NationStates Jolt Archive

For the sake of this argument, I am going to make an assumption: God, as the Christian’s know him, exists. I myself am an agnostic, but was raised Roman Catholic and know a thing or two about scripture. So for all you out there, including me, who either don’t believe in God, are unsure if you believe in God, or are of a non-Christian religion, either keep to yourself or accept the “God exists” standard for the sake of this thread.

Now, given that God, in his Christian form, exists, there are a series of events which demonstrate not only God’s fallacy, but the fact that we were doomed, from our original creation in the garden, and not from the events in that garden, to a life of moral servitude and repentance to God.

First of all, the Christian idea of God is that he is omnipotent, free of fault, and perfect in every way. That being said, Christian texts contain plenty of examples to the contrary. God, for instance, is a murder, and one on a world-wide scale at that. Disgusted of the choices his “children” made, God, without the empathy and high moral ground he demands from those very “children,” decided to not only kill them, but drown them at that. He chose Noah’s family, playing favorites, and drowned the rest of humanity.

God also exhibits jealousy. In fact, he admits to it. Plenty know the commandment, “Thou shall not worship any god but me,” but not as many know the verse where the commandment comes from. Exodus 2-17 says “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.” Not only is god jealous, he also shows vengeance, as he takes out the “sins” of the parents not only on them, but on their children, their children’s children, and their grandchildren’s children. On top of all that, God prohibits his us from displaying the same jealousy that he does in another commandment, claiming that “Thou shall not covet your neighbor’s house” and “Thou shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.”

God plays favorites. Granted this occurs far more in Judaism, but it occurs nonetheless. The Jews, the only followers of God up until Jesus, were put ahead of many other types of people throughout the old testament. Perhaps the greatest example was when God chose the Jews over the Egyptians, freeing the Jews from slavery and once again displaying his murderous tendencies, killing the first born son of every Egyptian household.

However, God is also a liar, and has enslaved us all to his will from the beginning. Free will is why he punished Adam and Eve in the garden. Free will is why God took a step back, letting humanity run its course, and is subsequently for all of the pain, suffering, war, disease, and everything else wrong with the world. But were we ever truly given free will?

Romans 8:28-30 spells it out rather obviously: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified" Romans says that God called those who love him, but goes on to say that those who he called were “predestined,” and that he subsequently justified and glorified those who were already predestined to love him. What about the people that God hasn’t chosen? Are those people damned from birth, or even before?

2 Timothy 1:9 is also interesting, saying that "[God] has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity. " Do choices in life, i.e. choices between good and evil, not dictate who gets into heaven? If God has chosen some and not others, do the sins of the chosen and the good deeds of the unchosen not determine salvation?

In fact, the ultimate story of Christianity, that of Easter, is filled with examples of how we do not have free will. Judas betrays Jesus, who is, according to the Holy Trinity, part of God. Jesus, however, foresees Judas’s betrayal, telling his apostles that one of them will betray him. How can Jesus know this if Judas’s choice of betrayal hasn’t been made yet? If Judas, in fact, was predestined to betray the son of God, how can God hold him responsible for his actions? Also, did Jesus not destroy sin by dying on the cross? Do those sins not include Judas’s betrayal?

On that note, how can any of us be responsible? According to the Bible, noted as the “Word of God,” we are predestined to ether salvation in paradise or eternity in hell, regardless of our actions in life, by a vengeful, jealous, murderous God. Back to the beginning of man, Eve made the choice to eat the apple of the tree. But since we are all predetermined, did she truly have that choice? Did God not destine her from the beginning to betray his word, much like Judas, therefore destining humanity to forever pay for her “sin?”

Did God destine us all from the beginning to live a life of pain, all the time claiming it to be punishment for Eve’s decision, a decision which she never truly made in the first place? Also, if God knows everything, surely he knew from before he even created Eve that she would betray his word, and that he would ultimately cast humanity from the garden. Why would he create Eve simply to ultimately cause humanity pain?

If God truly exists, then he is a being far from omnipotent. He murders out of anger, is jealous of his creation, and enacts vengeance upon his creation. He also sets the rules of humanity against the nature of humanity, and punishes humanity for breaking his rules, while knowing full well that they have no choice in the matter, being predestined from the beginning.

Now, before you post, I want you to defend your God in a similar, thought out fashion. I do not want posts about how God doesn’t exist so this doesn’t matter, or that you are Muslim and the quotes I provided don’t prove anything because you don’t believe in them. I said, from the beginning, that this entire argument takes place for the sake of Christians, or those who can possibly suspend their disbelief. I do not want flames, I do not want insults, and I do not want spam. Anyhow who does so will immediately be reported. Do not make me fill the moderation forum because of one thread.

Also, I fully understand that the enormity of my argument cannot possibly encompass a mere two and a half pages on Microsoft Word. Getting on my case for being short in certain sections or for only providing one example in others is impractical. I am not publishing a series of books. I am posting on an internet forum. In addition, do not hijack the thread with posts in regards to these following guidelines. I don’t care if you think you should have the right to flame or insult or spam this thread. Make your own thread to talk about it.

That being said, I look forward to this thread and the replies that will shortly come. Is God truly perfect? Do we really have free will? Are some of us really damned before birth, either from the sins of our fathers or by God’s random judgment? What do you think?

For the sake of this argument, I am going to make an assumption: God, as the Christian’s know him, exists. I myself am an agnostic, but was raised Roman Catholic and know a thing or two about scripture. So for all you out there, including me, who either don’t believe in God, are unsure if you believe in God, or are of a non-Christian religion, either keep to yourself or accept the “God exists” standard for the sake of this thread.

Now, given that God, in his Christian form, exists, there are a series of events which demonstrate not only God’s fallacy, but the fact that we were doomed, from our original creation in the garden, and not from the events in that garden, to a life of moral servitude and repentance to God. Very well.
First of all, the Christian idea of God is that he is omnipotent, free of fault, and perfect in every way. That being said, Christian texts contain plenty of examples to the contrary. God, for instance, is a murder, and one on a world-wide scale at that. Disgusted of the choices his “children” made, God, without the empathy and high moral ground he demands from those very “children,” decided to not only kill them, but drown them at that. He chose Noah’s family, playing favorites, and drowned the rest of humanity. Be fair. Assuming God is real, then the Grigori (the angels sent to watch the Earth) and the Nephilim (the offspring of the Grigori and human women) must be too. And if I am not much mistaken, ridding the world of the taint of the Nephilim was the whole idea of the flood.
However, God is also a liar, and has enslaved us all to his will from the beginning. Free will is why he punished Adam and Eve in the garden. Free will is why God took a step back, letting humanity run its course, and is subsequently for all of the pain, suffering, war, disease, and everything else wrong with the world. But were we ever truly given free will? One could argue that humans had no real free will until they ate of the forbidden fruit and received awareness, thus gaining the conscious ability to make choices.

You do make a lot of other good points though. Good job! :)

EDIT: Beforehand, I want to mention that I am not a Christian, but I do believe in God. Specifically, I'm a henotheist.

Regarding the things you mentioned, we have to remember that free will doesn't necessarily mean that every decision we make is going to be arbitrary and determined solely at the moment. People, due to their personalities, upbringing, genetics, and a host of other factors are more likely to behave in certain ways than others even though they are free to make an alternate decision.

For example, I could go out and murder someone right now, but I'm not going to do that because I believe it is wrong. I'm free to do so if I want, but other factors affecting that decision make the chance that I would infinitesimally small. Now, this doesn't work for humans because we can't read others' minds to know exactly what they are likely to do (even psychic abilities are limited in this context).

However, God, being omniscient is capable of knowing the minds, genetics, personalities, social environments and upbringings of all humans, knows exactly how likely people are to perform certain actions; as a result, he could know the future and choose accordingly because the chance of the situation turning out differently would be very, very low to the point where it would be infinitesimally small and irrelevant. As a result, it would be possible for God to know ahead of time what a person is going to do by virtue of their tendencies towards certain actions. So, by having Jesus make Judas a disciple, he set in to place a chain of events that would achieve the outcome necessary to fulfill his purpose.

how many times are you guys going to recycle this same argument?

God/the Bible is contradictory? You don't say.....

Very well.
Be fair. Assuming God is real, then the Grigori (the angels sent to watch the Earth) and the Nephilim (the offspring of the Grigori and human women) must be too. And if I am not much mistaken, ridding the world of the taint of the Nephilim was the whole idea of the flood.
One could argue that humans had no real free will until they ate of the forbidden fruit and received awareness, thus gaining the conscious ability to make choices.

You do make a lot of other good points though. Good job! :)

Then the flood failed:

Numbers 13:33:And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim); and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.

I've been pondering matters like this for a few days right now. My personal faith is hard to explain, but it has similarities to Sufism and Daoism.

I very rarely like to deal with scripture, but my personal take on Christianity, especially some of the more extreme Fred Phelps-ish aspect (The "God sends IED's" guy) reflects a notion of impending doom. Something worth considering is that it seems some of the more insane Christians seem to believe that God is completely righteous in his own manner and what he did in the Bible is right, beyond our capacity to understand (this is the argument of the fundies in my dorm). It would seem that their definition of "right" is whatever God does and not some principle.

how many times are you guys going to recycle this same argument?

How long is Christianity planning on existing? ;)

Go on, Smunkee...refute it...make me see the error in my ways...

I've argued Catholicism with priests on three different occasions, and one of those was on this subject. I'd like to see what you could bring up that the priest couldn't...

How long is Christianity planning on existing? ;)

Go on, Smunkee...refute it...make me see the error in my ways...

I've argued Catholicism with priests on three different occasions, and one of those was on this subject. I'd like to see what you could bring up that the priest couldn't...

what did the priest say?

what did the priest say?

Unfortunately his response wasn't what I wanted. I wanted a reason, "another side" perhaps, and he didn't give it. In my other two arguments, which were specifically about the Cathlolic Church, I went to other priests.

The one I talked to about this didn't try to fight with me. He accused me of being biased, which at the time I wasn't because I was still very Catholic, and not listening to God's word. When I pointed out that what I was telling him was God's word, he told me that I interpreted it wrong and was making ridiculous assumptions off of misinterpreted scripture. He would not even listen to argument and said the ultimate Christian dismissal "I'll pray for you" after something suddenly came up that "he had to do" which was bullshit cause I scheduled this with him a week beforehand and he told me that we could talk as long as he wanted before I informed him of my topic.

I was rather disappointed that a man couldn't defend his religion when his entire career and life was devoted to it, but I took it as just him and not priests in general. Unfortunately, when I argued with other priests (one being during confession...awkward...) it was about, as I said, the Catholic Church...a topic that at the time of my leaving the Catholic Church I felt was a bit more important. From those two I got a much better response.

Unfortunately his response wasn't what I wanted. I wanted a reason, "another side" perhaps, and he didn't give it. In my other two arguments, which were specifically about the Cathlolic Church, I went to other priests.

The one I talked to about this didn't try to fight with me. He accused me of being biased, which at the time I wasn't because I was still very Catholic, and not listening to God's word. When I pointed out that what I was telling him was God's word, he told me that I interpreted it wrong and was making ridiculous assumptions off of misinterpreted scripture. He would not even listen to argument and said the ultimate Christian dismissal "I'll pray for you" after something suddenly came up that "he had to do" which was bullshit cause I scheduled this with him a week beforehand and he told me that we could talk as long as he wanted before I informed him of my topic.

I was rather disappointed that a man couldn't defend his religion when his entire career and life was devoted to it, but I took it as just him and not priests in general. Unfortunately, when I argued with other priests (one being during confession...awkward...) it was about, as I said, the Catholic Church...a topic that at the time of my leaving the Catholic Church I felt was a bit more important. From those two I got a much better response.

well that sucks. priests should be educated enough that they can answer the more in depth questions that a person might have.

This morning there was this guy in the subway with a big sign that said "Have you asked Jesus to save you?"

And that made me think that I hadn't, so I did.

I called my cousin Jesus and told him "hey, Jesus, save me a place in the strip club cause I'll be working late." And he did!

Jesus saves!

The one I talked to about this didn't try to fight with me. He accused me of being biased, which at the time I wasn't because I was still very Catholic, and not listening to God's word. When I pointed out that what I was telling him was God's word, he told me that I interpreted it wrong and was making ridiculous assumptions off of misinterpreted scripture. He would not even listen to argument and said the ultimate Christian dismissal "I'll pray for you" after something suddenly came up that "he had to do" which was bullshit cause I scheduled this with him a week beforehand and he told me that we could talk as long as he wanted before I informed him of my topic.

While I highly disapprove of this priest's failure to respond to your query despite having devoted his life to such matters, I'll just note that from the Catholic perspective, you're using a very non-Catholic perspective on scriptural interpretation with regard to your Bible-based points. That tends to put your particular objections (at least within the context of Catholicism) in the area of the groundless claims to begin with.

Nice post, though. Not many are willing to put that much initial effort into pointing out the problems in a belief system. I'll also be interested to see any Christian responses to this, particularly on the matter of God's omniscience and omnipotence necessitating a deterministic universe that is malign (or at least not benign).

You seem to have a problem with the concept of free will. The Bible does often say that God knew us before we were created, but does not mean that we have no choice but to follow the path He choses for us. I believe that God simply sees and knows all possible choices you can make and the consequences of these choices. Imagine that your life is a choose your own adventure novel. God simply read the whole thing, knows what choices there are to make, and knows all the endings. You have free will to make your own decisions and God knows every possible outcome of those choices.

As for the whole predestined thing, the Bible often refers to the Jews as God's chosen people or the predestined people. God already has a plan for the Jews, the rest of us have to get salvation by Grace. Some of you may think that's unfair, but I agree with Romans 9:20-21 "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"
Yes, sometimes God passes judgements on those who have disobeyed him and destroys them. We were made in order to Worship Him, so if we disobey and turn from God, He is justified in destroying that which no longer has any reason to exist.

Many people say that it doesn't make sense for God to tell us what is wrong and then do these same things Himself. Well, I say it make no sense for creations to judge their creator. God made commandments for us to obey, but God exists outside of this universe, so why does He need to follow the rules of this world?

Even though God made these rules for us to obey, it is not by these rules that you will be judged when you die. If salvation were based on works, nobody would get into heaven because we have too many sins to possible be able to atone for them all. Think of all the things you do daily that are sinful and think of how many good deed you do for the sake of God alone. How can a perfect being accept anyone who has even a single blemish? That is why Jesus came down, put all of our sins on His shoulders, and paid for them with His fall. All you have to do to obtain salvation is accept Jesus as your Lord and savoir. All in all, I'd say that's a pretty good deal.

Edit: Forgot to capitalize pronouns when refering to God.

While I highly disapprove of this priest's failure to respond to your query despite having devoted his life to such matters, I'll just note that from the Catholic perspective, you're using a very non-Catholic perspective on scriptural interpretation with regard to your Bible-based points. That tends to put your particular objections (at least within the context of Catholicism) in the area of the groundless claims to begin with.

Nice post, though. Not many are willing to put that much initial effort into pointing out the problems in a belief system. I'll also be interested to see any Christian responses to this, particularly on the matter of God's omniscience and omnipotence necessitating a deterministic universe that is malign (or at least not benign).

Don't get me wrong for a second, Accelerus. While I am agnostic towards God or a higher authority, and have no real problems with people who are Catholics, I am definately anti-Catholic. Still, why is my interpretation of scripture any less viable than anyone else's? It makes my interpretation, as you put out, anti-Catholic, not "groundless." The two aren't similar words in any means.

Nice post, though. Not many are willing to put that much initial effort into pointing out the problems in a belief system. I'll also be interested to see any Christian responses to this, particularly on the matter of God's omniscience and omnipotence necessitating a deterministic universe that is malign (or at least not benign).

The basic problem is in these three statements:

1. god is omnipotent

2. god is wholly good

3. evil exists in the world

Any two if them work ok, but when you stick the third one in, it's hard to rationalize. Christianity insists that all three are true. It's an issue that philosophers have grappled with (or tried to) for a long time. There's even a genre of poems, Theodicies, dedicated to showing the justice of God.

2 quick points before I have to leave:

1) If you take the Bible to be literal truth, you do run into a lot of the problems mentioned above. If, on the other hand, you look at is as largely inspired, rather than God-dictated, you would expect to see the stories told based on the philosophy/theology/etc. of the time, which may or may not be correct.

2) Regarding free will. If you're looking for free will to mean, "No one, with any level of knowledge, could possibly predict your actions," you won't find it. Just like anything else, we are products of various processes beginning at certain initial conditions. If an entity were to know all of the initial conditions and all of the processes (like, say, an omniscient being), that entity would be able to predict everything that would ever happen at the very instant it all began. But, as long as God is not forcing a person's hand in their actions, then it is more "preknowledge" than "predestination." You have a choice, but God already knows what choice it will be - that sort of thing.

Of course, then you do run into the, "Well, God set the initial conditions...." =)

ok, it's actually 3

3) Another note regarding free will. Many consider God as being "outside of time." If God can see the entire timeline of the universe at once, being outside of it, then God knows everything that has happened and everything that will happen. Thus, again, you run into the idea of "preknowledge" (which is often a better term for it than "predestine").

how many times are you guys going to recycle this same argument?

...what's the ASCII code for infinity?

∞

There we go. I swear, I've seen a new copy of this thread every day since I joined NSG...

Don't get me wrong for a second, Accelerus. While I am agnostic towards God or a higher authority, and have no real problems with people who are Catholics, I am definately anti-Catholic. Still, why is my interpretation of scripture any less viable than anyone else's?

I don't pretend to know what interpretation of scripture is the best. All I'll suggest is that in the Christian context you have described, I favor an approach grounded in scholarly research and literary analysis, taking a holistic view of the teachings contained in scripture, and keeping in the forefront of one's mind the teachings of Yeshua. (That is quite similar to the current Catholic approach, incidentally.)

Outside of a Christian context, I would be inclined to an approach that simply employs scholarly research and literary analysis that took a holistic view of the scriptures.

It makes my interpretation, as you put out, anti-Catholic, not "groundless." The two aren't similar words in any means.

Hence my parenthetical phrase "at least within the context of Catholicism".

You seem to have a problem with the concept of free will. The Bible does often say that God knew us before we were created, but does not mean that we have no choice but to follow the path He choses for us. I believe that God simply sees and knows all possible choices you can make and the consequences of these choices. Imagine that your life is a choose your own adventure novel. God simply read the whole thing, knows what choices there are to make, and knows all the endings. You have free will to make your own decisions and God knows every possible outcome of those choices.

As for the whole predestined thing, the Bible often refers to the Jews as God's chosen people or the predestined people. God already has a plan for the Jews, the rest of us have to get salvation by Grace. Some of you may think that's unfair, but I agree with Romans 9:20-21
Yes, sometimes God passes judgements on those who have disobeyed him and destroys them. We were made in order to Worship Him, so if we disobey and turn from God, He is justified in destroying that which no longer has any reason to exist.

Many people say that it doesn't make sense for God to tell us what is wrong and then do these same things Himself. Well, I say it make no sense for creations to judge their creator. God made commandments for us to obey, but God exists outside of this universe, so why does He need to follow the rules of this world?

Even though God made these rules for us to obey, it is not by these rules that you will be judged when you die. If salvation were based on works, nobody would get into heaven because we have too many sins to possible be able to atone for them all. Think of all the things you do daily that are sinful and think of how many good deed you do for the sake of God alone. How can a perfect being accept anyone who has even a single blemish? That is why Jesus came down, put all of our sins on His shoulders, and paid for them with His fall. All you have to do to obtain salvation is accept Jesus as your Lord and savoir. All in all, I'd say that's a pretty good deal.

Edit: Forgot to capitalize pronouns when refering to God.

Your definition of free will is rather accurate; however, with the problem of predestination, free will doesn’t matter. It’s not me getting the idea of free will wrong, it’s me saying that according to the bible and in contradiction of Christianity’s preachings, it doesn’t exist.

As for predestination, if God is only referring to the Jews in the Old Testimate, why is it included in the Christian bible? Why was it not re-written for Christianity? Is it because Christianity considers themselves God’s chosen people now and that God refers to them and not the Jews? I certainly think it does.

As for as creations judging their creator, think of it this way. Did you ever respect your parents when (if…I know mine did) they used the “Do what I do, not what I say?” approach. Why would God get any different treatment? Because he’s “above” us? Come on now…how easily will you bow to a being with obvious flaws?

Why would God accept us with our sins you ask? Given that he is hardly the one who should be judging, considering he has, if believed in, killed more people than Hitler? And anyhow, if we are predestined, what do our sins have to do with our entrance into heaven?

Finally, hear this out on Jesus’s sacrifice. Jesus’s death was a matter of atonement, suffering to “make up for” sins. Beyond what should be the obvious ridiculousness of the concept, Jesus’s death atoned for our sins. Now, Jesus was killed by crucifixion and ascended into heaven, eternal euphoria, and sits “on the right hand of God.” Judas, on the other hand, died an equally miserable death by hanging himself, and has been damned to hell for all eternity thanks to his betrayal. Both instances were “predetermined” by God. Who, I wonder, really suffered more? Jesus, a few hours vs. Judas, all eternity? So who has a bigger role in the atonement of our sins?

I swear, I've seen a new copy of this thread every day since I joined NSG...

Must be something since December 2006. I'm over three years older than you, site-wise, if you aren't a puppet and I've yet to see more than say...roughly three that aren't simple flamebait.

As I said previously, feel free to defend your God. Just don't pass off my post as "ridiculous" or whatnot and never return to the thread.

I don't pretend to know what interpretation of scripture is the best. All I'll suggest is that in the Christian context you have described, I favor an approach grounded in scholarly research and literary analysis, taking a holistic view of the teachings contained in scripture, and keeping in the forefront of one's mind the teachings of Yeshua. (That is quite similar to the current Catholic approach, incidentally.)

Outside of a Christian context, I would be inclined to an approach that simply employs scholarly research and literary analysis that took a holistic view of the scriptures.

Hence my parenthetical phrase "at least within the context of Catholicism".

While I'm not pretending to have spent years readying this post, I have spent a sizable amount of time on it. My choice to leave Catholicism was not a whim or a teenage rebellion...it was a long, thought-out process, which ultimately let to a decision which was reluctant.

I did not want to leave. An oddly overwhelming number of my good friends from highschool are Catholic. I went to sunday school as a child and had a strong Catholic upbringing by my Catholic parents. Both sides of my family are Catholic. Imagine what I go through on holidays, lol.

Still, and the end of my "search," I felt that I had no other choice but to leave. That's not what we're talking about here though, entirely.

If you and I look at a book, any book, and come up with two different meanings while going through the same process of analysis, what makes one of us right over another?

For the sake of this argument, I am going to make an assumption: God, as the Christian’s know him, exists. I myself am an agnostic, but was raised Roman Catholic and know a thing or two about scripture. So for all you out there, including me, who either don’t believe in God, are unsure if you believe in God, or are of a non-Christian religion, either keep to yourself or accept the “God exists” standard for the sake of this thread. granted.

Now, given that God, in his Christian form, exists, there are a series of events which demonstrate not only God’s fallacy, but the fact that we were doomed, from our original creation in the garden, and not from the events in that garden, to a life of moral servitude and repentance to God. ... okay...

First of all, the Christian idea of God is that he is omnipotent, free of fault, and perfect in every way. That being said, Christian texts contain plenty of examples to the contrary. God, for instance, is a murder, and one on a world-wide scale at that. Disgusted of the choices his “children” made, God, without the empathy and high moral ground he demands from those very “children,” decided to not only kill them, but drown them at that. He chose Noah’s family, playing favorites, and drowned the rest of humanity. I believe this is wrong. sure he is perfect TO US, but it is not in our posistion to judge God nor his actions.

sure he plays favorites, but he also forgives. He spared Noah and his family because they were faithful to God. if you have several dogs, and of the lot, only two are obedient, do you punnish those two as well?

Take the story of Jonah, he disobeyed God, yet God forgave him. He went to Nineveh and warned that they would be destroyed if they didn't repent, yet when they did, God forgave them and spared the city. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed when they refused to repent. Murder? maybe by Human standards, but one cannot apply Human standards to God.

God also exhibits jealousy. In fact, he admits to it. Plenty know the commandment, “Thou shall not worship any god but me,” but not as many know the verse where the commandment comes from. Exodus 2-17 says “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.” Not only is god jealous, he also shows vengeance, as he takes out the “sins” of the parents not only on them, but on their children, their children’s children, and their grandchildren’s children. On top of all that, God prohibits his us from displaying the same jealousy that he does in another commandment, claiming that “Thou shall not covet your neighbor’s house” and “Thou shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.” “Thou shall not covet your neighbor’s house” and “Thou shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.” is not about jealousy, but Coveting is Wanting. basically, I should not look upon my neighber and desire his things. otherwise known as Envy which isn't jealousy (which is more like Resentment.)

God plays favorites. Granted this occurs far more in Judaism, but it occurs nonetheless. The Jews, the only followers of God up until Jesus, were put ahead of many other types of people throughout the old testament. Perhaps the greatest example was when God chose the Jews over the Egyptians, freeing the Jews from slavery and once again displaying his murderous tendencies, killing the first born son of every Egyptian household. ... the Egyptians were holding the Jews slaves... so you wanted God to kill the firstborn of the Jews? and if you read, the Jews were told how to avoid that fate, which indicates the non-faithful Jews would not be passed over.

and so... God Plays favories... he favors the faithful over the non faithful... and your point is...

However, God is also a liar, and has enslaved us all to his will from the beginning. Free will is why he punished Adam and Eve in the garden. Free will is why God took a step back, letting humanity run its course, and is subsequently for all of the pain, suffering, war, disease, and everything else wrong with the world. But were we ever truly given free will? ... no we were not punnished for having free will, we were punnished for disobeying him.

it's like a father telling the son, you musn't hit people. yet when he goes and hits someone, you punnish him. why? he was only exercising his free will? same with lying. you set the rules in the house, and when your child breaks those rules, you punnish them.

so what Adam and Eve did was get a serious time out from the garden by the Father.

Romans 8:28-30 spells it out rather obviously: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified" Romans says that God called those who love him, but goes on to say that those who he called were “predestined,” and that he subsequently justified and glorified those who were already predestined to love him. What about the people that God hasn’t chosen? Are those people damned from birth, or even before? it doesn't say that people are damned from birth, but that some are glorified before they were born. we would know them as the Prophets. the main problem is discerning the true prophets from the false ones.

2 Timothy 1:9 is also interesting, saying that "[God] has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity. " Do choices in life, i.e. choices between good and evil, not dictate who gets into heaven? If God has chosen some and not others, do the sins of the chosen and the good deeds of the unchosen not determine salvation?common argument. "I Do Good Deeds, so Why Am I NOT Saved." Deeds alone will not save a person, neither will Faith alone, but both Faith (John 10:9, John 4:16) and Good Deeds (Mathew 25:31-46, James 2:17)

In fact, the ultimate story of Christianity, that of Easter, is filled with examples of how we do not have free will. Judas betrays Jesus, who is, according to the Holy Trinity, part of God. Jesus, however, foresees Judas’s betrayal, telling his apostles that one of them will betray him. How can Jesus know this if Judas’s choice of betrayal hasn’t been made yet? If Judas, in fact, was predestined to betray the son of God, how can God hold him responsible for his actions? Also, did Jesus not destroy sin by dying on the cross? Do those sins not include Judas’s betrayal?there are two schools of thought to this. the first is that Judas was meant to betray Jesus (meaning that God nudged Judas into betraying him), for if Jesus did not die and therefore be ressurected, then his purpose as a sacrifice would not have been. the problem is that Judas's sin was not the betrayal of Jesus, but actually the suicide later (his placing his own judgement over God's)

The second is that the seed of Judas's betrayal was already planted in his heart long before the last supper. thus while Judas didn't activly betray Jesus yet, the thought was already there. that's were the idea of the sin of thought or sin of "wanting to" comes from.

and what Jesus destroyed was not Sin (you can't destroy sin) but the rituals that God once demanded for forgiveness. the burning of the offerings, the rituals... making it easier for man to seek forgiveness and salvation. you still need to accept God and Jesus's sacrifice inorder to be saved. you have to ask for forgiveness and strive not to sin. Jesus's sacrifice isn't a generic "Get out of hell free" card

God is a Jealous God... Yes.
God is a Strict God... Yes.
God forgives us of our shortcomings... Yes.
God favors some, but will love all who come to him... Yes.

but most importantly, God cannot be set by Human Standards.

God sees ALL POSSIBLITIES. that doesn't mean he knows what choices we'll make, but he knows what happens on the choices we do make, as well as those we don't. so he nudges us with signs, feelings, even friends and fellowship to make the right choice, but when the decision comes, it's up to us to make it. He chooses to allow us to make those choices. Just as he allowed Adam and Eve to make their choice even after telling them not to eat of the fruit.

