NationStates Jolt Archive

You obviously do not understand what's going on, which is why I asked if you read the comment in context.

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'?

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.

If "natural man" all wants only evil, then we cannot blame "natural man" for wanting evil. If he can do nothing else, then it isn't his fault.

No, they are responsible for their own sin. We all sinned in Adam.

So, what you really mean is, "They are all responsible for Adam's sin."

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.

I still have a choice there. I can die, but do what I want, or not die, and do what you want.

According to you, "natural man" can want only evil. There is no choice. It isn't that there is a gun held to his head, it's that he cannot do anything else. His very nature makes it impossible.

In this way, it is more like you popping me under the knee and then telling me, "You had a choice whether or not to kick!" Well, no, I didn't. My body is put together in such way that, if you hit me in the right place, my reflexes cause me to kick. There is no choice involved. It just happens.

If "natural man" can only want evil, then evil is like the reflex. "Natural man" cannot choose good, and thus can only do evil. There is no choice whatsoever. He can only do evil.

You can earn something and not want it.

Indeed. What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

One can only earn something if one's own choice and actions lead them to deserve that thing. If there are no choices to be made - if they can only do wrong - then they deserve nothing.

Because He determined that He would allow them to go their own way, not because He forced them to.

That isn't the doctrine you've been reciting. You said that they can only want evil. That isn't "letting them go their own way." It is putting them on the path of evil - one which they cannot leave.

They choose to not repent. They have heard the call to repentence and they have refused. They are responsible for their choice.

You said that only those who are elect can repent. If you are called to do something, but you are incapable, how can you have been said to refuse.

Once again, you are asking them man with no legs to walk, and then blaming him when he does not do so. He may want to, but he cannot, just as the non-elect, in Calvinist theology cannot repent. If God's grace is first needed before one is capable of repenting, then one cannot be blamed for not repenting if God has not offered grace.

God gave us legs and we chopped them off. So God gives some legs, but not all.

No, according to you, God gave Adam legs, and because Adam sinned, nobody has legs.

You cannot say, "We chopped them off," when you are already saying that we are born without them.

I was under the impression that you were telling another poster that their version of the translation was inferior to your own, and that - unless they could read it from the native Hebrew, they had no right to argue with you.

I translated it from the original Hebrew. You have yet to do so.

Thus, for all your complaining, your knowledge of scripture is certainly no better than that other poster, because you are also getting your meaning from a translation of a translation.

If you want to quibble over the specific meaning of the Hebrew, bring it on.

If you want to stick to English translations, you shouldn't have tried to slap the othe poster into place with the Hebrew.

As a wise prophet once said, "Put up, or shut up".

He wants you to smack me Grave, it's okay, I can take it.

I reject your comments as irrelevant to the topic because you are not contributing anything beyond confusion of who said what.

I was under the impression that you were telling another poster that their version of the translation was inferior to your own, and that - unless they could read it from the native Hebrew, they had no right to argue with you.

I translated it from the original Hebrew. You have yet to do so.

Thus, for all your complaining, your knowledge of scripture is certainly no better than that other poster, because you are also getting your meaning from a translation of a translation.

If you want to quibble over the specific meaning of the Hebrew, bring it on.

If you want to stick to English translations, you shouldn't have tried to slap the othe poster into place with the Hebrew.

As a wise prophet once said, "Put up, or shut up".

If "natural man" all wants only evil, then we cannot blame "natural man" for wanting evil. If he can do nothing else, then it isn't his fault.

Natural /=/ what God requires or intended

So, what you really mean is, "They are all responsible for Adam's sin."

No. We are the spiritual descendants of our first parents just as we are their physical descendants. We inherited their sinful nature. So, "we sinned with them or in them" means we fall under the Curse with them.

I still have a choice there. I can die, but do what I want, or not die, and do what you want.

According to you, "natural man" can want only evil. There is no choice. It isn't that there is a gun held to his head, it's that he cannot do anything else. His very nature makes it impossible.


And the reprobate has a choice too: he can repent and gain fellowship with God, or he can continue on the road to hell. But he doesn't want God, so he chooses to continue on the hell.

In this way, it is more like you popping me under the knee and then telling me, "You had a choice whether or not to kick!" Well, no, I didn't. My body is put together in such way that, if you hit me in the right place, my reflexes cause me to kick. There is no choice involved. It just happens.

If "natural man" can only want evil, then evil is like the reflex. "Natural man" cannot choose good, and thus can only do evil. There is no choice whatsoever. He can only do evil.

Start over.

Man wants only evil. His will (what he desires) is evil only. He has free agency (the choice to do what he wants), but if he wants only evil, he can do only evil. There is no problem with his body so that he wants to do good, but is somehow constrained. He does it freely. You only do what you want to do (with some automatic stuff, but those aren't choices and are therefore not sinful) and sinful man only wants sin.

Indeed. What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

One can only earn something if one's own choice and actions lead them to deserve that thing. If there are no choices to be made - if they can only do wrong - then they deserve nothing.

And they choose to sin.

That isn't the doctrine you've been reciting. You said that they can only want evil. That isn't "letting them go their own way." It is putting them on the path of evil - one which they cannot leave.

This shows that you have not been listening to what I've said, but what some anti-Calvinist textbook has said.

God allowed Adam and Eve to sin. He could have constrained them against it, but He didn't. In their disobedience, sin affected every part of their being. No matter how you split them up, there was sin in every part. So, no matter what desire or action or thought, there was sin (want of conformity or trangression of the Law of God) in it. We inherited this sin from them.

You said that only those who are elect can repent. If you are called to do something, but you are incapable, how can you have been said to refuse.

Once again, you are asking them man with no legs to walk, and then blaming him when he does not do so. He may want to, but he cannot, just as the non-elect, in Calvinist theology cannot repent. If God's grace is first needed before one is capable of repenting, then one cannot be blamed for not repenting if God has not offered grace.

You refuse because you do not want it.

They can be blamed: God commands repentence and they refuse.

No, according to you, God gave Adam legs, and because Adam sinned, nobody has legs.

Yes, but we lost our legs with Adam.

You're just trying to get me to spank you, you minx.

Seriously though, if he is going to quibble meaning with you (should have paid attention, shouldn't I - could have saved myself some time by seeing who this chap was arguing with), based on interpretations of translations... he really shouldn't try to play the 'Hebrew' card unless he has something to back it up.

On the other hand - if we are just playing semantics with the English version, I'd say it's pretty much free for all, and he has no room to denigrate your opinion on the translation and it's meaning. Unless he is willing to allow that his own 'interpretation' is also subjective.

On the other hand, if he's seriously planning on tackling you on scripture, maybe he should stick his head between his legs and kiss his self goodbye...

he said my theology "disturbs" him, and since everything he says (just about) disturbs me.......I think we could get along, other than the part where he says that me not being Calvinist means I don't take scripture "seriously" whatever that means.

I was under the impression that you were telling another poster that their version of the translation was inferior to your own, and that - unless they could read it from the native Hebrew, they had no right to argue with you.

I translated it from the original Hebrew. You have yet to do so.

Thus, for all your complaining, your knowledge of scripture is certainly no better than that other poster, because you are also getting your meaning from a translation of a translation.

If you want to quibble over the specific meaning of the Hebrew, bring it on.

If you want to stick to English translations, you shouldn't have tried to slap the othe poster into place with the Hebrew.

As a wise prophet once said, "Put up, or shut up".

Well, you misuderstood my intent. I was not quibbling over the Hebrew. I was saying that I rely on translations and was pointing out to the other person, that unless they know Ancient Hebrew, they are just as reliant. That was my intent.

He wants you to smack me Grave, it's okay, I can take it.

Umm, no. Why would I want that?

He wants you to smack me Grave, it's okay, I can take it.

You're just trying to get me to spank you, you minx.

Seriously though, if he is going to quibble meaning with you (should have paid attention, shouldn't I - could have saved myself some time by seeing who this chap was arguing with), based on interpretations of translations... he really shouldn't try to play the 'Hebrew' card unless he has something to back it up.

On the other hand - if we are just playing semantics with the English version, I'd say it's pretty much free for all, and he has no room to denigrate your opinion on the translation and it's meaning. Unless he is willing to allow that his own 'interpretation' is also subjective.

On the other hand, if he's seriously planning on tackling you on scripture, maybe he should stick his head between his legs and kiss his self goodbye...

he said my theology "disturbs" him, and since everything he says (just about) disturbs me.......I think we could get along, other than the part where he says that me not being Calvinist means I don't take scripture "seriously" whatever that means.

The word "predestination" is Scripture. Therefore, if you believe Scripture to be inerrant (as you say you do) you must have some belief in predestination. If you do not, there's a problem. That belief need not agree with the Reformed/Calvinist definition, but you need to have one.

That's all I've said.

Same reason I do... because she is teh hotness, and she'd get all frisky?

Well, I'm not married to her.

But even so, wouldn't I want to be the one to do it then?
Why would I want you to do it?

The word "predestination" is Scripture. Therefore, if you believe Scripture to be inerrant (as you say you do) you must have some belief in predestination. If you do not, there's a problem. That belief need not agree with the Reformed/Calvinist definition, but you need to have one.

That's all I've said.

believing in scriptural innerency doesn't negate me trying to find an accurate translation and studying that translation so that I understand the basic who, what, when, where, and why of each portion before applying it to my daily life.

I am sure there are translations of the Bible that you would not necessarily find to be innerant.

people who believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures
terrify me...

Even if you believe that Scripture is Divinely Inspired through the Holy Spirit surely people must be aware that they are Human writings and therefore limited as such....

I've already explained my position regarding the OT , much of it is misconceived by people seeking explanation for events and placing the responsiblity on God and the "sinful" nature of the "people".

To deduce this human interpretation is reflective of the true nature of the Mind of God is terrifying !!! Not only that, it gives fundamentalist,evangelical, protestants some sort of protocol to induce the Mind of God onto contemporary life - the kind of "God punishes gays with AIDS" mentality...

There follows no concept of God's Love , and the grace of God in bestowing Free will upon us , our ability to be most God-like in Our Intellect and our ability to Love - Freely !!!

There is a rejection of Natural law - our inherantly-perceived "Tao" which is a form of Universal Divine Revelation which reflects God's image throughout all creation and most intrinsically within the Human Soul.

There is fundamental contradiction and contrariety within their regard to teachings of Christ in which Jesus' teaching and actions are judged solely by the way it compares to the rest of the bible - NOT the other way round!!!

As for pre-destination and Calvinist dread - it is antipathetic to the whole meaning of the gospels - for there to be no necessity for participation within the redemption or repentance processes is anathema to Human free - Will and the Love of God - in fact it removes the necessity for creation.

God dissipates in a puff of illogicality ...

if God exists - it certainly cannot be rational for Him to be a part of a calvinistic structure and remain benign - God would be a malcious vindictive trickster who rewards and punishes indiscriminately according to Divine whim.

To any rational human this woud be perceived as Evil - and therefore anathema to all he or she stands for...this cannot be a valid perception of an Omniscient,omnipotent ,omnipresent Divinity exemplified as Truth, Love, Life and Beauty........

the catholics and the orthodox have an infinitely more worthwhile and beneficial approach to scriptures than the literalists within protestantism.

he said my theology "disturbs" him, and since everything he says (just about) disturbs me.......I think we could get along, other than the part where he says that me not being Calvinist means I don't take scripture "seriously" whatever that means.

We two manage to get along reasonably well, me and thee... so there are bigger gaps that can be bridged, no?

I certainly don't take scripture seriously - except in as much as I think if someone is going to claim it as authority, they better make sure they know what it says. :)


The problem you will face is this idea of 'election'. Jesus made a big point of saying how we are all sinners, and none is better or worse than any other - but 'election' flies in the face of that, because it means some people must be 'better'... which is why it is so appealing to those who think they are 'elected'.

The Jehovah's Witnesses have much the same idea.

And, I find it a flaw in both ideas - since it is a pride in sin-nature, and I can't reconcile it in either case, with the words attributed to the Jewish Carpenter.

Umm, no. Why would I want that?

Same reason I do... because she is teh hotness, and she'd get all frisky?

Well, you misuderstood my intent. I was not quibbling over the Hebrew. I was saying that I rely on translations and was pointing out to the other person, that unless they know Ancient Hebrew, they are just as reliant. That was my intent.

And the problem with that is, you are asserting one interpretation as superior.

You know no Hebrew, thus you only have these 'interpretations' to rely on. That's pretty shaky ground, and all the more shaky when you brought in the question of the Hebrew scripture.

And the problem with that is, you are asserting one interpretation as superior.

You know no Hebrew, thus you only have these 'interpretations' to rely on. That's pretty shaky ground, and all the more shaky when you brought in the question of the Hebrew scripture.

I still think you misunderstand.

She said that she has the correct translation and that I listen to the traslations of man. I told her that unless she knows Hebrew, she's just as reliant.

I admit I am reliant on the translations of others. I was not speaking about interpretation. I am asserting that I will go with the translations I have. If she knows Hebrew, then I should follow her translation. But she doesn't, so I should follow the translations of the persons who have spent large portions of their lives translating Scripture from the earliest records to modern languages.

Just a tiny qualification...

there is no indication that Jesus was ever a carpenter,
nor that he was a "son" of a carpenter...

the greek word used is "technon"
which merely means "craftsman"

the lack of any reasonable amounts of timber from the surounding scrubland of galileee would also be indicativ ethat it is less than likely that joseph was anything of the sort.

It is of course possible, but it is more likely he was something else - it is merely tradition that he was a carpenter - not fact , nor corroborated by scripture.

believing in scriptural innerency doesn't negate me trying to find an accurate translation and studying that translation so that I understand the basic who, what, when, where, and why of each portion before applying it to my daily life.

I am sure there are translations of the Bible that you would not necessarily find to be innerant.

I agree with everything you've said here, but I disagree with your application.

This thread still remotely on topic? Or as he decended into a brawl between various people? If its the former, I'll go ahead and post my response to the original post -- if its the later, I won't bother to waste time.

I agree with everything you've said here, but I disagree with your application.

I disagree with yours. what's your point?

Maybe you secretly thnk I'm pretty?

*blushes*

I think you are pretty.

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. in the New International version the verse reads...
9 This is the account of Noah.
Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God. which could be what the "Perfect in his Generation" meant.

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.except by that reasoning, God is telling them to do two things contrary of themselves. The normal reaction should've been to seek out God and seek out reassurances of the fate of eating of the fruit. It's like when you tell a child one thing and then you go and give a conflicting order, they will question and if another is giving that conflicting order, the child would confirm.

However, since Adam and Eve were not without intelligence, (they did name all the animals and did talk with God) they could've chosen to wait to confir with God.

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.depends on what is meant by "will surely die" is it a physical death, or a spiritual one. it was the sin of disobediance that seperated Man and God. "The wages of Sin is Death" can mean a spiritual death, not only a physical one.

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.except it goes back to my first point. they were given conflicting information and instead of seeking out the truth (something that doesn't require the knowledge of Good and Evil) they chose to believe the serpent (who if you read, never bit of the fruit itself, infact, there is speculation that the serpent didn't touch the tree and 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.and Eve's reply to the serpent says she knew of God's command.

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?Because Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice. the Last Sacrifice. thus all are brought closer to God, but to be saved means you have to accept what Jesus did, an elected choice, not what Chietuste is saying is a choice of being elected.

Well, I'm not married to her.

But even so, wouldn't I want to be the one to do it then?
Why would I want you to do it?

Maybe you secretly thnk I'm pretty?

I don't know if this has already been posted or not but I'd just like to post a simple reason as to why pretty much all christianity is based upon a "lie".

If one is wanting to follow the christian God then the only place to turn to is the Bible right? But there are a few problems in that department.

The Bible was not written by God. It was not even written by Jesus. To my knowledge, not only was most of the christian bible written at least fifty years after the death of Jesus but it has also been rewritten so many times by so many people that it is probably nothing like it was when originally scribed. Therefore anything that is derived from the bible is totally distorted and cannot be relied upon as an accurate representation of what was said by god or Jesus. And yes, it contradicts itself. How anyone can base their entire life on a book that contradicts itself on the first page is beyond me.
Oh and one other point, apparently we were created for the purpose of worshipping God, yet a perfect being such as he should not require any form of worshipping from us or else he is just being vain- which is rather like that deadly sin known as pride. I don't know if there is a god or not but I'm quite certain that if there is then he is not as benevolent as religions tend to make him out to be.
*Also, before Eve ate the fruit of the tree she had no awareness and no free will (Forgive me if this bit is sketchy, it's been a while since I read the Bible) and so therefore she was no more than a mindless puppet. Eating of the apple gave humans free will, and through that free will- power. God has been trying to repress us ever since. Is this because God is afraid of what we might do with our free will? Or is it because he is jealous that someone else has the power to choose right and wrong besides him?

the grace of God in bestowing Free will upon us
Umm... Didn't God get angry when we got free will?

Natural /=/ what God requires or intended

Who makes "natural" other than God? Is there an entity higher than God that determines what is and is not natural? If our nature precludes the choice of repentence, whose fault can that be but God's?

No. We are the spiritual descendants of our first parents just as we are their physical descendants. We inherited their sinful nature. So, "we sinned with them or in them" means we fall under the Curse with them.

....through no action or choice of our own.

And the reprobate has a choice too: he can repent and gain fellowship with God, or he can continue on the road to hell. But he doesn't want God, so he chooses to continue on the hell.

Wait, wait. Make up your mind. Before, you made it clear that reprobate cannot repent - that anyone who can repent will - they are elect.

Here, just answer one question: Can a person who has not been chosen to be elect repent?

Start over.

Man wants only evil. His will (what he desires) is evil only. He has free agency (the choice to do what he wants), but if he wants only evil, he can do only evil. There is no problem with his body so that he wants to do good, but is somehow constrained. He does it freely. You only do what you want to do (with some automatic stuff, but those aren't choices and are therefore not sinful) and sinful man only wants sin.

But, before you said he could repent if he wanted to. Now, you're saying he only wants evil and therefore cannot. Which is it?

How can you say he "does it freely" when he can do only evil. If one can only do evil, that is the only option available. Thus, he is not choosing to evil - there is no choice available.

And they choose to sin.

It isn't a choice if you can do nothing else.

This shows that you have not been listening to what I've said, but what some anti-Calvinist textbook has said.

No, I've been listening to what you've said -every inconsistent word of it. You've been waffling between Calvinism and Pelagianism. First you tell me the non-elect could choose to repent, then you say they cannot do anything but evil.

I'll ask again. Can the non-elect repent?

God allowed Adam and Eve to sin. He could have constrained them against it, but He didn't. In their disobedience, sin affected every part of their being. No matter how you split them up, there was sin in every part. So, no matter what desire or action or thought, there was sin (want of conformity or trangression of the Law of God) in it. We inherited this sin from them.

And God decided that we would "inherit this sin," correct? We didn't make any choices. We never had the option not to sin.

Unless all of humanity is one big hive mind, then it is God who has determined that the sins of two would be applied to all - making us incapable of doing otherwise.

You refuse because you do not want it.

They can be blamed: God commands repentence and they refuse.

I'll ask again, can one repent without God first granting them grace?

If the answer is no, they aren't refusing, they are incapable.

Yes, but we lost our legs with Adam.

....through no fault of our own. Thus, we are being punished for Adam. I seem to remember a passage that says a man shall not be punished for another's sins...... Oh well.

I disagree with yours. what's your point?

Nothing, just reiterating.

Maybe you secretly thnk I'm pretty?

Nnnoooo...
<.<
>.>

This thread still remotely on topic? Or as he decended into a brawl between various people? If its the former, I'll go ahead and post my response to the original post -- if its the later, I won't bother to waste time.

it comes and goes

the OP isnt involved in the thread any more and no one much liked his point of view anyway. but if you can make a response that is of a readable size...under 250 words maybe... go for it.

Just a tiny qualification...

there is no indication that Jesus was ever a carpenter,
nor that he was a "son" of a carpenter...

the greek word used is "technon"
which merely means "craftsman"

the lack of any reasonable amounts of timber from the surounding scrubland of galileee would also be indicativ ethat it is less than likely that joseph was anything of the sort.

It is of course possible, but it is more likely he was something else - it is merely tradition that he was a carpenter - not fact , nor corroborated by scripture.

In the same way that the Hebrew scripture reference to 'a maiden' is read as 'virgin', so the Greek scripture reference to 'tekton' is read as 'carpenter'.

Why does the modern bible read 'maiden' as 'virgin'? To assure a link between Jesus and the prophecy of messiah.

Why does the modern bible read 'artisan' as 'carpenter'? For the same reason - Isaiah talks about a carpenter (charash - although, again, other meanings are possible), and so it is assumed that Jesus must have been a carpenter.

*blushes*

I think you are pretty.

Oh, I knew that - which is obviously why you wanted me to spank you, rather than this Chietuste fellow...

;)

Who makes "natural" other than God? Is there an entity higher than God that determines what is and is not natural? If our nature precludes the choice of repentence, whose fault can that be but God's?

Natural referring to the nature of the object.
Not natural in referring to Nature as God created it.

....through no action or choice of our own.

Which is why we are judged for out own, personal sins.

Wait, wait. Make up your mind. Before, you made it clear that reprobate cannot repent - that anyone who can repent will - they are elect.

Here, just answer one question: Can a person who has not been chosen to be elect repent?

But, before you said he could repent if he wanted to. Now, you're saying he only wants evil and therefore cannot. Which is it?

A person can only choose to do what he wants to do. So, if man only wants to choose evil, he can only choose evil. But, what I meant by man being able to repent is that the choice is there: it's being offered to him.

A person who is not elect does not want to repent and therefore cannot repent, though the offer and option is present.

How can you say he "does it freely" when he can do only evil. If one can only do evil, that is the only option available. Thus, he is not choosing to evil - there is no choice available.

It isn't a choice if you can do nothing else.

He freely (there is no one forcing him) chooses to do evil. The option is there, but he rejects it in favor of his desire to sin.

No, I've been listening to what you've said -every inconsistent word of it. You've been waffling between Calvinism and Pelagianism. First you tell me the non-elect could choose to repent, then you say they cannot do anything but evil.

I'll ask again. Can the non-elect repent?

The offer is there so there is the option to repent in the choice of repenting. But, because natural man wants only to sin, and he can choose to do only what he wants to do, he will sin and choose to refuse to repent because he is unable to go against his desire.

And God decided that we would "inherit this sin," correct? We didn't make any choices. We never had the option not to sin.

We always have the option to not sin. And you choose to do what we want to do and we want only sin.

Unless all of humanity is one big hive mind, then it is God who has determined that the sins of two would be applied to all - making us incapable of doing otherwise.

We are not paying for their sins. We are paying for our own sins.

I'll ask again, can one repent without God first granting them grace?

If the answer is no, they aren't refusing, they are incapable.

No and no.

They cannot repent. They choose to do what they want to do and they want only evil so they choose to refuse.

....through no fault of our own. Thus, we are being punished for Adam. I seem to remember a passage that says a man shall not be punished for another's sins...... Oh well.

The passage was a command for the civil authority. And we are not being punished for Adam and Eve's sin anyway. That's how we inherited sin: we're being punished for our own sins.

Nice initial post Steelbutterfly. As a Christian, its posts like those that keep me thinking about the Bible in an objective way.

Anyway -- I do not believe that since God knows everything and things are predestined that we do not have free will. I think since God is omnipresent is isn't just here in the present -- he is in the past and the future. Thus he is capable of knowing such things.

I'm not sure how to explain it -- but I believe God exists on a different form of reality as us. The only possible way I can explain this is something I heard elsehwere. Imagine a fish sitting inside of its bowl and looking outside at us and wondering how we are capable of breathing outside of water. While I doubt fish actually do think on such levels -- its just an example. We simply cannot understand how God is capable of what he is capable of.

I hope one day the Bible and Science can help us gain some small understanding at least. As for why God did what he did in the Old Testament. I'm not going to lie, I simply don't understand. Its seems contradictory, but I am not exactly super intelligant and can understand such things.

Though I would be foolish to cast off my faith and everything I've seen and believed in simply becuase I don't understand something about an all-knowing, immortal, God. Inconsistancy, in my view, comes from Humanity's limited understanding of the reality they live in.

Nice initial post Steelbutterfly. As a Christian, its posts like those that keep me thinking about the Bible in an objective way.

Anyway -- I do not believe that since God knows everything and things are predestined that we do not have free will. I think since God is omnipresent is isn't just here in the present -- he is in the past and the future. Thus he is capable of knowing such things.

I'm not sure how to explain it -- but I believe God exists on a different form of reality as us. The only possible way I can explain this is something I heard elsehwere. Imagine a fish sitting inside of its bowl and looking outside at us and wondering how we are capable of breathing outside of water. While I doubt fish actually do think on such levels -- its just an example. We simply cannot understand how God is capable of what he is capable of.

I hope one day the Bible and Science can help us gain some small understanding at least. As for why God did what he did in the Old Testament. I'm not going to lie, I simply don't understand. Its seems contradictory, but I am not exactly super intelligant and can understand such things.

Though I would be foolish to cast off my faith and everything I've seen and believed in simply becuase I don't understand something about an all-knowing, immortal, God. Inconsistancy, in my view, comes from Humanity's limited understanding of the reality they live in.

i think of it this way...

i know what you did in the past (well ok i dont but let's pretend). does my knowledge somehow mean that you didnt have free will in making your choices? god sees all of creation at once, the past present and future, the atoms and the galaxies. he sees my life as a unit, not as a moment in time. does him knowing what i will choose mean that i wont be choosing it? i dont think so. no more than his knowing what i have done in the past means that i didnt make my own choice on it.

My creation...It's alive...!

*hugs thread*

in the New International version the verse reads...
which could be what the "Perfect in his Generation" meant.


Oh, possibly... but in context of the rest of the chapter, I don't think so.

Where geneological/temporal 'generations' are intended, a different word (towledah) is used in the Hebrew in the preceding chapters, even earlier in the same verse - then suddenly, we get 'dowr' as 'generations'.

I think it is obvious that something different is meant.

How do you read 'generation of vipers', in the Greek scripture?


except by that reasoning, God is telling them to do two things contrary of themselves. The normal reaction should've been to seek out God and seek out reassurances of the fate of eating of the fruit. It's like when you tell a child one thing and then you go and give a conflicting order, they will question and if another is giving that conflicting order, the child would confirm.


Why do we assume they could 'seek God out'? Previously, they have encountered him only when he is in the Garden - why would they think another person in the garden was NOT god? Why would they look elsewhere for confirmation if there WAS someone in the garden?

After all - the simple fact that someone in the garden is giving orders, must mean it is god?


However, since Adam and Eve were not without intelligence, (they did name all the animals and did talk with God) they could've chosen to wait to confir with God.


Naming the animals doesn't mean they had intelligence... we don't know that their names then are anything like their names now...


depends on what is meant by "will surely die" is it a physical death, or a spiritual one. it was the sin of disobediance that seperated Man and God. "The wages of Sin is Death" can mean a spiritual death, not only a physical one.


How would a 'spiritual death' matter if they were gods? (He does say, 'become like us').


except it goes back to my first point. they were given conflicting information and instead of seeking out the truth (something that doesn't require the knowledge of Good and Evil) they chose to believe the serpent (who if you read, never bit of the fruit itself, infact, there is speculation that the serpent didn't touch the tree and the fruit.)


It doesn't matter if the serpent ever ate or touched the fruit - he is right, they would not surely die in the day they touched the fruit. And, as I said - why would they question this new information? They've not questioned anything else so far?


and Eve's reply to the serpent says she knew of God's command.


Only from Adam.


Because Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice. the Last Sacrifice. thus all are brought closer to God, but to be saved means you have to accept what Jesus did, an elected choice, not what Chietuste is saying is a choice of being elected.

Why?

I don't see why you think there must be an acceptance.

Would you want there to be an acceptance?

Natural referring to the nature of the object.
Not natural in referring to Nature as God created it.

How can it be any other type of nature? Once again, I must ask you, is there an entity higher than God that determines what is the nature of God's creation?

Which is why we are judged for out own, personal sins.

...which, according to you, we cannot keep ourselves from committing. How can we be judged for something we have no control over?

A person can only choose to do what he wants to do. So, if man only wants to choose evil, he can only choose evil. But, what I meant by man being able to repent is that the choice is there: it's being offered to him.

It isn't a choice if he cannot take it. If the only way to "want to" do it is for God to choose you, then you do not sin of your own will, but of God's.

A person who is not elect does not want to repent and therefore cannot repent, though the offer and option is present.

So, it isn't their choice at all. The offer and option is not present, because they cannot do it. They don't want to, because they are incapable of wanting to. Until God offers grace, they cannot want to repent and thus cannot repent, right?

