is: a god whose power is directly proportional to the number of the people that believe in him - which turned out to not be the same as his number of followers. Those mostly believed in his church and his quisition, not in the god itself ;) And with no true believers a god slowly wastes away...

Though admittedly I wonder what his "church" would have been then... (42 ? No - doesn't fit.)

But Douglas Adams would have a fair number of believers... let's start his church!
Don't panic, believe in improbability, the answer is 42!!!
No to bypasses!

Unless he is like the great god Om of Terry Pratchetts "Small gods" That is: a god whose power is directly proportional to the number of the people that believe in him - which turned out to not be the same as his number of followers. Those mostly believed in his church and his quisition, not in the god itself ;) And with no true believers a god slowly wastes away...

Though admittedly I wonder what his "church" would have been then... (42 ? No - doesn't fit.)

Ahh, but the Gods don't actually "die" in any real sense. They just become less and less powerful until one day they try turning into a turtle, and BAM, become stuck like that :)


See The small Gods in the desert. Willing to offer great feasts and stuff a traveller who believes in them

Ahh, but the Gods don't actually "die" in any real sense. They just become less and less powerful until one day they try turning into a turtle, and BAM, become stuck like that :)


See The small Gods in the desert. Willing to offer great feasts and stuff a traveller who believes in them

So Douglas Adams isn't really dead? That's a relieve... ;)

[QUOTE=Cabra West]
I just happen to think that if god exists, he wouldn't care what name you call him, he would be above that. QUOTE]
I don't believe in God myself but I have no problem with those that do. One of my best friends is mormon. If God didn't care what people called him, because of a higher purpose then why does he want belief? And why is the first commandment believe in no God but me? Well whatever. What happens happens, all we can do is guess.

Ahh, but the Gods don't actually "die" in any real sense. They just become less and less powerful until one day they try turning into a turtle, and BAM, become stuck like that :)


See The small Gods in the desert. Willing to offer great feasts and stuff a traveller who believes in them
He was a turtle with one believer. With no believers they where even less powerfull, just a faint voice in the air. What the small gods gave the hermit weren't real, they where hallucinations, everyso often he had to drink real water and lizards. and desert mushrooms (that's when the desert became really weird) but the gods where real as one of them hit something attacking the hermit with a club. Well sorry for being anal retentive.

[QUOTE=Cabra West]
I just happen to think that if god exists, he wouldn't care what name you call him, he would be above that. QUOTE]
I don't believe in God myself but I have no problem with those that do. One of my best friends is mormon. If God didn't care what people called him, because of a higher purpose then why does he want belief? And why is the first commandment believe in no God but me? Well whatever. What happens happens, all we can do is guess.

Because all those stories we have abot god were written by humans. Humans with intetions of their own.
And one of the intentions of every humand being that ever wrote a religious text was to win and to keep followers for his/her own faith. One way of ensuring that is to claim that all other faiths are wrong...

And all the Norse gods are destined to die at Ragnarok.
All but one, actually.

All but one, actually.

Which one? For all I know nobody but a human couple survive Ragnaroek... Lif and Lifthrasil, if I remember correctly

We have no incontestable proof that what we say is true. The funny thing about faith is that it requires a certain amount of, well, faith.

I wish people would stop making these question religon threads...

We have no incontestable proof that what we say is true. The funny thing about faith is that it requires a certain amount of, well, faith.

I wish people would stop making these question religon threads...
While I agree with the former the sentiment in the second I don’t … questioning belief is natural. I arrived where I am at by questioning my own belief. But by arguing with some viewpoints we more then likely (at least any good debater) find out something more about that position.

Religion and the afterlife are big questions and they deserve to be debated and studied

Because all those stories we have abot god were written by humans. Humans with intetions of their own.
And one of the intentions of every humand being that ever wrote a religious text was to win and to keep followers for his/her own faith. One way of ensuring that is to claim that all other faiths are wrong...


Humans under the inspiration of God. If God himself were to don an avatar and force us to watch Him physically write His will, then who would sin? It takes all the faith away :(

Humans under the inspiration of God. If God himself were to don an avatar and force us to watch Him physically write His will, then who would sin? It takes all the faith away :(

Some, maybe. All, no. They contradict each other to often for that.
I don't ask god to write his will himself, I don't ask for any miracle or manifestation.
But god gave me one thing to tell right from wrong, my brain. And if my brain finds contradictions in the words of other human beings, it will not believe them.

Some, maybe. All, no. They contradict each other to often for that.
I don't ask god to write his will himself, I don't ask for any miracle or manifestation.
But god gave me one thing to tell right from wrong, my brain. And if my brain finds contradictions in the words of other human beings, it will not believe them.


Yeah, that's where faith comes in :)

Ahh, but the Gods don't actually "die" in any real sense. They just become less and less powerful until one day they try turning into a turtle, and BAM, become stuck like that :)

But unfortunately Mort showed us the gods do have hourglasses, hidden in a special room in deaths domain, which implies they will die eventually...

Allright - clap your hands if you believe in Adams !

Yeah, that's where faith comes in :)

Believing obvious contradictions made by humans?

So, if I claim to be god's daughter sent to earth to bring light of wisdom to mankind and you don't believe me that's just a lack of faith and makes you a heretic?

Believing obvious contradictions made by humans?

So, if I claim to be god's daughter sent to earth to bring light of wisdom to mankind and you don't believe me that's just a lack of faith and makes you a heretic?


Nonono, believing in one religion as opposed to another when both state that they are correct.

Believing obvious contradictions made by humans?

So, if I claim to be god's daughter sent to earth to bring light of wisdom to mankind and you don't believe me that's just a lack of faith and makes you a heretic?
The truth of the metaphor "god's daughter sent to earth to bring light of wisdom" can be represented in any other image you wish, with no contradiction.

Nonono, believing in one religion as opposed to another when both state that they are correct.

So, the Old Testament states it's correct, Jews are still waiting for the messiah.
The New testament states it's correct and condems the Jews
The Qu'raan states it's correct and states that neither Jews nor Christians are fully enlightened yet, but they're on their way, the poor fellas.
The Baghvad-Gita states it's correct because it was written by the gods themselves and recognises no other religion.
The book Mormon claims to be a valid extension of the bible.
Now add to that the innumerable sects that claim to know the one true interpretation of any of those books below and then tell me, who is right?

Humans under the inspiration of God. If God himself were to don an avatar and force us to watch Him physically write His will, then who would sin? It takes all the faith away :(
Yeah the OT god had no problem killing off people that did not act as he wanted but for some reason more accuratly recording of the religous text that is suposed to inform us about him is against our free will :rolleyes: please

The truth of the metaphor "god's daughter sent to earth to bring light of wisdom" can be represented in any other image you wish, with no contradiction.

You lost me there. I meant to take it literally

You lost me there. I meant to take it literally
Willamena will do that sometimes :)

Well, I've just ploughed through 36 pages of this and I want to correct a couple misconceptions about Judaism, I can't be bothered going back to see who said what, so I'm lumping them into one post...

Jews do accept converts, but they don't seek them. There are no Jewish missionaries. If you want to follow Judaism you need to find a Rabbi and convince him that you're serious. He will not encourage you, but he will insist that you learn all about the faith and live as though a Jew for at least a year before he'll consider admitting you.

The Old Testament is not the Torah, it is however the Tanakh. The two are the same thing. The Tanakh consists of the Torah (which is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy), the Nevi'im (Prophets) and the Ketuvim (Writings). Whoever said Esther, Isaiah and Psalms were not in the Tanakh was wrong.

Someone said that if you don't believe in the God of the Jews then jews condemn you to Hell. Wrong in every way - and not least because there is no concept of Hell in Judaism. If you don't believe in the Jewish God, and even if you do believe in another, your judgment will be based on how you lived your life. Only Jews are bound by all the rules, it's easier to simply live a good life than it is to convert to Judaism and accept all the additional rules - if you've accepted them and you break them, that's bad. If you never acknowledged them in the first place, that's another thing entirely.

Finally, Christ did not release Christians from the laws of the Old Testament - if he had the Bible would consist of only the New Testament. I paraphrase here but Christ said he came not to destroy the Law, but to fulful it. "Christianity" was originally a sect of Judaism and didn't differ that greatly from it - note that Christ was not the only rabbi preaching reform at the time. Paul developed the philosophy of Christianity into a different religion altogether.

Oh, and in answer to the original question of this thread - I don't.

You lost me there. I meant to take it literally
That's the problem I have: "I cannot be religious because I cannot take it literally."

If it makes no sense taken literally, why do you do it? You don't have to take it literally to be religious.

My faith is true and superseeds all others, cos without me, no-one else would exist

My faith is true and superseeds all others, cos without me, no-one else would exist

/me says hi to the to the solipsist
/me then removes the solipsists head
/me notices he still exists and has therefor proven clints assertion false. However, clint does not know that ;)

You must be a believer before you get the priesthood, yes. But the priesthood is authority from God, not just the right to read His word.

Heb 5:4 "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron."

To see how Aaron was called you have to go to the Old Testament. He was called by the Prophet Moses and the authority was given him by Moses placing his hands on Aaron's head.

Just like Christ ordained his Apostles by hand. And afterward they called replacement apostles by the laying on of hands.

Where does it say Christ laid His hands on the apostles? True, He did ordain them, but I don't recall the laying on of hands to be necessary.

As for the issue of the Levitical High Priest, and Christ as the High Priest in the Sanctuary in Heaven, being called according to the order of Melchizadec (spelling?), comparing that to the priest hood of the believers is somewhat of a stretch, don't you think?

So, a quick summary of the more fundamental Christian statements on this thread so far:

You say your religion is the only truth.
When asked why, you point out that the bible says so.
When asked why the bible would be correct, you say because god says so.
When asked where god says so, you point to the bible again.

I don't ask you to prove right what you believe for yourselves. But the moment you start telling me it's a universal truth, you will have to prove it. And in that chain of thought you've given so far, A proves B because B proves A. That simply doesn't work for universal and exclusive truths.

The problem is, there isn't absolute proof of anything as it pertains to human knowledge. You can say you have come to a conclusion on your best interpretation of the evidence you have witness, but you can never prove something to be unquestionably true on the basis of human knowledge.

I gave a list of the types of evidence that have caused me to believe, though I didn't put all the details as I figured writting my life story here would be a little overkill.

We have no incontestable proof that what we say is true. The funny thing about faith is that it requires a certain amount of, well, faith.

I wish people would stop making these question religon threads...


Why? One should question everything, but most of all on needs to question ones faith or it will not grow and change but stagnate and die.

Well, I've just ploughed through 36 pages of this and I want to correct a couple misconceptions about Judaism, I can't be bothered going back to see who said what, so I'm lumping them into one post...

Jews do accept converts, but they don't seek them. There are no Jewish missionaries. If you want to follow Judaism you need to find a Rabbi and convince him that you're serious. He will not encourage you, but he will insist that you learn all about the faith and live as though a Jew for at least a year before he'll consider admitting you.


I had understood that it was something of a tradition for the Rabi to DIScourage you in order to test your comitment . . .

Why? One should question everything, but most of all on needs to question ones faith or it will not grow and change but stagnate and die.


It isn't questioning ones faith that causes it to grow or die. It is exersizing (putting into practice) or not, one's faith that has this effect. True one should be willing to grow in their faith, but questioning it, although important at times, serves little purpose other than to change or modify or destroy one's faith.

It isn't questioning ones faith that causes it to grow or die. It is exersizing (putting into practice) or not, one's faith that has this effect. True one should be willing to grow in their faith, but questioning it, although important at times, serves little purpose other than to change or modify or destroy one's faith.

It is the way of all things, that which will not change or modify will be destroyed.

It isn't questioning ones faith that causes it to grow or die. It is exersizing (putting into practice) or not, one's faith that has this effect. True one should be willing to grow in their faith, but questioning it, although important at times, serves little purpose other than to change or modify or destroy one's faith.
And if ones faith cant stand up to the rigors of life including you naturally questioning it what good is it.

I questioned my faith … it did not stand up to the task back in the day nor does it now. I cant pretend that it was strong enough and I personally could not refrain from questioning it just to protect what in my mind had to be a falsehood

And if ones faith cant stand up to the rigors of life including you naturally questioning it what good is it.

I questioned my faith … it did not stand up to the task back in the day nor does it now. I cant pretend that it was strong enough and I personally could not refrain from questioning it just to protect what in my mind had to be a falsehood

I understand that perspective, appearing to defend a falicy. However, in my case, I look at it in much the same way a scientist looks at a data set he/she can't explain. You believe the data to be reality, but how to explain it sometimes escapes one's capacity to comprehend or describe it logically. I chose to look at things revealed in scripture that I don't completely comprehend in that manner. That the data is accurate, but that my understanding of it is limited.

I had understood that it was something of a tradition for the Rabi to DIScourage you in order to test your comitment . . .

It is. But even once he's convinced you're serious it's not simply a case of him saying "you're serious? oh, well, then you're in!", you will have to study the Torah, the Talmud, the Midrash, you'll have to learn some biblical Hebrew and you'll have to live your life for at least a year as though you were a Jew, keeping the Law, following the customs and observing the festivals. Then, and only then, will you be examined by a Rabbinical Court to decide if you've learned properly and if you really were serious. And only after all that, you get to stand up in front of the whole synagogue and have your Bar/Bat Mitzvah. It's not easy!

(I imagine there are some groups who make it a little easier than that, before people start relating anecdotes!)

I understand that perspective, appearing to defend a falicy. However, in my case, I look at it in much the same way a scientist looks at a data set he/she can't explain. You believe the data to be reality, but how to explain it sometimes escapes one's capacity to comprehend or describe it logically. I chose to look at things revealed in scripture that I don't completely comprehend in that manner. That the data is accurate, but that my understanding of it is limited.
You don’t know its valid … in a scientific perspective if you have data that you cant interpret it is set aside not used. If it does not stand up to a rigorous review (in my case) it should be discarded (always remembered but never included unless something changes where the old data you may gain some insight off of it even if it is not including the data itself)

If that datum cant withstand review either because of lack of interpretation ability or problem with the data itself it is set aside

(probably some of the reason I don’t understand religious thinking) if you cant use the data correctly potentially or it is possibly flawed you DON’T base your theory (life … future … whatever) off of it until you can interpret it to a reasonable degree

The problem is, there isn't absolute proof of anything as it pertains to human knowledge. You can say you have come to a conclusion on your best interpretation of the evidence you have witness, but you can never prove something to be unquestionably true on the basis of human knowledge.

I gave a list of the types of evidence that have caused me to believe, though I didn't put all the details as I figured writting my life story here would be a little overkill.

See, that was my point from the begining.
You can never prove something to be unquestionably true.

So, while you may be perfectly right in saying your faith is true for you, you believe in it with heart and soul, you can never say that the faith your consider to be true can be true for any other human being.
As it is not an absolute, but rather a subjective truth, the subjective truths of others can and will be quite different.

See, that was my point from the begining.
You can never prove something to be unquestionably true.

So, while you may be perfectly right in saying your faith is true for you, you believe in it with heart and soul, you can never say that the faith your consider to be true can be true for any other human being.
As it is not an absolute, but rather a subjective truth, the subjective truths of others can and will be quite different. Um… a truth is not subjective. Either something's true or it isn't. Jesus can't be God and not God at the same time.

Um… a truth is not subjective. Either something's true or it isn't. Jesus can't be God and not God at the same time.

You believe him to be god, right? So, to you, he is god.
I believe him to be human, so he is humand to me.
Neither of us can prove or diprove the other. The only thing we can do is accept both sides as personal truths, something that's true for some people, but not for all.

Now, that's actually an interesting question:
If god is omnipotent, can he be "not" god? Would it be possible for god to be something else, if he wanted to? Something not all-powerful?

Um… a truth is not subjective. Either something's true or it isn't. Jesus can't be God and not God at the same time.
Except that it took over 400 years for the Byzantine Church to (mostly) settle that argument (after much bloodshed and the eventual exiling of Arius to Albania...) with the Council of Nicea.

But even today there are still Doscetics, Arians (now called Socians) and other Unitarian/non-Trinitarian groups.

The issue is far from settled.

Um… a truth is not subjective. Either something's true or it isn't. Jesus can't be God and not God at the same time.

Sure he can.

For one thing Jesus is a god, not the THE God.


God is a job title Jesus holds on the Council in Heaven. Same for Heavenly Father also holds that job.

Same for the Holy Ghost, all who reach Celestrial Kingdom and Terestrial Kingdom (all the best kingdoms) are that job. Those who are saved helped others learn the truth of all things because they know.

This is why it is Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost because Heaven is kinda democracy.

Sure he can.

For one thing Jesus is a god, not the THE God.


God is a job title Jesus holds on the Council in Heaven. Same for Heavenly Father also holds that job.

Same for the Holy Ghost, all who reach Celestrial Kingdom and Terestrial Kingdom (all the best kingdoms) are that job. Those who are saved helped others learn the truth of all things because they know.

This is why it is Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost because Heaven is kinda democracy.
So Christianity is polytheistic but just with one in power at a time?

