NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

But whatever choice I make has been predetermined. My future is planed already and I cannot change that plan.

But whatever choice I make has been predetermined. My future is planed already and I cannot change that plan.


Not predetermined, it is pre-known. Pre-determination involves interference in free will, as He would decide your fate. He does not decide your fate, He just knows it. You still have the will to decide your fate, He just knows what your decision will be.

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.

I'm not sure bringing the Bible into this topic will help us much, but perhaps I could refer you to the parts of the Bible where God is obviously showing how upset he is over the behaviour of people. Now, if people were effectively mere computer programs (entities unable to make any choices), what would be the sense of God getting upset with them? That's like the crazy man who smashed his tools up because he was so angry that they didn't do what they were made to do. Such a crazy man would have to have a deep look in the mirror, and find the problem there. The problem would be in the design of the tools, which points to the problem being in the designer.

Thus, to claim that humans have no real choice is a bit like saying God is mad and unfair.

Not predetermined, it is pre-known. Pre-determination involves interference in free will, as He would decide your fate. He does not decide your fate, He just knows it. You still have the will to decide your fate, He just knows what your decision will be.

If he knows it, it must exist already, and be that only in his mind. If it exists, it has been determined by him or somebody else. It must have been there even before I was created. So, if it was there, if all my desicions existed before I myself came inot being, I certainly didn't decide them myself, did I?

If he knows it, it must exist already, and be that only in his mind. If it exists, it has been determined by him or somebody else. It must have been there even before I was created. So, if it was there, if all my desicions existed before I myself came inot being, I certainly didn't decide them myself, did I?

So what if your decisions were predetermined? How does that interfere with your daily decision-making. God may know your decision - but you don't. You should still have the motivation to make decisions - to see where the decisions take you.

If he knows it, it must exist already, and be that only in his mind. If it exists, it has been determined by him or somebody else. It must have been there even before I was created. So, if it was there, if all my desicions existed before I myself came inot being, I certainly didn't decide them myself, did I?

Perhaps one could look at it this way....that a decision only exists when (1) it is known by God and (2) you make it. Thus when both criteria are fulfilled, it comes into existance.

I'm not sure bringing the Bible into this topic will help us much, but perhaps I could refer you to the parts of the Bible where God is obviously showing how upset he is over the behaviour of people. Now, if people were effectively mere computer programs (entities unable to make any choices), what would be the sense of God getting upset with them? That's like the crazy man who smashed his tools up because he was so angry that they didn't do what they were made to do. Such a crazy man would have to have a deep look in the mirror, and find the problem there. The problem would be in the design of the tools, which points to the problem being in the designer.

Thus, to claim that humans have no real choice is a bit like saying God is mad and unfair.


Well, if he knew all algong they would behave that way, he would be mad and unfair to be upset about it, wouldn't he?
You just can't have it both : Either we have free will, then we choose to please or displease god. Or else god knows what we are going to do anyway, then we don't have free will.

But whatever choice I make has been predetermined. My future is planed already and I cannot change that plan.

Maybe we could look at it another way. Tomorrow, you meet a girl (or a guy) and you decide you want to ask that person to marry you. But you are torn, because you are totally unsure about it. But you say to yourself, God knows what I am about to decide, so whatever I decide, it doesn't really matter. HUH!!?? now who really thinks like that? That is a recipe for disaster. Practically, that kind of thinking doesn't fit in with our experience of life. When I was a kid, my old man would give me a hiding if I used his tools, e.g his drill, and left them out overnight in the rain instead of putting them away afterwards. If I had the attitude of,' ah, well, it doesn't really matter what happens, since I don't really have a choice anyway', how is that going to help me avoid getting a belt wrapped around my bare legs? Rather, I learned very quickly that for every choice that I made, there is a consequence. I am the one responsible for my choices. It was a pretty strong lesson. And it flies in the face of the theory that I am a computer program and that my bad choices are the computer programmer's fault.

Well, if he knew all algong they would behave that way, he would be mad and unfair to be upset about it, wouldn't he?
You just can't have it both : Either we have free will, then we choose to please or displease god. Or else god knows what we are going to do anyway, then we don't have free will.

Right. And I say we are all 'free willy's'

Ok, given that god exists out of time and knows the future. That would mean that the future is unchangable.
Sorry Cabra, but the whole point of being out of time is that there is nor future!
Lets try this example:
I call my friend and ask him to visit me. He has X amounts of possibilities to come to my flat. He chooses one (bus) and arrives - I then know how he came. Now, my friend coould choose freely and I had no choice but to wait until that future point of his arrival happened, because living in time things generally happen sequentially.
If I existed out of time, future would hold no meaning. I could immediately (and again that is a term based on a time reference) see his mode of transport. Still, my friend had free choice.

Sorry that I cannot explain it better. I once read a very good philosophical book written by a mathematician/physicist on time. Although it was hard reading (nearly overheated my brain ;) ) I understood how it is possible to see time as a dimension that has more in common with space than what we expect time to be like. The author also touched on the subject of time and predetermination and how the one has nothing to do with the other.

So what if your decisions were predetermined? How does that interfere with your daily decision-making. God may know your decision - but you don't. You should still have the motivation to make decisions - to see where the decisions take you.

I don't believe he does know my desicions...


Perhaps one could look at it this way....that a decision only exists when (1) it is known by God and (2) you make it. Thus when both criteria are fulfilled, it comes into existance.

So, if the decision doesn't exist (even in thought) before I make it, how can god know about it? How can it be in god's mind? And if it is in god's mind, it's made before I can make it.

Sorry Cabra, but the whole point of being out of time is that there is nor future!
Lets try this example:
I call my friend and ask him to visit me. He has X amounts of possibilities to come to my flat. He chooses one (bus) and arrives - I then know how he came. Now, my friend coould choose freely and I had no choice but to wait until that future point of his arrival happened, because living in time things generally happen sequentially.
If I existed out of time, future would hold no meaning. I could immediately (and again that is a term based on a time reference) see his mode of transport. Still, my friend had free choice.

Sorry that I cannot explain it better. I once read a very good philosophical book written by a mathematician/physicist on time. Although it was hard reading (nearly overheated my brain ;) ) I understood how it is possible to see time as a dimension that has more in common with space than what we expect time to be like. The author also touched on the subject of time and predetermination and how the one has nothing to do with the other.


That would imply that there is only one future. In which case, all decisions are already made... by whomsoever.

I don't believe he does know my desicions...



But it doesn't matter if He knows it, because:

a) your ultimate "decision" won't affect His plans; His plans have been made taking into account your decisions.

b) it doesn't affect your decision-making either, because you don't know your final outcome. Yes, you will die, but where, when, how, why etc. will have to revealed when the time comes. Play on and find out what kind of ending God has laid for you.

That would imply that there is only one future. In which case, all decisions are already made... by whomsoever.

That's right. Don't you think all your actions are inevitable? I do, based on our genetics, culture, education, upbringing etc. The older we get, the more inevitable our actions are.

But it doesn't matter if He knows it, because:

a) your ultimate "decision" won't affect His plans; His plans have been made taking into account your decisions.

b) it doesn't affect your decision-making either, because you don't know your final outcome. Yes, you will die, but where, when, how, why etc. will have to revealed when the time comes. Play on and find out what kind of ending God has laid for you.

I think we all lost track of the original argument :

Either god is omniscient OR humanity has free will.
Free will means deciding on your own, unpredetermined by anybody. It implies that there are multiple ways to alter your future, not just one predetermined, predecided future.

If god knows my decisions before I make them, that means when the time comes for me to make them they are already made. And that doesn't mean that I freely decided.

That's right. Don't you think all your actions are inevitable? I do, based on our genetics, culture, education, upbringing etc. The older we get, the more inevitable our actions are.

No, I don't think so. The older we get, the more factors influence our decision making, but none of our actions are predetermined, and therefore thay cannot be preknown.

No, I don't think so. The older we get, the more factors influence our decision making, but none of our actions are predetermined, and therefore thay cannot be preknown.

I think the opposite :D

They both work, I guess. ;)

I think we all lost track of the original argument :

Either god is omniscient OR humanity has free will.
Free will means deciding on your own, unpredetermined by anybody. It implies that there are multiple ways to alter your future, not just one predetermined, predecided future.

If god knows my decisions before I make them, that means when the time comes for me to make them they are already made. And that doesn't mean that I freely decided.

So, because God knows the choice you are going to make, before you make them, you don't really make them. What? How is that logical?

I don't see anybody arguing that free will is not deciding on your own. I guess some of us are OK with 'free will' and 'God knowing' not being mutually exclusive. I still cannot see why one would rule out the other. I think the world is big enough to contain both of them
:)

I don't believe he does know my desicions...

I doubt you could surprise Him.


So, if the decision doesn't exist (even in thought) before I make it, how can god know about it? How can it be in god's mind? And if it is in god's mind, it's made before I can make it.

I suppose the mind of the all-knowing could be big enough to know all that has existed, does exist, and will exist.

I suppose the mind of the all-knowing could be big enough to know all that has existed, does exist, and will exist.

In that case, what reason would he have to punish us?

Let's assume he created the world. Time. The universe. Everything. He also created us. And he created us in such a way that we will decide exactly as he knows we will... how does the concept of sin fit into this?
He knew exactly what we were going to do the moment he created us. And he created us in such a way that we would make our decisions in accordance to what he had laid out. How can he blame us for following his masterplan?

So, because God knows the choice you are going to make, before you make them, you don't really make them. What? How is that logical?

I don't see anybody arguing that free will is not deciding on your own. I guess some of us are OK with 'free will' and 'God knowing' not being mutually exclusive. I still cannot see why one would rule out the other. I think the world is big enough to contain both of them
:)

Free will is the freedom of choice. You say God already knows what decisions we will make, because our lives are big, divine plans. That means God has already decided for us, so freedom of choice does not exist.
It doesn't matter if we don't know the outcome of our decision, it still was decided for us. It just gives us an illusion of choice, but not real freedom of choice. And thus, 'God's knowing' rules out any instance of both free will and freedom of choice.

In that case, what reason would he have to punish us?

Let's assume he created the world. Time. The universe. Everything. He also created us. And he created us in such a way that we will decide exactly as he knows we will... how does the concept of sin fit into this?
If you don't believe in free will then the concept of sin does not apply. But neither does crime and punishment. Because if everything is predetermined then why should we punish criminals. After all it is not in their power to choose a different life. Our concept of society does rely on the concept of free will.

He knew exactly what we were going to do the moment he created us. And he created us in such a way that we would make our decisions in accordance to what he had laid out. How can he blame us for following his masterplan?
That works only if you don't believe in free will. Since we cannot bring you round to the view that free will and an omniescent god are compatible, I guess we'll just run around in circles for some time.

In that case, what reason would he have to punish us?

Let's assume he created the world. Time. The universe. Everything. He also created us. And he created us in such a way that we will decide exactly as he knows we will... how does the concept of sin fit into this?
He knew exactly what we were going to do the moment he created us. And he created us in such a way that we would make our decisions in accordance to what he had laid out. How can he blame us for following his masterplan?

It says in the Bible that it is not God's will that anyone should perish, but that everyone should come to a point where they choose God's way over their own. It also clearly says that man generally prefers his own way to God's way. I see a clear distinction between our will and God's will being referred to here.

But why did God make us when He knew we would be that way? Hmmm....that is a question if have often asked. I don't even know if I will ever have an answer (in this life anyway, and perhaps it won't matter in the next). Perhaps someone else could have a go at it....anyone? maybe it points to the size of the love between God and those who love Him back.
Maybe the answer requires knowing God a whole lot more than I do right now.

Free will is the freedom of choice. You say God already knows what decisions we will make, because our lives are big, divine plans. That means God has already decided for us, so freedom of choice does not exist.
It doesn't matter if we don't know the outcome of our decision, it still was decided for us. It just gives us an illusion of choice, but not real freedom of choice. And thus, 'God's knowing' rules out any instance of both free will and freedom of choice.
How about 'illusion of free will', as in, we don't have free will, but we believe we do?

But why did God make us when He knew we would be that way? Hmmm....that is a question if have often asked. I don't even know if I will ever have an answer (in this life anyway, and perhaps it won't matter in the next). Perhaps someone else could have a go at it....anyone? maybe it points to the size of the love between God and those who love Him back.
Maybe the answer requires knowing God a whole lot more than I do right now.
Because God sees fit. It's God's decision. Ask God. We can't answer for God.

If you don't believe in free will then the concept of sin does not apply. But neither does crime and punishment. Because if everything is predetermined then why should we punish criminals. After all it is not in their power to choose a different life. Our concept of society does rely on the concept of free will.


That works only if you don't believe in free will. Since we cannot bring you round to the view that free will and an omniescent god are compatible, I guess we'll just run around in circles for some time.


Again, I believe in free will and therefore don't believe that god is omniscient

Although I have the feeling that we are not really proceeding anywhere at the moment, I think this has been an excellent discussion over the past few days.

I'll sign off now to go scuba diving in one of our lakes and wish you all a great sunny weekend! :fluffle:

How about 'illusion of free will', as in, we don't have free will, but we believe we do?

In which case, the concept of sin cannot apply. We cannot be punished for decision that we didn't make.

Free will is the freedom of choice. You say God already knows what decisions we will make, because our lives are big, divine plans. That means God has already decided for us, so freedom of choice does not exist.
It doesn't matter if we don't know the outcome of our decision, it still was decided for us. It just gives us an illusion of choice, but not real freedom of choice. And thus, 'God's knowing' rules out any instance of both free will and freedom of choice.

That's not quite what I say. I say that God knows what we will decide, whether to love Him or not, and yet His plan for us is always that we choose to love Him. That would mean that for each person who refuses His offer (either by rejecting His existence, or believing Him unknowable or not worth knowing) His plan is 'frustrated'. Thus we do have the choice to go along with Him or not, even if He does know what we will decide.

I still maintain that knowing a decision is not the same as making it. I know my wife will want me to give her a hug when I get home, but that doesn't mean I took the choice away from her. (that is a very faulty example of God knowing our choices while not taking them away from us, because his knowledge is perfect, mine isn't, and I am stuck inside time, while He is both inside and outside of time.)

In which case, the concept of sin cannot apply. We cannot be punished for decision that we didn't make.

But you did.

Because God sees fit. It's God's decision. Ask God. We can't answer for God.

Right. We do have to submit our reason to God (or at least we have to) and admit that since it is so small and our knowledge so incomplete that not everything will make sense (even if God didn't exist). Some people get really upset by that though. Perhaps its a case of 'truth hurts'

(I hope that makes more sense.)

Again, I believe in free will and therefore don't believe that god is omniscient

It seems to be a shaky claim that God is not omniscient simply because we seem to have free will. regardless of which side of the argument I prefer, that doesn't seem to me to be a rock solid claim based on good logic. Wouldn't you need more evidence than that to conclude that God is not omniscient?

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.
Creating all the conditions, so that it can only happen in one way, is total control.

U touched a nice point there :) Thing is, everything in the universe works according to rules, its math. U can choose, but u choose according to several initial conditions, u look, u see them, u put them together and act accordingly. Thus, if u have the exact same initial conditions, u will act the exact same way, theres no way around it. Is this free will?

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???)
You have limited God.

"Just an observer" has a subjective viewpoint, from the mind looking outward, and so is limited by a point of view. God has no point of view, because he is everywhere and everything, everywhen. He is objectivity without subjectivity --if he had subjectivity, he would be limited, he would have a point of view.

It is impossible to be "just an observer" when you are everything and everybody. God, in your scenario, is a participant.

The Christian philosopher exercises in futility if he doesn't realize that his rationality can only bring him so far. In order to cross the chasm between God and humans, a bridge is required and his faith the vehicle which allows him to be carried across it.

If the Christian thinker tries to use his rationality alone and does not involve God in the processes of his reasonings, he may come to some conclusions and may even reach a sort of enlightenment ~ however, if he saw himself as capable of being able to play God in the first place and crossing the chasm without the bridge (Jesus) or his vehicle (faith), he would no longer be a “Christian” thinker at all and will inevitably fail to cross the chasm nor understand God.

Augustine’s Confessions:
“You, my God, are supreme, utmost in goodness, mightiest and all-powerful, most merciful and most just. You are the most hidden from us and yet the most present amongst us, the most beautiful and yet the most strong, ever enduring and yet we cannot comprehend you. You are unchangeable and yet you change all things. You are never new, never old, and yet all things have new life from you. You are the unseen power that brings decline upon the proud... You welcome all who come to you, though you never lost them.”

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 the man in question can do something different tomorrow, and in each passing moment, and if God's "map" changes accordingly, then there is no fore-knowledge at all, as this "knowledge of the future" is dependent upon decisions in the present.

But it doesn't matter if He knows it, because:

a) your ultimate "decision" won't affect His plans; His plans have been made taking into account your decisions.

b) it doesn't affect your decision-making either, because you don't know your final outcome. Yes, you will die, but where, when, how, why etc. will have to revealed when the time comes. Play on and find out what kind of ending God has laid for you.
Arrrr! Then they weren't his decisions. Not his. You admit this by putting it in quotes.

Creating all the conditions, so that it can only happen in one way, is total control.

Yes, and?

How about 'illusion of free will', as in, we don't have free will, but we believe we do?
If we sincerely believe we have "illusion of free will," then we have no free will. We have surrendered it.

Free will is self-determination. How can you believe you determine events when, at the same time, you really believe they are pre-determined?

God took our memories?????

Could be worse, he could have taken our mammaries . . .

That's not quite what I say. I say that God knows what we will decide, whether to love Him or not, and yet His plan for us is always that we choose to love Him. That would mean that for each person who refuses His offer (either by rejecting His existence, or believing Him unknowable or not worth knowing) His plan is 'frustrated'. Thus we do have the choice to go along with Him or not, even if He does know what we will decide (strike-through).
This makes much more sense, because now you are talking about the present, and none of this silly 'knowing the future' nonsense. His "plan" for us is here and now, in any given instant.