He freely (there is no one forcing him) chooses to do evil. The option is there, but he rejects it in favor of his desire to sin.

Make up your mind. Is it a free choice, or is he incapable of even wanting to do otherwise?

Can the non-elect choose not to sin?

The offer is there so there is the option to repent in the choice of repenting. But, because natural man wants only to sin, and he can choose to do only what he wants to do, he will sin and choose to refuse to repent because he is unable to go against his desire.

So, once again, we get back to the idea of the man with no legs. This person is incapable of walking, but there you are saying, "He has the option to walk, he just doesn't want to..."

We always have the option to not sin. And you choose to do what we want to do and we want only sin.

This is entirely incompatible with your statement that man, without grace, is only capable of wanting evil.

We are not paying for their sins. We are paying for our own sins.

....which we make because of their sins. Once you topple over the first domino, is it the next domino's fault that it falls?

No and no.

They cannot repent. They choose to do what they want to do and they want only evil so they choose to refuse.

If they cannot repent, then they do not choose to refuse. They have no option but to refuse.

Once again, you are completely inconsistent here.

The passage was a command for the civil authority. And we are not being punished for Adam and Eve's sin anyway. That's how we inherited sin: we're being punished for our own sins.

If we inherited sin, and cannot keep ourselves from sinning, we are being punished for the original action. We have no choice in the matter.

Natural referring to the nature of the object.
Not natural in referring to Nature as God created it.
that's incoherent, just so you know.

A person can only choose to do what he wants to do. So, if man only wants to choose evil, he can only choose evil. But, what I meant by man being able to repent is that the choice is there: it's being offered to him.
a person can only choose what they want to choose, and people only want to be people. if a person is chosen to be a super hero they can fly but if they are not chosen they can't fly even though the option to fly is there for them.

Oh, possibly... but in context of the rest of the chapter, I don't think so.

Where geneological/temporal 'generations' are intended, a different word (towledah) is used in the Hebrew in the preceding chapters, even earlier in the same verse - then suddenly, we get 'dowr' as 'generations'.

I think it is obvious that something different is meant.except the previous chaper covers the Geneological history of Noah from Adam.

How do you read 'generation of vipers', in the Greek scripture?Good question. it could mean a time of backstabbing individuals, or it can mean a family.
Vipers can indicate a snake or it can indicate a type of person.


Why do we assume they could 'seek God out'? Previously, they have encountered him only when he is in the Garden - why would they think another person in the garden was NOT god? Why would they look elsewhere for confirmation if there WAS someone in the garden?well, we are assuming that the events of Genesis happened the way it did happen... :p

and God frequents the Garden did he not? so knowing that God would be back, why not wait?

After all - the simple fact that someone in the garden is giving orders, must mean it is god?now this is an assumption on your part also. there were only two persons (humans) in the Garden, Adam and Eve. the tempter is described as a serpent. now we know that there are others outside the garden, seeing that Cain had a wife. yet, we, assume that only the serpent "spoke"

Naming the animals doesn't mean they had intelligence... we don't know that their names then are anything like their names now... 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. so granted the names may have changed, but the original naming was done by Adam and Eve was made because no suitable helper was found for Adam.

How would a 'spiritual death' matter if they were gods? (He does say, 'become like us').'Become LIKE us.' not Become Us. also, it can stand to reason that those in the Garden became immortal. Remember, God said that Adam and Eve could eat of any fruit in the garden except the fruit from the tree of knowledge. that would inferre that the fruit of the as yet unmentioned Tree of Life was eaten. (which could explain the long lives that Noah and others of Adam's line experienced)

(and now as I think about it.) God knew that if they ate of the tree of Knowledge, they would be cast out. thus become mortal. and ergo, recieve 'death.'




It doesn't matter if the serpent ever ate or touched the fruit - he is right, they would not surely die in the day they touched the fruit. And, as I said - why would they question this new information? They've not questioned anything else so far?because it's contradictory to what God said. If two teachers of the same subject gave you contradictory information, wouldn't you question it?


Only from Adam.where does it state that?


Why?

I don't see why you think there must be an acceptance.

Would you want there to be an acceptance?
because I can put out and make available a truck load of cookies, but you have to reach for it to recieve the cookies. I can even toss them into the air to have them land all around you, even on you, I can walk up to you and hand it to you, but you have to reach out and take it, you can choose not to, instead you can walk away, not taking a cookie that I so liberally spread around. the same with what Jesus did. He made it so simple for our sins to be forgiven, but we still have to do our part in accepting the Gift and asking for that forgiveness. which is why I disagree with the notion of only those "elected" by God will be saved.

A person can only choose to do what he wants to do. So, if man only wants to choose evil, he can only choose evil. But, what I meant by man being able to repent is that the choice is there: it's being offered to him.

A person who is not elect does not want to repent and therefore cannot repent, though the offer and option is present.
But according to your arguments here and in the other thread we talked in, there is no choice. you said that man will do evil because he is evil. that is not choosing to do evil.

you also said that only the Elect can repent. thus one doesn't choose to repent, but is told by God (by being one of the elected) to repent. again not a choice since you also said that if they don't repent then they are not one of the elected.

I stopped reading after a bit but let me just tell you some things that you don't quite have the right understanding of. God is not a murderer. The Law of Moses (Ten Commandments) says that you shouldn't kill WRONGLY. It does not say that you shouldn't kill. All humans on Earth deserve to die because they have sinned so he did not kill wrongly.

Also, the Jealousy of God is not the same as human jealousy. Human jealousy is better defined as idolatry, it is when we have something and idol it. God does not like this and says it is a sin because instead of worshiping him, we are worshiping created things. God's jealousy is a real jealousy that is that he wants us to be with him and worshiping him but he does not obsess over it and praise it. God does not commit idolatry.

It is not a sin to play favorites. It just may not seem unfair

Free will was not a lie, it was used unwisely. God did not make Eve eat from the tree and Adam to eat afterward.

Romans 8:28-30 isn't saying that people are damned from birth, it is more saying that God knows everything and knows who is going to go to hell and who is not. If it was already chosen, it would be contradictory for Jesus to demand that people should go and make disciples of all nations.

Also I would like to add another comment. If you are use the Bible as a basis for you argument, and you believe that the Bible is true and God exists, then why are you disbelieving the truth that Jesus is the Christ and died for your sin and mistakes? If Christianity was simply a fake and God wasn't perfect then the entire Bible would be fake and they would've cut those verses out of the Bible and there would be no argument.

You gotta have faith

It all makes sense in my head, but is confused by inconsistent diction and lack of definitions on my part. So, I will take a sabbatical on the issue to work out terms to use in explaining which are less confusing.

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.

Actually, I never once said that he was heartless and that he hated people. He loves humanity, he has given us the choice to sin or to follow him. He never killed to fix what he messed up, he killed to punish us for messing up. He did a well enough job letting people know what he wanted. Adam and Eve knew that he didn't want them to eat from that tree, and they deliberately disobeyed him. In the world of today, the bible tells us what he wants from us, and those that do not do this will go to hell for eternity, he has actually made himself quite clear. As for people dying whether we ask forgiveness or not, I never said we wouldn't, nor does God. Everyone dies and everyone sins, Adam and Eve are to thank for that, but if we are sorry for our sins and we live our lives the way God wants us to, we go to heaven and spend eternity in happiness. And through Moses, God told Pharaoh to release the Israelites. Several times. Pharaoh wouldn't listen, so THEN the plagues came. Punishment, not heartlessness. God does not want to have to punish us, but it's our own fault that he does.

except the previous chaper covers the Geneological history of Noah from Adam.


And? It actually uses two different words translated by us as 'generations', in that one verse.


Good question. it could mean a time of backstabbing individuals, or it can mean a family.
Vipers can indicate a snake or it can indicate a type of person.


Surely, the most logical assumption would be 'children of the serpent', or some such? He is quite fond of pointing out that 'their father' is Satan.


well, we are assuming that the events of Genesis happened the way it did happen... :p


A bigger assumption for me than for you, perhaps.


and God frequents the Garden did he not? so knowing that God would be back, why not wait?


Frequents? It lists how many visits? Does he say he'll be back?


now this is an assumption on your part also. there were only two persons (humans) in the Garden, Adam and Eve. the tempter is described as a serpent. now we know that there are others outside the garden, seeing that Cain had a wife. yet, we, assume that only the serpent "spoke"


My assumptions? You just wished up outsiders for Cain to marry - the text is non-specific about where Cain's wife came from. It could be unmentioned daughters of Eve. (Or of Adam's first wife, Lilith).


so granted the names may have changed, but the original naming was done by Adam and Eve was made because no suitable helper was found for Adam.


And those names could have been 'ug'... all of them. Still doesn't entail intelligence.

Add to which, if Adam was 'designed' to name animals, it could be an idiot-savant talent. One doesn't consider a hammer intelligent because it is so good at hitting nails.


'Become LIKE us.' not Become Us. also, it can stand to reason that those in the Garden became immortal. Remember, God said that Adam and Eve could eat of any fruit in the garden except the fruit from the tree of knowledge. that would inferre that the fruit of the as yet unmentioned Tree of Life was eaten. (which could explain the long lives that Noah and others of Adam's line experienced)


Become like us. And 'us' is what? Considering the use of 'elohim' in Genesis, indicating a plurality of Gods, it seems we are being shown the methodology of apotheosis - gain knowledge, then gain immortality... then you are a god.

And we know they hadn't eaten the fruit of life yet:

Genesis 3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever..."


(and now as I think about it.) God knew that if they ate of the tree of Knowledge, they would be cast out. thus become mortal. and ergo, recieve 'death.'


No - he knew he would cast them out once they gained knowledge, but before they gained eternity.


because it's contradictory to what God said. If two teachers of the same subject gave you contradictory information, wouldn't you question it?


I don't know... do you question God? Much of the scripture is contradictory - not least the simple fact that the New Testament messiah doesn't match the Old Testament description.


where does it state that?


It shows God tlking to Adam. It does not show him talking to Eve.

Are we to assume it?


because I can put out and make available a truck load of cookies, but you have to reach for it to recieve the cookies. I can even toss them into the air to have them land all around you, even on you, I can walk up to you and hand it to you, but you have to reach out and take it, you can choose not to, instead you can walk away, not taking a cookie that I so liberally spread around. the same with what Jesus did. He made it so simple for our sins to be forgiven, but we still have to do our part in accepting the Gift and asking for that forgiveness. which is why I disagree with the notion of only those "elected" by God will be saved.

Salvation isn't a cookie, it is a state of being. If God can change our state of being with or without our consent, why assume we must consent in order that we should be placed in the 'do not burn' bucket?

That's the conflict in 'salvation by grace' theory. If it is truly by grace, there is no need for it to be contingent on anything we do.

Actually, I never once said that he was heartless and that he hated people. He loves humanity, he has given us the choice to sin or to follow him. He never killed to fix what he messed up, he killed to punish us for messing up. He did a well enough job letting people know what he wanted. Adam and Eve knew that he didn't want them to eat from that tree, and they deliberately disobeyed him. In the world of today, the bible tells us what he wants from us, and those that do not do this will go to hell for eternity, he has actually made himself quite clear. As for people dying whether we ask forgiveness or not, I never said we wouldn't, nor does God. Everyone dies and everyone sins, Adam and Eve are to thank for that, but if we are sorry for our sins and we live our lives the way God wants us to, we go to heaven and spend eternity in happiness.

The deeper you read the scripture, the less it resembles the version you like so much.

Actually, I never once said that he was heartless and that he hated people. He loves humanity, he has given us the choice to sin or to follow him. He never killed to fix what he messed up, he killed to punish us for messing up. He did a well enough job letting people know what he wanted. Adam and Eve knew that he didn't want them to eat from that tree, and they deliberately disobeyed him. In the world of today, the bible tells us what he wants from us, and those that do not do this will go to hell for eternity, he has actually made himself quite clear. As for people dying whether we ask forgiveness or not, I never said we wouldn't, nor does God. Everyone dies and everyone sins, Adam and Eve are to thank for that, but if we are sorry for our sins and we live our lives the way God wants us to, we go to heaven and spend eternity in happiness. And through Moses, God told Pharaoh to release the Israelites. Several times. Pharaoh wouldn't listen, so THEN the plagues came. Punishment, not heartlessness. God does not want to have to punish us, but it's our own fault that he does.

and yet it IS heartless to punish one person for the misdeeds of another

it IS heartless to ensure that the one will continue in error by hardening his heart against the proper choice

where is god's all loving nature when he killed egyptian babies? dont egyptian babies count as people?

you can blame us, but if you take the bible literally, god is a murderous hateful bastard.

Throughout this entire thread I have seen people apparently misinterpreting the OP's remarks on free will. They insist that free will must exist and say that there remains a choice when the circumstances are as in the OP. There does not. There is no logical way you can get free will from that argument; it's a non sequitor.

To illustrate this point:

given that humans are LIMITED beings;

God is NOT limited;
a)God CREATED everything;
b)God KNOWS everything;

specifically, God CREATED all starting conditions, souls, interests, literally anything and everything that exists;
and also He KNOWS exactly what will happen given any starting conditions;

Then it is impossible for free will to exist, because ANY action "chosen" by an actor created by God is by definition already chosen for him. This is because God cannot escape the responsibility of being all powerful. In the argument, it is He, ultimately, who is responsible for everything by virtue of his power, whether it is defined as "good" or "evil."

I don't see any holes in this argument, personally. It's the same as "deciding" to believe we live in a deterministic universe. Ultimately the choice to believe in such a universe undermines (well, theoretically, if the universe is not actually deterministic) any morals based on empathy that people have built up. But of course, if it is as the OP says... I'd hardly worry about anything, because I haven't got a chance in hell of escaping the power of God. It also makes religion (hell, anything we do, think or feel) pretty meaningless, which is an INCREDIBLY depressing point of view. At least for me it is; I don't want to be some wind-up toy for God to play with.

Throughout this entire thread I have seen people apparently misinterpreting the OP's remarks on free will. They insist that free will must exist and say that there remains a choice when the circumstances are as in the OP. There does not. There is no logical way you can get free will from that argument; it's a non sequitor.

To illustrate this point:

given that humans are LIMITED beings;

God is NOT limited;
a)God CREATED everything;
b)God KNOWS everything;

specifically, God CREATED all starting conditions, souls, interests, literally anything and everything that exists;
and also He KNOWS exactly what will happen given any starting conditions;

Then it is impossible for free will to exist, because ANY action "chosen" by an actor created by God is by definition already chosen for him. This is because God cannot escape the responsibility of being all powerful. In the argument, it is He, ultimately, who is responsible for everything by virtue of his power, whether it is defined as "good" or "evil."

I don't see any holes in this argument, personally. It's the same as "deciding" to believe we live in a deterministic universe. Ultimately the choice to believe in such a universe undermines (well, theoretically, if the universe is not actually deterministic) any morals based on empathy that people have built up. But of course, if it is as the OP says... I'd hardly worry about anything, because I haven't got a chance in hell of escaping the power of God. It also makes religion (hell, anything we do, think or feel) pretty meaningless, which is an INCREDIBLY depressing point of view. At least for me it is; I don't want to be some wind-up toy for God to play with.

does my knowing what you did in the past mean that you didnt have free will in doing it?

does my knowing what you did in the past mean that you didnt have free will in doing it?

The problem being described by Shotagon is deeper than that.

Not only does God know (as a function of omniscience) he also chose (as a function of being the creator). He made the choice for her creation to exist in the fashion it does, and it was a fully informed choice. God consented to each of our pains, our pleasures, our births, our deaths when he chose to set creation in motion.

While I would agree that omniscience alone does not imply responsibility, the act of creation combined with omniscience does confer a genuine responsibility upon God (with the stipulation that the universe is deterministic).

My problem with Shotagon's argument is that it assumes a deterministic universe in arguing for a deterministic universe, that it begs the very question it seeks to answer within the context of Christianity.

The problem being described by Shotagon is deeper than that.

Not only does God know (as a function of omniscience) he also chose (as a function of being the creator). He made the choice for her creation to exist in the fashion it does, and it was a fully informed choice. God consented to each of our pains, our pleasures, our births, our deaths when he chose to set creation in motion.

While I would agree that omniscience alone does not imply responsibility, the act of creation combined with omniscience does confer a genuine responsibility upon God (with the stipulation that the universe is deterministic).

My problem with Shotagon's argument is that it assumes a deterministic universe in arguing for a deterministic universe, that it begs the very question it seeks to answer within the context of Christianity.


his conclusion is that it is deterministic. his justification of that is that god knows our whole life already so where is our choice? just as i cannot now choose to have had bacon for breakfast this morning, do i really have free choice in whether or not to have bacon tomorrow morning since in some mysterious way its already known whether i will or not.

god knowing everything is a paradox. like most paradoxes, i dont let it bother me. instead of thinking it out to a situation where there is no paradox--the universe is deterministic--i just let it be.

his conclusion is that it is deterministic. his justification of that is that god knows our whole life already so where is our choice? just as i cannot now choose to have had bacon for breakfast this morning, do i really have free choice in whether or not to have bacon tomorrow morning since in some mysterious way its already known whether i will or not.

god knowing everything is a paradox. like most paradoxes, i dont let it bother me. instead of thinking it out to a situation where there is no paradox--the universe is deterministic--i just let it be.

You do not adhere strictly to the Law of Non-Contradiction? Fascinating. Not many seem capable of thinking outside of that particular box.

You do not adhere strictly to the Law of Non-Contradiction? Fascinating. Not many seem capable of thinking outside of that particular box.

i dont have to. im an atheist.

in my religious opinion god rested on the 7th day but he wasnt done with creation. its still a work in progress (as far as we who are stuck in time are concerned). when its done, even the grass will be saved.

i dont have to. im an atheist.

I do not see how atheism would be relevant to your lack of belief in a basic principle of reason. Could you explain that further?

in my religious opinion god rested on the 7th day but he wasnt done with creation. its still a work in progress (as far as we who are stuck in time are concerned). when its done, even the grass will be saved.

Ah. The universe as process rather than discrete elements. That tends to be my view as well.

And? It actually uses two different words translated by us as 'generations', in that one verse.which points to those who take the bible literally and those who get their lessions from the bible.

Surely, the most logical assumption would be 'children of the serpent', or some such? He is quite fond of pointing out that 'their father' is Satan.makes sense.

A bigger assumption for me than for you, perhaps.unless you're talking LITERAL Truths (and some here are,) almost everything in the bible is assumptions.

Frequents? It lists how many visits? Does he say he'll be back?he doesn't say "I will leave you hear now." either.

My assumptions? You just wished up outsiders for Cain to marry - the text is non-specific about where Cain's wife came from. It could be unmentioned daughters of Eve. (Or of Adam's first wife, Lilith).Lillith isn't mentioned in the bible, neither are any daughters, so why assume that they exsisted while other humans are "imagined up"

And those names could have been 'ug'... all of them. Still doesn't entail intelligence.

Add to which, if Adam was 'designed' to name animals, it could be an idiot-savant talent. One doesn't consider a hammer intelligent because it is so good at hitting nails.COULD HAVE BEEN. an assumption. and a Hammer doesn't hit nails without a human welding it.

Become like us. And 'us' is what? Considering the use of 'elohim' in Genesis, indicating a plurality of Gods, it seems we are being shown the methodology of apotheosis - gain knowledge, then gain immortality... then you are a god.

And we know they hadn't eaten the fruit of life yet:

Genesis 3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever..."

16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
only one tree had that restriction. and if you notice, it did not indicate that the eating of the tree of Life, in verse 22 would be the first time. It would only be the first time they ate of the tree of life after eating of the tree of knowledge.

No - he knew he would cast them out once they gained knowledge, but before they gained eternity.but since the tree of Life was not part of the restricted trees, you cannot say that no one ate of it.

I don't know... do you question God? Much of the scripture is contradictory - not least the simple fact that the New Testament messiah doesn't match the Old Testament description.I bring my questions to God, and he answers them when he feels I am ready for the answer.



It shows God tlking to Adam. It does not show him talking to Eve.

Are we to assume it?we've both assumed alot already, the possiblities of what actually happened is endless.

Salvation isn't a cookie, it is a state of being. If God can change our state of being with or without our consent, why assume we must consent in order that we should be placed in the 'do not burn' bucket?if God could change our state of being/mind/thinking without our consent, then why would there be Atheists, Agnostics and sick individuals today?

That's the conflict in 'salvation by grace' theory. If it is truly by grace, there is no need for it to be contingent on anything we do.except to accept that grace. It's there, so... everyone can get a ticket for a huge refund, but you still have to go and cash that ticket in.

his conclusion is that it is deterministic. his justification of that is that god knows our whole life already so where is our choice? just as i cannot now choose to have had bacon for breakfast this morning, do i really have free choice in whether or not to have bacon tomorrow morning since in some mysterious way its already known whether i will or not.

god knowing everything is a paradox. like most paradoxes, i dont let it bother me. instead of thinking it out to a situation where there is no paradox--the universe is deterministic--i just let it be.

You don't need an omniscient entity to have the free will discussion affected by the idea of a deterministic universe. In truth, most people, when you get right down to it, fully believe in a deterministic universe. Science relies upon that assumption. The idea of foreknowledge relies upon that assumption.

But, in the end, it doesn't remove free will as we know it. Our choices are almost certainly determined already. They are determined by the initial conditions set up long before we were born and the processes by which our experiences and such lead to our decision making. But we don't have the kind of information we would need to predict it all ahead of time. As such, we have free will in much the same way that randomness exists - we don't have all the information, so it might as well be truly free will.

we've both assumed alot already, the possiblities of what actually happened is endless.

Indeed, and the possibility that there never were a literal Adam and Eve - that Adam and Eve were meant to represent humanity itself - hasn't even entered this particular discussion. =)

Indeed, and the possibility that there never were a literal Adam and Eve - that Adam and Eve were meant to represent humanity itself - hasn't even entered this particular discussion. =)Which is why I said "Assuming that Genesis happened..."

would be interesting tho... to see if Adam and Eve really didn't have bellybuttons. :D

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?

I was actually referring to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. But even in general life, God has set rules and those that don't follow them will spend eternity in hell. I see your point, though.

and yet it IS heartless to punish one person for the misdeeds of another

it IS heartless to ensure that the one will continue in error by hardening his heart against the proper choice

where is god's all loving nature when he killed egyptian babies? dont egyptian babies count as people?

you can blame us, but if you take the bible literally, god is a murderous hateful bastard.

God doesn't punish children for the sins of the parents. The Egyptian babies were people, but they were being brought up in sinful ways and would have been just as sinful as their parents. It was the same with Egypt as it was with Canaan and Jericho; each generation was delving deeper into sin. They were punished for their own sins, not the sins of another. And as I said, through Moses, God commanded Pharaoh to release the Israelites several times, and he refused. God showed his authority to Pharaoh by turning Moses' staff into a snake and devouring the other snakes, and Pharaoh still refused. Years before, Joseph had interpreted Pharaoh's dream and saved hundreds of Egyptians, and none of them paid heed to Joseph's God, they worshipped Joseph and their own Gods. Pharaoh of the Moses generation thought he was superior to God, and so he was punished along with his people, all of whom had enslaved the Israelites.

God doesn't punish children for the sins of the parents.

Doesn't most doctrine hold that we are all damned because of Original Sin (ie. Adam's sin) and thus must rid ourselves of that curse through Jesus Christ?

The Egyptian babies were people, but they were being brought up in sinful ways.

Can babies sin? Are you one of those people who agrees with Augustine - that babies sin when they cry for food?

If I take an infant away from sinful parents, will the infant even remember anything the parents did?

It was the same with Egypt as it was with Canaan and Jericho; each generation was delving deeper into sin. They were punished for their own sins, not the sins of another.

Where does Scripture suggest this? It's pretty clear in the story that God isn't punishing Egypt for any wider sins. God is punishing Egypt - all of Egypt - because Pharaoh - one guy - will not let the people of Moses go free. In fact, there are several passages where the Pharaoh's advisers and such ask him to let the slaves go. Pharaoh himself would do so, but God hardens his heart and forces him not to.

In fact, if you actually read the passages, you find that the purpose isn't punishment at all. God is intentionally forcing Pharaoh to refuse, so that God can do worse and worse things to the Egyptians to prove God's power.

I agree with you that God doesn't punish anyone for the sins of their parents, but that is a viewpoint completely inconsistent with a literal reading of the Bible and with most official Christian doctrine.

God doesn't punish children for the sins of the parents. The Egyptian babies were people, but they were being brought up in sinful ways and would have been just as sinful as their parents. It was the same with Egypt as it was with Canaan and Jericho; each generation was delving deeper into sin. They were punished for their own sins, not the sins of another. And as I said, through Moses, God commanded Pharaoh to release the Israelites several times, and he refused. God showed his authority to Pharaoh by turning Moses' staff into a snake and devouring the other snakes, and Pharaoh still refused. Years before, Joseph had interpreted Pharaoh's dream and saved hundreds of Egyptians, and none of them paid heed to Joseph's God, they worshipped Joseph and their own Gods. Pharaoh of the Moses generation thought he was superior to God, and so he was punished along with his people, all of whom had enslaved the Israelites.

and yet it wasnt their sin they were killed for. it was to show the greater glory of god and to punish pharoah even though without god's interference he would have let the jews go well before this last plague.

and yet it wasnt their sin they were killed for. it was to show the greater glory of god and to punish pharoah even though without god's interference he would have let the jews go well before this last plague.
you don't know that.
before God hardened the Pharaoh's heart, the Pharaoh hardened his own heart. the Pharaoh also made promices he failed to keep. so you can't say that the Pharaoh would've let the slaves go had God not hardened his heart.

God doesn't punish children for the sins of the parents. The Egyptian babies were people, but they were being brought up in sinful ways and would have been just as sinful as their parents. It was the same with Egypt as it was with Canaan and Jericho; each generation was delving deeper into sin. They were punished for their own sins, not the sins of another. And as I said, through Moses, God commanded Pharaoh to release the Israelites several times, and he refused. God showed his authority to Pharaoh by turning Moses' staff into a snake and devouring the other snakes, and Pharaoh still refused. Years before, Joseph had interpreted Pharaoh's dream and saved hundreds of Egyptians, and none of them paid heed to Joseph's God, they worshipped Joseph and their own Gods. Pharaoh of the Moses generation thought he was superior to God, and so he was punished along with his people, all of whom had enslaved the Israelites.

I love you. I hope you're a woman. :fluffle:

I do not see how atheism would be relevant to your lack of belief in a basic principle of reason. Could you explain that further?


what i meant was that as an atheist im free to look at religious things any way i like. i dont have to make the bible work. i dont have to worry about how god can know everything and yet my life isnt predetermined.

besides, there arent all that many paradoxes in real life and most of those are in the realm of quantum physics. ill never understand quantum physics anyway so why would i worry about its paradoxes?

you don't know that.
before God hardened the Pharaoh's heart, the Pharaoh hardened his own heart. the Pharaoh also made promices he failed to keep. so you can't say that the Pharaoh would've let the slaves go had God not hardened his heart.

If Pharaoh was going to harden his own heart, why would God have done it for him? Wouldn't God have known that Pharaoh was going to keep doing it himself?

And, if that were the case, why would God have bragged to Moses that he was purposely hardening Pharaoh's heart so that he could keep on making plagues?

If Pharaoh was going to harden his own heart, why would God have done it for him? Wouldn't God have known that Pharaoh was going to keep doing it himself?

And, if that were the case, why would God have bragged to Moses that he was purposely hardening Pharaoh's heart so that he could keep on making plagues?

one possible reason was to show the Egyptians as well as the Jews that the Egyptian Gods had no power. That their clergy, magicians and wisemen could not stop God's will with their chants, prayers and rituals.

Another to restore the faith of those who was faltering, to strengthen the faith of those who kept it, and to Give Faith to those who had none.

you don't know that.
before God hardened the Pharaoh's heart, the Pharaoh hardened his own heart. the Pharaoh also made promices he failed to keep. so you can't say that the Pharaoh would've let the slaves go had God not hardened his heart.

is that really relevant to the point i was making? god killed egyptian babies for the sins of others. sins that he helped to create himself by hardening pharoahs heart. (why would he harden pharoahs heart if pharoah werent going to relent?)

god is still a heartless murderous bastard in this story.

one possible reason was to show the Egyptians as well as the Jews that the Egyptian Gods had no power. That their clergy, magicians and wisemen could not stop God's will with their chants, prayers and rituals.

And God's will was, quite obviously, that Pharaoh would treat the slaves worse and worse, and God would treat the Egyptians worse and worse, until it got to the point that God killed every firstborn.