So Christianity is polytheistic but just with one in power at a time?

Kinda like a jobshare scheme?

Kinda like a jobshare scheme?
I guess so … though someone better let me know with the god from the OT takes over so I can build a bunker or something lol

Now, that's actually an interesting question:
If god is omnipotent, can he be "not" god? Would it be possible for god to be something else, if he wanted to? Something not all-powerful?
if he couldent he could not be omnipotent

Otherwise he would be not powerfull enough to make himself not all powerfull (stupid logical flaws with omnipotance that makes sentances confused)

if he couldent he could not be omnipotent

Otherwise he would be not powerfull enough to make himself not all powerfull (stupid logical flaws with omnipotance that makes sentances confused)

Could it not be argued that God's omnipotence is relative? Assume He created the universe, his power is absolute within it, he can change anything he likes. But he is not of creation, he's outside it.

Likewise, I could set up a train set, and I would be all powerful to that train set, I could rearrange any part of it I wanted, but I could not stop being me.

Kinda like a jobshare scheme?

Go ask St Patrick, I could never figure that one out. Too much faith and too little logic required.

Could it not be argued that God's omnipotence is relative? Assume He created the universe, his power is absolute within it, he can change anything he likes. But he is not of creation, he's outside it.

Likewise, I could set up a train set, and I would be all powerful to that train set, I could rearrange any part of it I wanted, but I could not stop being me.
No in that case you would be VERY powerfull ... more powerfull then anything in the set yes ... and from the trainsets point of view you would look omni-potent

But you wouldent be ... you would be just VERY powerfull in comparson

No in that case you would be VERY powerfull ... more powerfull then anything in the set yes ... and from the trainsets point of view you would look omni-potent

But you wouldent be ... you would be just VERY powerfull in comparson

Exactly, I'd look omnipotent! And to many humans, God looks omnipotent, but can it definitively be said that He is, he might just as easily be enormously powerful.

Exactly, I'd look omnipotent! And to many humans, God looks omnipotent, but can it definitively be said that He is, he might just as easily be enormously powerful.
Defiantly a strong possibility

That raises the question that by definition would that be a god or just another (powerfull) being

Defiantly a strong possibility

That raises the question that by definition would that be a god or just another (powerfull) being

The next question for me would be, we are obviously in his univers (in that example). What if there's actually a multitude of gods out there, fiddling and meddling and playing with universes?

The next question for me would be, we are obviously in his univers (in that example). What if there's actually a multitude of gods out there, fiddling and meddling and playing with universes?

It's like my train set analogy again. There are millions of train sets, but mine has no impact on anyone else's and nothing from theirs can get to mine or vice versa, so it's a possibility there are multiple Gods with their own universes, but it makes no functional difference to the denizens of this universe.

The next question for me would be, we are obviously in his univers (in that example). What if there's actually a multitude of gods out there, fiddling and meddling and playing with universes?
Though that begs the question can there be more then one omnipotent being

For example could god 1 change things when god 2 did not want him to.

Either god 1 is all powerful and can change things (making god 2 not powerful enough to stop him) or visa versa

Though that begs the question can there be more then one omnipotent being

For example could god 1 change things when god 2 did not want him to.

Either god 1 is all powerful and can change things (making god 2 not powerful enough to stop him) or visa versa

There can be as many or as few as you like - as far as the universe is concerned, they're omnipotent, but to one another they would seem no more omnipotent than I seem to you.

It's like my train set analogy again. There are millions of train sets, but mine has no impact on anyone else's and nothing from theirs can get to mine or vice versa, so it's a possibility there are multiple Gods with their own universes, but it makes no functional difference to the denizens of this universe.
But then each god would not be powerfull enough to effect the other universes

So there WOULD be something that is beyond their power therefore making them not all powerfull just again very powerfull wich begs the question are they truly gods (wheew)

But then each god would not be powerfull enough to effect the other universes

So there WOULD be something that is beyond their power therefore making them not all powerfull just again very powerfull wich begs the question are they truly gods (wheew)

Well, I'm not qualified to answer on the dogma of any faith, but need God be omnipotent in order to be God? I know Judaism only refers to Him as the Creator of the universe, omnipotence is not specified.

Well, I'm not qualified to answer on the dogma of any faith, but need God be omnipotent in order to be God? I know Judaism only refers to Him as the Creator of the universe, omnipotence is not specified.
True but traditionally they consider him the creator of ALL which would mean the originator of all the individual gods would be the true god

Well, I'm not qualified to answer on the dogma of any faith, but need God be omnipotent in order to be God? I know Judaism only refers to Him as the Creator of the universe, omnipotence is not specified.
Also, if you go through the polytheistic faith, the gods were rarely omnipotent. Zeus? Ra? Odin? all had flaws and things they didn't know.

So I think that omnipotence is not a requirement for being a god.

I don't see that that's necessarily true. If one being can come spontaneously to exist, multiple can. That He is the Creator of our universe doesn't affect the others and doesn't affect our perception of Him as omnipotent. The others would be functionally irrelevant to our view and our God, as the other humans are functionally irrelevant to the train sets.

I don't see that that's necessarily true. If one being can come spontaneously to exist, multiple can. That He is the Creator of our universe doesn't affect the others and doesn't affect our perception of Him as omnipotent. The others would be functionally irrelevant to our view and our God, as the other humans are functionally irrelevant to the train sets.
In that case what is the deffinition of god?

In that case what is the deffinition of god?

A highly personal and subjective thing. By the terms of the game we've just been playing: "an inconceivably powerful being who created and rules over our universe".

A highly personal and subjective thing. By the terms of the game we've just been playing: "an inconceivably powerful being who created and rules over our universe".
I guess that is as good as any ... though I can deffinatly see the traditionalits having issues with it lol

Oh, so can I! I may live to regret making that statement.

A highly personal and subjective thing. By the terms of the game we've just been playing: "an inconceivably powerful being who created and rules over our universe".

Well, just to throw a monkey-wrench in the works: If we are created in his image, and our history has shown us how power corrupts (and absolute power corrupts absolutely) then how are we sure that god isn't the devil?

Well, just to throw a monkey-wrench in the works: If we are created in his image, and our history has shown us how power corrupts (and absolute power corrupts absolutely) then how are we sure that god isn't the devil?

Good question. And various people and groups have believed that or variations on that throughout history. I suppose as much as anything it would be your definition of good and evil and whether those terms would apply to this incredibly powerful being outside our universe.

Incidentally, personally, I'd say that the word "image" is sloppy translation (like so much of the Bible) and that a better word might be "semblance" or even "kind", that is endowed with many of his attributes (up to and including the power to do a bit of creating ourselves). We also possess free will and can do as we please with the powers we have. Likewise, God has free will and can do as he pleases, though on a far bigger scale. Again, I can't speak for any dogma, but Judaism doesn't have God as omnibenevolent any more than as omnipotent or even omnipresent. Many of the omni-s ascribed to God are far far later inventions, and wildly open to having rings run round them by quick thinkers.

One more question, going in that direction:

If god is onmibenevolent and good and he created the world, where does evil come from (given that evil exists, that is)? He would have created the world according to himself, and since god cannot be evil, there could be no evil in the world, right?

On the other hand, if he is not omnibenevolent and good, why would he demand of us to live good and moral lifes?

I'd say that's just like in the last Matrix movie, humans can't live in a perfect world... Which would mean that the whole thought of this "paradise" and "eternal life" is pretty pointless. Since paradise would be "perfect", no human could bear living in it. Which would also render the whole thing with Adam and Eve obsolete and definitively fictious.

As for the topic, how can anyone think that his or her religion is the absolute true one? I mean, how can one think that his religion, which was created by the human mind, could understand "god" at all? If this "god"-creature exists, then it would be a being far superior than a human, and humans pretend to know what such a being would mean, want or think? The arrogance of the human mind is sometimes entertaining.

Face it, there is no "true" religion. For all we know all major world regligions could be wrong and the Cheyenne could be the only ones right. I had a funny talk with those Jehova's Witnesses the other day... Amazing how blind people can become when fanatized. "The kingdom of god will come soon, all signs point to it. So it's yours to choose whether eternal life with him or eternal death without him. Everyone who doesn't join him will be destroyed." Entertaining, really. When I compared their image of god to Hitler or Stalin and told them "So everyone who doesn't have the membership ID of god's 'party' will get destroyed? Even those who haven't done anything bad in their entire life? Isn't that... a bit nazi-like?" they shoved off.

Religion, opium for the people.

That's a question I have asked for most of my life, I never got a satisfactory answer so far.

I was raised Christian (Catholic, to be precise), but I have been encouraged to think critically all my life, both from my parents and from school (Catholic school run by a convent). I was taught to respect other religions and to respect people without religion, to answer them with my own opinion about god if asked and only if asked, but never to pretend what I believe in would be the absolute truth, never to judge them in any way, never to feel superior to them in any way or to pity them.

I've been reading all those threads about Christianity those past few days and I saw some posts that more than shocked me. There were "Christians" telling agnostigs smuggly that they felt pity for them because they would certainly go to hell, there were "Christians" who angryly had a go at others telling them that they can't recognise the truth because their hearts are closed to it, there were "Christians" all over the place trying aggressively to convince everybody who was not of their opinion that they had to repent their sins, there were even "Christians" judging other Christians for their lifestyle and trying to exclude them because they were gay.
I also realised that a fair number of atheists were abusing Christianity and all other faiths, but then no atheist ever claimed to follow Jesus and love all of mankind. It doesn't make this kind of behaviour any better, it just makes them less hyporict.


Dont assume that because a person says they are a christian that means they really are. Keep in mind that according to the latest US census, only 10% of the population claims they do not belong to any religion. Yet look around you and see if you think that is true. A study found that 25% of people would abandon religion for 10 million dollars and 25% would abandon their own families for that amount of money as well. Taking into account that such a survey is skewed because its really easy to pretend you would do the moral thing when no one is really offering you 10 million dollars, that still means that even if every single non-religious person would answer yes to that question there are still 15% of people who claim they are religious answering that yes they would do this. Are such people truly christian? If only 10% of the US population is not religious then who is watching all that garbage on TV and at the movies? Why isnt there more wholesome entertainment? Is it really 10% of the population that keeps casinos in business and prostitutes and drug dealers and everything else? Obviously, people quite often lie abou their religious affiliation.

Secondly, keep in mind that there are people on this forum who feel their arguments are so weak that they must create a fake nation for the sole purpose of discrediting their intellectual superiors. Drunk Commies did this with a nation (now deleted) called Jesussaves. You see people doing it all the time on this board.

Finally, keep in mind the age of participants of this forum. A lot of the debate participants on this forum lack maturity that they will gain over time. This maturity is not just of character and intellect but in the case of Christians, spiritual maturity as well.

One more question, going in that direction:

If god is onmibenevolent and good and he created the world, where does evil come from (given that evil exists, that is)? He would have created the world according to himself, and since god cannot be evil, there could be no evil in the world, right?

On the other hand, if he is not omnibenevolent and good, why would he demand of us to live good and moral lifes?
Ultimate originator argument … those does not work in a non omnipresent or omnipotent situation

Let me put it this way. I'm Catholic, so I put my faith in Reason as well as Inspiration. I believe Catholicism is right because the Church says it's right. And history, as well as my own personal beliefs, support that assertion.

More fundamentally, my faith in Jesus as Christ comes in part from logic. The Bible states unequivocally that Jesus claimed to be God Himself. Now, if Jesus didn't claim that, then the Bible must be false. And if it was false, it must have been falsified. It couldn't have been an innocent mistake; nobody mistakes a claim to be God. Therefore it must have been a conspiracy, by the Apostles most likely. But wait a minute - most of these apostles were martyred because they wouldn't renounce the belief that Jesus was God. It's very hard to die for any idea, much less a lie. History tells us that literally hundreds of thousands of people died for this idea, from the very beginning right up to the present. Empirically, there can be no doubt that Jesus actually did claim to be God.

Even given that Jesus claimed to be God, and people died for that claim, that doesn't mean He actually was God. All those people could have been just deluded. But there's a bigger question: if Jesus wasn't really God, He couldn't have been a good man at all. Most religions acknowledge Jesus as a wise and holy man, without acknowledging His divinity. But the very foundation of His message was His claim to Godhood. Concern for the poor? Yes, but He also said "you will always have the poor, but you will not always have me." Love of neigbor and sinner? Yes, but He said "your sins are forgiven. Go and sin no more." Jesus's message was firmly rooted in His own confidence in His Godhood. So only one of three things is possible: either what Jesus claimed is true; or He was lying purposefully; or He was insane. One way to put it: "Lord, liar, or lunatic." Another way: "Father, fraud, or fruit."

Christ cannot have been a liar or a fraud. That would have implied corruption, which He never showed (again, according to the Bible, which has already been empirically shown to be accurate regarding Jesus' message and actions). Furthermore, Christ ended up dying for His claims, any of which He would have admitted to be false in His hour of danger in a fully human attempt to save Himself.

Christ also cannot have been a lunatic; He was clearly able to function normally in a superstitious society which ostracized anyone "punished by God." Furthermore, Jesus's own words and actions showed wisdom and understanding of the human heart, neither of which is attributable to a lunatic.

Therefore, only one option remains: that Jesus spoke Truth when He claimed to be God Almighty come down to Earth.

And that's why I'm Catholic. Because we can write stuff like that. ;)

Amen, Stupendous. I am a convert, but you have said it better than I could have.

Agreed, nicely said...

I was reading through this thread for the first time, thinking what needed to be said, even if none would listen.. But I didn't need to bother. the post needed was already at the end :)

Let me put it this way. I'm Catholic, so I put my faith in Reason as well as Inspiration. I believe Catholicism is right because the Church says it's right. And history, as well as my own personal beliefs, support that assertion.

More fundamentally, my faith in Jesus as Christ comes in part from logic. The Bible states unequivocally that Jesus claimed to be God Himself. Now, if Jesus didn't claim that, then the Bible must be false. And if it was false, it must have been falsified. It couldn't have been an innocent mistake; nobody mistakes a claim to be God. Therefore it must have been a conspiracy, by the Apostles most likely. But wait a minute - most of these apostles were martyred because they wouldn't renounce the belief that Jesus was God. It's very hard to die for any idea, much less a lie. History tells us that literally hundreds of thousands of people died for this idea, from the very beginning right up to the present. Empirically, there can be no doubt that Jesus actually did claim to be God.

Even given that Jesus claimed to be God, and people died for that claim, that doesn't mean He actually was God. All those people could have been just deluded. But there's a bigger question: if Jesus wasn't really God, He couldn't have been a good man at all. Most religions acknowledge Jesus as a wise and holy man, without acknowledging His divinity. But the very foundation of His message was His claim to Godhood. Concern for the poor? Yes, but He also said "you will always have the poor, but you will not always have me." Love of neigbor and sinner? Yes, but He said "your sins are forgiven. Go and sin no more." Jesus's message was firmly rooted in His own confidence in His Godhood. So only one of three things is possible: either what Jesus claimed is true; or He was lying purposefully; or He was insane. One way to put it: "Lord, liar, or lunatic." Another way: "Father, fraud, or fruit."

Christ cannot have been a liar or a fraud. That would have implied corruption, which He never showed (again, according to the Bible, which has already been empirically shown to be accurate regarding Jesus' message and actions). Furthermore, Christ ended up dying for His claims, any of which He would have admitted to be false in His hour of danger in a fully human attempt to save Himself.

Christ also cannot have been a lunatic; He was clearly able to function normally in a superstitious society which ostracized anyone "punished by God." Furthermore, Jesus's own words and actions showed wisdom and understanding of the human heart, neither of which is attributable to a lunatic.

Therefore, only one option remains: that Jesus spoke Truth when He claimed to be God Almighty come down to Earth.

And that's why I'm Catholic. Because we can write stuff like that. ;)


And all that is absolutly worthless without faith which I dont have ... all based on assumptions claiming things like you know all atributes of a lunitic ... like somehow your stertotype of mentaly disturbed individual as a foaming at the mouth madman is compleatly correct

Not to mention the bible as your only real source and pointing to it "ohh look he does not sound like someone lying to me" (like the christian faith would keep refferences of such in its holy book nor the people writing it origionaly recording it)

Again all assumptions based on what you feel and a lot of steriotypes of what you think mental and emotional conditions are like in real life :rolleyes:

And all that is absolutly worthless without faith which I dont have ... all based on assumptions claiming things like you know all atributes of a lunitic ... like somehow your stertotype of mentaly disturbed individual as a foaming at the mouth madman is compleatly correct

Actually, they never used the term "foaming at the mouth" or any such presumptuous language. That is only your feeble attempt to shoot down the argument by using an offensive non-sequitur.

Speaking as a sociopath, I can say that Christ, with His infinite capacity for emotional outreach to other people, defines mental normality.