If you and I look at a book, any book, and come up with two different meanings while going through the same process of analysis, what makes one of us right over another?

In the Christian context, only the resemblance of our interpretation (of the scriptures) to God's will would confer upon it genuine accuracy.

Which turns out to be a major problem for a Christian if the Christian's only source of information about God's will comes from said scriptures.

Must be something since December 2006. I'm over three years older than you, site-wise, if you aren't a puppet and I've yet to see more than say...roughly three that aren't simple flamebait.
My original nation got the DEAT about a month ago. It was a bit over a year old.

As I said previously, feel free to defend your God. Just don't pass off my post as "ridiculous" or whatnot and never return to the thread.
Please. My reason for not really entering this argument is not because I find it "ridiculous" (...I swear we spelled that wrong...)
It's that, in my experience on NSG, the agnostics/atheists/whatever-you-choose-to-be-called's on here are just as closed-minded and stubborn as the fundies that make my faith look bad, in addition to being condescending as hell. I gave up after the thousandth thread.
Furthermore, your argument seems to be based on the assumption that the stories in the Bible are true. Let me put some emphasis on that word: stories. I'm a devout Catholic, but, let's face it, the Bible is largely metaphorical. People don't walk on water, people don't magically create fish and bread (which is not to say that God does not show them where the rocks just under the water's surface are, or where to find fish and bread). And you have to remember what the Bible is, especially the Old Testament: the oldest, most widely known, and possibly most successful piece of propaganda ever written.


I've some other points to make, might take me a minute to write 'em...

I believe this is wrong. sure he is perfect TO US, but it is not in our posistion to judge God nor his actions.

It is not our position? Excuse me? We’re supposed to blindly bow to a flawed being while ignoring the being’s flaws? Imagine doing such to George Bush. He too dictates how we run our lives in a way.

sure he plays favorites, but he also forgives. He spared Noah and his family because they were faithful to God. if you have several dogs, and of the lot, only two are obedient, do you punnish those two as well?

No, but surely you don't kill the others...drown them no less...

Take the story of Jonah, he disobeyed God, yet God forgave him. He went to Nineveh and warned that they would be destroyed if they didn't repent, yet when they did, God forgave them and spared the city.

Donating to charity does not make me a good person if I'm also a rapist. Sparing others from wrath, especially when it was his own wrath, is hardly a justification or an excuse for his other fallacies.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed when they refused to repent. Murder? maybe by Human standards, but one cannot apply Human standards to God.

They are, after all, the standards God created. One would think he'd obide by the standards that he made himself...

“Thou shall not covet your neighbor’s house” and “Thou shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.” is not about jealousy, but Coveting is Wanting. basically, I should not look upon my neighber and desire his things. otherwise known as Envy which isn't jealousy (which is more like Resentment.)

Then God is envious? Hardly better. Besides, God is jealous, using the "false idol" commandment. If people worship someone other than God, he prevents them from entering Heaven. www.m-w.com defines jealousy as hostility towards a rival. I'd say by damning a rival god's followers, even if that god turned out to be non-existant, God is demonstrating one hell of a lot of hostility. (excuse the pun)

... the Egyptians were holding the Jews slaves... so you wanted God to kill the firstborn of the Jews? and if you read, the Jews were told how to avoid that fate, which indicates the non-faithful Jews would not be passed over.

As with the dog example, you miss the point. I do not think God should have killed the firstborn of Jews too. That's ridiculous. I think God shouldn't have killed anyone's firstborn. That's rather reasonable.

and so... God Plays favories... he favors the faithful over the non faithful... and your point is...

Shouldn't an omnipotent being be above "not being liked?"

... no we were not punnished for having free will, we were punnished for disobeying him.

it's like a father telling the son, you musn't hit people. yet when he goes and hits someone, you punnish him. why? he was only exercising his free will? same with lying. you set the rules in the house, and when your child breaks those rules, you punnish them.

so what Adam and Eve did was get a serious time out from the garden by the Father.

Correct, eternity is serious time. I'm not denying that they were punished for disobeying. I'm denying that they had a choice.

it doesn't say that people are damned from birth, but that some are glorified before they were born.

But if some are glorified, the others are not. That makes them damned.

God is a Jealous God... Yes.

Therefore, either God is acting in a very human, and therefore non-omnipotent way, or by being Jealous, which you originally said in this same post that God wasnt, people are being more God-like. In that case, shouldn't it be encouraged?

God forgives us of our shortcomings... Yes.

On occasion...he didn't forgive the Egyptions and he took it out on their children, who had nothing to do with the slavery. He didn't forgive those who died in the flood. He didn't forgive the woman who turned around to watch, instead turning her into salt. He didn't forgive the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.

God favors some, but will love all who come to him... Yes.

Hardly unconditional, as many would like to believe.

but most importantly, God cannot be set by Human Standards.

He set them! That's like saying congressmen cannot be held to american law. And if you say we're on different planes, God and man, then we are nothing but dogs, told to act one way while the master does something else and punished if we don't.

God sees ALL POSSIBLITIES. that doesn't mean he knows what choices we'll make, but he knows what happens on the choices we do make, as well as those we don't. so he nudges us with signs, feelings, even friends and fellowship to make the right choice, but when the decision comes, it's up to us to make it. He chooses to allow us to make those choices. Just as he allowed Adam and Eve to make their choice even after telling them not to eat of the fruit.

Why doesn't he know? Why should I follow a God with such shortcomings? Hell...in other religions people can see the future and predict things. Why is this God any less powerful? The scripture I quoted says that he predetermines our path. Judas's betrayal, as it is put in the bible and not interpreted by priests, says that our paths are predetermined.

While I'm not pretending to have spent years readying this post, I have spent a sizable amount of time on it. My choice to leave Catholicism was not a whim or a teenage rebellion...it was a long, thought-out process, which ultimately let to a decision which was reluctant.

I did not want to leave. An oddly overwhelming number of my good friends from highschool are Catholic. I went to sunday school as a child and had a strong Catholic upbringing by my Catholic parents. Both sides of my family are Catholic. Imagine what I go through on holidays, lol.

Still, and the end of my "search," I felt that I had no other choice but to leave. That's not what we're talking about here though, entirely.

If you and I look at a book, any book, and come up with two different meanings while going through the same process of analysis, what makes one of us right over another?

yes but

surely the question is "can there be a reasonable interpretation of the bible the resolves the problems i posted?"

not

"can you solve the problems i posted using my interpretation of the bible?"

First of all, the Christian idea of God is that he is omnipotent, free of fault, and perfect in every way. That being said, Christian texts contain plenty of examples to the contrary. God, for instance, is a murder, and one on a world-wide scale at that. Disgusted of the choices his “children” made, God, without the empathy and high moral ground he demands from those very “children,” decided to not only kill them, but drown them at that. He chose Noah’s family, playing favorites, and drowned the rest of humanity.

Death, to God’s point of view, is a minor and inevitable thing. Like the canvas on your painting complaining to you that it doesn’t want you to use too much blue… The complaint is nonsense and ignorable, the canvas doesn’t even know what the picture is of yet.

God also exhibits jealousy. In fact, he admits to it. Plenty know the commandment, “Thou shall not worship any god but me,” but not as many know the verse where the commandment comes from. Exodus 2-17 says “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.” Not only is god jealous, he also shows vengeance, as he takes out the “sins” of the parents not only on them, but on their children, their children’s children, and their grandchildren’s children. On top of all that, God prohibits his us from displaying the same jealousy that he does in another commandment, claiming that “Thou shall not covet your neighbor’s house” and “Thou shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.”

But God DOES allow jealously when it is righteous. A person can be jealous of their spouse. In fact, Jesus said unfaithfulness of a spouse is the only acceptable reason for divorce… Your analyses is a false example.

God plays favorites. Granted this occurs far more in Judaism, but it occurs nonetheless. The Jews, the only followers of God up until Jesus, were put ahead of many other types of people throughout the old testament. Perhaps the greatest example was when God chose the Jews over the Egyptians, freeing the Jews from slavery and once again displaying his murderous tendencies, killing the first born son of every Egyptian household.

Yes, God does display favoritism. Why shouldn’t he? Since when is having a hierarchy of values a vice? It is not, it is a value system. Hierarchy shows discernment because in truth, not all things are equal.

However, God is also a liar, and has enslaved us all to his will from the beginning. Free will is why he punished Adam and Eve in the garden. Free will is why God took a step back, letting humanity run its course, and is subsequently for all of the pain, suffering, war, disease, and everything else wrong with the world. But were we ever truly given free will?

God waits because he would that all of us come to him, he tallies because there is still hope for some. He waits because he is patient and we do have freewill to choose. He did not lie.

Romans 8:28-30 spells it out rather obviously: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified" Romans says that God called those who love him, but goes on to say that those who he called were “predestined,” and that he subsequently justified and glorified those who were already predestined to love him. What about the people that God hasn’t chosen? Are those people damned from birth, or even before?

Perhaps they are doomed, perhaps they have free will and God already knows what they have decided. What is a unsatisfactory painting to the artist that created it, if the artist chooses not to sell it or to keep it or even to allow it to exist anymore then that is up to the artist. The painting was not successful and does not work and does not compliment the artist. The painting is then discarded as trash, not even given away for nothing because it’s not well done, it is destroyed.

2 Timothy 1:9 is also interesting, saying that "[God] has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity. " Do choices in life, i.e. choices between good and evil, not dictate who gets into heaven? If God has chosen some and not others, do the sins of the chosen and the good deeds of the unchosen not determine salvation?

The sins do NOT determine who is chosen. All fail, all fall short of the glory of God. Some receive mercy and grace, they do not deserve it, it’s a gift.

In fact, the ultimate story of Christianity, that of Easter, is filled with examples of how we do not have free will. Judas betrays Jesus, who is, according to the Holy Trinity, part of God. Jesus, however, foresees Judas’s betrayal, telling his apostles that one of them will betray him. How can Jesus know this if Judas’s choice of betrayal hasn’t been made yet? If Judas, in fact, was predestined to betray the son of God, how can God hold him responsible for his actions? Also, did Jesus not destroy sin by dying on the cross? Do those sins not include Judas’s betrayal?

I don’t recall that it says Judas is damned to hell, it doesn’t say he’s forgiven either. Judas, like everyone else IS responsible for their actions, whether he was forgiven or not I do not know. But I do not think that you know either.

On that note, how can any of us be responsible? According to the Bible, noted as the “Word of God,” we are predestined to ether salvation in paradise or eternity in hell, regardless of our actions in life, by a vengeful, jealous, murderous God. Back to the beginning of man, Eve made the choice to eat the apple of the tree. But since we are all predetermined, did she truly have that choice? Did God not destine her from the beginning to betray his word, much like Judas, therefore destining humanity to forever pay for her “sin?”

Did God destine us all from the beginning to live a life of pain, all the time claiming it to be punishment for Eve’s decision, a decision which she never truly made in the first place? Also, if God knows everything, surely he knew from before he even created Eve that she would betray his word, and that he would ultimately cast humanity from the garden. Why would he create Eve simply to ultimately cause humanity pain?

How did God predestine humanity to forever pay for her (and her husband’s) sin? God already knew that Jesus would pay for the remission of sin. In fact, if anything, the creation of the world through this story is clearly driven for the end result of Mercy and Grace through Jesus Christ. The world was created for him, and through him.

If God truly exists, then he is a being far from omnipotent. He murders out of anger, is jealous of his creation, and enacts vengeance upon his creation. He also sets the rules of humanity against the nature of humanity, and punishes humanity for breaking his rules, while knowing full well that they have no choice in the matter, being predestined from the beginning.

God has lost no omnipotency simply because you cannot discern his design and intentions for the Universe and salvation. You simply make false accusations, even though you believe him guilty, you are mistaken.

In the Christian context, only the resemblance of our interpretation (of the scriptures) to God's will would confer upon it genuine accuracy.

Which turns out to be a major problem for a Christian if the Christian's only source of information about God's will comes from said scriptures.

And how else are we, mere humans, supposed to interpret, much less understand, God's glorious will?

And how else are we, mere humans, supposed to interpret, much less understand, God's glorious will?

Most who do allow for extra-scriptural revelation of God's will make the claim that such understanding comes through prayer and careful thought.

yes but

surely the question is "can there be a reasonable interpretation of the bible the resolves the problems i posted?"

not

"can you solve the problems i posted using my interpretation of the bible?"

Ah..."faith" correct? Don't understand something? Believe anyhow. Do as you're told.

Also, what I've said in this thread only scratches the surface of why I left Catholicism. Don't think this is my only argument.

Most who do allow for extra-scriptural revelation of God's will make the claim that such understanding comes through prayer and careful thought.

And if my prayer and careful thought on any issues falls in conflict with the prayer and careful though of others?

Ah..."faith" correct? Don't understand something? Believe anyhow. Do as you're told.

Also, what I've said in this thread only scratches the surface of why I left Catholicism. Don't think this is my only argument.

uh, no

faith doesnt come into it except in the desire to make the whole thing work

your interpetation of the bible is as good as any but you seem to suggest that a good christian should be able to use your interpretation to solve the problems you posted.

all i was saying is that there are other interpretations that can be used that do solve your problems.

they may or may not satisfy you but they still exist and are held by good christian men and women.

Death, to God’s point of view, is a minor and inevitable thing. Like the canvas on your painting complaining to you that it doesn’t want you to use too much blue… The complaint is nonsense and ignorable, the canvas doesn’t even know what the picture is of yet.

Blindly following the word of men who claim it to be the word of God, hmm? Slaves in Africa in the 1700 and 1800's complained of being chained and shipped over to boats, but surely they didn't know how much the southern economy depended on them. They didn't know the whole picture yet, did they? I'm concerned with death, and I know I'm not alone. What right does God have to ignore that? Oh ya...he's God. Great argument there...

But God DOES allow jealously when it is righteous. A person can be jealous of their spouse. In fact, Jesus said unfaithfulness of a spouse is the only acceptable reason for divorce… Your analyses is a false example.

Righteous jealousy..."acceptable crimes" is a whole other debate I'd rather not get into here.

Yes, God does display favoritism. Why shouldn’t he? Since when is having a hierarchy of values a vice? It is not, it is a value system. Hierarchy shows discernment because in truth, not all things are equal.

You just jumped off into another direction mid-paragraph. Why shouldn't God display favoritism? Well lets see...it's unfair?

As for when having a hierarchy of values is a vice...that's completely irrelevant to the conversation at had. No one said it was. God however is not having a hierarchy of values...it's having a hierarchy of people. Values are ideas...people are concrete.

Perhaps they are doomed, perhaps they have free will and God already knows what they have decided. What is a unsatisfactory painting to the artist that created it, if the artist chooses not to sell it or to keep it or even to allow it to exist anymore then that is up to the artist. The painting was not successful and does not work and does not compliment the artist. The painting is then discarded as trash, not even given away for nothing because it’s not well done, it is destroyed.

So it's acceptable to discard us, humans, as trash? Rather dismal are we not? I think I've heard Hitler use that before...

The sins do NOT determine who is chosen. All fail, all fall short of the glory of God. Some receive mercy and grace, they do not deserve it, it’s a gift.

Yes they do. You sin and you don't repent? You go to hell. Repentence, in accordance with scripture, would be predetermined as well. Also, as per the gift comment, add arrogance to God's list of vices.

I don’t recall that it says Judas is damned to hell, it doesn’t say he’s forgiven either. Judas, like everyone else IS responsible for their actions, whether he was forgiven or not I do not know. But I do not think that you know either.

But is Judas responsible if his actions were predetermined? Jesus knew Judas would betray him. What choice did that give Judas?

How did God predestine humanity to forever pay for her (and her husband’s) sin? God already knew that Jesus would pay for the remission of sin. In fact, if anything, the creation of the world through this story is clearly driven for the end result of Mercy and Grace through Jesus Christ. The world was created for him, and through him.

Your argument is for me! If God already knew that ultimately Jesus would pay for sin, before sin occured, then he knew that sin would first have to take place, and knew Eve would betray his word!

God has lost no omnipotency simply because you cannot discern his design and intentions for the Universe and salvation. You simply make false accusations, even though you believe him guilty, you are mistaken.

Then why has he gained your lifelong devotion by doing the same? You simply exhault him without proof, and even though you believe him "innocent" or whatever, who are you to call me mistaken?

And if my prayer and careful thought on any issues falls in conflict with the prayer and careful though of others?

Within Christianity, that depends very much on the results of your prayer and careful thought. If you come to the conclusion that many of the core beliefs of Christianity are incorrect, you might choose to abandon it (as you appear to have done) or you would be seen by other Christians as already having abandoned it.

If you instead, after this prayer and careful thought, you come to the conclusion that only some of the beliefs of Christianity are incorrect, while the core beliefs are sound, you might choose a different Christian sect to associate with or, if the current sect you associate with allows freedom of conscience and constructive disagreement over doctrine (and as I recall there are some sects that allow this, Catholicism being one) to continue to operate within your current sect with a revised belief set of your own.

A third option, and one frequently taken of late, is to abandon all sects and simply live your life in accordance with what you believe are the correct Christian beliefs.

Your definition of free will is rather accurate; however, with the problem of predestination, free will doesn’t matter. It’s not me getting the idea of free will wrong, it’s me saying that according to the bible and in contradiction of Christianity’s preachings, it doesn’t exist.

As for predestination, if God is only referring to the Jews in the Old Testimate, why is it included in the Christian bible? Why was it not re-written for Christianity? Is it because Christianity considers themselves God’s chosen people now and that God refers to them and not the Jews? I certainly think it does.

No, Jews are God's predestined, chosen ones. That is why the Bible says in a few places "first for the Jew, then for the Gentile." I don't think our lives are predestined, because God gave us free will and thus the ability to choose our own path.

As for as creations judging their creator, think of it this way. Did you ever respect your parents when (if…I know mine did) they used the “Do what I do, not what I say?” approach. Why would God get any different treatment? Because he’s “above” us? Come on now…how easily will you bow to a being with obvious flaws?

Do you mean, "Do what I say, not what I do?" How can you compare my parents, who are sinners, to God? My parents had a part in creating my physical body, but God created soul. What will be judged is my soul and not my mortal body. Morality comes from God, therefore God is above the morality
of this world. If my parents were the moral authority, I would have to obey them.

Why would God accept us with our sins you ask? Given that he is hardly the one who should be judging, considering he has, if believed in, killed more people than Hitler? And anyhow, if we are predestined, what do our sins have to do with our entrance into heaven?

I argue that we are not predestined to do anything. That is the point of free will. You cannot have free will and be predestined to do anything. Hitler was a dictator that killed innocent people. God killed sinners, who were made by Him, that deliberately disobeyed Him. The difference is huge.

Finally, hear this out on Jesus’s sacrifice. Jesus’s death was a matter of atonement, suffering to “make up for” sins. Beyond what should be the obvious ridiculousness of the concept, Jesus’s death atoned for our sins. Now, Jesus was killed by crucifixion and ascended into heaven, eternal euphoria, and sits “on the right hand of God.” Judas, on the other hand, died an equally miserable death by hanging himself, and has been damned to hell for all eternity thanks to his betrayal. Both instances were “predetermined” by God. Who, I wonder, really suffered more? Jesus, a few hours vs. Judas, all eternity? So who has a bigger role in the atonement of our sins?

Jesus had to die for our sins because only the sacrifice of someone pure and untainted can calm God's righteous anger. It goes far beyond His physical death. Jesus lead His whole life free of sin and in the end, when He carried all of our sins on His shoulders, the Father turned away from Him and condemned Him. That is the significance of the fall. Judas hung himself out of despair because he knew he had committed a great sin. I don't recall reading that God made Judas kill himself.

Jesus was not predestined to die on the cross. He choose to do so to fulfill the covenant.
Matthew 26:53 "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"
His sacrifice allowed us to obtain salvation, so how can you imply that Judas had a bigger role in obtaining our salvation?

For the sake of this argument, I am going to make an assumption: God, as the Christian’s know him, exists. I myself am an agnostic, but was raised Roman Catholic and know a thing or two about scripture. So for all you out there, including me, who either don’t believe in God, are unsure if you believe in God, or are of a non-Christian religion, either keep to yourself or accept the “God exists” standard for the sake of this thread.

I'm a Christian, so okay.

Now, given that God, in his Christian form, exists, there are a series of events which demonstrate not only God’s fallacy, but the fact that we were doomed, from our original creation in the garden, and not from the events in that garden, to a life of moral servitude and repentance to God.

Where's the fallacy? The whole reason God created the world was for His glory.

First of all, the Christian idea of God is that he is omnipotent, free of fault, and perfect in every way. That being said, Christian texts contain plenty of examples to the contrary. God, for instance, is a murder, and one on a world-wide scale at that. Disgusted of the choices his “children” made, God, without the empathy and high moral ground he demands from those very “children,” decided to not only kill them, but drown them at that. He chose Noah’s family, playing favorites, and drowned the rest of humanity.

Why is punishing the unrepentant with what they deserve (the wages of sin is death Romans 6:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=6&verse=23&version=47&context=verse)) murder? And why should God not choose to be merciful to some. Mercy is not giving punishment which is deserved. He is free to do that if He wants, so long as there is payment for the sin, which Jesus provided.

God also exhibits jealousy. In fact, he admits to it. Plenty know the commandment, “Thou shall not worship any god but me,” but not as many know the verse where the commandment comes from. Exodus 2-17 says “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.” Not only is god jealous, he also shows vengeance, as he takes out the “sins” of the parents not only on them, but on their children, their children’s children, and their grandchildren’s children. On top of all that, God prohibits his us from displaying the same jealousy that he does in another commandment, claiming that “Thou shall not covet your neighbor’s house” and “Thou shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.”

Why should God not be jealous? This is an example of something being okay for the Creator but wrong for the creature. God is jealous (and has a right to be) when we go to other gods because He deserves all our praise and worship. We are in sin when we desire praise and worship because it's all supposed to be going to God.

God plays favorites. Granted this occurs far more in Judaism, but it occurs nonetheless. The Jews, the only followers of God up until Jesus, were put ahead of many other types of people throughout the old testament. Perhaps the greatest example was when God chose the Jews over the Egyptians, freeing the Jews from slavery and once again displaying his murderous tendencies, killing the first born son of every Egyptian household.

No one deserves anything but death, and God as sovereign Creator has the right to treat His creatures how He wishes.

However, God is also a liar, and has enslaved us all to his will from the beginning. Free will is why he punished Adam and Eve in the garden. Free will is why God took a step back, letting humanity run its course, and is subsequently for all of the pain, suffering, war, disease, and everything else wrong with the world. But were we ever truly given free will?

God did not punish anyone for free will. He punished them for choosing sin. We had free will, but we gave it up: our wills, what we desire, is enslaved to sin. We have free agency, a free choice, to do what we want, but we want only sin.

Romans 8:28-30 spells it out rather obviously: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified" Romans says that God called those who love him, but goes on to say that those who he called were “predestined,” and that he subsequently justified and glorified those who were already predestined to love him. What about the people that God hasn’t chosen? Are those people damned from birth, or even before?

Eh, no. Remember, everyone only wants sin and will choose to do sin, earning death. So, no one would be saved if God did not choose to save some.

God foreknew: "I will save this person."
God predestined: "Here is in my plan how I will save this person."
God regenerates: God changes the heart to become inclined to obey Him.
God called: Pastor John preaches and you listen. You repent and come to faith.
God justifies: He declares you right in His sight because Christ died for your sins. (You are saved from the penalty of sin)
God santifies: Through the prompting of the Holy Spirit, you sin less and less (You are saved from the power of sin over time).
God glorifies: He confirms you in holiness so that your will, rather than being a slave to sin is a slave to righteousness (You are saved from the presence of sin).

The question is not "Why doesn't God save everyone?" The question is "Why does God save anyone?"

2 Timothy 1:9 is also interesting, saying that "[God] has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity. " Do choices in life, i.e. choices between good and evil, not dictate who gets into heaven? If God has chosen some and not others, do the sins of the chosen and the good deeds of the unchosen not determine salvation?

Do our choices decide who goes to heaven? No. Did God decide that some of our choices would be required for salvation? Yes: you must choose to repent (both generally and particurally) and to follow Christ both in His example and in His Law. These choices are only possible when God regenerates the heart. It is only then that we see how good God and salvation are andd want them.

In fact, the ultimate story of Christianity, that of Easter, is filled with examples of how we do not have free will. Judas betrays Jesus, who is, according to the Holy Trinity, part of God. Jesus, however, foresees Judas’s betrayal, telling his apostles that one of them will betray him. How can Jesus know this if Judas’s choice of betrayal hasn’t been made yet? If Judas, in fact, was predestined to betray the son of God, how can God hold him responsible for his actions? Also, did Jesus not destroy sin by dying on the cross? Do those sins not include Judas’s betrayal?

God predestined that Judas would choose to betray Christ.
Judas still chose and is therefore responsible.
Jesus destroyed sin (in so far as sin has no power where it is not wanted), but there is only forgiveness for those who repent.

On that note, how can any of us be responsible? According to the Bible, noted as the “Word of God,” we are predestined to ether salvation in paradise or eternity in hell, regardless of our actions in life, by a vengeful, jealous, murderous God. Back to the beginning of man, Eve made the choice to eat the apple of the tree. But since we are all predetermined, did she truly have that choice? Did God not destine her from the beginning to betray his word, much like Judas, therefore destining humanity to forever pay for her “sin?”

No, we earn our damnation. Our actions are what damn us, not God's predestination. God's predestination decides who to save from that damnation.

And to the last question: yes, but also for our own sins.

Did God destine us all from the beginning to live a life of pain, all the time claiming it to be punishment for Eve’s decision, a decision which she never truly made in the first place? Also, if God knows everything, surely he knew from before he even created Eve that she would betray his word, and that he would ultimately cast humanity from the garden. Why would he create Eve simply to ultimately cause humanity pain?

No, she chose. She wanted sin and she took it. And we are paying for our own sins.

Everything that happens is for His glory: the bad for the glory of His wrath and justice, and the good for the glory of His mercy and grace.

If God truly exists, then he is a being far from omnipotent. He murders out of anger, is jealous of his creation, and enacts vengeance upon his creation. He also sets the rules of humanity against the nature of humanity, and punishes humanity for breaking his rules, while knowing full well that they have no choice in the matter, being predestined from the beginning.

Murders are unjustified killings. God is wholly justified in killing anyone. Jealousy is not wrong if you deserve the worship you are not receiving.
God says that vengence is His.
God set up the Law and we disobeyed, so He revealed the Law further so that we could see our sin more fully: the Law existed from before the beginning. And we do choose: no one possesses you and forces you to do anything. You do what you do because you want to do it.

The basic problem is in these three statements:

1. god is omnipotent

2. god is wholly good

3. evil exists in the world

Any two if them work ok, but when you stick the third one in, it's hard to rationalize. Christianity insists that all three are true. It's an issue that philosophers have grappled with (or tried to) for a long time.

In Catholicism the answer comes down to... It's a Mystery. Mystery meaning a subject that human being cannot understand fully. Simultaneous Omniscience and Free Will is another Mystery.

Jesus, a few hours vs. Judas, all eternity? So who has a bigger role in the atonement of our sins?

My understanding of the basics of Atonement Theology are that 1. Jesus is the only guy who counted because he was Without Sin. 2. Becuase he is God(an Infinite Being) the value of his suffering(death) is multiplied infinitely so it never runs out.



If you and I look at a book, any book, and come up with two different meanings while going through the same process of analysis, what makes one of us right over another?

According to Catholic Theology Sacred Tradition and the guarantee of the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from ever including error in the dogma of the Church. Therefore where Catholic Dogma has spoken it is always the correct interpretation. Proper study of the Sacred Scriptures must always be done in the light of the Magisterium

In the Christian context, only the resemblance of our interpretation (of the scriptures) to God's will would confer upon it genuine accuracy.

Which turns out to be a major problem for a Christian if the Christian's only source of information about God's will comes from said scriptures.

A problem that the Catholic Church does not believe itself to be in. (and an insoluble one if you have it. Without a non-Scripturals source of Revelation you can never know what texts constitute Scripture)

NB: I am not a Catholic. I just happen to know what the Church says more or less, and felt that someone should express their point of view here.

I'm a Christian, so okay.


ya know, i was going to recommend calvinism to him and hoped that you would drop in.