I still maintain that knowing a decision is not the same as making it. I know my wife will want me to give her a hug when I get home, but that doesn't mean I took the choice away from her. (that is a very faulty example of God knowing our choices while not taking them away from us, because his knowledge is perfect, mine isn't, and I am stuck inside time, while He is both inside and outside of time.)
What you talk about --"knowing" your wife will want a hug --is not knowledge, it is prediction. It may be a very good prediction, but it is still prediction, not knowledge.

If it was knowledge of the future, then your wife would have no other choice but to behave as you describe.

I know that if I drop a pencil, it will fall, but this does not mean that I made it fall.



:confused: :confused: Yes you did. You droped it . . . :confused: :confused:

I gave you a rope, and you already had a tree, it doesn't mean I made you hang yourself :D

Yes, and?
Nevermind. The sentence just didn't make sense to me.

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.

This proves it, God is a crazy woman.

I gave you a rope, and you already had a tree, it doesn't mean I made you hang yourself :D
So... in the context of the prior example, you're saying gravity has free will?

why i'm right, your said your self everything i the bible is true so here.
"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." John 14:6
aka Christianity is right, the rest are wrong, to be honest i think we are taught to much tolerance in this country, it is to long that the small minority of no christians has beat back and made laws against the 80%? of those who claim to be christians in the US. time to fight back and push our views on others and stiffle thier views :P

So... in the context of the prior example, you're saying gravity has free will?

Actually, the gravity goes with the tree, and the way the rope gets tied around your neck is the Freewill part

Actually, the gravity goes with the tree, and the way the rope gets tied around your neck is the Freewill part
I meant the prior example.

This proves it, God is a crazy woman.
It would explain "His" moody behaviour in the old testament.

I meant the prior example.

Why would gravity need to have freewill? Do you mean God or Man has freewill? Man has free will. He's born with a rope around his neck, he can hang-himself or let God take the rope off. Man's freewill decides, God only waits for the asking.

Why would gravity need to have freewill? Do you mean God or Man has freewill? Man has free will. He's born with a rope around his neck, he can hang-himself or let God take the rope off.
Heh. Nevermind. I was being uphelpful.

Man is born free. It's Christianity that puts the noose around his neck.

Nah, God unties the rope man tied around his own neck... :D

Nah, God unties the rope man tied around his own neck... :D
*psst!* Lean close to the monitor, I'll tell you a little secret.

...

Ready?

...

Life is not a sin.

Life is not a Sin? *Have I just now met someone that has never watched the news nor reads history books, nor has interacted with any other person?*

Do you know anybody that hasn't sinned? "Unless you have faith like a little child, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Unless you are born-again, Unless you put away man's wisdom and take up God's foolishness etc., etc., etc. By one way of reasonsingm, we are incapable of NOT know the difference between good and evil, therefore, we have sinned.




*maybe we aught to define sin? Perhaps we are talking about two different things?*

Life is not a Sin? *Have I just now met someone that has never watched the news nor reads history books, nor has interacted with anyone other person?*

Do you know anybody that hasn't sinned? "Unless you have faith like a little child, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Unless you are born-again, Unless you put away man's wisdom and take up God's foolishness etc., etc., etc. By one way of reasonsingm, we are incapable of NOT know the difference between good and evil, therefore, we have sinned.




*maybe we aught to define sin? Perhaps we are talking about two different things?*
You didn't address what I'd said.

Life, itself, is not a sin. We are born free of the noose. It is only belief that puts the noose around our necks. To put it metaphorically, life for humans began when Adam and Eve exited the Garden. Life is mortal. Life feeds on life, killing and eating to survive. Life propagates and has children. Life comes with pain, and sorrow, and joy. None of this was possible in the Garden of Eden.

But to address your points, I would simply say that the concept of "sinning" is "going against god", so for those for whom there is no god, there is no sin. No god, no sin. Just doing bad things, or wrong things, or crimes, but not sins.

Ah, I knew we were saying different things.

Christians do not live under the Law, Our Sin no longer means to fail at the law. But Sin in the modern world (after Jesus) means to not be washed of it, it is, in effect, separation of man from God.

Isaiah 59:1-2
"Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:

But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear."
*bold by me

All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial. Sin, in the modern world since Jesus offers us cleansing,

Romans 7:4-6
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."

Ah, I knew we were saying different things.

Christians do not live under the Law, Our Sin no longer means to fail at the law. But Sin in the modern world (after Jesus) means to not be washed of it, it is, in effect, separation of man from God.

Isaiah 59:1-2
"Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:

But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear."
*bold by me

All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial. Sin, in the modern world since Jesus offers us cleansing,

Romans 7:4-6
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."
Then you no longer claim we are born with a noose around our necks? That we are born sinful and have to be "saved"? That existence in the flesh is sin?

EDIT: "You" being Christians.

Then you no longer claim we are born with a noose around our necks? That we are born sinful and have to be "saved"? That existence in the flesh is sin?

EDIT: "You" being Christians.
Of course, Chioldren are pure and free of sin.

Infact, you can't even really be counted for sin until age of acountablility.

my Church says 8.

Who ever, thinks children are full of sin...I worry about them.

Then you no longer claim we are born with a noose around our necks? That we are born sinful and have to be "saved"? That existence in the flesh is sin?

EDIT: "You" being Christians.


Life is Not Sin. A tree or plant (for example) have life, they do not know the difference betwen good and evil, they do not have sin. Animals do now know the difference between good and evil, they do not have seperation from God, they do not have sin.

However, knoweldge of good and evil seperates us from God, we cannot be near him with evil, any amount. Because we are born with the ability to know good and evil we have to have the sin removed and then there will be no more seperation from God.

Life is Not Sin. A tree or plant (for example) have life, they do not know the difference betwen good and evil, they do not have sin. Animals do now know the difference between good and evil, they do not have seperation from God, they do not have sin.

However, knoweldge of good and evil seperates us from God, we cannot be near him with evil, any amount. Because we are born with the ability to know good and evil we have to have the sin removed and then there will be no more seperation from God.
Alright... Life for humans is sin, then. We inherently need to be "saved," from birth. We are handed a noose.

Alright... Life for humans is sin, then. We inherently need to be "saved," from birth. We are handed a noose.

We are born, it means we will die. Yes. There is hope and a promise of more, and the noose can be removed, it's free for the asking, but we can't untie it ourselves. Yes, absolutley right. See, you did know what you were talking about :)

We are born, it means we will die. Yes. There is hope and a promise of more, and the noose can be removed, it's free for the asking, but we can't untie it ourselves. Yes, absolutley right. See, you did know what you were talking about :)
But belief that there is a noose is just that --belief. Life (for humans, who are the only species for whom there is a god) is not a sin.

But belief that there is a noose is just that --belief. Life (for humans, who are the only species for whom there is a god) is not a sin.



If you are in God's presence or near God, then you don't have Sin. Are you near God?

Denial of the existence of God does not make you near God, and Sin is the separation of Man from God ... Denial does not make a person sinless.

If you are in God's pressence or near God, then you don't have Sin. Are you near God?

Denial of the existence of God does not make you near God, and Sin the the seperation of Man from God...
God is within me, a part of me. I can't get much nearer, and I cannot be separated from it, ever. What I ken of god, my concept of it, will always be with me.

Separation from god is possible for Christians, because their image of God is a being apart from them, without. Such is not the case for me. I am a part of all that is god, and "he" (my image of god) is a part of me.

No, Christians concept is of God within them. God lives in us (and you).

God allows us to know him and choose him. You would have no freewill if you did not know the difference between good and evil. But if you are not cleansed of the sin in you, while you are alive, you have not chosen good over evil, you choose to keep evil. And if you choose this world over him, then you will not be a participant of the true life that comes after.

As Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world" and, "I go to make a place for you in my Father's house, and if it were not true I would have told you so."

God is in you now, but He wants you to choose him over this world.

No, Christians concept is of God within them. God lives in us (and you).

God allows us to know him and choose him. You would have no freewill if you did not know the difference between good and evil. But if you are not cleansed of the sin in you, while you are alive, you have not chosen good over evil, you choose to keep evil. And if you choose this world over him, then you will not be a participant of the true life that comes after.

As Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world" and, "I go to make a place for you in my Father's house, and if it were not true I would have told you so."

God is in you now, but He wants you to choose him over this world.
The Christian concept of "separation from God" allows for them to leave his "side", metaphorically, and that is an image of a being apart from, not inherent in, the person. What you propose is contradictory imagry.

I agree that "God allows us to know him and choose him," though I would word it differently. I would say, rather, that we ken god, and if we do, we revel in that, for all its worth. Go us!

It seems we have different definitions of free will, too. "Free will" is will, the power to choose. It is a concept of self-determination; we use will to determine our own course. It comes with consciousness, hence all will is free; and although goodness and evilness are concepts for which we can use will and choose, it does not rely on them for its conceptual existence (unless you break down all choices and categorize them as "good" or "evil" ones).

I don't believe in evil. Just good, and mistakes.

I also believe in life, rather than an afterlife. I put my faith in love of life, which is the closest description of god that I can hold. I am of this world, and as far as I am concerned, so is god. So yes, I choose life (this world) over an imaginary afterlife.

I hope I don't sound arrogant *sigh*. I'm sorry.

If you are in God's presence or near God, then you don't have Sin. Are you near God?

Several. They all have diferent ideas of what is a "sin" than yours does.

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.

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

If the outcome of the situation is known before the situation arises (which is the case with omniscience due to it being a constant throughout time), how could you possibly say that it was my decision?

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.

To have certain foreknowledge of your decisions before you are born, before your parents are born, before your grandparents, before Christ was born... Surely you could have had no say in that decision.



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.

Surely, if God's knowledge of our actions is a constant (Logical Argument 5) and our actions must always coincide with His knowledge(Logical Argument 6), then (LA6) rules out our ability to perform actions that contradict His knowledge.

That is, if we must do the actions God knows we will (predestined actions), we can't do the actions God knows we won't (disallowed actions).

Seeing as God's knowledge is constant and he won't change his mind, his knowledge, and therefore both our predestined and disallowed actions remain constant.

To paraphrase, we lack the 'free will' to change events that His knowledge foretells.


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.

You, like so many others make the mistake of confusing likely predictions with actual knowledge.

"I know you are going to get out of bed tomorrow" - I could die in my sleep.

"and have breakfast" - My house may have caught fire, completely destroying the section containing food.

"I just happen to know the every adult alive today has to eat in order to stay alive" - http://www.rickross.com/reference/breat/breat05.html :D

You do not know any of your statements. You predict I will get out of bed, that I will have breakfast. You're probably right. But you do not know for certain.

There are always exceptional cases, no matter how rare.

The best you can do (provided you're not the self-contradictory God we're debating) is predict the future.

Personally I don't see other Religions as "WRONG" and mine being right

I see it as they just interpret god differently than I do

To have certain foreknowledge of your decisions before you are born, before your parents are born, before your grandparents, before Christ was born... Surely you could have had no say in that decision.


I made the decision. God had knowledge of what decision I would make but I made the decision, it was my choice not His. Knowledge =/= determination. If I were to make a decision contrary to that, then God would have had knowledge that I would have made the contrary decision. If I myself had the knowledge then it would not be free will, but I do not have the knowledge therefore my actions are based on choice.

To


I made the decision. God had knowledge of what decision I would make but I made the decision, it was my choice not His. Knowledge =/= determination. If I were to make a decision contrary to that, then God would have had knowledge that I would have made the contrary decision. If I myself had the knowledge then it would not be free will, but I do not have the knowledge therefore my actions are based on choice.


Right, God knows your decisions and the outcomes before you make them

like knowing you're going to be born, he knows your parents (hopefully parents) will get together and have a baby, he doesn't make them do it, he just knows beforehand they are going to

I made the decision. God had knowledge of what decision I would make but I made the decision, it was my choice not His. Knowledge =/= determination. If I were to make a decision contrary to that, then God would have had knowledge that I would have made the contrary decision. If I myself had the knowledge then it would not be free will, but I do not have the knowledge therefore my actions are based on choice.
In this scenario, as you'd stated it, God has knowledge of your decision after you make it, not before.

Else, it boils down to nothing more than: "I made a decision." "I decided god knew about it before I made it."

If anyone has knowledge of your choices beforehand, even god, then it's not a choice at all.

In this scenario, as you'd stated it, God has knowledge of your decision after you make it, not before.

Else, it boils down to nothing more than: "I made a decision." "I decided god knew about it before I made it."

If anyone has knowledge of your choices beforehand, even god, then it's not a choice at all.

Which then begs the question how can christians believe in free will if they believe in prophecies.

Which then begs the question how can christians believe in free will if they believe in prophecies.
Prophecies are neither prediction nor knowledge. They are more akin to an inspirational plan laid out, to be fulfilled by those who believe.

Let's assume, for the sake of conversation, that you are right. That if God exists (above and beyond the four dimensions of the special theory of relativity,) that because he 'can' see you and all of your life simultaneously, outside of linear time, that this would mean what you say, that you have no free will.

What does that change? It changes nothing.

We do not know if we are going to choose one thing or the other, thus, we have to live through it like it is the first time, because to us, it is the first time. We can not dismiss our choice and do nothing, nor go crazy and do lots of stuff knowing that it is predetermined, it makes no difference to our rationalizing of the issue just because God would have known whatever it is we will decide before it happened (it has no effect unless he tells us in advance what to do).

In the end, we cannot use this theory of free will or no freewill, of predetermined or not predetermined to predict any outcome for ourselves, nor claim innocence of our actions afterwards because 'we' did not know the predetermined results so we 'had' to act as if we make-up our own choices, because, to us, we do have to make our own choices even if they are predetermined.



If you don't think this is 'fair,' try remembering that you've been allowed to play this game of life at all. And if you are considering this topic seriously, then you are likely the benefactor of a fully functioning mind. Remember the many other people in the world that have either never had a fully functioning adult mind or had one taken away from them, and tell me again how it’s unfair that God sits in and outside of the fourth dimension and is completely capable of seeing both the beginning and the end of your existence all at the same moment, and this wrecks your life how?

I've never known existence on earth to be 'fair' anyway, where did this concept come from? Unless we choose fairness whenever we can, you don’t see much of it in the natural world ~ but then, I suppose, can ‘we’ choose it? LOL

Eat, drink and be merry, Thank God for what you have and repent of your shortcomings and forgive others as you would be forgiven.

Prophecies are neither prediction nor knowledge. They are more akin to an inspirational plan laid out, to be fulfilled by those who believe.

Prophecy, in a broad sense, is the prediction of future events. The etymology of the word is ultimately Greek, from pro- "before" plus the root of phanai "speak", i. e. "speaking before" or "foretelling", but prophecy often implies the involvement of supernatural phenomena, whether it is communication with a deity, the reading of magical signs, or astrology. It is also used as a general term for the revelation of divine will.-wikipedia

Your definition of prophecies is flawed. How is it if a propehcy is not a prediction the birth of Jesus was predicted? How is it that Jesus knew that he would be denied 3 times by John(Not sure if this is the correct apostle). Was it just a lucky guess?

In this scenario, as you'd stated it, God has knowledge of your decision after you make it, not before.

Else, it boils down to nothing more than: "I made a decision." "I decided god knew about it before I made it."

If anyone has knowledge of your choices beforehand, even god, then it's not a choice at all.


But you do have a choice! Simple knowledge is nothing without active interference. If >>I<< did not know about what I would choose in the future, then I still had multiple choices and the ability to choose from them.

You have limited God.

"Just an observer" has a subjective viewpoint, from the mind looking outward, and so is limited by a point of view. God has no point of view, because he is everywhere and everything, everywhen. He is objectivity without subjectivity --if he had subjectivity, he would be limited, he would have a point of view.

It is impossible to be "just an observer" when you are everything and everybody. God, in your scenario, is a participant.

If I claim that God cannot sin, have I limited God. If good cannot do evil, is that a limitation of good? I suppose it is in a way. It's a bit like the question can God make a rock that he can't lift. The simple answer is no. That may look like a type of limitation in mathematics, but from where I'm standing, that is not really a limitation that affects my faith in God. It's just not relevant.

If I say that God chose to give us free choice, and then was consistent with His decision to allow us that free choice, no matter how much it cost Him personally, does that mean I am claiming that He is limited? Perhaps He chose to limit His power when He gave us free will. Does that mean He is no longer the all-powerful? Perhaps we need a closer look at what we both mean by all-powerful and all-knowing.

I wasn't saying that God is always only an observer when it comes to decision making. I suppose He does have considerable influence over our decisions, when He chooses to. But in the particular example that I was using (getting out of bed) it is possible that he is only an observer in that particular situation.

This makes much more sense, because now you are talking about the present, and none of this silly 'knowing the future' nonsense. His "plan" for us is here and now, in any given instant.


What you talk about --"knowing" your wife will want a hug --is not knowledge, it is prediction. It may be a very good prediction, but it is still prediction, not knowledge.

If it was knowledge of the future, then your wife would have no other choice but to behave as you describe.

From my point of view, you are right, it is a prediction based on what I have learned from the past. However, I am not God. Does God simply make predictions, as I would? Actually, I honestly couldn't say. I'm no theologian. But from what I have understood from the Bible, the prophesies about Jesus sounded pretty certain. Either God knew exaclty what would happen beforehand, or he had the power to bring about the situation that he predicted. That doesn't resolve our dilema, because it looks like God was so much in control that one could easily assume that the humans were merely pawns, rather than making the choice to crucify Jesus. However, if this was true, than it was God who killed his son, not the humans. It also means that God made the humans sin in the first place, which makes God look pretty aimless and incompetent or something really bad. Neither of these cases appeal to either my logic, my understanding of God and the Bible, my sense of justice, or in fact just about everything I have ever believed or recognised as truth.