Not to mention the bible as your only real source and pointing to it "ohh look he does not sound like someone lying to me" (like the christian faith would keep refferences of such in its holy book nor the people writing it origionaly recording it)

Again all assumptions based on what you feel and a lot of steriotypes of what you think mental and emotional conditions are like in real life :rolleyes:

I see no evidence of deceit in the Bible. That is just an assumption nontheists make to justify their belieif. "The Bible has to be full of lies, otherwise my position would be wrong." Real life doesn't work like that.

I see no evidence of deceit in the Bible. That is just an assumption nontheists make to justify their belieif. "The Bible has to be full of lies, otherwise my position would be wrong." Real life doesn't work like that.

You know, that argument could be turned around : "The bible has to be true, otherwise my position would be wrong"

Btw, Jesus never claimed divinity. Actually, the divinity of Jesus was an ardent debate in the early church and not settled until the third council of Constantinople in 680 AD.

And I don't claim that the people who wrote the bible lied, that would be assuming too much. No, they believed what they wrote.
But then, none of the writers of the bible ever met Jesus. They relied on reports of eyewitnesses who themselves were old by that time, the earlies account in the NT was written at least 60 years after Jesus died. And while people will remember great events, they will forget about details.
If you read the four accounts you will see that they sometimes differ greatly from one another.
Again, I don't say anybody is lying or not telling their version of the truth. But that's just what the bible is, somebody else's version of the truth.

am a practicing, atheist extremist, i believe in my way of life, because whilst it can be proved with CONCRETE evidence that things like A. evolution and B. 4 billion years of earth and 15 billion years of universe, no one can yet point to something and say, "y'see that over there is god, that is his magic aura and watch as he creates things." also i believe that when wwe die, after a completely meaningless life, the matter in our brains, giving rise to thought decays, and we as people are nothing more than our biological matter. i believe the bible, i believe that it is a very good story of one guy's idea of how the world came to be, with as much credibility as if i said teh world was just a mental construct

*bump

"I believe Catholicism is right because the Church says it's right."

...fascism...the fascist...


...

Would love to join in, but the debate seems fairly advanced...

"I believe Catholicism is right because the Church says it's right."

...fascism...the fascist...


...

Would love to join in, but the debate seems fairly advanced...


Not really, we just pretend to. Just add you two cents...

Let me put it this way. I'm Catholic, so I put my faith in Reason as well as Inspiration.

No - you trust in Dogma and believe in inferiority of humanity. If you have a good reason to do so, like acknowledging the church or God as the only expert on ethics and being convinced he/its motives are good, that is defendable. However, since God does not wish to disclose his motives or the reasoning behind his commandments you can never be certain.

Nor are you willing to try if us sheep could survive without the shepherd. Not saying that would be a better life, but it would at least be our life (or miserable death trying). Look at it as a child growing up. One wishes to stay with its parents forever, the other one wishes to move out and try to succeed on its own. It might succeed, it might fail. But if it succeeds, daddy would at least have a reason to be proud.

But enough drivel and philosophising. Lets start the logic ;)

I believe Catholicism is right because the Church says it's right. And history, as well as my own personal beliefs, support that assertion.

Could you expand on that and give historic evidence for the rightness of the Catholic church over things like atheism, protestantism, mormonism, Islam and Buddhism for instance ?

More fundamentally, my faith in Jesus as Christ comes in part from logic. The Bible states unequivocally that Jesus claimed to be God Himself. Now, if Jesus didn't claim that, then the Bible must be false.

Correction: then the part of the Bible in which that is stated must be false or falsified. Not necessarily all of it.

And if it was false, it must have been falsified. It couldn't have been an innocent mistake; nobody mistakes a claim to be God.

Psychologists will disagree with you.

Therefore it must have been a conspiracy, by the Apostles most likely. But wait a minute - most of these apostles were martyred because they wouldn't renounce the belief that Jesus was God. It's very hard to die for any idea, much less a lie.

ROFL. Tell that to soldiers that fought in wars for the "wrong side". Tell that to the people that comitted mass suicide to be taken home by the UFO piloted by Jesus. Many humans are stupid and easily manipulated.

History tells us that literally hundreds of thousands of people died for this idea, from the very beginning right up to the present. Empirically, there can be no doubt that Jesus actually did claim to be God.

You have proven no such thing. But lets say for the sake of argument that you did.

Even given that Jesus claimed to be God, and people died for that claim, that doesn't mean He actually was God. All those people could have been just deluded.

Correct.

But there's a bigger question: if Jesus wasn't really God, He couldn't have been a good man at all.

Why not ? I know plenty of good people who are not God, so godhood is not required to be good. If telling a lie is good or bad depends on your moral system; but if your lie results in saving the lives of millions for instance I could find people defending it.

Christ cannot have been a liar or a fraud. That would have implied corruption,

No it wouldn't.

according to the Bible, which has already been empirically shown to be accurate regarding Jesus' message and actions).

Really ? Show me that evidence ;)

Furthermore, Christ ended up dying for His claims, any of which He would have admitted to be false in His hour of danger in a fully human attempt to save Himself.

Why ? He could have just sacrificed himself for a lie if he believed if it would save 1000s. Or be so ashamed of his lies that he'd rather die then to own up and disappoint all his followers.

Christ also cannot have been a lunatic; He was clearly able to function normally in a superstitious society which ostracized anyone "punished by God." Furthermore, Jesus's own words and actions showed wisdom and understanding of the human heart, neither of which is attributable to a lunatic.

Assuming he was insane, his "lunacy" would be thinking he is the son of God or God himself. That does not mean he could not have been completely sane in every other way.

Therefore, only one option remains: that Jesus spoke Truth when He claimed to be God Almighty come down to Earth.

Only when one uses extremely flawed reasoning ;)

And that's why I'm Catholic. Because we can write stuff like that. ;)

For some reason I doubt you are :p

What a crock...

Here's a thesis for you... We have three choices, one, you misread and mis quoted what that guy on purpose to distract the reader from what was really said ... Two, you don't read very well and the english language is your second language and you merely made a mistake, three, you have no idea what you are talking about, you didn't even read what the guy wrote.

You can't take it piece to piece and THEN not reference the other parts of it.

So which was it? 1, 2 or 3? My guess is one, that you did it on purpose. The other two don't seem quite right. You don't type like you're an ESL student but I suppose 3 is possible, but I'd rather assume you were an antagonist for the sake of malevolence rather than just dim-witted.

Talk about taking the guys paper and twisting it into something he neither said nor implied and then acting like you actually refuted it or something. :rolleyes:

Here's a thesis for you... We have three choices, one, you misread and mis quoted what that guy on purpose to distract the reader from what was really said ... Two, you don't read very well and the english language is your second language and you merely made a mistake, three, you have no idea what you are talking about, you didn't even read what the guy wrote.

You can't take it piece to piece and THEN not reference the other parts of it.

So which was it? 1, 2 or 3? My guess is one, that you did it on purpose. The other two don't seem quite right. You don't type like you're an ESL student but I suppose 3 is possible, but I'd rather assume you were an antagonist for the sake of malevolence rather than just dim-witted.

Talk about taking the guys paper and twisting it into something he neither said nor implied and then acting like you actually refuted it or something. :rolleyes:


Well, that guy DID imply that the bible has to be right because Jesus couldn't have been a lunatic, so I think it's correct to point out that you cannot determine Jesus' mental condition from the bible texts.

Btw, personally attacking and insulting somebody is more somehow relevant in an argumentation than trying to logically disprove a statement??

Here's a thesis for you... We have three choices, one, you misread and mis quoted what that guy on purpose to distract the reader from what was really said ... Two, you don't read very well and the english language is your second language and you merely made a mistake, three, you have no idea what you are talking about, you didn't even read what the guy wrote.

Four: the thesis was complete and utter drivel. I suspect on purpose. Though admittedly two *is* possible.

But.. feel free to point out *how* my responses were incorrect. And realise it might just be possible that you yourself are doing what you accuse me of...

EDIT: oh, what the heck.
My claims:
- *If* Jesus was delusional when he said he was the son of God it does not follow logically he was also insane in everything else he did.
- *If* Jesus was lying when he said he was the son of God it does not follow logically he did so out of unnoble motives.
- *If* one part of the Bible is falsified, it does not follow logically that all of it is.
- That Jesus was willing to die for his claims does not prove that his claims were true, nor that he himself actually believed them.
- Getting people to sacrifice themselves for a cause is not as hard as some people suggest.

Feel free to attack those now that i have placed them under eachother in a convenient and quotable way.

Cabra West

That's a question I have asked for most of my life, I never got a satisfactory answer so far.

Perhaps a fair question could be 'what answer would you accept as satisfactory'. One that will prove there is a God, so that you don't have to have faith anymore? Or are you looking for one that just seems reasonable to you? But isn't that going to depend on what you believe right now? (Assuming you believe something, e.g. the existence or the non-existence of God or in the inability to know.) 'Reasonable' is a subjective word, when applied to humans, IMO, since I have never met a completely objective person yet, and certainly not one that is objective about God. So, I will put it to you again. What would you say is the requirements for a satisfactory answer?

Four: the thesis was complete and utter drivel. I suspect on purpose. Though admittedly two *is* possible.

But.. feel free to point out *how* my responses were incorrect. And realise it might just be possible that you yourself are doing what you accuse me of...

EDIT: oh, what the heck.
My claims:
- *If* Jesus was delusional when he said he was the son of God it does not follow logically he was also insane in everything else he did.
- *If* Jesus was lying when he said he was the son of God it does not follow logically he did so out of unnoble motives.
- *If* one part of the Bible is falsified, it does not follow logically that all of it is.
- That Jesus was willing to die for his claims does not prove that his claims were true, nor that he himself actually believed them.
- Getting people to sacrifice themselves for a cause is not as hard as some people suggest.

Feel free to attack those now that i have placed them under eachother in a convenient and quotable way.

I would like to take those and add
-The bible is not objective enough or thorough enough to make a psychological diagnosis
-The bible is not objective nor thorough enough to determine if he was lying or if the words were put into his mouth by the author
(Sure I will think of some more later)

Cabra West

That's a question I have asked for most of my life, I never got a satisfactory answer so far.

Perhaps a fair question could be 'what answer would you accept as satisfactory'. One that will prove there is a God, so that you don't have to have faith anymore? Or are you looking for one that just seems reasonable to you? But isn't that going to depend on what you believe right now? (Assuming you believe something, e.g. the existence or the non-existence of God or in the inability to know.) 'Reasonable' is a subjective word, when applied to humans, IMO, since I have never met a completely objective person yet, and certainly not one that is objective about God. So, I will put it to you again. What would you say is the requirements for a satisfactory answer?

GOOD question.

Well, my own beliefs aside, I think that if you want to claim the ultimate truth, the reality that applies to everybody regardless of their own disposition, THE truth, you would have to be able to prove it.
Otherwise it is just something you believe in, a personal, subjective truth, something that nobody else really has to believe in.

I guess I was curious on the arguments I was going to hear, some of them made more sense than others.
Personally, I believe that god exists, but I doubt that Jesus was divine. I think I already explained that in a bit more detail somewhere in the thread.

The funny thing I observed overall was a lot of annoying arrogance from the side of people who claimed to believe firmly in the bible (not all of them, but a good number) and a few very interesting arguments from agnostics.

GOOD question.

Well, my own beliefs aside, I think that if you want to claim the ultimate truth, the reality that applies to everybody regardless of their own disposition, THE truth, you would have to be able to prove it.
Otherwise it is just something you believe in, a personal, subjective truth, something that nobody else really has to believe in.

I guess I was curious on the arguments I was going to hear, some of them made more sense than others.
Personally, I believe that god exists, but I doubt that Jesus was divine. I think I already explained that in a bit more detail somewhere in the thread.

The funny thing I observed overall was a lot of annoying arrogance from the side of people who claimed to believe firmly in the bible (not all of them, but a good number) and a few very interesting arguments from agnostics.

YAY go us :) (agnostics)

Well, this post seems to be the most involved refutation, so I'll go over it as best I can. A little disclaimer first, though: read the thread title. It doesn't say, "prove that your religion is right and everyone else is going to Hell." (now THAT would be a fun thread! For the hour or so before it was modbombed...) The thread only asks for your beliefs, and what (if anything) they're based on. Under this topic (which is well-balanced if a little confrontational), I only have to prove that my reasoning is reasonable. TO MYSELF. Again, the thread title isn't "on what basis do you believe Stupendous Badassness' religion is the only and the absolute truth." If you don't like my reasoning, fine. But the entire thread is self-justification. And you're not going to change anyone's religion on this thread. Okay, so not so small of a disclaimer. Sorry.

No - you trust in Dogma and believe in inferiority of humanity. If you have a good reason to do so, like acknowledging the church or God as the only expert on ethics and being convinced he/its motives are good, that is defendable. However, since God does not wish to disclose his motives or the reasoning behind his commandments you can never be certain.

Nor are you willing to try if us sheep could survive without the shepherd. Not saying that would be a better life, but it would at least be our life (or miserable death trying). Look at it as a child growing up. One wishes to stay with its parents forever, the other one wishes to move out and try to succeed on its own. It might succeed, it might fail. But if it succeeds, daddy would at least have a reason to be proud. Catholic theology places humanity at the head of God's creation; Catholics, by and large, enjoy their steak. However, the Church also holds that man was created to be in communion with God, not separated from Him. There's a fundamental man-God interface that's supposed to be open and active. Turning from God is not like moving out of the house. It's like turning off the oxygen when you're 200 feet underwater. That's what the Church believes, and that's what I believe. BTW, if your only attack against the Church is that it isn't "God-independent" enough, or that it's somehow "anti-human," you need better arguments. The Church strives towards the highest state of humanity, not the most animalistic. Fundamentally, human thought, emotion, and spirituality should all be directed towards God - and that's it.

Could you expand on that and give historic evidence for the rightness of the Catholic church over things like atheism, protestantism, mormonism, Islam and Buddhism for instance ? As I said before, I don't need to. But I'll give you my particular reasons. The Catholic Church was there at the very beginning, and traces its authority to St. Peter, who was given authority over the Earth by Christ Himself; no protestant (or orthodox) church can claim that. And Jesus was the only man, the only founder of a religion, ever to claim to be God. Therefore, if (as I believe) what He said was true, Christianity has more legitimacy than any other religion. BTW, Buddhism isn't a religion, it's a philosophy. It's only religious inasmuch as it is atheist, and common sense dictates that the belief in an absence of deity constitutes a non-religion.

Correction: then the part of the Bible in which that is stated must be false or falsified. Not necessarily all of it. Good one Sherlock, did you have to break out the pipe and funny hat or was it too elementary?



Psychologists will disagree with you. And I will disagree with them. They aren't responsible for my faith.


ROFL. Tell that to soldiers that fought in wars for the "wrong side". Tell that to the people that comitted mass suicide to be taken home by the UFO piloted by Jesus. Many humans are stupid and easily manipulated. Apples and oranges. Soldiers are commanded. Cultists are brainwashed. Jesus was killed, cruelly and without dignity; any hold He may have had on His disciples' minds was shattered in the Crucifiction. Why would thousands have gone on to die for Him if something else hadn't changed their minds? Because something did: the Resurrection. Without the Resurrection, there is no proof of Godhood. With the Resurrection, there's no way to deny it without also denying the martyrs who died for their beliefs - not only from the comfortable distance of centuries, but almost immediately; people who knew Jesus personally and had no other logical reason to do what they did.

Why not? I know plenty of good people who are not God, so godhood is not required to be good. If telling a lie is good or bad depends on your moral system; but if your lie results in saving the lives of millions for instance I could find people defending it. I've already explained why: everything Jesus said and did was an extension of His claim to Godhood. You cannot separate the social teaching from the blasphemy because that's where His teaching's authority came from. As I said before, He can only be Christ, criminal, or crazy. (Which you haven't refuted.)

Why ? He could have just sacrificed himself for a lie if he believed if it would save 1000s. Or be so ashamed of his lies that he'd rather die then to own up and disappoint all his followers. How would Jesus's "lie" save thousands? It would make a lot more sense, if He was lying and blaspheming, to admit it so His followers wouldn't also be killed for blaspheming. Which they were, in droves. And another thing: Jesus was a man like anyone else. You tell me that if you were threatened with death you'd rather die with dignity than get a second chance at life. Then try it and let me know.

Assuming he was insane, his "lunacy" would be thinking he is the son of God or God himself. That does not mean he could not have been completely sane in every other way. But He didn't just say he was. He acted on it too. He invoked the authority to forgive sins, to break Jewish rules, and to act as a living conscience. You're minimizing His claims, and the argument falls because of it.

For some reason I doubt you are [Catholic]:p My Confirmation name is Maximilian. Go Google "ex cathedra" for me and see what religion it belongs to.

I realize that the Bible isn't completely literal. That's why I'm a Catholic and not a fundamentalist. But only one thing in the Bible needs to be true: the Resurrection. If the Resurrection happened, then Christ was God. And the verdict of history is that it did happen. No other event could have convinced so many to devote their lives and deaths to Christ. And, once again, that's the basis on which I believe that my religion is the only and the absolute truth.