Another to restore the faith of those who was faltering, to strengthen the faith of those who kept it, and to Give Faith to those who had none.

So God had to torture people to show all that? If God came to you and said, "I want you to understand how powerful I am, so I'm going to torture all of Indonesia for your viewing pleasure," would that bolster your faith in God - particularly in a loving God?

is that really relevant to the point i was making? god killed egyptian babies for the sins of others. sins that he helped to create himself by hardening pharoahs heart. (why would he harden pharoahs heart if pharoah werent going to relent?)

god is still a heartless murderous bastard in this story.well, I'm not arguing that point because Chietuste and perhaps Lebostrana have differeing views on this. (and they answered your post, so I didn't want to hop in.)

But since you asked for my interpretation of those events... he did tell Moses to spread the word on how to save their newborns. also, he told Moses to make it a memorial for what has happened.

now what is not told is the spiritual fate of those children. it could very well be that God brought them up to heaven since he did directly take their earthy lives. We don't know.

Heartless? perhaps.
Murderous? Maybe.

I won't judge God (or mortals for that matter.)

And God's will was, quite obviously, that Pharaoh would treat the slaves worse and worse, and God would treat the Egyptians worse and worse, until it got to the point that God killed every firstborn.but the Pharaoh didn't treat the slaves worse. he only refused to let them all go.

So God had to torture people to show all that? If God came to you and said, "I want you to understand how powerful I am, so I'm going to torture all of Indonesia for your viewing pleasure," would that bolster your faith in God - particularly in a loving God?

considering that the Isrealites were spared most of it. yes, it is proof of a loving God.

also he showed the Egyptians that their Gods had no power.

now God doesn't have to show me anything, since I already believe in him.

but the Pharaoh didn't treat the slaves worse. he only refused to let them all go.

You sure?

considering that the Isrealites were spared most of it. yes, it is proof of a loving God.

So, if I beat one of my children, but I leave the other one alone, that means I'm loving?

also he showed the Egyptians that their Gods had no power.

And he had to torture them to do this?

now God doesn't have to show me anything, since I already believe in him.

So did the Israelites.

This is certainly not in your face.

You sure?as sure as you are that they were treated worse during the plagues.

So, if I beat one of my children, but I leave the other one alone, that means I'm loving?Does it mean you're heartless?

And he had to torture them to do this? well, prophets didn't work, prophecies didn't work, miracles didn't work... so something more dramatic that could not be re-assigned to Ra and the others were needed.

So did the Israelites.not all of em perhaps. but alot of them did. after all, look how quickly some of em took to worshiping a statue while Moses was talking to God.

as sure as you are that they were treated worse during the plagues.

My version makes infinitely more sense. If Pharaoh really was such an evil bastard, and he felt that he was being made to suffer because of the slaves, do you think he would've let that slide?

Does it mean you're heartless?

Pretty much, yes. Either that or I have some serious anger management issues that I would need to work out before pretending to be a parent.

Of course, you didn't answer my question. You said that, since God spared the Israelites the torture he was letting loose on the Egyptians, that means God is loving. Does that really make sense in your head?

well, prophets didn't work, prophecies didn't work, miracles didn't work... so something more dramatic that could not be re-assigned to Ra and the others were needed.

Miracles absolutely did work. Moses' snake eating the snake of the other priest convinced them. God quite obviously didn't need to kill all the firstborn. God chose to do this to make more miracles. It is exceedingly clear in God's words to Moses that God was doing this to show off how powerful He was - to brag, essentially.

not all of em perhaps. but alot of them did. after all, look how quickly some of em took to worshiping a statue while Moses was talking to God.

Look how quickly all people fall when left to their own devices. We're fallible - we make mistakes.

But I can tell you this, any entity who told me that it was going to kill a bunch of innocent people just to make me and others worship - just to show off - wouldn't receive my worship. I'd be horrified and the idea of that entity being "loving" would go right out the window.

My version makes infinitely more sense. If Pharaoh really was such an evil bastard, and he felt that he was being made to suffer because of the slaves, do you think he would've let that slide?what would he have done that hasn't been done to them already? kill their first born male children? make em work and slave away?

Pretty much, yes. Either that or I have some serious anger management issues that I would need to work out before pretending to be a parent.

Of course, you didn't answer my question. You said that, since God spared the Israelites the torture he was letting loose on the Egyptians, that means God is loving. Does that really make sense in your head? God spared his children and those who follow Him. if your child and a child of a stranger was fighting, and you could only save one. who would you save, Your child or the stranger's?

God sent Moses in to set HIS, not Moses' but GOD's people free. so of course he'll spare his children while metting out punishment.

Miracles absolutely did work. Moses' snake eating the snake of the other priest convinced them. no it didn't.
God quite obviously didn't need to kill all the firstborn. and he didn't
God chose to do this to make more miracles. It is exceedingly clear in God's words to Moses that God was doing this to show off how powerful He was - to brag, essentially. and as I said, to show the people that the Egyptian's Gods were nothing, to restore the faith of his people, and to set in motion things that we can't even begin to contemplate.
Look how quickly all people fall when left to their own devices. We're fallible - we make mistakes.

But I can tell you this, any entity who told me that it was going to kill a bunch of innocent people just to make me and others worship - just to show off - wouldn't receive my worship. I'd be horrified and the idea of that entity being "loving" would go right out the window.and that is your choice to make, you only see and concentrate, like Steel Butterfly has done, on one set of percieved actions and ignore everything else. the protection, love and generosity he gives to those who placed their faith in him. yes, he's strict, yes he harsh, but he's also loving and generous to his followers.

The problem being described by Shotagon is deeper than that.

Not only does God know (as a function of omniscience) he also chose (as a function of being the creator). He made the choice for her creation to exist in the fashion it does, and it was a fully informed choice. God consented to each of our pains, our pleasures, our births, our deaths when he chose to set creation in motion.

While I would agree that omniscience alone does not imply responsibility, the act of creation combined with omniscience does confer a genuine responsibility upon God (with the stipulation that the universe is deterministic).Yes, that was what I was saying. Given the conditions I restated from the OP, that's where it ends up as far as I can tell. I will welcome very gratefully anything that proves me wrong!

My problem with Shotagon's argument is that it assumes a deterministic universe in arguing for a deterministic universe, that it begs the very question it seeks to answer within the context of Christianity.I assume to be true the same positions as many monotheists also hold, true. It is just hard to believe that someone would truly want to believe in those conditions in the first place, if all it leads to is a deterministic universe. I would really hate to believe that; to me it seems like a fate worse than any hell ever dreamed up, and even your God couldn't save you from it. :(

his conclusion is that it is deterministic. his justification of that is that god knows our whole life already so where is our choice? just as i cannot now choose to have had bacon for breakfast this morning, do i really have free choice in whether or not to have bacon tomorrow morning since in some mysterious way its already known whether i will or not.Actually, like Accelerus says, it is more than just the knowledge of what will be. It is the foreknowledge in combination with the fact he created everything that brings up the problems with free will.

You don't need an omniscient entity to have the free will discussion affected by the idea of a deterministic universe. In truth, most people, when you get right down to it, fully believe in a deterministic universe. Science relies upon that assumption. The idea of foreknowledge relies upon that assumption.I agree, you don't need a God to make a deterministic universe, but I'm not sure about everyone believing in one. Obviously those that advocate "justice" etc cannot believe in it, or... eh, whatever. If it's deterministic, they will do as they will have done, regardless of whether someone actually deserves punishment or not. If it's not, then they're doing okay. I certainly won't believe in a totally deterministic universe if I can help it; that definitely isn't my cup of tea. Of course, I have no real way of knowing either way, but I prefer to believe something that at least might allow free will than something that apparently explicitly denies it.

But, in the end, it doesn't remove free will as we know it. Our choices are almost certainly determined already. They are determined by the initial conditions set up long before we were born and the processes by which our experiences and such lead to our decision making. But we don't have the kind of information we would need to predict it all ahead of time. As such, we have free will in much the same way that randomness exists - we don't have all the information, so it might as well be truly free will.Still, if the information necessary is not available I would hardly want to assume that it is deterministic! And really, the view that it may as well be free will doesn't make much sense to me. There's no free will in the scenario I described, no matter how much it looks like there is. There is no escape; there is no meaning other than that we act the way we do because God finds it in His interests.

Of course, given that it is also common to apply the reasoning that anything God does by definition is good (aka Aquinas' inherent goodness). Doing so to this argument means that even a universe determined by God would be good. Indeed I suppose it would be; anything that does God's will may well be considered "good."

Interestingly enough, given that Islam does take the same basic assumptions about God's nature as the OP does, the militiants might actually be telling the truth (at least in their view) that God wanted them to be sucide bombers. In fact, I don't see how anyone who shares those beliefs (judeo-christian religions especially but anything with a God-concept with the attributes specified) could argue otherwise.

what i meant was that as an atheist im free to look at religious things any way i like. i dont have to make the bible work. i dont have to worry about how god can know everything and yet my life isnt predetermined.No one is forcing you to believe in God or justify the way people say He is. I was simply pointing out slightly more clearly than the OP what seems to me a very serious problem with the view that God has the attributes commonly assigned to him.

besides, there arent all that many paradoxes in real life and most of those are in the realm of quantum physics. ill never understand quantum physics anyway so why would i worry about its paradoxes?Understanding is hardly necessary for you to feel the effect. You don't need to know what fire is doing on a atomic level in order to get burned. I think this is slightly similar.

what would he have done that hasn't been done to them already? kill their first born male children? make em work and slave away?

Kill more of them? Probably. Make them work harder? Probably. Give them even less? Probably.

God spared his children and those who follow Him. if your child and a child of a stranger was fighting, and you could only save one. who would you save, Your child or the stranger's?

That doesn't work here. This is more like, I see my child fighting with another one, and I break it up. Then, I force the other child to attack my child some more just so I can show him that I can stop him from fighting.

God sent Moses in to set HIS, not Moses' but GOD's people free. so of course he'll spare his children while metting out punishment.

Isn't the idea of God only caring about one people rather inconsistent with the message of Christ and his apostles?

no it didn't.

You're right. It wasn't until the third plague that the Pharoah's magicians started saying that the miracles were beyond them and that this was the work of God.

But, wait, if they were convinced then, why did God need seven more? Why was it that, after the boils, God had to forcibly keep Pharaoh from letting the people go?

It doesn't fit into your nice little scheme.

and he didn't

Really? So the Bible is lying when it says he killed all the firstborn of Egypt?

and as I said, to show the people that the Egyptian's Gods were nothing, to restore the faith of his people, and to set in motion things that we can't even begin to contemplate.

Torture and forced disobedience weren't necessary for any of this. From the description in the Bible, we can surmise that five plagues did that just fine. After that, God is pretty clear that the whole thing was for bragging rights - if we take the story literally.

and that is your choice to make, you only see and concentrate, like Steel Butterfly has done, on one set of percieved actions and ignore everything else. the protection, love and generosity he gives to those who placed their faith in him. yes, he's strict, yes he harsh, but he's also loving and generous to his followers.

LOL. I don't only concentrate on one thing. However, unlike you, I can take a step back and read the story as it is written, instead of trying to rationalize it into a worldview that it simply doesn't fit into.

See, I don't need the story, as told, to be absolutely true to have faith in God. My personal relationship with God does that. And I know that God is a loving, just God - which means that much of the OT simply isn't properly portraying God. Considering that the stories are from a much different society, that isn't really surprising.

Meanwhile, if the stories were true, that would, in my eyes, make God unworthy of worship. Most dictators were nice to their followers too, and mean to those who didn't follow them or didn't follow them recently. Do we dub them all benevolent, wonderful, loving people? Or do we recognize that, as Christ taught, loving doesn't apply only to your allies and friends?


I agree, you don't need a God to make a deterministic universe, but I'm not sure about everyone believing in one.

Do you believe that the universe runs on set rules? That the human body runs on a series of chemical reactions that are governed by those rules?

Do you think that the scientific method is logical and a sufficient way to look at the universe?

If the answers to these questions are yes, then, ultimately, you believe in a deterministic universe. You may not like it, but that's what it boils down to. In truth, science ceases to be logical in a non-deterministic universe, as there is no reason to believe that something will happen the same way again, even if it has been the exact same the past 1000 times you have tried it.

Obviously those that advocate "justice" etc cannot believe in it, or... eh, whatever. If it's deterministic, they will do as they will have done, regardless of whether someone actually deserves punishment or not.

And? That doesn't dispel the idea of justice. Even if our choices are controlled by the chemicals in our brains, which are controlled by the chemical processes within our brains, which are controlled by the laws of physics, and so on......they are still our choices. Our perception and lack of knowledge do not allow us to predict the future or even know what our own choices will be until we make them, so they are just as much ours as they would be in a random universe. Moreso, in a way, as choices in a random universe would be governed by nothing more than chance.

If it's not, then they're doing okay. I certainly won't believe in a totally deterministic universe if I can help it; that definitely isn't my cup of tea.

My guess is that, if you really thought about it, you'd find that you already do. Either that, or you hold a strong belief in supernatural interference.

Kill more of them? Probably. Make them work harder? Probably. Give them even less? Probably. and God rewarded them and punished the Egyptians.

That doesn't work here. This is more like, I see my child fighting with another one, and I break it up. Then, I force the other child to attack my child some more just so I can show him that I can stop him from fighting. again, doesn't fit. more like you break it up and then you punish the other child who started the fight. he didn't pit the slaves against the Egyptians, but he punished the Egyptians.

Isn't the idea of God only caring about one people rather inconsistent with the message of Christ and his apostles?where did I say he didn't Care about the others. he favors the faithful, but I never said he didn't care or love everyone. If one of your children is misbehaving, you will punish that child, you won't punish all your children for the deeds of one. The Children of Egypt was holding the children of Isreal captive. so the Children of Egypt was punished.

You're right. It wasn't until the third plague that the Pharoah's magicians started saying that the miracles were beyond them and that this was the work of God.

But, wait, if they were convinced then, why did God need seven more? Why was it that, after the boils, God had to forcibly keep Pharaoh from letting the people go?

It doesn't fit into your nice little scheme.yes it does, to prove that it was the work of GOD and not Ra. sure he stops but the pharaoh has already proven that he is not above turning back on his word. so God stops after the third, what's stopping the pharaoh and the magicians from turning around and saying "The Great Ra has put a halt to the Jewish God's acts proving he's more powerful."

After the last Plague, even the Citizens of Egypt knew of God's power and were helping the Isrealites leave.

Really? So the Bible is lying when it says he killed all the firstborn of Egypt?
13 Now the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt. He gives instructions for the faithful to follow. so no, not all the firstborn children are taken. perhaps most of the first born Egyptian children, but not all the children.

Torture and forced disobedience weren't necessary for any of this. From the description in the Bible, we can surmise that five plagues did that just fine. After that, God is pretty clear that the whole thing was for bragging rights - if we take the story literally.He said it was to show is might. I've never denied it.

LOL. I don't only concentrate on one thing. However, unlike you, I can take a step back and read the story as it is written, instead of trying to rationalize it into a worldview that it simply doesn't fit into. neither am I. yet I'm not the one holding judgement over God. I never said that he was not capable of harsh punishments, I never said that was not stern, nor did I say that he was without mercy. I have not focused on the plagues only, ignoring all the pain that the Isrealites suffered. I don't ignore times when he spared cities that repented and only concentrated on those that didn't. I'm not the one rationalizing God's work into any world view. the ones who do that are the ones who also use the phrase "I cannot follow someone so heartless/cruel/petty/unforgiving" those are the ones judging God and forcing mortal worldviews on him and his actions.

See, I don't need the story, as told, to be absolutely true to have faith in God. My personal relationship with God does that. And I know that God is a loving, just God - which means that much of the OT simply isn't properly portraying God. Considering that the stories are from a much different society, that isn't really surprising.

Meanwhile, if the stories were true, that would, in my eyes, make God unworthy of worship. Most dictators were nice to their followers too, and mean to those who didn't follow them or didn't follow them recently. Do we dub them all benevolent, wonderful, loving people? Or do we recognize that, as Christ taught, loving doesn't apply only to your allies and friends?
again, since when does discipline and punishment mean that God doesn't love them. IF he truely didn't care for the Egyptians, then why not just strike them dead? He showed he had that power. unless the point was to teach them. sure it seems harsh to us to kill the firstborn children, and inflict what we think are 7 extra plagues, but God's vision is greater than ours, so is his plans. so to hold judgement on his actions that we perceive is prideful on our part.

and I neither judge the OT as acturate or not, factual or fictional. I take the lessions in there as God reveals them to me.




I agree, you don't need a God to make a deterministic universe, but I'm not sure about everyone believing in one. Do you believe that the universe runs on set rules? That the human body runs on a series of chemical reactions that are governed by those rules?
When I read this, a phrase from a never shown T.V show came to mind.
"the Universe doesn't have to make sense to you or I, It just has to make sense."

Do you believe that the universe runs on set rules? That the human body runs on a series of chemical reactions that are governed by those rules?

Do you think that the scientific method is logical and a sufficient way to look at the universe?I believe that the scientific method works as an approximation of reality, which may or may not be actually "true." I have no way of knowing if it really has any relevance, but as it seems to work most of the time, it is useful. Whether it is truly deterministic on a fundamental scale I have no idea and prefer to believe otherwise, given that I *think* I can choose (which is more evidence than I have for it being deterministic).

If the answers to these questions are yes, then, ultimately, you believe in a deterministic universe. You may not like it, but that's what it boils down to. In truth, science ceases to be logical in a non-deterministic universe, as there is no reason to believe that something will happen the same way again, even if it has been the exact same the past 1000 times you have tried it.Oh, I agree with that. It's an assumption that the scientific method makes, and assumptions are only as good as the mind which creates them from its interpretation of data. I wouldn't think of it as if it's a law. However, science may still have some use if it provides an approximation of what happens, regardless of whether it's right all the time or not. If different chances are weighted, so to speak, then science can make use of them. For me, I think there is reason to believe that the chances are so weighted, because it appears to be so. However, there's no way to prove that.

And? That doesn't dispel the idea of justice. Even if our choices are controlled by the chemicals in our brains, which are controlled by the chemical processes within our brains, which are controlled by the laws of physics, and so on......they are still our choices. Our perception and lack of knowledge do not allow us to predict the future or even know what our own choices will be until we make them, so they are just as much ours as they would be in a random universe. Moreso, in a way, as choices in a random universe would be governed by nothing more than chance.It looks like you are a party pooper, Dems. So if God (as specified) exists, then the universe is deterministic and personally abhorrent to me. If he doesn't and the universe is controlled by random events, then there still isn't any real meaning to "justice" or anything else and we STILL don't have the ability to choose. You must lead a happy life, Demipublicents. :(

My guess is that, if you really thought about it, you'd find that you already do. Either that, or you hold a strong belief in supernatural interference.I dislike the idea of either one, really... For the first I have already said why, and with second I have no concrete reason to believe in it. I've never thought that wishes made something happen, and they certainly won't make the supernatural suddenly reveal itself to save me from determinism (or randomness). Man, philosophy sucks!

I love you. I hope you're a woman. :fluffle:

Dude, I'm a guy...you've mentally scarred me...

Dude, I'm a guy...you've mentally scarred me...

:eek:

Darn. Oh, well....keep looking. :p

I was expressing my agreement with your statement. No scarring intended.

:eek:

Darn. Oh, well....keep looking. :p

I was expressing my agreement with your statement. No scarring intended.

I keep trying to remember that when people fluffle me. It's kind of one of those :eek: moments when it happens. So if you ever do agree with me, you should probably stick to :) or :D. It's a just for future reference thing.

I keep trying to remember that when people fluffle me. It's kind of one of those :eek: moments when it happens. So if you ever do agree with me, you should probably stick to :) or :D. It's a just for future reference thing.

'Twas a failed attempt at some humor.

Which happens to me more often than not :(

I keep trying to remember that when people fluffle me. It's kind of one of those :eek: moments when it happens. So if you ever do agree with me, you should probably stick to :) or :D. It's a just for future reference thing.
I didn't realize that... I'll go back to my original format then.

*Zen Hug*

and yet it wasnt their sin they were killed for. it was to show the greater glory of god and to punish pharoah even though without god's interference he would have let the jews go well before this last plague.

It was their sin, in a manner of speaking. Because of their inevitable upbringing, they were going to be just as sinful as their parents. Besides, the bible said God killed the firstborn, so they weren't all babies. And it was jusice that fitted the crime. Pharaoh let God's people suffer, so God di the same to his. And in fact, if God hadn't interfered, Pharaoh would not have let the slaves go.

"I know the king of Egypt will not let you go until he is forced to do so. But I will use my power and punish Egypt by doing terrible things there. After that he will let you go." Exodus Chpt3 V19-20.

I didn't realize that... I'll go back to my original format then.

*Zen Hug*

incidentally you and Ruffy are the only ones who don't default me into "eww" when you fluffle, but you can Zen hug me all you want, I like it.

*Zen Hug*

Doesn't most doctrine hold that we are all damned because of Original Sin (ie. Adam's sin) and thus must rid ourselves of that curse through Jesus Christ?

Can babies sin? Are you one of those people who agrees with Augustine - that babies sin when they cry for food?

If I take an infant away from sinful parents, will the infant even remember anything the parents did?

Where does Scripture suggest this? It's pretty clear in the story that God isn't punishing Egypt for any wider sins. God is punishing Egypt - all of Egypt - because Pharaoh - one guy - will not let the people of Moses go free. In fact, there are several passages where the Pharaoh's advisers and such ask him to let the slaves go. Pharaoh himself would do so, but God hardens his heart and forces him not to.

In fact, if you actually read the passages, you find that the purpose isn't punishment at all. God is intentionally forcing Pharaoh to refuse, so that God can do worse and worse things to the Egyptians to prove God's power.

I agree with you that God doesn't punish anyone for the sins of their parents, but that is a viewpoint completely inconsistent with a literal reading of the Bible and with most official Christian doctrine.

Yes, we are all destined to sin because of the original sin, and only Christ can save us from an eternity in hell. All we have to do is ask forgiveness and live a life that pleases him, for him. And no, I disagree with Augustine. Crying for food isn't a sin. But they weren't all babies, because it says God killed the firstborn. Many were fully aware and responsible for their actions. And God did not harden Pharaoh's heart, Pharaoh did that himself. Had he let the Israelites go when God asked politely, there would have been no need for the plagues. And it's not as if Pharaoh would have let them go had God not interfered. It was, in the end, a punishment to fit the crime. Pharaoh let God's people suffer, God let Pharaoh's people suffer.

Lillith isn't mentioned in the bible, neither are any daughters, so why assume that they exsisted while other humans are "imagined up"


Lilith is mentioned in the bible, just not in your translation.

Isaiah 34:14 "The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest."

The word translated as 'screech owl' is a condundrum. There is really no good reason for it to be translated that way.

The word is "liyliyth" - which is also the name of a Mesopotamian night goddess. It is worth noting that earlier translations than King James translated the word as 'lamia' (a vampire, or witch).

In other Hebrew sources, Liyliyth is demonstrated to be the mother of demons (the lilim), and as the first bride of Adam. (Midrash texts actually suggest Eve as the third bride, there is another un-named bride in between Lilith and Eve).


COULD HAVE BEEN. an assumption. and a Hammer doesn't hit nails without a human welding it.


ANd Adam would be the hammer in the hand of Jehovah.


but since the tree of Life was not part of the restricted trees, you cannot say that no one ate of it.


But, since God makes a special point of kicking them out 'before they eat it', it seems more logical to assume they could have, but didn't.


if God could change our state of being/mind/thinking without our consent, then why would there be Atheists, Agnostics and sick individuals today?


Because it doesn't matter?

Erm.. and why are the 'sick' in the same category as the atheist and the agnostic?

Which is why I said "Assuming that Genesis happened..."

would be interesting tho... to see if Adam and Eve really didn't have bellybuttons. :D

The word 'Adam' is used to describe both 'adam' and 'eve' in the Genesis story, and is derived from 'adamah' meaning something along the lines of earth or dirt. (The 'red clay', I think).

Most likely, it was used in the original text as the collective term for the creatures made from the earth in that act of creation.

"Miracles absolutely did work. Moses' snake eating the snake of the other priest convinced them. God quite obviously didn't need to kill all the firstborn. God chose to do this to make more miracles. It is exceedingly clear in God's words to Moses that God was doing this to show off how powerful He was - to brag, essentially."

What? No they didn't! Pharaoh would have let the Israelites go then and there if they had! Shame on you, Dempublicent1.

yes it does, to prove that it was the work of GOD and not Ra. sure he stops but the pharaoh has already proven that he is not above turning back on his word. so God stops after the third, what's stopping the pharaoh and the magicians from turning around and saying "The Great Ra has put a halt to the Jewish God's acts proving he's more powerful."


This isn't strictly true though...

After all, what is to stop the Egyptians from believing Ra did it, anyway?

(Why are we picking on Ra, anyway - wouldn't Sekhmet be a better candidate?)

And - even if the Egyptians didn't really believe Ra originated the plagues - they could still say he did.


Of course - when one considers that flooding the Nile floodplains often can result in 'plagues' of bugs, beasties and nasty waterborn disease, the 'miraculous' nature of the plagues is quite well diminished. Maybe that's why the Egyptian accounts fail to mention it so completely.

Lilith is mentioned in the bible, just not in your translation.

Isaiah 34:14 "The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest."

The word translated as 'screech owl' is a condundrum. There is really no good reason for it to be translated that way.

The word is "liyliyth" - which is also the name of a Mesopotamian night goddess. It is worth noting that earlier translations than King James translated the word as 'lamia' (a vampire, or witch).

In other Hebrew sources, Liyliyth is demonstrated to be the mother of demons (the lilim), and as the first bride of Adam. (Midrash texts actually suggest Eve as the third bride, there is another un-named bride in between Lilith and Eve).interesting... I've been looking for any mention of Lilith in the bible, and the reference of her being Adam's first bride. but do any of those translations actually state that she was Adam's first?

and it doesn't refute the notion that there are other humans as well.

ANd Adam would be the hammer in the hand of Jehovah.so if Adam was created for the purpose of naming and being the steward of the world, wouldn't that require intelligence?

But, since God makes a special point of kicking them out 'before they eat it', it seems more logical to assume they could have, but didn't. and since I had Hamburger for dinner last night, I can still have things happen "Before" I eat hamburger tonight.

22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: there is no indication that they never ate of the tree of life. the only difference between then and now is that they ate from the tree of Knowledge.

Because it doesn't matter?

Erm.. and why are the 'sick' in the same category as the atheist and the agnostic?
because God heals the sick and injured. yet he doesn't do that for everyone. no other inference.

and why wouldn't it matter... unless you are thinking like Chietuste and believe that only those predestined to be Christians will be allowed to enter the kingdom.

The word 'Adam' is used to describe both 'adam' and 'eve' in the Genesis story, and is derived from 'adamah' meaning something along the lines of earth or dirt. (The 'red clay', I think).

Most likely, it was used in the original text as the collective term for the creatures made from the earth in that act of creation.sounds good, just had fun imagining Adam and eve without belly buttons... that's all. a whimsical note in this debate. :p

interesting... I've been looking for any mention of Lilith in the bible, and the reference of her being Adam's first bride. but do any of those translations actually state that she was Adam's first?


The mention of Lilith, by name, is a one-off in the canonical scripture - she doesn't get mentioned again.

However, if the Midrash texts, she is explicitly stated as the first bride of Adam... her existence is 'proved' by the fact that the accepted text (as accepted in both the Jewish and Christian traditions) features an inconsistency - the Genesis account describes God making male AND female, and then goes on to later describe the construction of Eve.

There are other ways to explain that gap - but there is also the midrash accounts.


and it doesn't refute the notion that there are other humans as well.


No - but it doesn't mean there were other humans, either.


so if Adam was created for the purpose of naming and being the steward of the world, wouldn't that require intelligence?


Why? A pear is 'created for the purpose of' being delicious, but it doesn't need a high IQ to do it. If i create a program for my PC that generates names and is the 'steward' of my house, all it needs is the right programming (and some way to link to light switches, etc), no intelligence required.


and since I had Hamburger for dinner last night, I can still have things happen "Before" I eat hamburger tonight.


I don't think that fits.

If they eat the fruit of the Tree of Life, they will live forever. They don't... so they didn't.


because God heals the sick and injured. yet he doesn't do that for everyone. no other inference.


I don't see what you mean - he heals the sick, but no one else... well, no one else needs it?


and why wouldn't it matter... unless you are thinking like Chietuste and believe that only those predestined to be Christians will be allowed to enter the kingdom.