This was a pain to write, so you better read it all. :D
Now, given that God, in his Christian form, exists, there are a series of events which demonstrate not only God’s fallacy, but the fact that we were doomed, from our original creation in the garden, and not from the events in that garden, to a life of moral servitude and repentance to God.
I've thought about the Garden story a lot, and, honestly, why is God faulted for the loss of paradise? He gave us (well, Adam and Eve, anyway) paradise, and a single rule: do not eat the fruit of a single tree in the Garden. If you believe in free will, then you should believe that it is our fault that this happened, omniscience notwithstanding.

First of all, the Christian idea of God is that he is omnipotent, free of fault, and perfect in every way. That being said, Christian texts contain plenty of examples to the contrary. God, for instance, is a murder, and one on a world-wide scale at that. Disgusted of the choices his “children” made, God, without the empathy and high moral ground he demands from those very “children,” decided to not only kill them, but drown them at that. He chose Noah’s family, playing favorites, and drowned the rest of humanity.
God killing people does not make him perfect. It doesn't even necessarily make him not benevolent... but that's a whole other argument there.

God also exhibits jealousy. In fact, he admits to it. Plenty know the commandment, “Thou shall not worship any god but me,” but not as many know the verse where the commandment comes from. Exodus 2-17 says “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.” Not only is god jealous, he also shows vengeance, as he takes out the “sins” of the parents not only on them, but on their children, their children’s children, and their grandchildren’s children. On top of all that, God prohibits his us from displaying the same jealousy that he does in another commandment, claiming that “Thou shall not covet your neighbor’s house” and “Thou shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.”
As I implied before, is it God that said these things, or was a religious group intent on creating a code of law that was backed up by the ultimate punishment: eternal torture.

God plays favorites. Granted this occurs far more in Judaism, but it occurs nonetheless. The Jews, the only followers of God up until Jesus, were put ahead of many other types of people throughout the old testament. Perhaps the greatest example was when God chose the Jews over the Egyptians, freeing the Jews from slavery and once again displaying his murderous tendencies, killing the first born son of every Egyptian household.
You have to consider the time period that the Old Testament was written in. The Jews were at war almost without reprieve during that era, unless I am mistaken. Of course they're going to say that they are God's chosen ones, not their enemies.

However, God is also a liar, and has enslaved us all to his will from the beginning. Free will is why he punished Adam and Eve in the garden. Free will is why God took a step back, letting humanity run its course, and is subsequently for all of the pain, suffering, war, disease, and everything else wrong with the world. But were we ever truly given free will?
How does that make God a liar? He gave us a simple rule and we failed to follow it. He never said that they wouldn't eat the fruit, he simply told them not to.
[I'm mostly saying this for the sake of argument. I do believe that we (meaning Catholics... and other Christians, I guess. I won't drag you into this) failed our God at that moment, and we are guilty, but we did get set up. But, really, what he gave us isn't bad. Earth is a fantastic place... when you remove Taker society from the picture.]

Romans 8:28-30 spells it out rather obviously: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified" Romans says that God called those who love him, but goes on to say that those who he called were “predestined,” and that he subsequently justified and glorified those who were already predestined to love him. What about the people that God hasn’t chosen? Are those people damned from birth, or even before?
The Qu'ran/New Testament/Torah were written for the followers of the Abrahamic religions, all of which have been persecuted or at war throughout their histories. Therefore, the texts will, on occasion, lash back at those that would strike us down... so that we may come back more powerful than you can imagine. (...I was watching Star Wars a minute ago...)

2 Timothy 1:9 is also interesting, saying that "[God] has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity. " Do choices in life, i.e. choices between good and evil, not dictate who gets into heaven? If God has chosen some and not others, do the sins of the chosen and the good deeds of the unchosen not determine salvation?
I think that's not really saying that good people will go to hell because God has chosen them to, but that some people who are reviled, like Judas, will get into Heaven because God influenced them to do certain things. Someone had to betray Jesus so that the Ascension would occur and the people of Earth would be saved. Judas drew the short straw, and this is God's version of insurance.

In fact, the ultimate story of Christianity, that of Easter, is filled with examples of how we do not have free will. Judas betrays Jesus, who is, according to the Holy Trinity, part of God. Jesus, however, foresees Judas’s betrayal, telling his apostles that one of them will betray him. How can Jesus know this if Judas’s choice of betrayal hasn’t been made yet? If Judas, in fact, was predestined to betray the son of God, how can God hold him responsible for his actions? Also, did Jesus not destroy sin by dying on the cross? Do those sins not include Judas’s betrayal?
First of all, Judas had already made the choice. If you look at The Last Supper, Judas is clutching a money pouch.

On that note, how can any of us be responsible? According to the Bible, noted as the “Word of God,” we are predestined to ether salvation in paradise or eternity in hell, regardless of our actions in life, by a vengeful, jealous, murderous God. Back to the beginning of man, Eve made the choice to eat the apple of the tree. But since we are all predetermined, did she truly have that choice? Did God not destine her from the beginning to betray his word, much like Judas, therefore destining humanity to forever pay for her “sin?”
...really, saying that it wasn't Eve's fault that she didn't eat the apple seems to be pretty parallel (...analogous is the word I'm looking for, I believe) to giving a man the detonator to a bomb inside a hated individual's car, and then saying it's not their fault when they blow it up. Just because they are given oppurtunity and motive/temptation doesn't mean it is not their fault.
And, yes, God, being omniscient, knew that Eve would betray his word. He meant it to happen. Why? We don't know yet. I believe that's further up the timeline. It's possible that paradise is simply sweeter when you can compare it with suffering.
Furthermore, I don't think God is really making people suffer on Earth. Looking at the world, nearly all the hardship is caused by human beings, not some unnatural force or the other creatures of Earth. In fact, it is US that are making THEM suffer.

Did God destine us all from the beginning to live a life of pain, all the time claiming it to be punishment for Eve’s decision, a decision which she never truly made in the first place? Also, if God knows everything, surely he knew from before he even created Eve that she would betray his word, and that he would ultimately cast humanity from the garden. Why would he create Eve simply to ultimately cause humanity pain?
As I said before, it is not God making us suffer on this Earth, but humanity ("Taker" society, specifically...)

If God truly exists, then he is a being far from omnipotent. He murders out of anger, is jealous of his creation, and enacts vengeance upon his creation. He also sets the rules of humanity against the nature of humanity, and punishes humanity for breaking his rules, while knowing full well that they have no choice in the matter, being predestined from the beginning.

Omnipotent = ability to do anything.
Perhaps you mean omnibenevolence. And, assuming that God does exist (of course, I actually believe he does, and you are pretending to for the sake of this convo), then there is no way of knowing that he isn't omnibenovolent. Perhaps the people he kills out of vengeance are immediatelly... immedietely... fuck it, perhaps they are sent straight to heaven, do not pass Go, do not collect $200...

Now, before you post, I want you to defend your God in a similar, thought out fashion. I do not want posts about how God doesn’t exist so this doesn’t matter, or that you are Muslim and the quotes I provided don’t prove anything because you don’t believe in them. I said, from the beginning, that this entire argument takes place for the sake of Christians, or those who can possibly suspend their disbelief. I do not want flames, I do not want insults, and I do not want spam. Anyhow who does so will immediately be reported. Do not make me fill the moderation forum because of one thread.
He's your God, too! :)
JK

It is not our position? Excuse me? We’re supposed to blindly bow to a flawed being while ignoring the being’s flaws? Imagine doing such to George Bush. He too dictates how we run our lives in a way.
You realise how insulting this is, right? Comparing what is considered a perfect being to... George Bush. (I assume you meant 43, but, really, either one is an insult...)

I must apologize to you all. As Sinmapret pointed out, I’m already making type-o’s due to how fast I’m trying to turn out replies. Unless I get some backup on this, which I’m not anticipating, I’m not going to reply to everything. Also, when I reply to one thing and then while I’m replying I get asked the same question five times because people only reply after reading the first post, I tire of repeating myself.

Anyhow, for those who are Christian, I do not attempt to sway your viewpoint. I’m not that arrogant. I want more people to have open minds. To question the world you live in is what separates you from other animals of Earth who merely exist. My parents blindly follow religion, admitting they have never questioned God’s word. Now, to those who are responding to me, if you’ve went through similar trials and tribulations as me and have come to the conclusion that you are still Christian, than I cannot argue with you.

However, if you are like so many other who are merely Christian, or any religion, because it is that of their parents, and have never questioned their beliefs because they are “not allowed” or have never thought to, I feel sorry for you all. You are nothing more than sheep but then again, that’s what the bible tells you to be….

ya know, i was going to recommend calvinism to him and hoped that you would drop in.

I was hoped for!

Elation!:D

To those who keep writing threads about God and claiming he is'nt real or is
non perfect .I ask one simple question.Why do you keep bringing GOD up if you don't believe in him? It seems to me i would'nt waste my time on a subject i don't believe in.Unless your really not sure and your afraid that everything that Christians say and believe about him are true .

God predestined that Judas would choose to betray Christ.
Judas still chose and is therefore responsible.

I couldn't pass this up...

First of all, if God predestined that Judas would choose to betray Christ, he already knew the outcome of Judas's choice, making the choice itself irrelevant.

Second, it amazes me the difference of responses among Christians...

I must apologize to you all. As Sinmapret pointed out, I’m already making type-o’s due to how fast I’m trying to turn out replies. Unless I get some backup on this, which I’m not anticipating, I’m not going to reply to everything. Also, when I reply to one thing and then while I’m replying I get asked the same question five times because people only reply after reading the first post, I tire of repeating myself.

Anyhow, for those who are Christian, I do not attempt to sway your viewpoint. I’m not that arrogant. I want more people to have open minds. To question the world you live in is what separates you from other animals of Earth who merely exist. My parents blindly follow religion, admitting they have never questioned God’s word. Now, to those who are responding to me, if you’ve went through similar trials and tribulations as me and have come to the conclusion that you are still Christian, than I cannot argue with you.

However, if you are like so many other who are merely Christian, or any religion, because it is that of their parents, and have never questioned their beliefs because they are “not allowed” or have never thought to, I feel sorry for you all. You are nothing more than sheep but then again, that’s what the bible tells you to be….

You're from Pittsburgh? So am I. Well, from a town SW of Pittsburgh, but I'm here for college.

Anyway, I understand. It's hard. I haven't had to deal with it under this name, but as Edwardis, I had a horrible time keeping up with people. If you can't respond, you can't respond. That's just the way it is.

I hope that you will read post #37. And I also recommend reading some material on Reformed theology (mistakenly called Calvinism by most).

Reformed Theology (http://www.theopedia.com/Reformed_theology)

Nope, I've gone from Christian to agnostic to atheist to agnostic theist to my own personal henotheistic belief system. All of my religious ideas have been subjected to scrutiny, and this is where I have ended up...it's way different from where I started.

Good for you, Vetalia, and that is a honest "good for you" as well. Unfortunately, you are in the minority.

I couldn't pass this up...

First of all, if God predestined that Judas would choose to betray Christ, he already knew the outcome of Judas's choice, making the choice itself irrelevant.

Second, it amazes me the difference of responses among Christians...

I do not claim to know how it works. I only know that it must be. I don't know how predestination is balanced with free agency. Scripture does not say. I only know that both must be true. So, I would rather hold a paradox and admit that I cannot solve it (at least not yet ;) ) than to throw out part of the puzzle.

However, if you are like so many other who are merely Christian, or any religion, because it is that of their parents, and have never questioned their beliefs because they are “not allowed” or have never thought to, I feel sorry for you all. You are nothing more than sheep but then again, that’s what the bible tells you to be….

Nope, I've gone from Christian to agnostic to atheist to agnostic theist to my own personal henotheistic belief system. All of my religious ideas have been subjected to scrutiny, and this is where I have ended up...it's way different from where I started.

To those who keep writing threads about God and claiming he is'nt real or is
non perfect .I ask one simple question.Why do you keep bringing GOD up if you don't believe in him? It seems to me i would'nt waste my time on a subject i don't believe in.Unless your really not sure and your afraid that everything that Christians say and believe about him are true .

Because whether I believe in "him" or not doesn't change the fact that millions do, and it impacts each one of their lives. Even if God does not exist in the end, the mere idea of his existence is overwhelming, and therefore, needs to be discussed.

I do not claim to know how it works. I only know that it must be. I don't know how predestination is balanced with free agency. Scripture does not say. I only know that both must be true. So, I would rather hold a paradox and admit that I cannot solve it (at least not yet ;) ) than to throw out part of the puzzle.

The difference between us then. "Faith" has always been my main issue. Lol...apparently I lack it.

Anyhow, there is something really weird with the forums. Apparently my response to Vetalia took place two posts before his original post...

Second, it amazes me the difference of responses among Christians...
Why? It's possibly the most divisive faith in history. Even before the Protestant Revolution, in which hundreds of different faiths appeared within Christianity (some of which believe in predestination... Calvinists, I think...), there was the main split between the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox.

You're from Pittsburgh? So am I.
I'm... so sorry... :(

EDIT: I'm just kidding, BTW. I hate your sports teams, though.

Because whether I believe in "him" or not doesn't change the fact that millions do, and it impacts each one of their lives.

So you must bring the light of truth to them, and make them see the error of their ways. Sort of reminds me of certain poem of Kipling's...

So you must bring the light of truth to them, and make them see the error of their ways. Sort of reminds me of certain poem of Kipling's...

I doubt all of Christianity reads NationStates...

I'm merely starting an argument...for the sake of starting an argument...

Such is the nature of the General Forums...

Why? It's possibly the most divisive faith in history. Even before the Protestant Revolution, in which hundreds of different faiths appeared within Christianity (some of which believe in predestination... Calvinists, I think...), there was the main split between the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox.

Just so you know, if you're a Christian who takes Scripture seriously at all, you must believe in some kind of predestination. But everyone disagrees on what it means. Most persons when they say "predestination" are referring to the Reformed definition, which is not the same as Calvinist. Most persons use the two as synonyms, but the word Calvinist truyl desribes someone who is a Reformed Christian and believes in consubstantiation and that assurance of salvation is required for salvation.

I'm... so sorry... :(

Why?

EDIT: Oh, well, I don't know anything about sports, so I can't comment.

I doubt all of Christianity reads NationStates...

I'm merely starting an argument...for the sake of starting an argument...

Such is the nature of the General Forums...

I wasn't being serious. But I will if you want me to be. *pulls out a hammer... from hammerspace*

Just so you know, if you're a Christian who takes Scripture seriously at all, you must believe in some kind of predestination. But everyone disagrees on what it means. Most persons when they say "predestination" are referring to the Reformed definition, which is not the same as Calvinist. Most persons use the two as synonyms, but the word Calvinist truyl desribes someone who is a Reformed Christian and believes in consubstantiation and that assurance of salvation is required for salvation.
Don't tell me what I do and don't have to believe.


Why?
I was joking. And Pittsburg is home to the Steelers and Penguins... whom I hate.

I wasn't being serious. But I will if you want me to be. *pulls out a hammer... from hammerspace*

Are you suggesting that it's hammertime?

You're from Pittsburgh? So am I. Well, from a town SW of Pittsburgh, but I'm here for college.

Anyway, I understand. It's hard. I haven't had to deal with it under this name, but as Edwardis, I had a horrible time keeping up with people. If you can't respond, you can't respond. That's just the way it is.

I hope that you will read post #37. And I also recommend reading some material on Reformed theology (mistakenly called Calvinism by most).

Reformed Theology (http://www.theopedia.com/Reformed_theology)

I'm a tad north and a little east...although I just say Pittsburgh because it's the closest. I live in Indiana County, not Allegheny...although I was previously from Westmoreland.

Anyhow, I read your post, and from what I know of Calvinism and Lutherism for that matter, is that both of their founders proclaimed that there is no free will. Is reformed theology similiar?

If it is, I doubt I will be a member haha. I speak of a lack of free will in the hypothetical. It would hardly be a good thing. I truly believe that there is. I'm just saying that Catholicism doesn't.

The difference between us then. "Faith" has always been my main issue. Lol...apparently I lack it.

I don't understand why. Not to be overbearing, but I really don't understand why faith is such an issue.

Blind faith, baseless faith? Oh, yes, that is an issue and ought to be.

But faith in general? I don't see why.

Just so you know, if you're a Christian who takes Scripture seriously at all, you must believe in some kind of predestination.

So those who argue with me don't take scripture seriously?

I don't understand why. Not to be overbearing, but I really don't understand why faith is such an issue.

Blind faith, baseless faith? Oh, yes, that is an issue and ought to be.

But faith in general? I don't see why.

No no no...I have faith in my friends to not tell secrets I tell them not to. I had faith in my ex-girlfriend not to cheat on me, and as I know she hasn't. I have faith in my brother and sister to be there for me no matter how much we fight.

The difference is, my faith is in things tangible. Perhaps you feel faith in God is not blind nor baseless, but I cannot agree...

Don't tell me what I do and don't have to believe.

Just look at Scripture. The word's right there:Acts 4:27-29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=4&verse=27&end_verse=29&version=47&context=context);Romans 8:28-30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=8&verse=28&end_verse=30&version=47&context=context); Ephesians 1:4-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=1&verse=4&end_verse=6&version=47&context=context); Ephesians 1:10-12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=1&verse=10&end_verse=12&version=47&context=context).

I was joking. And Pittsburg is home to the Steelers and Penguins... whom I hate.

Yeah, sorry about that. I didn't see your edit.

I'm a tad north and a little east...although I just say Pittsburgh because it's the closest. I live in Indiana County, not Allegheny...although I was previously from Westmoreland.

I'm originally from Washington County, but I'm in Pittsburgh for college.

Anyhow, I read your post, and from what I know of Calvinism and Lutherism for that matter, is that both of their founders proclaimed that there is no free will. Is reformed theology similiar?

The word Calvinsim (used properly) desrcibes a type of Reformed theology. But most persons use the two as synonyms.

If it is, I doubt I will be a member haha. I speak of a lack of free will in the hypothetical. It would hardly be a good thing. I truly believe that there is. I'm just saying that Catholicism doesn't.

First, most persons who talk about Refomed theology don't understand it.

Second, what do we mean by "free will"? The older Reformed theologians used the phrase to mean the an unbound desire of the heart and the ability to make choices without outside influence. So they could quite easily say in the same sentence "We have no free will and we have free will."

This caused/es a lot of confusion. So, the majority of Reformed theologians today use "free will" to mean an unbound desire of the heart and "free agency" to mean the ability to make choices without outside influences. So they (and I) would say "We have no free will, but we do have free agency."

So those who argue with me don't take scripture seriously?

Most persons who say "I don't believe in predestination" mean that they disagree with the Reformed definition.

There are many other definitions (all of which I think are seriously flawed), but if you ignore predestination, you have difficulty and have to find some reason to justify ignoring it, which usually means that you believe Scripture to be the flawed word of Man, not the infallible Word of God.

Are you suggesting that it's hammertime?
Stop... Pajama Time.

...it was actually a Looney Tunes reference. You know, how the characters have no pockets or anything, yet they pull huge hammers out of, apparently, n-dimensional space, AKA hammerspace.
Just look at Scripture. The word's right there:Acts 4:27-29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=4&verse=27&end_verse=29&version=47&context=context);Romans 8:28-30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=8&verse=28&end_verse=30&version=47&context=context); Ephesians 1:4-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=1&verse=4&end_verse=6&version=47&context=context); Ephesians 1:10-12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=1&verse=10&end_verse=12&version=47&context=context).
*nod* Again, joking. I'm joking probably 90% of the time. You'll know when I'm serious. *nods significantly*


Yeah, sorry about that. I didn't see your edit.
It's all good. :D

While I highly disapprove of this priest's failure to respond to your query despite having devoted his life to such matters, I'll just note that from the Catholic perspective, you're using a very non-Catholic perspective on scriptural interpretation with regard to your Bible-based points. That tends to put your particular objections (at least within the context of Catholicism) in the area of the groundless claims to begin with.

Nice post, though. Not many are willing to put that much initial effort into pointing out the problems in a belief system. I'll also be interested to see any Christian responses to this, particularly on the matter of God's omniscience and omnipotence necessitating a deterministic universe that is malign (or at least not benign).

Whoever said God was benign? He is just. Justice, especially God's justice, is certainly not always kind or benevolent. Though He is benevolent, He shows mercy because He can grant respite. His son, Jesus Christ, is the ultimate evidence of God's mercy.

On another note, people complain about contradictions when they are blinded by their own preconceptions and are thus unable to reconcile differences. Contrary does not mean contradictory.

*nod* Again, joking. I'm joking probably 90% of the time. You'll know when I'm serious. *nods significantly*

:( I can never tell when someone is being anything other than purely sincere on these forums.

It's my kryptonite.

Most persons who say "I don't believe in predestination" mean that they disagree with the Reformed definition.

There are many other definitions (all of which I think are seriously flawed), but if you ignore predestination, you have difficulty and have to find some reason to justify ignoring it, which usually means that you believe Scripture to be the flawed word of Man, not the infallible Word of God.

that's a pretty harsh line you draw.

Just so you know, if you're a Christian who takes Scripture seriously at all, you must believe in some kind of predestination.

Not really. You could believe this is a lab-rats scenario, and (though he already knows the answers) God is just watching the fun unfold.

The difference between us then. "Faith" has always been my main issue. Lol...apparently I lack it.

Anyhow, there is something really weird with the forums. Apparently my response to Vetalia took place two posts before his original post...

why pretend that your problem is theology when your problem is lack of faith?

why pretend that your problem is theology when your problem is lack of faith?

because it's easier to attack the same points everyone else does when you want a debate than it is to say "I just can't make myself believe it"

nobody argues with "I just can't make myself believe it" because it would be pointless.

because it's easier to attack the same points everyone else does when you want a debate than it is to say "I just can't make myself believe it"

nobody argues with "I just can't make myself believe it" because it would be pointless.

so very true.

so he set up an argument that he felt couldnt be beat, was beat, changed the parameters, got beat again, then finally admitted that it was because he didnt believe.

better to admit that its OK not to believe than to try to talk others out of their belief with unsophisticated arguments.

Look i'm not trying to be funny but if you're going to start talking about something don't you think you should at least do a little research before you jump to such conclusions ?

Things like who wrote the bible, why they wrote it, what message is being relayed, and what are the possible mythic or historical sources behind it ?

protestantism has done a lot of damage regarding scriptural analysis - I'm not talking about the highly qualified academic exegetes,formal critics etc - I mean every preacher or layman thinking they know exactly what the OT is talking about and imposing their own anachronistic and differently cultured agenda upon it.

Reading through the threads there's a little bit of truth in many of the responses...little diamonds in the ash.

Primarily you have to understand that Genesis is a construct of at least three source materials written centuries apart from each other - The oldest was written at a time when the jewish people weren't even monotheistic, but henotheistic - their God was the highest of the gods -el elohim , elyon !

The two creation myths were written nearly a thousand years apart, the younger by a formulised priestly group of scholars - intending to send a specific message to the reader.

all of the first five stories in genesis are based upon much earlier myths - gilgamesh, the epic of marduk etc except where they were polytheistic, judaism changed it to give their God the sole role in the story....

Each story is ramming it home to the reader : "YOU ARE NOT GOD"!

you can't disobey God, you can't compete with God, you can't make yourself greater than God, you can't try and trick God, and even with the help of rebelling angels you can't defeat God !

In other words - do what the priests and prophets tell you to do because if you don't , God will get you!!!

If you move on to the histories or the tales of the prophets what do you really get?
Events occurred: invasion and enslavement , plague,famine,victory in war,the death of a great king, the collapse of great empires.

The historians looked backwards and imposed a God who intervened throughout these events..bits of history would get wrapped up in fable and myth and folk tales too - something bad happened, God was angry, why was he angry? somebody did something wrong...

It's all written to impose an ethos of a tyrannical God who only rewards those who serve him...and serve his priesthood too !!! They write the laws according to their social and cultural mores/argot and declare they are the laws of God. That's why there are death penalties imposed upon those who touch dead pigskin, or wear fabrics made of two cloths,plant two crops in the same row or eat shellfish or pork - nothing to do with the will of God, just the imposition of the people's wants.

BUT!!! somewhere along the way things begin to happen - you get stories and prayers - beautiful transcendent poetry and real lessons in morality - rather than the ordinary people sinking to the level of the priesthood - they transcend it - and incredibly , the people who are paid to act religiously begin to think and be religious - those who faked it actually made it!!!!

people began, only roughly , to assimilate a philosophy which turned into a rational coherent belief akin to that of the pre-socratic philosophers but different in one aspect - the biblical God always remains interventionist whereas the greek one is always an aloof logos existent in the beyond [to apeiron]

Then comes the whole Jesus thing and what follows....

Now you can twist and turn [to some extent ] St Paul's writings to mean exactly what you want them to say but when it comes to the Jesus stuff He doesn't allow you that "openness or pragmatism"

Two things are prevalent within Jesus' teachings.
a]We are free-willed individuals - that's why we can be responsible for our actions, and that's how we are most like God - the choice brings the ability to love. through Our Love we are most like God and therefore that becomes the single commandment - LOVE
b] yeah, we aren't gods or God, and nothing we do will ever make up for the way we have disrupted history or our relationships with other people through our sin and selfishness - But in order to prove ourselves we have to act accordingly - Our Belief should be lived out through our Love for everyone else - and this is exemplified through good works - Matthew 25 is a parable telling us how to treat others - feed the hungry, clothe the naked,shelter the homeless etc.

Now , move forward 1500 years...the church has become corrupt, thieving, sexually licentious, morally bankrupt - so what is to be done about it ?

two solutions ;-
a] gather everyone together , bang heads together,kick ass, force people to get their acts together and threaten severe punishment if they don't. gather the cleverest,holiest people in the world together and get them to formulate the new laws of the church and forms of action, prayer and worship.[notice the overuse of the word together?] You force a better behaved church - a better bunch of priests,bishops monks nuns etc.

or
b] priests are the problem - get rid of the priests!!! form a new church of individuals - no longer have any authority from a church - lay all authority in the bible where people can make up their own mind regarding what's right and wrong - How do you get rid of priests - well priests forgive sins in Christ's name in confession and they perform the ritual sacrifice of the mass - fine we abolish the necessity to forgive sins - and we deny the sacrifice actually happens - instead of anything we do making us better people - we are justified only by what we believe, not how we live - good works are nothing! and when it comes to heaven or hell, well God decides who is going where even before people are born - therefore there is no real free will - only believing or not believing - in one fell swoop we can get rid of any problems a church with a priesthood can give us - sure we'll still need ministers and scholars but they will have no capability to do anything other than lead prayers and group meals made holy only by God....and do a bit of teaching about the bible too,

see the differentiation???

in order to get rid of a problem they change everything, deny everything they ever were - they throw out the baby with the bathwater and no more so in calvinism where there is nothing but predestination - no free will whatsoever!!!!


so please , don't lay the accusation against God or the catholics that we have no free will...

the definition of catholicism and eastern orthodoxy is that we have to possess free will - only by an act of will can we do right or wrong - only through free-will can we have the freedom to love - which is all jesus ever asked us to do - and, as one of the most famous poets of the catholic counter-reformation [st John of the Cross] decreed: "In the end we will be judged only upon how much we loved"

Just because a load of loonies who call themselves christians when they wouldn't understand what christianity was if it shoved an engraved invitation up their arses - say we are not free and God never wanted us to be free, and the bible justifies this position - well you can just turn round and shout "LIAR!"

Look i'm not trying to be funny but if you're going to start talking about something don't you think you should at least do a little research before you jump to such conclusions ?


very nice post.

the problem is that Judas's sin was not the betrayal of Jesus, but actually the suicide later (his placing his own judgement over God's)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_suicide#Early_Christianity

According to this, suicide wasn't considered a mortal sin until the year 533. (I remember hearing somewhere that it was made a sin because many members of the faith chose to die and go to heaven rather than toil in servitude on earth, and people who killed themselves couldn't maintain farms or fight in war.)

Sadly, there aren't any citations in that article :S.

Just because a load of loonies who call themselves christians when they wouldn't understand what christianity was if it shoved an engraved invitation up their arses - say we are not free and God never wanted us to be free, and the bible justifies this position - well you can just turn round and shout "LIAR!"
The majority of your post was quite reasonable, but I do have issue with this bit. Christianity, like any given religion, is not an objectively defined concept or set of concepts. It's a sort of conglomerate of many different ideas that have been explicitly lumped together under a single organised heading by their proponents; after all, you will be incredibly hard-set to find any two Christians to agree on absolutely every aspect of theology. The concept of a "True Christian" is an unusual idea in this light, and I have yet to see any qualifiers as to how "True Christians" can be reasonably distinguished from any other kind. Surely the adoptation of the name "Christian" is the ultimate qualifier for whether or not a person is a member of the group?