YAY go us :) (agnostics)

Don't think you'll win me over that fast, buddy ;)

No, seriously, I don't think I'll ever doubt that god exists. I couldn't explain why, though. But I have my doubts about the amount of objective truth collected in the bible... almost impossible to determine what is true, what is exaggerated, what is a misunderstanding, what is a plain lie. But they're all in there. No book gets collected over thousands of years without those elements.

That said, I found in the last cpouple of days as I was going through a large number of religious discussion here that many of those Christians made me turn more and more to agnosticism...

I've already explained why: everything Jesus said and did was an extension of His claim to Godhood. You cannot separate the social teaching from the blasphemy because that's where His teaching's authority came from. As I said before, He can only be Christ, criminal, or crazy. (Which you haven't refuted.)



One question there : If Jesus' claim on divinity was so obvious and clear, why did it take the Holy Roman Catholic Church 680 years and numerous councils to agree on it and declare it a church dogma?

Don't think you'll win me over that fast, buddy ;)

No, seriously, I don't think I'll ever doubt that god exists. I couldn't explain why, though. But I have my doubts about the amount of objective truth collected in the bible... almost impossible to determine what is true, what is exaggerated, what is a misunderstanding, what is a plain lie. But they're all in there. No book gets collected over thousands of years without those elements.

That said, I found in the last cpouple of days as I was going through a large number of religious discussion here that many of those Christians made me turn more and more to agnosticism...
Oh you can still be agnostic and think god exists

Agnosticism is the theory that there is impossible to prove one way or the other … just because a lot of us are also soft atheists does not mean that all are by any means

Edit: this was not a contest just happy to see that we are keeping it reasonable and that you can at least understand our position clearly

Even given that Jesus claimed to be God, and people died for that claim, that doesn't mean He actually was God. All those people could have been just deluded. But there's a bigger question: if Jesus wasn't really God, He couldn't have been a good man at all. Most religions acknowledge Jesus as a wise and holy man, without acknowledging His divinity. But the very foundation of His message was His claim to Godhood. Concern for the poor? Yes, but He also said "you will always have the poor, but you will not always have me." Love of neigbor and sinner? Yes, but He said "your sins are forgiven. Go and sin no more." Jesus's message was firmly rooted in His own confidence in His Godhood. So only one of three things is possible: either what Jesus claimed is true; or He was lying purposefully; or He was insane. One way to put it: "Lord, liar, or lunatic." Another way: "Father, fraud, or fruit."
Or he was speaking metaphorically.

Good one Sherlock, did you have to break out the pipe and funny hat or was it too elementary?

Eeeehm... no, I said it because it invalidates your argument...
And in the remainder of my post I argued that the "Christ, criminal, or crazy" choice is not so simple as you seem to imply... and that humans tend to continue believing something once they have comitted to it, even if contrary evidence presents itself.

Since it is dinnertime I must answer your other points later :(

A metaphor is not a lie.

Bill runs as fast as a deer. --similie
Look at that Bill run. He's a regular deer. --metaphor

Furthermore,

Bill ran as fast as a deer. --story
Bill runs. Bill is a deer. --myth

Myth contains metaphor. It is not a lie! It is not a falsehood. It points to truth. It uses symbolism, metaphor of both word and imagry. Its purpose is to spur your thoughts to make a leap to truth.

A metaphor is not a lie.

Bill runs as fast as a deer. --similie
Look at that Bill run. He's a regular deer. --metaphor
So combined with the previous argument

Look at bill run, he is a regular son of god

Eeeehm... no, I said it because it invalidates your argument...
And in the remainder of my post I argued that the "Christ, criminal, or crazy" choice is not so simple as you seem to imply... and that humans tend to continue believing something once they have comitted to it, even if contrary evidence presents itself.

Since it is dinnertime I must answer your other points later :(

Yeah sorry about that, it was my little bit of smartassness. Your point doesn't invalidate my argument, because when I said "the Bible must be false" I meant the part where Jesus claims to be God. I wasn't saying the whole Bible was false, it just seemed obvious to me that that's what I meant. But I guess not.

One question there : If Jesus' claim on divinity was so obvious and clear, why did it take the Holy Roman Catholic Church 680 years and numerous councils to agree on it and declare it a church dogma?

Because of my personal experience, this doesn't bother me. A lot of times we (well, to be safe, I'll just say "I") figure out things before we declare them as official. This can be because:

1) I haven't gotten around to it.
2) It's been a given and hasn't come up as an issue yet.

Nicea had to respond to the Arianist Heresy that Jesus was not God (or something along those lines). Therefore, it had to be clearly defined and made official.

Only recently was dogma passed about Mary's immaculate conception and assumption into heaven, but that does not mean that Catholics just started believing it (in the age where relics were a hot item, you wouldn't find many or any people claiming to have Mary's fingerbones).

Well, this post seems to be the most involved refutation, so I'll go over it as best I can. A little disclaimer first, though: read the thread title. It doesn't say, "prove that your religion is right and everyone else is going to Hell." (now THAT would be a fun thread! For the hour or so before it was modbombed...) The thread only asks for your beliefs, and what (if anything) they're based on. Under this topic (which is well-balanced if a little confrontational), I only have to prove that my reasoning is reasonable. TO MYSELF. Again, the thread title isn't "on what basis do you believe Stupendous Badassness' religion is the only and the absolute truth." If you don't like my reasoning, fine. But the entire thread is self-justification. And you're not going to change anyone's religion on this thread. Okay, so not so small of a disclaimer. Sorry.

Seeing as this is my first post on this topic, I'll answer the thread title.

I'd been an on-off atheist/agnostic for some while, but as of recently I'm a full-blown atheist. Apologies if, in my reasoning I draw on and repeat things said much earlier in the thread, as I've only read the past few pages (I don't have the time these days to read 45 pages of religious ranting).

For clarity, when I speak of God, I speak of the widely held belief of God (that is, an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and benevolent being.)


1. The Paradox of the Stone
The Paradox of the Stone poses the question, 'Could an omnipotent being create a stone that he could not lift?' Either answer results in a situation in which the omnipotent being is unable to perfom one action (either the creation of the stone or the lifting of that stone).

Thus, omnipotence is an invalid concept.


2. Free Will
Free will, according to Christianity, is one thing that God may not interfere. Despite the obvious omnipotence issues this throws up, it also conflicts with omniscience.

If God were 'all-knowing', he would already know the events that would take place in the future, ruling out any possibility of them changing or not occurring.

Thus, omniscience eliminates any free will God's subjects have.

Furthermore, God himself is lacking free will. If God is benevolent, he must always take the course of action that will produce the most good. Being omniscient, he knows which course of action will produce the most good and must take it. Thus, God himself is lacking free will.


I'll leave it at that for now, actually, otherwise you'll just get bored and skip over the rest of whatever I write (provided you haven't already).

I don't believe in absolute truths, I find them dangerous. Realious zealots are the people I fear the most in this world, regardless of what they worship. I used to be Christian but found the people there almost scary. Threats of hell and asking me to beg for salvation. Promises how my gay friend will burn in hell for eternity. Telling me the evils of people who perform abortions and how they will forever suffer.

In my mind for a religion that was supposed to be filled with love (these people) didn't seem to embody it.

So I became a non-practicing buddhist. I liked the idea of karma, it seemed to make more sense to me. I think the actual act of a good deed to counter a bad act makes more sense the simply praying and being forgiven. But I suppose thats another thread.

Seeing as this is my first post on this topic, I'll answer the thread title.

I'd been an on-off atheist/agnostic for some while, but as of recently I'm a full-blown atheist. Apologies if, in my reasoning I draw on and repeat things said much earlier in the thread, as I've only read the past few pages (I don't have the time these days to read 45 pages of religious ranting).

For clarity, when I speak of God, I speak of the widely held belief of God (that is, an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and benevolent being.)


1. The Paradox of the Stone
The Paradox of the Stone poses the question, 'Could an omnipotent being create a stone that he could not lift?' Either answer results in a situation in which the omnipotent being is unable to perfom one action (either the creation of the stone or the lifting of that stone).

Thus, omnipotence is an invalid concept.


2. Free Will
Free will, according to Christianity, is one thing that God may not interfere. Despite the obvious omnipotence issues this throws up, it also conflicts with omniscience.

If God were 'all-knowing', he would already know the events that would take place in the future, ruling out any possibility of them changing or not occurring.

Thus, omniscience eliminates any free will God's subjects have.

Furthermore, God himself is lacking free will. If God is benevolent, he must always take the course of action that will produce the most good. Being omniscient, he knows which course of action will produce the most good and must take it. Thus, God himself is lacking free will.


I'll leave it at that for now, actually, otherwise you'll just get bored and skip over the rest of whatever I write (provided you haven't already).


Hmmm I have never seen the reduction of gods free will being omni-benevolent

Interesting idea

Either he is forced to take the best route … so no free will or he has the ability to be non-omni benevolent

Religion is opium for the masses...true, but what does it mean:

Religion is like crutches for weaklings unable to walk the path of life straight and strong. Weak people are afraid to see Life in its wild beauty and convince themselves that their "way" is the "only way". The more people think like them, the more they feel reassured. That's the opium calming the anxiety of most people in today's under-developped countries and in the USA.
Religion is a convenient management tool for politics.

Afterall what does religion imply: a common moral code and perspective on Life. In other words, a mental jail for the public of lambs.

Know that the only thing you can be sure of, is that you cannot be sure of anything.

I don't believe in absolute truths, I find them dangerous.

Although this irony could use a little more spice, it is delicious just as it is....

Seeing as this is my first post on this topic, I'll answer the thread title.

For clarity, when I speak of God, I speak of the widely held belief of God (that is, an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and benevolent being.)


1. The Paradox of the Stone
The Paradox of the Stone poses the question, 'Could an omnipotent being create a stone that he could not lift?' Either answer results in a situation in which the omnipotent being is unable to perfom one action (either the creation of the stone or the lifting of that stone).

Thus, omnipotence is an invalid concept.


2. Free Will
Free will, according to Christianity, is one thing that God may not interfere. Despite the obvious omnipotence issues this throws up, it also conflicts with omniscience.

If God were 'all-knowing', he would already know the events that would take place in the future, ruling out any possibility of them changing or not occurring.

Thus, omniscience eliminates any free will God's subjects have.

Furthermore, God himself is lacking free will. If God is benevolent, he must always take the course of action that will produce the most good. Being omniscient, he knows which course of action will produce the most good and must take it. Thus, God himself is lacking free will.

In regards to the stone paradox: the answer comes in the definition of omnipotence itself. If God is omnipotent, that means He contains within Himself all power. From a physics standpoint, the reason a rock is too heavy for a person to lift is because the rock's "power to resist" is stronger than the person's lifting force. There's no possible way that a rock could have more power to resist than God could have power to lift, because God's power includes the rock's power to resist. The reason God can't make such a rock is not because He's not omnipotent, but because He is.

Your second objection is actually a few bundled together. First, God is not obligated to honor free will, or to be benevolent. Christianity holds that He does, and is; but the only thing keeping God to this is Himself. God's contract, so to speak, with humanity involves Him honoring free will and being benevolent; but we've already broken that contract, so He's under no obligation at all to keep His end. Secondly, just because God is omniscient doesn't mean that He actively predestines anything. My knowledge that you're going to do something doesn't mean you don't have that choice of whether to do it or not. How is God's omniscience any different? (It isn't.)

1. The Paradox of the Stone
The Paradox of the Stone poses the question, 'Could an omnipotent being create a stone that he could not lift?' Either answer results in a situation in which the omnipotent being is unable to perfom one action (either the creation of the stone or the lifting of that stone).

Thus, omnipotence is an invalid concept.
I'll say... the idea that omnipotence should include the impossible is silly.

Religion is opium for the masses...true, but what does it mean:

Religion is like crutches for weaklings unable to walk the path of life straight and strong. Weak people are afraid to see Life in its wild beauty and convince themselves that their "way" is the "only way". The more people think like them, the more they feel reassured. That's the opium calming the anxiety of most people in today's under-developped countries and in the USA.
Religion is a convenient management tool for politics.

Afterall what does religion imply: a common moral code and perspective on Life. In other words, a mental jail for the public of lambs.

Know that the only thing you can be sure of, is that you cannot be sure of anything

I'll say... the idea that omnipotence should include the impossible is silly.
Then its not really omni-potent … just very-potent

Religion is opium for the masses...true, but what does it mean:

Religion is like crutches for weaklings unable to walk the path of life straight and strong. Weak people are afraid to see Life in its wild beauty and convince themselves that their "way" is the "only way". The more people think like them, the more they feel reassured. That's the opium calming the anxiety of most people in today's under-developped countries and in the USA.
Religion is a convenient management tool for politics.

Afterall what does religion imply: a common moral code and perspective on Life. In other words, a mental jail for the public of lambs.

Know that the only thing you can be sure of, is that you cannot be sure of anything.
Okay, that's one set of religions. What about the rest?

Know that the only thing you can be sure of, is that you cannot be sure of anything

Is it national irony day?

How can you state with such certainty, that the ONLY thing certain is that there is no certainty?

In regards to the stone paradox: the answer comes in the definition of omnipotence itself. If God is omnipotent, that means He contains within Himself all power. From a physics standpoint, the reason a rock is too heavy for a person to lift is because the rock's "power to resist" is stronger than the person's lifting force. There's no possible way that a rock could have more power to resist than God could have power to lift, because God's power includes the rock's power to resist. The reason God can't make such a rock is not because He's not omnipotent, but because He is.

So (cutting through the run around) god can not make such rock? Whatever the reason he is not powerful enough to over come it

Your second objection is actually a few bundled together. First, God is not obligated to honor free will, or to be benevolent. Christianity holds that He does, and is; but the only thing keeping God to this is Himself. God's contract, so to speak, with humanity involves Him honoring free will and being benevolent; but we've already broken that contract, so He's under no obligation at all to keep His end.
No, we have not broken THAT contract, the contract to honour free will. We exercised free will for the first time to exit the Garden of Eden. How could exercising free will be a breech of a contract to honour free will? Or are you referring to some other incident, one in which we somehow denied God an opportunity to honour our free will?

Ridiculous!

Secondly, just because God is omniscient doesn't mean that He actively predestines anything. My knowledge that you're going to do something doesn't mean you don't have that choice of whether to do it or not. How is God's omniscience any different? (It isn't.)
If it is known what you will do, how is it you cannot do that thing?

Religion is like crutches for weaklings unable to walk the path of life straight and strong. Weak people are afraid to see Life in its wild beauty and convince themselves that their "way" is the "only way". The more people think like them, the more they feel reassured. That's the opium calming the anxiety of most people in today's under-developped countries and in the USA.

I think I can go with a lot of that.

Today, just under 75% percent of British citizens stated that they held a religious belief in the census and 40% percent of the same population claim to have had a religious experience, the vast majority of these being of the religion that they already subscribe to.

A scientist named Persinger believed that people who have experienced “complex partial epileptic-like experiences” might experience, what he called a "proximal presence" if a weak magnetic field was applied either to their right hemisphere, or to both hemispheres of the brain.

By 2002, he had performed the experiment on over 1,000 volunteers. 80% had some sort of supernatural experience.

Of the experiences reported, the following were experienced:
• Visions of Jesus Christ, Elijah, the Virgin Mary, Mohammed, or a Sky Spirit, depending on their cultural background
• Out of body experiences
• Floating
• Great meaningfulness

Many say that their experiences were "so profound they would be life-changing had they not understood the mechanistic underpinnings of what they had experienced." About one in every 15 subjects reports an intensely meaningful experience." Subjectivity is often displayed towards events that can be perceived to be “acts of God”, further promoting an image that a higher being that us exists, but it is merely our interpretation of mental images confused with sight as being a vision of our own personal deity.

I may have already said this...

But for the sake of jumping in and annoying everyone.

I believe my religion is the only and absolute truth simply because I said it is.
Really now, I say mine is the only real one, and I refuse to listen to listen to anyone elses oppnions on the subject unless they agree with me. Who can argue with that?
No one, because I'm not listening to them!

Of course, if you're going to complain about this, at least see that I actually admit to it, lol.

No, we have not broken THAT contract, the contract to honour free will. We exercised free will for the first time to exit the Garden of Eden. How could exercising free will be a breech of a contract to honour free will? Or are you referring to some other incident, one in which we somehow denied God an opportunity to honour our free will?

Ridiculous!


If it is known what you will do, how is it you cannot do that thing?

As I understand it, the contract wasn't just for us to exercise free will; it was to exercise free will to give praise and thanks to God who gave us that free will. Eden broke that contract. Whether or not you think it was a fair or a free contract, that's how I see it.

Secondly, I knew someone was going to respond to my last post. There was no doubt in my mind. Why? Because I knew the thread was active, and I knew that my remarks were against the grain. It wasn't conjecture; it was knowledge. But it was still your choice to respond.

Secondly, just because God is omniscient doesn't mean that He actively predestines anything. My knowledge that you're going to do something doesn't mean you don't have that choice of whether to do it or not. How is God's omniscience any different? (It isn't.)

How is it different?

I think, to answer this, I'll just remind you of the fact that you're not omniscient.