Surely, if God's knowledge of our actions is a constant (Logical Argument 5) and our actions must always coincide with His knowledge(Logical Argument 6), then (LA6) rules out our ability to perform actions that contradict His knowledge.

That is, if we must do the actions God knows we will (predestined actions), we can't do the actions God knows we won't (disallowed actions).

Seeing as God's knowledge is constant and he won't change his mind, his knowledge, and therefore both our predestined and disallowed actions remain constant.

To paraphrase, we lack the 'free will' to change events that His knowledge foretells.


But from our point of veiw, since we cannot know what God knows, we don't know which one of our decisions will coincide with what he knows. Thus, for practical purposes, we 'just have to make the best of it'. In this way, it can be argued, His knowledge is not affecting our decision. Thus our 'free will' is not squashed. Rather it has to be exercised in order to bring about what God knows will happen.



You, like so many others make the mistake of confusing likely predictions with actual knowledge.

"I know you are going to get out of bed tomorrow" - I could die in my sleep.

"and have breakfast" - My house may have caught fire, completely destroying the section containing food.

"I just happen to know the every adult alive today has to eat in order to stay alive" - http://www.rickross.com/reference/breat/breat05.html :D

You do not know any of your statements. You predict I will get out of bed, that I will have breakfast. You're probably right. But you do not know for certain.

There are always exceptional cases, no matter how rare.

The best you can do (provided you're not the self-contradictory God we're debating) is predict the future.

The hole that you are picking in my argument arises out of the fact that my example is not perfect. For I am not God, and unlike him, I don't know you or your house or your breakfast or your tomorrow. However, I was simply showing how one can think about pre-knowledge and free will as happily existing together.

From my point of view, you are right, it is a prediction based on what I have learned from the past. However, I am not God. Does God simply make predictions, as I would? Actually, I honestly couldn't say. I'm no theologian. But from what I have understood from the Bible, the prophesies about Jesus sounded pretty certain. Either God knew exaclty what would happen beforehand, or he had the power to bring about the situation that he predicted. That doesn't resolve our dilema, because it looks like God was so much in control that one could easily assume that the humans were merely pawns, rather than making the choice to crucify Jesus. However, if this was true, than it was God who killed his son, not the humans. It also means that God made the humans sin in the first place, which makes God look pretty aimless and incompetent or something really bad. Neither of these cases appeal to either my logic, my understanding of God and the Bible, my sense of justice, or in fact just about everything I have ever believed or recognised as truth.

Well, according to Christian teaching, god created the world. God created good and evil. And god created mankind, giving them free will while KNOWING that they would fail.... (that is, if we do have free will and god is omniscient)
We are in no position to critisise god, but I do have serious doubts about his intentions with mankind. Always had.
Sometimes he seems like a little child and we seem to be his toys...

Prophecy, in a broad sense, is the prediction of future events. The etymology of the word is ultimately Greek, from pro- "before" plus the root of phanai "speak", i. e. "speaking before" or "foretelling", but prophecy often implies the involvement of supernatural phenomena, whether it is communication with a deity, the reading of magical signs, or astrology. It is also used as a general term for the revelation of divine will.-wikipedia

Your definition of prophecies is flawed. How is it if a propehcy is not a prediction the birth of Jesus was predicted? How is it that Jesus knew that he would be denied 3 times by John(Not sure if this is the correct apostle). Was it just a lucky guess?
That is what prophecy (the concept) has come to mean, and a suitable Greek word used for it. The Greek got a lot of things wrong about prediction (they even promoted the idea, still popular today, that astrology was fortune-telling).

My definition is not flawed; it is just that the other definition is more popular. That doesn't make it right. It's like the evolution in concept from myth (the ancient stories) to myth (lies) --the modern idea takes precedence.

Wikipedia is full of the popular ideas, written by everyone and anyone, and not necessarily correct. I, myself, have added a few pages to it, also not necessarily correct.

The birth of Jesus was not predicted --the birth of the Christ was. Far different thing, but even so. The birth of the Christ child, as outlined in prophecy, was not a prediction. It is full of symbolism, and that symbolism was fulfilled quite deliberately. Mary's early life, in the Book of Mary, demonstrates how she was groomed to be the Mother of Christ. Nothing about the birth fulfilled prophecy by chance.

Jesus' prediction about Peter denying him was a prediction, not a prophecy.

EDIT: My bad --the story of Mary's life is in The Gospel of the Birth of Mary, by James.

On what basis do you believe your religion is the only and the absolute truth?

I choose to believe that my religion is the only and the absolute truth because it's right for me.

I choose to believe that my religion is the only and the absolute truth because it's right for me.
Well done!

I'll go with that answer, too. ;)

But you do have a choice! Simple knowledge is nothing without active interference. If >>I<< did not know about what I would choose in the future, then I still had multiple choices and the ability to choose from them.
No. Look...

If there is knowledge of what you have done, that means it effectively happened. The knowledge is absolute. If there is "knowledge" of the future, of what you will do, it has the same quality of absoluteness. It will happen. Otherwise, it is not knowledge, it is prediction, or guess, or some fantastic fiction of time-travel.

Knowledge is knowing, and in knowing it, we cannot undo that knowledge. We cannot take it back. Same goes for god.

If I claim that God cannot sin, have I limited God. If good cannot do evil, is that a limitation of good? I suppose it is in a way. It's a bit like the question can God make a rock that he can't lift. The simple answer is no. That may look like a type of limitation in mathematics, but from where I'm standing, that is not really a limitation that affects my faith in God. It's just not relevant.

If I say that God chose to give us free choice, and then was consistent with His decision to allow us that free choice, no matter how much it cost Him personally, does that mean I am claiming that He is limited? Perhaps He chose to limit His power when He gave us free will. Does that mean He is no longer the all-powerful? Perhaps we need a closer look at what we both mean by all-powerful and all-knowing.

I wasn't saying that God is always only an observer when it comes to decision making. I suppose He does have considerable influence over our decisions, when He chooses to. But in the particular example that I was using (getting out of bed) it is possible that he is only an observer in that particular situation.
"Giving" us free will does not limit any power god has, because god is within us, a part of us. His power is as infinite as our collective imagination.

He is all that exists in the present, so he is all-knowing; the past is gone, and the future does not yet exist. He knows all that is.

In my view. ;)

He is all that exists in the present, so he is all-knowing; the past is gone, and the future does not yet exist. He knows all that is.

In my view. ;)

I would agree with that. If god knew the future, our future when creating us, he would have known exactly what we would do wrong, when and how. And he still made us that way, knowing we would sin. The whole point of punishment would be stupid, because he knew already what we would do if he created us this way or that. I mean, if you intentionally step on a cat's tail, who can blame the cat for scratching you?

He couldn't expect anything from us, because he would already know. Our actions wouldn't change the fact that we would go to heaven or to hell, as this was decided long before we existed.

What, no takes for the idea? I just questioned god's justice, after all...

I would agree with that. If god knew the future, our future when creating us, he would have known exactly what we would do wrong, when and how. And he still made us that way, knowing we would sin. The whole point of punishment would be stupid, because he knew already what we would do if he created us this way or that. I mean, if you intentionally step on a cat's tail, who can blame the cat for scratching you?

He couldn't expect anything from us, because he would already know. Our actions wouldn't change the fact that we would go to heaven or to hell, as this was decided long before we existed.

Exactly.

What, no takes for the idea? I just questioned god's justice, after all...

Its a tired argument though. That horse died a long time ago. It makes for rather uninteresting conversation to rehash the same tired arguments.

The Genesis story gives an account of where God specifically gave a choice to Adam and Eve.

This isn't even true, I'm afraid.

'God' did not specifically do anything, did he... he left our two naked dimwits in the garden, and then slapped them down at a later date for not doing as they were told.

No reasoning given... no fair warning of what a 'lie' might be (so - since ALL they knew was truth, they would HAVE TO believe the serpent), no fair warning that there even WAS a talking snake (so - since the ONLY other talking entity they knew was 'god', they would HAVE TO assume that the serpent was god manifested).

At no point were they actually given a 'choice'... they were just offered one set of 'guidelines', and then had those guidelines changed, with no advanced warning.

And, when they followed the new guidelines, they were punished.

Arbitrary, or evil... you can choose... but definitely not a 'choice'.

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.

Your theory only holds up if God cannot intervene. If he CAN intervene, then free-will MUST be compromised. And, Jesus is clear testament to intervention... and thus, to the contravention of free-will.

Basically - if humans CAN foil God's plan, so that Satan wins in the end times... we will have free-will.

If humans cannot foil god's plan, through intervention (already carried out at least once), then our actions ARE limited, and thus, our will is not 'free'.

Your theory only holds up if God cannot intervene. If he CAN intervene, then free-will MUST be compromised. And, Jesus is clear testament to intervention... and thus, to the contravention of free-will.

Basically - if humans CAN foil God's plan, so that Satan wins in the end times... we will have free-will.

If hamans cannot foil god's plan, through intervention (already carried out at least once), then our actions ARE limited, and thus, our will is not 'free'.



God's plan only involved preserving the lineage of David so that Jesus could be born...and Satan was capable of foiling God's plan but failed.

God's plan only involved preserving the lineage of David so that Jesus could be born...and Satan was capable of foiling God's plan but failed.

So, what is Revelation, then? Suggestions?

Satan was never shown in scripture as being 'capable' of foiling God's plan... in fact, for the Old Testament texts, Satan clearly IS PART OF God's plan - a valued member of the team, no less.

But, regardless, you admit that God is interventionist, therefore, there can be no solid assertion of free-will.

You cannot have absolute freedom, AND control.

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.

So - you admit that God does not know which route you will take, he just has an endless supply of alternate maps, depending on your choices?

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.

No.

If I flip a coin the odds are ALWAYS (close to) 1:1 (heads:tails).

It doesn't matter how many times I have flipped the same coin, or what results... each flip has the same probablity.

What has always concerned me about western (I'm buddhist and do not believe in a god) views of god is: God's need to save others for them to get to heaven. What about those who are unaware of his "presence" and never get a chance to become "saved"... Poor people I guess...

However, I don't make any assertion that I know my beliefs are correct. In buddhism we are to find out for ourselves ;)

Perhaps, we need to remind ourselves that our brains cannot, are incapable of, fathoming things like 'space.' You know, the real kind, not the silly TV and movie kind. The endless expanses, the uncountable volume-ness of the universe, the astoundingly vastness of it's actuality... And Yet, you all want to try and put someone who can fathom it all simultaneously into a neat little mold of thought, into a rule of physics that you can understand. I understand your desire, but I propose that your direction is flawed.

Much like you cannot explain what gravity is, of course you can say what it does, but is it simply the curved absence of space (as it seems to be as a spacecraft gets caught in a planets gravity well), OR is it something that can be described as existing with a name like gravitons (as it seems to be when simple mass attracts other mass)? Or another example of what we have a hard time fathoming and putting a single label on: Is light particle or wave?... For all that we can tell, perhaps God did create freewill, but the free will is already finished, and to him it is like watching a movie, God has seen it before, but we are living through it for the first time, we do not ‘anticipate’ the occurrence of events like God can. You can anticipate the favorite moment of your favorite movie, but the first time you saw it, you had no idea what was going to happen next…

Perhaps we have befuddled ourselves with ideas like; the universe splits into infinite realities for every chance occurrence, we think that perhaps both results are achieved in different universes split apart at that moment. But perhaps it is wrong to think such things because there is only one universe that ever was, one universe of time itself being played through like an ultimately real MMORPG except this one is played live and only once. You have freewill to do what you want to do, but God has an equally real view of it that it has already been played through once (at least from his point of view). Our reality is likely both, freewill AND predetermined. Once you can fathom reality in it's entirety, maybe then you will wonder how you could have been so stupid to not have understood it all before...

Perhaps, we need to remind ourselves that our brains cannot, are incapable of, fathoming things like 'space.' You know, the real kind, not the silly TV and movie kind. The endless expanses, the uncountable volume-ness of the universe, the astoundingly vastness of it's actuality... And Yet, you all want to try and put someone who can fathom it all simultaneously into a neat little mold of thought, into a rule of physics that you can understand. I understand your desire, but I propose that your direction is flawed.

Much like you cannot explain what gravity is, of course you can say what it does, but is it simply the curved absence of space (as it seems to be as a spacecraft gets caught in a planets gravity well), OR is it something that can be described as existing with a name like gravitons (as it seems to be when simple mass attracts other mass)? Or another example of what we have a hard time fathoming and putting a single label on: Is light particle or wave?... For all that we can tell, perhaps God did create freewill, but the free will is already finished, and to him it is like watching a movie, God has seen it before, but we are living through it for the first time, we do not ‘anticipate’ the occurrence of events like God can. You can anticipate the favorite moment of your favorite movie, but the first time you saw it, you had no idea what was going to happen next…

Perhaps we have befuddled ourselves with ideas like; the universe splits into infinite realities for every chance occurrence, we think that perhaps both results are achieved in different universes split apart at that moment. But perhaps it is wrong to think such things because there is only one universe that ever was, one universe of time itself being played through like an ultimately real MMORPG except this one is played live and only once. You have freewill to do what you want to do, but God has an equally real view of it that it has already been played through once (at least from his point of view). Our reality is likely both, freewill AND predetermined. Once you can fathom reality in it's entirety, maybe then you will wonder how you could have been so stupid to not have understood it all before...


Geez, Greenlander are you trying to add some intelligence to this conversation. Well done my friend.

No.

If I flip a coin the odds are ALWAYS (close to) 1:1 (heads:tails).

It doesn't matter how many times I have flipped the same coin, or what results... each flip has the same probablity.


Yeah, I was of the 50% faction. I think that, following probability laws, the 2/3 side could justify themselves logically though. It was a long time ago (2 years hehe) so I can barely remember the details.

Yeah, I was of the 50% faction. I think that, following probability laws, the 2/3 side could justify themselves logically though. It was a long time ago (2 years hehe) so I can barely remember the details.
You are trying to illude to combination (or I could be off and permutation)
But either way each coin toss is 50 /50 (idealy)

Perhaps, we need to remind ourselves that our brains cannot, are incapable of, fathoming things like 'space.' You know, the real kind, not the silly TV and movie kind. The endless expanses, the uncountable volume-ness of the universe, the astoundingly vastness of it's actuality... And Yet, you all want to try and put someone who can fathom it all simultaneously into a neat little mold of thought, into a rule of physics that you can understand. I understand your desire, but I propose that your direction is flawed.

Much like you cannot explain what gravity is, of course you can say what it does, but is it simply the curved absence of space (as it seems to be as a spacecraft gets caught in a planets gravity well), OR is it something that can be described as existing with a name like gravitons (as it seems to be when simple mass attracts other mass)? Or another example of what we have a hard time fathoming and putting a single label on: Is light particle or wave?... For all that we can tell, perhaps God did create freewill, but the free will is already finished, and to him it is like watching a movie, God has seen it before, but we are living through it for the first time, we do not ‘anticipate’ the occurrence of events like God can. You can anticipate the favorite moment of your favorite movie, but the first time you saw it, you had no idea what was going to happen next…

Perhaps we have befuddled ourselves with ideas like; the universe splits into infinite realities for every chance occurrence, we think that perhaps both results are achieved in different universes split apart at that moment. But perhaps it is wrong to think such things because there is only one universe that ever was, one universe of time itself being played through like an ultimately real MMORPG except this one is played live and only once. You have freewill to do what you want to do, but God has an equally real view of it that it has already been played through once (at least from his point of view). Our reality is likely both, freewill AND predetermined. Once you can fathom reality in it's entirety, maybe then you will wonder how you could have been so stupid to not have understood it all before...


So basicaly "wow there are lots of big ideas ... space ... gravity ... multiverse theory ... just because all (or most) of us can not fathom such things but they are true ... my unfathomable hypothesis could and is also true"

Not nessisarily

So basicaly "wow there are lots of big ideas ... space ... gravity ... multiverse theory ... just because all (or most) of us can not fathom such things but they are true ... my unfathomable hypothesis could and is also true"

Not nessisarily


You didn't actually SAY anything here... Am I missing something? What proposal are you endorsing?

You didn't actually SAY anything here... Am I missing something? What proposal are you endorsing?
That it being an unfathomable idea (potentialy) does not prove it one way or another it is just another way of saying "I dont know"

Which puts believing in the "free will and pre determination" hypothesis in the "faith" range again

That it being an unfathomable idea (potentialy) does not prove it one way or another it is just another way of saying "I dont know"

Which puts believing in the "free will and pre determination" hypothesis in the "faith" range again
It IS a faith question, after all, why now be surprised that we can't definitively define an answer. Although, I'll stand by mine, for now, that the answer is both freewill AND predetermination, as the best answer. Like light it both particle AND wave. The last remaining answer, no matter how improbable, is the best answer thereafter. :D

It IS a faith question, after all, why now be surprised that we can't definitively define an answer. Although, I'll stand by mine, for now, that the answer is both freewill AND predetermination, as the best answer. Like light it both particle AND wave. The last remaining answer, no matter how improbable, is the best answer thereafter. :D
Fair enough. I thought you were trying to push it in to the "objectivly true" catagory because there are other theories that appear to be true but are hard to understand so this one could be too
It does not eliminate it but it does not prove it either

Perhaps, we need to remind ourselves that our brains cannot, are incapable of, fathoming things like 'space.'
Exactly. So while this discussion is very entertaining and intellectually amusing, it will not bring us closer to the truth or give us complete understanding.

To Cabra West:
If you don't believe that God is omniescent and omnipotent, what use is the believe in God? If God is just a slightly more powerful being than a human, I might as well believe in the Gods of ancient Greece. At least they were amusing.

I postulate:
You cannot be a Christian, if you don't believe in an omniescent and omnipotent God, as this is the god-image used in Christianity
You cannot be a Christian if you don't believe in free will, as without free will the whole concept of sin is invalidated.