It is not our position? Excuse me? We’re supposed to blindly bow to a flawed being while ignoring the being’s flaws? Imagine doing such to George Bush. He too dictates how we run our lives in a way. yes.
The big difference is that George Bush is a Man, and thus like other humans, will make the same mistakes all humans do, God is God. Any flaws we, as man, percieve are only flaws in our sight.

No, but surely you don't kill the others...drown them no less... I wouldn't, but then I am not God, our ways are not His ways.

Donating to charity does not make me a good person if I'm also a rapist. Sparing others from wrath, especially when it was his own wrath, is hardly a justification or an excuse for his other fallacies. Fallacies in your mind. however, notice that you focus on some acts that you percieve as Evil and label God Evil, yet ignore his acts of generosity and forgiveness and you insist he's still evil. by your above statement, you admit you percieve everyone as evil since no man is perfectly "good."

which is why we cannot set God to Human Standards.

They are, after all, the standards God created. One would think he'd obide by the standards that he made himself...why? Because you think He should? Because it would be what YOU would do?

Then God is envious? Hardly better. Besides, God is jealous, using the "false idol" commandment. If people worship someone other than God, he prevents them from entering Heaven. www.m-w.com defines jealousy as hostility towards a rival. I'd say by damning a rival god's followers, even if that god turned out to be non-existant, God is demonstrating one hell of a lot of hostility. (excuse the pun)never said God was Envious... of what and whom is he to be envious of?

What do parents tell their children. "Don't talk to strangers." is that out of Jealousy? or for saftey. God tells us "Don't stray (sin)" but we do anyway. and we will be held accountable for all our sins. However, thanks to Jesus, to remove that sin, we ask God for forgiveness. If we worship false idols, then we are not asking God for forgiveness, so he can't and won't forgive our sins. God wants us safe, so he tells us, not to follow those who claim to be God.

As with the dog example, you miss the point. I do not think God should have killed the firstborn of Jews too. That's ridiculous. I think God shouldn't have killed anyone's firstborn. That's rather reasonable. if you read the story, the Killing of the Firstborn was the LAST Plauge. the Pharoh had alot of chances before the loss of his son to release the slaves, boils, blood water, insects, etc... yet, to you, it's not the Pharoh's fault, but God's.

Shouldn't an omnipotent being be above "not being liked?" what do you mean "Not being liked"? Do you mean does he need the love of man? no.
Do you mean he can't show emotions? why not?

Correct, eternity is serious time. I'm not denying that they were punished for disobeying. I'm denying that they had a choice. they had a choice. God said "Do not eat of the Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge." the serpent said "Go ahead, Eat" so the choice was to eat, or not eat. Just like, as a child, you had a choice to obey your parents, or not. when you disobayed, you got punnished. does that mean that as a child you also had no choice?

But if some are glorified, the others are not. That makes them damned. no, if some are not Glorified, then they are not Glorified. that doesn't mean they are damned... unless you think being part of the majority of saved people is being damned.

Therefore, either God is acting in a very human, and therefore non-omnipotent way, or by being Jealous, which you originally said in this same post that God wasnt, people are being more God-like. In that case, shouldn't it be encouraged?I did not say God wasn't Jealous, I said Coveting is not Jealousy.

On occasion...he didn't forgive the Egyptions and he took it out on their children, who had nothing to do with the slavery. He didn't forgive those who died in the flood. He didn't forgive the woman who turned around to watch, instead turning her into salt. He didn't forgive the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.and do you know why those things were done? disobediance.

The Pharoh had many chances and many signs given to him. he chose to ignore them. Sodom and Gomorrah also had many chances and Lot and his family had one simple order... "Do not turn back to look upon the city."
Those in the flood also had their prophets yet only those of Noah's family (Sometimes referred to as tribe) were faithful.

Hardly unconditional, as many would like to believe. He loves everyone uncondtitionally, but he will only Save those who come to HIM.

He set them! That's like saying congressmen cannot be held to american law. And if you say we're on different planes, God and man, then we are nothing but dogs, told to act one way while the master does something else and punished if we don't. We are not God's equals, nor are we God's Masters. we cannot hold God accountable for anything. We are his Creations. you can think of us as Dogs, but I would rather think of us as his Children. yes, we are punished when we are disobediant... just as a disobediant child is punnished.

Why doesn't he know? Why should I follow a God with such shortcomings? Hell...in other religions people can see the future and predict things. Why is this God any less powerful? The scripture I quoted says that he predetermines our path. Judas's betrayal, as it is put in the bible and not interpreted by priests, says that our paths are predetermined.
God knows all possiblities. but because he allows us free will to make choices, he nudges us to make the right decisions, but the ultimate choice is up to us. that is what he gives us.

He has plans for those he Glorifies, but the choice to walk that path is still ours. Even Jesus asked that if the cup be passed from him then do so, but if not, thy will be done. that means, that even Jesus knew that if he really chose not to follow God's will, he could run. leave that garden and not be captured by the Romans. But he didn't he Chose to stay. Judas could've not betrayed Jesus that night, but he chose to do so.

Not all the things God asks of us is easy nor desired. but the choice to do them is still up to us.

Now here's a question to ask your priests or one you can puzzle out yourself. Would Judas have been forgiven had he prayed for forgiveness instead of taking his own life? What would Jesus have said to Judas had they met after the Ressurection?

I couldn't pass this up...

First of all, if God predestined that Judas would choose to betray Christ, he already knew the outcome of Judas's choice, making the choice itself irrelevant.

Second, it amazes me the difference of responses among Christians...God planned it. you were talking about those that God Glorifies? I count Judas as one of those because 1) betraying someone you love is hard. 2) if he hadn't done so, then Jesus would not have been crucified and the Resurrection would not have taken place.

Oh, and as I said earlier, what one gets out of the Bible will always be what one wants to get out of the bible. you want to find flaws? you will find flaws, you want to find hope? you will find hope, you want to find Hatred for any particular group and you will find it.

;)

Oh, and as I said earlier, what one gets out of the Bible will always be what one wants to get out of the bible. you want to find flaws? you will find flaws, you want to find hope? you will find hope, you want to find Hatred for any particular group and you will find it.

;)
That's not something to be winking at. If what you say is true then such a book is an unbelievably dangerous thing to embed within any sort of culture. Instant divine justification for whatever notions you might fester is a disaster just waiting to happen, if not already happening.

That's not something to be winking at. If what you say is true then such a book is an unbelievably dangerous thing to embed within any sort of culture. Instant divine justification for whatever notions you might fester is a disaster just waiting to happen, if not already happening.

are you being sarcastic or have you really not noticed?

That's not something to be winking at. If what you say is true then such a book is an unbelievably dangerous thing to embed within any sort of culture. Instant divine justification for whatever notions you might fester is a disaster just waiting to happen, if not already happening.
you get the same from science books. you can learn how to heal with science or hurt with science, you can lose your sense of wonder as everything becomes a "need to be proven scientifically several times" to a reader of science books.

you can get the same from fiction and non fiction.

Even from Documents.

All forms of media are dangerous if read/viewed by fanatics.

All forms of media are dangerous if read/viewed by fanatics.

True that.

yes.
The big difference is that George Bush is a Man, and thus like other humans, will make the same mistakes all humans do, God is God. Any flaws we, as man, percieve are only flaws in our sight.
The thing that is the subject of any such worship or criticism, however, is a human abstraction of a God; we don't know or comprehend what God is, so any such representation must be simply that. How can we submit ourselves to a barely developed metaphor for something we don't understand?

why? Because you think He should? Because it would be what YOU would do?
Because if the standards that he sets are arbitrarily ignorable, they are poor ones to which to hold ourselves to account. If God does not hold to his own standards then he should not expect others to take either them or him seriously.

What do parents tell their children. "Don't talk to strangers." is that out of Jealousy? or for saftey. God tells us "Don't stray (sin)" but we do anyway. and we will be held accountable for all our sins. However, thanks to Jesus, to remove that sin, we ask God for forgiveness. If we worship false idols, then we are not asking God for forgiveness, so he can't and won't forgive our sins. God wants us safe, so he tells us, not to follow those who claim to be God.
One man's idols are another man's saviours. Aligning one's self with a particular religion or sect is never really a decision to accept God; it is a decision to trust the ideas and history (whether factual or allegorical) of a particular group of people with regards to God. It's only when we acknowledge that theology exists fully independent to established doctrine that the dangers of idolatry can be fully quashed. Jesus had it right in this respect, but Christianity does not.

if you read the story, the Killing of the Firstborn was the LAST Plauge. the Pharoh had alot of chances before the loss of his son to release the slaves, boils, blood water, insects, etc... yet, to you, it's not the Pharoh's fault, but God's.
Suppose an immensely large weight is being suspended over a house. The owner of the house is being asked to give up her job and become a permanent housewife by the owner of the weight. When the woman refuses, having a rather successful career and a husband who is supportive of her work, the weight is dropped. Whose fault is that?

Now here's a question to ask your priests or one you can puzzle out yourself. Would Judas have been forgiven had he prayed for forgiveness instead of taking his own life? What would Jesus have said to Judas had they met after the Ressurection?
Christians have a lot to learn about the symbolism of the Judas character. I think Judas's realisation of the greater meaning of his actions render his suicide an honourable action.

Jesus' main message was one of accepting our past mistakes. "Take up your Cross" and follow him up the mountain; that's what it was all about, an acknowledgement of our sins and a readiness to accept the consequences. Judas, on the other hand, passed on the consequences of his sins by turning Jesus over in his stead. It was he that made the ultimate decision, as we all do, to burden Jesus with the sins of humanity rather than to let it accept the justice that would otherwise befall it.

Unlike those that followed Paul, however, Judas did not live by continuing to pile his sins onto Jesus. Judas took responsibility for his misdeeds and accepted his fate in a true repentance of the evil he had committed, and in that he essentially followed the path that his teacher had walked himself.

Not really. You could believe this is a lab-rats scenario, and (though he already knows the answers) God is just watching the fun unfold.

That's still a type of predestination.

In this definition, predestination = foreknowledge.

I think this definition is seriously flawed, but it still a definition.

That's still a type of predestination.

In this definition, predestination = foreknowledge.

I think this definition is seriously flawed, but it still a definition.

predestination and foreknowledge are two completely different things.

predestination and foreknowledge are two completely different things.

Yes, which is why I believe that definition to be seriously flawed.

Yes, which is why I believe that definition to be seriously flawed.

but you do think that if I don't believe in predestination that I "don't take the Bible seriously" right?

but you do think that if I don't believe in predestination that I "don't take the Bible seriously" right?

I think that if you reject the idea of predestination, you do not take the Bible seriously.

If you believe in predestination (most persons take the Arminian (http://www.theopedia.com/Arminianism) (not Armenian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenians)) view) but disagree with the Reformed view (http://www.theopedia.com/Predestination), I think you are in serious error, but I would say that you take the Bible seriously.

you get the same from science books. you can learn how to heal with science or hurt with science, you can lose your sense of wonder as everything becomes a "need to be proven scientifically several times" to a reader of science books.

you can get the same from fiction and non fiction.

Even from Documents.

All forms of media are dangerous if read/viewed by fanatics.
It's one thing to learn; it's another to become entrenched in existing mindsets. There is a profound difference between the quest for understanding and the quest for justification.

(And Art is every bit the former as science is. Exploration of form and concept is not limited to the scientist, just as appreciation of beauty and myth is not solely the domain of the artist.)

I think that if you reject the idea of predestination, you do not take the Bible seriously.

If you believe in predestination (most persons take the Arminian (http://www.theopedia.com/Arminianism) (not Armenian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenians)) view) but disagree with the Reformed view (http://www.theopedia.com/Predestination), I think you are in serious error, but I would say that you take the Bible seriously.

You know, I would say that anyone who believes in predestination - in the Calvinist sense anyways - isn't really getting Christ's message. But I would hardly suggest that they aren't taking the Bible seriously. I just think they're misinterpreting it based on a few passages, rather than looking at the overall message.

Maybe you should recognize that people can disagree with you and still be just as serious about it as you are.

You know, I would say that anyone who believes in predestination - in the Calvinist sense anyways - isn't really getting Christ's message. But I would hardly suggest that they aren't taking the Bible seriously. I just think they're misinterpreting it based on a few passages, rather than looking at the overall message.

Maybe you should recognize that people can disagree with you and still be just as serious about it as you are.

Read what I'm saying, and what I have been saying this whole time, please.

If you have any respect for the authority of Scripture, you must believe in some type of predestination (the word is in the text, several times). Does that predestination necessarily have to agree with the Reformed/Calvinist definition? No, I don't know how you can come to any other conclusion, but obviously you are able to.

Read what I'm saying, and what I have been saying this whole time, please.

If you have any respect for the authority of Scripture, you must believe in some type of predestination (the word is in the text, several times). Does that predestination necessarily have to agree with the Reformed/Calvinist definition? No, I don't know how you can come to any other conclusion, but obviously you are able to.

explain to me how I have to believe in predestination?

we get it. The bible is flawed and so is Christianity. In other news the pope has a very big hat.

we get it. The bible is flawed and so is Christianity. In other news the pope has a very big hat.

Yup, same as every other religion.

Read what I'm saying, and what I have been saying this whole time, please.

I am. And you are basically saying, "Anyone who doesn't agree must not be taking the Bible seriously."

If you have any respect for the authority of Scripture, you must believe in some type of predestination (the word is in the text, several times).

Actually, the word isn't in any of the original texts. A word (or maybe several words), which has been translated to mean "predestination" are found in the text. Quite a bit of meaning can be lost in translation. But Christ didn't exactly say, "My message is for some people. Or, I'll choose the people who get my message," now did He?

And, on top of that, "any respect for..." doesn't mean "absolute respect for..." One can recognize and have "respect for the authority of Scripture" without seeing them as infallible.

Does that predestination necessarily have to agree with the Reformed/Calvinist definition? No, I don't know how you can come to any other conclusion, but obviously you are able to.

LOL. Christianity existed for several hundred years before Augustine proposed the precursor to Calvinist theology. It existed for quite a while longer before Calvinist emerged, thinking he was expressing the true meaning of Augustine's words (which he probably was - the Catholic Church adopted much of Augustine's theology, but shied away from his version of predestination). Even now, Calvinist theology is but one among many different Christian viewpoints. You may not agree with those viewpoints, but making it seem strange that people disagree with you is disingenous at best.

snip

Now that I think about it, God sounds like a psychotic, sadistic dictator. I wonder if he has an NKVD...

if you read the story, the Killing of the Firstborn was the LAST Plauge. the Pharoh had alot of chances before the loss of his son to release the slaves, boils, blood water, insects, etc... yet, to you, it's not the Pharoh's fault, but God's.

To be fair, the story says more than once that Pharaoh was about to relent, but that God "hardened his heart." In the story, as told, God makes Pharaoh continue to hold the ancient Hebrews - leading to the rest of the plagues.

Of course, that is the story as told - as those who told it understood it. Is it the story exactly as it happened?

The thing that is the subject of any such worship or criticism, however, is a human abstraction of a God; we don't know or comprehend what God is, so any such representation must be simply that. How can we submit ourselves to a barely developed metaphor for something we don't understand?that's where faith comes in. in all forms of Christianity, two things hold true. Faith and works. With Faith, you have Belief in God, you have the acceptance that Jesus Died for our sins. With Works, you have people living life according to God's will. Everything else is how it's done.

Because if the standards that he sets are arbitrarily ignorable, they are poor ones to which to hold ourselves to account. If God does not hold to his own standards then he should not expect others to take either them or him seriously.If we can't live by the standards he set for us, what makes you think we can live by the standards HE lives by. We couldn't live with the simplest standard of all... "Eat not the fruit of the tree of knowledge."

One man's idols are another man's saviours. Aligning one's self with a particular religion or sect is never really a decision to accept God; it is a decision to trust the ideas and history (whether factual or allegorical) of a particular group of people with regards to God. It's only when we acknowledge that theology exists fully independent to established doctrine that the dangers of idolatry can be fully quashed. Jesus had it right in this respect, but Christianity does not.which is why you don't worship the Religion, but God.

Suppose an immensely large weight is being suspended over a house. The owner of the house is being asked to give up her job and become a permanent housewife by the owner of the weight. When the woman refuses, having a rather successful career and a husband who is supportive of her work, the weight is dropped. Whose fault is that?why is it anyone's fault?

and the analogy is wrong. What would be closer is this. You are told to get straight A's in school (Elementary to College) in order to get a Good Job and a great house. (similar to living a faithful life to get into heaven.)

you heard the threats. If you flunk out you'll be homeless, you'll be a ditchdigger, you won't amount to anything... (if you don't believe in God you end up in hell.)

You work hard, you do your best and you Graduate with the best grades you can get. you get a well paying job and can afford a great house (according to your salary.)

You don't work hard, you play around and you flunk out. you don't get a well paying job, you barely afford Rent. Who's fault would it be? no one. you made your choice and now you live with your choices. A non-believer doesn't believe in Hell, so it's not an outcome he or she believes will happen. also, a non-believer doesn't believe in heaven thus why aspire to go someplace one doesn't believe in. just like school, you don't know what kind of Job you'll get, some go to college without knowing what they want to do. but at the end of the school career, the choices you made determine what happens next.

Christians have a lot to learn about the symbolism of the Judas character. I think Judas's realisation of the greater meaning of his actions render his suicide an honourable action.that's a matter of another debate. Some say Judas's suicide is honorable due to the betrayal he did, but others (like me) think that Judas's betrayal was neccessary. And instead of turning to God, Judas judged himself unworthy and killed himself. an act that condemmed him.

Jesus' main message was one of accepting our past mistakes. "Take up your Cross" and follow him up the mountain; that's what it was all about, an acknowledgement of our sins and a readiness to accept the consequences. Judas, on the other hand, passed on the consequences of his sins by turning Jesus over in his stead. It was he that made the ultimate decision, as we all do, to burden Jesus with the sins of humanity rather than to let it accept the justice that would otherwise befall it.Interesting view. I've always thought that Jesus's Main Message was that one should place their faith and trust in God and all things will be possible. Jesus Died for our sins, and with his death, our path to the Father was opened and made easier. no longer would we need burnt sacrifices. no longer do we need lengthy rituals handed out by the clerics and priests. With his Sacrifice, God made Sin not just a barrier between Him and us, but now something that has to be dealth with between the Sinner and God. We, as people, no longer hold judgement on others for their sins.

Unlike those that followed Paul, however, Judas did not live by continuing to pile his sins onto Jesus. Judas took responsibility for his misdeeds and accepted his fate in a true repentance of the evil he had committed, and in that he essentially followed the path that his teacher had walked himself.except taking responsibility and casting Judgement are two seperate things. I can take responsibility of my sins. but the final judgement, the eternal life with or without God, is up to God.

Just like Mary Magdaline can and did take the responsibility of being an Adultress (prostitute) but the people had no right to cast judgement on her (stoning.) Hence "Let he who is among you without sin, cast the first stone."

It's one thing to learn; it's another to become entrenched in existing mindsets. There is a profound difference between the quest for understanding and the quest for justification.

(And Art is every bit the former as science is. Exploration of form and concept is not limited to the scientist, just as appreciation of beauty and myth is not solely the domain of the artist.)

hence the use of the words "Fanatic". I know that there are fanatical Christians, just as there are "Fanatical" lawyers, scientists, scientologists, and any Star Wars/Star Trek thread will show the Fanatical Trekkies/Warsies. :p

To be fair, the story says more than once that Pharaoh was about to relent, but that God "hardened his heart." In the story, as told, God makes Pharaoh continue to hold the ancient Hebrews - leading to the rest of the plagues.

Of course, that is the story as told - as those who told it understood it. Is it the story exactly as it happened?that's one of the problems with the KJV. you can't read it as modern English, but need to find the twists and turns with in the phrases. the "he" could be either the Pharaoh or God, but due to how it's worded, it points more to the Pharaoh hardening his own heart. back then the Pharaoh was the one chosen by their Gods to rule. thus the Pharaoh's Heart is in reference to the mindset used to rule.

13And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
23And Pharaoh turned and went into his house, neither did he set his heart to this also.

the NKJV and NIV states that the Pharoh hardened his own heart, not God.

13 And Pharaoh’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the LORD had said.
23 And Pharaoh turned and went into his house. Neither was his heart moved by this.

that's one of the problems with the KJV. you can't read it as modern English, but need to find the twists and turns with in the phrases. the "he" could be either the Pharaoh or God, but due to how it's worded, it points more to the Pharaoh hardening his own heart. back then the Pharaoh was the one chosen by their Gods to rule. thus the Pharaoh's Heart is in reference to the mindset used to rule.

Actually, there are several passages. I tend to trust the NRSV, as it was translated directly from the oldest texts available. Through most of the plagues, Pharaoh is described as hardening his own heart, until the boils:

12But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he would not listen to them, just as the Lord had spoken to Moses.

The NIV is the same:
12 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.

As is the NKJV:
12 But the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh; and he did not heed them, just as the LORD had spoken to Moses.

Then, in Exodus 10:
0Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Go to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his officials, in order that I may show these signs of mine among them, 2and that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I have made fools of the Egyptians and what signs I have done among them—so that you may know that I am the Lord.’

The Lord himself tells Moses that God hardened Pharaoh's heart.

The NIV says the same:
1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them 2 that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD."

And the NKJV:
1 Now the LORD said to Moses, “Go in to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his servants, that I may show these signs of Mine before him, 2 and that you may tell in the hearing of your son and your son’s son the mighty things I have done in Egypt, and My signs which I have done among them, that you may know that I am the LORD.”

Essentially, in this passage, God says, "I hardened his heart so that I could do all these miracles and everyone would remember me."

This idea is repeated in Exodus 11:
9 The Lord said to Moses, ‘Pharaoh will not listen to you, in order that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt.’ 10Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh; but the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go out of his land.


Up until the boils, the Pharaoh is described as hardening his own heart. After that, it says that God did it - and that God did it specifically to keep bringing plagues against the Egyptians in order to demonstrate God's power.

that's where faith comes in. in all forms of Christianity, two things hold true. Faith and works. With Faith, you have Belief in God, you have the acceptance that Jesus Died for our sins. With Works, you have people living life according to God's will. Everything else is how it's done.
It's faith of a more subversive kind though. It's faith not only in the accuracy of our ideas of God but also in the means by which we derived our ideas about God; it's faith in history, in literature, in community and in the human form and mind.

The question in my mind, on the other hand, is whether Christianity from a position of Allegory rather than one of Faith, a more Gnostic form of Christianity, would be any better...

If we can't live by the standards he set for us, what makes you think we can live by the standards HE lives by. We couldn't live with the simplest standard of all... "Eat not the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
The thing about that particular instruction is that it only makes sense in the context of the effects of the tree. How were the first inhabitants supposed to make the necessary moral judgements to resist the snake's temptations if they hadn't first eaten from the tree? They didn't know about morality, they had no knowledge of that which is the right thing to do.

I reckon the fruit was intentional, that Adam and Eve left the garden willingly, understanding of why they could no longer maintain a subordinate role to the cycle of life and death in God's garden, and that having eaten from it, humans are in a far better position now to relate to God than they were before.

which is why you don't worship the Religion, but God.
The first problem is, of course, that the two are pretty much inseparable in this world. There is very little discussion outside of a religious setting on the nature of God, with no thanks to the creationist movement and fundamentalist monotheists, who seem intent to stifle any attempt to think about the world, and the resulting reactionary retreat from mythology as a method of philosophical discourse.

The second is the subtle way in which "worship" has been adopted into common language and thought. It is no longer sufficient to appreciate; we are in a stage of communal strong-arming in theology studies in that a public declaration of allegience is necessary in order to have your views acknowledged. We're not just forced into Religion in general if we want to think about and publicly discuss these issues; we have to pick a specific one and to be genuinely devoted to it.

why is it anyone's fault?

and the analogy is wrong. What would be closer is this. You are told to get straight A's in school (Elementary to College) in order to get a Good Job and a great house. (similar to living a faithful life to get into heaven.)

you heard the threats. If you flunk out you'll be homeless, you'll be a ditchdigger, you won't amount to anything... (if you don't believe in God you end up in hell.)

You work hard, you do your best and you Graduate with the best grades you can get. you get a well paying job and can afford a great house (according to your salary.)

You don't work hard, you play around and you flunk out. you don't get a well paying job, you barely afford Rent. Who's fault would it be? no one. you made your choice and now you live with your choices. A non-believer doesn't believe in Hell, so it's not an outcome he or she believes will happen. also, a non-believer doesn't believe in heaven thus why aspire to go someplace one doesn't believe in. just like school, you don't know what kind of Job you'll get, some go to college without knowing what they want to do. but at the end of the school career, the choices you made determine what happens next.
My analogy was actually for the general divine retribution case, but I'll have a look at this idea too.

I think the main concern with this line of thought is the nature of the examiner, employer and teaching system as the same source. This school is being taught only by other students waiting to sit the same papers, there are many different subjects at a complex level being taught with not very much time available, and the employer is looking for a specific skill set that we have no knowledge of. This leaves us with three problems. Firstly, we may never actually have been taught some material that may be examined, secondly, even if we pass a course, we might not have the skills that the employer is looking for, and thirdly, we are physically incapable of sitting and passing all of the courses at the same time.

Objectively, this is a bizarre form of education, if a fascinating philosophical problem. I personally feel that the stance that the employer in this case is clearly not the sort of person that you'd want to work for, and thus the act of studying your preferred subject for its own sake, is entirely justified, but that studying explicitly for the purpose of getting a job is probably going to end badly unless you are prepared to put your foot in as many different subjects as you can.

that's a matter of another debate. Some say Judas's suicide is honorable due to the betrayal he did, but others (like me) think that Judas's betrayal was neccessary. And instead of turning to God, Judas judged himself unworthy and killed himself. an act that condemmed him.

Interesting view. I've always thought that Jesus's Main Message was that one should place their faith and trust in God and all things will be possible. Jesus Died for our sins, and with his death, our path to the Father was opened and made easier. no longer would we need burnt sacrifices. no longer do we need lengthy rituals handed out by the clerics and priests. With his Sacrifice, God made Sin not just a barrier between Him and us, but now something that has to be dealth with between the Sinner and God. We, as people, no longer hold judgement on others for their sins.
That view is the standard Christian view, yes. I don't think, however, that its origins lie primarily with Christ. A lot of that particular stance sits after the Gospels, notably in the letters of Paul; himself a committed follower of Judaism even for years after Jesus' crucifixion. Paul's Jesus is one that exists to replace and expand upon the Jewish faith, taking certain interpretations of sacrifice and the nature of scapegoating from the older books that weren't features of Christ's message.

The truths of Jesus are more independent of the doctrines of the temples than that, I feel. There is something radical in his ideas of acknowledging our mistakes and wrongdoings as our own, and I would certainly argue that when we are truly repentant for these sins, we won't be afraid or ashamed to accept whatever judgement is due.

Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. (Luke 17:33)

Does that portray Judas in a different light? I think so.

Actually, there are several passages. I tend to trust the NRSV, as it was translated directly from the oldest texts available. Through most of the plagues, Pharaoh is described as hardening his own heart, until the boils: interesting points. While I do not have the answer now, I will confer with my group and I'll get back to you on this.

It's faith of a more subversive kind though. It's faith not only in the accuracy of our ideas of God but also in the means by which we derived our ideas about God; it's faith in history, in literature, in community and in the human form and mind.

The question in my mind, on the other hand, is whether Christianity from a position of Allegory rather than one of Faith, a more Gnostic form of Christianity, would be any better...or it's faith in the lessions taught, how to live, how God, still nudges things along in ways that makes people wonder without concrete evidence.

Whether one follows the gnostic Form or takes a posistion of Christianity of being an Allegory form, is up to the individual. that's why you will never hear me condemn anyone. While I do believe it's Faith and Works that equate to salvation, I don't take the bible literally and I definatly don't hold the bible as flawless. the lessions given in the bible, are still viable as they probably were back then.

The thing about that particular instruction is that it only makes sense in the context of the effects of the tree. How were the first inhabitants supposed to make the necessary moral judgements to resist the snake's temptations if they hadn't first eaten from the tree? They didn't know about morality, they had no knowledge of that which is the right thing to do.How does a child know from right and wrong? either by listening to one more knowledgeable than yourself, in this case, obeying God as he said "don't touch" or by experience as in the case of Eve taking the first bite.

Unfortunatly, many people have to experience the pain before they learn.

Now the question. why did God mention the Tree of Knowledge and not the Tree of Life (he mentions that only after they ate of the tree of knowledge.) Could that indicate that God was testing man? Would man be obediant to him? and if not, would man confess his sins (they didn't) and take responsibilty for them (Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent.)