You may have a prediction of what I intend to do, but you do not have anything other than a prediction. God, on the other hand, is apparently omniscient meaning he DOES know what I will do. If he knows correctly what I will do, how can I do anything other than that without destroying his omniscient capability?

Then its not really omni-potent … just very-potent
Potency and potential have the same root word. Potential only looks at the possible, although combined with dreams it may manipulate what is possible make other things become possible --I see no reason why potency, even god's, should be otherwise.

A logical fallacy cannot become possible, no matter how much we manipulate matter (or matters).

Secondly, I knew someone was going to respond to my last post. There was no doubt in my mind. Why? Because I knew the thread was active, and I knew that my remarks were against the grain. It wasn't conjecture; it was knowledge. But it was still your choice to respond.

What if the server had crashed? Or if I or my counter-parts had suffered heart-attacks and been unable to post?

If you know what I'm going to post next, please post your prediction and we can see.

As I understand it, the contract wasn't just for us to exercise free will; it was to exercise free will to give praise and thanks to God who gave us that free will. Eden broke that contract. Whether or not you think it was a fair or a free contract, that's how I see it.

Secondly, I knew someone was going to respond to my last post. There was no doubt in my mind. Why? Because I knew the thread was active, and I knew that my remarks were against the grain. It wasn't conjecture; it was knowledge. But it was still your choice to respond.

Sorry, friend - but you are inventing your own scripture.

The Eden story is about the exercise of freewill, but (despite it's MANY failings) it does not fail to describe what the 'contract' was... Adam was forbidden from one source of knowledge. There is no condition of worship...

Also, of course, there can be no 'free will' if your ONLY choice is to give praise... your will is already subjugated by default, in that eventuality.

In response to your second point... you didn't KNOW that someone would respond to your post, but you were able to make a very well qualified estimate. Either God KNOWS what you will do (in which case, you CANNOT change it... or he doesn't really 'know)... or God is just a very good guesser. Which is it?

As I understand it, the contract wasn't just for us to exercise free will; it was to exercise free will to give praise and thanks to God who gave us that free will. Eden broke that contract. Whether or not you think it was a fair or a free contract, that's how I see it.

Secondly, I knew someone was going to respond to my last post. There was no doubt in my mind. Why? Because I knew the thread was active, and I knew that my remarks were against the grain. It wasn't conjecture; it was knowledge. But it was still your choice to respond.
So he gave us free will only to grovel before him. Somehow that’s demeaning

What if the server had crashed? Or if I or my counter-parts had suffered heart-attacks and been unable to post?

If you know what I'm going to post next, please post your prediction and we can see.

You're going to post the opposite of what I say you're going to post. Chew on that one for a while. Really though, I don't understand how you see any difference. God knows what you're going to do. But that doesn't mean that you don't have to do it, or that you're not choosing to do it. God is not making you do it. He just knows that you will. There's the fundamental disconnect: God isn't forcing anyone to do anything, He just knows what they're going to do. That includes someone changing their mind. And the argument that God's omniscience is compromised if you do "something else" is circular. God's omniscience is perfect because He knows what you're going to do. It's as simple as that.

We can argue about omniscience's implications for ages and we probably will if I don't move on to my next point.

Omniscience, just like omnipotence is an invalid concept.

(This is really difficult to explain, but I'll give it my best shot.)

Omniscience is an impossible concept, because without verification from intelligence other than himself or by basing his knowledge on models he created, such as science, God cannot know if he is correct in the assumption that it knows everything. Regardless of intelligence, information must be verified, but as the uttermost authority, he could not verify his knowledge. Our basis for testing theories is science, but what if you are the creator of science? Using one’s own construct to prove one’s own theories is clearly an invalid verification of knowledge. Still this argument alone does not prove that omniscience is impossible, as God may be correct and merely without the validation to prove it.

However, if God were to ask himself whether he knew everything or not it would be impossible for him to know the answer. Any conclusions reached would merely be subjective. God has no method in which to verify information and thus has no way of finding out whether it is omniscient or not.

Thus, God would not know if he were omniscient or not. God therefore does not know everything and is not omniscient. Omniscience is therefore an invalid concept.



You dig?

We can argue about omniscience's implications for ages and we probably will if I don't move on to my next point.

Omniscience, just like omnipotence is an invalid concept.

(This is really difficult to explain, but I'll give it my best shot.)

Omniscience is an impossible concept, because without verification from intelligence other than himself or by basing his knowledge on models he created, such as science, God cannot know if he is correct in the assumption that it knows everything. Regardless of intelligence, information must be verified, but as the uttermost authority, he could not verify his knowledge. Our basis for testing theories is science, but what if you are the creator of science? Using one’s own construct to prove one’s own theories is clearly an invalid verification of knowledge. Still this argument alone does not prove that omniscience is impossible, as God may be correct and merely without the validation to prove it.

However, if God were to ask himself whether he knew everything or not it would be impossible for him to know the answer. Any conclusions reached would merely be subjective. God has no method in which to verify information and thus has no way of finding out whether it is omniscient or not.

Thus, God would not know if he were omniscient or not. God therefore does not know everything and is not omniscient. Omniscience is therefore an invalid concept.



You dig?

From a human point of view. Which is all we have. Which is why this debate, like all debates, is ultimately answerless. And which is why my work here is done.

You're going to post the opposite of what I say you're going to post. Chew on that one for a while. Really though, I don't understand how you see any difference. God knows what you're going to do. But that doesn't mean that you don't have to do it, or that you're not choosing to do it. God is not making you do it. He just knows that you will. There's the fundamental disconnect: God isn't forcing anyone to do anything, He just knows what they're going to do. That includes someone changing their mind. And the argument that God's omniscience is compromised if you do "something else" is circular. God's omniscience is perfect because He knows what you're going to do. It's as simple as that.

The argument isn't about whether omniscience is compromised... you miss the point.

The fact is that, if omniscience IS perfect, there is no free will... because all actions are already preordained.

From a human point of view. Which is all we have. Which is why this debate, like all debates, is ultimately answerless. And which is why my work here is done.

In what way?!

I'm arguing the invalidity of a concept based on logic, not my own subjective opinion.

And, yes, the debate on God is often said to be answerless, but it serves as a point of reference from which others can look at both sides of the argument and make an educated choice on.

Answerless, yes. Useless, no.

From a human point of view. Which is all we have. Which is why this debate, like all debates, is ultimately answerless. And which is why my work here is done.

And yet, 'omnipotent' and 'omniscient' are concepts which only exist within the 'human point of view'.... which, if it has no value, implies that there is no 'real' meaning to either attribute of 'god'... which, of course, means that there is nothing 'special' about 'god'.

If you find all debate 'answerless'... I might suggest that the concept of 'debate' is not where the flaw lies...

Well, I beleive there is only one God, and I beleive that Jesus was his son

the bible is like a history book, true stories


yet I wont Critisize other Religions, escpecially not monotheistic Religions since we share the same god

Well, I beleive there is only one God, and I beleive that Jesus was his son

the bible is like a history book, true stories


yet I wont Critisize other Religions, escpecially not monotheistic Religions since we share the same god
So if I believed in One god that only liked to eat christians for dinner sence it was monotheistic we would share the same god?

Well, I beleive there is only one God, and I beleive that Jesus was his son

the bible is like a history book, true stories


yet I wont Critisize other Religions, escpecially not monotheistic Religions since we share the same god

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve." (1 Timothy 2:11-13)


So you believe whole-heartedly in these true stories, these stories that tell you women must not teach or hold any authority over men?

Most Christians who say they fundamentally believe the Bible have never read it. No wonder they agree so eagerly.

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve." (1 Timothy 2:11-13)


So you believe whole-heartedly in these true stories, these stories that tell you women must not teach or hold any authority over men?

Most Christians who say they fundamentally believe the Bible have never read it. No wonder they agree so eagerly.
I find that too ... I hope any of these people that try to implement "gods rule" like that get slaped back to the stoneage by the women they try to discriminate against

I find that too ... I hope any of these people that try to implement "gods rule" like that get slaped back to the stoneage by the women they try to discriminate against

Thank God (no pun intended - really, I just typed it and then realised the lovely relevance) for the apathy of people towards religion these days.

If fundamental religious attitudes were widespread, I can only imagine what kind of bigoted and sectionalist world we would live in.

As I understand it, the contract wasn't just for us to exercise free will; it was to exercise free will to give praise and thanks to God who gave us that free will. Eden broke that contract. Whether or not you think it was a fair or a free contract, that's how I see it.

Secondly, I knew someone was going to respond to my last post. There was no doubt in my mind. Why? Because I knew the thread was active, and I knew that my remarks were against the grain. It wasn't conjecture; it was knowledge. But it was still your choice to respond.
It wasn't knowledge, it was prediction.

You don’t know its valid … in a scientific perspective if you have data that you cant interpret it is set aside not used. If it does not stand up to a rigorous review (in my case) it should be discarded (always remembered but never included unless something changes where the old data you may gain some insight off of it even if it is not including the data itself)

If that datum cant withstand review either because of lack of interpretation ability or problem with the data itself it is set aside

(probably some of the reason I don’t understand religious thinking) if you cant use the data correctly potentially or it is possibly flawed you DON’T base your theory (life … future … whatever) off of it until you can interpret it to a reasonable degree

But, for me at least, there is enough of the data that makes perfect logical sense, that I'm not going to cast out the data set on the basis of a few outliers I can't fully explain and simply needs further research.

But, for me at least, there is enough of the data that makes perfect logical sense, that I'm not going to cast out the data set on the basis of a few outliers I can't fully explain and simply needs further research.
But there are more then a few “outliers” in this case … you have to consider the theory as is flawed until you find out where that flaw is

See, that was my point from the begining.
You can never prove something to be unquestionably true.

So, while you may be perfectly right in saying your faith is true for you, you believe in it with heart and soul, you can never say that the faith your consider to be true can be true for any other human being.
As it is not an absolute, but rather a subjective truth, the subjective truths of others can and will be quite different.

While I can't claim to have absolutely perfect knowledge, that doesn't mean that absolute truth doesn't exist or that what I believe isn't absolute truth, just that I can't prove it because I am a fallible human being. I can believe something is absolute truth without being able to prove it. A belief is a chosen cognative construct for the most part rather than something forced upon an individual and given that we are all fallible, I can't refute someone's belief that a given item is absolute truth, I can only offer an alternative belief and rationale for why I believe it to be true.

Ultimately, the only way to define absolute truth, is for an omniscient being to provide that definition for us.

Is it national irony day?

How can you state with such certainty, that the ONLY thing certain is that there is no certainty?

Because it's certain. Have we made your brain implode yet?

Potency and potential have the same root word. Potential only looks at the possible, although combined with dreams it may manipulate what is possible make other things become possible --I see no reason why potency, even god's, should be otherwise.

A logical fallacy cannot become possible, no matter how much we manipulate matter (or matters).

In other words something can not be created from nothing. So how did God create the heavens and the earth again?

In other words something can not be created from nothing. So how did God create the heavens and the earth again?

Magic.[/Standard tired cop-out made by people who don't have an actual answer and are just saying this in a desperate attempt to continue to validate their own beliefs instead of having to change them ever so slightly]

But there are more then a few “outliers” in this case … you have to consider the theory as is flawed until you find out where that flaw is


I've satisfied those issues for myself and for me there really are only a few outliers. Those who disagree, prefer a logic other than mine and are certainly entitled to that. As for where the flaw is, it is more likely to be my understanding that the truth of scripture. Which is why I continue to study the parts I don't understand and will probably do so throughout eternity as there will always be more to learn about an infinite God.

I find that too ... I hope any of these people that try to implement "gods rule" like that get slaped back to the stoneage by the women they try to discriminate against

Where did it say God's rule? It doesn't say that at all. In fact, I think you are making stuff up.

It says, NIV:
1st Timothy 2 8-15
8 I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.

9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Where does this say it is more than a letter from Paul to Timothy? Thankfully, when paul wrote, he wrote down when it was his opinion and when it was revealed to him.
Thankfully, he also warned us a little farther into the same letter... 1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.
1 Timothy 4 1-2

The Catholics do adhere to it though, the Evangelicals figure it was meant for Timothy directly because of the problems that church he was going to was having certain problems and it wasn't meant to be universal... HOWEVER, to try and dis it entirely and pretend like Christians don't know about it is naive and simpleton. But either way, Paul did say, “I want,” unlike other directions where he says, “This is not from me.”

Because it's certain. Have we made your brain implode yet?
But you said there's no certainty.

In other words something can not be created from nothing. So how did God create the heavens and the earth again?
Metaphorically.

But you said there's no certainty.
Thats for sure :p

But you said there's no certainty.

I'm Discordian, it is my perogitive to contradict things, even myself. :p :p :p

...In fact, I think you are making stuff up...

Making stuff up? You're the one arguing in favour of God... ;)

But seriously, evenif God were to exist, I'd hedge my bets by not worshipping Him.

Earlier, we touched on the theme of corruption of God and the concept that the God worshipped by theists may be the Devil (or some other demon).

I'm going with our good friend Dante's work, or my interpretation of it here, so this isn't exactly solid fact (but does that really matter considering the topic of debate?), although Dante does seem to be held as the authority on the matter.

Consider the option of refusing to worship the deity that may or may not be God (just referred to as 'God' hereon, in order to prevent confusion.)

This, according to Dante, would result in any 'virtuous non-believers' to be sent to the first level of Hell: Limbo. This is reported to be not a place of pain and misery, but merely of disappointment and sadness at the failure of ascension to Heaven. Limbo, as Dante describes it, is also home to many of the great non-Christian poets and philosophers of the past, such as Homer and Socrates.

Not too bad, really.

Now if you were to believe in a demon in the guise of God, Dante wrote that you could expect to end up in the seventh level of Hell: The City of Dis. Apparently, there's quite a bit more of the ol' torture and the like.

I'm fine without the whole being "stripped of flesh" (Canto IX: 24) thing.

I like my flesh, so I'll decide not to believe in God. (Not that he exists, anyway)

Cabra West

Well, my own beliefs aside, I think that if you want to claim the ultimate truth, the reality that applies to everybody regardless of their own disposition, THE truth, you would have to be able to prove it.
Otherwise it is just something you believe in, a personal, subjective truth, something that nobody else really has to believe in.

Well, a problem I can see with that statement is that the "truth" that the Christians declare is truth requires faith to prove it. (I'm not commenting on the "truths" of others here.) However, you seem to be wanting proof before you believe. If you had the proof first, you would no longer need the faith. There were situations in the Bible where people witnessed miracles and responded by killing the miracle worker. They had the proof, and that is what they did with it. Would you or I do any better? (For the purpose of this point, it doesn't matter whether the Bible story was true or not, but just pointing out human nature.)

Perhaps the "proof" is something that must be personally experienced. Especially when God makes it clear that without faith it is impossible to please Him. Therefore, in order for you to have the opportunity to "please" Him, He will be likely to ensure that you will always have an opportunity to exercise the faith option in you, if He really loved you.

I guess I was curious on the arguments I was going to hear, some of them made more sense than others.
Personally, I believe that god exists, but I doubt that Jesus was divine. I think I already explained that in a bit more detail somewhere in the thread.

This thread has become so long, I hope you don't mind me not reading it from the beginning. Though I have browsed through some of them, and also found many of them quite interesting. For reference, I also believe in God. I also believe in the divinity of Jesus. Not because I found it written in a book, nor because someone told me. Even after I understood most of the claims of Christianity, having read the book through several times for myself from cover to cover, it required me to "jump in the deep" and experience Him, to "meet" him for myself. Since beginning the "experience" almost ten years ago, I have realized that the "jump" is the prerequisite for experiencing Him, and that the Bible was saying this (although perhaps not directly) all along.


The funny thing I observed overall was a lot of annoying arrogance from the side of people who claimed to believe firmly in the bible (not all of them, but a good number) and a few very interesting arguments from agnostics

Yeah, kinda "funny" isn't it. Far be it from me to defend the arrogance of any Christian. It has to be one of the ugliest things where a follower of Christ preaches Christ in an unChristlike manner. I also have to say, though, the the number of polite agnostics and atheists are also quite few, and the rude ones outnumber the total number of Christians. Perhaps we are simply looking at the worse side of human nature. However, I think that we could expect the Christians to be more Christlike than their opponents (theoretically).
I think it possible for people to believe in Christianity, but be insecure in their beliefs, that they react negatively when challenged. I also think that there are many within the ranks of "Christianity" who have misunderstood the heart of Christianity. Perhaps we also need to redefine what a Christian (a Christ follower) is. I would be interested in knowing what you think a Christian is. For me, there are two definitions. The first one is that which is commonly accepted nowadays. And that means one who holds to the general ideas of Christianity, believes in God, perhaps even believing that every word of the Bible is true, etc. But the Bible has it's own definition of a Christian. Actually, there are quite a lot of references, and it is an issue that is very much debated in Christian circles.....who has the right to call themself a Christian. But I believe a reading of the Gospel of John (the message of the whole book, not just excerpts) makes it quite clear. The second definition is a Christian is one who understands that he or she has a personal relationship with Jesus, who hears and recognises His voice, and alters their life in a manner that is consistent with the relationship. (although that is not to say that there will be some deviation, since no Christian is perfect) That is quite different from having a set of beliefs where most or some of them line up with what the priest or the preacher says.