As to justice:
"There is no justice, there's only me"
(DEATH as reported by the prophet Terry Pratchett)

To Cabra West:
If you don't believe that God is omniescent and omnipotent, what use is the believe in God? If God is just a slightly more powerful being than a human, I might as well believe in the Gods of ancient Greece. At least they were amusing.


Why would god have to be omniscient and omnipotent for me to believe in him? I don't believe in things like compassion, peace and love because they are omnipotent or omniscient, now, do I?
I believe in the god Jesus described : a loving, forgiving, compassionate, caring creature who is trying his best for mankind. I don't know if he is omnipotent, he doesn't have to be. If he was omniscient I might get mad at him for lying to us, though.
And yes, I believe it is in my right to get mad at god. He created me, he made me live this life but he gave me a brain and a heart and a spirit. He wouldn't have done that if I'm not supposed to question him or get mad at him.

Btw, that phrase from Death is one of my favourites...

It makes a lot of sense. (Satanism)

It IS a faith question, after all, why now be surprised that we can't definitively define an answer. Although, I'll stand by mine, for now, that the answer is both freewill AND predetermination, as the best answer. Like light it both particle AND wave. The last remaining answer, no matter how improbable, is the best answer thereafter. :D
Not improbable; impossible.

Also, there is no comparison possible between the nature of free will and light. One occurs in the inner world, of mind/heart/soul, and exists because of non-interference, and the other in the physical world, where it affects everything it touches.

To Cabra West:
If you don't believe that God is omniescent and omnipotent, what use is the believe in God? If God is just a slightly more powerful being than a human, I might as well believe in the Gods of ancient Greece. At least they were amusing.
What use is an all-powerful being?

Why would god have to be omniscient and omnipotent for me to believe in him? I don't believe in things like compassion, peace and love because they are omnipotent or omniscient, now, do I?
I believe in the god Jesus described : a loving, forgiving, compassionate, caring creature who is trying his best for mankind

I notice you ignored his next point, which points out that one of the core beilefs of Christianity involves believing in an omniscient and omnipitent god. So no, you don't have to believe in an omnipotent god, but you do if you wish be a Christian.

And anyone who claims Christianity is grounded in science or historical fact... I don't deny they got a few facts right. There is still no proof that God exists, or that Jesus was his son, or even actually linked to God. It is spurious to suggest that an old book getting some stuff right is the basis by which the existence of God is proven.

Not improbable; impossible.

Also, there is no comparison possible between the nature of free will and light. One occurs in the inner world, of mind/heart/soul, and exists because of non-interference, and the other in the physical world, where it affects everything it touches.

Do you have any proof that God doesn't live in the outside world and affects everything he touches?


Silly narrow-mindedness on your part I think.

Do you have any proof that God doesn't live in the outside world and affects everything he touches?


Silly narrow-mindedness on your part I think.
So my belief (which has god not affecting the physical world) is silly narrow-mindedness and needs to be proved, but your belief (which has god affecting the physical world without evidence) doesn't need to be proven, because you can just call it "faith"?

No, you made a statement of something being impossible, and then you didn't back it up... I wrote that your "dismissal and claim of impossible" was simple narrow-mindedness on your part. What part of the proposal was 'Impossible?'

Link to the original thesis you claimed impossible
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9140116&postcount=850

On the basis that it is.

LOL :p

Okay fine, and I suppose quantum physics doesn't work and chaos theory is a crock-of-shit and the entire special theory of relativity is asinine, and our reasoning is, "just because." :eek:

:D

No, you made a statement of something being impossible, and then you didn't back it up... I wrote that your "dismissal and claim of impossible" was simple narrow-mindedness on your part. What part of the proposal was 'Impossible?'

Link to the original thesis you claimed impossible
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9140116&postcount=850
*blink*

The "impossible, not improbable" line referred to the improbable thing quoted in what you'd said (that's why we quote previous posts).... namely that both free will and predetermination existing is the best, most probable answer. It isn't. It's impossible, and as for backing it up, I did so in an earlier post.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9126651&postcount=790

I must have misunderstood the next part, about the narrow-mindedness, as it seemed to be in reference to what came before it:
Do you have any proof that God doesn't live in the outside world and affects everything he touches?

That is what I responded to.

LOL :p

Okay fine, and I suppose quantum physics doesn't work and chaos theory is a crock-of-shit and the entire special theory of relativity is asinine, and our reasoning is, "just because." :eek:

:D
Free will is not subject to the laws of physics. If it was, it wouldn't be "free."

I notice you ignored his next point, which points out that one of the core beilefs of Christianity involves believing in an omniscient and omnipitent god. So no, you don't have to believe in an omnipotent god, but you do if you wish be a Christian.



Fine, then I'm not a Christian. I suspected as much after most of those conversations here. Then I'm just a rational person who tries to follow the ideas presented by Jesus.
I sure can live with that

Free will is not subject to the laws of physics. If it was, it wouldn't be "free."

Sure it is, Gravity is Free. Living in the cosmos is Free. What are you on about?

Sure it is, Gravity is Free. Living in the cosmos is Free. What are you on about?
"Free will" is a concept, an idea of the individual being the one to choose (determine) and having the capacity to create his own course through life, and having responsibility for the choices he makes. The individual is the source of new events resulting from his choices. His choice, his freedom.

If our course is predetermined, then it is not us making those choices, as all events are laid out in advance. This is the "not free" version.

If the idea is promoted of an illusion of free will, and if one sincerely believes in the possibility of that illusion, then they have surrendered free will. Else, it is just idle speculation.

1: In one frame of mind you have total free will, your actions determine the next action and you choose your own path.

2: In another point of view, you only have limited free will, as in, you can only choose to do what you 'can' do. You cannot choose to be something you are not, you cannot choose to be a Tree. So, you have limited free will.

3: And in the third frame of mind, you have no free will whatsoever. (for example) Your very existence is predetermined, the date of your death may be secret but it is knowable. Your brain functions are nothing but electric synapses and the entire field of psychology is nothing but self inflicted hallucinations. If anyone disputes this, we'll give them some mind altering drugs and induce them to think the way we want them too. There is no inherent free will at all, you can't 'free will' yourself to be smarter than you are capable of nor to think differently than your genetics allow. You will not live one minute longer through thought alone. Your thought is controlled by your biology and your health and your upbringing, you are incapable of 'original' thought, you are only capable of applying what you have learned in new ways, such as use a hammer on something other than a nail but you cannot create ‘original’ anything..


(I propose that all three of the above are true. Life is both freewill AND predetermined, I am becoming more and more convinced by my own proposal as it seems to be the only possible answer for all occassions).

1: In one frame of mind you have total free will, your actions determine the next action and you choose your own path.

2: In another point of view, you only have limited free will, as in, you can only choose to do what you 'can' do. You cannot choose to be something you are not, you cannot choose to be a Tree. So, you have limited free will.

3: And in the third frame of mind, you have no free will whatsoever. (for example) Your very existence is predetermined, the date of your death may be secret but it is knowable. Your brain functions are nothing but electric synapses and the entire field of psychology is nothing but self inflicted hallucinations. If anyone disputes this, we'll give them some mind altering drugs and induce them to think the way we want them too. There is no inherent free will at all, you can't 'free will' yourself to be smarter than you are capable of nor to think differently than your genetics allow. You will not live one minute longer through thought alone. Your thought is controlled by your biology and your health and your upbringing, you are incapable of 'original' thought, you are only capable of applying what you have learned in new ways, such as use a hammer on something other than a nail but you cannot create ‘original’ anything..


(I propose that all three of the above are true. Life is both freewill AND predetermined, I am becoming more and more convinced by my own proposal as it seems to be the only possible answer for all occassions).
#2 is not a limitation of the capacity for choice. There is always something we can choose. We cannot become a tree, but we can enact "being a tree", as on stage, and symbolise it, or we can be something else. The capacity to choose things is not dimished by a lack of options to choose from (I vaguely remember having this discussion with bottle long ago, and right she was).

#3 is determinism, the non-god version of predestination. How do you propose to reconcile the contradiction between #3 and #1?

Let me suggest an alternative. Not frames of mind, but points of view. Life, objectively viewed, is seen to be predetermined by circumstances, as that point of view does not involve the human mind at all (it is abstracted out of the picture). Life, subjectively viewed, from the perspective of the indiviudal, is self-determined. It involves the human mind in the point of view, and hence changes the nature of reality.

Our discernment of it doesn’t change reality at all, our discernment is only our own perception of reality (A person being blind does not change the fact that the light is still there, unperceived). Reality is what reality is, irregardless of whether or not it is perceived correctly.

Our discernment of it doesn’t change reality at all, our discernment is only our own perception of reality (A person being blind does not change the fact that the light is still there, unperceived). Reality is what reality is, irregardless of whether or not it is perceived correctly.
The reality of being human is a subjective, individual point of view. We are individuals.

A blind person still has a subjective point of view (probably more so a sense of it).

If you assign objective reality as the only reality, then you ignore what it is to be human.

I stopped reading this at page 11, forum default. Most of this post will be of my own opinions, which has been influence on the experience and lessons I've had in life.



My background:

- Born and raised a Roman Catholic. Chose to remain a Roman Catholic.

- Attended public elementary and junior high schools before attending a Catholic high school.

- Currently an undergrad at the Catholic University of America, where I've studied World Religions - including Judaism, Islam, Protestantism, Buddhism, and several forms of "Paganism" - Catholic Doctrine and theology - including several papal encyclicals and Official Chruch History.



Commentary on what I've read here:

- Anything that can "prove" the universal truth of the Bible doesn't mean that Christianity, and all its forms, is the one true religion. Judaism and Islam, and their forms of Protestantism, could also make the same claims. The Ku Klux Klan is a Christian organization. I doubt their message of hate and intolerance will get them into heaven.

- Why is Christianity the correct religion? The Jews are the "chosen people." They were given the 10 Commandments. Jesus Christ, himself, was a Jew. The Gospels weren't written until decades after the fact. The Qu'ran is a direct translation of the Word of God.

- One of the primary tenets for the Protestant Revolution was the stance of "Faith Alone," meaning faith is all you need to be saved. On paper, I would agree, but in practice, it has failed. The example that Jesus gave through His actions and parables was that "Living the Love of God is greater than living the Law of God." His healing on the Sabbath is an example. However, many Christians, Catholics included, have forgotten this. They are more concerned with the Law than they are with the Love. If they had "proper faith," they wouldn't just believe in Jesus, they would do as He would. As Jesus said, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven... For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, sister, and mother. (Matthew 7:21, 12:50)"

- The Roman Catholic Church's acceptance of evolution is not a sign of the Church submitting to modern scientific discoveries, but evidence of God's Eternal Word. God is creating (not "created") the universe through his Eternal Word. Evolution is a result of Man being created in God's Image. We, as Man, are not yet in God's Image. We could have been, but the Serpant tricked and tempted Eve to commit Man's first sin - to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Serpant did this by preying on Eve's desire to be like God, despite that she was taken from Adam, who was created in God's Image. This sin lead to their Shame as God's created Image, which is why they hid from Him when the realized they were naked.



What do I believe in?

I believe that Roman Catholicism is right for me, but not for everyone. There is no one correct religion. All that God creates is good. What is bad has turned away from God, and turned away from good. If this is true, how can someone born nonJewish, nonChristian, or nonMuslim be condemned to Hell if they have no idea what Judaism, Christianity, or Islam is, despite being a good person? Being Jewish, Christian, or Muslim does not mean you are going to heaven, being a good person does. Who is more likely to go to Heaven, a Christian who is also a cold blooded murder or a Buddhist that lives like Jesus, despite not knowing who Jesus is? It is NOT about what you believe in, it IS about how you live your life. To me, Jesus is the perfect example of how to live life.

Do you have any proof that God doesn't live in the outside world and affects everything he touches?


Do you have any proof that the people you are having this discusion with exisit?

My background:

- Born and raised a Roman Catholic. Chose to remain a Roman Catholic.

- Attended public elementary and junior high schools before attending a Catholic high school.

- Currently an undergrad at the Catholic University of America, where I've studied World Religions - including Judaism, Islam, Protestantism, Buddhism, and several forms of "Paganism" - Catholic Doctrine and theology - including several papal encyclicals and Official Chruch History.



Commentary on what I've read here:

- Anything that can "prove" the universal truth of the Bible doesn't mean that Christianity, and all its forms, is the one true religion. Judaism and Islam, and their forms of Protestantism, could also make the same claims.

I notice you left Buddhism and "several forms of "Paganism"" out of this statement, why so? Also, why do you have Paganism is quotation marks?

"Paganism" is a general term for non followers of the Books (Tanakh, New Testament, Qu'ran), not a religion, or type of religion, in itself, that is why I put it in quotations.

I left them out in that particular statement because they do not follow the Tanakh (Old Testament) or New Testament, which some on this thread have claimed to have scientific evidence of its "truth." I included Islam because Islam also holds those books in high regards.

"Paganism" is a general term for non followers of the Books (Tanakh, New Testament, Qu'ran), not a religion, or type of religion, in itself, that is why I put it in quotations.

I left them out in that particular statement because they do not follow the Tanakh (Old Testament) or New Testament, which some on this thread have claimed to have scientific evidence of its "truth." I included Islam because Islam also holds those books in high regards.

As long as you were in no way trying to marginalise them, I have occasionaly seen that sort of behavior.

Firstly Islam holds the originally revealed texts in high regard not the current mish mash.

Secondly Islam has a rational basis:

http://1924.org/books/pdfs/TheSystemofIslam.pdf

I suggest you read through that for an indepth explanation or...

http://www.lutonmuslims.co.uk/faithprogress.htm
For a less technical and slightly clearer explanation.

Yeah, I was of the 50% faction. I think that, following probability laws, the 2/3 side could justify themselves logically though. It was a long time ago (2 years hehe) so I can barely remember the details.

No... there is no logical reasoning that can ever make the probability of one of two faces showing 2/3. There is an infinitely (almost) small probability that any flip will land on something OTHER than one face (i.e. it is mathematically possible (but not probable) that it COULD land on it's side... or, I guess, turn into a mongoose...) - but, other than that, any flipped coin has an independent probability of landing on any given side (near enough) 50% of the time.

If you are talking cumulative frequency... well, even then, the probability tends towards 50%... although observed results from such a test MIGHT not match exactly.

Perhaps, we need to remind ourselves that our brains cannot, are incapable of, fathoming things like 'space.' You know, the real kind, not the silly TV and movie kind. The endless expanses, the uncountable volume-ness of the universe, the astoundingly vastness of it's actuality... And Yet, you all want to try and put someone who can fathom it all simultaneously into a neat little mold of thought, into a rule of physics that you can understand. I understand your desire, but I propose that your direction is flawed.

Much like you cannot explain what gravity is, of course you can say what it does, but is it simply the curved absence of space (as it seems to be as a spacecraft gets caught in a planets gravity well), OR is it something that can be described as existing with a name like gravitons (as it seems to be when simple mass attracts other mass)? Or another example of what we have a hard time fathoming and putting a single label on: Is light particle or wave?... For all that we can tell, perhaps God did create freewill, but the free will is already finished, and to him it is like watching a movie, God has seen it before, but we are living through it for the first time, we do not ‘anticipate’ the occurrence of events like God can. You can anticipate the favorite moment of your favorite movie, but the first time you saw it, you had no idea what was going to happen next…

Perhaps we have befuddled ourselves with ideas like; the universe splits into infinite realities for every chance occurrence, we think that perhaps both results are achieved in different universes split apart at that moment. But perhaps it is wrong to think such things because there is only one universe that ever was, one universe of time itself being played through like an ultimately real MMORPG except this one is played live and only once. You have freewill to do what you want to do, but God has an equally real view of it that it has already been played through once (at least from his point of view). Our reality is likely both, freewill AND predetermined. Once you can fathom reality in it's entirety, maybe then you will wonder how you could have been so stupid to not have understood it all before...

I don't buy the argument that 'everything is so complicated' so 'god must be true'.... I'm not sure if that was your point.

I 'understand' space. I have no problems comprehending what 'it means'. I have no problems with the duality of light.

It seems you are trying to argue that, because YOU, personally, can't comprehend some concepts... that that is some kind of rationale for the existence of God...?

I don't buy the argument that 'everything is so complicated' so 'god must be true'.... I'm not sure if that was your point.

I 'understand' space. I have no problems comprehending what 'it means'. I have no problems with the duality of light.

It seems you are trying to argue that, because YOU, personally, can't comprehend some concepts... that that is some kind of rationale for the existence of God...?
I got the same thing out of it

I got the same thing out of it

Is it on the list?

Some kind of Rationale, or something?

1) oooh, space is really big...

2) I mean REALLY big...

3) I don't believe just how insanely BIG space is...

4) I mean... it's SOOOOOO big...

5) That's it... it is SO big... my tiny brain just can't comprehend it's 'bigness'.

6) Therefore: God must be real.

(Thanks to D.N.A. for the basic scriptwork....)

.....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?
Firstly on my faith, which tells me that Jesus exists so I don't have to be a Jew, an that He is the son of God (Yaveh, Allah, the Force or however you wanna call him)
Secondly, my belief that my religion can't forbid me eating some kind of meat or alcoholic drink, which anulates Hinduism, Jewism, Buddism and Islam
Thirdly, I believe I should listen to my Pope, because he is the succesor of Peter, "over whom He would built his Church"
Finally, I trully believe thet nobody is in the position to converse anybody, because everybody has the right to believe in what he\she want to, because I firmly believe in the religious freedom

... 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?

As the First Minister of the Church of Lemon Meringue, I guess I could answer this: It seemed like a good idea at the time. The CoLM was founded on the principles of perfectly polite and personal piety and we quickly became the poster group for communist religions. Of course, we ignored all the attention and it came back to bite us. I just hope we left a bitter aftertaste.