I reckon the fruit was intentional, that Adam and Eve left the garden willingly, understanding of why they could no longer maintain a subordinate role to the cycle of life and death in God's garden, and that having eaten from it, humans are in a far better position now to relate to God than they were before.that is a matter of opinion. are Humans in a far better position now than before? if we are to assume some truth to Genesis, then Man and God walked together and spoke without the need for sacrifice and offerings. blood of animals were not shed. and man would still have stewardship over all things as they have now. but without that sin, that casting out, would there be wars? would there be inequality between Man and Woman? an interesting ponderable.

The first problem is, of course, that the two are pretty much inseparable in this world. There is very little discussion outside of a religious setting on the nature of God, with no thanks to the creationist movement and fundamentalist monotheists, who seem intent to stifle any attempt to think about the world, and the resulting reactionary retreat from mythology as a method of philosophical discourse.actually, they can be seperated. which is more important, the belief one holds as well as living the life taught by Jesus and his disciples, or the rituals that the church has emplaced? I can wear a cross on my neck, but that doesn't mean I bow to each cross I come see. I Pray quietly in thanks for each meal, but I don't make a spectical of myself by clasping my hands, bowing my head and saying a loud prayer. One can believe in the Lord, live a life Pleasing to the Lord and not be centered around the rituals involved.

I agree about the Creationist and Fundies muddying the waters tho.

The second is the subtle way in which "worship" has been adopted into common language and thought. It is no longer sufficient to appreciate; we are in a stage of communal strong-arming in theology studies in that a public declaration of allegience is necessary in order to have your views acknowledged. We're not just forced into Religion in general if we want to think about and publicly discuss these issues; we have to pick a specific one and to be genuinely devoted to it.and watch who does the strong arming. I mentioned this in other threads a while back. everyone has their own way of passing the lords word. some do it by example. living the life and witnessing that way. others are all Fire and Brimstone. and some will quietly test the waters... witness when the other is open, but will respect the other's choices. unfortunatly, you know which one(s) get more attention in the media.

My analogy was actually for the general divine retribution case, but I'll have a look at this idea too.I thought so. except what yours didn't account for was that the penalty (Rock crush) doesn't occure when the choice is made. but at the day of judgement. thus the woman can weigh her opinions, think and make her choice. and she also has the option of changing her mind should she learn something new. The problem is, you don't know when the rock will fall. thus do you really want to stay on the fence untill then?

I think the main concern with this line of thought is the nature of the examiner, employer and teaching system as the same source. This school is being taught only by other students waiting to sit the same papers, there are many different subjects at a complex level being taught with not very much time available, and the employer is looking for a specific skill set that we have no knowledge of. This leaves us with three problems. Firstly, we may never actually have been taught some material that may be examined, secondly, even if we pass a course, we might not have the skills that the employer is looking for, and thirdly, we are physically incapable of sitting and passing all of the courses at the same time.

Objectively, this is a bizarre form of education, if a fascinating philosophical problem. I personally feel that the stance that the employer in this case is clearly not the sort of person that you'd want to work for, and thus the act of studying your preferred subject for its own sake, is entirely justified, but that studying explicitly for the purpose of getting a job is probably going to end badly unless you are prepared to put your foot in as many different subjects as you can.except we do know what the employer (God) is looking for. He states it in his text book.

the problem is, what He's looking for is not that hard. Faith in him and do his will. in my analogy of school, that would be Graduate. some do, others drop out. some are tempted to drop out, and others drop back in. most stay till the end. the subject doesn't matter (Judism, Christianity, Islamic, etc) as long as you hold faith in God (which can be argued that Islamic Faith is still worshipping the same God but with different rituals) and strive to do his will (homework.) which would make God, not an employer... but the Principal.

but lets not get bogged down in the analogy...

That view is the standard Christian view, yes. I don't think, however, that its origins lie primarily with Christ. A lot of that particular stance sits after the Gospels, notably in the letters of Paul; himself a committed follower of Judaism even for years after Jesus' crucifixion. Paul's Jesus is one that exists to replace and expand upon the Jewish faith, taking certain interpretations of sacrifice and the nature of scapegoating from the older books that weren't features of Christ's message.

The truths of Jesus are more independent of the doctrines of the temples than that, I feel. There is something radical in his ideas of acknowledging our mistakes and wrongdoings as our own, and I would certainly argue that when we are truly repentant for these sins, we won't be afraid or ashamed to accept whatever judgement is due.Yep. and the thing is, God's Judgement when we take responsiblity for our sins (repent), isn't that bad. it's when we don't and try to foist it off that it gets bad. that's why I said that my belief of Judas' sin wasn't the betrayal, but the fact that he took his own judgment and placed that over God's. He didn't go to God and ask for forgiveness, even knowing that Jesus knew he would be betrayed, no he found himself guilty and rendered his own judgement himself.

Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. (Luke 17:33)

Does that portray Judas in a different light? I think so.except if you read from Verse 30, it's talking about the second coming of Jesus. the "Seeking to save his life" talks about trying to preserve the materialistic life we are in now, the life you have now. the "it" that it talks about is salvation. basically, when the time comes, you drop everything and go. you don't take anything with you, not your favorite book, not your favorite videogame, not even your stash of drugs.

The original post assumes that there is no personal gain in serving God, or in repentence. It also assumes that God's motives for placing us in this mortal existence are selfish; That He only created us so he could have someone to worship Him. This is not the case, and whom ever may have taught such a doctrine lacks understanding. God is not cruel, He is not selfish, nor are his plans for the human family so ignoble.

Here is the grand secret:

As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may become.

Why does God require that we obey him? Because He loves us, and He wants us to be like Him. He knows the way, and he has pointed it out. That is the reason He has given commandments, that is the reason He has done all that has been done for the human family. "For this is my work and my glory, to bring to past the immortality and eternal life of man".

But God will compel no man to keep his commandments. He, having once been as we now are, and having risen to become our God; He who knows all things, knows that there is no easier way than the way He has marked out. So, that man or woman who will not follow the way, is not compelled to follow it, but will find in the morning of the resurection that others are raised in glory that is greater than their own, glory that they might have had if they had chosen to be more obedient to God's plan for them, and they will be disapointed when they see that they could have chosen to be more than what they have chosen to become. And this disapointment will torment them as if it were a lake a fire and brimstone, which is used to typify the suffering of the damned. But they have damned themselves, and they are their own tormentors.

I believe, however, that even such as these will eventually find peace, and they will be happy with the glory that is given them, but they will not know the same degree of joy as those who were more dilligent than they in keeping God's commandments.

God will not use any degree of compulsion, and the devil cannot. Every person chooses for themselves, being equally enticed by both, whom they will serve, and they recive their wages of him who they list to obey. But woe unto them that list to obey that evil spirit, for he rewardeth them no good thing. For he desireth that all men might be miserable, even as he is miserable. Having rebelled against God before the foundation of this world, his punishment is that he has been denied this human experiance. And he hates us, as do all those who rebelled with him, because we followed God's plan, and came to this earth, and were born into human bodies to continue our progression towards Godhood. So the devil does all that he can to pursuade us to hate God, and to reject his plan while in this mortal existence.

It is strange to me that so many of my brothers and sisters of the human family hate God, their father, Him who loves them. And love, and serve, and obey the devil who hates them. And he (the devil) poisons their minds with his hate, and his fear, and his hopelessness.

Oh that I could save them from the vortex of misery into which I see them plunging themselves. For I know that there is a God, and I know that He loves us more than we can understand, and that He only wants to do us good. For even if the experiances of this life bring us pain, if we will face them with faith instead of fear, with patience instead of resentment, and learn to cultivate love instead of bitterness, that all our afflictions will be but a small moment, and if we endure it well, God will exalt us on high, and will make up all our losses an hundred fold.

This post merits a much more lengthy reply, but I unfortuneatly don't have the time to write one. But that which I have written, is true.

As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may become.
But I bet you would never acknowledge a new God (or one who claimed to be or know of a new God).

Why does God require that we obey him? Because He loves us, and He wants us to be like Him.
If he loved us he would surely do something that actually made our lives better in a more apparent way, proving his existence and letting everyone know that they should follow him.

He who knows all things, knows that there is no easier way than the way He has marked out.
If that were true surely it would be easy to stand b his commandments, rather than a test, if he knows all, and can do anything he could devise a simpler, quicker path.

So the devil does all that he can to pursuade us to hate God, and to reject his plan while in this mortal existence.It is strange to me that so many of my brothers and sisters of the human family hate God, their father, Him who loves them. And love, and serve, and obey the devil who hates them. And he (the devil) poisons their minds with his hate, and his fear, and his hopelessness.
Then the devil is not doing his job well, those who believe in a god are quite likely to follow him or it, whereas those who do not, often just do not believe that a god exists at all.

For I know that there is a God, and I know that He loves us more than we can understand, and that He only wants to do us good.
First, you believe that there is a god. Second, if that is the case then god is not doing his job very well either.

But that which I have written, is true.
Again, you believe it to be true. You lack any proof that would let you know.

except we do know what the employer (God) is looking for. He states it in his text book.

the problem is, what He's looking for is not that hard. Faith in him and do his will. in my analogy of school, that would be Graduate. some do, others drop out. some are tempted to drop out, and others drop back in. most stay till the end. the subject doesn't matter (Judism, Christianity, Islamic, etc) as long as you hold faith in God (which can be argued that Islamic Faith is still worshipping the same God but with different rituals) and strive to do his will (homework.) which would make God, not an employer... but the Principal.

but lets not get bogged down in the analogy...
We'll have to agree to disagree on most of this, I think, but I thought this one in particular worth a quick response. The original analogy here is surprisingly effective in explaining the situation.

God sets the exams and grants the rewards at his own leisure depending on whether or not they have been passed. That's why he fits the employer role.

The problem is that there are hundreds of textbooks for different subjects, even in other kinds of religion and ways of life like Paganism, tribal faiths, Agnosticism and Atheism, all of them written by other students; many of whom say they were told what to write by the employer. It may be that there is some overlap - the material you learn in any of the Monotheism courses might potentially give you transferrable skills - but the decision to sit the courses still ultimately relies in faith in other students.

Given that all I have to go on is hearsay and grandiose claims from other students, it is impossible to trust anyone who says the material is that which either the examiner or the employer are looking for, since everyone is, and only a few of them can be right.

In this case, it only really makes sense to work hard at studying what you want to study, even in the knowledge that there is a reasonable chance that what you will be learning may not get you a job afterwards. I feel this is equally true of Religion. I am quite happy with my allegory-over-faith based humanism, I am learning a lot from it and am prepared to be held to account for it should it come to that. This is my specialist subject. If it's what the employer is looking for then I'll do my best when it comes to that; if it's not then I'll have enjoyed my time in school while at the same time having used it productively and rationally.

how many times are you guys going to recycle this same argument?
as long as butterflies have "free will"? :p

We'll have to agree to disagree on most of this, I think, but I thought this one in particular worth a quick response. The original analogy here is surprisingly effective in explaining the situation.

God sets the exams and grants the rewards at his own leisure depending on whether or not they have been passed. That's why he fits the employer role.

The problem is that there are hundreds of textbooks for different subjects, even in other kinds of religion and ways of life like Paganism, tribal faiths, Agnosticism and Atheism, all of them written by other students; many of whom say they were told what to write by the employer. It may be that there is some overlap - the material you learn in any of the Monotheism courses might potentially give you transferrable skills - but the decision to sit the courses still ultimately relies in faith in other students.

Given that all I have to go on is hearsay and grandiose claims from other students, it is impossible to trust anyone who says the material is that which either the examiner or the employer are looking for, since everyone is, and only a few of them can be right.

In this case, it only really makes sense to work hard at studying what you want to study, even in the knowledge that there is a reasonable chance that what you will be learning may not get you a job afterwards. I feel this is equally true of Religion. I am quite happy with my allegory-over-faith based humanism, I am learning a lot from it and am prepared to be held to account for it should it come to that. This is my specialist subject. If it's what the employer is looking for then I'll do my best when it comes to that; if it's not then I'll have enjoyed my time in school while at the same time having used it productively and rationally.
which is why one can talk to the employer and ask. People tend to forget that. pray for guidance and He will let his will known. of course, don't expect a voice (I once did) :p. the reply can be any form, and come at any time... It could be you channel surfing and pausing on the 700 club as some person is talking about a book, or a conversation you overhear. ;)

The majority of your post was quite reasonable, but I do have issue with this bit. Christianity, like any given religion, is not an objectively defined concept or set of concepts. It's a sort of conglomerate of many different ideas that have been explicitly lumped together under a single organised heading by their proponents; after all, you will be incredibly hard-set to find any two Christians to agree on absolutely every aspect of theology. The concept of a "True Christian" is an unusual idea in this light, and I have yet to see any qualifiers as to how "True Christians" can be reasonably distinguished from any other kind. Surely the adoptation of the name "Christian" is the ultimate qualifier for whether or not a person is a member of the group?

Surely, the name indicates following Jesus - so those who most accurately do that would be the 'true' Christians?

By which token, there are very few. Most are either Constantinian or Pauline.

if you read the story, the Killing of the Firstborn was the LAST Plauge. the Pharoh had alot of chances before the loss of his son to release the slaves, boils, blood water, insects, etc... yet, to you, it's not the Pharoh's fault, but God's.


If you read the story, Pharaoh couldn't take any of those chances, because God 'hardened his heart', so that he could visit all ten plagues on him.

Hey Grave, long time no see.

That's still a type of predestination.

In this definition, predestination = foreknowledge.

I think this definition is seriously flawed, but it still a definition.

I don't think it is a definition worth considering, to be honest.

I might know, in advance, that I am going to get older. That doesn't impart any conscious control over the process. Hell, it doesn't even guarantee that I will get older - a safe or piano could fall out of a seventh storey window as I walk by...

Read what I'm saying, and what I have been saying this whole time, please.

If you have any respect for the authority of Scripture, you must believe in some type of predestination (the word is in the text, several times). Does that predestination necessarily have to agree with the Reformed/Calvinist definition? No, I don't know how you can come to any other conclusion, but obviously you are able to.

Predestination is in the text?

You wouldn't happen to know what it was translated from by any chance?

(That's the problem with English language scripture... it is often little more than a reflection of what was contained in the native tongues...)

that's one of the problems with the KJV. you can't read it as modern English, but need to find the twists and turns with in the phrases. the "he" could be either the Pharaoh or God, but due to how it's worded, it points more to the Pharaoh hardening his own heart. back then the Pharaoh was the one chosen by their Gods to rule. thus the Pharaoh's Heart is in reference to the mindset used to rule.

the NKJV and NIV states that the Pharoh hardened his own heart, not God.

Which is inconsistent, because the NIV also has:

Exodus 10:1 "Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them...."

Actually, there are several passages. I tend to trust the NRSV, as it was translated directly from the oldest texts available. Through most of the plagues, Pharaoh is described as hardening his own heart, until the boils:



Doy. As usual, Dem beats me to it... :(

nevertheless God exists.

Hey Grave, long time no see.

Greetings, old friend.

I don't hit the forums all that often at the moment, through one thing or another... and when I do, it seems Dem has done all my work for me... :)

Greetings, old friend.

I don't hit the forums all that often at the moment, through one thing or another... and when I do, it seems Dem has done all my work for me... :)
I really don't mind the differing of opinions and viewpoints, but I REALLY LIKE the fact that Dem, you and others on this thread hasn't resorted to the usual flaiming and baiting that tend to appear on other Religious Baised threads. ;)


as for the hardening of the heart thing, Gonna meet with some people in the near future and discuss this.

Tho I have stated in other threads, that God does what he does and that I for one don't judge him on it.

nevertheless God exists.

Or doesn't.

That's the beauty of things that can't be conclusively proved.

Greetings, old friend.

I don't hit the forums all that often at the moment, through one thing or another... and when I do, it seems Dem has done all my work for me... :)

but, you used to do my work for me........how do I get Dem to do my work for me? so far, I have Ashmoria doing my work part of the time.

but, you used to do my work for me........how do I get Dem to do my work for me? so far, I have Ashmoria doing my work part of the time.

Oops. Sorry. You might have to outsource it.

But, I should be able to hit the forums a little more regularly after Feb/March... once our new arrival... arrives.

Oops. Sorry. You might have to outsource it.

But, I should be able to hit the forums a little more regularly after Feb/March... once our new arrival... arrives.

is the new arrival a baby?

and if it is, shouldnt you know that new babies take up lots of time?

is the new arrival a baby?

and if it is, shouldnt you know that new babies take up lots of time?

unless he's talking about being on NS while doing the 2 am feeding. :D

congrats btw Grave!

Oops. Sorry. You might have to outsource it.

But, I should be able to hit the forums a little more regularly after Feb/March... once our new arrival... arrives.

I will pray for safe and happy new arrival stuff. :D (I know you know what I mean)

I'm glad Chietuste is here...

Reformed Theology is the only logically consistent interpretation of the bible. It's can be; however, horrifying to a non-believer.

Romans 9.18: Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19: Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20: Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory

The hearts of man are evil. There is no such thing as a selfless good deed. Anthing that's trully good in us comes from God. This is the truth that a non-believer will never admit.

John 3.19: And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20: For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21: But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

I'm glad Chietuste is here...

Reformed Theology is the only logically consistent interpretation of the bible. It's can be; however, horrifying to a non-believer.



The hearts of man are evil. There is no such thing as a selfless good deed. Anthing that's trully good in us comes from God. This is the truth that a non-believer will never admit.

reformed theology is *A* logically consistant intepretation of the bible.

but ive never found it to be particularily christian.

or logical really.

or anything that i would want to believe in if i were free to decide my own view of god.

which i am. so i dont. logic be damned. its better to view the bible as somewhat inaccurate than to be stuck with such an ugly view of god.

For the sake of this argument, I am going to make an assumption: God, as the Christian’s know him, exists. I myself am an agnostic, but was raised Roman Catholic and know a thing or two about scripture. So for all you out there, including me, who either don’t believe in God, are unsure if you believe in God, or are of a non-Christian religion, either keep to yourself or accept the “God exists” standard for the sake of this thread.

Now, given that God, in his Christian form, exists, there are a series of events which demonstrate not only God’s fallacy, but the fact that we were doomed, from our original creation in the garden, and not from the events in that garden, to a life of moral servitude and repentance to God.

First of all, the Christian idea of God is that he is omnipotent, free of fault, and perfect in every way. That being said, Christian texts contain plenty of examples to the contrary. God, for instance, is a murder, and one on a world-wide scale at that. Disgusted of the choices his “children” made, God, without the empathy and high moral ground he demands from those very “children,” decided to not only kill them, but drown them at that. He chose Noah’s family, playing favorites, and drowned the rest of humanity.

God also exhibits jealousy. In fact, he admits to it. Plenty know the commandment, “Thou shall not worship any god but me,” but not as many know the verse where the commandment comes from. Exodus 2-17 says “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.” Not only is god jealous, he also shows vengeance, as he takes out the “sins” of the parents not only on them, but on their children, their children’s children, and their grandchildren’s children. On top of all that, God prohibits his us from displaying the same jealousy that he does in another commandment, claiming that “Thou shall not covet your neighbor’s house” and “Thou shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.”

God plays favorites. Granted this occurs far more in Judaism, but it occurs nonetheless. The Jews, the only followers of God up until Jesus, were put ahead of many other types of people throughout the old testament. Perhaps the greatest example was when God chose the Jews over the Egyptians, freeing the Jews from slavery and once again displaying his murderous tendencies, killing the first born son of every Egyptian household.

However, God is also a liar, and has enslaved us all to his will from the beginning. Free will is why he punished Adam and Eve in the garden. Free will is why God took a step back, letting humanity run its course, and is subsequently for all of the pain, suffering, war, disease, and everything else wrong with the world. But were we ever truly given free will?

Romans 8:28-30 spells it out rather obviously: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified" Romans says that God called those who love him, but goes on to say that those who he called were “predestined,” and that he subsequently justified and glorified those who were already predestined to love him. What about the people that God hasn’t chosen? Are those people damned from birth, or even before?

2 Timothy 1:9 is also interesting, saying that "[God] has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity. " Do choices in life, i.e. choices between good and evil, not dictate who gets into heaven? If God has chosen some and not others, do the sins of the chosen and the good deeds of the unchosen not determine salvation?

In fact, the ultimate story of Christianity, that of Easter, is filled with examples of how we do not have free will. Judas betrays Jesus, who is, according to the Holy Trinity, part of God. Jesus, however, foresees Judas’s betrayal, telling his apostles that one of them will betray him. How can Jesus know this if Judas’s choice of betrayal hasn’t been made yet? If Judas, in fact, was predestined to betray the son of God, how can God hold him responsible for his actions? Also, did Jesus not destroy sin by dying on the cross? Do those sins not include Judas’s betrayal?

On that note, how can any of us be responsible? According to the Bible, noted as the “Word of God,” we are predestined to ether salvation in paradise or eternity in hell, regardless of our actions in life, by a vengeful, jealous, murderous God. Back to the beginning of man, Eve made the choice to eat the apple of the tree. But since we are all predetermined, did she truly have that choice? Did God not destine her from the beginning to betray his word, much like Judas, therefore destining humanity to forever pay for her “sin?”

Did God destine us all from the beginning to live a life of pain, all the time claiming it to be punishment for Eve’s decision, a decision which she never truly made in the first place? Also, if God knows everything, surely he knew from before he even created Eve that she would betray his word, and that he would ultimately cast humanity from the garden. Why would he create Eve simply to ultimately cause humanity pain?

If God truly exists, then he is a being far from omnipotent. He murders out of anger, is jealous of his creation, and enacts vengeance upon his creation. He also sets the rules of humanity against the nature of humanity, and punishes humanity for breaking his rules, while knowing full well that they have no choice in the matter, being predestined from the beginning.

Now, before you post, I want you to defend your God in a similar, thought out fashion. I do not want posts about how God doesn’t exist so this doesn’t matter, or that you are Muslim and the quotes I provided don’t prove anything because you don’t believe in them. I said, from the beginning, that this entire argument takes place for the sake of Christians, or those who can possibly suspend their disbelief. I do not want flames, I do not want insults, and I do not want spam. Anyhow who does so will immediately be reported. Do not make me fill the moderation forum because of one thread.

Also, I fully understand that the enormity of my argument cannot possibly encompass a mere two and a half pages on Microsoft Word. Getting on my case for being short in certain sections or for only providing one example in others is impractical. I am not publishing a series of books. I am posting on an internet forum. In addition, do not hijack the thread with posts in regards to these following guidelines. I don’t care if you think you should have the right to flame or insult or spam this thread. Make your own thread to talk about it.

That being said, I look forward to this thread and the replies that will shortly come. Is God truly perfect? Do we really have free will? Are some of us really damned before birth, either from the sins of our fathers or by God’s random judgment? What do you think?

Beautiful. You're really good at this.

(claps)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=514258

So why is it again that you've decided to grace us with your presence?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=514258

So why is it again that you've decided to grace us with your presence?

YAY Kat! :D :D

I LOVE OUR MODS!!!

is the new arrival a baby?

and if it is, shouldnt you know that new babies take up lots of time?

Oh, I know... the last one popped out only about 15 months ago, and the only real difference it made was that I can now dandle a baby one handed, and type one handed without noticably slowing down. :)

It was actually a running joke between Jocabia and I for a while back there - he claimed I invented the last one to explain my spelling mistakes. :)

unless he's talking about being on NS while doing the 2 am feeding. :D

congrats btw Grave!

:) Thanks.

Actually - feeding usually gets full attention (same for me, really...), but putting baby to sleep, or holding sleeping baby, can both be done quite well at the computer, with soothing music playing on the Realplayer... :o

I will pray for safe and happy new arrival stuff. :D (I know you know what I mean)

I know what you mean, and I thank you. :)

Doy. As usual, Dem beats me to it... :(

Hehe. That's what happens when all I'm doing at work is backing up my entire computer which is trying desperately to die..... =(

Oops. Sorry. You might have to outsource it.

But, I should be able to hit the forums a little more regularly after Feb/March... once our new arrival... arrives.

Ooohh!!! Congratulations! You'll have to tell us all about your new arrival. =)

explain to me how I have to believe in predestination?

The word is right there in Scripture. So, if you have any respect for the authority of Scripture, you have to have some belief in it. It doesn't have to agree with the Reformed/Calvinist definition (I don't know how you can come to any other conclusion, but obviously you can), but you have to have some notion of it.

Actually, the word isn't in any of the original texts. A word (or maybe several words), which has been translated to mean "predestination" are found in the text. Quite a bit of meaning can be lost in translation. But Christ didn't exactly say, "My message is for some people. Or, I'll choose the people who get my message," now did He?

The word translated as predestination is proordorizo (or preordain).

And, on top of that, "any respect for..." doesn't mean "absolute respect for..." One can recognize and have "respect for the authority of Scripture" without seeing them as infallible.

Granted.

LOL. Christianity existed for several hundred years before Augustine proposed the precursor to Calvinist theology. It existed for quite a while longer before Calvinist emerged, thinking he was expressing the true meaning of Augustine's words (which he probably was - the Catholic Church adopted much of Augustine's theology, but shied away from his version of predestination). Even now, Calvinist theology is but one among many different Christian viewpoints. You may not agree with those viewpoints, but making it seem strange that people disagree with you is disingenous at best.

I meant, that I, after having studied it, can come to no other conclusion, and when others try to support there views or refute mine with the whole of Scripture, they are unable. So, I don't see how they can keep opposing Calvin definition, but obviously they can, and many of them are Biblically based persons.

I'm glad Chietuste is here...

And I'm glad you're here! ;)

The word is right there in Scripture. So, if you have any respect for the authority of Scripture, you have to have some belief in it.
That doesn't follow. Firstly, respect for the book's authority isn't equivilent to a literal adherence to every aspect of the book's content. You could, for instance, disagree with it, even in the knowledge that God told it to you. I'm sure many would be quite happy to acknowledge that the Jewish history chronicled in the Old Testament is probably largely accurate, but that doesn't mean that we think the God portrayed within did the right thing. Secondly, Scripture, in the sense that you mean it, is defined as the bits of the writings that are specifically recognised as being of divine origin. Given that the bible is a collection of many books of different origins, this is a largely arbitrary definition, since one can effectively denounce the books they do not agree with as not being part of the Scripture that they hold with reverence.

Agreement with some of the message of the Bible does not necessitate agreement with all of it. This is the wonderful thing about thinking things through for yourself. Even a faith that there is a great meaning and purpose to the book that comes from divine inspiration does not oblige one to stone others to death or to adhere rigidly to a policy of determinism.

Of course, Precognition and Choice are not necessarily exclusive anyway.

That doesn't follow. Firstly, respect for the book's authority isn't equivilent to a literal adherence to every aspect of the book's content. You could, for instance, disagree with it, even in the knowledge that God told it to you. I'm sure many would be quite happy to acknowledge that the Jewish history chronicled in the Old Testament is probably largely accurate, but that doesn't mean that we think the God portrayed within did the right thing.

I am speaking of Scripture in the sense of complete guide to theology and to moral behavior.

Secondly, Scripture, in the sense that you mean it, is defined as the bits of the writings that are specifically recognised as being of divine origin. Given that the bible is a collection of many books of different origins, this is a largely arbitrary definition, since one can effectively denounce the books they do not agree with as not being part of the Scripture that they hold with reverence.

We're speaking about Christianity, and therefore about the Christian Scripture, which would be the Bible.

Agreement with some of the message of the Bible does not necessitate agreement with all of it. This is the wonderful thing about thinking things through for yourself. Even a faith that there is a great meaning and purpose to the book that comes from divine inspiration does not oblige one to stone others to death or to adhere rigidly to a policy of determinism.

No? Well, then, you either are telling God to F off, or you don't think it's from God. Those are the only options. If you are truly thinking for yourself and if you truly believe that God divinely inspired Scripture, then you must hold it to be perfect and must find a way to ignore execution or predestination. There is a notable lack of verses speaking against the two, so, from the premises above, you must accept the two.

Of course, Precognition and Choice are not necessarily exclusive anyway.

Precognition /=/ Predestination

The word is right there in Scripture. So, if you have any respect for the authority of Scripture, you have to have some belief in it. It doesn't have to agree with the Reformed/Calvinist definition (I don't know how you can come to any other conclusion, but obviously you can), but you have to have some notion of it.

you mean the word is right there in your English translation of the oldest available transcripts.

you mean the word is right there in your English translation of the oldest available transcripts.

Every time we debate, I always learn something which disturbs me greatly about your theology.

Yes, that's what I mean. It's translated from the word proordorizo, from which come our prefix: pre-/pro- (before) and the verbs: to order and to ordain (to set up)

We're speaking about Christianity, and therefore about the Christian Scripture, which would be the Bible.
Not necessarily. Christianity is whatever Christians make it to be. If the entire church upped and decided tomorrow that the book of Exodus is a useful allegory rather than a factual history (which, if you check out the Moses thread, could be possible) then it would be so for them. This new collection of books, minus Exodus, would then be The Scripture and have always been so.