Therefore, it is highly likely that many of the "christians" that you have met or heard from have yet to "meet" Jesus, for one reason or another. That would explain why they would be so unlike Jesus. They are christians according to the first definition, but not the second.

One last question. If you find an argument that seems more attractive to you, e.g. agnoticism or christianity, how could you be sure that the attraction that you feel for it doesn't come from your bias rather than your ability to detect reasonable-ness?

Making stuff up? You're the one arguing in favour of God... ;) <snip>
Damn. I wanted post 666.

At 668 I guess I'll just have to settle for being the neighbor of the beast. :p

Well, a problem I can see with that statement is that the "truth" that the Christians declare is truth requires faith to prove it. (I'm not commenting on the "truths" of others here.) However, you seem to be wanting proof before you believe. If you had the proof first, you would no longer need the faith. There were situations in the Bible where people witnessed miracles and responded by killing the miracle worker. They had the proof, and that is what they did with it. Would you or I do any better? (For the purpose of this point, it doesn't matter whether the Bible story was true or not, but just pointing out human nature.)

Perhaps the "proof" is something that must be personally experienced. Especially when God makes it clear that without faith it is impossible to please Him. Therefore, in order for you to have the opportunity to "please" Him, He will be likely to ensure that you will always have an opportunity to exercise the faith option in you, if He really loved you.

My point exactly. A personal experience is one thing, but coming up to others and telling them that their personal experiences are wrong and yours are the truth and correct... sorry, that's not only arrogant, that's wrong.
I'm not saying that anybody is absolutely right, nor am I saying anybody is absolutley wrong. I will share my beliefs when asked, but I know them to be mine; they might work for others as well, but then again, maybe not. If they don't work for others, it is in no way their "fault" for not seeing my "truth", it's just that everybody is different and thus has to believe in different things/gods/philosophies/religions.



Yeah, kinda "funny" isn't it. Far be it from me to defend the arrogance of any Christian. It has to be one of the ugliest things where a follower of Christ preaches Christ in an unChristlike manner. I also have to say, though, the the number of polite agnostics and atheists are also quite few, and the rude ones outnumber the total number of Christians. Perhaps we are simply looking at the worse side of human nature. However, I think that we could expect the Christians to be more Christlike than their opponents (theoretically).
I think it possible for people to believe in Christianity, but be insecure in their beliefs, that they react negatively when challenged. I also think that there are many within the ranks of "Christianity" who have misunderstood the heart of Christianity. Perhaps we also need to redefine what a Christian (a Christ follower) is. I would be interested in knowing what you think a Christian is. For me, there are two definitions. The first one is that which is commonly accepted nowadays. And that means one who holds to the general ideas of Christianity, believes in God, perhaps even believing that every word of the Bible is true, etc. But the Bible has it's own definition of a Christian. Actually, there are quite a lot of references, and it is an issue that is very much debated in Christian circles.....who has the right to call themself a Christian. But I believe a reading of the Gospel of John (the message of the whole book, not just excerpts) makes it quite clear. The second definition is a Christian is one who understands that he or she has a personal relationship with Jesus, who hears and recognises His voice, and alters their life in a manner that is consistent with the relationship. (although that is not to say that there will be some deviation, since no Christian is perfect) That is quite different from having a set of beliefs where most or some of them line up with what the priest or the preacher says.

Therefore, it is highly likely that many of the "christians" that you have met or heard from have yet to "meet" Jesus, for one reason or another. That would explain why they would be so unlike Jesus. They are christians according to the first definition, but not the second.

I would definitely belong to the second category, then. I believe in the image of god that Jesus spoke about, and I believe to be Jesus a very special human being. I don't believe in his absolute divinity, though. In my eyes, he was no more or less divine than you or me, he just knew about it more than we do, he maybe felt it more intensly.


One last question. If you find an argument that seems more attractive to you, e.g. agnoticism or christianity, how could you be sure that the attraction that you feel for it doesn't come from your bias rather than your ability to detect reasonable-ness?

I doubt it, as I am more likely to be biased pro-Christianity. But many of these Christians here have made statements that I cannot agree with. If I have to believe that Jesus is god and that he died for our sins, if I have to believe that everybody who is not Christian will burn in hell, if I have to believe all this to call myself Christian, then I am none.
However, if being Christian means following the teachings of Jesus, trying to love others and seeking help from god, appreciating this planet and caring for its inhabitants, then I would call myself Christian.

2. Free Will
Free will, according to Christianity, is one thing that God may not interfere. Despite the obvious omnipotence issues this throws up, it also conflicts with omniscience.
If God were 'all-knowing', he would already know the events that would take place in the future, ruling out any possibility of them changing or not occurring.
Thus, omniscience eliminates any free will God's subjects have.


It does not. I think we all agree that our understanding of the world is severely limited. We have theories about the universe, time, space etc; but we do not understand it as such. We always look at everything through our eyes try to understand things from our point of view.

But a true godlike being must transcend these cognitive limitations. God stands outside of time and matter whereas we a imprisoned in them.

To return to your free will/omniscience point, here's an analogy:
Picture a handknotted (not woven) carpet. Each of us is one of the threads, all of us making the pattern by the choice of our actions. However, we see only the back of the carpet, the knots and individual strands of thread and, because we are trapped in time, only that which has been done before.
God, standing outside of time, sees the finished carpet and, more importantly, he sees the pattern on the front that is invisible to us.

:)

To return to your free will/omniscience point, here's an analogy:
Picture a handknotted (not woven) carpet. Each of us is one of the threads, all of us making the pattern by the choice of our actions. However, we see only the back of the carpet, the knots and individual strands of thread and, because we are trapped in time, only that which has been done before.
God, standing outside of time, sees the finished carpet and, more importantly, he sees the pattern on the front that is invisible to us.

:)

That implies that there is a pattern that we must invariably follow.
If we had free will, some threads can run wild and ruin the pattern in the future. The pattern that god sees can only be there if our entire lifes are predeteremined by the person who made the pattern.

I'm an atheist, a lot of people say that I can't be sure that there isn't a god, well, is there a monster under your bed? The chance that there is one isn't enough to justify looking under the bed.

That implies that there is a pattern that we must invariably follow.
If we had free will, some threads can run wild and ruin the pattern in the future. The pattern that god sees can only be there if our entire lifes are predeteremined by the person who made the pattern.

No, you misunderstand me. With pattern I don't mean a kind of figurative design, like geometrical carpet patterns, but just the actual (random) pattern produced by the individual threads. We make that pattern, threads can not run wild and ruin it, because whatever we do will contribute to the final "design" of the carpet, which is seen by god (being outside time) and not by us. What can happen is that threads (to stay in the analogy) make a lot of knots (i.e. are deemed important) without having much impact on the design of the front, and vice versa.

What god makes of the design (pattern perhaps implies that it conforms to some aesthetic human conception) I would not speculate upon, because if there's a god I would be very disappointed if it had a limited human viepoint of things.

I'm an atheist, a lot of people say that I can't be sure that there isn't a god, well, is there a monster under your bed? The chance that there is one isn't enough to justify looking under the bed. Yes it is. I always used to be paranoid about getting my feet bitten off by something under the bed, and I still occasionally check under it. But that's me.

No, you misunderstand me. With pattern I don't mean a kind of figurative design, like geometrical carpet patterns, but just the actual (random) pattern produced by the individual threads. We make that pattern, threads can not run wild and ruin it, because whatever we do will contribute to the final "design" of the carpet, which is seen by god (being outside time) and not by us. What can happen is that threads (to stay in the analogy) make a lot of knots (i.e. are deemed important) without having much impact on the design of the front, and vice versa.

What god makes of the design (pattern perhaps implies that it conforms to some aesthetic human conception) I would not speculate upon, because if there's a god I would be very disappointed if it had a limited human viepoint of things.


I wasn't talking about any structured pattern, either. The world would be way to complex for that.
But the fact remains that god sees the pattern BEFORE each thread decides what to do. So, he already knows what they are going to decide, so they cannot decide any other way. Hence, no free will or selfdetermination.

But the fact remains that god sees the pattern BEFORE each thread decides what to do. So, he already knows what they are going to decide, so they cannot decide any other way. Hence, no free will or selfdetermination.

No, he does not see it BEFORE the decision, as for god there is no time, thus no before or after. You have to detach yourself from the thought that human time (sequential) applies to god.

No, he does not see it BEFORE the decision, as for god there is no time, thus no before or after. You have to detach yourself from the thought that human time (sequential) applies to god.

But if he sees our lives out of time, as a whole, accomplised and finished, there's no decision we can make at any one stage that hasn't been there for eternity, so we HAVE to take that desicion. No free will, even though we feel like we just decided on our own

Excuse me for interruption half way through this discussion, but are you guys trying to describe God's trancesdence in human terms? I think that's a contradiction in terms...

But if he sees our lives out of time, as a whole, accomplised and finished, there's no decision we can make at any one stage that hasn't been there for eternity, so we HAVE to take that desicion. No free will, even though we feel like we just decided on our own

I don't think I can bring you round to my point of view, i.e. that the one has nothing to do with the other. You still think of god within a time frame. Only within a time frame do "eternity, before, after, etc." have any meaning at all. Therefore, if I take a decision now (will I go to the thai takeaway or to the beer garden for lunch), the now has only meaning for me, because I am bound in time and things happen one after the other to me. For god the now is irrelevant - he knows what I decided, decide, will decide.

Time for lunch now and god knows where I'm about to eat - not that he cares ;)

No, he does not see it BEFORE the decision, as for god there is no time, thus no before or after. You have to detach yourself from the thought that human time (sequential) applies to god.
And what basis are you using for deciding god does not see things sequential? (not saying its not a possibility but curious as to your long chain of reasoning to end up with a non sequential view applying to a god you KNOW almost nothing about)

And what basis are you using for deciding god does not see things sequential? (not saying its not a possibility but curious as to your long chain of reasoning to end up with a non sequential view applying to a god you KNOW almost nothing about)

I think we may end up with the old argument that it can't be explained and that we would need faith to understand it...

well getting back on subject, i do not believe my faith is the only and absolute truth but i do believe it is the only and absolute truth for me !!!!! by faith, i believe that christ died for my sins and rose again so that i might have eternal life (well he actually did it for every1 but i like 2 think of it in personal terms!)

well getting back on subject, i do not believe my faith is the only and absolute truth but i do believe it is the only and absolute truth for me !!!!! by faith, i believe that christ died for my sins and rose again so that i might have eternal life (well he actually did it for every1 but i like 2 think of it in personal terms!)

*hands Zeladonii a cookie...

Thanks. That is exactly how I feel.

*hands Zeladonii a cookie...

Thanks. That is exactly how I feel.

??????

ty 4 the cookie but erm huh?!

??????

ty 4 the cookie but erm huh?!

Thanks for that "the absolute truth for me, but not necessarily everybody else". That is what I was trying to say here all the time... so I'm glad I'm not the only person feeling like that.

I think we may end up with the old argument that it can't be explained and that we would need faith to understand it...
Yeah I had that feeling … but was hoping for more lol

Thanks for that "the absolute truth for me, but not necessarily everybody else". That is what I was trying to say here all the time... so I'm glad I'm not the only person feeling like that.

im wiv u now (its hot and sunny here and my brain is melting!!)!!!

And what basis are you using for deciding god does not see things sequential? (not saying its not a possibility but curious as to your long chain of reasoning to end up with a non sequential view applying to a god you KNOW almost nothing about)
I do not know almost nothing about god, I know absolutely nothing about god! How could I, god has not revealed itself to me (yet ;) )

But god must be a supernatural entity, otherwise what would be the point? And I would expect such an entity not to be bound by natural laws, i.e. be above them.

I think our main problem is that we simply cannot fathom the essence of god, because we have no real frames of reference for this. Instead we create something in our image. And depending on the creators, this god is a jealous being, smiting the non-believers, or a benevolent old man with a white beard who protects us from evil (and non-believers).

I do not know almost nothing about god, I know absolutely nothing about god! How could I, god has not revealed itself to me (yet ;) )

But god must be a supernatural entity, otherwise what would be the point? And I would expect such an entity not to be bound by natural laws, i.e. be above them.

I think our main problem is that we simply cannot fathom the essence of god, because we have no real frames of reference for this. Instead we create something in our image. And depending on the creators, this god is a jealous being, smiting the non-believers, or a benevolent old man with a white beard who protects us from evil (and non-believers).
That I can defiantly agree with … that’s why I would if I had faith … be a general deist. I have major doubts if any of the religions have gotten it right yet and not sure it is possible for them to do so

So all their claims of “ours is the one true god” seem kind of silly from my perspective

But god must be a supernatural entity, otherwise what would be the point? And I would expect such an entity not to be bound by natural laws, i.e. be above them.
I wonder if this is the reason most literalists ignore the symbolism of the god-image in favour of a god-being that resides in and affects reality? Or is it just because "someone told them what to believe"?

No, you misunderstand me. With pattern I don't mean a kind of figurative design, like geometrical carpet patterns, but just the actual (random) pattern produced by the individual threads. We make that pattern, threads can not run wild and ruin it, because whatever we do will contribute to the final "design" of the carpet, which is seen by god (being outside time) and not by us. What can happen is that threads (to stay in the analogy) make a lot of knots (i.e. are deemed important) without having much impact on the design of the front, and vice versa.

What god makes of the design (pattern perhaps implies that it conforms to some aesthetic human conception) I would not speculate upon, because if there's a god I would be very disappointed if it had a limited human viepoint of things.
A random pattern is one that is unpredictable to the viewer, and hence cannot be "seen", even by God as a viewer. If it is "seen" by him, then it is not random, and hence someone (a mind, or deterministic force) made it.

If God's viewpoint is not limited like humans, then there is no seeing of patterns at all. Patterns happen because of time (repetition) and temporal circumstance.

I think we may end up with the old argument that it can't be explained and that we would need faith to understand it...

Yep, that's exactly what I said about 30 pages ago :) Either you have faith - then you believe in something that is not based on evidence. Or you you have proof - then you have knowledge and don't need faith.

well getting back on subject, i do not believe my faith is the only and absolute truth but i do believe it is the only and absolute truth for me

And that is what for me defines a) Faith and b) Tolerance :fluffle:

I believe in god, would call myself a catholic (although I definitively don't believe in the catholic church - see above) although I disregard quite a lot of the catholic doctrine.
I strongly believe that what we do is more important than what we believe in.

I do not believe in fundamentalism, my-god-is-better-than-your-god-discussions, faith without doubt, intolerance towards other faiths and, of course, gravity ;)

A random pattern is one that is unpredictable to the viewer, and hence cannot be "seen", even by God as a viewer. If it is "seen" by him, then it is not random, and hence someone (a mind, or deterministic force) made it.

If God's viewpoint is not limited like humans, then there is no seeing of patterns at all. Patterns happen because of time (repetition) and temporal circumstance.
Though there is theory that there is no truly random events at all (the closest we have gotten is sound … frequency distribution and capacitor discharge anomalies … so far anyways)
Sorry being random lol

So all their claims of “ours is the one true god” seem kind of silly from my perspective
Yup, exactly my view

Though there is theory that there is no truly random events at all (the closest we have gotten is sound … frequency distribution and capacitor discharge anomalies … so far anyways)
Sorry being random lol
The Truth does not enter into randomness --it is a subjectively-viewed phenomenon. The Truth is, by default, objective.
I'll be retracting this, now, with apologies. After thinking about truth and answering another post, I can see that something "truly random" has an absolute quality of randomness. I still maintain, though, that randomness requires an observer.

The Truth does not enter into randomness --it is a subjectively-viewed phenomenon. The Truth is, by default, objective.

The Truth is. But truth doesn't become The Truth unless it can be proven. Until then, it's speculation and opinions. If you're convinced your opinion is right, you may call it faith.
But unless you can prove it, it will remain something that you FEEL or THINK is true, as there is no way of telling if it really IS true.
So, rather than calling everything a lie until we know who was right after all, I refer to those believed truths as subjective truths, only valid for those who choose to beleive them. Nobody knows what the objective truth, The Truth, is.

Cabra West

My point exactly. A personal experience is one thing, but coming up to others and telling them that their personal experiences are wrong and yours are the truth and correct... sorry, that's not only arrogant, that's wrong.
I'm not saying that anybody is absolutely right, nor am I saying anybody is absolutley wrong. I will share my beliefs when asked, but I know them to be mine; they might work for others as well, but then again, maybe not. If they don't work for others, it is in no way their "fault" for not seeing my "truth", it's just that everybody is different and thus has to believe in different things/gods/philosophies/religions.