No - I'm thinking the otehr way. It doesn't matter if you are Atheist, Agnostic, 'sick', Muslim, satanist... all are 'saved' by the sacrifice on the cross.

If one looks at the blood sacrifices of the Old Testament, it didn't matter how the people of Israel felt, so long as they performed the right ceremony. Jesus is the ceremony, replacing the old blood sacrifice - it makes no sense to assume the rules have changed.


sounds good, just had fun imagining Adam and eve without belly buttons... that's all. a whimsical note in this debate. :p

I often see pictures of the couple in Eden, where they both have navels. It has never made sense to me. Maybe God just likes the design? :)

I often see pictures of the couple in Eden, where they both have navels. It has never made sense to me. Maybe God just likes the design? :)I'll answer the others when I have some sleep... but the image of God poking the proto-Adam testing to see "if he's done" sprang to mine when I read this...


I really need to get some sleep. Night all! .. make that morning all! :D

What? No they didn't! Pharaoh would have let the Israelites go then and there if they had! Shame on you, Dempublicent1.
I have but the story itself with which to counterpoint you
(10) So they took soot from a furnace and stood before Pharaoh. Moses tossed it into the air, and festering boils broke out on men and animals. (11) The magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils that were on them and on all the Egyptians. (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.
(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."

...

(16) Pharaoh quickly summoned Moses and Aaron and said, "I have sinned against the LORD your God and against you. (17) Now forgive my sin once more and pray to the LORD your God to take this deadly plague away from me."

(18) Moses then left Pharaoh and prayed to the LORD. (19) And the LORD changed the wind to a very strong west wind, which caught up the locusts and carried them into the Red Sea. Not a locust was left anywhere in Egypt. (20) But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.

(21) Then the LORD said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand toward the sky so that darkness will spread over Egypt—darkness that can be felt." (22) So Moses stretched out his hand toward the sky, and total darkness covered all Egypt for three days. (23) No one could see anyone else or leave his place for three days. Yet all the Israelites had light in the places where they lived.

(24) Then Pharaoh summoned Moses and said, "Go, worship the LORD. Even your women and children may go with you; only leave your flocks and herds behind."

(25) But Moses said, "You must allow us to have sacrifices and burnt offerings to present to the LORD our God. (26) Our livestock too must go with us; not a hoof is to be left behind. We have to use some of them in worshiping the LORD our God, and until we get there we will not know what we are to use to worship the LORD."

(27) But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he was not willing to let them go. (28) Pharaoh said to Moses, "Get out of my sight! Make sure you do not appear before me again! The day you see my face you will die."
(4) So Moses said, "This is what the LORD says: 'About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. (5) Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. (6) There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. (7) But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any man or animal.' Then you will know that the LORD makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel. (8) All these officials of yours will come to me, bowing down before me and saying, 'Go, you and all the people who follow you!' After that I will leave." Then Moses, hot with anger, left Pharaoh.

(9) The LORD had said to Moses, "Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you—so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt." (10) Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country.
And, as an aside,
(29) At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. (30) Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.

(31) During the night Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said, "Up! Leave my people, you and the Israelites! Go, worship the LORD as you have requested. (32) Take your flocks and herds, as you have said, and go. And also bless me."

(33) The Egyptians urged the people to hurry and leave the country. "For otherwise," they said, "we will all die!" (34) So the people took their dough before the yeast was added, and carried it on their shoulders in kneading troughs wrapped in clothing. (35) The Israelites did as Moses instructed and asked the Egyptians for articles of silver and gold and for clothing. (36) The LORD had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians.
So not only did The LORD deliberately prevent the Pharaoh from letting the Israelites leave after a few threats, he then controlled the Egyptian people to allow the Israelites to rob them blind on their way out; AFTER having killed all of their firstborn, of course.

I'll answer the others when I have some sleep... but the image of God poking the proto-Adam testing to see "if he's done" sprang to mine when I read this...


I really need to get some sleep. Night all! .. make that morning all! :D

Good night, my friend.

So - poke marks, huh? Another mystery solved through the wonders of NSG.

I have but the story itself with which to counterpoint you



And, as an aside,

So not only did The LORD deliberately prevent the Pharaoh from letting the Israelites leave after a few threats, he then controlled the Egyptian people to allow the Israelites to rob them blind on their way out; AFTER having killed all of their firstborn, of course.

And, even more curiously - none of it was recorded by the Egyptians... despite the fact they were normally so obsessive about record-keeping that we can accurately say how many bottles of wine might have been used at a given feast...

Indeed - the nearest parallel to the Hebrew story of Exodus, is the invasion of Egypt by Semitic peoples that conquered and ruled a large portion of the land until they were overthrown and driven out by the natives.

Looks a lot like the same story... but puts a very different complexion on which faction was 'abusing' which.

And, even more curiously - none of it was recorded by the Egyptians... despite the fact they were normally so obsessive about record-keeping that we can accurately say how many bottles of wine might have been used at a given feast...

Indeed - the nearest parallel to the Hebrew story of Exodus, is the invasion of Egypt by Semitic peoples that conquered and ruled a large portion of the land until they were overthrown and driven out by the natives.

Looks a lot like the same story... but puts a very different complexion on which faction was 'abusing' which.
Well... it would, wouldn't it? History, they say, is always written by the winners, primarily because they write themselves in as having won.

Yet another case for the "history is bunk" campaign, I think.

Yes, we are all destined to sin because of the original sin,

Then we are punished for the sins of our ancestors.

and only Christ can save us from an eternity in hell.

Indeed.

And no, I disagree with Augustine. Crying for food isn't a sin. But they weren't all babies, because it says God killed the firstborn. Many were fully aware and responsible for their actions.

Does that change the fact that some were not?

And God did not harden Pharaoh's heart, Pharaoh did that himself.

Really? So is the Bible lying then? Or did God lie to Moses?

Then 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.’

20But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.

27But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he was unwilling to let them go.

And those are just the references in Exodus 10. In fact, in ever plague after the boils, God hardens Pharaoh's heart.

Had he let the Israelites go when God asked politely, there would have been no need for the plagues.

That isn't what God said. God specifically says that he caused Pharaoh to continue resistance, so that God could keep on bringing on the plagues.

And it's not as if Pharaoh would have let them go had God not interfered. It was, in the end, a punishment to fit the crime. Pharaoh let God's people suffer, God let Pharaoh's people suffer.

Is God 3 years old?

I have but the story itself with which to counterpoint you

And, as an aside,

So not only did The LORD deliberately prevent the Pharaoh from letting the Israelites leave after a few threats, he then controlled the Egyptian people to allow the Israelites to rob them blind on their way out; AFTER having killed all of their firstborn, of course.

God brought the plagues on Egypt as punishment for letting his people suffer. The miracles did not work because they did not convince Pharaoh do realease the Israelites, on the contrary, they hardened his heart, as you rightfully say, but even after that God gave him the chance to release the Israelites. And it's not as though God blinded the Egyptians just so the Israelites could nick their stuff, they were already blind. That was one of the plagues.

And, even more curiously - none of it was recorded by the Egyptians... despite the fact they were normally so obsessive about record-keeping that we can accurately say how many bottles of wine might have been used at a given feast...

Indeed - the nearest parallel to the Hebrew story of Exodus, is the invasion of Egypt by Semitic peoples that conquered and ruled a large portion of the land until they were overthrown and driven out by the natives.

Looks a lot like the same story... but puts a very different complexion on which faction was 'abusing' which.

Actually, it was, but many records from the period were destroyed as a result of conquest.

Prior to the enslavement of the Jews, they were held in high regard by the Egyptians. In fact, Joseph himself was nominally the Pharaoah for a time. When the Egyptians were later conquered by (I want to say the Hittites, but I'm not sure) those who stayed and took power enslaved the Jews and pretty much changed everything.

Eventually, the original Egyptians regained control and destroyed all traces of the period when they had lost their kingdom.

God brought the plagues on Egypt as punishment for letting his people suffer. The miracles did not work because they did not convince Pharaoh do realease the Israelites, on the contrary, they hardened his heart, as you rightfully say, but even after that God gave him the chance to release the Israelites. And it's not as though God blinded the Egyptians just so the Israelites could nick their stuff, they were already blind. That was one of the plagues.

No, you've got it wrong. The miracles didn't harden Pharaoh's heart. That was a separate action by God. After the boils, the miracles seemed to have Pharaoh ready to let the Israelites go. But God hardened his heart every time, forcing him to renege on that deal. And then, God would bring forth another plauge, and then harden Pharaoh's heart again, right up until God got to kill all of the Egyptians' first born. Then God finally felt he had done enough to let Pharaoh make his own decision to let the Israelites go.

what i meant was that as an atheist im free to look at religious things any way i like. i dont have to make the bible work. i dont have to worry about how god can know everything and yet my life isnt predetermined.

besides, there arent all that many paradoxes in real life and most of those are in the realm of quantum physics. ill never understand quantum physics anyway so why would i worry about its paradoxes?

I like sorting out paradoxes because it provides me with a good mental exercise. I do not feel any obligation to do so because, like you, I do not necessarily believe in the Law of Non-Contradiction.

I like sorting out paradoxes because it provides me with a good mental exercise. I do not feel any obligation to do so because, like you, I do not necessarily believe in the Law of Non-Contradiction.While I agree it's impossible to prove or disprove, you can hardly even have an argument without the law. To reject it is to reject that logic and reason have any use, which hardly makes any sense to me. I'm curious why you would even bother with such a stance in the first place.

If you even respond to this statement with a argument based on premises then you would already have accepted that logic means something, which would make your statement about the law of non-contradiction sort of odd.

It was their sin, in a manner of speaking. Because of their inevitable upbringing, they were going to be just as sinful as their parents. Besides, the bible said God killed the firstborn, so they weren't all babies. And it was jusice that fitted the crime. Pharaoh let God's people suffer, so God di the same to his. And in fact, if God hadn't interfered, Pharaoh would not have let the slaves go.

"I know the king of Egypt will not let you go until he is forced to do so. But I will use my power and punish Egypt by doing terrible things there. After that he will let you go." Exodus Chpt3 V19-20.

and how does this not make god a hearless murdering bastard?

besides they were not killed for their sins, their sinfulness isnt at issue at all. they were killed to demonstrate the greater power of god and to punish pharoah who refused to let the jews go. the moral state of the people he killed is irrelevant.

Actually, it was, but many records from the period were destroyed as a result of conquest.

Prior to the enslavement of the Jews, they were held in high regard by the Egyptians. In fact, Joseph himself was nominally the Pharaoah for a time. When the Egyptians were later conquered by (I want to say the Hittites, but I'm not sure) those who stayed and took power enslaved the Jews and pretty much changed everything.

Eventually, the original Egyptians regained control and destroyed all traces of the period when they had lost their kingdom.

where do these details come from?

And, even more curiously - none of it was recorded by the Egyptians... despite the fact they were normally so obsessive about record-keeping that we can accurately say how many bottles of wine might have been used at a given feast...

Indeed - the nearest parallel to the Hebrew story of Exodus, is the invasion of Egypt by Semitic peoples that conquered and ruled a large portion of the land until they were overthrown and driven out by the natives.

Looks a lot like the same story... but puts a very different complexion on which faction was 'abusing' which.

You're mixing up you Egyptian history facts.

You are comparing two different groups, you are talking about the preserved record keeping of upper Egypt, dry climate, lots of artifacts for us today. But lower Egypt is a wetter climate, less artifacts preserved, almost no surviving papyrus from any time period of ancient Egypt. There are lots of gaps in the knowledge of lower Egypt, and lower Egypt is where the exodus is said to have taken place. It is not surprising at all that thousands of years of history of that area is lost, and likely lost forever. The two regions have different languages, different cultures (both sometimes were ruled by the same hierarchy though, but that does not mean that upper and lower Egypt are one and the same) and they shouldn't be equated to the same standards of knowledge either.

Well... it would, wouldn't it? History, they say, is always written by the winners, primarily because they write themselves in as having won.

Yet another case for the "history is bunk" campaign, I think.

Not totally bunk... there are agreements between the two accounts (although the Moses character is a bone of contention - the best parallel recorded in Egyptian histories is half a thousand years too early), and there are other records of the Hapiru, who might or might not have been the Hyksos, who might or might not have been the Hebrew, peoples.

History should only ever be considered a 'best of our knowledge' pursuit, though... and trusting just one account is dubious, at best.

Actually, it was, but many records from the period were destroyed as a result of conquest.

Prior to the enslavement of the Jews, they were held in high regard by the Egyptians. In fact, Joseph himself was nominally the Pharaoah for a time. When the Egyptians were later conquered by (I want to say the Hittites, but I'm not sure) those who stayed and took power enslaved the Jews and pretty much changed everything.

Eventually, the original Egyptians regained control and destroyed all traces of the period when they had lost their kingdom.

If the records were destroyed... how do you know they existed?

The people you are talking about were the Hyksos, a semitic people who conquered most of Egypt, and were eventually driven out. There is no reason to believe 'the Jews' were ever enslaved in Egypt - except for Hebrew scripture. And, let's face it, they might not have wanted to record being the bad guys, AND getting their asses handed to them. Indeed, if one looks at the records of the era the story is supposed to have occured in - Egypt was peaceful, and had foreigners in high ranking positions - not the violent slaver nation the scripture claims.

Typical to the Hebrews of the Hebrew scripture, these Hyksos were not monument builders - hence the minimal traces of Hyksos rule - except the legcy of different Egyptian dynasties ruling at the same time. What is known wasn't recorded in the usual Egyptian (monumental) style, but by the oppressed faction.

You're mixing up you Egyptian history facts.

You are comparing two different groups, you are talking about the preserved record keeping of upper Egypt, dry climate, lots of artifacts for us today. But lower Egypt is a wetter climate, less artifacts preserved, almost no surviving papyrus from any time period of ancient Egypt. There are lots of gaps in the knowledge of lower Egypt, and lower Egypt is where the exodus is said to have taken place. It is not surprising at all that thousands of years of history of that area is lost, and likely lost forever. The two regions have different languages, different cultures (both sometimes were ruled by the same hierarchy though, but that does not mean that upper and lower Egypt are one and the same) and they shouldn't be equated to the same standards of knowledge either.

How am I mixing up the facts? Yes, Egypt has been divided... and it has been united. I didn't claim all the records were intact.

It seems to me, you say I am 'mixing up' the facts, basically because I am questioning the veracity of the mythology of one of the parties that may (or may not - it could be yet another example of borrowing material) have been present.

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.
You have three fallacies: Throughout this essay, (1) you assume that you know what is right and wrong, because you claim to know that God is imperfect just because of what He says and does, (2) you, rather than refuting the existence of God Himself, simply affirm what the Bible says, showing that God keeps the promises He made in the Bible, and (3) you rely on logic, which is no good: "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." Proverbs 3:5.

Indeed, God is perfect, and indeed, He does kill. He pours His wrath out on the wicked (Romans 1:18), and the righteous are to rejoice when they see this vengeance (Psalms 58:10).

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.”
Amen! As a matter of fact, God's name is Jealous: "thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God" (Exodus 34:14).

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.
Indeed, the Jews were God's chosen people. Why did God kill the firstborns of every Egyptian household? Because He is a God of love. This may sound contradictory to the human mind, but he who is of God knows it to be true.

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 does not lie, but you make him out to be a liar because you conform God to your perception of Him. Indeed, we are all enslaved to His will, for He maintains absolute control over His creation, and we are His creation. Why did God cause Adam and Eve to sin in the garden? To have mercy on us: "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all." Romans 11:32. This is love.

Note also that God creates evil: "I form the light and create the darkness, I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Isaiah 45:7.

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?
Yes, God creates us either for Heaven or for Hell. Usually for Hell, but sometimes for Heaven (Matthew 7:13). "The Lord has made all for Himself, yes even the wicked for the day of doom." Proverbs 16:4.

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 answer to your question lies in Romans 9:16: "It is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy." Whether or not God has predestined you to go to Heaven determines (1) whether or not you're saved, and (2) what good works you do in your life. Salvation is not by works (for then any retard could help a little old lady just to get to Heaven), but rather by God. Good works are merely yielded by that faith.

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?
These are more like Sunday-School questions than actual arguments against the Word of God. The Bible teaches that we have free will but that this free will has been predetermined. So Judas deserved Hell for choosing betrayal, but God knew of Judas' betrayal because he caused it (Romans 11:36).

Also, Jesus didn't destroy sin itself; he atoned for it.

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?”
Our destiny is not determined "regardless of our actions in life." Our destiny is (pre-)defined by our actions in life. God is indeed vengeful and jealous, but He cannot commit murder; He can only kill. Murder is defined as when one human unjustifiably kills another. When a bear kills a human, it's not murder, and it's not murder either if God kills you (and He will, trust me).

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.
Yes! So He could have mercy on us!

you rely on logic, which is no good: "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." Proverbs 3:5.

That was suicidal. Correct, but suicidal.

Indeed, God is perfect, and indeed, He does kill. He pours His wrath out on the wicked (Romans 1:18), and the righteous are to rejoice when they see this vengeance (Psalms 58:10).

Rejoice in what? The suffering of the people? No. Rejoice that God is who He is and that He is being glorified through His actions? Yes.

Indeed, the Jews were God's chosen people. Why did God kill the firstborns of every Egyptian household? Because He is a God of love. This may sound contradictory to the human mind, but he who is of God knows it to be true.

:confused: I don't see God's love being directly glorified in this action. His wrath and justice (and in a strange way, His mercy)? Yes, but not His love, at least not directly.

God does not lie, but you make him out to be a liar because you conform God to your perception of Him. Indeed, we are all enslaved to His will, for He maintains absolute control over His creation, and we are His creation. Why did God cause Adam and Eve to sin in the garden? To have mercy on us: "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all." Romans 11:32. This is love.

You make it sound as though God is the author of sin: He isn't. God turned them over to their desires and let them go their own way, which He knew would and planned that it would lead them into sin.

Note also that God creates evil: "I form the light and create the darkness, I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Isaiah 45:7.

Evil in the sense of calamity (the way most translations read) not in the sense of sin.

Yes, God creates us either for Heaven or for Hell. Usually for Hell, but sometimes for Heaven (Matthew 7:13). "The Lord has made all for Himself, yes even the wicked for the day of doom." Proverbs 16:4.

Matthew says "many" not "most" there's a difference.

The answer to your question lies in Romans 9:16: "It is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy." Whether or not God has predestined you to go to Heaven determines (1) whether or not you're saved, and (2) what good works you do in your life. Salvation is not by works (for then any retard could help a little old lady just to get to Heaven), but rather by God. Good works are merely yielded by that faith.

Correct. Please don't use the word "retard" like that, though.

These are more like Sunday-School questions than actual arguments against the Word of God. The Bible teaches that we have free will but that this free will has been predetermined. So Judas deserved Hell for choosing betrayal, but God knew of Judas' betrayal because he caused it (Romans 11:36).

If you mean free will as an unbound desire, no.
If you mean free will as free agency, a free choice, then, yes.

Also, Jesus didn't destroy sin itself; he atoned for it.

He destroyed sins power over His elect.

Our destiny is not determined "regardless of our actions in life." Our destiny is (pre-)defined by our actions in life. God is indeed vengeful and jealous, but He cannot commit murder; He can only kill. Murder is defined as when one human unjustifiably kills another. When a bear kills a human, it's not murder, and it's not murder either if God kills you (and He will, trust me).

True.

Yes! So He could have mercy on us!

True.

Good use of Scripture. It's nice to see another Reformed Christian on here (or at least you sound Reformed). You're much more articulate than I.

You have three fallacies: Throughout this essay, (1) you assume that you know what is right and wrong, because you claim to know that God is imperfect just because of what He says and does, (2) you, rather than refuting the existence of God Himself, simply affirm what the Bible says, showing that God keeps the promises He made in the Bible, and (3) you rely on logic, which is no good: "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." Proverbs 3:5.

Indeed, God is perfect, and indeed, He does kill. He pours His wrath out on the wicked (Romans 1:18), and the righteous are to rejoice when they see this vengeance (Psalms 58:10).


Amen! As a matter of fact, God's name is Jealous: "thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God" (Exodus 34:14).


Indeed, the Jews were God's chosen people. Why did God kill the firstborns of every Egyptian household? Because He is a God of love. This may sound contradictory to the human mind, but he who is of God knows it to be true.


God does not lie, but you make him out to be a liar because you conform God to your perception of Him. Indeed, we are all enslaved to His will, for He maintains absolute control over His creation, and we are His creation. Why did God cause Adam and Eve to sin in the garden? To have mercy on us: "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all." Romans 11:32. This is love.

Note also that God creates evil: "I form the light and create the darkness, I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Isaiah 45:7.


Yes, God creates us either for Heaven or for Hell. Usually for Hell, but sometimes for Heaven (Matthew 7:13). "The Lord has made all for Himself, yes even the wicked for the day of doom." Proverbs 16:4.


The answer to your question lies in Romans 9:16: "It is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy." Whether or not God has predestined you to go to Heaven determines (1) whether or not you're saved, and (2) what good works you do in your life. Salvation is not by works (for then any retard could help a little old lady just to get to Heaven), but rather by God. Good works are merely yielded by that faith.


These are more like Sunday-School questions than actual arguments against the Word of God. The Bible teaches that we have free will but that this free will has been predetermined. So Judas deserved Hell for choosing betrayal, but God knew of Judas' betrayal because he caused it (Romans 11:36).

Also, Jesus didn't destroy sin itself; he atoned for it.


Our destiny is not determined "regardless of our actions in life." Our destiny is (pre-)defined by our actions in life. God is indeed vengeful and jealous, but He cannot commit murder; He can only kill. Murder is defined as when one human unjustifiably kills another. When a bear kills a human, it's not murder, and it's not murder either if God kills you (and He will, trust me).


Yes! So He could have mercy on us!

interesting.

so youre saying that we misunderstand god in that we think he is all loving or at least that "all loving" means he loves each and every one of us.

how much can god love those he made for hell? how merciful is he to those that he never chose to show mercy to? not at all.

sure its his perogative to do with his creation as he pleases, to arrange it in any way that seems good to him. but when *I* (for example) get the short end of the stick and end up damned to hell preordained from the beginning of time, you will perhaps understand that i dont find that a loving act.

sure its his perogative to do with his creation as he pleases, to arrange it in any way that seems good to him. but when *I* (for example) get the short end of the stick and end up damned to hell preordained from the beginning of time, you will perhaps understand that i dont find that a loving act.

I can't speak for Quamia, but I would say God is loving enough to give you what you want: separation from Him and just enough to give you what that means: damnation.

I can't speak for Quamia, but I would say God is loving enough to give you what you want: separation from Him and just enough to give you what that means: damnation.

Of course, if God decides who wants that and who doesn't, is it really what they want?

Of course, if God decides who wants that and who doesn't, is it really what they want?

Yes. You just said that they want it. They naturally truly want separation and God chooses some to change so they will truly want to be with God.

Yes. You just said that they want it. They naturally truly want separation and God chooses some to change so they will truly want to be with God.

If they naturally want separation, and they need God's intervention to change, then it isn't by choice.

In other words, it is all God's choice. There is no choice for the human beings. God chooses to send some to heaven and some to hell - and it has nothing whatsoever to do with any choices made by that person.

If it is as you describe, God bears full responsibility for those who end up in hell - just as God bears full responsibility for those who end up in heaven.

If they naturally want separation, and they need God's intervention to change, then it isn't by choice.

In other words, it is all God's choice. There is no choice for the human beings. God chooses to send some to heaven and some to hell - and it has nothing whatsoever to do with any choices made by that person.

If it is as you describe, God bears full responsibility for those who end up in hell - just as God bears full responsibility for those who end up in heaven.

Natural man is tainted in every part by sin. God did not taint him. He inherited this taint from Adam and Eve. This taint of sin makes him totally against God. No matter what way you split him up, both/all the parts are against God. He does what he wants in all his choices and all the choices are therefore sinful because his will is against God. He earns damnation.

God, in His mercy, changes the natures of some so that they see God's goodness and how good God's offer of salvation is, and they want Him and it.

God would be responsible for the damnation of the unrepentant if He were required to save them and didn't. But He's not required to save anyone. He didn't save the demons. If He had to save everyone, then those who were saved would not be saved by grace (unmerited favor) and mercy (not giving out deserved punishment), whiich goes against Scripture.

I can't speak for Quamia, but I would say God is loving enough to give you what you want: separation from Him and just enough to give you what that means: damnation.

well no.

he quoted a passage that said that there were people who were specifically created for damnation.

thats not loving.

well no.

he quoted a passage that said that there were people who were specifically created for damnation.

thats not loving.

That's not loving?

God is love, He cannot help but love, but He cannot help but show off (which is okay, He's God: it would be wrong for Him to not show off) and that includes showing off His wrath and justice. And how can He do that without something(s) to have wrath and do justice on?

We are His creatures: He's allowed to do what He wants with us.

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.

"For the wages of sin is death" Romans 6:23

God has the right to kill any one of us at any time. The Bible makes that point. The reason the Bible says that we can't do that is unlike God we have sin.


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.”

I think this is a misunderstanding based on language, simply because we use the same word for jelousy among more concepts than the Jews did

Read this, it elaborates further

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/madgod.html


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.

Justice, not favoritism. God had shown patience with Egypt, and only upon the 10th and final plague did God strike out vilonetly.

I'll respond to the rest later perhaps. I have other things to do

That's not loving?

God is love, He cannot help but love, but He cannot help but show off (which is okay, He's God: it would be wrong for Him to not show off) and that includes showing off His wrath and justice. And how can He do that without something(s) to have wrath and do justice on?

We are His creatures: He's allowed to do what He wants with us.

not that is not love.

yes he can do as he will with us.

but if he makes me with the purpose of burning in hell forever, he does not love me.

not that is not love.

yes he can do as he will with us.

but if he makes me with the purpose of burning in hell forever, he does not love me.

And that's something that I am grappling with right now.

Can it be love in this? Of course, though it would be quite a paradox and quite beyond my understanding (and the understanding of all the humans I know). There are some who would say that God does not love those whom He made for the fire. And that seems to make more sense, doesn't it? But we must be wary of accepting something just because it's easier to understand.

And that's something that I am grappling with right now.

Can it be love in this? Of course, though it would be quite a paradox and quite beyond my understanding (and the understanding of all the humans I know). There are some who would say that God does not love those whom He made for the fire. And that seems to make more sense, doesn't it? But we must be wary of accepting something just because it's easier to understand.

its a tough one alright.

thats why the rest of christianity grant everyone at least a chance at heaven no matter how slim.

its a tough one alright.

thats why the rest of christianity grant everyone at least a chance at heaven no matter how slim.

Again, I stand by this statement:
The question isn't "Why doesn't God save everybody?" The question is "Why does God save anybody?"

Answers some questions and might clear up some confusion (http://www.corkfpc.com/avoidingconfusion.html)

youre much harsher than i am.

Hah! That's a bitter kind of funny, because I just came across this quote which I agree totally with:
"What the Arminian wants to do is to arouse man's activity: what we want to do is to kill it once for all---to show him that he is lost and ruined, and that his activities are not now at all equal to the work of conversion; that he must look upward. They seek to make the man stand up: we seek to bring him down, and make him feel that there he lies in the hand of God, and that his business is to submit himself to God, and cry aloud, 'Lord, save, or we perish.' We hold that man is never so near grace as when he begins to feel he can do nothing at all. When he says, 'I can pray, I can believe, I can do this, and I can do the other,' marks of self-sufficiency and arrogance are on his brow." - C. H. Spurgeon


but if you keep working on it and praying on it, i expect that you can work it out to your satisfaction. it seems to me to be one of those paradoxes that shouldnt be let lie.

I agree.

Again, I stand by this statement:

youre much harsher than i am.

but if you keep working on it and praying on it, i expect that you can work it out to your satisfaction. it seems to me to be one of those paradoxes that shouldnt be let lie.

While I agree it's impossible to prove or disprove, you can hardly even have an argument without the law. To reject it is to reject that logic and reason have any use, which hardly makes any sense to me. I'm curious why you would even bother with such a stance in the first place.

If you even respond to this statement with a argument based on premises then you would already have accepted that logic means something, which would make your statement about the law of non-contradiction sort of odd.

I disagree entirely. There is more than one system of logic, my friend. And the traditional Western system of logic is hardly the best one, in my opinion.

I can't speak for Quamia, but I would say God is loving enough to give you what you want: separation from Him and just enough to give you what that means: damnation.

If God makes us all to be seperate, we have no choice in wanting to be separate.

If, as you say, he then alters some so that they can perceive his good, he still gave no choice to his other creations.

Your version is neither logical, nor scriptural.