Status of something as Scripture isn't an inalterable feature of it. Reverence for a given book is arbitrarily decided by those who choose to include it as canon.

No? Well, then, you either are telling God to F off, or you don't think it's from God. Those are the only options. If you are truly thinking for yourself and if you truly believe that God divinely inspired Scripture, then you must hold it to be perfect and must find a way to ignore execution or predestination. There is a notable lack of verses speaking against the two, so, from the premises above, you must accept the two.
As I've said before, this bit doesn't follow. You must show that God's divine inspiration for scripture requires the scripture to be perfect. After all, the only source we have for the infalliability of God is the scripture itself.

If you view God as a flawed but well-meaning entity then he may not necessarily tell you of his imperfections; this, in turn, leaves the possibility open that the sources telling you that he is perfect may not be correct, even where they are of genuine divine origin.

God may genuinely have inspired Scripture, and may have given a lot of useful advice there, to which one may give due respect, but that doesn't mean we must acknowledge it's inalterable correctness.

Every time we debate, I always learn something which disturbs me greatly about your theology.

Yes, that's what I mean. It's translated from the word proordorizo, from which come our prefix: pre-/pro- (before) and the verbs: to order and to ordain (to set up)

my theological viewpoint disturbs you?

tell me what I believe.

Not necessarily. Christianity is whatever Christians make it to be. If the entire church upped and decided tomorrow that the book of Exodus is a useful allegory rather than a factual history (which, if you check out the Moses thread, could be possible) then it would be so for them. This new collection of books, minus Exodus, would then be The Scripture and have always been so.

I reject this. What the people accepts as Scripture will have changed, not what is Scripture.

As I've said before, this bit doesn't follow. You must show that God's divine inspiration for scripture requires the scripture to be perfect. After all, the only source we have for the infalliability of God is the scripture itself.

If you view God as a flawed but well-meaning entity then he may not necessarily tell you of his imperfections; this, in turn, leaves the possibility open that the sources telling you that he is perfect may not be correct, even where they are of genuine divine origin.

God may genuinely have inspired Scripture, and may have given a lot of useful advice there, to which one may give due respect, but that doesn't mean we must acknowledge it's inalterable correctness.

I misunderstood the premises you set, so I grant you your point and apologize for the misunderstanding.

Precognition /=/ Predestination
Predestination is easy given precognition. A Precognitive human would themselves be capable of Predestination to an extent. If you know exactly what effect each action is going to take then you will be able to make what you want to happen, happen.

my theological viewpoint disturbs you?

tell me what I believe.

Where would you like me to begin?

Anyway, I should have worded it better.

The insistance that we do not have the originals is often a sign of a liberal or neo-orthodox theology and is most disturbing, as they are simply not Christian: they disagree with the orthodox faith.

We do not have the originals, the writings which were divinely inspired, but that does not mean that we are unable to trust that God maintained the things in Scripture by the use of his holy Spirit so that we may understand that things which He has given us.

Predestination is easy given precognition. A Precognitive human would themselves be capable of Predestination to an extent. If you know exactly what effect each action is going to take then you will be able to make what you want to happen, happen.

That's not really the same thing.

Where would you like me to begin?
at the beginning.

Anyway, I should have worded it better.

The insistance that we do not have the originals is often a sign of a liberal or neo-orthodox theology and is most disturbing, as they are simply not Christian: they disagree with the orthodox faith.

We do not have the originals, the writings which were divinely inspired, but that does not mean that we are unable to trust that God maintained the things in Scripture by the use of his holy Spirit so that we may understand that things which He has given us.

see my problem is you trust what other people tell you that scripture means more than you actually study it yourself. (as evidenced by every freaking time I ask for scriptural reference from you or anyone else I know associated with the PCA I get a copy/paste of some huge "this is what you have to believe" document put out by them)

have you ever heard the phrase "you can't have your cake and eat it too"? It doesn't really make a lot of sense does it? you wanna know why? because it was translated screwy, it should be "you can't eat your cake and have it too" see? that makes more sense.

that happens with translations of the Bible too..........weird right?

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. Proverbs 22:6

now, most people think that means that if you raise a kid "right" that they won't ever do anything bad........not true, see it was translated screwy too, it should say "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old it will not depart from him"

totally different meaning.

at the beginning.

You claim to be a "true" Fundamentalist (you don't like the crazies who have stolen the label).

You are New-Covenant.

You don't agree with Calvin's defintion of predestination.

The most troubling thing, I think, is your over-zealous insistance on freedom of conscience. That is an important doctrine, of course, I just think you take it too far. And that is what troubles me. Anytime I quote anyone other than Scripture directly, you say that I'm listening to someone else rather than Scripture. Which leads to the next quote...

see my problem is you trust what other people tell you that scripture means more than you actually study it yourself. (as evidenced by every freaking time I ask for scriptural reference from you or anyone else I know associated with the PCA I get a copy/paste of some huge "this is what you have to believe" document put out by them)

I'm actually PCUSA (the liberal ones :( :mad: ). When have I not provided a Scripture reference when you've asked? I've provided links to sites that explain the belief and have quoted some authors for the same reasons, but I've always (so far as I can remember) provided Scripture verses. Because that's the only thing that matters. It doesn't matter what I think, or you think, or Calvin thinks, or Billy Graham. The only thing that matters in determining moral behavior and doctrine is the Word of God.

have you ever heard the phrase "you can't have your cake and eat it too"? It doesn't really make a lot of sense does it? you wanna know why? because it was translated screwy, it should be "you can't eat your cake and have it too" see? that makes more sense.

Not really. The elements were just flipped. The meaning is not changed in anyway. But, I understand your point.

that happens with translations of the Bible too..........weird right?

Not to my knowledge.

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. Proverbs 22:6

Uh-huh.

now, most people think that means that if you raise a kid "right" that they won't ever do anything bad........not true, see it was translated screwy too, it should say "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old it will not depart from him"

For the first part, they misunderstood the point of the passage. For the second, unless you speak ancient Hebrew, you're just taking someone's word for it, too.

The point of a proverb is to provide short, memorable phrases to be applied generally.

"He who hesitates is lost."
"Look before you leap."

You should look before you walk out into the street. But, if you don't and you walk out in front of a bus, you're going to be lost if you hesitate.

The same is to applied to Proverbs.

I reject this.
Of course. Given your understanding of Scripture as an infallible truth, you are obliged to. Christians in that potential future, similarly, would argue that their Scripture would always have been the real one.

Who is right?

Clearly, you both are. Scripture to you is as it is now. Scripture to them is as it would be. But what God actually wrote can't be changed by people, I hear you say. And, well, you're right, unless we've found some way to not only directly influence God but to do so in a manner that transcends the boundaries of time.

But the curious thing is, what He "wrote" can be. Any written word given its importance by an organised body can have its so-called "Divinity" stripped from it at any point in time by the organisation that gives it its significance (quotation marks meant for peripheral skepticism; not any particular distain for the concept of Divinity).

Trust in Scripture requires more than just trust in God or what he said (or didn't say). It requires faith in the Doctrinal constructs of the human machinations of Religion, and that is a faith that I cannot acquire.

Trust in Scripture requires more than just trust in God or what he said (or didn't say). It requires faith in the Doctrinal constructs of the human machinations of Religion, and that is a faith that I cannot acquire.

Not really. I have faith in God that He will make known what He wants me to know. And that what He wants me to know will reach me infallibly (whether He wants infallible information to reach me is another matter). It's trust in God, not Man.

That's not really the same thing.
I think the only real difference is that "Total" predestination starts at the beginning. Which isn't really a big deal, though it does require there to - be- a beginning.

In any case, we need to bear in mind that choices are always made based on circumstances; both external and internal. The concept of Choice is regarded as the resolution of the internal circumstances, and as such, it is always free, since these internal circumstances are Us (or a part of us). Even where it is possible to influence conditions internally and externally, such that anyone with the sufficient knowledge and power might potentially be able to cause a desired outcome to a given decision, they will be influencing Us directly, not denying us our choice.

In any case, we need to bear in mind that choices are always made based on circumstances; both external and internal. The concept of Choice is regarded as the resolution of the internal circumstances, and as such, it is always free, since these internal circumstances are Us (or a part of us). Even where it is possible to influence conditions internally and externally, such that anyone with the sufficient knowledge and power might potentially be able to cause a desired outcome to a given decision, they will be influencing Us directly, not denying us our choice.

You sure you're not a Calvinist?

Not really. I have faith in God that He will make known what He wants me to know. And that what He wants me to know will reach me infallibly (whether He wants infallible information to reach me is another matter). It's trust in God, not Man.
So what you're saying is that you will always believe the right thing because God led you to that path? That is a dangerous road on which to tread. A willingness to be completely subservient to fate like that would leave you open to a great many other forces that would use you for their own purposes.

I advise you now against it. It is up to your judgement whether or not you feel that this is one of the things God wants you to know or not; I do not have the arrogance to presume either way.

You sure you're not a Calvinist?
I just call them like I see them. Do likewise for me if you like, though I take no labels for myself.

So what you're saying is that you will always believe the right thing because God led you to that path? That is a dangerous road on which to tread. A willingness to be completely subservient to fate like that would leave you open to a great many other forces that would use you for their own purposes.

I advise you now against it. It is up to your judgement whether or not you feel that this is one of the things God wants you to know or not; I do not have the arrogance to presume either way.

No, that's not what I said. You missed this part:

what He wants me to know will reach me infallibly (whether He wants infallible information to reach me is another matter)

I said that I know what He wants me to know. But (for whatever reason) He may want me to remain ignorant of the Truth. But, by faith, I know that He loves His creation and has revealed His will to us. Whether I get that revelation right is another matter.

I just call them like I see them. Do likewise for me if you like, though I take no labels for myself.

I was joking. I thought you said that you were an atheist. :confused:

What you said is the explanation given by many Reformed Christians of how God's sovereign predestination and Man's free agency are balanced.

Oh, I know... the last one popped out only about 15 months ago, and the only real difference it made was that I can now dandle a baby one handed, and type one handed without noticably slowing down. :)

It was actually a running joke between Jocabia and I for a while back there - he claimed I invented the last one to explain my spelling mistakes. :)

yeah and an extra one wont be ANNNNY more work. (poor delusional fool)

im thinking that congratulations is premature but congratulations in advance in case you find yourself to busy to post about it when the baby arrives.

You claim to be a "true" Fundamentalist (you don't like the crazies who have stolen the label).
I believe these things

# Inerrancy of the Scriptures
# The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
# The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
# The bodily resurrection of Jesus
# The authenticity of Christ's miracles

that makes me a fundamentalist.

You are New-Covenant.
that disturbs you why?

You don't agree with Calvin's defintion of predestination.
and that makes you uncomfortable, the truth is though that it really doesn't matter.

The most troubling thing, I think, is your over-zealous insistance on freedom of conscience. That is an important doctrine, of course, I just think you take it too far. And that is what troubles me. Anytime I quote anyone other than Scripture directly, you say that I'm listening to someone else rather than Scripture. Which leads to the next quote...

You don't seem to have a grasp on what you believe outside of using someone else's "idea" of what scripture means, if I ask for scriptural reference I expect you to provide me with a verse, that you know, that you think supports your point of view, not a copy/paste of stuff that someone else said ......the fact that you don't, worries me. (also you seem to have a very legalistic view of "being a Christian" which seems to contradict with your "predestination" stance, and then also, you seem to think God a scary mean punisher......)

I was joking. I thought you said that you were an atheist. :confused:

What you said is the explanation given by many Reformed Christians of how God's sovereign predestination and Man's free agency are balanced.
I certainly wouldn't call myself an Atheist; I'm a free thinker, and always have been, though it's only recently begun to show progress as a philosophy in and of itself.

That explanation came out of my venture into the philosophy of the System as a means of reconciling deterministic physical laws with choice. It's nice to know that someone else got there first. =)

I said that I know what He wants me to know. But (for whatever reason) He may want me to remain ignorant of the Truth. But, by faith, I know that He loves His creation and has revealed His will to us. Whether I get that revelation right is another matter.
It's still the subservience to Fate that worries me. God is not the only power in existence with the ability to manipulate our circumstances, as I'm sure you will become aware, if you haven't already. Be careful, however you decide to proceed.

I believe these things

# Inerrancy of the Scriptures
# The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
# The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
# The bodily resurrection of Jesus
# The authenticity of Christ's miracles

that makes me a fundamentalist.

So do I. But I don't take the Fundamentalist label. I prefer Evangelical. Slight nuance in definition, but the big thing is that Evangelicals are usually more solid and less prone to "God said it; that's the end!" Of course, there are "pretenders" and "heroes" in each group.

that disturbs you why?

You're using the post which I recanted. It doesn't disturb me so much. I can't see it working with Scripture and you hold to it. You can do nothing else if Scripture truly teaches it, but I don't see Scripture teaching it.

and that makes you uncomfortable, the truth is though that it really doesn't matter.

Oh, it does matter. It determines our entire mindset of how much we owe to God.

You don't seem to have a grasp on what you believe outside of using someone else's "idea" of what scripture means, if I ask for scriptural reference I expect you to provide me with a verse, that you know, that you think supports your point of view, not a copy/paste of stuff that someone else said ......the fact that you don't, worries me.

You avoided the question: When have I not provided Scriptural support when you have asked for it? I have quoted persons who I agree with on the issue and whose summary is complete and concise. But, I cannot think of a time when I have not provided Scripture when asked.

(also you seem to have a very legalistic view of "being a Christian"

Compared to most Christians and "Christians"? Yes, I'm worse than the Pharisees. But, I simply believe that James is correct. If you have faith, you gotta have works. And your works justify you: not before God, but before Man. Matthew 5:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:16;&version=47;); James 2:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:26;&version=47;)

which seems to contradict with your "predestination" stance,

Hardly: Ephesians 2:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:10;&version=47;)

and then also, you seem to think God a scary mean punisher......)

Scary? Yes: Isaiah 6:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%206:5;&version=47;); Exodus 3:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%203:6;&version=47;); Exekial 3:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%203:23;&version=47;); Revelation 6:15-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%206:15-17;&version=47;)

Punisher? Yes: Genesis 15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=15&version=47); Genesis 19:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019:15;&version=47;);Isaiah 26:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2026:21;&version=47;); Luke 20:46-47 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2020:46-47;&version=47;);1 Thesselonians 4:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%204:6;&version=47;); Revelation 17:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2017:1;&version=47;)

Mean? No. I don't get that from Scripture at all.

So do I. But I don't take the Fundamentalist label. I prefer Evangelical. Slight nuance in definition, but the big thing is that Evangelicals are usually more solid and less prone to "God said it; that's the end!" Of course, there are "pretenders" and "heroes" in each group.

There is a Difference to being a Fundamentalist and a Fundie.

There is a Difference to being a Fundamentalist and a Fundie.

Umm, yes, but no one uses the term Fundie outside a context of mockery and disdain.

Umm, yes, but no one uses the term Fundie outside a context of mockery and disdain.

that would be his point, besides I think you will find that the term Evangelical (which I also claim) has been co-opted by the less than desirable as well.


I never did understand how you Calvinists evangelize though, I mean you can't really tell people "God loves you and sent His son to die for your sins" without a good chance of lying to people.........so do you just lie to them or do you just keep your mouth shut and hope they end up on the "good list"?

that would be his point, besides I think you will find that the term Evangelical (which I also claim) has been co-opted by the less than desirable as well.

True.

I never did understand how you Calvinists evangelize though, I mean you can't really tell people "God loves you and sent His son to die for your sins" without a good chance of lying to people.........so do you just lie to them or do you just keep your mouth shut and hope they end up on the "good list"?

I simply don't say "Christ died for you" or "Christ died for your sins"
I say "Christ died for the sins of those who repent."
Everything else is pretty much the same. We shy away from the emotional approach that a lot of Arminian denominations use. We also aren't too fond of "seeker-sensitive" evangelism. I think it ends up watering stuff down. I think expositionism is much better: explain it to them and pray that God is using you.

We aren't called to convince anyone. That's the Holy Spirit's job. We're only called to spread the Gospel and make disciples.

True.
okay, we agree then. ;)



I simply don't say "Christ died for you" or "Christ died for your sins"
I say "Christ died for the sins of those who repent."
Everything else is pretty much the same. We shy away from the emotional approach that a lot of Arminian denominations use. We also aren't too fond of "seeker-sensitive" evangelism. I think it ends up watering stuff down. I think expositionism is much better: explain it to them and pray that God is using you.
but that's not exactly true either, because according to Calvin, Christ died only for the elect, and you can't choose to repent. If you repent and God didn't choose you then what?

We aren't called to convince anyone. That's the Holy Spirit's job. We're only called to spread the Gospel and make disciples.
I agree there too.

but that's not exactly true either, because according to Calvin, Christ died only for the elect, and you can't choose to repent. If you repent and God didn't choose you then what?


:confused:

This is why it becomes difficult to discuss theology.

Christ died only for the elect, yes. Because the elect are the only ones capable of repenting, they are the only ones whose sins were paid for by Christ's death.

So what I'm saying is true (from a Reformed perspective). If you are elect, you will repent (not necessarily at that time) and you will be forgiven.

You can repent in the sense that you can say "Hmm, better change what I've been doing." But that doesn't necessarily mean that you turn from sin and turn toward God. You could even be doing what God commands, but if your heart isn't turned to God, it's not the repentence required for salvation. This repentence is only capable of the elect.

Does that make sense?

:confused:

This is why it becomes difficult to discuss theology.

Christ died only for the elect, yes. Because the elect are the only ones capable of repenting, they are the only ones whose sins were paid for by Christ's death.

So what I'm saying is true (from a Reformed perspective). If you are elect, you will repent (not necessarily at that time) and you will be forgiven.

You can repent in the sense that you can say "Hmm, better change what I've been doing." But that doesn't necessarily mean that you turn from sin and turn toward God. You could even be doing what God commands, but if your heart isn't turned to God, it's not the repentence required for salvation. This repentence is only capable of the elect.

Does that make sense?

what if someone repents (turns away from their sins) and commits to God, but still isn't "one of the elect" are they "not Christian enough" to go to heaven?

you had mentioned before that if I had "real faith" that I would eat things that were toxic to me.....so I wonder what exactly you think is required of the repenting.......in your case (your stance) there is no security, because there is no way to know that you are "one of the elect" so basically it screws up your whole relationship with God, assuming you do believe that we can have a relationship with God.

Actually, there are several passages. I tend to trust the NRSV, as it was translated directly from the oldest texts available. Through most of the plagues, Pharaoh is described as hardening his own heart, until the boils:

[snip]


Which is inconsistent, because the NIV also has:

Exodus 10:1 "Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them...."

After a brief discussion, and we ended our session due to someone's family emergency. so this is far from over...

God Hardened the Pharaoh' heart because it was to show, not only to the Egyptians, but also the Isrealites, the power of God. It was to assert his position to those who assumed he didn't exsist. it was to strengthen the faith of those who's faith was weakening and to restore the faith to those who lost it. Most of the Plagues was not to "convince" that the Egyptians should let the slaves go, but to also show them that their 'gods' were powerless to save them from His judgement.

What is not said (and can be a great debate discussion,) is the spiritual fate of those children that died during Passover. because their deaths was not by their actions but those of the Pharaoh and God, are those children condemned? or where they taken up to be with God... even tho they were unbelievers?

what if someone repents (turns away from their sins) and commits to God, but still isn't "one of the elect" are they "not Christian enough" to go to heaven?

The elect are the only ones capable of turning from their sins. Man is naturally totally depraved (every part of him is tainted with sin). So he does not want to repent. So God regenerates (gives a new nature) to some (the elect) and those persons see how great God and His offer of salvation is and accept it (God's grace is irresistable).

you had mentioned before that if I had "real faith" that I would eat things that were toxic to me.....

I recanted of that, remember? ;)

Though, Paul or Jesus, I can't remember, says that followers of God will not be harmed by things which would normally harm us. And Paul is bitten by that poisonous snake on Malta and is not harmed.

so I wonder what exactly you think is required of the repenting

Could you reword this?

.......in your case (your stance) there is no security, because there is no way to know that you are "one of the elect" so basically it screws up your whole relationship with God, assuming you do believe that we can have a relationship with God.

Oh, there most definatel is security. If you seek after God and have faith in Him, you are elect. Also, the guiding of the Holy Spirit is present, which is not there before you repent, to comfort, counsel, and assure you.

I do believe we are capable of a relationship with God. That's what comes with adoption. After you repent and come to faith, God justifies you (declares you right in His sight) and adopts you (you become a Child of God). That's when the relationship begins. I'm not sure what you mean by the concept of the "elect" screwing that up.

Oh, there most definatel is security. If you seek after God and have faith in Him, you are elect. Also, the guiding of the Holy Spirit is present, which is not there before you repent, to comfort, counsel, and assure you.

I do believe we are capable of a relationship with God. That's what comes with adoption. After you repent and come to faith, God justifies you (declares you right in His sight) and adopts you (you become a Child of God). That's when the relationship begins. I'm not sure what you mean by the concept of the "elect" screwing that up.

that's pretty watered down Calvinism, are you sure you are Calvinist?

that's pretty watered down Calvinism, are you sure you are Calvinist?

Are you sure you're talking about Calvinists?

I'm a Reformed Christian (what most persons call a Calvinist). The correct definition of Calvinist is a Reformed Christian who believes in consubstantiation (which I do) and that assurance of faith is required for salvation (which I do not).

What you're probably thinking of is hyper-Calvinism which is quite heretical and makes God the author of sin. When most persons say Calvinist, they're referring to Reformed Christians, but thinking of hyper-Calvinists. Here's a link about it: Hyper-Calvinism (http://www.theopedia.com/Hyper-Calvinism)

The word is right there in Scripture. So, if you have any respect for the authority of Scripture, you have to have some belief in it. It doesn't have to agree with the Reformed/Calvinist definition (I don't know how you can come to any other conclusion, but obviously you can), but you have to have some notion of it.

Which scripture? Neither my searchable KJV or my searchable NIV shows the word 'predestination'...

Hehe. That's what happens when all I'm doing at work is backing up my entire computer which is trying desperately to die..... =(


That sucks. That's what mine did, a while back, too. :(


Ooohh!!! Congratulations! You'll have to tell us all about your new arrival. =)

All we know so far, is she is a girl, and due about the first week of March. More shall follow. (Oh, and she'll most likely be called "Kalani", which is Hawaiian for 'heavenly'... or something). :)

The word translated as predestination is proordorizo (or preordain).


Foreordained? If so - I can only find one reference to that word, and it discusses Jesus as Saviour... nothing to do with anything else being foreordained...


I meant, that I, after having studied it, can come to no other conclusion, and when others try to support there views or refute mine with the whole of Scripture, they are unable. So, I don't see how they can keep opposing Calvin definition, but obviously they can, and many of them are Biblically based persons.

The Calvinist definitions do not agree with the lessons of Christ, which must be the heart of any 'Christian' teaching. Jesus did not choose, did not discriminate (well - to be honest, he never accepted Gentiles during his earthly ministry)... so the ideas of 'predestined' or 'elect' salvation are irreconcilable with the word of the Messiah.

I reject this. What the people accepts as Scripture will have changed, not what is Scripture.


Then, how do we know what is 'acceptable'?

After all - until a pagan organised the collection of the books, different churches used sifferent 'canons'. (Indeed, thinking about Catholicism versus Protestantism, there are still different canons).

And, it isn't just the 'christian' texts - the Hebrew canon that we accept today, wasn't entirely formalised until after the timeframe claimed for Jesus' earthly ministry.

All we know so far, is she is a girl, and due about the first week of March. More shall follow. (Oh, and she'll most likely be called "Kalani", which is Hawaiian for 'heavenly'... or something). :)

Beautiful Name Grave!

For the first part, they misunderstood the point of the passage. For the second, unless you speak ancient Hebrew, you're just taking someone's word for it, too.


"Chanak na'ar derek peh zaqen cuwr", literally "Train (or dedicate) a child (also translatable as boy, youth or servant) [in the] way (road, direction or manner) [he should go] (literally - 'mouth', the indication is 'in the way you are told') to grow old (or to age) to turn aside (to depart, to come to an end, or to be removed).

Symbolic translation: "Train a child in the direction you are told, (and) he will not depart from it when he grows".

How do you interpret the Hebrew?

Which scripture? Neither my searchable KJV or my searchable NIV shows the word 'predestination'...

You're searching the wrong word. The word Predestined is used in the NIV, but the KJV uses predestinated.


For example: Ephesians 1 5-12NIV
In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.

In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.

yeah and an extra one wont be ANNNNY more work. (poor delusional fool)

im thinking that congratulations is premature but congratulations in advance in case you find yourself to busy to post about it when the baby arrives.

:D

Actually - we already had one, but she's substantially older (she's 8 now). I know it'll be more work, it's cool. :)

But, thanks for the early congratulations. :)

After a brief discussion, and we ended our session due to someone's family emergency. so this is far from over...

God Hardened the Pharaoh' heart because it was to show, not only to the Egyptians, but also the Isrealites, the power of God. It was to assert his position to those who assumed he didn't exsist. it was to strengthen the faith of those who's faith was weakening and to restore the faith to those who lost it. Most of the Plagues was not to "convince" that the Egyptians should let the slaves go, but to also show them that their 'gods' were powerless to save them from His judgement.

What is not said (and can be a great debate discussion,) is the spiritual fate of those children that died during Passover. because their deaths was not by their actions but those of the Pharaoh and God, are those children condemned? or where they taken up to be with God... even tho they were unbelievers?


I'm not arguing with the 'why'. The scripture says that it is so his miracles may be fulfilled, and I'm not going to argue as to who the miracles were for.

To me - the important part is that the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, as a deliberate act by God, and that the consequence of this was that Pharaoh could not 'opt out' of the punishment programme by changing his mind (or heart).

I don't have a problem with that - the early Hebrew version of God was the root of all things - he is everything AND nothing, he is the source of the good, and the evil. It is only in later Hebrew theology, and the Christian version especially, that God and Satan become a Duality.

(And even then, it is still there, if you look - who causes the census: sometimes it says God was the inspiration, sometimes Satan).

If one is going to take a purely literal look at scripture, the dead Egyptian children achieve the 'other' fate - depending on your theology, this is either nothing, or damnation... whether you accept the old Hebrew vision, or the Greek era heaven/hell vision.

Beautiful Name Grave!

Thanks. :) I picked that one out, based partly on the sound (it is one of the prettiest names i've ever heard), and partly on what it means - I was hoping one of our Hawaiian posters might be able to tell me if I've been correctly informed. :)

You're searching the wrong word. The word Predestined is used in the NIV, but the KJV uses predestinated.


For example: Ephesians 1 5-12NIV
In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.

In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.

AH, gotcha.

I'd find it hard to decide what was my bigger problem with the passage:

1) The fact that it is Pauline, not 'of Christ' - so should be considered valid only in as much as it agrees with the teachings of Christ.

(which, of course, the Calvinist version... doesn't)

2) The fact that it is Pauline, and Paul was not witness to the earthly ministry.

3) The translation based on the Vulgate, based on the Greek. Directly from the Greek, the meaning would be something like ' decided beforehand' (literally: 'before defined') which can dramatically alter the thrust (especially the 'strength') of the comment.

4) The fact that the word is being taken as exclusionary, when it needn't be.

AH, gotcha.

I'd find it hard to decide what was my bigger problem with the passage:

1) The fact that it is Pauline, not 'of Christ' - so should be considered valid only in as much as it agrees with the teachings of Christ.

(which, of course, the Calvinist version... doesn't)

2) The fact that it is Pauline, and Paul was not witness to the earthly ministry.

3) The translation based on the Vulgate, based on the Greek. Directly from the Greek, the meaning would be something like ' decided beforehand' (literally: 'before defined') which can dramatically alter the thrust (especially the 'strength') of the comment.

4) The fact that the word is being taken as exclusionary, when it needn't be.

4 is where I go with it, I always read it as "you were meant in the beginning to have a relationship with Christ" (as in everyone was) so you are returning to the default when you repent. make sense?

Thanks. :) I picked that one out, based partly on the sound (it is one of the prettiest names i've ever heard), and partly on what it means - I was hoping one of our Hawaiian posters might be able to tell me if I've been correctly informed. :)


Hawaiian Names (http://www.alohafriendsluau.com/names_traditional.html)

Kalani = Of the Heavens, Chieftain

I'm not arguing with the 'why'. The scripture says that it is so his miracles may be fulfilled, and I'm not going to argue as to who the miracles were for.