I agree. If that is from arrogance, then it is wrong. But if it were from one's belief, e.g., that they had been to, say, hell, and seen what it looked like, and believed that you or I were heading there, and wanted to do something to change our destiny, then I would not call that arrogance. That would be more like desperation, arising from a genuine care for your fellow being (regardless of whether the care is based on truth or falsehood). OK, most people probably haven't seen what hell looks like, but those who read the scriptures, and see the red letters, and believe them to be true, are capable of imagining what hell would look like, and acting upon it. Thus, not all 'evangelical efforts' need arise out of arrogance. Another example is, I think, the JWs see their evangelism as an attempt to get themselves into the kingdom of god. I would not call that arrogance either, but a belief system that is heading for a clash with modern culture.

Having said that, I think that respect is often sadly missing from many attempts at evangelism. From the accounts we have of Jesus, we can see that Jesus insisted on respecting even those with leprosy (the least respected in that culture). Neither did he ever preach to those who would rather not hear it. On the contrary, he often went out in the wilderness and preached to those who flocked to hear it, both his supporters and his opposition. I personally am unattracted to any form of militant evangelism. I doubt I am the only one.

I would definitely belong to the second category, then. I believe in the image of god that Jesus spoke about, and I believe to be Jesus a very special human being. I don't believe in his absolute divinity, though. In my eyes, he was no more or less divine than you or me, he just knew about it more than we do, he maybe felt it more intensly.

I'm not sure you have understood what I meant with the second definition of a Christian. For example, if Jesus were not a divine being, how is it that he rose from the dead? If he were not God, then he was in no position to take away the sins of the world (as John writes in the first chapter). If he were not god, then he would be as dead as mohommad or budda or joseph smith or any of the others, and thus could not have a personal relationship with you or I. His divinity can not be separated from his power to save me, to know me, and to love me. I'm not arguing that you have not encountered him personally. For I could not possibly know your history. It may be that you have met Him and that he hasn't shown you some things. But if he is not divine, I cannot see how you could claim to know him personally.

I doubt it, as I am more likely to be biased pro-Christianity. But many of these Christians here have made statements that I cannot agree with. If I have to believe that Jesus is god and that he died for our sins, if I have to believe that everybody who is not Christian will burn in hell, if I have to believe all this to call myself Christian, then I am none.
However, if being Christian means following the teachings of Jesus, trying to love others and seeking help from god, appreciating this planet and caring for its inhabitants, then I would call myself Christian.

I feel sympathetic towards those who have rejected the 'Jesus came riding on a canon ball' version of the gospel. I've no idea how God will deal with them on judgment day. But I do trust his justice will be fair.
On the other hand, humans are generally intelligent enough to seek for truth, in spite of the difficulties. If you don't like the message of the gospel, e.g., that Jesus came to save us from our sins, then why? Is it because you associate the gospel message with an ugly Bible bashing militant form of evangelism? Or is it that Christians are just generally unpopular? Or do your see some logical impossibilities with believing that Jesus is divine? I wonder if you could give me a reasonable answer. I'm certainly not claiming that there isn't any. God knows! But I'm curious to see one from you.

The Truth is. But truth doesn't become The Truth unless it can be proven. Until then, it's speculation and opinions. If you're convinced your opinion is right, you may call it faith.
But unless you can prove it, it will remain something that you FEEL or THINK is true, as there is no way of telling if it really IS true.
So, rather than calling everything a lie until we know who was right after all, I refer to those believed truths as subjective truths, only valid for those who choose to beleive them. Nobody knows what the objective truth, The Truth, is.
Truth isn't about proving, it's about absoluteness. When you're talking about entirely subjective things, like, "I am truly happy," it is understood, by others, that that happiness is a statement about an absolute (i.e. it is not a "false" happiness). The statement does not have to be proven to be true.

When we say or imply, "I believe it's true," we are no longer talking about truth; not really. We talk about this truth as a subjective thing, but what we really mean is that it is no longer absolute. It is a belief. Truth is absolute.

Testamony is a different thing. When a fellow says, "I witnessed the accident and this what I saw..." it is understood that this is not the entire truth, because it is from a subjective perspective. One person's testamony. It is understood that a testamony does not represent the truth. That doesn't mean he is spouting lies, it just means it is a representation of the truth from one perspective. That's all it is, that's all it pretends to be. Not the truth, just one testamony. (See how absolute "truth" is? It's opposite can only be a falsehood.)

It's a testmony, nothing more. The testamony has no bearing on the truth, it doesn't affect the truth at all. "The truth" is objective. What lawyers seek in a courtroom is not the truth, no matter how much they may claim it is.

(As a side, when I refer to "subjective truths", as I sometimes do, I am talking about things that other people cannot know, things that occur only in the mind, so are only absolute for the individual. Whether or not they are presented to the world outside, testified to, they can only be known by an individual for himself.)

I'm not sure you have understood what I meant with the second definition of a Christian. For example, if Jesus were not a divine being, how is it that he rose from the dead? If he were not God, then he was in no position to take away the sins of the world (as John writes in the first chapter). If he were not god, then he would be as dead as mohommad or budda or joseph smith or any of the others, and thus could not have a personal relationship with you or I. His divinity can not be separated from his power to save me, to know me, and to love me. I'm not arguing that you have not encountered him personally. For I could not possibly know your history. It may be that you have met Him and that he hasn't shown you some things. But if he is not divine, I cannot see how you could claim to know him personally.

I guess this is exactly the point which will forever put me at odds with many Christians. I don't believe in the idea the Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins.
I've been taught and preached that as long as I can think, but it never made any sense to me at all.
Either god is the way Jesus described him, a father-figure (hopefully a better father than mine was :)) who will forgive everything because he can understand everything and only asks our faith and trust, who loves and cares for mankind. In which case the sacrifice would have been pointless, as the sins would be forgiven as soon as fogiveness is asked.
Or else god is the vengeful, spiteful, jealous god of the old testament, who will punish sins with fire and brimstone and asks for absolute obedience to petty rules. In which case he is not likely to send his "sons" to be punished for everyboy's sins.

I don't ask Jesus to love me, I ask god. Jesus was the person who brought me the message from god, he was a prophet but he is long dead. I have no idea if he is with god now or not. You may remember from another thread that I don't care much for the idea of an afterlife either, but I have no authority there. I think hell cannot be much worse than earth and heaven... ah, just let me die and disappear and give my place in heaven to one of those poor sods from hell. I don't really care for eternal life.




I feel sympathetic towards those who have rejected the 'Jesus came riding on a canon ball' version of the gospel. I've no idea how God will deal with them on judgment day. But I do trust his justice will be fair.
On the other hand, humans are generally intelligent enough to seek for truth, in spite of the difficulties. If you don't like the message of the gospel, e.g., that Jesus came to save us from our sins, then why? Is it because you associate the gospel message with an ugly Bible bashing militant form of evangelism? Or is it that Christians are just generally unpopular? Or do your see some logical impossibilities with believing that Jesus is divine? I wonder if you could give me a reasonable answer. I'm certainly not claiming that there isn't any. God knows! But I'm curious to see one from you.

I don't really see logical impossibilities, and Christians are generally not unpopular with me, I only met the first bible-bashers here in this forum and never came across any before that. I'm from Europe, you don't get many televangelists and militant missionaries over here... yet.

But the only thing god gave me to tell truth from ...no, lie is too strong a word, untruth maybe, is my heart and my brain.
I read the gospels and I studied that period in history. I am generally very interested in psychology and cultural social structures, beliefs and traditions. The gospels were written 1900-1700 years ago by people who saw the world through their own eyes, whose ideas and thoughts were products of their time, who were for the most part rather simple people who couldn't think themselves out of their own culture. And they could only rely on accounts from others, only some of which had really ever met Jesus alive. They copied accounts and episodes from one another and tried to get a message across through the story of Jesus of Nazareth. Every single one of those writers tried to tell his version of the story with emphasis on the parts he thought important. That way, we have the most detailed reports of Jesus conception and birth by Luke (Marc and Matthew hardly waste a word on it, John doesn't report it at all), the sermon of the mount can only be found from Matthew, just as Peter's denial after Jesus was arrested. The reports of what Jesus did and said after he "rose from the dead" are very different as well. The most interesitng bit can be found in John 20.17 : " Go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God "
He doesn't refer to himself as god and rather puts himself on one level with the rest of humanity, as god's children.
Yes, he called god father, but he asked us to do the same, and he called us brothers and sisters. He was no more and no less than we are, but his communication with god was exptionally strong, enabling him to offer god's message and explain god's will to us.

I'm sure you can find a good many bible quotes referring to Jesus as god, especially in the teachings of the apostle Paul (I really don't agree with that guy at all. Why call him an apostle, he never met Jesus!), but that would just prove my point. The gosples don't agree with each other in their messages, because they were recorded by human beings. Accuracy was less important than strong images and gripping stories to get the message across. I don't accuse them of lying, far from it, but they just couldn't give an objective account and their priorities were different.
Christians over the centuries have read every possible meaning into the bible and interpreted its message in the cruelest ways imaginable. It's very open to interpretation, and this is just mine.

It does not. I think we all agree that our understanding of the world is severely limited. We have theories about the universe, time, space etc; but we do not understand it as such. We always look at everything through our eyes try to understand things from our point of view.

But a true godlike being must transcend these cognitive limitations. God stands outside of time and matter whereas we a imprisoned in them.

To return to your free will/omniscience point, here's an analogy:
Picture a handknotted (not woven) carpet. Each of us is one of the threads, all of us making the pattern by the choice of our actions. However, we see only the back of the carpet, the knots and individual strands of thread and, because we are trapped in time, only that which has been done before.
God, standing outside of time, sees the finished carpet and, more importantly, he sees the pattern on the front that is invisible to us.

:)

Nobody quotes me and gets away with it... :)

Ok, firstly, as has already been said by some likeminded individuals, omniscience does indeed contradict free will and your point, Nowoland, does not remedy this, but infact contradicts it further.



[List of logical points, neatly ordered]

1. You state that God is outside of time.

2. This would mean that, to humanity, who are affected by time, God and all his attributes/qualities are unchangeable constants* present at all stages of humanity's 'time'.

3. If God and all his attributes/qualities are unchangeable constants within time, that means that God's foreknowledge of events (encompassed within 'omniscience') is an unchangeable constant within time.

4. If God's foreknowledge of events is an unchangeable constant within time, then God's foreknowledge of events was present at the very beginning of time.

5. As God's foreknowledge was present at the beginning of time and is unchangeable, His knowledge of events is unchangeable.

6. Thus, as He, being omniscient, is always correct, our actions must be in agreement with His knowledge, which is unchangeable.

7. If our actions must coincide with an unchangeable constant, we lack free will!

[/List of logical points, neatly ordered]



Still, if you go back a few pages and read my argument against the possibility of omniscience (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9113738&postcount=643), you'll see why this is all really pointless.



* Time is required to perform any action. If God, outside of time, interacts with an object affected by time, God would only be able to appear as an unchangeable constant. If this were not the case and He were to be able to interact and make changes, He would be being affected by time in a linear sense.

Ok, firstly, as has already been said by some like-minded individuals, omniscience does indeed contradict free will and your point, Nowoland, does not remedy this, but infact contradicts it further.



God doesn't need omniscience to know you or anyone. We haven't changed much at all since the beggining in Heaven. Before hte Great Council and we were sent down to Heaven he already knew you. The way all good parehts know their kids. You have a tough time trying to suurprise him for that reason.

An example is my mom since she knows us from baby-hood, she knows how we will act in almost any situation.

Now there are Mom's that can't but, than they aren't as good a mom's I guess. (no offense)

God doesn't need omniscience to know you or anyone. We haven't changed much at all since the beggining in Heaven. Before hte Great Council and we were sent down to Heaven he already knew you. The way all good parehts know their kids. You have a tough time trying to suurprise him for that reason.

An example is my mom since she knows us from baby-hood, she knows how we will act in almost any situation.

But then, if God isn't omniscient and He isn't omnipotent and he isn't necessarily benevolent (see Stupendous Badassness' post on God not having to be benevolent for this (#626) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426416&page=42&pp=15)), and if he denies us free will, what is he?

Every argument the atheists and agnostics put forward on this thread is just countered with "Oh, yeah, God isn't omnipotent/omniscient/benevolent* and doesn't give us free will."

*delete as appropriate.

Anyone here want to put forward an argument that attempts to reinstate God's power and authority, or his benevolence? (As in, where's Greenlander?)

But then, if God isn't omniscient and He isn't omnipotent and he isn't necessarily benevolent (see Stupendous Badassness' post on God not having to be benevolent for this (#626) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426416&page=42&pp=15)), and if he denies us free will, what is he?

Every argument the atheists and agnostics put forward on this thread is just countered with "Oh, yeah, God isn't omnipotent/omniscient/benevolent* and doesn't give us free will."

*delete as appropriate.

Anyone here want to put forward an argument that attempts to reinstate God's power and authority, or his benevolence? (As in, where's Greenlander?)

Nothing stops him from being benevolent. He gaves us the gift of life on earth. We told him we liked it, but he had to take our memories so we could haev a choice to go back to him.
Obviously would not be much of choice if we knew.

Why does he deny us free will?

Nothing stops him from being benevolent. He gaves us the gift of life on earth. We told him we liked it, but he had to take our memories so we could haev a choice to go back to him.
Obviously would not be much of choice if we knew.

Why does he deny us free will?

God took our memories?????

Nobody quotes me and gets away with it... :)

Ok, firstly, as has already been said by some likeminded individuals, omniscience does indeed contradict free will and your point, Nowoland, does not remedy this, but infact contradicts it further.



[List of logical points, neatly ordered]

1. You state that God is outside of time.

2. This would mean that, to humanity, who are affected by time, God and all his attributes/qualities are unchangeable constants* present at all stages of humanity's 'time'.

3. If God and all his attributes/qualities are unchangeable constants within time, that means that God's foreknowledge of events (encompassed within 'omniscience') is an unchangeable constant within time.

4. If God's foreknowledge of events is an unchangeable constant within time, then God's foreknowledge of events was present at the very beginning of time.

5. As God's foreknowledge was present at the beginning of time and is unchangeable, His knowledge of events is unchangeable.

6. Thus, as He, being omniscient, is always correct, our actions must be in agreement with His knowledge, which is unchangeable.

7. If our actions must coincide with an unchangeable constant, we lack free will!

[/List of logical points, neatly ordered]



Still, if you go back a few pages and read my argument against the possibility of omniscience (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9113738&postcount=643), you'll see why this is all really pointless.



* Time is required to perform any action. If God, outside of time, interacts with an object affected by time, God would only be able to appear as an unchangeable constant. If this were not the case and He were to be able to interact and make changes, He would be being affected by time in a linear sense.

I followed your neatly ordered points, and found myself agreeing with your logic, except for point seven. If God knows what we are going to do, why would that mean we have no free will? That doesn't necessarily follow. If I know you are going to get out of bed tomorrow and have breakfast, does that mean I took away your choice to have breakfast? I was not involved in your decision making. I just happen to know the every adult alive today has to eat in order to stay alive (discounting the ones on a drip lying up in hospital). My knowledge of your choice is not based on my interference with your decision making.

Nothing stops him from being benevolent. He gaves us the gift of life on earth. We told him we liked it, but he had to take our memories so we could haev a choice to go back to him.
Obviously would not be much of choice if we knew.

Why does he deny us free will?

how would we know if God took our memories? Never heard of that before.

*wonders if this thread will zing off into a discussion of homosexuality*

*wonders if this thread will zing off into a discussion of homosexuality*



Most likely since the last one was locked :mad:


Anyways, I have a bone to pick with the argument against omniscience. It implies that everything needs a higher standard to verify its claims, however, would an omniscient being not be above subjectivity and thus not require a set of rules to validate his knowledge? I disagree with the presupposition that all information must be verified. It might apply to us, however, if a Being that is the very embodiment of knowledge knows something, then would it not follow that His information is correct regardless of validation? I mean, that's the very concept of omniscience: Perfect knowledge that need not be verified for you can assume that it is correct. Because it is perfect. Which would.....gah, I think you all get the point.

I followed your neatly ordered points, and found myself agreeing with your logic, except for point seven. If God knows what we are going to do, why would that mean we have no free will? That doesn't necessarily follow. If I know you are going to get out of bed tomorrow and have breakfast, does that mean I took away your choice to have breakfast? I was not involved in your decision making. I just happen to know the every adult alive today has to eat in order to stay alive (discounting the ones on a drip lying up in hospital). My knowledge of your choice is not based on my interference with your decision making.

We do make desicions, but these desicions are predeternimed. One could say that therefore , we have the illusion of deciding for ourselves, while our decisions really are predetermined and can only lead one way.
Simple example : You want to have breakfast. You need to decide if you want toast or cereal today. You feel like cereal.
God knew that you would decide that way, therefore you couldn't possibly decide any other way, even if you yourself feel that you could have. That's not free will.
If god created the univers and time itself and us, he created the pattern. All we do is follow it unconsciously, yet we are being held responsible for our actions?