And that's something that I am grappling with right now.

Can it be love in this? Of course, though it would be quite a paradox and quite beyond my understanding (and the understanding of all the humans I know). There are some who would say that God does not love those whom He made for the fire. And that seems to make more sense, doesn't it? But we must be wary of accepting something just because it's easier to understand.

Then let your scripture be your guide. If your idea is conflicted, it can't be right, now can it?

If the scripture says that any who come to Christ can be saved, it can't also be true that some can try to approach, and be rebuffed.

You could argue that only some can approach, but that conflicts with the earthly ministry of Jesus, where even the Samaritan woman is blessed - even though Jesus' ministry is still only for Israel, at that point.

If the records were destroyed... how do you know they existed?

If I give you a 100-page book and you find that pages 45-58 were absent, then you'd know they existed despite being missing.


The people you are talking about were the Hyksos, a semitic people who conquered most of Egypt, and were eventually driven out. There is no reason to believe 'the Jews' were ever enslaved in Egypt - except for Hebrew scripture. And, let's face it, they might not have wanted to record being the bad guys, AND getting their asses handed to them. Indeed, if one looks at the records of the era the story is supposed to have occured in - Egypt was peaceful, and had foreigners in high ranking positions - not the violent slaver nation the scripture claims.

Hyksos... thank you.

Being a nation that has slaves doesn't make it inherently violent. Imperial Rome maintained slaves through most of its existence, even through years of internal peace.


Typical to the Hebrews of the Hebrew scripture, these Hyksos were not monument builders - hence the minimal traces of Hyksos rule - except the legcy of different Egyptian dynasties ruling at the same time. What is known wasn't recorded in the usual Egyptian (monumental) style, but by the oppressed faction.
Although again, we do know from other archaeologucal sources that upon regaining their territory, the Egyptians erradicated all possible remnants of their invaders.

The events described in Exodus are independently verified in other writings of the period, including surviving records from the Egyptians themselves. (I read once an interesting work that detailed several elements of the life of Moses that aren't found in Exodus anywhere. He was apparently a general for a while under the Pharaoah. Interesting stuff.)

If I give you a 100-page book and you find that pages 45-58 were absent, then you'd know they existed despite being missing.


But, there isn't a hundred page book. You are just suggesting that there might be, and that some of the pages might be missing.

And, your argument to support this seems to be - that Egypt doesn't say all the same things happened that one other group claims.


Hyksos... thank you.

Being a nation that has slaves doesn't make it inherently violent. Imperial Rome maintained slaves through most of its existence, even through years of internal peace.


But Egypt wasn't a slaveholding national all throughout it's existence. Most claims for Exodus suggest it to be set during an unlikely time - either during the Hyksos reign, (no surprises there - objective analysis of all the evidence suggests that the poor Hebrew slaves being liberated... might actually have been an oppressive army being ousted) or immediately after - when Egypt was more likely to employ foreigners, than enslave them.

If
Although again, we do know from other archaeologucal sources that upon regaining their territory, the Egyptians erradicated all possible remnants of their invaders.


No. We really don't. You are confusing facts here.

In Egypt, a Pharaoh taking over from another Pharaoh often destroyed his name on monuments. The reason for this is one of the things that links Egypt with the Hebrews - a shared belief in the 'power' of names. As long as your name is remembered, you are immortal - so, by defacing the names, you 'kill' the deceased Pharaoh.

But, this isn't what happened during and after the Hyksos reign - they simply didn't make any monuments - which strongly suggests they had a different 'religious' agenda to the Egyptians, since monuments are even more of a religious artifacts of Egyptian culture, than a cultural one.

If
The events described in Exodus are independently verified in other writings of the period, including surviving records from the Egyptians themselves. (I read once an interesting work that detailed several elements of the life of Moses that aren't found in Exodus anywhere. He was apparently a general for a while under the Pharaoah. Interesting stuff.)

No - they really aren't.

I already said earlier, that Moses is most likely based on a much earlier character of Egyptian history... but he can't correspond to the Exodus story by something like half a thousand years (Mousos was a General who led campaigns in Cush... and, at that point, Mousos would have been 'recruiting' slaves).

The 'Moses' of the Hebrew scripture would be nonsensical in the time and place Exodus suggests - if for no other reason than his name being nonsensical. (Why would an adopted Egyptian baby have a Hebrew name? He wouldn't - he would have an Egyptian name. And, as an Egyptian name, Moses is almost meaningless... it just means 'born'.)

What an astoundingly dumb thread.

The question of "free will" is interpreted vastly differently by religious scholars, so differently in fact that it is one of the primary divides on which different Christian sects have been formed within the protestant reformation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination

Trying to answer the question of "free will" in a discussion board thread is like masturbating with a cheese grater.

-Egypt-
-Hebrew-
-Hyksos-
-Moses-



You really dig this subject, don't you, Grave? I actually read several fat books on this subject because of our previous and sometimes lengthy arguments. The trouble is that I have forgotten most of what I read.

Was pretty interesting at the time though. Suffice to say that some of the things you say about this subject turned out to be accepted by the majority of scholars, and some simply are not.

But I'm a little curious as to why you are so interested in this topic? Particularly given how far away it is from the OP of this thread?

You really dig this subject, don't you, Grave? I actually read several fat books on this subject because of our previous and sometimes lengthy arguments. The trouble is that I have forgotten most of what I read.

Was pretty interesting at the time though. Suffice to say that some of the things you say about this subject turned out to be accepted by the majority of scholars, and some simply are not.

But I'm a little curious as to why you are so interested in this topic? Particularly given how far away it is from the OP of this thread?

Aye - I'm sorry to be dragging a hijack along, but I'm just following where it went.

I'm really into this subject for a variety of reasons - I was always fascinated by Egypt, even as a very small child. This later evolved into a passion for that whole Mesopotamian area. Amusingly - considering so many of the debates I get into about religion, I actually approached the 'biblical' area from the general to the specific, so to speak - rather than the way many people do, which is to research the area to get background for the scripture - for example.

I'm a huge fan of history - especially this 'birth of nations' thing. The civilisations that we largely ignore now, but that we find out where so much more than the primitives we have often written them off as - Egyptian batteries, Babylonian mathematics, Greek computers...

I'm aware that not all of the things I suggest are accepted by the 'mainstream' (such as there is a mainstream in the field...) but I usually phrase that as such. If I say "Most scholars agree", or "some think", or "I believe", each of those probably tells you how popularaly accepted the idea is that I am discussing.

I don't know exactly why it fascinates me so - any more than I could explain to you why I am so obsessed with Celtic 'fairy tales'. It could just be my voracious appetite for information.

Aye - I'm sorry to be dragging a hijack along, but I'm just following where it went. I'm really into this subject for a variety of reasons - I was always fascinated by Egypt, even as a very small child. This later evolved into a passion for that whole Mesopotamian area. Amusingly - considering so many of the debates I get into about religion, I actually approached the 'biblical' area from the general to the specific, so to speak - rather than the way many people do, which is to research the area to get background for the scripture - for example. I'm a huge fan of history - especially this 'birth of nations' thing. The civilisations that we largely ignore now, but that we find out where so much more than the primitives we have often written them off as - Egyptian batteries, Babylonian mathematics, Greek computers... I'm aware that not all of the things I suggest are accepted by the 'mainstream' (such as there is a mainstream in the field...) but I usually phrase that as such. If I say "Most scholars agree", or "some think", or "I believe", each of those probably tells you how popularaly accepted the idea is that I am discussing. I don't know exactly why it fascinates me so - any more than I could explain to you why I am so obsessed with Celtic 'fairy tales'. It could just be my voracious appetite for information. That's interesting. I'm also very interested in ancient civilisations (which is why I read those fat books, not only because of my debates with you), and also the Celtic and Norse myths, although it was probably Tolkien that first got me on to them. You would probably also enjoy the Sid Meyer's Civilisation games, I'm guessing. Anyway, back to the God issue......

Edit: BTW What was your evidence for claiming that Egypt wasn't always a nation that had slaves? Because that seems a bit far out to me. It was pretty much accepted that any nation with a military/enough money also had slaves, sometimes in addition to hired labour force.

Then we are punished for the sins of our ancestors.

Indeed.

Does that change the fact that some were not?

Really? So is the Bible lying then? Or did God lie to Moses?
And those are just the references in Exodus 10. In fact, in ever plague after the boils, God hardens Pharaoh's heart.

That isn't what God said. God specifically says that he caused Pharaoh to continue resistance, so that God could keep on bringing on the plagues.

Is God 3 years old?

A) No. We can be forgiven. When we face judgement after death, God judges us by our own sins, not Adam's and Eve's.

B) Yes. Indeed.

C) No. But they would have been as sinful as their parents and older siblings in a few years time, becaus eof their upbringing.

D) God was the reason Pharaoh hardened his own heart. And does it really matter? God punished in a reasonable manner.

E) Ah, but if Pharaoh was going to give in before the plagues, God would already have known that, so he wouldn't have told Moses that Pharaoh wouldn't listen in the first place.

F) No. This just seems immature to you, but it's a perfectly reasonable punishment. Pharaoh has made God's people suffer. Whay shouldn't God let his people suffer? As I say, the punishment fits the crime.

Remember, everyone! He who exalts himself before God will be humbled, and he who humbles himself before God will be exalted! :cool:

That's interesting. I'm also very interested in ancient civilisations (which is why I read those fat books, not only because of my debates with you), and also the Celtic and Norse myths, although it was probably Tolkien that first got me on to them.

You would probably also enjoy the Sid Meyer's Civilisation games, I'm guessing.

Anyway, back to the God issue......

Not going to abandon that hijack quite yet. :)

Yes - even now, I still play Civ 3 every couple of days, probably. (That and Civ: Call To Power were the ones I'm most keen on). Amusingly, I play 'concept' games - the last-but-one I played being a Hebrew expansion. I admit I didn't follow a strict chronology, and that I 'invented' the names of the towns I conquered, based on pidgin Hebrew - like naming the rich agricultural city Beth-Bashan... something like 'house-of-plenty'.

I've just always loved the overarching mechanisms - the way cultures change, and follow the same routes over and over... It's fascinating to me. Also - the way 'stories' really do so often have a grain of truth - like the descriptions in Celtic myth of successive invasions by 'fairy' folk - the Fir Bolg, Fomorians, Tuatha de Danaan, daoine sidhe, etc... which actually correspond quite well to archeological evidences of the successive waves of Celtic immigration. I guess we all describe our invaders as 'monsters from the sea' - it's just interesting to see how the metaphor becomes 'truth' in the repitition of retelling.

Edit: BTW What was your evidence for claiming that Egypt wasn't always a nation that had slaves? Because that seems a bit far out to me. It was pretty much accepted that any nation with a military/enough money also had slaves, sometimes in addition to hired labour force.

Hard for me to put a finger on an exact source. :)

But, in general terms... The US doesn't currently have a (legal) slave trade, despite being fairly wealthy on the world stage, and having a pretty impressive military force. Why automatically assume that all powerful nations historically, must have been slaveholders? Certainly - why assume it as true for their entire scope of history?

I'm not saying that Egypt must have been entirely slave-free for these periods of time - I'm sure I don't know if they were ever entirely emancipated. But 'slave-holding' nations have to maintain a slave-holding status - they have to 'feed' the market, and the local histories do not show this raiding character of Egypt over prolonged periods. On the other hand - if one looks at the time when Exodus is supposed to have occured, it wasn't unlikely for Cushites or Syrians to hold high positions... military office or administrative office... despite being formerly 'mills' for the slave trade.

So - if Egypt has no outward reputation for slave-taking, and has nations formerly commonly used for slaving being internally accepted as (almost) equals... are they really a slaver nation?

A) F) No. This just seems immature to you, but it's a perfectly reasonable punishment. Pharaoh has made God's people suffer. Whay shouldn't God let his people suffer? As I say, the punishment fits the crime.

god can do as he pleases with his creation. he can make the punishment fit the crime or make it excessive, thats his business

but he cannot claim to love each and every person on earth and kill them for the sins of another. he cannot create billions of people who have zero chance to get into heaven and claim to love them

thats just not love.

Hi, everybody!

(Hi, Dr. Nick!)


*cough* I took a NS break for a while, but I figured the first post I make when I get back should be in one of my favorite topics: The bible being wrong.

I read roughly the first and last five pages (noticing the hijack, Grave ^^; ) and have formed a basic opinion on what I've read.

The bible is a series of stories, meant to be taken metaphorically. This means they're flexible in their meanings, and the result of said meanings can be different from person to person. This variability does two things:

1. It makes it so most anyone can relate and understand to the things written. They can find stories that apply to their lives and learn from them.

2. It makes it so that it -cannot- be a book of rules, in any way/shape/form. At all. Ever. Since it is so variable, nothing is concrete, no rules are the exception to interpretation, and it simply cannot be used as what people claim to be - the testament, guidance, and punishment of god.

We now know, so much later after the compilation of the bible (being compiled from various different stories), that taking it literally and assuming it has the inspiration and directions of god therein will ultimately lead to a concrete wall where two people simply disagree on what it means to say about a subject, and since one or both of them take it to be the strict word of god, it's possible that violence will come about because of it.

Surely god saw this coming. He knew that his writing skills were a bit outdated, and that the result would be nonsensical and, if a may take a chance and use a word that might not exist, uncredible - unable to give credit to because the source is unreliable, and possibly nonexistant.

It seems to me that if god wanted us to take something like the bible this seriously, he would make damn sure it was written and compiled in such a way where interpretation is written out of the picture, and you're left with nothing but hard facts and accounts of things that definitely happened and solid directions which leave the human race with a simple choice - to obey or disobey, to bow or face the consequences.

People in this thread have likened the human race to dogs, and children, and I even recall something about us being a failed painting. The simple truth is that we -aren't- dogs, because we are not owned. We are supposedly free, with a poorly written book and a god that didn't proofread telling us how to live our lives. We aren't children, because children are taken care of. Children are ignorant - ignorant as we may be, we have no reason to suspect that our minds can be likened to that of a child in comparison to god's, simply because we live the way he has given us the ability to live - if we are children, then it is because we were created to be children, and not given a choice in the matter.

As for us being paintings that god has the right to simply toss away if he is unsatisfied with the result: god is no painter. He isn't under the poverty line, living in a basement, spending all his money on art supplies so he can get closer to making his masterpiece through practicing making various other things. He's OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT, OMNIPRESENT. If he were a painter, and he wanted his painting to be perfect with no flaws whatsoever, then it would be so. Unless he specifically -wanted- his painting to be flawed, it would not be so, because he has the power to prevent such flaws - even while keeping free will intact. If he did in fact paint his painting with said flaws on purpose, he then has an obligation to that painting to understand its flaws and not act all surprised and vengeful when those flaws come to light.

While it may be alright for a normal painter to simply toss away his flawed paintings, god's paintings are life. He claims to love his creations, and to make it seem so, he would have to take care of and nurture all of them, flawed or not, defiant or not, ignorant or not, disobediant or not, simply because they are his creations, and he created them to be the way they are.

If god loved us, there would be no damnation. There would be no hell. There would certainly be no eternal punishment for anything, ever. Even Hitler, as full of hate and ignorance as he was, would be forgiven and understood and nurtured like the rest of his creations would be.

This is the way god should be, but unfortunately the bible says otherwise. The bible says he's vengeful - hateful, at times - he's not gentle, he's not understanding, he's not compassionate. He doesn't understand how we think or what we go through or how we feel, and what's worse, he doesn't seem to care. He uses death as a means to solve what he sees to be problems in the world - death, to most humans, the most capital of punishments and the most severe way to solve a problem, he uses like it's his only option. He doesn't seem to try very hard to help his creations understand him or what he wants, and when he does he does it in a very ineffective and "uncredible" way.

My opinion is that god has not contacted us. He has not sent a prophet, he has not inspired the writing of a holy tome, he has not created a son to save us from our sins. All of it has been the creation of mankind to supplement the fact that we have no idea why we were made or what to do - a better metaphor for our existence would, instead of a painting, be a person lost in a giant white space with no instruction or memory of the past. Just as confused, just as afraid, just as frail.

My opinion is that we have not and will not be judged. If god is just and right and good, then he should not look down upon us, regardless of what we do or say. He should not punish us, and he should not seek to destroy us. None of those things show the characteristics of love or compassion, which is what I'd like to think god is, albeit, with a certain amount of self-induced naiivity.

god can do as he pleases with his creation. he can make the punishment fit the crime or make it excessive, thats his business

but he cannot claim to love each and every person on earth and kill them for the sins of another. he cannot create billions of people who have zero chance to get into heaven and claim to love them

thats just not love.

I keep telling you, Ashmoria. Would you please pay attention.

1) God does not punish people for the sins of another.
2) We can get into heaven. All we have to do is ask forgiveness and live our lives for God.
3) God can punish people as he sees fit, but he always chooses a suitable punishment.

My opinion is that we have not and will not be judged. If god is just and right and good, then he should not look down upon us, regardless of what we do or say. He should not punish us, and he should not seek to destroy us. None of those things show the characteristics of love or compassion, which is what I'd like to think god is, albeit, with a certain amount of self-induced naiivity.

As long as you recognize this. Because justice--ultimate justice, God's Word, Truth--transcend human values and perceptions. You may not agree with the Bible, or God, or what he stands for because you see it as a contradiction--a failure, on your part, to reconcile your understanding with the knowledge that you, me, and everyone else is imperfect according to God's standards, that perfection does not exist in human values, it cannot be quantified and constrained to terms according to colloquial definitions of "love" and "compassion." God is Just. This is His love for us, that he treats us according to our own acts and faith, with equality so perfect that it cannot be realized on Earth.

I keep telling you, Ashmoria. Would you please pay attention.

1) God does not punish people for the sins of another.
2) We can get into heaven. All we have to do is ask forgiveness and live our lives for God.
3) God can punish people as he sees fit, but he always chooses a suitable punishment.

I couldn't disagree more. One of the quoted bible excerpts clearly states that god will and has punished people for the sins of their fathers, grandfathers, great grandfathers, etc.

We can get into heaven. All we have to do is guess which religion is correct and follow that one stubbornly and just hope it's the right one, while ignoring all the religion's shortcomings and contradictions.

God can punish people as he sees fit, true, but he's given us the ability to reason and to think - with said ability we can clearly see that he has a horrible amount of skill when it comes to picking the most loving and compassionate way to go about doing things.

All we have to do is guess which religion is correct and follow that one stubbornly and just hope it's the right one, while ignoring all the religion's shortcomings and contradictions.



Or, find the one that best suits your circumstances--it's not that one is the correct one, but the most viable for you.

As the Ramakrishna said, "Each religion is a path, but by no means God himself. Different religions are suited to different aspirants, times, and circumstances...one may eat a cake either sideways or upright, it will taste sweet either way."

And shortcomings and contradictions are only evident if you see yourself as greater than God, that your plan and your ideas necessarily govern what should be.

As long as you recognize this. Because justice--ultimate justice, God's Word, Truth--transcend human values and perceptions. You may not agree with the Bible, or God, or what he stands for because you see it as a contradiction--a failure, on your part, to reconcile your understanding with the knowledge that you, me, and everyone else is imperfect according to God's standards, that perfection does not exist in human values, it cannot be quantified and constrained to terms according to colloquial definitions of "love" and "compassion." God is Just. This is His love for us, that he treats us according to our own acts and faith, with equality so perfect that it cannot be realized on Earth.

I say I use self-induced naiivety because I myself have a hard time believing that, with all the suffering and pain in the world, with all the innocence lost and the hardships had, that god is good and loving and truly cares for us. It is only my ability to ignore all those things and simply hope that I'm wrong that allows me to even slightly believe such a thing.

Your definition of god is one that is outside of the universe - one that is so unrelated, so out of touch, so unlike us, so different from anything we've ever seen or heard about, that to us he claims to be one thing and by our definitions is something entirely opposite. Why worship such a being, so beyond our comprehension, one that is so far beyond us that our worries and definitions don't matter to it - he is not within our reality, therefore I'd argue that he has no right to judge what we do in such a reality.

I say I use self-induced naiivety because I myself have a hard time believing that, with all the suffering and pain in the world, with all the innocence lost and the hardships had, that god is good and loving and truly cares for us. It is only my ability to ignore all those things and simply hope that I'm wrong that allows me to even slightly believe such a thing.

Your definition of god is one that is outside of the universe - one that is so unrelated, so out of touch, so unlike us, so different from anything we've ever seen or heard about, that to us he claims to be one thing and by our definitions is something entirely opposite. Why worship such a being, so beyond our comprehension, one that is so far beyond us that our worries and definitions don't matter to it - he is not within our reality, therefore I'd argue that he has no right to judge what we do in such a reality.

Yes; He is out of touch, because we have fallen into sin. But He is not unapproachable; take one step toward God and he'll run to you. He has every right to judge us, because we are given choices--and one of those is to accept God, through Christ, or otherwise find a Path that and follow it with wholehearted devotion to the Supreme Being. There are many paths to Heaven, but finding problems because of self-induced ignorance (I am not implying that you are ignorant in the derogatory sense, it is as you said you are trying to ignore all the bad things) is not one of them.

I keep telling you, Ashmoria. Would you please pay attention.

1) God does not punish people for the sins of another.
2) We can get into heaven. All we have to do is ask forgiveness and live our lives for God.
3) God can punish people as he sees fit, but he always chooses a suitable punishment.

Exodus 34:6-7 "And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear [the guilty]; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth [generation].

It isn't Ashmoria you are arguing with - it is God.

Yes; He is out of touch, because we have fallen into sin. But He is not unapproachable; take one step toward God and he'll run to you. He has every right to judge us, because we are given choices--and one of those is to accept God, through Christ, or otherwise find a Path that and follow it with wholehearted devotion to the Supreme Being. There are many paths to Heaven, but finding problems because of self-induced ignorance (I am not implying that you are ignorant in the derogatory sense, it is as you said you are trying to ignore all the bad things) is not one of them.

But the fact that we would have to acknowledge anything for him to run towards us - be it that Jesus was our savior, or that the bible is correct, or that homosexuals are going to hell - whatever it may be, if the specifications for such a ticket to heaven are such that we can't be sure and there are about fifty other religions out there saying the same thing about their own stuff with just as much (read: as little) credibility to their demands as Christianity's, why would god not throw us a bone, so to speak, and do something that would let us know that HE is the one true god, and the bible is in fact his word, and Jesus was in fact his son.

Until he does such a thing, we're just playing guessing games, where all the winners go to heaven and all the losers go to hell for all eternity. I don't like that game. Religion should not be about guessing which one is right, or which one you were raised to be, especially when the stakes are that high.

If I give you a 100-page book and you find that pages 45-58 were absent, then you'd know they existed despite being missing.

actually, you would only for these possible reasons.
1) the pages were numbered, and you notice the break in the numbers
2) the story/writing was such that the break is noticable.
3) the missing pages occured not at the beginning nor at the end.

I've read books where the publisher left out some pages. the story still flowed, the scenes still made sense, the only problem was some scenes/events referenced at certain points never happened. A bit confusing, but not to the point of it being noticed. (I found out the pages were missing when I bought a later printing of said book and found the missing stuff.)

Grave_n_idle! Can you give me the original text for when the Pharaoh hardened his heart? someone mentioned something to me that made me curious about what was the original word used for "Harden".

I disagree entirely. There is more than one system of logic, my friend. And the traditional Western system of logic is hardly the best one, in my opinion.Mind pointing out which particular one you believe in? I am curious how you can think that walking away from the place you want to go will get you there.

Szanth: interesting.

Or, find the one that best suits your circumstances--it's not that one is the correct one, but the most viable for you.

As the Ramakrishna said, "Each religion is a path, but by no means God himself. Different religions are suited to different aspirants, times, and circumstances...one may eat a cake either sideways or upright, it will taste sweet either way."

And shortcomings and contradictions are only evident if you see yourself as greater than God, that your plan and your ideas necessarily govern what should be.

Well that's what I would suggest, but Christianity says otherwise. It says accept Jesus or take a pitchfork up the butt. Not quite as mellow or understanding as the methods that you and I have posed.

Finding your personal favorite just isn't good enough for the Christian god, apparently.

Also I wanna ask something that's completely unrelated; did Jolt snort some cocaine recently? I keep seeing posts out of order, like, someone will quote someone that will have supposedly posted after them. Odd stuff.

Mind pointing out which particular one you believe in? I am curious how you can think that walking away from the place you want to go will get you there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivalued_logic

Those two articles should give you a basic idea.

actually, you would only for these possible reasons.
1) the pages were numbered, and you notice the break in the numbers
2) the story/writing was such that the break is noticable.
3) the missing pages occured not at the beginning nor at the end.

I've read books where the publisher left out some pages. the story still flowed, the scenes still made sense, the only problem was some scenes/events referenced at certain points never happened. A bit confusing, but not to the point of it being noticed. (I found out the pages were missing when I bought a later printing of said book and found the missing stuff.)

Grave_n_idle! Can you give me the original text for when the Pharaoh hardened his heart? someone mentioned something to me that made me curious about what was the original word used for "Harden".

Exodus 8:15 "But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said."

My concordance gives "kabad" (which it gives as causative - thus, translating as something like: 'to make heavy', 'to make dull', 'to make unresponsive' or - for some strange reason - 'to cause to be honoured').

This is a different word from that when God does it:

Exodus 9:12 "And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses."

My concordance gives 'chazaq' (which it makes intensive or intentional - thus, translating as something like: 'to make strong', 'to give strength', 'to encourage', 'to make bold', 'to make firm', 'to make rigid' or 'to make hard').


Ultimately - the two words translated as 'hardened' seem to have quite different meanings - when it is just Pharaoh, the implication is that 'his heart is heavy'... when God intervenes it is more akin to 'strengthening resolve'.

Exodus 8:15 "But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said."

My concordance gives "kabad" (which it gives as causative - thus, translating as something like: 'to make heavy', 'to make dull', 'to make unresponsive' or - for some strange reason - 'to cause to be honoured').

This is a different word from that when God does it:

Exodus 9:12 "And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses."

My concordance gives 'chazaq' (which it makes intensive or intentional - thus, translating as something like: 'to make strong', 'to give strength', 'to encourage', 'to make bold', 'to make firm', 'to make rigid' or 'to make hard').


Ultimately - the two words translated as 'hardened' seem to have quite different meanings - when it is just Pharaoh, the implication is that 'his heart is heavy'... when God intervenes it is more akin to 'strengthening resolve'.

Kinda like when people tell Bush that we're losing in Iraq.

Exodus 8:15 "But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said."

My concordance gives "kabad" (which it gives as causative - thus, translating as something like: 'to make heavy', 'to make dull', 'to make unresponsive' or - for some strange reason - 'to cause to be honoured').

This is a different word from that when God does it:

Exodus 9:12 "And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses."

My concordance gives 'chazaq' (which it makes intensive or intentional - thus, translating as something like: 'to make strong', 'to give strength', 'to encourage', 'to make bold', 'to make firm', 'to make rigid' or 'to make hard').


Ultimately - the two words translated as 'hardened' seem to have quite different meanings - when it is just Pharaoh, the implication is that 'his heart is heavy'... when God intervenes it is more akin to 'strengthening resolve'.
That's what someone said. so it could be that God did not hardened (unable to change, Kabad) but make it stronger in it's resolve (chazaq) thus he didn't make the heart unresponsive, but allowed the Pharaoh to keep his convictions without making the false promises he did during the first plagues.

god can do as he pleases with his creation. he can make the punishment fit the crime or make it excessive, thats his business

but he cannot claim to love each and every person on earth and kill them for the sins of another. he cannot create billions of people who have zero chance to get into heaven and claim to love them

thats just not love.why not? How many times have we heard the parents punish the older sibling for not watching the younger when the younger got in trouble. or have we heard the phrase "you know better." How many times do we hear a disicplinarian say "I don't care who started it."

God set the rules down. When man sins... only those who ask for forgiveness will be forgiven. only those who accept the Grace that Jesus made available to all will be saved. only those who Repent will have their sins removed.

He let us know what those rules are. and now he's waiting for those to follow those rules.

I think the real question is why would the same thing be said twice right next to eachother with different translations? They're both in Exodus, but one's in 8, one's in 9.

because you're talking about a translation.

Rod (for the infamous beat your child verse) was originally translated from a word meaning Shepards Crock. and another version of Rod, from the scepter that the Elders and Judges use to symbolise their authority (representing Discipline) yet both are used differently and both are not used to beat someone.

More examples of the phrase "Lost in translation"

That's what someone said. so it could be that God did not hardened (unable to change, Kabad) but make it stronger in it's resolve (chazaq) thus he didn't make the heart unresponsive, but allowed the Pharaoh to keep his convictions without making the false promises he did during the first plagues.