To me - the important part is that the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, as a deliberate act by God, and that the consequence of this was that Pharaoh could not 'opt out' of the punishment programme by changing his mind (or heart).

I don't have a problem with that - the early Hebrew version of God was the root of all things - he is everything AND nothing, he is the source of the good, and the evil. It is only in later Hebrew theology, and the Christian version especially, that God and Satan become a Duality.

(And even then, it is still there, if you look - who causes the census: sometimes it says God was the inspiration, sometimes Satan).

If one is going to take a purely literal look at scripture, the dead Egyptian children achieve the 'other' fate - depending on your theology, this is either nothing, or damnation... whether you accept the old Hebrew vision, or the Greek era heaven/hell vision.

yep, which is why I don't hold judgement over God's Actions. I can speculate (who wouldn't) but to try to judge God, to truly understand his motives is an excercise in fustration and will most likely lead to the wrong conclusion.

We're speaking about Christianity, and therefore about the Christian Scripture, which would be the Bible.

Would it? What about the Gospels that were not included? What about the numerous documents held as Scripture by much of the early Church that were rejected at the Councils? How do we know that the politicking came up with the right set? Why did Protestants drop many of the books that were originally included as Canon?

No? Well, then, you either are telling God to F off, or you don't think it's from God. Those are the only options. If you are truly thinking for yourself and if you truly believe that God divinely inspired Scripture, then you must hold it to be perfect and must find a way to ignore execution or predestination.

This is patently incorrect. One can believe that Scipture was divinely inspired without thinking that Scripture is infallible. Human beings are fallible. We are all inspired by God when we ask for guidance or are led to follow in various ways, but we do not become infallible in the process. I see no reason to believe that those who were led to write down their revelations were any more infallible than the rest of us.

Cool! Errr... it's not boys-only or anything is it? (Seeing the 'chieftain' bit..) :o

I know twins named Kalani and Leilani who are from Hawaii, both girls.

Hawaiian Names (http://www.alohafriendsluau.com/names_traditional.html)

Kalani = Of the Heavens, Chieftain

Cool! Errr... it's not boys-only or anything is it? (Seeing the 'chieftain' bit..) :o

yep, which is why I don't hold judgement over God's Actions. I can speculate (who wouldn't) but to try to judge God, to truly understand his motives is an excercise in fustration and will most likely lead to the wrong conclusion.

If the ways of God are ineffible (I love that word... ineffible... sounds like it means you can't 'f' it...) and incomprehensible, then it must be an exercise in futility to try to divine the meaning - because it is (definitively) beyond us.

Of course, in more pragmatic terms, questioning the will of God is an exercise in futility for the simple reason that our take on God's plans is hardly likely to keep Him awake at nights. :)

If salvation were based on works, nobody would get into heaven because we have too many sins to possible be able to atone for them all. Think of all the things you do daily that are sinful and think of how many good deed you do for the sake of God alone. How can a perfect being accept anyone who has even a single blemish?


Maybe the test for heaven is just really, really, really curved....

Cool! Errr... it's not boys-only or anything is it? (Seeing the 'chieftain' bit..) :oit's a Unisex name, like Sam or Alex.

I know both boys and Girls named Kalani.

Would it? What about the Gospels that were not included? What about the numerous documents held as Scripture by much of the early Church that were rejected at the Councils? How do we know that the politicking came up with the right set? Why did Protestants drop many of the books that were originally included as Canon?



This is patently incorrect. One can believe that Scipture was divinely inspired without thinking that Scripture is infallible. Human beings are fallible. We are all inspired by God when we ask for guidance or are led to follow in various ways, but we do not become infallible in the process. I see no reason to believe that those who were led to write down their revelations were any more infallible than the rest of us.



Wait, so you contend that divine scripture is a HUMAN invention - albeit divinely inspired - instead of the transcribed Word?

If the ways of God are ineffible (I love that word... ineffible... sounds like it means you can't 'f' it...) and incomprehensible, then it must be an exercise in futility to try to divine the meaning - because it is (definitively) beyond us.

Of course, in more pragmatic terms, questioning the will of God is an exercise in futility for the simple reason that our take on God's plans is hardly likely to keep Him awake at nights. :)LOL Agreed!

Not really. I have faith in God that He will make known what He wants me to know. And that what He wants me to know will reach me infallibly (whether He wants infallible information to reach me is another matter). It's trust in God, not Man.

The information cannot reach you infallibly unless you, yourself, are infallible. Do you think that God makes you infallible? If so, do you think God makes us all infallible when God decides to guide us? If so, why do we still make mistakes? Why do we misinterpret the signals?

We aren't called to convince anyone. That's the Holy Spirit's job. We're only called to spread the Gospel and make disciples.

How can you "make disciples" under your doctrine? Nothing you say will change anything. If God has chosen a person to be "elect", they will be "elect", no matter what you say or how bad they've been through most of their life or how much they may have rejected God in the past. If someone is not chosen to be "elect", they will not be "elect", no matter what you say or how much they want to follow God or how good they try to be.

With Calvinism, in the end, it all boils down to a total lack of personal responsibility. We can't be good unless God makes us be good. We can't repent unless God makes us repent. And we're bad because God decided that the original human beings' sin should make us all evil by nature. In the end, Calvinism means that God is the sole entity responsible for who is saved and who is not.

4 is where I go with it, I always read it as "you were meant in the beginning to have a relationship with Christ" (as in everyone was) so you are returning to the default when you repent. make sense?

Especially when you bear in mind Paul's 'job'. He was the stiff-upper-lip boy of the nascent churches, running around telling them to buck-up.

So - when you read him, you have to bear in mind that he is playing to a very specific crowd.

Plus - even if you don't bear that in mind, phrases like "he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ" do not have to intrinsically be just about the specific crowd that Paul is chating with at any given moment.

I think what you are saying, is what I am saying - we are all 'meant' to be children of God... just some of us go there, and some of us don't.

Maybe the test for heaven is just really, really, really curved....

Better hope not, you got alot of people like Pope John Paul II and Mother Theresa really throwing the curve off. :p

I think what you are saying, is what I am saying - we are all 'meant' to be children of God... just some of us go there, and some of us don't.

Most of us agree to this.

*sigh* I need more children... Leilani is a really pretty name, too... :(

you could use it as a middle name.........but it would just be redundant.

they both mean about the same thing.

Wait, so you contend that divine scripture is a HUMAN invention - albeit divinely inspired - instead of the transcribed Word?

Since the 'original' scripture was given in Hebrew, and that it was 'updated' in Aramaic and Greek....

Since most of us do not have full access to all the intricacies of all those languages...

Since most of us read the scripture in one translated language...

And, since there are clear examples of the scripture changing between translations (like the exclusion of the 'souls' of animals in the English translation of the Hebrew)...

It is only logical to assume that, divinely inspired or no, the modern scripture is filtered through the hands and minds of mere mortals.

Edit: Junii made a good point also about the translation of the 'rod of guidance', and how it has meant different things in different translations. But then it un-appeared. :) Ironically, it has re-appeared in my post, as a testament to the good point made.

I know twins named Kalani and Leilani who are from Hawaii, both girls.

*sigh* I need more children... Leilani is a really pretty name, too... :(

I dunno if the OP is still tracking this thread, but what the heck.

For the sake of this argument, I am going to make an assumption: God, as the Christian’s know him, exists. I myself am an agnostic, but was raised Roman Catholic and know a thing or two about scripture. So for all you out there, including me, who either don’t believe in God, are unsure if you believe in God, or are of a non-Christian religion, either keep to yourself or accept the “God exists” standard for the sake of this thread.

I used to be Catholic myself, and I still hold it in high regard. Much of my family is still Catholic as well. One of the things that I found dissatisfying when I was a member was that knowledge sometimes seems to be rationed out. I could be mistaken or have the wrong impression, but that was one of the reasons for my conversion.

At any rate, let's go.


Now, given that God, in his Christian form, exists, there are a series of events which demonstrate not only God’s fallacy, but the fact that we were doomed, from our original creation in the garden, and not from the events in that garden, to a life of moral servitude and repentance to God.

First of all, the Christian idea of God is that he is omnipotent, free of fault, and perfect in every way. That being said, Christian texts contain plenty of examples to the contrary. God, for instance, is a murder, and one on a world-wide scale at that. Disgusted of the choices his “children” made, God, without the empathy and high moral ground he demands from those very “children,” decided to not only kill them, but drown them at that. He chose Noah’s family, playing favorites, and drowned the rest of humanity.

This argument is based upon a couple of flawed assumptions/premises. Firstly, the idea that God is capable of murder, as such. You simply can't impose the same restrictions on God's conduct as you would on a human being's. The important issue when studying this is His motivation. (Analogy: when a fire engine runs through a red light on the way to an emergency, is that a traffic crime, or is it entirely apropriate based upon the authority the Fire Department has to do this?)

God works from the big picture. He reserves the right to decide who lives, and who dies. Remember that to Him, death isn't the end of life, it's a transition from this world to the next. When He takes people from this place it's not an act of destruction against those people, but an act of transportation. (Incidentally, the reason why murder is an evil isn't just the act of violence against our fellow man, but it's because by taking a human life, we're assuming the right to 'play God' and make decisions that only He has authority to make.)

God chose to remove the wicked from the Earth by means of the Flood, and preserve Noah and his people. This isn't favoritism. If a classroom full of students is in an uproar but a small group can clearly be seen trying to study and behave correctly, is it favoritism to punish the class but exclude those who were doing the right thing? No. That's justice.

I'd like to pause a moment to point out that despite the very reasonable tone and philosophical sounding paragraphs you wrote, it's clear that you are selectively choosing to characterize these items in a way that justifies a choice that I suspect you made already, namely, to reject your religion.


God also exhibits jealousy. In fact, he admits to it. Plenty know the commandment, “Thou shall not worship any god but me,” but not as many know the verse where the commandment comes from. Exodus 2-17 says “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.” Not only is god jealous, he also shows vengeance, as he takes out the “sins” of the parents not only on them, but on their children, their children’s children, and their grandchildren’s children. On top of all that, God prohibits his us from displaying the same jealousy that he does in another commandment, claiming that “Thou shall not covet your neighbor’s house” and “Thou shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.”

Again, you're trying to impose the same circumstances to God as to human beings. God expects His followers to obet Him to exclusion. This is because He alone has a plan for His children. To worship another deity is, at best, to follow somenoe else's path. At the very least it ignores His plan, and leads His people astray. This is especially true considering that cults worshipping other gods were nothing more than human inventions anyway, which, from the point of view of the Plan of Salvation, is a clear-cut case of the blind leading the blind.

You seem to take issue with the use of the term "jealous." I don't think it's used in a self-depricating sense here. I think He uses the term specifically to reinforce the point that He has *no* tolerance for distractions from the worship of Him.

There's no direct connection between that "jealousy" and the jealousy of coveting that which belongs to your neighbor, except for the common theme of avoiding distraction. We aren't to covet that which belongs to others not only because it can lead to theft/adultery, but also because to be so mentally focused on such things is to be distracted away from the spiritual issues we're supposed to be dewlling on.

As for vengeance, once again God has such authority, but don't let the terminology be yuor stumbling block. Consider the audience. During the time of the Old Testament, the tone of Scripture was much stronger than it was later on. We can only conclude that this was necessary for the understanding of the audience. With that in mind, we have an interesting insight into how God would punish iniquity... by threatening someone's progeny (sometimes out to 7 generations!) That would be a heavy incentive to keep people focused, but is it fair?

It's not like you or I or anyone else are qualified to make that judgement, but I will say that nobody ever promised that life was fair. It could be that some mechanism is at work here where it really was necessary to censure a family over several generations once it fell away. It may be that in a way those who have a rough life because of the sins of their fathers are somehow strengthened by the adversity. Can we truly say that life is fair even today? I could be diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, or you could be hit by a car. Either of us might live to be 110 years old. Is it fair?

Maybe we don't judge fairness correctly. Remember why we're here on Earth. We're here to learn about God, to learn to follow Him, to experience evil so that we can learn to overcome it and to accept Jesus Christ and be baptized in our physical body. With those goals in mind, does all the rest really matter?


God plays favorites. Granted this occurs far more in Judaism, but it occurs nonetheless. The Jews, the only followers of God up until Jesus, were put ahead of many other types of people throughout the old testament. Perhaps the greatest example was when God chose the Jews over the Egyptians, freeing the Jews from slavery and once again displaying his murderous tendencies, killing the first born son of every Egyptian household.

You're leaving out a lot of elements. Firstly, just as God has been known to punish over several generations, He has also blessed people's progeny as a result of Covenants and rewards. The Jews who were made slaves in Egypt were all direct descendants of Abraham, whose forefathers were only a couple of generations removed from him. The example you cite results from God's covenant with Abraham. You also seem to be forgetting that these peoplehad to be freed from slavery specifically BECAUSE they were made slaves! I'm pretty sure if you went back to Egypt under the reign of Ramases the Jewish slaves would disagree with you when you suggest that they were God's favorites.

Did He punish Egypt? Yes He did, but not out of the blue. The Egyptians were given a choice to release the Jews peacefully. In fact, several warnings were given before the Pharaoah finally ordered them freed. Don't you think, on some level, Egypt deserved punishment for enslaving these people in the first place?


However, God is also a liar, and has enslaved us all to his will from the beginning. Free will is why he punished Adam and Eve in the garden. Free will is why God took a step back, letting humanity run its course, and is subsequently for all of the pain, suffering, war, disease, and everything else wrong with the world. But were we ever truly given free will?

Romans 8:28-30 spells it out rather obviously: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified" Romans says that God called those who love him, but goes on to say that those who he called were “predestined,” and that he subsequently justified and glorified those who were already predestined to love him. What about the people that God hasn’t chosen? Are those people damned from birth, or even before?

Not sure what, exactly, is the lie you're citing, but maybe that's just because we understand this differently.

Predestination is one of those concepts that has led to a LOT of controversy and even a good bit of faction splitting within Christianity. I think the verses you cited are the basis for a lot of Calvinist concepts.

This doesn't mean we dont have free will. God knowing in advance what we will choose in no way restricts what we will decide, since we aren't privy to that knowledge ourselves. When you're playing a game of chess, do you think ahead a few moves, knowing the characteristics of your pieces, your opponent's pieces, and what you know of your opponent himself/herself? That doesn't change the properties of the pieces, it just means you make sure to put them in the right place at the right time to accomplish your goals.

Chess isn't a perfect example, but hopefully it made my point. God knew each one of us from before we were born, and knows when and where to put us on the Earth so that we will be in a position to do the great things He has planned. He knows our strengths and our weaknesses, and can anticpiate what we will do well enough to make the best of it.

The fact is, not that many people are predestined for such key roles in life, but that doesn't somehow make their odds of salvation better than the others. They're just more visible.

He also knows who will reject Him. Let that thought sink in for a bit.


2 Timothy 1:9 is also interesting, saying that "[God] has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity. " Do choices in life, i.e. choices between good and evil, not dictate who gets into heaven? If God has chosen some and not others, do the sins of the chosen and the good deeds of the unchosen not determine salvation?

No. Your'e forgetting 2 things here. 1, Grace. That's what gets people into Heaven, not good deeds. People who choose to follow Him are given the gift of salvation. You don't "earn" your way into Heaven. 2, callings are just that, callings. If you have a calling to a particular task, career or place in life, nothing forces you to go with it. You can choose to ignore it. (Not that I recommend this, mind you.)


In fact, the ultimate story of Christianity, that of Easter, is filled with examples of how we do not have free will. Judas betrays Jesus, who is, according to the Holy Trinity, part of God. Jesus, however, foresees Judas’s betrayal, telling his apostles that one of them will betray him. How can Jesus know this if Judas’s choice of betrayal hasn’t been made yet? If Judas, in fact, was predestined to betray the son of God, how can God hold him responsible for his actions? Also, did Jesus not destroy sin by dying on the cross? Do those sins not include Judas’s betrayal?

Again, "predestination" means it was known ahead of time what would happen, not that he was manipulated into betraying Jesus. Jesus, being God, saw the future and knew, even though the decision hadn't yet been made. Has it occurred to you that the choice of Judas as an Apostle may very well have been because Jesus KNEW he had the character weaknesses that would lead him to betray, and thus play his part in the plan? Judas is still responsible for his actions because he CHOSE them. He chose to follow Christ, he chose to betray Him, he chose to commit suicide.

And no, that sin didn't include Judas' betrayal because Judas didn't repent of his sin. (as far as we know)


On that note, how can any of us be responsible? According to the Bible, noted as the “Word of God,” we are predestined to ether salvation in paradise or eternity in hell, regardless of our actions in life, by a vengeful, jealous, murderous God. Back to the beginning of man, Eve made the choice to eat the apple of the tree. But since we are all predetermined, did she truly have that choice? Did God not destine her from the beginning to betray his word, much like Judas, therefore destining humanity to forever pay for her “sin?”

I think I've covered these questions above, but I should point out the hardly philosophical tone of how we're all condemned by a "vengeful, jealous, murderous God." You reveal yourself.

Did God destine us all from the beginning to live a life of pain, all the time claiming it to be punishment for Eve’s decision, a decision which she never truly made in the first place? Also, if God knows everything, surely he knew from before he even created Eve that she would betray his word, and that he would ultimately cast humanity from the garden. Why would he create Eve simply to ultimately cause humanity pain?

Firstly, I don't believe in Original Sin as something humannity is being punished for. We're answerable for our own actions. Remember that while we did inherit the difficult life on Earth from Adam and Eve, we aren't responsible for the spiritual side. (The same goes for the issues above with the multiple generations)

Second, this case is similar to Judas. Just because Eve's actions played into the plan doesn't somehow change the fact that she disobeyed God, and has to answer for it.


If God truly exists, then he is a being far from omnipotent. He murders out of anger, is jealous of his creation, and enacts vengeance upon his creation. He also sets the rules of humanity against the nature of humanity, and punishes humanity for breaking his rules, while knowing full well that they have no choice in the matter, being predestined from the beginning.

I answered most of this, but I'll draw out something you said and expand on it. You said that He sets the rules of humanity against the nature of humanity. You're exactly right. That's exactly what He did. And it's a good thing, too. Why?

Have you ever wondered what fasting is for? Ever wondered why it's improper to go around naked? Ever wondered why gluttony is a sin? It's because part of learning to follow Christ and gain understanding is the act of learning to master our bodies, to master our carnal urges and desires in order to reach a level of spiritual enlightenment. My body has built-in instincts to eat, to mate, to do whatever is necessary to guarantee survival and passing my genes on to another generation. These instincts sometimes work in opposition to my spiritual needs. By constantly giving in to my body's wants, I'd be so distracted all the time from spiritual enlightenment that I'd never make any progress. For this reason we fast. It's a way of asserting dominance over our own bodies and letting our spirit be in control.

Even in day to day society this is expected of us, to some degree. Thats' why stealing is wrong. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. Cheating on your spouse is wrong. Refusing to give food to the hungry is wrong, yet all of those are things that we might be instinctively driven to do.


Now, before you post, I want you to defend your God in a similar, thought out fashion. I do not want posts about how God doesn’t exist so this doesn’t matter, or that you are Muslim and the quotes I provided don’t prove anything because you don’t believe in them. I said, from the beginning, that this entire argument takes place for the sake of Christians, or those who can possibly suspend their disbelief. I do not want flames, I do not want insults, and I do not want spam. Anyhow who does so will immediately be reported. Do not make me fill the moderation forum because of one thread.

Also, I fully understand that the enormity of my argument cannot possibly encompass a mere two and a half pages on Microsoft Word. Getting on my case for being short in certain sections or for only providing one example in others is impractical. I am not publishing a series of books. I am posting on an internet forum. In addition, do not hijack the thread with posts in regards to these following guidelines. I don’t care if you think you should have the right to flame or insult or spam this thread. Make your own thread to talk about it.

That being said, I look forward to this thread and the replies that will shortly come. Is God truly perfect? Do we really have free will? Are some of us really damned before birth, either from the sins of our fathers or by God’s random judgment? What do you think?

When you read this, ask yourself carefully what exactly your goal is. Are you TRULY trying to learn, or are you just looking for people to put up philosophical targets for you to shoot down to justify your decision? Think carefully.

that's pretty watered down Calvinism, are you sure you are Calvinist?

Indeed. It's leaning towards "elect" being, not chosen by God, but chosen by the actions of human beings. Sounds vaguely Pelagian to me. :eek:

(Not that I have a problem with that. The Catholic Church may have declared Pelagius to be a heretic, but nearly every Christian denomination is Pelagian.)


All we know so far, is she is a girl, and due about the first week of March. More shall follow. (Oh, and she'll most likely be called "Kalani", which is Hawaiian for 'heavenly'... or something).

That's a pretty name. I'll want to see pictures! hehe

*sigh* I need more children... Leilani is a really pretty name, too... :(

Kalani Olina (last name)
(From heaven)+(Joyous)

Wait, so you contend that divine scripture is a HUMAN invention - albeit divinely inspired - instead of the transcribed Word?

um.. DUH!

even if there was a time when god took control over the hand of whichever writer you might choose, we dont have that original copy. that there should be no transcription or translation errors is impossible. there is no transcribed word of god.

Kalani Olina (last name)
(From heaven)+(Joyous)

That really is very pretty. :)

At the moment, choices are either Kalani Valentine (depending on if she turns up in time), or Kalani Dove (named for a Cherokee ancestor on mommy's side)...

Indeed. It's leaning towards "elect" being, not chosen by God, but chosen by the actions of human beings. Sounds vaguely Pelagian to me. :eek:


That makes the most sense to me, also - based on the idea of the Great Commission.

(While I personally see the 'purest' form of Christianity as being pre-Pauline,and thus, not available to Gentiles - if you are going to accept the Great Commission verses, I don't see how they can be reconciled with the Calvinistic idea of election).


(Not that I have a problem with that. The Catholic Church may have declared Pelagius to be a heretic, but nearly every Christian denomination is Pelagian.)


Hasn't the Catholic Church declared just about everyone to be heretic, at some point? ;)


That's a pretty name. I'll want to see pictures! hehe

I'll spam the forum with a thread about it. :D

4 is where I go with it, I always read it as "you were meant in the beginning to have a relationship with Christ" (as in everyone was) so you are returning to the default when you repent. make sense?

Makes sense to me.

The "preknowledge" idea would fit as well.


Wait, so you contend that divine scripture is a HUMAN invention - albeit divinely inspired - instead of the transcribed Word?

If you mean what I think you mean, then yes. God didn't personally write down Scripture, nor do I think God took over those who did to force their hand into writing *exactly* what God intended. Of course, even if God had done so, there would still be the problem of the interpretation that comes after...

I don't think God intends for us to be infallible. We are supposed to seek the truth, but I don't know that any of us truly find it.

"Chanak na'ar derek peh zaqen cuwr", literally "Train (or dedicate) a child (also translatable as boy, youth or servant) [in the] way (road, direction or manner) [he should go] (literally - 'mouth', the indication is 'in the way you are told') to grow old (or to age) to turn aside (to depart, to come to an end, or to be removed).

Symbolic translation: "Train a child in the direction you are told, (and) he will not depart from it when he grows".

How do you interpret the Hebrew?

Did you read the context of the statement?

That makes the most sense to me, also - based on the idea of the Great Commission.

(While I personally see the 'purest' form of Christianity as being pre-Pauline,and thus, not available to Gentiles - if you are going to accept the Great Commission verses, I don't see how they can be reconciled with the Calvinistic idea of election).if you go by that standard, that the message is to only be spread to the Isrealites, then by Clavinistic Standards, the Isrealites are the "elected" and the rest of us are SOL.

Hasn't the Catholic Church declared just about everyone to be heretic, at some point? ;)Did they ever Declare oversized hats being heretic? :p

I'll spam the forum with a thread about it. :DWill hold you to that promise. :D

With Calvinism, in the end, it all boils down to a total lack of personal responsibility. We can't be good unless God makes us be good. We can't repent unless God makes us repent. And we're bad because God decided that the original human beings' sin should make us all evil by nature.

There is no lack of personal responsibility with all that.

In the end, Calvinism means that God is the sole entity responsible for who is saved and who is not.

And that's how it should be.

The saints in heaven will only be able to say: "I'm here because of God. He gave me something I don't deserve."

And the reprobates in hell will only be able to say "I'm here because of God. He gave me what I deserve."

Indeed. It's leaning towards "elect" being, not chosen by God, but chosen by the actions of human beings. Sounds vaguely Pelagian to me. :eek:

Not really.

The only reason they are able to repent is because they are chosen by God.

You're responding to what the steroetype of Calvinist belief is, not what it truly is.

God chose to save Noah because he was the only man loyal to God left in the world. If you were God, and all your people but one family hated you, who would you have spared? And yes, God is a jealous God. What of it? Bowing to other Gods is a sin, because he is the ONLY god. Coveting your neighbours wife is a sin, because she is the wife of your neighbour. In Egypt, he didn't see Egyptian and Israelite. He saw people who had painted their doors with the blood of a lamb, and those that hadn't. I'm sure there was at least one Israelite family who didn't do as Moses had told them, and so God killed their first-born too. He kills the sinful, and only the sinful. In the garden of Eden, he told Adam and Eve NOT to eat from the tree, he didn't say "Do as you please, I don't care." It was not free will there. They disobeyed his commands and so he punished them and the serpent. And as for letting war and disease go on, everyone, no exceptions, faces judgement when they die. And yes, people who God knew wouldn't love him are doomed. God doesn't like it, however. Adam and Eve made sure people would go to hell, if they had obeyed God and not eaten from the tree, we would all go to heaven! And no, you have to be a christian to go there. Being a good person isn't enough, because there are kind athiests. Saying that Jesus destroyed sin on the cross is the height of ignorance. Of course he didn't! He insured that he would take the blame for our sins so that we could be with God in heaven. Also, what if our futures can be changed? What if God didn't know the outcome of Adam and Eve with the tree? It may have been different, if Eve hadn't eaten. While humanity is naturally sinful, that doesn't mean we can't choose our actions. We will all sin in our lifetime, but the bible tells us that we can be forgiven.
God is perfect.
No, we don't have free will. God has set rules.
God does not judge randomly.
Yes, many of us will perish because we have not asked forgiveness.

This thought out well enough for you?

By the way Smunkee, you never replied to Post #161 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12237225&postcount=161).

There is no lack of personal responsibility with all that.

Yes, there is. If the situation is as described, then ALL responsibility for our actions lies with God. God has made it so that we can only be evil unless God decides to make us good. If we are bad, it is God's fault. If we are good, it is God's fault. There is no personal responsibility - only God's responsibility.

And that's how it should be.

Really? I thought you had a problem with people making God the "author of sin"?? You are doing just that.

The saints in heaven will only be able to say: "I'm here because of God. He gave me something I don't deserve."

And the reprobates in hell will only be able to say "I'm here because of God. He gave me what I deserve."

The latter is absolutely wrong. They don't deserve it, because it is up to God. Those who go to heaven go to heaven on the whim of God. Same for those who go to hell. You can't have it both ways. Either God is wholly responsible, or God is not wholly responsible.

According to Calvinism, human beings are all damned because of the sins of others. God can choose to save the "elect", but the rest of all humanity are just acting as they were made to act by God's decision to apply the sins of others to them. As such, they cannot be held personally responsible for doing exactly what God has made them to do.

The best analogy for Calvinism I have heard is this:
All of humanity are standing in line on the way to Hell. God is standing beside the line, occasionally pointing at someone saying, "You, you come with me." Those who are in the line are not there by their own will or because of their actions, but because they cannot do otherwise. Those who leave the line are not there by their own will or because of their actions, but because they cannot do otherwise. The only responsibility here is God's.

Not really.

The only reason they are able to repent is because they are chosen by God.

You're responding to what the steroetype of Calvinist belief is, not what it truly is.

My dear, I've studied Calvin, along with others. But you really do need to make up your mind. Are they elect because they repent or do they repent because they are elect? You seem to be saying the former, while Calvin would undoubtedly say the latter.

If one cannot repent without God causing it, how can we hold them responsible for not repenting? It's like yelling at a person with no legs for not getting up and walking.