We do make desicions, but these desicions are predeternimed. One could say that therefore , we have the illusion of deciding for ourselves, while our decisions really are predetermined and can only lead one way.
Simple example : You want to have breakfast. You need to decide if you want toast or cereal today. You feel like cereal.
God knew that you would decide that way, therefore you couldn't possibly decide any other way, even if you yourself feel that you could have. That's not free will.
If god created the univers and time itself and us, he created the pattern. All we do is follow it unconsciously, yet we are being held responsible for our actions?


Predetermined would imply that God actively decided what choices we would make. I think pre-known would be a better description. Anyway, God may know what our decisions will be but that does not eliminate free will. He simply has knowledge of what we will choose to do with our free will. I think the real issue here is different concepts of what free will is in actuality.

Predetermined would imply that God actively decided what choices we would make. I think pre-known would be a better description. Anyway, God may know what our decisions will be but that does not eliminate free will. He simply has knowledge of what we will choose to do with our free will. I think the real issue here is different concepts of what free will is in actuality.

Hang on, I thought god is the guy who created life, the univers, everything? Our own souls and all?
He is the one who MADE the pattern (if there is one), so he is the one who made our desicions.

Hang on, I thought god is the guy who created life, the univers, everything? Our own souls and all?
He is the one who MADE the pattern (if there is one), so he is the one who made our desicions.


You are correct, he did create all things. However, we have been given free will (again, definitions may vary) to choose from the decisions posited to us.
How do you conclude that we have no say in the matter from that?

Hang on, I thought god is the guy who created life, the univers, everything? Our own souls and all?
He is the one who MADE the pattern (if there is one), so he is the one who made our desicions.

The Genesis story gives an account of where God specifically gave a choice to Adam and Eve. Obviously God knew what would happen. But who made the choice, God or man? I still can't see why you would say that it was God who made the choice, and that Adam and Eve followed along like computer programs. I agree with Neo Rogolia. God knowing the outcome does not equal God making the choice for man to disobey. Preknowing is not the same as predestination.

God knowing the outcome does not equal God making the choice for man to disobey. Preknowing is not the same as predestination.
This is exactly, what I had been trying to explain. In more words and not as succinctly ;)

The Genesis story gives an account of where God specifically gave a choice to Adam and Eve. Obviously God knew what would happen. But who made the choice, God or man? I still can't see why you would say that it was God who made the choice, and that Adam and Eve followed along like computer programs. I agree with Neo Rogolia. God knowing the outcome does not equal God making the choice for man to disobey. Preknowing is not the same as predestination.

Because they couldn't act in any different way. If they could act differently, god wouldn't be omniscient.

It's easy : if god is omniscient, there is only ONE way every single decision can be made, we simply cannot act otherwise. So we don't have real free will.
If we have free will and the outcome of our decisions is not determined yet, because we can decide if we want tea or coffee, then god cannot know the outcome yet, because every decision potentially changes the whole world.

This is exactly, what I had been trying to explain. In more words and not as succinctly ;)

I know that if I drop a pencil, it will fall, but this does not mean that I made it fall.
Easy really, isn't it? :)

I know that if I drop a pencil, it will fall, but this does not mean that I made it fall.
Easy really, isn't it? :)

Not the nest analogy, what could it have done apart from falling?

You are correct, he did create all things. However, we have been given free will (again, definitions may vary) to choose from the decisions posited to us.
How do you conclude that we have no say in the matter from that?

Oh, we feel like we have a say. But if we truly did, if our desicions are not predetermined, there are an endless number of possible results and consequences for each single desicion. Each sinlge desicion could change the entire world and there would be no pattern that god could know of.

If there is a pattern, however, that means somebody knows our desicions in advance and we cannot decide to act any different. No free will.

I know that if I drop a pencil, it will fall, but this does not mean that I made it fall.
Easy really, isn't it? :)

And yes, you made it fall. You let it fall, knowing that gravity would make it fall. You are using gravity as a tool to get the pencil from your hand to the floor. Neither the pencil nor gravity can chose to act differently...

I don't believe my belief is the only and absolute truth for all.

I only know what I believe to be right for me. That's all that matters to me.

I don't tread on anyone elses. Don't tread on mine. If we're both wrong or ones wrong and ones right in our beliefs then we will know it at some point. I have no control over it.

My contribution:

Excuse me for interruption half way through this discussion, but are you guys trying to describe God's trancesdence in human terms? I think that's a contradiction in terms...

Not the nest analogy, what could it have done apart from falling?

Actually forget that comment, maybe it is a very good analogy. If god is real then he would have created conditions for everything to happen, in this analogy he would be the person dropping the pencil, but he would also have created gravity, to make the pencil drop. Since he created all the initial conditions, he knows what will happen in advance, but he doesnt necessarily control everything thats happening.

However he could have created everything with a different set on initial conditions, therefore due to his choices at the start, and the fact that he could have chosen something different at the start and chose not to, he has controlled all our actions from the start.

My contribution:

If I didn't like contradictions, I wouldn't post here, now, would I? :)

Actually forget that comment, maybe it is a very good analogy. If god is real then he would have created conditions for everything to happen, in this analogy he would be the person dropping the pencil, but he would also have created gravity, to make the pencil drop. Since he created all the initial conditions, he knows what will happen in advance, but he doesnt necessarily control everything thats happening.

However he could have created everything with a different set on initial conditions, therefore due to his choices at the start, and the fact that he could have chosen something different at the start and chose not to, he has controlled all our actions from the start.


I still fail to see the free will of the pencil to fall....

If I didn't like contradictions, I wouldn't post here, now, would I? :)

touché

Because they couldn't act in any different way. If they could act differently, god wouldn't be omniscient.

It's easy : if god is omniscient, there is only ONE way every single decision can be made, we simply cannot act otherwise. So we don't have real free will.
If we have free will and the outcome of our decisions is not determined yet, because we can decide if we want tea or coffee, then god cannot know the outcome yet, because every decision potentially changes the whole world.

Someone else pointed out that God is both inside and outside of time. That would mean He can see everything that has happened and that ever will happen. This is consistent with what we understand as all-knowing. But I think you are trying to say that because God can see you getting out of bed tomorrow morning (or afternoon or whenever) then you have no choice in the matter. But God's 'seeing you' and your 'oh, time to get up' are not connected. In that situation, God is merely an observer. He is not the one making the muscles move. No matter how you look at it, you simply cannot show that God was any more than an observer. (Unless I have just missed some great whopping point somewhere???)

Because they couldn't act in any different way. If they could act differently, god wouldn't be omniscient.

It's easy : if god is omniscient, there is only ONE way every single decision can be made, we simply cannot act otherwise. So we don't have real free will.
If we have free will and the outcome of our decisions is not determined yet, because we can decide if we want tea or coffee, then god cannot know the outcome yet, because every decision potentially changes the whole world.


I have two choices: A and B. God has knowledge of which choice I will make.

I choose choice A. God knew I would choose that, but did not interfere with the decision making-process.

I choose choice B. God knew I would choose that, but did not interfere with the decision-making process.

God does not determine which I will choose. He merely has prior knowledge as to what choice I will make. The choice is still up to me, he just knows which I will pick. If I had decided to change my choice from A to B, then God would have known that I would change, but that does not mean he chose for me. Simple knowledge of what will occur does not equate to predetermination.

I still fail to see the free will of the pencil to fall....

Sorry if i wasnt clear. I didnt say that we have free will, and I dont know if it exists. I was just saying that if god created the universe (and i dont think he did) at the start knowing in advance what we would all do he laid out all our actions then. He could have chosen to create the universe in a different way and thus give us all a different life but he didnt, so ultimately he would be responsible for all our actions.

Anyway I give up, I'm confusing myself.

I still fail to see the free will of the pencil to fall....

Alright, I have a daughter, and I allow her to have a certain flavour of icecream.
The possible flavours are:
Vanilla, chocolate, strawberry and tree.
I know from experience she will choose vanilla, since I know her very well.
Still, she has free will.

If there is a pattern, however, that means somebody knows our desicions in advance and we cannot decide to act any different. No free will.


God does not know because of a pattern that we may or may not follow, he knows because he is omnipotent and timeless. Therefore, he can see into what would be our future. Who knows, he may choose not to. Regardless, omniscience, not predictions, is what God employs.

On what basis do I believe my religion is the only and the absolute truth?

Truth is... I don't. I've been tossed around from religion to religion most of my life. My family is Roman Catholic, my friends bring me to their Methodist or Baptist churches with them, I've been to temple (Jewish) on occassion, I become Ignostic for a time, converted to Wiccan, and now am stuck on the verge of Wicca and my own ideals. So, perhaps unlike most people, I don't believe any religion is the absolute truth. We could all be the creation of some other "human" teenager greater than us who enjoys playing "god/dess" with his science fair project. Who knows?

Alright, I have a daughter, and I allow her to have a certain flavour of icecream.
The possible flavours are:
Vanilla, chocolate, strawberry and tree.
I know from experience she will choose vanilla, since I know her very well.
Still, she has free will.

Doesnt mean she will chose vanilla. She might have got a taste for something else without you knowing, or got bored of vanilla and decided to try somthing else.

Doesnt mean she will chose vanilla. She might have got a taste for something else without you knowing, or got bored of vanilla and decided to try somthing else.

Ah, but I am not an all-knowing divine being. God is.
God would know many more factors, and how they would influence my daughter.

Someone else pointed out that God is both inside and outside of time. That would mean He can see everything that has happened and that ever will happen. This is consistent with what we understand as all-knowing. But I think you are trying to say that because God can see you getting out of bed tomorrow morning (or afternoon or whenever) then you have no choice in the matter. But God's 'seeing you' and your 'oh, time to get up' are not connected. In that situation, God is merely an observer. He is not the one making the muscles move. No matter how you look at it, you simply cannot show that God was any more than an observer. (Unless I have just missed some great whopping point somewhere???)


Ok, given that god exists out of time and knows the future. That would mean that the future is unchangable.

Let's take the getting-up example again. I get up at 6 in the morning, give or take, and I make that desicion every day. If you were to ask god NOW when I will get up on Monday, god, being omniscient, might say 6.05 am.
On Monday, when I get up at 6.05 am, god will have proven himself to be omniscient, but at the same time he will have proven that I didn't have an option to stay in bed till 6.06, because if I had done that, god would have been wrong. I still got up out of my own motivation, but it doesn't change the fact that it was predetermined when exactly I would get up.
Now, I'm not saying it was predetermined by god. Maybe it was predetermined by the creature that created god, who knows. But the fact is, if god knows it, it cannot be changed. If I can't change my own decisions, I don't have free will.

Alright, I have a daughter, and I allow her to have a certain flavour of icecream.
The possible flavours are:
Vanilla, chocolate, strawberry and tree.
I know from experience she will choose vanilla, since I know her very well.
Still, she has free will.

And one day, she will feel like chocolate and surprise you. But if god really knows everything, we cannot surprise him by chosing anything else but vanilla.

Ok, given that god exists out of time and knows the future. That would mean that the future is unchangable.


Not necessarily. The future is still subject to alteration, He just has knowledge of what those changes, if any, will be.

Oh, we feel like we have a say. But if we truly did, if our desicions are not predetermined, there are an endless number of possible results and consequences for each single desicion. Each sinlge desicion could change the entire world and there would be no pattern that god could know of.

If there is a pattern, however, that means somebody knows our desicions in advance and we cannot decide to act any different. No free will.

There, there, right there!! That is the point at which our logics depart. From our (human) point of view there is an endless number of possible results and consequences for each single decision. YES. And there is no way we could know them all. We know from experience that we make choices and reap the consequences. But from God's point of view (he is currently observing what you are doing tomorrow) there is no need for God to know all the possibilities (though it wouldn't surprise me if He did). He is not furiously trying to calculate to see what you will do tomorrow based on your every decision today. He just simply looks. Thus he knows.

And one day, she will feel like chocolate and surprise you. But if god really knows everything, we cannot surprise him by chosing anything else but vanilla.


We can still choose things other than vanilla, but it will not suprise him.

I think there is a fundamental problem with this debate.

God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Benevolent. Ultimately these three qualities will cause logical contradictions with both themselves and reason, this is well known, and everyone, theistic or not, should realise this. However, there is an exceptionally usefull clause in God's qualities: He is omnipotent, ergo he can do anything. It logically follows that you cannot place any limits on what He can do, and that includes the limitations of reason. God is not bound by reason.

We now have a scenario where reason contradicts itself. The Theistic answer to this is to simply accept the insubordiance of reason to God. The Atheist answer is so say that God cannot exist because he is opposed to reason. However, the atheist response has a problem, because ultimately logic will have to face, if only hyothetically, this problem, and the result will be one big fat angry pile of Russel's Paradoxes.

Bear this in mind:

There is nothing so consistent with reason than the recognition that reason by itself cannot comprehend truth.

-Blaise Pascal

ok, you want to know where God stands on the whole issue of marriage. This is God's message to the world on the subject:


Amen.

I think there is a fundamental problem with this debate.

God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Benevolent. Ultimately these three qualities will cause logical contradictions with both themselves and reason, this is well known, and everyone, theistic or not, should realise this. However, there is an exceptionally usefull clause in God's qualities: He is omnipotent, ergo he can do anything. It logically follows that you cannot place any limits on what He can do, and that includes the limitations of reason. God is not bound by reason.

We now have a scenario where reason contradicts itself. The Theistic answer to this is to simply accept the insubordiance of reason to God. The Atheist answer is so say that God cannot exist because he is opposed to reason. However, the atheist response has a problem, because ultimately logic will have to face, if only hyothetically, this problem, and the result will be one big fat angry pile of Russel's Paradoxes.

Bear this in mind:

Yeah, but this is fun. Why would God give us reason if He didn't want us to have fun using it?

And one day, she will feel like chocolate and surprise you. But if god really knows everything, we cannot surprise him by chosing anything else but vanilla.

Because He would know if we were to choose chocolate.

Not necessarily. The future is still subject to alteration, He just has knowledge of what those changes, if any, will be.

Let's refer to another example: Imagine the present as a road. Every desicion you take is a fork in the road, sometimes just two new roads, sometimes 5 or 10. You just walk along and decide at each fork which way to follow. If you look at that road that will take a lifetime to travel, the number of possible futures is infinite.
If god is omniscient, he will know what roads you will take and where you will end up, as if he had a map on which your way is marked.
If that is the situation, you will make your choices at each fork, but you cannot change the fact that you are following exactly the map god has (and somebody did create that map, don't forget that. Who else but god could have done that?). You cannot decide not to do that.
If you have completely free will, the future will change at each fork as you take a new road, and there is no way of knowing (inside time or outside of it) where you will end up.

There, there, right there!! That is the point at which our logics depart. From our (human) point of view there is an endless number of possible results and consequences for each single decision. YES. And there is no way we could know them all. We know from experience that we make choices and reap the consequences. But from God's point of view (he is currently observing what you are doing tomorrow) there is no need for God to know all the possibilities (though it wouldn't surprise me if He did). He is not furiously trying to calculate to see what you will do tomorrow based on your every decision today. He just simply looks. Thus he knows.

That means there only is one way to go for us and we cannot change it. No free will

Let's refer to another example: Imagine the present as a road. Every desicion you take is a fork in the road, sometimes just two new roads, sometimes 5 or 10. You just walk along and decide at each fork which way to follow. If you look at that road that will take a lifetime to travel, the number of possible futures is infinite.
If god is omniscient, he will know what roads you will take and where you will end up, as if he had a map on which your way is marked.
If that is the situation, you will make your choices at each fork, but you cannot change the fact that you are following exactly the map god has (and somebody did create that map, don't forget that. Who else but god could have done that?). You cannot decide not to do that.
If you have completely free will, the future will change at each fork as you take a new road, and there is no way of knowing (inside time or outside of it) where you will end up.


Free will is what you exercise when you choose the forks. God does not force you to follow the route on the map, you do it of your own will. The map is his prior knowledge of the choices you will make. If you decided differently, then his map would be different.

If I can't change my own decisions, I don't have free will.

Well, from my point of view, you appear to be making choices. As far as I know, you do have free will. You certainly don't sound like a computer program (I could be wrong of course). Thus, I conclude, for the purpose of this life in this world, I pronounce you 'free willy'.

Lol...this is exactly like that one thing which involves the probability of the next coin being flipped being heads. One side says 1/2. Another side says 2/3 (or was it 3/4?). Both are correct.

Free will is what you exercise when you choose the forks. God does not force you to follow the route on the map, you do it of your own will. The map is his prior knowledge of the choices you will make. If you decided differently, then his map would be different.

It means my future is predetermined and I'm deciding according to plan. That's not free will.

That means there only is one way to go for us and we cannot change it. No free will


From God's point of view, yes, there is only one way, since He knows it already. But from your point of view, you don't know. Therefore, you will have to choose it.

Well, from my point of view, you appear to be making choices. As far as I know, you do have free will. You certainly don't sound like a computer program (I could be wrong of course). Thus, I conclude, for the purpose of this life in this world, I pronounce you 'free willy'.

Appearances are deceptive.... The fact that I THINK I have free will doesn't mean I do. Maybe I simply was created to function this way.