I think the real question is why would the same thing be said twice right next to eachother with different translations? They're both in Exodus, but one's in 8, one's in 9.

why not? How many times have we heard the parents punish the older sibling for not watching the younger when the younger got in trouble. or have we heard the phrase "you know better." How many times do we hear a disicplinarian say "I don't care who started it."

God set the rules down. When man sins... only those who ask for forgiveness will be forgiven. only those who accept the Grace that Jesus made available to all will be saved. only those who Repent will have their sins removed.

He let us know what those rules are. and now he's waiting for those to follow those rules.

PLEASE stop comparing god to a parent - it's an endlessly horrible metaphor that doesn't work with an omnipotent being at all, ever, especially since these parents you're comparing him to are humans, which god is supposedly superior to in every way - his discipline should be more compassionate and liken to that of a being that knows and can do EVERYTHING and ANYTHING, including giving the child an epiphany of realization that they should in fact watch over their younger sibling so that they'll understand without the whole "DEATH AND FIRE AND PAIN FOR ALL ETERNITY" deal getting in between them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivalued_logic

Those two articles should give you a basic idea.It seems to me that what they are saying (that truth values might apply to both but be slightly different) just means that the original argument must be sufficiently precise to avoid allowing any outcomes other than two exclusionary conclusions. I might be misinterpreting it, however, so I'd be happy if you clarified that.

PLEASE stop comparing god to a parent - it's an endlessly horrible metaphor that doesn't work with an omnipotent being at all, ever, especially since these parents you're comparing him to are humans, which god is supposedly superior to in every way - his discipline should be more compassionate and liken to that of a being that knows and can do EVERYTHING and ANYTHING, including giving the child an epiphany of realization that they should in fact watch over their younger sibling so that they'll understand without the whole "DEATH AND FIRE AND PAIN FOR ALL ETERNITY" deal getting in between them.
1) you are also comparing God by Human feelings and standards.
2) I've said earlier, if you read from the beginning, that God cannot be held by Human standards. thus YOUR definition of Compassion may not be God's definition of Compassion.
3) to me, God is like a parent. Infinitely more patient and caring.
4) Parents discipline and punish their children when the evil/bad deed is done. God forgive us when we ask for forgiveness, we settle accounts only at the end. he won't force a confession/profession of guilt/punish us at the time of our sinning, but will wait until we choose to go to him and say "Sorry." thus showing not only more compassion by our sense of the word, but also allows us to discipline ourselves.
5) I never got the whole "Death and Fire and Pain for all Eternity" routine. Hell was never defined except being away from God.

Yeah but it's a translation of two different excerpts that say the exact same thing in different parts of the same chapter of the bible.

used in different ways.

again, a problem when one is translating something.

because you're talking about a translation.

Rod (for the infamous beat your child verse) was originally translated from a word meaning Shepards Crock. and another version of Rod, from the scepter that the Elders and Judges use to symbolise their authority (representing Discipline) yet both are used differently and both are not used to beat someone.

More examples of the phrase "Lost in translation"


Yeah but it's a translation of two different excerpts that say the exact same thing in different parts of the same chapter of the bible.

1) you are also comparing God by Human feelings and standards.
2) I've said earlier, if you read from the beginning, that God cannot be held by Human standards. thus YOUR definition of Compassion may not be God's definition of Compassion.
3) to me, God is like a parent. Infinitely more patient and caring.
4) Parents discipline and punish their children when the evil/bad deed is done. God forgive us when we ask for forgiveness, we settle accounts only at the end. he won't force a confession/profession of guilt/punish us at the time of our sinning, but will wait until we choose to go to him and say "Sorry." thus showing not only more compassion by our sense of the word, but also allows us to discipline ourselves.
5) I never got the whole "Death and Fire and Pain for all Eternity" routine. Hell was never defined except being away from God.

1. I am, yes, because I wasn't the one to say that he was so out of touch with the condition of humanity that his definitions of everything are essentially opposite to ours.

2. Right, so god is, by our definition, not compassionate. Glad you cleared that up.

You seem to be forgetting, when it's us that do the worshipping, it's only -our- definitions that matter.

3. Patient and caring, in god's language, meaning vengeful and angry. Remember, different definitions.

4. No, he waits until it is too late to judge us. By the time we're dead, when we finally realize (supposedly) that god is real and Jesus was our savior, it's too late, because we didn't play the guessing game to the end that he wanted us to, so we're fucked.

5. Alright, being away from god. How is hell any different from Earth, when god is a universe away, not even close to us in literary terms?

Exodus 34:6-7 "And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear [the guilty]; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth [generation].

It isn't Ashmoria you are arguing with - it is God.

Wrong. You didn't finish the quote. "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generations of those who hate me. If you're punished by God, you're punished for you're OWN sin.

Wrong. You didn't finish the quote. "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generations of those who hate me. If you're punished by God, you're punished for you're OWN sin.

And wrong, you didn't read it correctly.

You're being punished because you're the fourth generation of a family that had a guy in it that hated god.

No - but it doesn't mean there were other humans, either.it falls to if you believe Adam and Eve were the first humans by saying they were created first, or that they were the ONLY humans created.

So who was Cain's Wife? he left his father's lands and went to NOD. so it can't be Eve since she stayed with adam and bore seth.

Who was Cain afraid would kill him? Genesis 4:14. there would be no one around to kill him if there were no other humans around.

Why? A pear is 'created for the purpose of' being delicious, but it doesn't need a high IQ to do it. If i create a program for my PC that generates names and is the 'steward' of my house, all it needs is the right programming (and some way to link to light switches, etc), no intelligence required.but to be delicious, it requires the chemical composition to envoke a favorable response on our sense of taste. Intelligence is not required of that. but intelligence is if one is to be steward.

I don't think that fits.

If they eat the fruit of the Tree of Life, they will live forever. They don't... so they didn't. Adam lived for 930 years by biblical account. not forever, but certanly long lived.

I don't see what you mean - he heals the sick, but no one else... well, no one else needs it?nope, just making sure that people don't think that I think that Athiesm and Agnostism isn't a sickness to be 'cured'.

No - I'm thinking the other way. It doesn't matter if you are Atheist, Agnostic, 'sick', Muslim, satanist... all are 'saved' by the sacrifice on the cross.

If one looks at the blood sacrifices of the Old Testament, it didn't matter how the people of Israel felt, so long as they performed the right ceremony. Jesus is the ceremony, replacing the old blood sacrifice - it makes no sense to assume the rules have changed.yep, it was the ceremony done. but because that ceremony was done, all that is left is for those people to say "yes, that was done for ME." to be able to say that, you have to aknowledge that Jesus did die on the cross for you. and that requires faith.

if Hitler, before he put the gun to his temple, ask for forgiveness for all that he did, would he have been forgiven by God at that point and time? yes.
why? because of what Jesus did on the cross and three days later those many years ago.

1. I am, yes, because I wasn't the one to say that he was so out of touch with the condition of humanity that his definitions of everything are essentially opposite to ours.

2. Right, so god is, by our definition, not compassionate. Glad you cleared that up.

You seem to be forgetting, when it's us that do the worshipping, it's only -our- definitions that matter.

3. Patient and caring, in god's language, meaning vengeful and angry. Remember, different definitions.

4. No, he waits until it is too late to judge us. By the time we're dead, when we finally realize (supposedly) that god is real and Jesus was our savior, it's too late, because we didn't play the guessing game to the end that he wanted us to, so we're fucked.

5. Alright, being away from god. How is hell any different from Earth, when god is a universe away, not even close to us in literary terms?

1. By you're definition God is not compassionate. Let's not forget, God created us, and the world, we are sinful, he's not.

2. Patient and caring until we go to far, when God punishes us and moves on. Good parenting by the standards of most experts.:) (apologies to those who are tired of comparing God to a parent, but he is called the holy father in the bible)

3. God sent his son to die for us. He turned water into wine. He fed 5000 people with two fish and five loaves of bread. He raised the dead back to life, including Jesus. He made the deaf hear, the blind see and he healed lepers. He created the Earth and knows how many hairs we each have on our head. He has given us the bible to tell us that he loves us and what he wants of us.

I see no guessing game.

4. God is everywhere. All the time. He's like the air. You can't see him, but does that mean he doesn't exist? And at least on Earth, we have people to talk to, we are not all in constant agony, there are good things, and our suffering will end in a few years. We have none of that in hell.

And wrong, you didn't read it correctly.

You're being punished because you're the fourth generation of a family that had a guy in it that hated god.

No I didn't, you're just misreading it. It means a third generation of people who hate God, and a fourth, and a fifth, etc.

1. I am, yes, because I wasn't the one to say that he was so out of touch with the condition of humanity that his definitions of everything are essentially opposite to ours.who says it's opposite? Not me.

2. Right, so god is, by our definition, not compassionate. Glad you cleared that up. God is undefinable. so are his actions.

You seem to be forgetting, when it's us that do the worshipping, it's only -our- definitions that matter.nope, that's where you're wrong.

3. Patient and caring, in god's language, meaning vengeful and angry. Remember, different definitions.you speak god's language... Go ahead... I only heard it three times before. let's make it a fourth time.

4. No, he waits until it is too late to judge us. By the time we're dead, when we finally realize (supposedly) that god is real and Jesus was our savior, it's too late, because we didn't play the guessing game to the end that he wanted us to, so we're fucked.and if the only way you will worship God is when YOU KNOW He is real, then that is not faith you are basing your worship on.

so it's already too late for you my friend.

5. Alright, being away from god. How is hell any different from Earth, when god is a universe away, not even close to us in literary terms?but God isn't a universe away. He's here with me, and he's with every faithful person. he's even with you, even tho you CHOOSE not to aknowledge him.

Hallelujah, brother! Fight the unbelievers!
:mp5: :sniper:

Just kidding

I'm not entirely sure about this but consider:

Humans are limited, I think everyone can agree. This means any concept we think of is an abstraction. Since you are talking about God, you are talking about a concept of God, an abstraction of God. Your concept of God, specifically.

You also state that God's actions are "good," at least to God.

Let's not forget we are simply talking about the concept you describe, not God (who is by definition ineffable). So... why should I believe anything you say about God, since you clearly have no real idea about the 'truth' behind his thought processes anyway?

The only true evidence for motivations comes from actions (I mean that in the sense that it's the most direct and most likely to be correct), and the actions of the God defined here are not evidence for a loving nature. If you wish to argue about the definition of "love" not meaning the same thing for us as him, then you can. However, if you do so then there's hardly anything meaningful with connection to God. If his ideas are truely so out of touch with ours, then there's no reason for us to bother with him in the first place.

1. By you're definition God is not compassionate. Let's not forget, God created us, and the world, we are sinful, he's not.

So our definitions of compassionate are different? Well, my definition of compassion is to love and nurture, instead of kill and ignore.

2. Patient and caring until we go to far, when God punishes us and moves on. Good parenting by the standards of most experts.:) (apologies to those who are tired of comparing God to a parent, but he is called the holy father in the bible)

He created us to go too far. If we act a certain way, it is because he created us to act a certain way.

Also, a being of supposedly infinite patience would -never- punish and move on, because the patience is infinite. I've seen HUMANS with more patience than god has shown the human race - is that to mean that we're superior to god in some way, or that god has a different definition of infinite? Or a different definition of patience?

3. God sent his son to die for us. He turned water into wine. He fed 5000 people with two fish and five loaves of bread. He raised the dead back to life, including Jesus. He made the deaf hear, the blind see and he healed lepers. He created the Earth and knows how many hairs we each have on our head. He has given us the bible to tell us that he loves us and what he wants of us.

I see no guessing game.

The guessing game being the choice to believe all of what you just said, or to believe that Mohammad is a prophet and the Koran is the true holy text, or to believe that we are reincarnated at the will of karma and Vishnu until we achieve nirvana, or to believe that Zeus is pissed off at us when lightning strikes the earth, or to believe that the guy on the corner of the street with the cardboard sign saying "THE END IS NIGH!" is telling the truth - we have no idea which to believe, because they're all interchangable in their ridiculousness in terms of them being supernatural and reliant on belief.

Point is, through your life you basically guess or are guessed for by your parents what religion is correct. There are so frickin' many of them, none of which have any proof, and the small amount of proof that there is can either be discounted, disproven, or is too obscure or insignificant to mean anything unless you already believe in that particular religion.

4. God is everywhere. All the time. He's like the air. You can't see him, but does that mean he doesn't exist? And at least on Earth, we have people to talk to, we are not all in constant agony, there are good things, and our suffering will end in a few years. We have none of that in hell.

I was just told there was no mention of constant agony or loneliness in hell, just that it's devoid of god's influence. If you have issue to take up with that definition of hell, take it up with Junii, because he's the one who said it.

who says it's opposite? Not me.

Relatively opposite. When compassionate = laying waste to cities and killing the firstborn of all households, then we're in bizarro world.

God is undefinable. so are his actions.

I would disagree. His actions are defined by the effects they have, and the bible describes some pretty terrible actions to define.

you speak god's language... Go ahead... I only heard it three times before. let's make it a fourth time.

I only assume to speak god's language because you assume to speak god's language. You assume that his definition is different than ours, and you say that's an acceptable reason for his actions to seem wrong in our eyes while he remains perfect.

and if the only way you will worship God is when YOU KNOW He is real, then that is not faith you are basing your worship on.

Faith is coincidence. If you were born in India five hundred years ago, you would be Hindu, telling me the same thing about Vishnu and Shiva that you're telling me about Jesus right now. The difference being you just happened to not grow up in 1500 AD India culture, so you have faith in something different. For those who didn't grow up with any faith in particular, or who are very picky with their method of worship, it's a guessing game in which one is correct - this is where Athiests and Agnostics come from. Those who refuse to play this childish game.

so it's already too late for you my friend.

I hope not. I'd like to think god would understand my situation and realize that it's ridiculous to punish me for all eternity for not being raised the same way you were, or not having the same religious conclusion that you do, based upon the fact that we have no religious facts and to base judgement on faith is a horrible thing to do.

but God isn't a universe away. He's here with me, and he's with every faithful person. he's even with you, even tho you CHOOSE not to aknowledge him.

I acknowledge him, but I acknowledge him in a different way than you do. I don't see him, I don't feel him, I don't hear him, I don't know him, and I don't presume to. I simply hope, because I'm left with a lack of evidence, and a lack of reason to believe in your specific religion.

.

I'm not entirely sure about this but consider:

Humans are limited, I think everyone can agree. This means any concept we think of is an abstraction. Since you are talking about God, you are talking about a concept of God, an abstraction of God. Your concept of God, specifically.

You also state that God's actions are "good," at least to God.

Let's not forget we are simply talking about the concept you describe, not God (who is by definition ineffable). So... why should I believe anything you say about God, since you clearly have no real idea about the 'truth' behind his thought processes anyway?

The only true evidence for motivations comes from actions (I mean that in the sense that it's the most direct and most likely to be correct), and the actions of the God defined here are not evidence for a loving nature. If you wish to argue about the definition of "love" not meaning the same thing for us as him, then you can. However, if you do so then there's hardly anything meaningful with connection to God. If his ideas are truely so out of touch with ours, then there's no reason for us to bother with him in the first place.

I tried this argument earlier in the thread, with the counter I recieved giving off the impression something along the lines of "He's still god, regardless of if you bother with him." and later being told that it was "too late for me". =)

"So our definitions of compassionate are different? Well, my definition of compassion is to love and nurture, instead of kill and ignore.

He created us to go too far. If we act a certain way, it is because he created us to act a certain way.

Also, a being of supposedly infinite patience would -never- punish and move on, because the patience is infinite. I've seen HUMANS with more patience than god has shown the human race - is that to mean that we're superior to god in some way, or that god has a different definition of infinite? Or a different definition of patience?

The guessing game being the choice to believe all of what you just said, or to believe that Mohammad is a prophet and the Koran is the true holy text, or to believe that we are reincarnated at the will of karma and Vishnu until we achieve nirvana, or to believe that Zeus is pissed off at us when lightning strikes the earth, or to believe that the guy on the corner of the street with the cardboard sign saying "THE END IS NIGH!" is telling the truth - we have no idea which to believe, because they're all interchangable in their ridiculousness in terms of them being supernatural and reliant on belief.

Point is, through your life you basically guess or are guessed for by your parents what religion is correct. There are so frickin' many of them, none of which have any proof, and the small amount of proof that there is can either be discounted, disproven, or is too obscure or insignificant to mean anything unless you already believe in that particular religion.

I was just told there was no mention of constant agony or loneliness in hell, just that it's devoid of god's influence. If you have issue to take up with that definition of hell, take it up with Junii, because he's the one who said it."

1. He is compassionate. Until we go too far, as I said. The bible doesn't mension infinate compassion, God tells us that he will punish us for what we do wrong, his patience is limited. Some people have more patience than him because some people have less perfect ideas of right and wrong than him.

2. He didn't create us to go too far. He told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree, and they disobeyed him. He punished them for that.

3. You say these religions have very little evidence? On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence for christianity. I recommend you read "The case for a creator" by Lee Strobel.

4. Well, that's what the bible tells us about hell. It calls it a place of seperation, and an eternal fire where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Relatively opposite. When compassionate = laying waste to cities and killing the firstborn of all households, then we're in bizarro world.
So a parent sending a child into time out is showing that he doesn't love children? a Teacher who sends an unruly student to detention is showing that they don't care for their students?

and when God forgives and spares cities that's not a sign of compassion? when he Free's people enslaved for generations, feeds them on their journey and protects them, that's no love to you?

I would disagree. His actions are defined by the effects they have, and the bible describes some pretty terrible actions to define.and the bible gives the reasons for those actions.

I only assume to speak god's language because you assume to speak god's language. You assume that his definition is different than ours, and you say that's an acceptable reason for his actions to seem wrong in our eyes while he remains perfect.I never said I spoke God's language, I only said you cannot define God by human standards. you then ASSUMED that it meant the opposite of human definitions. still defining God by Humand Standards.

Faith is coincidence. If you were born in India five hundred years ago, you would be Hindu, telling me the same thing about Vishnu and Shiva that you're telling me about Jesus right now. The difference being you just happened to not grow up in 1500 AD India culture, so you have faith in something different. For those who didn't grow up with any faith in particular, or who are very picky with their method of worship, it's a guessing game in which one is correct - this is where Athiests and Agnostics come from. Those who refuse to play this childish game.I grew up in a Japanses house hold, yet my grandparents are not Shinto, nor are they Buddists. neither were my parents. I was raised in Hawaii, yet I don't worship Lono nor Pele.

Faith is a conscience choice. I choose to follow God. not because science proves anything about Him, but that I Believe he's there.

I hope not. I'd like to think god would understand my situation and realize that it's ridiculous to punish me for all eternity for not being raised the same way you were, or not having the same religious conclusion that you do, based upon the fact that we have no religious facts and to base judgement on faith is a horrible thing to do.
4. No, he waits until it is too late to judge us. By the time we're dead, when we finally realize (supposedly) that god is real and Jesus was our savior, it's too late, because we didn't play the guessing game to the end that he wanted us to, so we're fucked. if you are waiting for the PROOOF that God and Jesus are Real, then you do not have Faith. without the faith you cannot accept what Jesus did and thus cannot accept that he died for our sins.

so when the day of judgement does happen, and you stand before God, then yes, it is too late.

I acknowledge him, but I acknowledge him in a different way than you do. I don't see him, I don't feel him, I don't hear him, I don't know him, and I don't presume to. I simply hope, because I'm left with a lack of evidence, and a lack of reason to believe in your specific .
IF you don't presume to know him, they how can you say that he is not compassionate, not loving? if You don't know him, how can you judge his actions or his methods?

Junii didn't mention that, I wonder why.I did. I mentioned what was defined to me as hell. read back, it was a response to you.

1. He is compassionate. Until we go too far, as I said. The bible doesn't mension infinate compassion, God tells us that he will punish us for what we do wrong, his patience is limited. Some people have more patience than him because some people have less perfect ideas of right and wrong than him.

What makes his ideas of right and wrong perfect? The idea of perfection is subjective, just as if I were to say I were perfect.

2. He didn't create us to go too far. He told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree, and they disobeyed him. He punished them for that.

Don't get me started on that story. It's with that story that I first began to realize that the crux of christianity was bunk. I believe the story depicts a god that created fallable beings, and knowing they were fallable, put them in a situation that he knew they would fail in. We probably disagree on this, and both of us will probably never budge, so let's not get into it.

3. You say these religions have very little evidence? On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence for christianity. I recommend you read "The case for a creator" by Lee Strobel.

Haven't read it, and probably won't read it. If you could point out a few select pieces of the book that would give evidence to christianity, I would gladly read that instead.

4. Well, that's what the bible tells us about hell. It calls it a place of seperation, and an eternal fire where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Junii didn't mention that, I wonder why..

What makes his ideas of right and wrong perfect? The idea of perfection is subjective, just as if I were to say I were perfect.

Uh, the fact that HE'S GOD. He created us, he is all knowing and sinless. The idea of perfection is subjective when talking about specific things, such as "He's perfect at his job." But in all things, in all ways, God is perfect, he is perfection.

Don't get me started on that story. It's with that story that I first began to realize that the crux of christianity was bunk. I believe the story depicts a god that created fallable beings, and knowing they were fallable, put them in a situation that he knew they would fail in. We probably disagree on this, and both of us will probably never budge, so let's not get into it.

Oh, no. I WILL get into this story. Yes, God created us fallable. No, God did not put us into a situation where he new we would fail. It was 50/50 chance, and God is no tyrant, he allowed Adam and Eve a decision. They COULD break the rules, but they would be punished for it. God doesn't control our everyday decisions and thoughts, which is one example of how he shows his love for us.

Haven't read it, and probably won't read it. If you could point out a few select pieces of the book that would give evidence to christianity, I would gladly read that instead.

Uh-uh. No. Read it yourself.

IF you don't presume to know him, they how can you say that he is not compassionate, not loving? if You don't know him, how can you judge his actions or his methods?The problem being that the same goes for anyone advocating his worship, or anything to do with him. Why is he worthy of respect, or even belief? Were I to have the choice to believe in a nice god, he would be nice by MY standards, because I have absolutely no other way to choose. Unfortunate, then, that there is no reason to inspire any attachment to the God you describe; he is inherently unpredictable and totally arbitrary.

So a parent sending a child into time out is showing that he doesn't love children? a Teacher who sends an unruly student to detention is showing that they don't care for their students?

If god had sat Adam and Eve down and told them why what they did was wrong and told them to go to the corner of Eden and think about what they did (and at that time, they could, as opposed to before when they couldn't and hadn't eaten the fruit), then that would be properly punishing. What he did was eternally condemn them and their ancestors to a life outside the garden for one mistake.

and when God forgives and spares cities that's not a sign of compassion? when he Free's people enslaved for generations, feeds them on their journey and protects them, that's no love to you?

Only when he forgives. If they don't subscribe to his particular set of religious ritual worship, then it's fire and brimstone all the way, with a flaming sword cutting the throats of little children. All because they had no reason to believe god was speaking to them, because god felt it necessary to send a person instead of sending himself or an angel or anything remotely convincing.

and the bible gives the reasons for those actions.

Reasons which I believe are inadequate for the actions he's committed.

I never said I spoke God's language, I only said you cannot define God by human standards. you then ASSUMED that it meant the opposite of human definitions. still defining God by Humand Standards.

You assumed that you cannot define god by human standards. You assume he is outside of our realm of existence.

I OBSERVED that he overreacts and can become a jealous bastard, the likes of which I wouldn't worship even if I had cold hard proof that he was the lord. Of course, that's just using my definition of what a jealous bastard is. According to you, according to god, his definition of a jealous bastard could be mixed fruit.

I grew up in a Japanses house hold, yet my grandparents are not Shinto, nor are they Buddists. neither were my parents. I was raised in Hawaii, yet I don't worship Lono nor Pele.

Right, neither were your parents. You had no parental influence to worship Lono or Pele or follow the Shinto religion. If you had, you would most likely think differently about religion.

Faith is a conscience choice. I choose to follow God. not because science proves anything about Him, but that I Believe he's there.

You choose to follow a book. That's all. You assume that book is the requests and directions of god, without evidence or reason to assume so. It's far more than faith - faith is believing your friend when he tells you he's innocent of a crime, because you know your friend is a good person and wouldn't lie to you. What you're doing is a bald assumption, topped off with a false moral highground.


if you are waiting for the PROOOF that God and Jesus are Real, then you do not have Faith. without the faith you cannot accept what Jesus did and thus cannot accept that he died for our sins.

Incorrect. If what you say is true, then all those who Jesus preached to didn't have faith. All those who saw Jesus on the cross didn't have faith. All those who saw him perform miracles didn't have faith. They had knowledge, which is for some reason unacceptable in the field of religion.

so when the day of judgement does happen, and you stand before God, then yes, it is too late.

I don't see why.


IF you don't presume to know him, they how can you say that he is not compassionate, not loving? if You don't know him, how can you judge his actions or his methods?

I don't know him, because I don't believe the bible is his doing. I know -your- god, not the one I believe to be the true god. I judge -your- god, not the one I believe to be the true god. We simply have two different sets of beliefs - I don't even know your god, I only know what you tell me and what I read in the papers..

Out of curiosity, where you from, Szanath?

The problem being that the same goes for anyone advocating his worship, or anything to do with him. Why is he worthy of respect, or even belief? Were I to have the choice to believe in a nice god, he would be nice by MY standards, because I have absolutely no other way to choose. Unfortunate, then, that there is no reason to inspire any attachment to the God you describe; he is inherently unpredictable and totally arbitrary.
God is God. he has no equal, and he has no superior. how can we hold judgement over Him?

We can't. so we learn about him through prayer, Bible Study and discussion with others.

God doesn't work with Absolutes. He is compassionate, yet he is ruthless with those who are not faithful. He is Generous. but again, with his faithful.
he is stern and strict, with everyone, not just the faithful. He may do things that to us seem Heartless, but the effects may be far more reaching than we know. That is why I say, I do not judge God. I turned my life over to Him. It is for him to do with as he wills. If he has to have me die slowly and painfully so that others may live, then so be it.

What would persuade you to follow God? that's not for me to decide, but you and God.

Uh, the fact that HE'S GOD. He created us, he is all knowing and sinless. The idea of perfection is subjective when talking about specific things, such as "He's perfect at his job." But in all things, in all ways, God is perfect, he is perfection.

Just because he's god doesn't mean he's perfect. At least, not to me.

Oh, no. I WILL get into this story. Yes, God created us fallable. No, God did not put us into a situation where he new we would fail. It was 50/50 chance, and God is no tyrant, he allowed Adam and Eve a decision. They COULD break the rules, but they would be punished for it. God doesn't control our everyday decisions and thoughts, which is one example of how he shows his love for us.

Okay, so he created us fallable. He knows all. He knows everything. Right? So he knew we would fail. End of discussion, unless it slipped god's mind.

Uh-uh. No. Read it yourself.

I just told you I won't. I'd be glad to argue the major points of the book if you'd like me to, but I'm not going out of my way to read something that I believe will be an exercise in pointlessness..

Out of curiosity, where you from, Szanath?

I'm from America (fuck yeah!).

You?

This discussion is meaningless and God is stupid. I dismiss all of this I do.

Just because he's god doesn't mean he's perfect. At least, not to me.

Okay, so he created us fallable. He knows all. He knows everything. Right? So he knew we would fail. End of discussion, unless it slipped god's mind.

I just told you I won't. I'd be glad to argue the major points of the book if you'd like me to, but I'm not going out of my way to read something that I believe will be an exercise in pointlessness.

Northern Ireland. (No surrender):cool:

1. Whether he's perfect to YOU or not is beside the point. You've been told before, God can't be defined by human standards.

2. Yes, he did know we would fail. But the bible tells us that God made us in his own moral image, which sets us apart from the animals, so Adam and Eve had to take the moral responsability over their actions and they disobeyed. Only in our minds do the godly concept of free will and God's predetermination come together, not in the bible.

3. How can you tell it will be an exercise in pointlessness if all you know is the title and the author? It presents a considerable amount of evidence, historical and scientific, that points toward God.

This discussion is meaningless and God is stupid. I dismiss all of this I do.

Be ashamed. We mock your foolishness.
:D

God is God. he has no equal, and he has no superior. how can we hold judgement over Him?

We can't. so we learn about him through prayer, Bible Study and discussion with others.