Aside from myself the CoLM has only ever had one devout young (female) follower. She was delicious.

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?
I figure I may as well answer the original post, since I do feel very strongly that my perspective on religions is a correct one. I may not succeed, though (in answering it).

I studied mythology for a few years in the early '90s, and in my readings I discovered that I really did not know what a myth was. Hercules' labours, Jason's journey, Theseus and the Minotaur, the Sphinx and the gods. Is it just a story, an entertaining fantasy with heroes and monsters? ...or is there something more to it? The books I read and show I watched hinted at something more.

The best description of a myth I've yet heard was a ...one of those brief station identification breaks they use between shows on television. The network was APTN, which has programming for aboriginal peoples. The fellow on this short said something to the effect of, "The story-teller tells a story. And you listen, and listen..." and his hand moved up in progressive levels "...until you become the story." That's what a myth is--identification with the story elements, with the symbols and the symbolism. Not just making them a part of who you are, but being them. Being Hercules, being Jason, being the hero defeating the enigmatic beast. It's all about being.

"Worlds above, worlds below... there's no one in the world like me!" Little baby Buddha said that (http://www.buddhart.com/article/lifeofbuddha/aff10490), immediately after exiting his mother's womb. I know little about Buddhism, but I do understand Buddha-consciousness. According to Joseph Campbell, "The whole thing of Buddha consciousness means getting to know you are it. That takes a lot of work, principally because society keeps telling you that you are not it." We look at the world from an individual point of view, and this is where the religion comes from. Not from "out there", but from "in here".

When I realised this, suddenly certain things about religion became much clearer. It's about being. It's not about the god, it's about the relationship the individual forms with... whatever. It doesn't matter with what or whom the relationship is; god is the flip-side of us, and we of him.

The images of god (Joseph Campbell calls them the masks of god) that we invent to be that flip-side have been concretized. That is, taking an idea and placing it firmly in the real world, as if something physical. It began with small idols, symbols of the god(s), something to have and to hold, and carry around with you. The images got bigger and more impressive over the centuries--statues, temples, churches... (An image of explorers stumbling across a mountain-sized Buddha in a jungle comes to mind, but it might have been a movie). Hymns became grander, and louder, worship became an art form, with people falling over themselves to join the crowd. People forgot about the being.

I have to go now, may post more later.

I don't buy the argument that 'everything is so complicated' so 'god must be true'.... I'm not sure if that was your point.

I 'understand' space. I have no problems comprehending what 'it means'. I have no problems with the duality of light.

It seems you are trying to argue that, because YOU, personally, can't comprehend some concepts... that that is some kind of rationale for the existence of God...?


What a ninny. You’re not even talking about the right topic. The topic IS, Freewill or predetermination.

Go finish reading comprehension 101 and come back and try again, okay?

I got the same thing out of it
You're a ninny rider too then... :rolleyes:

Who is more likely to go to Heaven, a Christian who is also a cold blooded murder or a Buddhist that lives like Jesus, despite not knowing who Jesus is? It is NOT about what you believe in, it IS about how you live your life. To me, Jesus is the perfect example of how to live life.

Exactly my sentiment. Tolerance towards other forms of belief is one sign of true faith, in my opinion.

I figure I may as well answer the original post, since I do feel very strongly that my perspective on religions is a correct one. I may not succeed, though (in answering it).

I studied mythology for a few years in the early '90s, and in my readings I discovered that I really did not know what a myth was. Hercules' labours, Jason's journey, Theseus and the Minotaur, the Sphinx and the gods. Is it just a story, an entertaining fantasy with heroes and monsters? ...or is there something more to it? The books I read and show I watched hinted at something more.

The best description of a myth I've yet heard was a ...one of those brief station identification breaks they use between shows on television. The network was APTN, which has programming for aboriginal peoples. The fellow on this short said something to the effect of, "The story-teller tells a story. And you listen, and listen..." and his hand moved up in progressive levels "...until you become the story." That's what a myth is--identification with the story elements, with the symbols and the symbolism. Not just making them a part of who you are, but being them. Being Hercules, being Jason, being the hero defeating the enigmatic beast. It's all about being.

"Worlds above, worlds below... there's no one in the world like me!" Little baby Buddha said that (http://www.buddhart.com/article/lifeofbuddha/aff10490), immediately after exiting his mother's womb. I know little about Buddhism, but I do understand Buddha-consciousness. According to Joseph Campbell, "The whole thing of Buddha consciousness means getting to know you are it. That takes a lot of work, principally because society keeps telling you that you are not it." We look at the world from an individual point of view, and this is where the religion comes from. Not from "out there", but from "in here".

When I realised this, suddenly certain things about religion became much clearer. It's about being. It's not about the god, it's about the relationship the individual forms with... whatever. It doesn't matter with what or whom the relationship is; god is the flip-side of us, and we of him.

The images of god (Joseph Campbell calls them the masks of god) that we invent to be that flip-side have been concretized. That is, taking an idea and placing it firmly in the real world, as if something physical. It began with small idols, symbols of the god(s), something to have and to hold, and carry around with you. The images got bigger and more impressive over the centuries--statues, temples, churches... (An image of explorers stumbling across a mountain-sized Buddha in a jungle comes to mind, but it might have been a movie). Hymns became grander, and louder, worship became an art form, with people falling over themselves to join the crowd. People forgot about the being.

I have to go now, may post more later.

"... And Adam created god"
I can't remember who said that, but I always thought this sentence to hold an enormous amount of truth.
The idea given by Terry Pratchett that gods rise and fall together with their worshippers is included as well. God is there because we believe it so. God is powerful becaue we make him so. God is in his believers and through his believers.

The idea given by Terry Pratchett that gods rise and fall together with their worshippers is included as well. God is there because we believe it so. God is powerful becaue we make him so. God is in his believers and through his believers.
Images of gods rise and fall. From our side of the relationship, there is something imagined, there. We cannot help it--the mind does it automatically. Fills in the blank.

I do also believe god is something more.

Images of gods rise and fall. From our side of the relationship, there is something imagined, there. We cannot help it--the mind does it automatically. Fills in the blank.

I do also believe god is something more.

Who says he doesn't become something more with the faith laid in him? Why does everything the human mind does have to be an illusion?

Who says he doesn't become something more with the faith laid in him? Why does everything the human mind does have to be an illusion?
The philosophies of logics and metaphysics say so, for one. ;) The mind cannot produce something "real" in the physical world. Anything "more" the image of god may become will still be only conceptual.

No magic.

The philosophies of logics and metaphysics say so, for one. ;) The mind cannot produce something "real" in the physical world. Anything "more" the image of god may become will still be only conceptual.

No magic.

That means, god would have to be "real" in the physical world? Real as in "can be proven" or "has substance"?

That means, god would have to be "real" in the physical world? Real as in "can be proven" or "has substance"?
God more would have to be real, yes. Please don't ask me to define it. The truly important part of religion is not that its there or real, but the relationship we develop to it. In my opinion.

The man who aligns himself with the teachings of someone who lives and enacts the myth, like Jesus in the role of the Christ, is building a relationship not just the to man, but to the image he portrays, and what it means (to both of them). This is a good thing. We do it in very tiny ways everyday. When someone goes to the doctor for a check-up, they are interacting not just with the man but with the professional, and what it means to both of them (health, reassurance, etc.). It is exemplified on stage, where we totally forget the actor and react to the character. We build relationships to the characters first, the actors second.

What is significantly real about all this is the behaviours and feelings of the people building these relationships. And because they are the ones doing it, they retain responsiblity for their actions, their choices of behaviour.

God more would have to be real, yes. Please don't ask me to define it. The truly important part of religion is not that its there or real, but the relationship we develop to it. In my opinion.

The man who aligns himself with the teachings of someone who lives and enacts the myth, like Jesus in the role of the Christ, is building a relationship not just the to man, but to the image he portrays, and what it means (to both of them). This is a good thing. We do it in very tiny ways everyday. When someone goes to the doctor for a check-up, they are interacting not just with the man but with the professional, and what it means to both of them (health, reassurance, etc.). It is exemplified on stage, where we totally forget the actor and react to the character. We build relationships to the characters first, the actors second.

I understand. In a way, that's how I experience it myself


What is significantly real about all this is the behaviours and feelings of the people building these relationships. And because they are the ones doing it, they retain responsiblity for their actions, their choices of behaviour.

So, there's no hiding behind somebody's teaching without coherence?
I have this other thread in mind where people argued that they themselves have no problems with gay marriage, but as the bible says they are a bad thing, they feel bound to their faith.
I, personally, don't bind my faith to a book, but rather to the essence given by the teachings of Jesus, and I find objecting to homosexuality (amongst other issues) to be nonconsistent with those. So I decide my own morals, based on the ideals preached.

What a ninny. You’re not even talking about the right topic. The topic IS, Freewill or predetermination.

Go finish reading comprehension 101 and come back and try again, okay?
Re read it and still got the same thing out of it … must be the author

Another point of view (the right one :D ):

God exists, created us, loves us, is worried for our being, desires to provide for us, and sent the Son to redeem us. If we were to ask "What is God?" we might be tempted to say that God is the infinite being, the creator, a presence, or something like that.

In Christianity, God is a Trinity. This means that God is three persons, not three gods. The canon of the Trinity states that in the one God is the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each is not the same person is the other but they are not three gods, only one. This is something like the nature of time. Time is past, present, and future. The past is not the same as the present, which is not the same as the future. But, there are not three times. There is only one thing called time, there is only one thing that is God.

The Trinity revealed itself when God came and became flesh in the form of the Son, and yet still existed in such a way so that He can run the universe. But the benefits of this was that the Son could come and communicate with us on our level and redeem us to Him because we could not return to him on our own accord.

As to other religions and other Gods, the Bible says there is only one God: "I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God," And that God is a jealous God. As to people that have never heard the word, God knows if they know him or not, he knows them the same as he knows people that claim to be praising him when they are not. (For example) You do not have to call on God’s name in the language Jesus spoke, for language is temporary and God is eternal, he can easily understand every language and every mind, so when you call on him and you don’t even know his name, he hears you, but just because you do call on his name, you might not know Him.

When God created Adam and Eve (whenever that may have been is not my point here, only that there were the first ‘humans’ as we know ourselves to be) and put them in the Garden of Eden (probably right where the Bible said it was except now it’s most likely under eons of accumulated silt under the Persian gulf waters) but there they had, for the first time apparently, the freedom to choose between right and wrong.

They chose to sin. Sin is doing that which is contrary to the nature and will of God. For example, God cannot lie; therefore, lying is sin. The sin of disobeying God that Adam and Eve committed resulted in them being expelled from the Garden of Eden as well as suffering the effect of death.

As a result of their sin, their children and all of us inherited a sinful nature. In other words, our offspring are not perfect in nature ~ (for example) we don't teach our children to be selfish, they know it naturally. They don’t need to learn how to take what they want, they need to ‘learn how to share’ they need to ‘learn’ compassion and concern for others. What this means, in the end, is that which is sinful cannot produce that which is not sinful, so we are back to explaining why God had to come and rescue us and, more importantly, clean us of sin so that we can again be in the eye of God and in His presence, to return us to our natural and intended state of being.

Re read it and still got the same thing out of it … must be the author

What was the topic? :rolleyes:

<snip>

There's not much in that statement that I agree with, but you are entitled to your opinion.
As long as you don't try to force others to believe it...

Another point of view (the right one :D ):

God exists, created us, loves us, is worried for our being, desires to provide for us, and sent the Son to redeem us. If we were to ask "What is God?" we might be tempted to say that God is the infinite being, the creator, a presence, or something like that.

In Christianity, God is a Trinity. This means that God is three persons, not three gods. The canon of the Trinity states that in the one God is the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each is not the same person is the other but they are not three gods, only one. This is something like the nature of time. Time is past, present, and future. The past is not the same as the present, which is not the same as the future. But, there are not three times. There is only one thing called time, there is only one thing that is God.

The Trinity revealed itself when God came and became flesh in the form of the Son, and yet still existed in such a way so that He can run the universe. But the benefits of this was that the Son could come and communicate with us on our level and redeem us to Him because we could not return to him on our own accord.

As to other religions and other Gods, the Bible says there is only one God: "I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God," And that God is a jealous God. As to people that have never heard the word, God knows if they know him or not, he knows them the same as he knows people that claim to be praising him when they are not. (For example) You do not have to call on God’s name in the language Jesus spoke, for language is temporary and God is eternal, he can easily understand every language and every mind, so when you call on him and you don’t even know his name, he hears you, but just because you do call on his name, you might not know Him.

When God created Adam and Eve (whenever that may have been is not my point here, only that there were the first ‘humans’ as we know ourselves to be) and put them in the Garden of Eden (probably right where the Bible said it was except now it’s most likely under eons of accumulated silt under the Persian gulf waters) but there they had, for the first time apparently, the freedom to choose between right and wrong.

They chose to sin. Sin is doing that which is contrary to the nature and will of God. For example, God cannot lie; therefore, lying is sin. The sin of disobeying God that Adam and Eve committed resulted in them being expelled from the Garden of Eden as well as suffering the effect of death.

As a result of their sin, their children and all of us inherited a sinful nature. In other words, our offspring are not perfect in nature ~ (for example) we don't teach our children to be selfish, they know it naturally. They don’t need to learn how to take what they want, they need to ‘learn how to share’ they need to ‘learn’ compassion and concern for others. What this means, in the end, is that which is sinful cannot produce that which is not sinful, so we are back to explaining why God had to come and rescue us and, more importantly, clean us of sin so that we can again be in the eye of God and in His presence, to return us to our natural and intended state of being.
God desires... God as three persons... God, the story... God, The Motion Picture...

All images of god, from the imagination of the mind. It replaces the symbol for the thing it represents. That's what symbols are for, though. The problem comes when we mistake the symbol for the thing it represents. Then the story becomes as much an idol as a physical object. This is myth.

*snip*

You've confused God with learned ethnic heritage, you've confused God with shared cultural traits, you've confused God with the simple act of social interaction between people. You worship man for the sake of man.

It’s good that you enjoy the beauty of humanity; God wants you to enjoy it. It’s also (for example) good if you enjoy the company of your Dog, and to go for nice long walks around the park, but you aren’t supposed to start worshiping the Dog itself instead of the creator that made the Dog, you and the park possible. :rolleyes:

Greenlander

As to other religions and other Gods, the Bible says there is only one God: "I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God," And that God is a jealous God. As to people that have never heard the word, God knows if they know him or not, he knows them the same as he knows people that claim to be praising him when they are not. (For example) You do not have to call on God’s name in the language Jesus spoke, for language is temporary and God is eternal, he can easily understand every language and every mind, so when you call on him and you don’t even know his name, he hears you, but just because you do call on his name, you might not know Him.

This is basically the "the bible is true because God is infalliable and he inspired the bible so the bible must be true so God must exisit" argument. Its a big circle of logic that doesnt really hold up under examination (and i use the word "logic" in a very loose sense of the word). If another religious text tells someone that there is a one and only God that isnt the christian God how is their belief any less valid than yours? Is the faith they feel different? Is everyone non-christian somehow less intelligent? Is their text automatically false for disagreeing with yours even though they probably share as much probability of being true?

As for all you people saying everyone is going to Hell who isn't christian... You're all a bunch of scary mofo's. And its that kind of intolerance that is one of the biggest problems in this world. Its these kinds of attitudes that make me actively happy that i'm not christian. I understand that there are great christians out there (Cabra West seems to be one) but sheesh, some of you are a little loco.

Isnt faith belief in something without complete certainty? doesnt that very premise make your belief valid in the eyes of your religion? but also that element of uncertainty should allow other people the right to question and reject that belief. If God was going to be fair and condemn all the people who dont believe in a single doctrine you would think that he would make it a little more convincing...

You've confused God with learned ethnic heritage, you've confused God with shared cultural traits, you've confused God with the simple act of social interaction between people. You worship man for the sake of man.

It’s good that you enjoy the beauty of humanity; God wants you to enjoy it. It’s also (for example) good if you enjoy the company of your Dog, and to go for nice long walks around the park, but you aren’t supposed to start worshiping the Dog itself instead of the creator that made the Dog, you and the park possible. :rolleyes:


On the same argument one could say that you started to mistake that story about god with god himself. The image of trinity, trying to explain different aspecst of one god, seems to have been replaced by a firm believe that god really has three parts.
The symbol of Jesus dying on the cross refusing to use violence even in extreme circumstances has been replaced with the dogma that in some way, he died for what you did wrong, therefore leaving you in eternal debt.
The metaphor of the garden of Eden and Noah's arch have all become instances of blind faith rather than the abstract moral they were originally meant to teach...

As for all you people saying everyone is going to Hell who isn't christian... You're all a bunch of scary mofo's. And its that kind of intolerance that is one of the biggest problems in this world. Its these kinds of attitudes that make me actively happy that i'm not christian. I understand that there are great christians out there (Cabra West seems to be one) but sheesh, some of you are a little loco.



Thanks... but I've been told a number of times now that I don't have the right to call myself Christian, as I take believing seriously and don't believe things that don't withstand the slightest bit of rationality.

This is basically the "the bible is true because God is infalliable and he inspired the bible so the bible must be true so God must exisit" argument. Its a big circle of logic that doesnt really hold up under examination (and i use the word "logic" in a very loose sense of the word). If another religious text tells someone that there is a one and only God that isnt the christian God how is their belief any less valid than yours? Is the faith they feel different? Is everyone non-christian somehow less intelligent? Is their text automatically false for disagreeing with yours even though they probably share as much probability of being true?