God chose to save Noah because he was the only man loyal to God left in the world. If you were God, and all your people but one family hated you, who would you have spared? And yes, God is a jealous God. What of it? Bowing to other Gods is a sin, because he is the ONLY god. Coveting your neighbours wife is a sin, because she is the wife of your neighbour. In Egypt, he didn't see Egyptian and Israelite. He saw people who had painted their doors with the blood of a lamb, and those that hadn't. I'm sure there was at least one Israelite family who didn't do as Moses had told them, and so God killed their first-born too. He kills the sinful, and only the sinful. In the garden of Eden, he told Adam and Eve NOT to eat from the tree, he didn't say "Do as you please, I don't care." It was not free will there. They disobeyed his commands and so he punished them and the serpent. And as for letting war and disease go on, everyone, no exceptions, faces judgement when they die. And yes, people who God knew wouldn't love him are doomed. God doesn't like it, however. Adam and Eve made sure people would go to hell, if they had obeyed God and not eaten from the tree, we would all go to heaven! And no, you have to be a christian to go there. Being a good person isn't enough, because there are kind athiests. Saying that Jesus destroyed sin on the cross is the height of ignorance. Of course he didn't! He insured that he would take the blame for our sins so that we could be with God in heaven. Also, what if our futures can be changed? What if God didn't know the outcome of Adam and Eve with the tree? It may have been different, if Eve hadn't eaten. While humanity is naturally sinful, that doesn't mean we can't choose our actions. We will all sin in our lifetime, but the bible tells us that we can be forgiven.
God is perfect.
No, we don't have free will. God has set rules.
God does not judge randomly.
Yes, many of us will perish because we have not asked forgiveness.

This thought out well enough for you?


if that is the view of god that makes the most sense to you then fine but he is still a heartless bastard in your version, not an all loving god.

he hardens pharoahs heart so that he wont let the jews go so that god can show the fullness of his powers, then he gives the secret code to moses, leaving the egyptians with no way to avoid the plague.


because he has done a lousy job letting people know he is there and what he wants, he has to kill every living thing on earth that doesnt make it into the ark (except the fish, maybe dolphins are god's true chosen people). oh yeah thats VERRRRRRY loving.

everyone last one of us will die, many well before their time, whether we ask him for forgiveness or not.

there is no fairness in your version. there is no love. just a powerful bastard who doesnt mind killing in order to fix what he messed up.

no thank you.

Now, given that God, in his Christian form, exists, there are a series of events which demonstrate not only God’s fallacy, but the fact that we were doomed, from our original creation in the garden, and not from the events in that garden, to a life of moral servitude and repentance to God.

First of all, the Christian idea of God is that he is omnipotent, free of fault, and perfect in every way. That being said, Christian texts contain plenty of examples to the contrary. God, for instance, is a murder, and one on a world-wide scale at that. Disgusted of the choices his “children” made, God, without the empathy and high moral ground he demands from those very “children,” decided to not only kill them, but drown them at that. He chose Noah’s family, playing favorites, and drowned the rest of humanity.

God also exhibits jealousy. In fact, he admits to it. Plenty know the commandment, “Thou shall not worship any god but me,” but not as many know the verse where the commandment comes from. Exodus 2-17 says “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.” Not only is god jealous, he also shows vengeance, as he takes out the “sins” of the parents not only on them, but on their children, their children’s children, and their grandchildren’s children. On top of all that, God prohibits his us from displaying the same jealousy that he does in another commandment, claiming that “Thou shall not covet your neighbor’s house” and “Thou shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.”

God plays favorites. Granted this occurs far more in Judaism, but it occurs nonetheless. The Jews, the only followers of God up until Jesus, were put ahead of many other types of people throughout the old testament. Perhaps the greatest example was when God chose the Jews over the Egyptians, freeing the Jews from slavery and once again displaying his murderous tendencies, killing the first born son of every Egyptian household.

However, God is also a liar, and has enslaved us all to his will from the beginning. Free will is why he punished Adam and Eve in the garden. Free will is why God took a step back, letting humanity run its course, and is subsequently for all of the pain, suffering, war, disease, and everything else wrong with the world. But were we ever truly given free will?

Romans 8:28-30 spells it out rather obviously: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified" Romans says that God called those who love him, but goes on to say that those who he called were “predestined,” and that he subsequently justified and glorified those who were already predestined to love him. What about the people that God hasn’t chosen? Are those people damned from birth, or even before?

2 Timothy 1:9 is also interesting, saying that "[God] has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity. " Do choices in life, i.e. choices between good and evil, not dictate who gets into heaven? If God has chosen some and not others, do the sins of the chosen and the good deeds of the unchosen not determine salvation?

In fact, the ultimate story of Christianity, that of Easter, is filled with examples of how we do not have free will. Judas betrays Jesus, who is, according to the Holy Trinity, part of God. Jesus, however, foresees Judas’s betrayal, telling his apostles that one of them will betray him. How can Jesus know this if Judas’s choice of betrayal hasn’t been made yet? If Judas, in fact, was predestined to betray the son of God, how can God hold him responsible for his actions? Also, did Jesus not destroy sin by dying on the cross? Do those sins not include Judas’s betrayal?

On that note, how can any of us be responsible? According to the Bible, noted as the “Word of God,” we are predestined to ether salvation in paradise or eternity in hell, regardless of our actions in life, by a vengeful, jealous, murderous God. Back to the beginning of man, Eve made the choice to eat the apple of the tree. But since we are all predetermined, did she truly have that choice? Did God not destine her from the beginning to betray his word, much like Judas, therefore destining humanity to forever pay for her “sin?”

Did God destine us all from the beginning to live a life of pain, all the time claiming it to be punishment for Eve’s decision, a decision which she never truly made in the first place? Also, if God knows everything, surely he knew from before he even created Eve that she would betray his word, and that he would ultimately cast humanity from the garden. Why would he create Eve simply to ultimately cause humanity pain?

If God truly exists, then he is a being far from omnipotent. He murders out of anger, is jealous of his creation, and enacts vengeance upon his creation. He also sets the rules of humanity against the nature of humanity, and punishes humanity for breaking his rules, while knowing full well that they have no choice in the matter, being predestined from the beginning.

Now, before you post, I want you to defend your God in a similar, thought out fashion. I do not want posts about how God doesn’t exist so this doesn’t matter, or that you are Muslim and the quotes I provided don’t prove anything because you don’t believe in them. I said, from the beginning, that this entire argument takes place for the sake of Christians, or those who can possibly suspend their disbelief. I do not want flames, I do not want insults, and I do not want spam. Anyhow who does so will immediately be reported. Do not make me fill the moderation forum because of one thread.

Also, I fully understand that the enormity of my argument cannot possibly encompass a mere two and a half pages on Microsoft Word. Getting on my case for being short in certain sections or for only providing one example in others is impractical. I am not publishing a series of books. I am posting on an internet forum. In addition, do not hijack the thread with posts in regards to these following guidelines. I don’t care if you think you should have the right to flame or insult or spam this thread. Make your own thread to talk about it.

That being said, I look forward to this thread and the replies that will shortly come. Is God truly perfect? Do we really have free will? Are some of us really damned before birth, either from the sins of our fathers or by God’s random judgment? What do you think?

You are very severely mistaken. The fact is that it WAS the events in the garden, i.e. Adam's disobedience to God, that doomed mankind. God made Adam sinless; Adam CHOSE to sin. He had free will to obey or disobey God; he CHOSE to disobey God.

And furthermore, God does NOT arbitrarily choose some to be saved and some to be damned to hell. He chooses them BASED ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY ACCEPT HIS SON JESUS CHRIST AS THEIR PERSONAL SAVIOR.

God's thoughts are not our thoughts, neither are our ways His ways, according to Scripture, which also says, "Canst thou by searching find out the Almighty unto perfection?", the answer to which is NO. God cannot be fully understood by a finite human mind, other than what He has revealed about Himself to us in His Holy Scriptures, the King James Bible.
But, when you stand before Him in judgment, you'll have a chance to ask Him about everything; furthermore, He'll have some questions to ask YOU.

... people will tend to say that even if your destination is dependant on your acts and faith and not by His choice.

In fact, people cannot say the latter unless the destination is dependent upon individual choice of some sort. Otherwise, it has nothing to do with what you deserve and everything to do with the whim of God.

Edit: Woah....time warp!

Yes, there is. If the situation is as described, then ALL responsibility for our actions lies with God. God has made it so that we can only be evil unless God decides to make us good. If we are bad, it is God's fault. If we are good, it is God's fault. There is no personal responsibility - only God's responsibility.

You miss the part where we choose to do the things we do.

Really? I thought you had a problem with people making God the "author of sin"?? You are doing just that.

How does God allowing sin make Him the author of sin?

The latter is absolutely wrong. They don't deserve it, because it is up to God. Those who go to heaven go to heaven on the whim of God. Same for those who go to hell. You can't have it both ways. Either God is wholly responsible, or God is not wholly responsible.

Of course they deserve it. They do not want God. They might not want hell, but they prefer it to God.

According to Calvinism, human beings are all damned because of the sins of others. God can choose to save the "elect", but the rest of all humanity are just acting as they were made to act by God's decision to apply the sins of others to them. As such, they cannot be held personally responsible for doing exactly what God has made them to do.

Umm, no. We all sin and all earn our own damnation.

The best analogy for Calvinism I have heard is this:
All of humanity are standing in line on the way to Hell. God is standing beside the line, occasionally pointing at someone saying, "You, you come with me." Those who are in the line are not there by their own will or because of their actions, but because they cannot do otherwise. Those who leave the line are not there by their own will or because of their actions, but because they cannot do otherwise. The only responsibility here is God's.

No. The line is filled with persons walking away from God because they don't want Him. He goes up to some and pulls them out of the line, explains to them what He has done for them, and they turn around (by their own choice) and wlak back toward God.

My dear, I've studied Calvin, along with others. But you really do need to make up your mind. Are they elite because they repent or do they repent because they are elite?

Elite? Elite /=/ elect.

But in answer to your question, they repent because they are elect, and I have never said otherwise.

If one cannot repent without God causing it, how can we hold them responsible for not repenting? It's like yelling at a person with no legs for not getting up and walking.

No. It's like yelling at them for not getting up and walking after they chopped their own legs off on purpose.

The saints in heaven will only be able to say: "I'm here because of God. He gave me something I don't deserve."

And the reprobates in hell will only be able to say "I'm here because of God. He gave me what I deserve."
... people will tend to say that even if your destination is dependant on your acts and faith and not by His choice.

... people will tend to say that even if your destination is dependant on your acts and faith and not by His choice.

No. According to the Arminians, you would have to say (though they never would) "I got here by my own choice. God offered me something, and I'm so smart and moral, I chose to take it."

The Calvinist says "I'm here only by God's doing."

Is that your way of saying you hadn't read the Hebrew, and that your interpretation is based on someone else's translations?

See - I did the translation you were asking for, and now you are changing the focus.

I wasn't asking for a translation. I was pointing out to someone who was trying to retranslate the verse (a translation which would disagree with yours) that if they didn't know Ancient Hebrew, they were merely relying on what someone else had said, a crime that person was accusing me of.

and if you think that, then you really don't know Human Nature. :p

If you think that, then you don't understand glorification.

No. According to the Arminians, you would have to say (though they never would) "I got here by my own choice. God offered me something, and I'm so smart and moral, I chose to take it."

The Calvinist says "I'm here only by God's doing."
and if you think that, then you really don't know Human Nature. :p

Did you read the context of the statement?

Is that your way of saying you hadn't read the Hebrew, and that your interpretation is based on someone else's translations?

See - I did the translation you were asking for, and now you are changing the focus.

he hardens pharoahs heart so that he wont let the jews go so that god can show the fullness of his powers, then he gives the secret code to moses, leaving the egyptians with no way to avoid the plague.

Secret code? WHAT SECRET CODE?
God only hardened Pharaoh's heart AFTER TWO REFUSALS ON PHARAOH'S PART TO OBEY GOD AND LET THE JEWS GO.

No, we don't have free will.

I disagree with you on that point. God certainly DID give us free will, for our demonstrations of love for Him would be worthless if not done out of free will.

HE CHOSE, OF HIS OWN FREE WILL, TO BECOME A MAN, GO TO CALVARY, AND DIE TO SAVE MANKIND FROM HELL, WHEN HE DID NOT HAVE TO DO SO. THAT WAS A DEMONSTRATION OF LOVE FROM FREE WILL.

Is it not reasonable to expect He would give us free will so that we could be capable of responding likewise?

You miss the part where we choose to do the things we do.

If we can choose to do the things we do, then we can choose not to do them. In other words, we can choose not to sin. We can choose to repent. Of course, according to the doctrine of predestination, we can choose neither. We are forced into sin by our very nature and cannot choose to repent - we must be made to do so by the gift of the grace of God.

How does God allowing sin make Him the author of sin?

Allowing sin doesn't. Making it so that all human beings must sin, and can do nothing else unless chosen by God, does. If human beings are made such that, only by first being chosen can they repent, then God is fully responsible for sin.

Of course they deserve it. They do not want God. They might not want hell, but they prefer it to God.

Not according to the doctrine of predestination. According to your doctrine, they CANNOT want God. You can only want God if God first chooses you and makes you want God. If you cannot want God without God making you do it, you cannot be held responsible for not wanting God.

Umm, no. We all sin and all earn our own damnation.

Because, according to your doctrine, we can do nothing else. If we can do nothing else, there is no "earning" involved. There are no other options available. If we live, we will sin. If we sin, we are damned. And we can only be saved if God happens to choose us....

No. The line is filled with persons walking away from God because they don't want Him.

Because God has determined that they cannot want God.

He goes up to some and pulls them out of the line, explains to them what He has done for them, and they turn around (by their own choice) and wlak back toward God.

...never giving the others a chance to even think about it, as they were put in line by the very way that God made them....

Elite? Elite /=/ elect.

Indeed. Wrong word, sorry.

But in answer to your question, they repent because they are elect, and I have never said otherwise.

Then those who do not repent are not responsible for not repenting. They cannot repent, so they cannot be held responsible.

No. It's like yelling at them for not getting up and walking after they chopped their own legs off on purpose.

Wrong. That is only true if they could have turned from sin on their own. According to you, one can only turn from sin if God grants you the grace to do so. As such, in this analogy, all human beings are born with no legs. God grants some people legs, but expects everyone to walk. Those who do not walk, because they have never been granted legs, go to Hell. Those who do walk, because God gave them legs, gain access to heaven.

if you go by that standard, that the message is to only be spread to the Isrealites, then by Clavinistic Standards, the Isrealites are the "elected" and the rest of us are SOL.


To me, this isn't a problem. For two reasons:

One: Basing an opinion only one what Jesus said during his earthly ministry, the rest of us are SOL. He made a deliberate point of being very clear he was for the Jews, except for one or two special exceptions he made as examples to reprove Israel.

Two: Based on the 'spirit' of what Jesus said and did during his earthly ministry, I think there is a strong argument that all are 'saved'... not just those who 'believe', not just those who are 'elected'. It seems to me that 'salvation by grace' makes most sense when it is non-conditional.

Of course, Jews, Gentiles, all or none - it makes little difference to me. :)


Did they ever Declare oversized hats being heretic? :p


Oh probably. Except for Popes. Popes can do anything. God said.


Will hold you to that promise. :D

I'll try. :) What a way to get deleted...

Or, maybe, he was the only 'human'.

The text talks about the sons of God, and the daughters of men - and this has often been taken to mean angels breeding with mortals. Noah being 'pure in his generation', was progenitor of a purely human bloodline - thus, was saved for his true genes... not his piety.

you know what gets me though? God saved his whole family, Ham and all, if Noah was the only righteous man, why did God save the others? I mean He basically starts all over again post flood with the odds against Him (if the odds can truly ever be against God that is)

God chose to save Noah because he was the only man loyal to God left in the world.

Or, maybe, he was the only 'human'.

The text talks about the sons of God, and the daughters of men - and this has often been taken to mean angels breeding with mortals. Noah being 'pure in his generation', was progenitor of a purely human bloodline - thus, was saved for his true genes... not his piety.

You are very severely mistaken. The fact is that it WAS the events in the garden, i.e. Adam's disobedience to God, that doomed mankind. God made Adam sinless; Adam CHOSE to sin. He had free will to obey or disobey God; he CHOSE to disobey God.


There is the counter-argument that God made a 'test' that couldn't be passed, and Adam 'failed' because he was made to do so - literally.

I wasn't asking for a translation. I was pointing out to someone who was trying to retranslate the verse (a translation which would disagree with yours) that if they didn't know Ancient Hebrew, they were merely relying on what someone else had said, a crime that person was accusing me of.

And I have yet to see you offer your own translation.

Physician, heal thyself.

I think it is a misunderstanding.

I think people read 'perfect in his generation', and think it means something it doesn't. Obviously, he wasn't perfect. And 'generation' doesn't mean his contemporaries, or even his era - it means his issue.

It talks about the 'giants' walking the earth (nephilim, children of the Grigori - or Watchers - if I remember my Angelology). It is reasonable to assume that, among these 'men of reknown', Noah's family was the only family descended entirely from the Adamic line.

Thus - the 'odds' aren't against God - he has rebuilt his original construction, a world populated only by humans - no angels or crossbreeds.

that actually rings true for some reason

*researches*

Or, maybe, he was the only 'human'.

The text talks about the sons of God, and the daughters of men - and this has often been taken to mean angels breeding with mortals. Noah being 'pure in his generation', was progenitor of a purely human bloodline - thus, was saved for his true genes... not his piety.

Problem; Noah's Son's wives...

Perhaps, instead, the story is told the was it's supposed to be told.

Genesis 6 5-8
The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them." But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

you know what gets me though? God saved his whole family, Ham and all, if Noah was the only righteous man, why did God save the others? I mean He basically starts all over again post flood with the odds against Him (if the odds can truly ever be against God that is)

I think it is a misunderstanding.

I think people read 'perfect in his generation', and think it means something it doesn't. Obviously, he wasn't perfect. And 'generation' doesn't mean his contemporaries, or even his era - it means his issue.

It talks about the 'giants' walking the earth (nephilim, children of the Grigori - or Watchers - if I remember my Angelology). It is reasonable to assume that, among these 'men of reknown', Noah's family was the only family descended entirely from the Adamic line.

Thus - the 'odds' aren't against God - he has rebuilt his original construction, a world populated only by humans - no angels or crossbreeds.

There is the counter-argument that God made a 'test' that couldn't be passed, and Adam 'failed' because he was made to do so - literally.

Wrong; God did NOT make a test that could not be passed.

Adam could have passed it by simply not eating the forbidden fruit, but he ate it. He ate it of his own free will. If God had had His way, Adam would NOT have eaten it, but Adam did, because God gave him free will. Adam was free to eat or not to eat; he ate. God didn't MAKE adam do ANYTHING; Adam acted of his own free will.

Or, maybe, he was the only 'human'.

The text talks about the sons of God, and the daughters of men - and this has often been taken to mean angels breeding with mortals. Noah being 'pure in his generation', was progenitor of a purely human bloodline - thus, was saved for his true genes... not his piety.

Jesus says that the angels do not marry. Matthew 22:29-31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:29-31;&version=47;)

So then, who are the sons of God? Genesis 6:1-5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206:1-5;&version=47;)

The Nephilim are giants (as in Goliath, not mytholgoy) or monstrous men.

Sons of God refers to angels, but also to God's human followers. This latter definition is the most likely for this verse. Jesus says that angels do not take spouses. Also, God continuously tells His people to not marry with unbelievers, because they will led astray: 2 Corinthians 6:13-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%206:13-15;&version=47;)

To me, this isn't a problem. For two reasons:

One: Basing an opinion only one what Jesus said during his earthly ministry, the rest of us are SOL. He made a deliberate point of being very clear he was for the Jews, except for one or two special exceptions he made as examples to reprove Israel. We went over this on another thread. While I will agree that Jesus was there for the Jews, his message was for the world. He (Jesus) had to correct the Jews in their ways of thinking before they could go out and spread the word to the rest of the world (remove the log in your eye before trying to remove the splinter from another man's eye.) so yes, Jesus was there to save the Jews, but it was so that the Jews could go out and save the world.

Two: Based on the 'spirit' of what Jesus said and did during his earthly ministry, I think there is a strong argument that all are 'saved'... not just those who 'believe', not just those who are 'elected'. It seems to me that 'salvation by grace' makes most sense when it is non-conditional.and the Grace is open to all who accept it. "I am the way, the Truth and the light, no man may come to the father except through me." the way the statement is given (and this may be a translation thang) it sounds like even after the Grace is made available to all, it's not given to those who don't want it. In other words... one has to accept the Grace to be saved.[/QUOTE]

that actually rings true for some reason

*researches*

At the risk of polluting the water, the Book of Hanukh (Book of Enoch, now) actually discusses the issue in more detail.

It is easy to immediately write it off immediately as Apocryphal or Pseudepigraphical - and it is, of course, only as likely to have been written by the literal Patriarch as... for example... Moses detailing his own funeral.

But, the Book of Hanukh was considered canonical to many in Jesus' time - indeed, specific phrasing from Hanukh is quoted in later Christian scripture.

(I'd have to spend some time searching to find you the specific references, if you need them).

I think the point I'm trying to make, is that this is not a new thought. :)

Secret code? WHAT SECRET CODE?
God only hardened Pharaoh's heart AFTER TWO REFUSALS ON PHARAOH'S PART TO OBEY GOD AND LET THE JEWS GO.

the secret code of blood on the door frame. did god telll the egyptians about it? i didnt think so.

now i dont have a problem with the story because i dont take it literally. but if you do take it literally, then tens of thousands of innocent egyptians died throught utterly no fault of their own. it wasnt even pharoahs fault since god made sure he couldnt decide to let the jews go.

[quoteHowever, God is also a liar, and has enslaved us all to his will from the beginning. Free will is why he punished Adam and Eve in the garden. Free will is why God took a step back, letting humanity run its course, and is subsequently for all of the pain, suffering, war, disease, and everything else wrong with the world. But were we ever truly given free will?[/quote]

You just proved we have free will. Ever wonder why God doesn't stop pople from doing bad things? Because God can not interfer with the agency of Man. That is why the world is the way it is, God doesn't intervene. "Worship no God but me," God doesn't stop the worship of Buddah, doesn't stop the worship of the worldly things, doesn't stop the worship of Kami. Because man has free agency.

That was God's plan, to give you free will. It's because of God's plan, you can chose to think the way you think. Satan's plan would have given us no free will. Adam and Eve were technically not punished. Yes they were banished, but it was the will of God that they partook of the forbidden fruit. Adam fell so that man may have his free choice. The fact is, this isn't proof at all, this is your own silly interpretation of the Bible, of which you only have half the truth in your hands. That is also why there are so many diffrent Christian Churches out there. They all see it diffrently.

Man will be punished for their own sins, not for Adam's transgressions.

If we can choose to do the things we do, then we can choose not to do them. In other words, we can choose not to sin. We can choose to repent. Of course, according to the doctrine of predestination, we can choose neither. We are forced into sin by our very nature and cannot choose to repent - we must be made to do so by the gift of the grace of God.

We cannot because we will not. You are confusing will with agency. Do you have the ability to make whatever decision you want? Yes, but natural man wants only evil.

Allowing sin doesn't. Making it so that all human beings must sin, and can do nothing else unless chosen by God, does. If human beings are made such that, only by first being chosen can they repent, then God is fully responsible for sin.

No, they are responsible for their own sin. We all sinned in Adam.

Not according to the doctrine of predestination. According to your doctrine, they CANNOT want God. You can only want God if God first chooses you and makes you want God. If you cannot want God without God making you do it, you cannot be held responsible for not wanting God.

Oh, yes you can. If I pointed a gun to your head and told you to do something, you would be responbile for your choice. The choice might be excused, but you are still responsible.

Because, according to your doctrine, we can do nothing else. If we can do nothing else, there is no "earning" involved. There are no other options available. If we live, we will sin. If we sin, we are damned. And we can only be saved if God happens to choose us....

You can earn something and not want it.

Because God has determined that they cannot want God.

...never giving the others a chance to even think about it, as they were put in line by the very way that God made them....

Because He determined that He would allow them to go their own way, not because He forced them to.

Then those who do not repent are not responsible for not repenting. They cannot repent, so they cannot be held responsible.

They choose to not repent. They have heard the call to repentence and they have refused. They are responsible for their choice.

Wrong. That is only true if they could have turned from sin on their own. According to you, one can only turn from sin if God grants you the grace to do so. As such, in this analogy, all human beings are born with no legs. God grants some people legs, but expects everyone to walk. Those who do not walk, because they have never been granted legs, go to Hell. Those who do walk, because God gave them legs, gain access to heaven.

God gave us legs and we chopped them off. So God gives some legs, but not all.

And I have yet to see you offer your own translation.

Physician, heal thyself.

What is your point?

I'm not disputing your translation. I don't know Ancient Hebrew and I trust that God preserved His Word when Christians translated it (a translation which agrees with yours).

Wrong; God did NOT make a test that could not be passed.

Adam could have passed it by simply not eating the forbidden fruit, but he ate it. He ate it of his own free will. If God had had His way, Adam would NOT have eaten it, but Adam did, because God gave him free will. Adam was free to eat or not to eat; he ate. God didn't MAKE adam do ANYTHING; Adam acted of his own free will.

On the contrary, there is no way Adam could have passed the 'test'.

First: Adam and Eve knew there was one creator - they'd met him. He was, as far as they knew, the only intelligent entity in all of creation. Thus, when someone turns up to gainsay part of what God has already said, there is no reason for Adam or Eve to doubt the source - since only God could be the voice of the serpent.

Second: What God says in the Garden is untrue, and what the serpent says is true. As strange as it seems - since it is not true that Adam and Eve 'will surely die', in that day, or any other. They could as easily have reached out and took the other fruit - the one that grants Life. Indeed - God himself later comments on this, and that is the reason he exiles them.

Third: Adam and Eve are not aware of the concept of lying. Indeed, they are not aware of the concept of 'evil' at all - for the simple reason that they could not 'know' the difference between 'good and evil' until they ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They could not know the serpent lied. They could not know it was wrong to eat the fruit.

Fourth: It is a setup. God tells Adam about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but it is to Eve that the serpent comes.

For these reasons, and more, the 'test' was clearly one that couldn't be passed. Add to which, 'free will' is irrelevent if one cannot understand the consequences of one's actions.

Wrong; God did NOT make a test that could not be passed.

Adam could have passed it by simply not eating the forbidden fruit, but he ate it. He ate it of his own free will. If God had had His way, Adam would NOT have eaten it, but Adam did, because God gave him free will. Adam was free to eat or not to eat; he ate. God didn't MAKE adam do ANYTHING; Adam acted of his own free will.

they lasted less than 3 weeks in the garden. god created adam and eve as people who would make their own decisions. they did so almost immediately. if he didnt want people who would defy him, he had ample opportunity to create them instead.

besides, adam and eve knew nothing of good and bad until after they ate the fruit. how were they to know it was bad to defy god if they had no concept of it?

We went over this on another thread. While I will agree that Jesus was there for the Jews, his message was for the world. He (Jesus) had to correct the Jews in their ways of thinking before they could go out and spread the word to the rest of the world (remove the log in your eye before trying to remove the splinter from another man's eye.) so yes, Jesus was there to save the Jews, but it was so that the Jews could go out and save the world.


I was careful to say 'during his earthly ministry', to try to avoid that can of worms. :)

And - I agree, there is good justification of the idea that the Jews were supposed to spread that message - I seem to recall Old Testament text that says as much - that Israel will be the High Priest to all the world, or some such.


and the Grace is open to all who accept it. "I am the way, the Truth and the light, no man may come to the father except through me." the way the statement is given (and this may be a translation thang) it sounds like even after the Grace is made available to all, it's not given to those who don't want it. In other words... one has to accept the Grace to be saved.

I've seen it translated as "no man may come to the father except [b]because of[/i] me.."

Not much of a difference in word length, but possibly a world of difference in meaning.

After all - if it is 'because' of Jesus, is it 'because' of his sacrifice? That same sacrifice that is considered to pay the bloodguilt of the believer? Could that not mean that, once the vicarious substitution takes place, ALL are brought closer to God?

Gos does not preserve his word.

You admit you don't know the Hebrew, so you'll have to take my word for it.

You obviously do not understand what's going on, which is why I asked if you read the comment in context.

Here is the quote which started the topic:
it was translated screwy, it should be "you can't eat your cake and have it too" see? that makes more sense.

that happens with translations of the Bible too..........weird right?

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. Proverbs 22:6

now, most people think that means that if you raise a kid "right" that they won't ever do anything bad........not true, see it was translated screwy too, it should say "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old it will not depart from him"

totally different meaning.

What is your point?

I'm not disputing your translation. I don't know Ancient Hebrew and I trust that God preserved His Word when Christians translated it (a translation which agrees with yours).

Gos does not preserve his word.

You admit you don't know the Hebrew, so you'll have to take my word for it.

In other words, I can take that as your admission that 'no, you don't know any Hebrew', and 'yes, you will bow to my superior knowledge'?

I reject your comments as irrelevant to the topic because you are not contributing anything beyond confusion of who said what.