God doesn't work with Absolutes. He is compassionate, yet he is ruthless with those who are not faithful. He is Generous. but again, with his faithful.
he is stern and strict, with everyone, not just the faithful. He may do things that to us seem Heartless, but the effects may be far more reaching than we know. That is why I say, I do not judge God. I turned my life over to Him. It is for him to do with as he wills. If he has to have me die slowly and painfully so that others may live, then so be it.

What would persuade you to follow God? that's not for me to decide, but you and God.Too bad I didn't pass judgement on God then.

I simply pointed out that I can't avoid choosing what idea of God to believe in (as you obviously do, with your references to "generosity" "sternness" etc etc). If his will is ineffable then I might try to get an approximation (as best I can) by seeing what he does. In such a way I might do as he wants, right? Even if I don't get it perfectly right.

Now, what he does isn't looking good from my point of view. I say "good" as in what I think of as good because I have no other point of reference. I am not capable of knowing what god considers good.

So you see, based on the approximations that I am FORCED to take, because I am limited in the way God supposedly chose, then I conclude that God may not be worthy of the respect you grant him if he does exist.

Yes, I realize that I may be completely wrong. I accept that fully. However, no one can be more than they are. You must simply work with what you have... and in this case, I don't see enough evidence to make a nice (my nice) God plausible.

If god had sat Adam and Eve down and told them why what they did was wrong and told them to go to the corner of Eden and think about what they did (and at that time, they could, as opposed to before when they couldn't and hadn't eaten the fruit), then that would be properly punishing. What he did was eternally condemn them and their ancestors to a life outside the garden for one mistake.ah, but the concept of good and evil, right and wrong didn't exsist in Adam and Eve until then. and even after that, he still provided for them. he could've removed them from existance and started anew... he didn't. why? because he loved Adam and Eve as they were.

Only when he forgives. If they don't subscribe to his particular set of religious ritual worship, then it's fire and brimstone all the way, with a flaming sword cutting the throats of little children. All because they had no reason to believe god was speaking to them, because god felt it necessary to send a person instead of sending himself or an angel or anything remotely convincing.and when a parent punishes one child, it's because they didnt follow the parents set of rules, and when another child is spared punishment it's because they DID follow the set rules.

Reasons which I believe are inadequate for the actions he's committed.YOU believe are inadequate. so one people kill all male children of another race because of some prophesy that says a male child of that race will free those people from the rule of the slave owners... what would be your punishment for that?

You assumed that you cannot define god by human standards. You assume he is outside of our realm of existence.He cannot be defined by Human Standards.

I OBSERVED that he overreacts and can become a jealous bastard, the likes of which I wouldn't worship even if I had cold hard proof that he was the lord. Of course, that's just using my definition of what a jealous bastard is. According to you, according to god, his definition of a jealous bastard could be mixed fruit.what's the overreaction that YOU OBSERVED?

Right, neither were your parents. You had no parental influence to worship Lono or Pele or follow the Shinto religion. If you had, you would most likely think differently about religion.... Shinto and buddist religions are family religions. each home in japan had a family shrine.

Note, also, I said they weren't I never said they were not free of the parental influence. my cousins are Buddists. so the influence was there, but the choices that were made did not always conform to what the parents believed.

You choose to follow a book. That's all. You assume that book is the requests and directions of god, without evidence or reason to assume so. It's far more than faith - faith is believing your friend when he tells you he's innocent of a crime, because you know your friend is a good person and wouldn't lie to you. What you're doing is a bald assumption, topped off with a false moral highground.no, I am not following A book. there is much more to me than just what is written in the bible.

Incorrect. If what you say is true, then all those who Jesus preached to didn't have faith. All those who saw Jesus on the cross didn't have faith. All those who saw him perform miracles didn't have faith. They had knowledge, which is for some reason unacceptable in the field of religion.they were taught and they spread the word. those before jesus also had Faith. even those during Jesus's time had Faith. The Roman soldier who told jesus, "no need to come, just say it and I know it will be done." that's faith. he didn't need to see Jesus lay hands on his friend, he knew it would be done.

I don't know him, because I don't believe the bible is his doing. I know -your- god, not the one I believe to be the true god. I judge -your- god, not the one I believe to be the true god. We simply have two different sets of beliefs - I don't even know your god, I only know what you tell me and what I read in the papers..the bible isn't his doing, I never said it was. it's accounts passed down from generation to generation. that's why it seems so flawed on a factual nature. the value of the Bible is the lession inside that can and still apply today. The bible is a tool, a guide, but it's not the end all be all word. that's why prayer, and fellowship are also important.

God is God. he has no equal, and he has no superior. how can we hold judgement over Him?

We can't. so we learn about him through prayer, Bible Study and discussion with others.

God doesn't work with Absolutes. He is compassionate, yet he is ruthless with those who are not faithful. He is Generous. but again, with his faithful.
he is stern and strict, with everyone, not just the faithful. He may do things that to us seem Heartless, but the effects may be far more reaching than we know. That is why I say, I do not judge God. I turned my life over to Him. It is for him to do with as he wills. If he has to have me die slowly and painfully so that others may live, then so be it.

What would persuade you to follow God? that's not for me to decide, but you and God.

You don't learn about god, you learn what others believe and have interpreted from the bible, which you assume is from god.

The god you describe is an inadequate deity in my eyes. I would not worship such a being, because I do not deem him worthy of said worship. Regardless of whether or not he created me, he himself is (by my definition) a terrible "person", so to speak. I don't like your god, or what he does, or what he stands for. I'm not sorry, and no amount of sending me to the deepest bowels of hell will make my logic any less effective, my moral standards any lower, or my expectations of a supposedly good and loving god disappear.

Yes. You just said that they want it. They naturally truly want separation and God chooses some to change so they will truly want to be with God.

....which means that there is no choice. Under your beliefs, God intentionally makes people go to Hell by creating them such that they want to be separated from God. God then chooses some of those people to "save" from the fate he has chosen for them by forcing them to want to be with God.

Does that really make sense in your head?

Northern Ireland. (No surrender):cool:

1. Whether he's perfect to YOU or not is beside the point. You've been told before, God can't be defined by human standards.

2. Yes, he did know we would fail. But the bible tells us that God made us in his own moral image, which sets us apart from the animals, so Adam and Eve had to take the moral responsability over their actions and they disobeyed. Only in our minds do the godly concept of free will and God's predetermination come together, not in the bible.

3. How can you tell it will be an exercise in pointlessness if all you know is the title and the author? It presents a considerable amount of evidence, historical and scientific, that points toward God.

1. I think it's the specific point I'm looking for, in fact. I've been told, but I haven't been convinced.

2. If he made us in his own moral image then does that mean god would do the same thing we do? Does he masturbate and, on occasion, kill a random bystander? Everyone has different moral standards, therefore either god didn't give us his, or his are very odd and everchanging, ranging from "That poor child, I must adopt him and give him a home" to "I wonder what it sounds like when an old woman falls down concrete stairs".

3. I can tell, because I'm not convinced it has any amount of evidence, and I'm not motivated to go see for myself because you haven't convinced me to do so. Work harder.

Natural man is tainted in every part by sin. God did not taint him. He inherited this taint from Adam and Eve.

Who decided that this trait could be inherited? That all human beings should be punished for the sins of Adam?

This taint of sin makes him totally against God. No matter what way you split him up, both/all the parts are against God. He does what he wants in all his choices and all the choices are therefore sinful because his will is against God. He earns damnation.

Sin requires choice. If you can do nothing else, considering the action to be "wrong" makes no sense. It would be like telling me that having a heartbeat is a sin. I can do nothing but have a heartbeat. I can't consciously make my heart stop beating. If that were a sin, I'd be in big trouble, because I have no choice but to allow it to continue.

God would be responsible for the damnation of the unrepentant if He were required to save them and didn't. But He's not required to save anyone. He didn't save the demons. If He had to save everyone, then those who were saved would not be saved by grace (unmerited favor) and mercy (not giving out deserved punishment), whiich goes against Scripture.

It has nothing to do with requirement. According to you, damnation is entirely God's choice. Therefore, God is totally responsible. God has decided to apply the sins of one to all of humankind, even though the rest of humankind has no choice in the matter and cannot do otherwise. God is punishing all of humankind for the sins of one. Thus, God is fully responsible for all damnation but Adam's.

Too bad I didn't pass judgement on God then.

I simply pointed out that I can't avoid choosing what idea of God to believe in (as you obviously do, with your references to "generosity" "sternness" etc etc). If his will is ineffable then I might get an approximation (as best I can) by seeing what he does.

Now, what he does isn't looking good from my point of view. I say "good" as in what I think of as good because I have no other point of reference. I am not capable of knowing what god considers good.

So you see, based on the approximations that I am FORCED to take, because I am limited in the way God supposedly chose, then I conclude that God may not be worthy of the respect you grant him if he does exist.

Yes, I realize that I may be completely wrong. I accept that fully. However, no one can be more than they are. You must simply work with what you have... and in this case, I don't see enough evidence to make a nice (my nice) God plausible.which is why it's not just the bible that one should study.

while others hold the bible Literally, I never said i did. the arugments all started with the assumption that what god did actually happened as it was written.

my stance on the bible has always been that it's a tool to be used, but not alone.

Yes, i used compassionate, and ruthless, but those are in terms to the perception of his actions. do I say "God is Compassionate" to mean that he shows nothing but compassion? no. he is capable of Compassion, but not limited to Compassion. Others say God is Heartless. they tend to mean that God does not care for anyone. that too is false. Is God wrong or right? I will not say.

You don't learn about god, you learn what others believe and have interpreted from the bible, which you assume is from god.

The god you describe is an inadequate deity in my eyes. I would not worship such a being, because I do not deem him worthy of said worship. Regardless of whether or not he created me, he himself is (by my definition) a terrible "person", so to speak. I don't like your god, or what he does, or what he stands for. I'm not sorry, and no amount of sending me to the deepest bowels of hell will make my logic any less effective, my moral standards any lower, or my expectations of a supposedly good and loving god disappear.
then peace be with you, and I hope you find what you're looking for. :)

1. I think it's the specific point I'm looking for, in fact. I've been told, but I haven't been convinced.

2. If he made us in his own moral image then does that mean god would do the same thing we do? Does he masturbate and, on occasion, kill a random bystander? Everyone has different moral standards, therefore either god didn't give us his, or his are very odd and everchanging, ranging from "That poor child, I must adopt him and give him a home" to "I wonder what it sounds like when an old woman falls down concrete stairs".

3. I can tell, because I'm not convinced it has any amount of evidence, and I'm not motivated to go see for myself because you haven't convinced me to do so. Work harder.

1. God is a god. You are a human being. If God can be judged by your standards, that would make YOu a god, which you are not.

2. When I say God's moral image, I mean the ability to decide between right and wrong and be responsible for our decisions. What we all do with this moral image is different. We (humanity) all will decide to do wrong at one point in our lives, because God created us in his image, but he also created us fallable, and he did so deliberately in order to give us a choice of what to do with our lives.

3. I'm not convincing you to do anything. You don't want to read it, fine. But just know that when you say there is little evidence to support christianity, you're wrong. You just couldn't have been arsed to look for it properly.

Answers some questions and might clear up some confusion (http://www.corkfpc.com/avoidingconfusion.html)

Let's count the illogical/inconsistent statements, shall we?

5) Calvinists do believe in man's responsibility, but deny his ability to repent and believe the gospel. The two terms are not synonymous. Calvinists believe that man's inability to repent and believe are caused by his own sin ... not any positive imposition on God's part.

This is completely illogical. If he has no ability to repent and believe, then he has no responsibility to repent and believe. One cannot have a responsibility to do something that is impossible.

6) Calvinists do not believe that men are puppets or blocks of wood or robots, but responsible beings and are treated as such by God, even when fallen.

This, too, is impossible with the Calvinist doctrine. The doctrine holds that men are evil by accident of their birth. They cannot be otherwise - they are programmed that way (much like robots, strangely enough). If God chooses to make them repent, they will repent, but it isn't their own action, but God's influence doing it.

There is no room in this for any choices by the person involved. They are evil or good fully by God's choosing.

7) Calvinists are not fatalists. Calvinists believe that God has ordained the end and also the means to that end. Therefore they do believe in evangelism as the means God uses to fulfil His intention of saving the elect. It is not true to say that Calvinists believe that God saves men without the gospel. Calvinists do believe in prayer.

This is inconsistent with the statement above. This statement basically says that God uses evangelists as "puppets". After all, they couldn't possibly evangelize if God didn't make them want to, just as a puppet cannot move if I do not first pull its strings. Meanwhile, no amount of evangelism will ever save someone. It won't ever convince anyone. According to Calvinism, God has to enact a change in the person for that to happen. Evangelism, in such a system, means absolutely nothing.

8) Calvinists do believe that it is the duty of men to repent and believe the gospel. This is one of our quarrels with the Hyper Calvinists.

Sort of like it is the duty of a man with no legs to get up and walk, eh?

14) Calvinists do believe that men can resist the Holy Spirit. They believe that even the elect can resist the Holy Spirit, and do…but only up to the time when the Spirit regenerates their heart so that resist Him no more. The non elect effectively resist Him all their lives.

Utterly ridiculous. This basically says, "People resist God until God doesn't want them to anymore," and then tries to pretend that it means anything more than, "God controls us all like puppets."

What it really boils down to is, "The elect cannot help but be elect. The non-elect cannot help but be non-elect." It completely removes personal responsibility from the picture.

16) Calvinist's do not believe that there are souls out there who want to be saved, but can't be saved because they are not of the elect.

Of course not. You guys believe that it is impossible to want to be saved until God forces you to want to be saved.

26) Although Calvinists believe that even sinful acts are ordained by God (Ephesians 1:11/Proverbs 16:4) yet such makes the event certain…but not necessary. This clears God from being the author of sin. This view best explains the Cross (Acts 2:23/4:27-28/Luke 22:22) This is explained further elsewhere on this site.

Once again, a ridiculous statement. If sinful acts are ordained by God, then God is the author of sin. That is what the very words mean.

In fact, if the act isn't necessary, and God still ordains it, that makes God more the author of sin than if it were somehow necessary!


Most of these statements are the logical equivalent of, "We're not saying that 2x3=6, all we're saying is that three, when multiplied by two, is equivalent to six."

2. When I say God's moral image, I mean the ability to decide between right and wrong and be responsible for our decisions.

Then Adam and Eve, if the story is to be taken as truth, were not originally created in God's moral image. They did not have knowledge of good and evil (ie. right and wrong) until after eating the fruit of the tree...

Sorry I haven't read all the posts in the thread - I have a life too!

But, if it hasn't been mentioned before I think one of the most interesting facts about "Original Sin" is often overlooked.

What was the original sin? That Eve ate the fruit of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil".

This has been interpreted literally by many people as some kind of apple, but should it be? Eating fruit of the tree of knowledge appears to be a simple metaphor (and don't tell me the bible isn't full of them) for the gaining of knowledge to allow them to make informed decisions rather than take whatever "God" says as truth without question or explanation.

I can understand most petty minded Gods being a bit pissed that people actually wanted the facts before making decisions that affect their lives rather than being told "because I said so!"

which is why it's not just the bible that one should study.

while others hold the bible Literally, I never said i did. the arugments all started with the assumption that what god did actually happened as it was written.

my stance on the bible has always been that it's a tool to be used, but not alone. And they all run into the same problems. All sources are suspect, as I'm sure you agree, in that all were written by humans. None will provide any real explanation of God's motivations. They are guesses. I am willing to accept guesses, however, if they are based on good probabilities. For example, I accept that gravity is real because it seems to me that the probability of gravity being real is quite high. I test it all the time.

Unfortunately, God does not allow such easy testing of his existence, will or anything else to do with him. Many people I have seen who believe as a result of "divine intervention," having a particularly spiritual moment. Often this is an intense feeling. You see my problem, however, with people using these feelings as justification for faith? They don't show anything. They are a single data point that is seriously abnormal - and I simply require more than that. Most people do, though on other things.

However, should this kind of experience happen many times and actually predict/tell something about the world that you could not have known otherwise - I will be willing to believe that kind of evidence, though even that does not make a God specifically necessary.

Yes, i used compassionate, and ruthless, but those are in terms to the perception of his actions. do I say "God is Compassionate" to mean that he shows nothing but compassion? no. he is capable of Compassion, but not limited to Compassion. Others say God is Heartless. they tend to mean that God does not care for anyone. that too is false. My point was, you cannot say that God is compassionate in any given instance. You cannot say he is loving in any given instance. You cannot even generalize about his motivations. This is why I said, look to his supposed actions for direction, because that's as good as it's going to get - his motives won't work for us. And so, when I look to his actions (at least those that are attributed to him), I don't see a loving god (my loving, of course). That's all. This is the reason that there's no point beliving in our God's motivations. Either he exists and we remain ignorant of his motivations, or he doesn't exist and it doesn't matter. If we don't - can't - know what he wants then why believe in the first place?

Is God wrong or right? I will not say.Whether or not God is right or wrong isn't the issue. If he exists, he's right by default according to the definition we're using.

A) No. We can be forgiven. When we face judgement after death, God judges us by our own sins, not Adam's and Eve's.

But we cannot help but commit our own sins. We have no choice in the matter, because Adam's sin has been applied to us. We cannot be held responsible for sins that we could not help but commit - not in a just system, anyways.

What about an infant who dies? What sins has that infant committed?

C) No. But they would have been as sinful as their parents and older siblings in a few years time, becaus eof their upbringing.

Not necessarily. And irrelevant. Now you're talking about punishing people for sins that could have been committed sometime in the future.

D) God was the reason Pharaoh hardened his own heart. And does it really matter? God punished in a reasonable manner.

No, read the text. God hardened Pharaoh's heart. It wasn't Pharaoh doing it himself, at least not after the boils plague. And yes, it does matter. If I take your hand, force it onto a gun, force you to point it at someone, and force you to pull the trigger, who is guilty? Is it you that should go to jail for murder?

E) Ah, but if Pharaoh was going to give in before the plagues, God would already have known that, so he wouldn't have told Moses that Pharaoh wouldn't listen in the first place.

God tells Moses that God intentionally hardened Pharaoh's heart, intentionally keeping him from giving in. Of course Pharaoh wasn't going to give in - God wasn't going to let him!

F) No. This just seems immature to you, but it's a perfectly reasonable punishment. Pharaoh has made God's people suffer. Whay shouldn't God let his people suffer? As I say, the punishment fits the crime.

Revenge and punishment are not the same things. You are describing revenge. It sounds like a three-year old, "BUT MOOOOMMMM!!!! HE DID IT FIRST!!!!!"

Meanwhile, the punishment doesn't fit, because Pharaoh doesn't own or control all of the people in Egypt. If Pharaoh caused pain and suffering, then Pharaoh deserves punishment. Those who counseled him to do so deserve punishment. Random Egyptian on the street just trying to get by? What did he do? Why should he be punished for the sins of others?

Well that's what I would suggest, but Christianity says otherwise. It says accept Jesus or take a pitchfork up the butt. Not quite as mellow or understanding as the methods that you and I have posed.

Finding your personal favorite just isn't good enough for the Christian god, apparently.

Is it impossible to accept Jesus except by name? Could you not, in effect, accept Jesus and His teachings without even knowing His name?

PLEASE stop comparing god to a parent - it's an endlessly horrible metaphor that doesn't work with an omnipotent being at all, ever, especially since these parents you're comparing him to are humans, which god is supposedly superior to in every way - his discipline should be more compassionate and liken to that of a being that knows and can do EVERYTHING and ANYTHING, including giving the child an epiphany of realization that they should in fact watch over their younger sibling so that they'll understand without the whole "DEATH AND FIRE AND PAIN FOR ALL ETERNITY" deal getting in between them.

Forcing an epiphany would not be teaching. Essentially "downloading" something into a person's head would not allow them to actually experience learning. In fact, it would block many of life's experiences.

Meanwhile, it is important to note that hell, in most of Scripture, is merely separation from God. Believers liken it to fire and brimstone and pits and things. Why? Because to those who love God, such separation would be painful and awful. Thus, it is compared to the most awful description of pain they could conjure.

So a parent sending a child into time out is showing that he doesn't love children? a Teacher who sends an unruly student to detention is showing that they don't care for their students?

Now JuNi, you know that comparison doesn't really make sense.

A parent sending a child to time out is not putting them there forever, or killing them so that they have no chance to see the error of their ways. A teacher who sends a student to detention is the same. Those actions are meant to teach them, not simply to punish them.

Now JuNi, you know that comparison doesn't really make sense.

A parent sending a child to time out is not putting them there forever, or killing them so that they have no chance to see the error of their ways. A teacher who sends a student to detention is the same. Those actions are meant to teach them, not simply to punish them.

but sending Adam and Eve away from the Garden isn't killing them either, it's teaching them the punishment for sin, removal from paradise. also by sending Adam and Eve out into the world started the bloodline that would present the Son of God who's purpose was to remove the sin introduced into the world.

after all, we don't know the state of the rest of the world during the time Adam and Eve spent in the garden.

but sending Adam and Eve away from the Garden isn't killing them either, it's teaching them the punishment for sin, removal from paradise. also by sending Adam and Eve out into the world started the bloodline that would present the Son of God who's purpose was to remove the sin introduced into the world.

after all, we don't know the state of the rest of the world during the time Adam and Eve spent in the garden.

Szanth wasn't talking about sending Adam and Even out of the garden.

....which means that there is no choice. Under your beliefs, God intentionally makes people go to Hell by creating them such that they want to be separated from God. God then chooses some of those people to "save" from the fate he has chosen for them by forcing them to want to be with God.

Does that really make sense in your head?

God doesn't make persons. God made the first persons and they through natural processes make more persons. God protects (or in some cases chooses to not protect) the process and the offspring, but He does not make the offspring.

So, He did not make their nature: they inherit their nature from their parents who inherited from our first parents: Adam and Eve. Their nature fell into sin when they disobeyed.

God planned for persons to be damned, but He did not make them so.

In the sense that He is in control of all (and He is), then yes, He made them so. He protected the process and supplied just the right conditions and protected the offspring at a time and place desirable to Him, so yes, in a sense He made that person for damnation. But in another sense (the one above, the one you are using) He didn't.

Who decided that this trait could be inherited? That all human beings should be punished for the sins of Adam?

God decided before the taint was there that we should be the spiritual children of Adam and Eve as well as their physical children.

Sin requires choice. If you can do nothing else, considering the action to be "wrong" makes no sense. It would be like telling me that having a heartbeat is a sin. I can do nothing but have a heartbeat. I can't consciously make my heart stop beating. If that were a sin, I'd be in big trouble, because I have no choice but to allow it to continue.

I reject this as a faulty illustration.

It has nothing to do with requirement. According to you, damnation is entirely God's choice. Therefore, God is totally responsible. God has decided to apply the sins of one to all of humankind, even though the rest of humankind has no choice in the matter and cannot do otherwise. God is punishing all of humankind for the sins of one. Thus, God is fully responsible for all damnation but Adam's.

You are condemned for your own sins, not Adam and Eve's. You want to sin, and you do, and that is what you will be judged for.

Szanth wasn't talking about sending Adam and Even out of the garden.

God sent several plagues before strengthening the pharaoh's heart, the pharaoh also made promises to moses and God that he didn't keep.

the Egyptians also comitted such atrocities against the Isrealites.

the punishment the isrealites suffered were porportinal to what the Isrealites suffered under the Egyptian rule.

God doesn't make persons. God made the first persons and they through natural processes make more persons. God protects (or in some cases chooses to not protect) the process and the offspring, but He does not make the offspring.

interesting...
so the entire human bloodline can be traced back to Adam and Eve?

then can you provide answers to this question?

So who was Cain's Wife? he left his father's lands and went to NOD. so it can't be Eve since she stayed with Adam and bore Seth.

Who was Cain afraid would kill him? Genesis 4:14. there would be no one around to kill him if there were no other humans around seeing that until then, it was only Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel.

Let's count what I perceive as the illogical/inconsistent statements, shall we?

Fixed.

This is completely illogical. If he has no ability to repent and believe, then he has no responsibility to repent and believe. One cannot have a responsibility to do something that is impossible.

God told Adam to trim a hedge.
"Okay," Adam said.
"Don't go near that hole, though, Adam," said God.
"Alright!"
"Oh, and this hedge is also the responisbility of your wife and you children, too, okay?"
"Okay."
And Adam runs over and jumps into the hole. Now Adam can't get out. He can in no way trim the hedge, but it's still his responsibility. And now he loves the hole, and teaches his children to love the hole, because that way, he doesn't have to trim that hedge, because he despises it and God.

This, too, is impossible with the Calvinist doctrine. The doctrine holds that men are evil by accident of their birth. They cannot be otherwise - they are programmed that way (much like robots, strangely enough). If God chooses to make them repent, they will repent, but it isn't their own action, but God's influence doing it.

There is no room in this for any choices by the person involved. They are evil or good fully by God's choosing.

No one actively programs anyone except the elect. God leaves the reprobate (non-elect) to himself and changes the elect.

And they do choose freely to repent. Just because God makes them to see their sinful state as what it truly is, does not mean that He takes over their bodies and possesses them.

They are evil because that is their state. They are good because God chooses them.

This is inconsistent with the statement above. This statement basically says that God uses evangelists as "puppets". After all, they couldn't possibly evangelize if God didn't make them want to, just as a puppet cannot move if I do not first pull its strings. Meanwhile, no amount of evangelism will ever save someone. It won't ever convince anyone. According to Calvinism, God has to enact a change in the person for that to happen. Evangelism, in such a system, means absolutely nothing.

This is ridiculous.

We are destined to be saved through the foolishness of preaching.

That's the method God chose. Did He have to choose that method? No. In fact, He uses other methods at times. Remember the conversion of Paul?

But, God decided that we would be saved by grace through faith. How can we have faith if we don't know what to have faith in? We have to be told somehow. God could, if He wanted to, reveal Himself as He did to Paul to each one of us. But He didn't choose that method. He chose evangelism.

Sort of like it is the duty of a man with no legs to get up and walk, eh?

You forget that the man cut of his legs and was commanded to use his legs before he did.

Utterly ridiculous. This basically says, "People resist God until God doesn't want them to anymore," and then tries to pretend that it means anything more than, "God controls us all like puppets."

Yes and no. God doesn't force anyone. No one does anything apart from his own will. The reprobate screams against God and eventually God says "Fine, go you own way." The elect screams against God and eventually God says "Fine, here's your new heart."

And the reprobate continues in his sin because he wants to continue in it.
And the elect repents because he wants to repent.

Of course not. You guys believe that it is impossible to want to be saved until God forces you to want to be saved.

Force is contradictory to want.

Forcing someone is making them to do something against his will. It doesn't change the will.

Once again, a ridiculous statement. If sinful acts are ordained by God, then God is the author of sin. That is what the very words mean.

In fact, if the act isn't necessary, and God still ordains it, that makes God more the author of sin than if it were somehow necessary!

Umm, no. God uses sin, but He did not make it.

interesting...
so the entire human bloodline can be traced back to Adam and Eve?

then can you provide answers to this question?

So who was Cain's Wife? he left his father's lands and went to NOD. so it can't be Eve since she stayed with Adam and bore Seth.

Who was Cain afraid would kill him? Genesis 4:14. there would be no one around to kill him if there were no other humans around seeing that until then, it was only Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel.

There were other children of Adam and Eve. Just because Scripture doesn't mention something doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Genesis 5:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%205:4&version=47)
Where did Cain find his wife? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp)

God doesn't make persons. God made the first persons and they through natural processes make more persons. God protects (or in some cases chooses to not protect) the process and the offspring, but He does not make the offspring.

Who designed the natural processes?

So, He did not make their nature: they inherit their nature from their parents who inherited from our first parents: Adam and Eve. Their nature fell into sin when they disobeyed.

Who decided that inheritance would work that way?

God planned for persons to be damned, but He did not make them so.

If he planned for it, then he made it so.

Suppose I design a machine that will paint eggs green. Then, I decide that all eggs that are green are rotten eggs and should be thrown out. I pick a few of the eggs, occasionally, and paint over them with red. I keep the red eggs. Does that mean it isn't my fault that some are green? Does it mean I don't choose the ones that get thrown out and the ones that don't?

In the sense that He is in control of all (and He is), then yes, He made them so. He protected the process and supplied just the right conditions and protected the offspring at a time and place desirable to Him, so yes, in a sense He made that person for damnation. But in another sense (the one above, the one you are using) He didn't.

No, there is no sense in which, under your belief system, God did not intend for them to be damned and cause them to be damned. You are trying to invent something to make it more appealing to you, but it simply doesn't exist.

God decided before the taint was there that we should be the spiritual children of Adam and Eve as well as their physical children.

....knowing that they would sin. Thus, planning for us to all be damned.


I reject this as a faulty illustration.