First, I think you are putting words into my mouth. I didn’t technically say those things, HOWEVER, for the sake of discussion, I’ll pretend I did :D

Your assumption above is that we cannot know which God to worship so everyone’s God is equal and the same. Your assumption is, that it’s like a horse race and you can equally pick one over another, and anyone might be the winner in the end, so why pick if it’s just odds and gambling? But the truth is, upon further investigation, that the books do NOT describe the same God. They are different. I myself put two years of effort into the idea that it would be interesting to reconcile the Qur’an with the Torah and the New Testament… But that was a wasted effort. Despite the outward similarities, and the claim in the Qur’an that they are speaking about the same God, they are not reconcilable in regards to the very essence of being and of salvation. They are distinctly different. One can be right and the other wrong, or they can both be wrong, but they can NOT both be right…

Back to your question and position though, your very premise assumes that there is no real God himself. IF you assume there IS a real God, then we don’t have anything to do with determining which on is right or not. God decides for himself who he is. God decides whom to reveal himself to, and thus, I am in no position to defend, or justify, what God decides to do. Ask Him. But there are clues all around you, you know what is right from wrong, even if you deny it. Who told you what was right? All thing good, all things right come from God.


As for all you people saying everyone is going to Hell who isn't christian... You're all a bunch of scary mofo's. And its that kind of intolerance that is one of the biggest problems in this world. Its these kinds of attitudes that make me actively happy that i'm not christian. I understand that there are great christians out there (Cabra West seems to be one) but sheesh, some of you are a little loco.

Actually, I said the opposite. I said I don’t know who is ‘Christian’ or not, that someone might call on the name of Jesus and not know the God, or someone else might not know the name of Jesus but they know God and thus, Jesus knows their name.

But I do know that God knows. Someone might say all the right words out loud, or say all the wrong names, and I have no way of knowing who IS in the book of life and who is not, but I do know that there IS a book of life. God and you know if you are written in it, it doesn’t matter if you claim to be a Christian, or claim NOT to be a Christian (but you are one because you’ve called on God in repentance and He has washed you and cleaned you and written your name down, even though you didn’t know his name).

You can tell a person’s spirit though, or know if they are speaking truth. You have to compare the spirit they preach with the spirit of God, if the words glorify God and the Son and the Holy Ghost, then it is the same spirit, if it does not glorify the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost or it distracts and changes the ‘good news’ of salvation, then the spirit that gave those words is not from Him…


Isnt faith belief in something without complete certainty? doesnt that very premise make your belief valid in the eyes of your religion? but also that element of uncertainty should allow other people the right to question and reject that belief. If God was going to be fair and condemn all the people who dont believe in a single doctrine you would think that he would make it a little more convincing...

Everyone has a right to reject it. But everyone also has a right to hear it. When one of God’s people hear it, they rejoice, people who do not know God reject it as foolishness.







p.s., I like your screen name :D

On the same argument one could say that you started to mistake that story about god with god himself. The image of trinity, trying to explain different aspecst of one god, seems to have been replaced by a firm believe that god really has three parts.
The symbol of Jesus dying on the cross refusing to use violence even in extreme circumstances has been replaced with the dogma that in some way, he died for what you did wrong, therefore leaving you in eternal debt.
The metaphor of the garden of Eden and Noah's arch have all become instances of blind faith rather than the abstract moral they were originally meant to teach...

You’ve entirely replace the ‘Good News’ of salvation with a story of 'Gandhi' and any other number of good pacifists teachers of social resistance. Although they individually may be inspired, they are not God.

You throw away and try to forget, try to distract from the primary reason it all took place.

Jesus said he would come back, Jesus said he would rebuild the temple in three days, Jesus said the sign of Jonah (3 days in the belly of a fish) would be his 'sign' to the people, AND then ~ Jesus was resurrected.

Three days later, death was conquered and the promise was fulfilled. Mankind was reunited with God and sin was washed away. The wages of sin are death and the gates of hell itself could not stand against Him when he came a knocking! Jesus IS the Resurrection itself.

First, I think you are putting words into my mouth. I didn’t technically say those things, HOWEVER, for the sake of discussion, I’ll pretend I did :D

Your assumption above is that we cannot know which God to worship so everyone’s God is equal and the same. Your assumption is, that it’s like a horse race and you can equally pick one over another, and anyone might be the winner in the end, so why pick if it’s just odds and gambling? But the truth is, upon further investigation, that the books do NOT describe the same God. They are different. I myself put two years of effort into the idea that it would be interesting to reconcile the Qur’an with the Torah and the New Testament… But that was a wasted effort. Despite the outward similarities, and the claim in the Qur’an that they are speaking about the same God, they are not reconcilable in regards to the very essence of being and of salvation. They are distinctly different. One can be right and the other wrong, or they can both be wrong, but they can NOT both be right…

Back to your question and position though, your very premise assumes that there is no real God himself. IF you assume there IS a real God, then we don’t have anything to do with determining which on is right or not. God decides for himself who he is. God decides whom to reveal himself to, and thus, I am in no position to defend, or justify, what God decides to do. Ask Him. But there are clues all around you, you know what is right from wrong, even if you deny it. Who told you what was right? All thing good, all things right come from God.

Sorry if i was putting words into your mouth. Wasn't intentional.

Maybe i'm misinterpreting again. But if only God can define who he is then how can any one religion claim that they know the one true god. Seems a little conceited to me. I mean can you conclusively prove that Allah isn't the true God? Or Ganesh? Zeus? Odin? The australian aboriginal rainbow serpent?

I never have assumed there is a God. I dont believe in a God in the first place. Good, bad, evil etc are all relative terms. But i personally believe that they are social constructs that have arisen due to the inherent nature of human beings as a social creature. I think the fact that they are man-made concepts gives them MORE relevance than ethics imposed by a supernatural being and interpreted by age-old clerics.



Actually, I said the opposite. I said I don’t know who is ‘Christian’ or not, that someone might call on the name of Jesus and not know the God, or someone else might not know the name of Jesus but they know God and thus, Jesus knows their name.

But I do know that God knows. Someone might say all the right words out loud, or say all the wrong names, and I have no way of knowing who IS in the book of life and who is not, but I do know that there IS a book of life. God and you know if you are written in it, it doesn’t matter if you claim to be a Christian, or claim NOT to be a Christian (but you are one because you’ve called on God in repentance and He has washed you and cleaned you and written your name down, even though you didn’t know his name).

You can tell a person’s spirit though, or know if they are speaking truth. You have to compare the spirit they preach with the spirit of God, if the words glorify God and the Son and the Holy Ghost, then it is the same spirit, if it does not glorify the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost or it distracts and changes the ‘good news’ of salvation, then the spirit that gave those words is not from them…

Sorry again if i gave a wrong impression. I wasnt claiming you were one of the people claiming torment and hell fire for everyone non-(whatever denomination) christian you are. But some people on this site seem to be that particular brand of person. And that kind of person really is pretty scary. I wouldnt expect anything even resembling your reasonable response from an individual like that.



Everyone has a right to reject it. But everyone also has a right to hear it. When one of God’s people hear it, they rejoice, people who do not know God reject it as foolishness.

Well we can agree on that. :) Although if someone rejects the offer to hear it in the first place they shouldnt be forced to listen.

If i'm wrong and God exists and is watching over us i would like to think that he will be understanding as to exactly the circumstances that have made me the non-religous person i am, and hence will judge me accordingly and with the way i live my life in mind. Rather than for simply rejecting one dogma that from an early age was fed to me in a very unappettising and often accusational manner.


p.s., I like your screen name :D

Thanks. Twas a moment of inspiration i shall treasure forever. hehe

On the same argument one could say that you started to mistake that story about god with god himself. The image of trinity, trying to explain different aspecst of one god, seems to have been replaced by a firm believe that god really has three parts.
The symbol of Jesus dying on the cross refusing to use violence even in extreme circumstances has been replaced with the dogma that in some way, he died for what you did wrong, therefore leaving you in eternal debt.
The metaphor of the garden of Eden and Noah's arch have all become instances of blind faith rather than the abstract moral they were originally meant to teach...
That's how I see it. Through metaphor, myth assigns meaning to non-verbalized things, like feelings and concepts. This is how they make sense, the only way they make sense. When we take the symbols and make them "real", they lose all meaning, and make no sense. When we concretize the myth, its sense becomes nonsense. That's how you kill a myth (its usefulness). That's how you kill a god; and that's what the ancient Greek philosophers did 2,000-odd years ago to their own gods.* Intellectualized them away.

Like the schwartz, myth has its upside and its downside. The upside is putting oneself in relationship with a higher ideal. The downside happens when the meaning is lost, and all that remains is the story. That's why, of all Christians, I have the most respect for Catholics; because they retain the meaning of their symbols and rituals in their tradition. Of course, they try to reconcile it with the concretized story, and struggle with that no end. Some split the two separately, as if they had nothing to do with each other, and still claim they are the same thing. Some just turn away, like Graves did.



*(See? It wasn't Xena.)

You’ve entirely replace the ‘Good News’ of salvation with a story of 'Gandhi' and any other number of good pacifists teachers of social resistance. Although they individually may be inspired, they are not God.

You throw away and try to forget, try to distract from the primary reason it all took place.

Jesus said he would come back, Jesus said he would rebuild the temple in three days, Jesus said the sign of Jonah (3 days in the belly of a fish) would be his 'sign' to the people, AND then ~ Jesus was resurrected.

Three days later, death was conquered and the promise was fulfilled. Mankind was reunited with God and sin was washed away. The wages of sin are death and the gates of hell itself could not stand against Him when he came a knocking! Jesus IS the Resurrection itself.


... if sin is death and being saved means living forever, I should better start sinning right now ;)

The primary reason Jesus talked about god was because he was trying to get the new idea of god across. A god that no longer demands you be stoned if you feed your donkey on the wrong day, a god that allows you to shave whenever you want, a god that forgives and cares, a god who is no longer handing out fire and brimstone and scares you into following him.
I had the discussion about the verification of the gosples a number of times, their messages are very different, but in this point they agree. Jesus told us to love god and mankind as we love ourselves. I still have some difficulties with the last bit, but I'm getting there. And I'm not doing that for some afterlife-reward. If god wants to give me anything after I'm dead, he should just let me be dead and give my place in heave (in case there is one) to one of those poor sods in hell.
I don't believe Jesus' body rose from the dead, and I don't believe him to be an incarnation of god. He was a prophet and one who is worth following, but nothing more.

Three days later, death was conquered and the promise was fulfilled. Mankind was reunited with God and sin was washed away. The wages of sin are death and the gates of hell itself could not stand against Him when he came a knocking! Jesus IS the Resurrection itself.
Nice use of metaphor.

... if sin is death and being saved means living forever, I should better start sinning right now ;)

The primary reason Jesus talked about god was because he was trying to get the new idea of god across. A god that no longer demands you be stoned if you feed your donkey on the wrong day, a god that allows you to shave whenever you want, a god that forgives and cares, a god who is no longer handing out fire and brimstone and scares you into following him.
I had the discussion about the verification of the gosples a number of times, their messages are very different, but in this point they agree. Jesus told us to love god and mankind as we love ourselves. I still have some difficulties with the last bit, but I'm getting there. And I'm not doing that for some afterlife-reward. If god wants to give me anything after I'm dead, he should just let me be dead and give my place in heave (in case there is one) to one of those poor sods in hell.
I don't believe Jesus' body rose from the dead, and I don't believe him to be an incarnation of god. He was a prophet and one who is worth following, but nothing more.

I was tempted to leave this alone. However, it's too ironic that what you are assigning to Jesus (changing the rules of what you can eat and the desire to shave etc.,) actually mostly came afterwards, from Paul's message to the gentiles and from Peter's vision of clean and non-clean foods after the resurrection. In all likelihood during his pre-crucifixion life, Jesus was would probably have looked like an orthodox Jew by today's standards, he came 'first to the Jews' as he said himself. I think perhaps you put too much of a 60’s happy hippy image on Jesus when you think of his daily messages.

It is true though, that all things are permissible now but not all things are beneficial, but this is ONLY true because Jesus was resurrected and fulfilled the law, replacing it, and yet, that’s the part you deny! :eek:

:p :D

Cabra,

In the beginning of the Christian faith, there were MANY who believed the same as you. Only after many years (and lots of "coercion") did the faith congeal into some semblance of the form it has today. It's still changing whether or not some Christians want to believe it and will continue to change until either it goes the way of the ancient religions, or myths as some call them, or humanity becomes extinct.

If you're interested, there's a book called Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman that is very informative.

For the record, I'm southern Baptist turned Hindu after many, MANY years of religious study. I don't see any person's beliefs as wrong or invalid; they are merely different paths to the same destination.

It is true though, that all things are permissible now but not all things are beneficial, but this is ONLY true because Jesus was resurrected and fulfilled the law, replacing it, and yet, that’s the part you deny! :eek:
How does a physical resurrection make it any more (or less) true than a symbolic one?

How does a physical resurrection make it any more (or less) true than a symbolic one?

Paul said in 1 Cor. 15:14, "and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain." Three verses later, in verse 17, he again says, "and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins."

Though there are many subjects with which Christians may disagree and still be considered Christian, this is not one of them. To deny the resurrection of Jesus is to deny the heart of Christianity itself.

Paul said in 1 Cor. 15:14, "and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain." Three verses later, in verse 17, he again says, "and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins."

Though there are many subjects with which Christians may disagree and still be considered Christian, this is not one of them. To deny the resurrection of Jesus is to deny the heart of Christianity itself.
But that doesn't answer my question. He could still be raised figuratively to the same effect; and in fact, Paul could easily have meant that figuratively.

But that doesn't answer my question. He could still be raised figuratively to the same effect; and in fact, Paul could easily have meant that figuratively.

Dude?! :rolleyes: How in the heck could he have meant that figuratively? The entire dialogue there is arguing against people that said the resurrection was figurative and not real...Just like you are now.

Dude?! :rolleyes: How in the heck could he have meant that figuratively? The entire dialogue there is arguing against people that said the resurrection was figurative and not real...Just like you are now.
Sorry. I was just taking the lines as you had presented them, without context.

EDIT: Hm, you're right. On reading the letter, I can plainly see that Paul decidedly believes in a literal resurrection.

You still haven't answered my question, though. Why does a physical resurrection make it any more true that the law has changed?

Sorry. I was just taking the lines as you had presented them, without context.

No Problem...

Here's more of it...It explains what he's saying, and why it HAS to be a real resurrection.

1 Corinthians chapter 15:

13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.

20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

29Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? 31I die every day—I mean that, brothers—just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,
"Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die."33Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character." 34Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame.

No Problem...

Here's more of it...It explains what he's saying, and why it HAS to be a real resurrection.

1 Corinthians chapter 15:

13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.

20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

29Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? 31I die every day—I mean that, brothers—just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,
"Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die."33Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character." 34Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame.
Yes, I read it. But it doesn't really answer my question.

It simply says that 'if what we say isn't literally true, then everything is a lie'. That's not so, either. It can be symbolic, and therefore not literal and not a lie. Resurrection as symbolic of the mind/heart/soul attaining a new level of comprehending the world around it.

(A Christian could probably find a better symbolism for it--this is just an example.)

This is interesting. Paul also said, "20 But the truth is that Christ has been raised up, the first in a long legacy of those who are going to leave the cemeteries."

Who were the others?

And this: 30And why do you think I keep risking my neck in this dangerous work? 31I look death in the face practically every day I live. Do you think I'd do this if I wasn't convinced of your resurrection and mine as guaranteed by the resurrected Messiah Jesus? 32Do you think I was just trying to act heroic when I fought the wild beasts at Ephesus, hoping it wouldn't be the end of me? Not on your life! It's resurrection, resurrection, always resurrection, that undergirds what I do and say, the way I live. If there's no resurrection, "We eat, we drink, the next day we die," and that's all there is to it. 33But don't fool yourselves. Don't let yourselves be poisoned by this anti-resurrection loose talk. "Bad company ruins good manners."

It sounds like a figurative resurrection, as it will happen to every Christian believer, yet we haven't seen the dead rise up (except in movies).

I figured I'd throw in my 2 pennies.

I'm an unbeliever. I don't have faith. I'm opposed to religion for several reasons. Jehovas witnesses raising their kids to think it's ok when daddy rapes them but having a tatoo is an affront to god... Christian fundies thinking it's a great idea to sponser segregation politics, because it helps secure the promised land. The Jews & Muslims are all going to hell anyway, so why not sponser their atrocities... Or whacked Muslims who decides to kill American civillians, because their fellow Muslims got fed up with being blown up or shot in the streets and started fighting back...
Honestly, all the major religions seems nothing but an excuse to fuck people over or kill them dead.

Then there's the evangilizing bit. Going around telling people they're damned to hell and what not. Distorting facts and accusing gays and people who listen to aggressive music, smoke pot and any number of other things, of being an affront to god and a menace to society... And somehow thinking they're doing me or anyone else a favour? Even though it really pisses me off, I do find it a little amusing. I mean, if I walked up to a perfect stranger and gave him shit, I wouldn't be suprised if he kicked me in the teeth (providing he had the balls). That would be my natural response anyway... But if I do that to a Jehovas Witness or some other religious nutter, it's a hatecrime.
Hey I wonder, is it possible to sue obnoxious religious biggots for insulting you unprovoked in USA?

And what about freedom? I don't believe, but supposing for a moment there is a god. The thing would - in my eyes - be the epitome of horror. Disregard for a moment all the injustices and all the completely random misery in the world, and consider it's demands. "I am the divine dictator. You have free will, but know this: If you don't do everything I tell you to, I will make you suffer. I won't break your legs. I won't torture you for a couple of years. Noooo! I, in my divine mercy and because I love YOU, will let you burn for ever! Not just one lifetime. I'll revive you and let you suffer a lifetime again. And again. And again!"
Seriously what kind of psychotic maniac is like that? Fuck that. If such a beast existed, I'd fight it in any way I possibly could.

Anyway, I have some confidence religion will become extinct within the next 1-200 years. It's hard to concieve how our current technological progress won't result in 99% of the global population having a good secular education by then. The incitament to oppress people get's smaller and smaller each year.

In short, I can't think of any objective reason to even suspect there is anything divine of any kind. If there was any reason to suspect such a thing, I'd most likely become a Satanist or whatever people fighting imaginary entities are called (I have no clue so forgive me if Satanism is something else). Religion is just the short word for injustice, cruelty, precudice and slavery as far as I can see.
I really don't mind religious people if they stick to themselves and don't involve the rest of us. I'll tolerate their holidays and their silly processions. I'll even forgive them for waking me 50000 times each day with their shitty bells the 2 years I worked nights. But even though I feel I'm pretty tolerant of their delusional behaviour (yea, that's what I think it is), it's just not enough for them to be left alone and leave people alone. Don't get me wrong. I have a couple of Muslim friends who, although very moderate, are quite serious about their faith. I have a couple of less serious christian mates as well. But in spite (and it appears it really is in spite) of their beliefs, they don't try to push their shit on others, and they know not to make inane claims unless asked explicitly.

... If only everyone was like that. But then, I always wanted a world full of Skins

Yes, I read it. But it doesn't really answer my question.

It simply says that 'if what we say isn't literally true, then everything is a lie'. That's not so, either. It can be symbolic, and therefore not literal and not a lie. Resurrection as symbolic of the mind/heart/soul attaining a new level of comprehending the world around it.

(A Christian could probably find a better symbolism for it--this is just an example.)

This is how salvation works: All of us have sinned against God and deserve judgment.

Jesus never sinned. He lived the Law of God perfectly, thus He has a perfectly righteous standing before God. When they were crucifying Jesus, God used this crucifixion as the means to place the sins of the world upon Jesus. This is when Jesus became sin on our behalf. 2 Cor. 5:21 says,

"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

The crucifixion became the place where Jesus bore our sins in His body and suffered in our place. "But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed," (Isaiah 53:5).

No other sacrifice (sheep etc.,) could please God perfectly and no other person (all sinners) could offer a perfect sacrifice to God.

Only God in flesh, Jesus, could do that. Since there is nothing we can do that is righteous before God (Isaiah 64:6 says our righteous deeds are filthy rags), then we cannot please an infinitely holy and righteous God by anything we do. But, Jesus who is perfectly righteous before God the Father, died in our place. What we could not do, He did, for us.

This is how salvation works: All of us have sinned against God and deserve judgment.

Jesus never sinned. He lived the Law of God perfectly, thus He has a perfectly righteous standing before God. When they were crucifying Jesus, God used this crucifixion as the means to place the sins of the world upon Jesus. This is when Jesus became sin on our behalf. 2 Cor. 5:21 says,

"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

The crucifixion became the place where Jesus bore our sins in His body and suffered in our place. "But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed,"[/i] (Isaiah 53:5).

No other sacrifice (sheep etc.,) could please God perfectly and no other person (all sinners) could offer a perfect sacrifice to God.

Only God in flesh, Jesus, could do that. Since there is nothing we can do that is righteous before God (Isaiah 64:6 says our righteous deeds are filthy rags), then we cannot please an infinitely holy and righteous God by anything we do. But, Jesus who is perfectly righteous before God the Father, died in our place. What we could not do, He did, for us.

So god NEEDED a sacrifice of flesh for appeasement and Jesus was just the best “flesh” ever invented?

This is how salvation works: All of us have sinned against God and deserve judgment.

Jesus never sinned. He lived the Law of God perfectly, thus He has a perfectly righteous standing before God. When they were crucifying Jesus, God used this crucifixion as the means to place the sins of the world upon Jesus. This is when Jesus became sin on our behalf. 2 Cor. 5:21 says,

"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

The crucifixion became the place where Jesus bore our sins in His body and suffered in our place. "But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed," (Isaiah 53:5).

No other sacrifice (sheep etc.,) could please God perfectly and no other person (all sinners) could offer a perfect sacrifice to God.

Only God in flesh, Jesus, could do that. Since there is nothing we can do that is righteous before God (Isaiah 64:6 says our righteous deeds are filthy rags), then we cannot please an infinitely holy and righteous God by anything we do. But, Jesus who is perfectly righteous before God the Father, died in our place. What we could not do, He did, for us.
But Paul also said, "21There is a nice symmetry in this: Death initially came by a man, and resurrection from death came by a man. 22Everybody dies in Adam; everybody comes alive in Christ."

It is clear the sin Jesus saves us from is the sin of the fall from Eden; and this is on all men. So if Jesus was ever a man in his life, he sinned same as us, by virtue of being born in flesh.

But Paul also said, "21There is a nice symmetry in this: Death initially came by a man, and resurrection from death came by a man. 22Everybody dies in Adam; everybody comes alive in Christ."

It is clear the sin Jesus saves us from is the sin of the fall from Eden; and this is on all men. So if Jesus was ever a man in his life, he sinned same as us, by virtue of being born in flesh.

See.. there, no, virgin birth and all that.

This is how salvation works: All of us have sinned against God and deserve judgment.

Jesus never sinned. He lived the Law of God perfectly, thus He has a perfectly righteous standing before God. When they were crucifying Jesus, God used this crucifixion as the means to place the sins of the world upon Jesus. This is when Jesus became sin on our behalf. 2 Cor. 5:21 says,

"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

The crucifixion became the place where Jesus bore our sins in His body and suffered in our place. "But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed," (Isaiah 53:5).
What you have described here is Jesus becoming a symbol of sin, so that it may be washed away with his death. There is nothing here that requires any of this to be literal in order to be true--it is useful symbolism. Someone else washes our souls.

No other sacrifice (sheep etc.,) could please God perfectly and no other person (all sinners) could offer a perfect sacrifice to God.

Only God in flesh, Jesus, could do that. Since there is nothing we can do that is righteous before God (Isaiah 64:6 says our righteous deeds are filthy rags), then we cannot please an infinitely holy and righteous God by anything we do. But, Jesus who is perfectly righteous before God the Father, died in our place. What we could not do, He did, for us.
Why can God's appeasement not be equally symbolic?

See.. there, no, virgin birth and all that.
And what does a virgin birth impart? Perfection? What is the biology involved there?

Or is it ....magic?

And what does a virgin birth impart? Perfection? What is the biology involved there?

Or is it ....magic?

Keep it all together now, Paul explained why the death and ressurrection needs to be real... The virgin birth makes it so that Jesus wouldn't be born with Adam's sin (otherwise he couldn't be the sacrifice)...And the washing of us is via the blood of Christ.

The reason for the need of a 'blood' sacrifice goes all the way back the Cain and Abel. But read Hebrews Chapter 10 for a detailed breakdown of the meanings and reasons.

Keep it all together now, Paul explained why the death and ressurrection needs to be real... The virgin birth makes it so that Jesus wouldn't be born with Adam's sin (otherwise he couldn't be the sacrifice)...And the washing of us is via the blood of Christ.

The reason for the need of a 'blood' sacrifice goes all the way back the Cain and Abel. But read Hebrews Chapter 10 for a detailed breakdown of the meanings and reasons.
And god couldn’t circumvent his need for blood ?

And god couldn’t circumvent his need for blood ?

Yeah, he came down here to do it himself.

Yeah, he came down here to do it himself.
By creating more blood to be shed rather then fixing the problem without bloodshed

Figured he would be able to make the correction without someone needing to die … you know omnipotence and all

Keep it all together now, Paul explained why the death and ressurrection needs to be real... The virgin birth makes it so that Jesus wouldn't be born with Adam's sin (otherwise he couldn't be the sacrifice)...And the washing of us is via the blood of Christ.

The reason for the need of a 'blood' sacrifice goes all the way back the Cain and Abel. But read Hebrews Chapter 10 for a detailed breakdown of the meanings and reasons.
No, Paul explained why the death and resurrection need to be believed. They can be valid symbolism, and still be believed.

EDIT: Hebrews 10 does not explain why, it just says, "This is how it is."

By creating more blood to be shed rather then fixing the problem without bloodshed

Figured he would be able to make the correction without someone needing to die … you know omnipotence and all

Everyone was dying, that's why he came, so that we can live. The wages of Sin are death, he came to end the power of Death.

No, Paul explained why the death and resurrection need to be believed. They can be valid symbolism, and still be believed.

EDIT: Hebrews 10 does not explain why, it just says, "This is how it is."

If you are asking me 'why' God created reality and the universe with the rules that it has, I do not know the answer.

Everyone was dying, that's why he came, so that we can live. The wages of Sin are death, he came to end the power of Death.
you avoided the question ... why could he not have done this without creating a being for the soul purpose of being slaughtered
Could he not have acheved the same end without the extra bloodshead ?

you avoided the question ... why could he not have done this without creating a being for the soul purpose of being slaughtered
Could he not have acheved the same end without the extra bloodshead ?

Where's the motivation to not have a blood sacrifice? What is wrong with it? If you want the old testament version, Leviticus says something about the blood representing or housing our soul and thus they were to reserve it for sacrifice and not eat it to remind themselves what it means...

Where's the motivation to not have a blood sacrifice? What is wrong with it? If you want the old testament version, Leviticus says something about the blood representing or housing our soul and thus they were to reserve it for sacrifice and not eat it to remind themselves what it means...
I dont know just seems something wrong about worshiping a god that requires killing to satasfy him
That would rather see a person die then fixing it without suffering

Just not very loving

I dont know just seems something wrong about worshiping a god that requires killing to satasfy him
That would rather see a person die then fixing it without suffering

Just not very loving

I quit being lazy and I looked this up;

As soon as Adam and Eve became conscious of their nakedness and shame before God they made a feeble attempt at covering themselves. However, the LORD himself provided a covering for them with garments of skin, thus providing a graphic illustration of sin of the terrible consequence of sin, and showing them that sin had to be atoned for through the death of an innocent animal.

GOD'S WAY OF ATONEMENT
The Hebrew word kaphar which in English is rendered "to atone" literally means "to cover" and the essential idea contained in it is the covering or hiding of sin so that it becomes invisible to a Holy God who cannot look upon sin. God prescribed the acceptable means of atonement for mankind long before He entered into a covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai where the Torah was given.

"In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favour on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favour. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?" (Genesis 4:3-7)

The sacrifice of an innocent animal was a graphic reminder that the penalty of sin was death, but also that sin could only be atoned for by the blood of an innocent substitute. One of the clearest pictures of how God intended to provide atonement for the sins of mankind is seen in Genesis chapter 22, in the account of Abraham and Isaac on Mount Moriah when God tested Abraham's faithfulness and obedience by calling upon him to sacrifice his son Isaac. When Abraham said, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering," he was speaking not only of the present but was also looking down the centuries and prophesying about the lamb of God who would be sent as the sacrifice to take away the sins of the world.

http://www.biblicalroots.org/html/atonement.html




A secondary concern here is, what is your 'concern' of flesh and blood being used? I suggest that the world is what the world is, and it is a flesh eating and consuming world. We are nourished by other organic life forms, be they plant or animal, why and what part of our ideology would dismiss this?

I quit being lazy and I looked this up;

As soon as Adam and Eve became conscious of their nakedness and shame before God they made a feeble attempt at covering themselves. However, the LORD himself provided a covering for them with garments of skin, thus providing a graphic illustration of sin of the terrible consequence of sin, and showing them that sin had to be atoned for through the death of an innocent animal.

GOD'S WAY OF ATONEMENT
The Hebrew word kaphar which in English is rendered "to atone" literally means "to cover" and the essential idea contained in it is the covering or hiding of sin so that it becomes invisible to a Holy God who cannot look upon sin. God prescribed the acceptable means of atonement for mankind long before He entered into a covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai where the Torah was given.

"In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favour on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favour. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?" (Genesis 4:3-7)

The sacrifice of an innocent animal was a graphic reminder that the penalty of sin was death, but also that sin could only be atoned for by the blood of an innocent substitute. One of the clearest pictures of how God intended to provide atonement for the sins of mankind is seen in Genesis chapter 22, in the account of Abraham and Isaac on Mount Moriah when God tested Abraham's faithfulness and obedience by calling upon him to sacrifice his son Isaac. When Abraham said, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering," he was speaking not only of the present but was also looking down the centuries and prophesying about the lamb of God who would be sent as the sacrifice to take away the sins of the world.

http://www.biblicalroots.org/html/atonement.html




A secondary concern here is, what is your 'concern' of flesh and blood being used? I suggest that the world is what the world is, and it is a flesh eating and consuming world. We are nourished by other organic life forms, be they plant or animal, why and what part of our ideology would dismiss this?


All symbolism within the bible … I can understand the symbols for normal atonement and the reminding of our sin but

Why the requirement of the death of a human for him to “save” more people

He was the one that made that requirement … why did he not fix his flaw in salvation plan without having to shed blood

I was tempted to leave this alone. However, it's too ironic that what you are assigning to Jesus (changing the rules of what you can eat and the desire to shave etc.,) actually mostly came afterwards, from Paul's message to the gentiles and from Peter's vision of clean and non-clean foods after the resurrection. In all likelihood during his pre-crucifixion life, Jesus was would probably have looked like an orthodox Jew by today's standards, he came 'first to the Jews' as he said himself. I think perhaps you put too much of a 60’s happy hippy image on Jesus when you think of his daily messages.

It is true though, that all things are permissible now but not all things are beneficial, but this is ONLY true because Jesus was resurrected and fulfilled the law, replacing it, and yet, that’s the part you deny! :eek:

:p :D

You misunderstood me profoundly. I believe that the old testament was a necessary tool for Hebrew society, but I don't necessarily regard it as binding religious text.
I believe in the message that Jesus delievered. The message of a god who loves humanity, a god who is not focused on sins but on good and helpful life, a god who won't condemn but forgive. Jesus simply brought this message, and his words are only true if he didn't sacrifice himself, as that sacrifice couldn't have been made to the god he talked about. No loving god would demand blood for disobedience.
Yes, he did come first to the Jews. And he told them that the Law was made for the people, not the people for the Law. He would have been nothing less than orthodox in his teachings and ideas.

You misunderstood me profoundly. I believe that the old testament was a necessary tool for Hebrew society, but I don't necessarily regard it as binding religious text.
I believe in the message that Jesus delievered. The message of a god who loves humanity, a god who is not focused on sins but on good and helpful life, a god who won't condemn but forgive. Jesus simply brought this message, and his words are only true if he didn't sacrifice himself, as that sacrifice couldn't have been made to the god he talked about. No loving god would demand blood for disobedience.
Yes, he did come first to the Jews. And he told them that the Law was made for the people, not the people for the Law. He would have been nothing less than orthodox in his teachings and ideas.


Did you even read any of that atonement stuff?

All symbolism within the bible … I can understand the symbols for normal atonement and the reminding of our sin but

Why the requirement of the death of a human for him to “save” more people

He was the one that made that requirement … why did he not fix his flaw in salvation plan without having to shed blood


The point is that We did it to Him, not He to Us. And being innocent, his blood IS the atonement for Sin, thus, He broke the wages of Sin which is death, and thus, breaking death, saved us all... He did it himself. We don't deserve anything, we deserve Death, but Mercy and Grace he will wash us clean of Sin if we accept his sacrifice for us and repent of our guilt.

Did you even read any of that atonement stuff?

Yes, I read that.
But I don't believe there was anything to atone for.
As I said before, i don't believe the bible word for word. I believe what makes sense, I try to find sense in everything, try to understand all the metaphors and lessons it is trying to teach, but where it becomes contradictory, I use my own judgements on what part to prefer.

*snip*

So, are you thinking that Jesus didn't beleive in blood atonement? Dismissing the message of Salvation via Jesus it entirely is up to you...

But why was he so upset at the temple when they were buying and selling and making a den of thieves about selling sacrificial animals there if the rites of blood sacrifice was not meaningful to him?

The point is that We did it to Him, not He to Us. And being innocent, his blood IS the atonement for Sin, thus, He broke the wages of Sin which is death, and thus, breaking death, saved us all... He did it himself. We don't deserve anything, we deserve Death, but Mercy and Grace he will wash us clean of Sin if we accept his sacrifice for us and repent of our guilt.
He placed his son with full knowledge that he would be killed
HE purposely set it up as so

The blood spilled is on gods hands as well as those that committed the act

I understand what the sacrifice is supposed to have done for us, but I ask why did god have to set someone up to be killed to satisfy his requirements?

So, are you thinking that Jesus didn't beleive in blood atonement? Dismissing the message of Salvation via Jesus it entirely is up to you...

But why was he so upset at the temple when they were buying and selling and making a den of thieves about selling sacrificial animals there if the rites of blood sacrifice was not meaningful to him?

"My Father's house shall be called a house of prayer, but you have made it a 'den of thieves."

That's the whole qoute. He wasn't upset because blood sacrifice meant anything to him, but because the traders disturbed meditation and prayer, desecrating a place of holy silent worship with noise and dirt.

i am a buddhist i love all no mater if thay tret me bad or not. but all so along weht being a buddhist i am also verey mouh in to philosophy so geting back to the fundamentel quechen. i think every one needs to be on there own path.but i dont go try to canvert every one to my pont of view. becouse i can not say how is and is not riet and wrong and in saying these i must pont out that there are meny deffrent nations and every one of them have a deffrent of waht is riet and wrong. for all i know we can all be wrong but i think the key word here is respect.o and ps i am not trying to offend any body.os i wich peace to all. and live and let live. :D

The idea here is that the serpent intentionally tried to make a chasm between man and God that would be impossible to bridge. The serpent never understood how God might be able to bridge it himself, because the serpent understood that God cannot be in the presence of evil and thus, sin.

The wages of sin are Death, and that is really what the serpent wanted when he offered the knowledge of good and evil as a temptation... Evil could not be in the presence of God, thus man's knowledge of evil would by default make him forever ineligible to enter the presence of God nor build the bridge.