Of course you do. If you try to look at things rationally, you either have to concede that God is fully responsible, or reexamine your belief system. You obviously wish to do neither, so you ignore rationality.

You are condemned for your own sins, not Adam and Eve's. You want to sin, and you do, and that is what you will be judged for.

...which is ridiculous if I cannot do anything else. If original sin is passed on, then I am being punished for Adam and Eve's sin. I didn't eat the fruit, but because they did, I cannot do anything but be damned.

Suppose you have a line of cars at a stoplight. One person in the very back is breaking the speed limit and driving erratically. He hits the person in front of him, who hits the person in front of him, and so on and so on. His poor driving gets everyone else in line in an accident. But we would recognize all of these accidents as his fault, because he caused all of them. You're trying to say that every single person in between is responsible for hitting the car ahead of them, even though they couldn't do anything to stop it.

Fixed.

Only in a mind that cannot be rational because it chooses not to.

God told Adam to trim a hedge.
"Okay," Adam said.
"Don't go near that hole, though, Adam," said God.
"Alright!"
"Oh, and this hedge is also the responisbility of your wife and you children, too, okay?"
"Okay."
And Adam runs over and jumps into the hole. Now Adam can't get out. He can in no way trim the hedge, but it's still his responsibility. And now he loves the hole, and teaches his children to love the hole, because that way, he doesn't have to trim that hedge, because he despises it and God.

It has nothing to do with teaching. According to you, it is inherited.

No one actively programs anyone except the elect. God leaves the reprobate (non-elect) to himself and changes the elect.

God has decided that human beings are naturally reprobate. Thus, they are programmed.

And the quote said that nobody was being puppetted. You've just admitted that the elect are.

And they do choose freely to repent. Just because God makes them to see their sinful state as what it truly is, does not mean that He takes over their bodies and possesses them.

He makes them so that they absolutely will repent. They cannot resist. That means, by the way, for those of you who don't speak English, that they do not choose freely.

They are evil because that is their state. They are good because God chooses them.

That state is the fault of God.

This is ridiculous.

We are destined to be saved through the foolishness of preaching.

That is inconsistent with everything else you have said. If preaching can convince someone, then God doesn't have to change them. If God has to change them, then preaching has nothing to do with them changing.

But, God decided that we would be saved by grace through faith. How can we have faith if we don't know what to have faith in? We have to be told somehow. God could, if He wanted to, reveal Himself as He did to Paul to each one of us. But He didn't choose that method. He chose evangelism.

You don't have a personal relationship with God? I do.

You forget that the man cut of his legs and was commanded to use his legs before he did.

No, one man cut off his legs. Every other man was just born without them.

Yes and no. God doesn't force anyone.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "irresistible"?

No one does anything apart from his own will.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "irresistible"?

The reprobate screams against God and eventually God says "Fine, go you own way."

According to you, the reprobate does what he was programmed to do - the only thing he can do. Thus, he deserves no punishment, as he can do nothing else.

The elect screams against God and eventually God says "Fine, here's your new heart."

...which forces the elect to stop screaming.

And the reprobate continues in his sin because he wants to continue in it.
And the elect repents because he wants to repent.

And those wants are not controlled by the reprobate or the elect, but by God and the processes God has put into place. Thus, they are in no way the fault of either.

Force is contradictory to want.

Not when you are talking about an entity that can cause you to want something.

Forcing someone is making them to do something against his will. It doesn't change the will.

You are forcing the will to change. If I hypnotize you and make you really, truly believe that you should jump of a bridge, is that not force?

There are two options you can take here;
(a) It is force
(b) They can choose otherwise.

You've already said that (b) is false. That only leaves (a).

Umm, no. God uses sin, but He did not make it.

God made everything. If God has a use for sin - planned for sin - then God made it. That's kind of part and parcel of being the Creator.

Who designed the natural processes?

Who decided that inheritance would work that way?

If he planned for it, then he made it so.

You're confusing ability with responsibility.

Suppose I design a machine that will paint eggs green. Then, I decide that all eggs that are green are rotten eggs and should be thrown out. I pick a few of the eggs, occasionally, and paint over them with red. I keep the red eggs. Does that mean it isn't my fault that some are green? Does it mean I don't choose the ones that get thrown out and the ones that don't?

Umm, no, because that's not what God did.

The eggs were born rotten from the chicken which made itself sick. God takes some of the eggs and through His infinite power makes them pure.

No, there is no sense in which, under your belief system, God did not intend for them to be damned and cause them to be damned. You are trying to invent something to make it more appealing to you, but it simply doesn't exist.

You are trying to combine two senses of the words. Did God ordain everything? Yes, so He intended it. Did He cause them to be damned? No. God uses second-causes. Through His plan He worked it so that there would be sin through one of His free, moral agent's doing and that sin was accepted by other free, moral agents, and that sin is now held by many free moral agents. The cause was from a free moral agent, not from God. But He ordains all that is to pass.

Of course you do. If you try to look at things rationally, you either have to concede that God is fully responsible, or reexamine your belief system. You obviously wish to do neither, so you ignore rationality.

Or, it could just be that you're trying to use an illustration which doesn't work.

...which is ridiculous if I cannot do anything else. If original sin is passed on, then I am being punished for Adam and Eve's sin. I didn't eat the fruit, but because they did, I cannot do anything but be damned.

No, you choose to sin and you are punished for the sin which you freely choose to do.

Suppose you have a line of cars at a stoplight. One person in the very back is breaking the speed limit and driving erratically. He hits the person in front of him, who hits the person in front of him, and so on and so on. His poor driving gets everyone else in line in an accident. But we would recognize all of these accidents as his fault, because he caused all of them. You're trying to say that every single person in between is responsible for hitting the car ahead of them, even though they couldn't do anything to stop it.

That's not what Calvinists are saying at all: another faulty illustration.

You're confusing ability with responsibility.

You cannot have responsibility without ability. If I am unable to do something, I cannot be held responsible for doing it.

Umm, no, because that's not what God did.

The eggs were born rotten from the chicken which made itself sick. God takes some of the eggs and through His infinite power makes them pure.

God made it so that a sick chicken would lay rotten eggs - the process was, as you already said, designed by God. Thus, God caused it. And all of those impure eggs are impure through no fault of their own, but God still punishes them for it.

You are trying to combine two senses of the words. Did God ordain everything? Yes, so He intended it.

There. You're done. God ordained everything. God intended everything. The only logical next step is that God caused everything.

Did He cause them to be damned? No. God uses second-causes.

God is the primary cause in everything. The fact that there is a middle-man is irrelevant.

Through His plan He worked it so that there would be sin through one of His free, moral agent's doing and that sin was accepted by other free, moral agents, and that sin is now held by many free moral agents. The cause was from a free moral agent, not from God. But He ordains all that is to pass.

Acceptance implies choice. You have already said that there is no choice - it is simply a part of everyone's nature. As such, there is no acceptance. It just is.

Or, it could just be that you're trying to use an illustration which doesn't work.

No, the illustration is analogous to what you are saying. You just don't want to admit it.

No, you choose to sin and you are punished for the sin which you freely choose to do.

It can only be a free choice if I can choose otherwise. If I cannot choose otherwise, then there is no choice, and I am thus not responsible.

Can the reprobate choose not to sin? If not, he is not responsible, in any way, for his sins.

That's not what Calvinists are saying at all: another faulty illustration.

Yes, it is. If you would take even a second to look at what you have written here, and then compare it to the analogy, you would realize that it is exactly what you are saying. Adam is the driver who causes everything thereafter. But everyone gets punished.

It has nothing to do with teaching. According to you, it is inherited.

Illustrations have their limitation.

God has decided that human beings are naturally reprobate. Thus, they are programmed.

And the quote said that nobody was being puppetted. You've just admitted that the elect are.

No and no. Puppets mean that strings are pullled, not that hearts are given.

He makes them so that they absolutely will repent. They cannot resist. That means, by the way, for those of you who don't speak English, that they do not choose freely.

Irresistable does not necessarily mean force. You understand that the grace is so good, you cannot possibly think of rejecting it.

That state is the fault of God.

God cannot have fault.

That is inconsistent with everything else you have said. If preaching can convince someone, then God doesn't have to change them. If God has to change them, then preaching has nothing to do with them changing.

No one said preaching convinced anyone. If I did, I was very wrong. God changes so that the person will respond positively to the preaching of the Gospel.

You don't have a personal relationship with God? I do.

I do, but that's not the point. The question is "How did we come to this personal relationship?"

No, one man cut off his legs. Every other man was just born without them.

I tried to save that faulty illustration. It didn't work.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "irresistible"?

Do you understand the meaning of the word "irresistible"?

When someone says "I can't imagine..." do they really mean that they are unable to? No, obviously not because they just mentioned it.

This is another example of different senses of the word.
The elect (once he is regenerated) sees how good salvation is and wants it. He is only able to do what he wants to do. If he were doing something he truly didn't want to do, he must be possessed.

Same with the reprobate. The only difference is what is wanted.

According to you, the reprobate does what he was programmed to do - the only thing he can do. Thus, he deserves no punishment, as he can do nothing else.

Ability /=/ responsibility.

...which forces the elect to stop screaming.

No, the elect chooses to stop screaming.

You are forcing the will to change. If I hypnotize you and make you really, truly believe that you should jump of a bridge, is that not force?

But it is not my will that I am obeying, is it? It's our will. That would be force. But God giving someone a new will and that person freely obeying it is not force.

God made everything. If God has a use for sin - planned for sin - then God made it. That's kind of part and parcel of being the Creator.

Can God make something contrary to His being? No. God is infinitely good. How can He create evil, then?

You cannot have responsibility without ability. If I am unable to do something, I cannot be held responsible for doing it.

So says modern thinking. But it goes against God and reason.

God made it so that a sick chicken would lay rotten eggs - the process was, as you already said, designed by God. Thus, God caused it. And all of those impure eggs are impure through no fault of their own, but God still punishes them for it.

I'm going to have to stop trying to rescue your illustrations. They're flawed and all I do in amending them is misrepresent my views and cause more confusion.

There. You're done. God ordained everything. God intended everything. The only logical next step is that God caused everything.

God uses second-causes. Cause-and-effect.

God is the primary cause in everything. The fact that there is a middle-man is irrelevant.

Yes to the first.
No to the second.

Acceptance implies choice. You have already said that there is no choice - it is simply a part of everyone's nature. As such, there is no acceptance. It just is.

No, I never said their is no choice. There most certainly is choice. You choose what you want to do. What you want is tainted by sin.

It can only be a free choice if I can choose otherwise. If I cannot choose otherwise, then there is no choice, and I am thus not responsible.

The option is there, and no one is forcing you to do anything against your will, so it is a free choice.

Can the reprobate choose not to sin? If not, he is not responsible, in any way, for his sins.

Ability /=/ responsibility

Yes, it is. If you would take even a second to look at what you have written here, and then compare it to the analogy, you would realize that it is exactly what you are saying. Adam is the driver who causes everything thereafter. But everyone gets punished.

No. No one is punished for Adams sin. They are punished for choosing to reject God and sin against His Law because they are following their own will.

So says modern thinking. But it goes against God and reason.

...

Ability /=/ responsibilityUsually, that's true. Usually, of course, we're not talking about God. He is a special case. Let's lay out what his powers are:

He is the cause of everything.
He knows everything.

I know I've said this before on this thread, but it's a point that you guys seem to keep on missing - there is NO WAY for God to create something and expect it to be other than it is. If God just knew what was going to happen, then there wouldn't be a problem. If God was just able to affect circumstances but didn't know, then there wouldn't be a problem. The thing that makes free will impossible logically is that the two statements are taken together. Let's say it again:

If God creates something, that creation must be less than himself. Therefore it is limited. If it's limited, God MUST BE the cause of all of its actions, because there IS NO OTHER FIRST CAUSE. Since God is the first cause, THE cause, and he KNEW exactly what would happen when he created that lesser being, then by the very act of creation HE DECIDED what that being would do.

I don't see how you get something else from the premises.

I keep telling you, Ashmoria. Would you please pay attention.

1) God does not punish people for the sins of another.
2) We can get into heaven. All we have to do is ask forgiveness and live our lives for God.
3) God can punish people as he sees fit, but he always chooses a suitable punishment.

yeah i read it the first 5 times you wrote it

unfortunately your premise is not borne out by the story at hand and saying it does not change that.

as i see it you have 2 choices

1) god does not love us individually.

2) the bible isnt meant to be taken literally and you should read szanth's post #392

Usually, that's true. Usually, of course, we're not talking about God. He is a special case. Let's lay out what his powers are:

He is the cause of everything.
He knows everything.

I know I've said this before on this thread, but it's a point that you guys seem to keep on missing - there is NO WAY for God to create something and expect it to be other than it is. If God just knew what was going to happen, then there wouldn't be a problem. If God was just able to affect circumstances but didn't know, then there wouldn't be a problem. The thing that makes free will impossible logically is that the two statements are taken together. Let's say it again:

If God creates something, that creation must be less than himself. Therefore it is limited. If it's limited, God MUST BE the cause of all of its actions, because there IS NO OTHER FIRST CAUSE. Since God is the first cause, THE cause, and he KNEW exactly what would happen when he created that lesser being, then by the very act of creation HE DECIDED what that being would do.

I don't see how you get something else from the premises.

Have I ever said that any of the angels or humans (or animals, but they don't matter because they aren't moral agents) have free will? No. They do not.

What they do have is free agency: a free choice. They choose to do what they want to do.

How does this work with God being sovereign? I don't know; Scripture does not say.

The best argument I've heard is that God (in His omnipotence, infinite wisdom, and infinite knowledge) set everything up so that everything would fall so that everyone would make the choices (through their own free agency) that He wants them to make. It's the only way I've seen presented that explains the paradox and does not compromise either premise.

So, through a complex system of cause-and-effect (which only God could comprehend), God makes sure every free choice follows His plan.

why not? How many times have we heard the parents punish the older sibling for not watching the younger when the younger got in trouble. or have we heard the phrase "you know better." How many times do we hear a disicplinarian say "I don't care who started it."

God set the rules down. When man sins... only those who ask for forgiveness will be forgiven. only those who accept the Grace that Jesus made available to all will be saved. only those who Repent will have their sins removed.

He let us know what those rules are. and now he's waiting for those to follow those rules.

yeah but jesus didnt exist then eh? mosaic law didnt even exist then.

what existed were egyptian babies, toddlers, children, adolescents, and adults who were suddenly struck dead by god for no fault on their part. they were struck dead because of pharoahs stubbornness. a stubbornness that was ensured by god himself.

if you were the infant son of an egyptian family who was struck dead in this last plague, god did not love you.

yeah but jesus didnt exist then eh? mosaic law didnt even exist then.

what existed were egyptian babies, toddlers, children, adolescents, and adults who were suddenly struck dead by god for no fault on their part. they were struck dead because of pharoahs stubbornness. a stubbornness that was ensured by god himself.

if you were the infant son of an egyptian family who was struck dead in this last plague, god did not love you.
just like the Jews had all their male babies murdered due to one man's paranoia. just like nation of people suffered because one man didn't want to let slaves go because his pride wouldn't allow it.

oh, but that's not YOUR fault. after all, it's the Pharaoh who commands your life and your soul.

who am i in this rant? the egyptian baby?

does it matter?

As a slave you lived and died by the pharaoh's whim, as a subject the Pharaoh was Ra's blessed.

just like the Jews had all their male babies murdered due to one man's paranoia. just like nation of people suffered because one man didn't want to let slaves go because his pride wouldn't allow it.

oh, but that's not YOUR fault. after all, it's the Pharaoh who commands your life and your soul.

who am i in this rant? the egyptian baby?

Sorry I haven't read all the posts in the thread - I have a life too!

But, if it hasn't been mentioned before I think one of the most interesting facts about "Original Sin" is often overlooked.

What was the original sin? That Eve ate the fruit of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil".

This has been interpreted literally by many people as some kind of apple, but should it be? Eating fruit of the tree of knowledge appears to be a simple metaphor (and don't tell me the bible isn't full of them) for the gaining of knowledge to allow them to make informed decisions rather than take whatever "God" says as truth without question or explanation.

I can understand most petty minded Gods being a bit pissed that people actually wanted the facts before making decisions that affect their lives rather than being told "because I said so!"

which is why its best not to take genesis literally.

the story of the garden answers 2 basic questions in a metaphorical manner. where did the world come from and why does life suck so much?

they arent great answers but they must have resonated with whoever wrote them down originally.

how does this make god love me when he strikes me dead for pharoahs stubbornness?

Perhaps death is a greater gift than life.

does it matter?

As a slave you lived and died by the pharaoh's whim, as a subject the Pharaoh was Ra's blessed.

how does this make god love me when he strikes me dead for pharoahs stubbornness?

And they all run into the same problems. All sources are suspect, as I'm sure you agree, in that all were written by humans. None will provide any real explanation of God's motivations. They are guesses. I am willing to accept guesses, however, if they are based on good probabilities. For example, I accept that gravity is real because it seems to me that the probability of gravity being real is quite high. I test it all the time.except that's not what I meant by using not only the bible.

Unfortunately, God does not allow such easy testing of his existence, will or anything else to do with him. Many people I have seen who believe as a result of "divine intervention," having a particularly spiritual moment. Often this is an intense feeling. You see my problem, however, with people using these feelings as justification for faith? They don't show anything. They are a single data point that is seriously abnormal - and I simply require more than that. Most people do, though on other things.Which is why I also said in other threads, that faith is between the person and God. the same with Sin.

However, should this kind of experience happen many times and actually predict/tell something about the world that you could not have known otherwise - I will be willing to believe that kind of evidence, though even that does not make a God specifically necessary.

My point was, you cannot say that God is compassionate in any given instance. You cannot say he is loving in any given instance. You cannot even generalize about his motivations. This is why I said, look to his supposed actions for direction, because that's as good as it's going to get - his motives won't work for us. And so, when I look to his actions (at least those that are attributed to him), I don't see a loving god (my loving, of course). That's all. This is the reason that there's no point beliving in our God's motivations. Either he exists and we remain ignorant of his motivations, or he doesn't exist and it doesn't matter. If we don't - can't - know what he wants then why believe in the first place?and that is your perception. we can only discuss what we interpret, what we experience, and what we learn. we share and we discuss.

Whether or not God is right or wrong isn't the issue. If he exists, he's right by default according to the definition we're using.more accuratly, he just IS.

Perhaps death is a greater gift than life.

With all due respect towards you and your beliefs, that's the most retarded thing I've ever heard in my life.

how does this make god love me when he strikes me dead for pharoahs stubbornness?

where does your soul ultimatly go?

That's a question that only God can answer. but in that answer lies the answer to your question.

With all due respect towards you and your beliefs, that's the most retarded thing I've ever heard in my life.
actually, it's a very deep thing to say.

Have I ever said that any of the angels or humans (or animals, but they don't matter because they aren't moral agents) have free will? No. They do not.

What they do have is free agency: a free choice. They choose to do what they want to do.And they "want to do" any given choice because God made them that way. Regardless of whether they would do the same thing in the absence of God (perhaps the person would), the simple fact that God both created and knew his creation rules out free will as anything other than an illusion. Only God would have free will in this scenario.

How does this work with God being sovereign? I don't know; Scripture does not say.

The best argument I've heard is that God (in His omnipotence, infinite wisdom, and infinite knowledge) set everything up so that everything would fall so that everyone would make the choices (through their own free agency) that He wants them to make. It's the only way I've seen presented that explains the paradox and does not compromise either premise.

So, through a complex system of cause-and-effect (which only God could comprehend), God makes sure every free choice follows His plan.And how is this any kind of free choice, then? Do people have the ability to escape their natures, or do other than that which God intended? If not, then I fail to see how there is anything "free" about what you describe. Calling it something different (free agency) doesn't change what it is; a set-up by God fulfilling his will, there being no other way for it to occur.

With all due respect towards you and your beliefs, that's the most retarded thing I've ever heard in my life.

:confused:

I think that is very correct. In a sense, death is a greater gift than life (for the Christian, at least). We no longer must suffer the power or the presence of sin in our live or in the world when we die in Christ. That gift is a very great gift.

With all due respect towards you and your beliefs, that's the most retarded thing I've ever heard in my life.

You must be quite sheltered. I've come across far more retarded things within the past few days on this very forum.

In any case, try to put yourself in the shoes, so to speak, of a Christian. For the Christian, life is a painful term of servitude prior to entrance into Heaven after death. Why would they not see death as a great gift when with death comes eternal life, and this life is but a pale and longsuffering reflection of it? I think the position that death is a good follows quite well from Christian thought. Hence the emphasis on the importance of martyrdom in the early church in particular.

so god loves me after im dead. maybe. no way to know really.no way to really know.

do you believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god and that everything in the old testament literally happened as told in the bible?
Nope. I do believe that His Word is in the bible, but most of the time, it's not in plain sight.

and I also DO NOT believe the OT is a Literal telling of history or of events in the bible. I do believe they happened, but like any tale, the details may have been warped by time as well as translations.

where does your soul ultimatly go?

That's a question that only God can answer. but in that answer lies the answer to your question.

so god loves me after im dead. maybe. no way to know really.

do you believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god and that everything in the old testament literally happened as told in the bible?

And they "want to do" any given choice because God made them that way. Regardless of whether they would do the same thing in the absence of God (perhaps the person would), the simple fact that God both created and knew his creation rules out free will as anything other than an illusion. Only God would have free will in this scenario.

Again, I reject the idea of free will.

And how is this any kind of free choice, then? Do people have the ability to escape their natures, or do other than that which God intended? If not, then I fail to see how there is anything "free" about what you describe. Calling it something different (free agency) doesn't change what it is; a set-up by God fulfilling his will, there being no other way for it to occur.

No, there is no other way for it to occur: that's what it means for God to be sovereign. You are looking at the overall picture and saying "But God planned it!"

What you are forgetting is that every single one of us chose to do what we wanted: God did not coerce us, nor did He possess us. He set up the scene and we did what we wanted to do when we got there. We chose to do it. And we carry the responsibility of that action. The other option was always there, but we rejected it.

thats what i thought.

we probably dont have a problem then. i dont object to the story as a story. its very instructive.

i have a problem with believing that it literally happened that god punished the good for the sins of the bad. i certainly dont believe today that when a child dies its due to the sins of its parents, why would i believe it in the past?

yeah, I'm not a bible literallist. for instance, the first couple of Generations of man must've been a very tiring time for poor Eve and her daughters and granddaughters.

no way to really know.


Nope. I do believe that His Word is in the bible, but most of the time, it's not in plain sight.

and I also DO NOT believe the OT is a Literal telling of history or of events in the bible. I do believe they happened, but like any tale, the details may have been warped by time as well as translations.

thats what i thought.

we probably dont have a problem then. i dont object to the story as a story. its very instructive.

i have a problem with believing that it literally happened that god punished the good for the sins of the bad. i certainly dont believe today that when a child dies its due to the sins of its parents, why would i believe it in the past?

No, there is no other way for it to occur: that's what it means for God to be sovereign. You are looking at the overall picture and saying "But God planned it!"Well, yes of course. I am also looking at any given instance in the universe involving supposed free ability to choose.

What you are forgetting is that every single one of us chose to do what we wanted: God did not coerce us, nor did He possess us. He set up the scene and we did what we wanted to do when we got there. We chose to do it. And we carry the responsibility of that action. The other option was always there, but we rejected it.I must be missing something here because I'm not getting the difference, if indeed there is one. Describe exactly what free agency means to you, please.

If you mean in the sense that God did not directly affect the decision (like possesion), then I am interested in how you propose to seperate the world from God's will. Can God create a place he does not have power over? I'm not so sure about that; at the very least it's in direct contradiction to the idea that God is all powerful. If you think he just "leaves it alone" then is God capable of leaving any part of his creation truly alone?

HMMM a guy gets swallowed by a great white .....makes me believe (though i already did) that in the O.T. Jonah did get swallowed by a sea faring creature ....

Illustrations have their limitation.

Indeed. But these are pretty clearly analogous. You just wish they weren't.

No and no. Puppets mean that strings are pullled, not that hearts are given.

Puppets mean that control is exerted. The "hearts" you speak of are controlling. They change the very will of the person involved, causing them to act and think differently. That is puppetry.

Irresistable does not necessarily mean force.

Yes, it does. If it is truly irresistible, then no choice is involved. That means it is forced.

You understand that the grace is so good, you cannot possibly think of rejecting it.

If you cannot possibly think of rejecting it, then no choice or will is involved.

God cannot have fault.

Then there is no fault at all, at least in your system.

I do, but that's not the point. The question is "How did we come to this personal relationship?"

By accepting the offer God makes to all human beings. By asking for guidance and forgiveness in love, and being granted it in God's Love.

I tried to save that faulty illustration. It didn't work.

You haven't shown it to be faulty. It follows your description of God and salvation.

When someone says "I can't imagine..." do they really mean that they are unable to? No, obviously not because they just mentioned it.

This is irrelevant. We are talking about something that is, according to your doctrine, truly irresistible. The elect will never reject God and the reprobate will never accept him. This is because there is no choice. Only one option is open to either of them.

This is another example of different senses of the word.
The elect (once he is regenerated) sees how good salvation is and wants it. He is only able to do what he wants to do. If he were doing something he truly didn't want to do, he must be possessed.

(a) He "sees how good it is," because he has been made to do so.

(b) People do things they don't want to do all the time.

Same with the reprobate. The only difference is what is wanted.

The difference is what one has an ability to want, according to you.

Ability /=/ responsibility.

You cannot have the latter without the former.

No, the elect chooses to stop screaming.

No, he doesn't. Choice means that he could go either way.

Can the elect choose to reject God? According to you and the website you linked, he cannot. Therefore, there is no choice involved.

But it is not my will that I am obeying, is it? It's our will. That would be force. But God giving someone a new will and that person freely obeying it is not force

Yes, it is. If God controls the will, God forces the action.

Can God make something contrary to His being? No. God is infinitely good. How can He create evil, then?

Good question. I guess it's too bad that, in your theology, God has to be the Creator of evil.

So says modern thinking.

So says the entire history of human thinking and reason - minus Calvin apparently, and maybe Augustine.

But it goes against God and reason.

It doesn't go against God at all. In fact, it is perfectly consistent with God's message.

And to say it goes against reason is just plain ridiculous. No reasonable person would claim that one can have responsibility for something one is unable to do.

I'm going to have to stop trying to rescue your illustrations. They're flawed and all I do in amending them is misrepresent my views and cause more confusion.

When your views are as inconsistent as yours obviously are, you should expect everything you say to misrepresent some of them - and cause a great deal of confusion.

God uses second-causes. Cause-and-effect.

If there is a "second-cause", then there is a first cause. If that first cause is God, God bears the ultimate responsibility.

If I push a rock down a mountain, and that rock causes an avalanche, and that avalanche destroys a house, I am responsible for the destruction of that house, even though I didn't directly cause it.

Yes to the first.
No to the second.

How is that logically possible?

No, I never said their is no choice. There most certainly is choice. You choose what you want to do. What you want is tainted by sin.

So the reprobate can choose salvation, then? They have that ability?

If the answer is no, then the choice is not open.

The option is there, and no one is forcing you to do anything against your will, so it is a free choice.

The option is only there if you can possibly take it. Since, according to you, the reprobate cannot take it, the option is not there. Once again, you're back to the man with no legs being told that he has the option to walk.

Ability /=/ responsibility

The latter is impossible without the former.

No. No one is punished for Adams sin. They are punished for choosing to reject God and sin against His Law because they are following their own will.

According to you, they cannot choose otherwise. This means that they choose nothing. There is no option. They do as they were destined to do. They have no will, as it was already decided for them, and they have no options.

I'm going to ignore everything else, because we're only going in circles. We're not brining anything new to the table.

(b) People do things they don't want to do all the time.

Do they? Examples?

You don't have any, because no one is truly being forced.

Even if I put a gun to your head and told you to steal a million dollars, you would still do it by your own choice. You analyzed the situation, determined that you think it is in your best interest to steal the money and do so. I did not possess you. I did not over power you and take your hands making you steal the money. You did it by your own choice because you wanted to: it may not be your first choice in the world, but you want to do it to avoid me blowing your head off.

Might your actions be excused? Yes, probably, but you still chose to do what you wanted to so, which is obey me (for whatever reason).

just like the Jews had all their male babies murdered due to one man's paranoia. just like nation of people suffered because one man didn't want to let slaves go because his pride wouldn't allow it.

Is God petty like human beings? Does God stoop to the level of tyrants among human beings?

People who make this argument sound just like three year olds, "BUT MOOOMMMM!!!! HE DID IT FIRST!!!"