Our very bodies are flesh and blood, and we are sustained only through organic material and only organic material can be used to repair it. God sacrificed his own Son to cross the chasm of Sin and Death, thus, the serpent's plan failed.

The Blood sacrifice was essential, no other covering (atonement) could work.

The idea here is that the serpent intentionally tried to make a chasm between man and God that would be impossible to bridge. The serpent never understood how God might be able to bridge it himself, because the serpent understood that God cannot be in the presence of evil and thus, sin.

The wages of sin are Death, and that is really what the serpent wanted when he offered the knowledge of good and evil as a temptation... Evil could not be in the presence of God, thus man's knowledge of evil would by default make him forever ineligible to enter the presence of God nor build the bridge.

Our very bodies are flesh and blood, and we are sustained only through organic material and only organic material can be used to repair it. God sacrificed his own Son to cross the chasm of Sin and Death, thus, the serpent's plan failed.

The Blood sacrifice was essential, no other covering (atonement) could work.

Which raises the question... where did the snake come from? God made the world and everything that's in it, right? So he himself made the snake...

The idea here is that the serpent intentionally tried to make a chasm between man and God that would be impossible to bridge. The serpent never understood how God might be able to bridge it himself, because the serpent understood that God cannot be in the presence of evil and thus, sin.


Ah so there ARE limits to gods power

"My Father's house shall be called a house of prayer, but you have made it a 'den of thieves."

That's the whole qoute. He wasn't upset because blood sacrifice meant anything to him, but because the traders disturbed meditation and prayer, desecrating a place of holy silent worship with noise and dirt.

Dude, you need to do some reading about that temple there, there was thousands of animal sacrifices being done there... They were buying and selling the animals for sacrificing.

Ah so there ARE limits to gods power

How so, because you disaprove? God is to do things your way?

Which raises the question... where did the snake come from? God made the world and everything that's in it, right? So he himself made the snake...

You've now moved into "Why" make the Universe and the laws of phyics as they are, and again I'll simply say, I do not know why He wanted to make us at all.

How so, because you disaprove? God is to do things your way?
No let me point it out more


The idea here is that the serpent intentionally tried to make a chasm between man and God that would be impossible to bridge. The serpent never understood how God might be able to bridge it himself, because the serpent understood that God cannot be in the presence of evil and thus, sin.

So god is not powerfull enough to be in the presence of sin?

You've now moved into "Why" make the Universe and the laws of phyics as they are, and again I'll simply say, I do not know why He wanted to make us at all.

Wrong, I'm not asking why he made the snake. I know that his motives are sometimes to strange to figure out.

I'm asking HOW he would have made the snake if it is not even possible to be in the mere presence of evil. How could he possibly create it in that case?

So god is not powerfull enough to be in the presence of sin?

Yup, and if he's not, how did he make it in the first place?

Wrong, I'm not asking why he made the snake. I know that his motives are sometimes to strange to figure out.

I'm asking HOW he would have made the snake if it is not even possible to be in the mere presence of evil. How could he possibly create it in that case?


You are asking why God created Satan. I admit that I've read some stuff about Lucifer being jealous of humans, and I've read some stuff that says Lucifer wants to over-throw God's kingdom for himself (if that means heaven or earth I'm not sure) but I won't pretend to be able to answer it.

I do not know why God created the ability in Lucifer to betray him. But I do know that 'evil' does not create anything. Evil distorts God's creation, but does not actually produce anything new.


EDIT: we are getting back around to freewill AND predetermination again. :D

Yup, and if he's not, how did he make it in the first place?
Yup he had to create the possibility in order for it to be a choice

He in the end is the ultimate originator of sin with full knowledge that sin would be created (even if he created someone who then created sin)
If everything comes from god so in the end does sin

i am just saying a semple yes

You are asking why God created Satan. I admit that I've read some stuff about Lucifer being jealous of humans, and I've read some stuff that says Lucifer wants to over-throw God's kingdom for himself (if that means heaven or earth I'm not sure) but I won't pretend to be able to answer it.

I do not know why God created the ability in Lucifer to betray him. But I do know that 'evil' does not create anything. Evil distorts God's creation, but does not actually produce anything new.


EDIT: we are getting back around to freewill AND predetermination again. :D

No. Again, I'm not asking why. I'm asking HOW

You just said that it's impossible for god to be in the presence of evil, how did he create it then?

No. Again, I'm not asking why. I'm asking HOW

You just said that it's impossible for god to be in the presence of evil, how did he create it then?

You do realize that you are playing games with words because you are asking the "chicken or egg" sort of question.

You do realize that you are playing games with words because you are asking the "chicken or egg" sort of question.

I'm not. You said god can't be in the presence of evil.
But he must have created it, according to the bible. So, all I ask is how he did that.

Perhaps the problem here is the assumption that evil was created in the first place.

Is there such a thing as light? Yes, of course there is. Is there such a thing as darkness, the opposite of light? No. Darkness is not the opposite of light, rather it is the absence of light, and an absence can't be created.

If darkness was a thing in and of itself then we could make dark, but we can't. All we can do is take away light. Evil is just an absence of God.

God cannot be in the pressence of evil, it's an oxymoron, not a rule that can be broken.

Perhaps the problem here is the assumption that evil was created in the first place.

Is there such a thing as light? Yes, of course there is. Is there such a thing as darkness, the opposite of light? No. Darkness is not the opposite of light, rather it is the absence of light, and an absence can't be created.

If darkness was a thing in and of itself then we could make dark, but we can't. All we can do is take away light. Evil is just an absence of God.

God cannot be in the pressence of evil, it's an oxymoron, not a rule that can be broken.

You are just contradicting the Christian idea of god's omnipresence, you know that?

Perhaps the problem here is the assumption that evil was created in the first place.

Is there such a thing as light? Yes, of course there is. Is there such a thing as darkness, the opposite of light? No. Darkness is not the opposite of light, rather it is the absence of light, and an absence can't be created.

If darkness was a thing in and of itself then we could make dark, but we can't. All we can do is take away light. Evil is just an absence of God.

God cannot be in the pressence of evil, it's an oxymoron, not a rule that can be broken.
God not powerful enough to break that rule?

God not powerful enough to break that rule?

It's not a rule... It's a fact of being. God cannot be in th absence of God, the question doesn't even make sense when it's worded like that.

It's not a rule... It's a fact of being. God cannot be in th absence of God, the question doesn't even make sense when it's worded like that.

Christians believe god to be omnipresent... how can he be absent?

It's not a rule... It's a fact of being. God cannot be in th absence of God, the question doesn't even make sense when it's worded like that.
So he is not powerful enough … ok (sorry just another issue with omni-potent beings)

Christians believe god to be omnipresent... how can he be absent?

Actually, that's what they say hell is too, "eternity in the absence of God."

With that in mind, like I've said for awhile now, you're really asking me 'why' God created the universe and reality as it is... I do not know why God created us, nor why the Universe exists as it does.

Actually, that's what they say hell is too, "eternity in the absence of God."

With that in mind, like I've said for awhile now, you're really asking me 'why' God created the universe and reality as it is... I do not know why God created us, nor why the Universe exists as it does.

I'm not asking why. I'm merely stating that the omnipresence of god and god's possible absence in the presence of evil contradict each other.

I'm not asking why. I'm merely stating that the omnipresence of god and god's possible absence in the presence of evil contradict each other.
I wasn't asking a "why" about god, either. ;)

Perhaps Greenlander doesn't have answers, though.

I wasn't asking a "why" about god, either. ;)

Perhaps Greenlander doesn't have answers, though.

Funny how Greenlander blames others for putting words in his mouth...
;)

Funny how Greenlander blames others for putting words in his mouth...
;)

And doesn't ever return to defend or respond, either...

And doesn't ever return to defend or respond, either...

Hmm... does that mean I won? ;)

Hmm... does that mean I won? ;)

Sure. Here's a sandwich. ;)

Hmm... does that mean I won? ;)
Only if you call getting no answer to your question a victory.

The point you should have made was that you were not asking a why about god's methods, but about the logic of the scenario. Then he could have simply claimed it is illogical, and moved on.

Only if you call getting no answer to your question a victory.

The point you should have made was that you were not asking a why about god's methods, but about the logic of the scenario. Then he could have simply claimed it is illogical, and moved on.

If the other side can't find any more arguments....

The fact that it is illogical is rather obvious. I just wnated to know how he can make an assumption like that.

In my opinion, to believe in your religion you have to believe in it absolutely and believe that it is the one true religion.

I don't understand how you can call yourself a particular religion if this is not true. In order to be a part of that religion, it is necessary to believe that it is the truth.

Therefore, for me, because I am Catholic I must believe absolutely in the Catholic faith because otherwise I can not truly call myself a Catholic.

If the other side can't find any more arguments....
...then perhaps you weren't asking the right questions? (Or, perhaps you didn't really want an answer, and it was all for rhetoric.)

Sorry; not trying to pick a fight here. I just think it ended unsatisfactorily. I do believe he was a troll of some sort, though. (What do they call them... puppets?)
The fact that it is illogical is rather obvious. I just wnated to know how he can make an assumption like that.
The fact that it is illogical was his best defense against your line of questioning ;) but he didn't see it.

(I blame the ancient Greeks for misleading us into believing only logic makes sense.)

...then perhaps you weren't asking the right questions? (Or, perhaps you didn't really want an answer, and it was all for rhetoric.)

Sorry; not trying to pick a fight here. I just think it ended unsatisfactorily. I do believe he was a troll of some sort, though. (What do they call them... puppets?)

The fact that it is illogical was his best defense against your line of questioning ;) but he didn't see it.

(I blame the ancient Greeks for misleading us into believing only logic makes sense.)

*lol
I sometimes think all those fanatical fundamentalists must be trolling... I'm Christian myself, but that sort of behaviour or that way of thinking remain inconmprehensible to me.

Therefore, for me, because I am Catholic I must believe absolutely in the Catholic faith because otherwise I can not truly call myself a Catholic.
I am a catholic and even call myself a catholic but i do not have absolute faith in the catholic church. The church is ruled by men and they are fallible.

Also, since I know that the catholic church exists I do not need to believe in it ;)

I am a catholic and even call myself a catholic but i do not have absolute faith in the catholic church. The church is ruled by men and they are fallible.

Also, since I know that the catholic church exists I do not need to believe in it ;)

:fluffle: I thought I was the only Catholic like that in the whole bloddy forum....

:fluffle: I thought I was the only Catholic like that in the whole bloddy forum....
Nowoland returns :fluffle:
Don't worry, you're not alone!

And outside this forum there are even more of us. In fact I hardly know any hardline /-core catholics. Oh wait, there's my father-in-law, but then he's Irish so it doesn't really count ;)

Nowoland returns :fluffle:
Don't worry, you're not alone!

And outside this forum there are even more of us. In fact I hardly know any hardline /-core catholics. Oh wait, there's my father-in-law, but then he's Irish so it doesn't really count ;)

Funny thing is, I've been living in Ireland for years now and never met a really hardcore Catholic. The only one I know is my grandfather, and his senitlity is getting the better of him, so I generally put his ranting down to his old age.

I was raised in a Catholic town, in a Catholic part of Germany, went to Catholic schools, worked with Catholic youth organisations, yet I never ever met fanatical fundamentalists like some of the people here in real life.
I sometimes think they are just trolling, really....

Funny thing is, I've been living in Ireland for years now and never met a really hardcore Catholic.
Well, my FiL is originally from a really small place in the middle of Nowhere, Ireland, where even now catholicism (i.e. what the pope says) is relatively strictly adhered to. Also, I noticed that Irish imigrants of his generation tended to congregate and keep a close community where they tried to ward off the influence of those ungodly and sinful inhabitants of the British capital ;)

I was raised in a Catholic town, in a Catholic part of Germany, went to Catholic schools, worked with Catholic youth organisations, yet I never ever met fanatical fundamentalists like some of the people here in real life.
I sometimes think they are just trolling, really....
Well I was raised in the only city in a catholic part of Germany, where the ratio between protestants and catholics is about 45:55. My mother is a catholic RE teacher, I, too, went to catholic schools, worked with catholic youth organisations, but also sang in a protestant gospel choir, played with my band at protestant services (in return for a rehearsal space in the protestant community centre). I would say that at any given time in my youth my protestant friends outnumbered my catholic ones 2:1.
I only once met a fanatical fundamentalist, he belonged to some obscure protestant sect. I once whitnessed how he tried to convince my best friend (protestant) of the error of his ways. It was quite a show, as my friend's parents are both RE teachers and he knew his bible as well. So it went "Well in ... it says" "Ahhhhh, but doesn't ... say", for about two hours. I learnt from that experience that to every quote in the bible there's a valid opposing quote and that people who say they take the (whole) bible literally are either schizophrenics or liars ;)

I, too, think that some just troll!

Only if you call getting no answer to your question a victory.

The point you should have made was that you were not asking a why about god's methods, but about the logic of the scenario. Then he could have simply claimed it is illogical, and moved on.

Actually that is what I said, in so many words. That the answer cannot be given without a knowledge of God's motivation. And to know that, we would have to know 'Why' God created the universe to begin with, and I readily admitted that I do not know 'why.'

If we can determine 'why' God wants us in existence, many of those questions (why is there (sin) space that omni-present God isn't in? ~ answer, because He chooses not to be there logically leads to "why" doesn't he want to be there? etc., etc., etc.)...

Actually that is what I said, in so many words. That the answer cannot be given without a knowledge of God's motivation. And to know that, we would have to know 'Why' God created the universe to begin with, and I readily admitted that I do not know 'why.'

If we can determine 'why' God wants us in existence, many of those questions (why is there (sin) space that omni-present God isn't in? ~ answer, because He chooses not to be there logically leads to "why" doesn't he want to be there? etc., etc., etc.)...
Well, no, in "so many words" you said nothing of the sort. :) Having no knowledge is not the same as having no logical path from a premise to a conclusion.

Actually that is what I said, in so many words. That the answer cannot be given without a knowledge of God's motivation. And to know that, we would have to know 'Why' God created the universe to begin with, and I readily admitted that I do not know 'why.'

If we can determine 'why' God wants us in existence, many of those questions (why is there (sin) space that omni-present God isn't in? ~ answer, because He chooses not to be there logically leads to "why" doesn't he want to be there? etc., etc., etc.)...

So, effectively, you are saying that logic in itself cannot be applied to anything in the univers as we can't know how god intended things to be?

So, effectively, you are saying that logic in itself cannot be applied to anything in the univers as we can't know how god intended things to be?

No. What I'm saying is that the Logic of the physical universe cannot be applied to God because His existence is above and beyond the physical universe, and thus, to answer questions about his nature, (why does evil [the distortion of good] and sin [space in the absence of God] exists at all, et al.?), one must 'ask' God. We can not expect to be able to use human logic and understanding, nor assumptions of what is and what is not possible, to be able to help us understand or perceive God or put Him in a shell of what we think He can or cannot be. He is, essentially, inconceivable to us without Him first reaching out to us. If he does not reveal himself, we can know nothing.

God's wisdom is Man's foolishness. I didn't fabricate the situation, I'm just describing it.

God's wisdom is Man's foolishness.

Or maybe, god's lack of provability, is man's excuse for all kinds of claims in 'his' name?


I didn't fabricate the situation, I'm just describing it.

Which could be translated as "I didn't make up the story, I just tell it"...

Or maybe, god's lack of provability, is man's excuse for all kinds of claims in 'his' name?



Which could be translated as "I didn't make up the story, I just tell it"...

Ah, GnI, I see you're still sparing with us feeble religionists. Good to see somethings never change. ;)

Oh, it could also, just as easily mean, I repeat the truth that God has revealed to humanity. This side of Heaven, neither of you will be able to present incontrovertable proof to the contrary.

Ah, GnI, I see you're still sparing with us feeble religionists. Good to see somethings never change. ;)

Oh, it could also, just as easily mean, I repeat the truth that God has revealed to humanity. This side of Heaven, neither of you will be able to present incontrovertable proof to the contrary.

Actually... some things have changed... I am almost never on the forum at the moment... through a conspiracy of 'real-life' activities that seem intent on crimping my debating style... :)

Oh - and not all 'religionists' are feeble... there are several of my long-term sparring partners who have made very good arguments. :) (You know who you are).

Regarding the 'second point' up there... the difference between my erstwhile adversary (above) and myself, is that I don't claim to KNOW for sure. I don't claim to have the proof... I don't claim to be certain.

Perhaps my adversary is correct... but he has a bolder claim to make than I, and the same amount of evidence... i.e. nothing 'provable'.

Oh - and, glad to see you, my friend... :)

Actually... some things have changed... I am almost never on the forum at the moment... through a conspiracy of 'real-life' activities that seem intent on crimping my debating style... :)

Oh - and not all 'religionists' are feeble... there are several of my long-term sparring partners who have made very good arguments. :) (You know who you are).

Regarding the 'second point' up there... the difference between my erstwhile adversary (above) and myself, is that I don't claim to KNOW for sure. I don't claim to have the proof... I don't claim to be certain.

Perhaps my adversary is correct... but he has a bolder claim to make than I, and the same amount of evidence... i.e. nothing 'provable'.

Oh - and, glad to see you, my friend... :)

Yes, good to see you as well. And, yes, that whole "provable" things trips up so many people... I don't know why they don't recognize that there is a difference between evidence and proof and that evidence can often be interpreted in multiple ways...

Yes, good to see you as well. And, yes, that whole "provable" things trips up so many people... I don't know why they don't recognize that there is a difference between evidence and proof and that evidence can often be interpreted in multiple ways...

It would be so simple for a person to just preface their assertions with 'I believe'... or 'I have been taught', or some similar comment... and defuse most of my responses...

But, some people take 'revealed' insight to be equivalent to verifiable proof... and that is something I am ALWAYS going to bump heads over, I guess... :)