AGNOSTIC Accountability Groups Starting Up

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Valsalva, Like you, I've never accepted anything based on unfalsafiable claims. I always seek the truth. But there's one difference between what I believe and what you refuse to believe - I rid myself of the arrogant assumption that I am capable of knowing everything I am curious about.

I never said that I was capable of knowing everything I am curious about. In fact, I have never stated or implied that I know everything, etc. What has actually gone in is we've had a barrage of baseless and irrational pseudo-arguments from the "Christians of AT" and I've had to address them. It is merely YOUR assumption that I feel I know everything, when in reality, I've just had to address a lot of stupid points that people make here. For instance, there was that one guy who had the audacity to tell me there was no such thing as the Fallacy of Inappropriate Appeal to Authority, when he, in fact, had no idea what he was talking about. What did you want me to say?? "Oh, you're right, I should write the authors of all the logic textbooks that they systematically made such a huge error."...Seriously, man.

The answers to qustions you and I seek, I know I will not be able to comprehend, and I will not be capable of making smart decisions with. So if I can not handle the truth, I will as a secondary priority still seek it, stumbling around blindly perhaps, but knowing first and foremost that it will not affect my ability or inability to control my own destiny, and that it is the faith I have in a loving and omnipotent being that will make the difference.

That statement of yours made absolutely no sense. Each fragment of your extended run-on sentence was disjointed from the previous fragment, and it's almost impossible to follow. Perhaps in Sunday School, people would have said oooooh aahhhh to your seemingly profound statement, but if you actually read it and try to analyze it, it says just about nothing. Please clarify what the heck you mean. Thanks.

So you seem to imply that Adam and Eve had a CHOICE to either eat the apple or not...yet God supposedly has a plan for everyone, which implies that it is GOD that choose a person's path...so which is it, oh biblical scholar?

God has a PLAN for everyone. It is our CHOICE to follow it or not. God has a plan, and long before we were even conceived, know what will happen and what we will chose. But we don't until after we've decided. Notice how none of this contradicts.

Ohh, I see...so what you're saying is that God has a plan laid out for us, but we ultimately decide what to do? But at the same time, Christians hold that God is omniscient...which would mean that he would know EXACTLY what decision we would make in a given situation. So if God knew that already that Adam and Eve were naive and could conceivably be fooled by the serpent, why the heck didn't he do anything to intervene? God KNEW that if he didn't say anything, the serpent would trick them into eating the apple....Clearly, God, being omniscient and omnipotent, could EASILY have said Hey, Adam & Eve, don't listen to that serpent-fellow, he's evil, he'll corrupt you. I mean, isn't that what parents do?? They protect their children when they KNOW there's danger.

So essentially God knew that Adam & Eve were prone to getting tricked by the serpent, yet He did NOTHING to intervene... What kind of parent KNOWS his children are going to get into danger, then does NOTHING???

Valsalva

But a Christian is commissioned by God to spread the Gospel and to let everyone know about salvation in Jesus. Since we cannot force someone to believe, there will be nonbelievers. But it is the imperfections and selfishness of man that has failed man. God has failed no one. He has limited his influence in this world to allow for free will, for good or for bad.

Oh, I see. Well what about the villagers in the middle of Zimbabwe who worship their local gods and have NEVER heard of the bible, Jesus, God, etc.? They have no clue that they could receive salvation through Jesus. What will become of them??

Valsalva

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: melchoir

Originally posted by: ValsalvaYourHeartOut
That kinda reminds me....
If God is all powerful and all knowing, he surely would have known that Eve would have been prone to picking that apple and that Adam would be likely to go ahead and eat it too...so rather than just giving them a simple warning, God would have taken great measures to prevent them from eating that apple. Like fencing the tree off or putting a guard in front of it, etc. And it seems quite unfair to punish Adam and Eve so greatly for tasting that apple, given that what they did was already in God's plan...how can He blame Adam and Eve for their actions if He was the one who actually planned what they would do? The easiest way to resolve this contradiction is to say that God is either NOT omnipotent, NOT omniscient, or didn't exist and none of that malarkey every happened.

Well, not even removing the tree completely would do any good. No matter what was/is forbidden, man would still be tempted by it. You can thank god for putting the wickedness in man to begin with so he could exercise his cruel punishments on those not at fault. Surely not something an all good, or a just god would do.

The whole Creation story is a metaphor, there was no "tree".

 

[PistachioByAzul]

"The Christian Idol

The popular Myth of Jesus is an Idol of mass religion. It was created by the exoteric Christian Church, when it moved to legitimize itself in the eyes of the secular State of Rome. That Idol is worshipped by popular belief, and many have been and continue to be deluded and oppressed by the Cult of that Idol.

Like every Idol, the Myth of Jesus contains a secret about Man himself. But that secret is locked away in the features of the Image men worship. Men worship Jesus as an exclusive human embodiment of God because they are unwilling or unable to accept the kind of responsibility for themselves that Jesus accepted for himself.

Jesus did not teach the worship of himself as an Idol of God or a Substitute for the responsibility of each man for his own religious and spiritual sacrifice. And even if he did, it would be our responsibility to liberate ourselves from that Doctrine.

The popular Myth of Jesus is founded on archaic cosmological archetypes. Jesus is believed to have come down from Heaven (or the sky of stars above the Earth) and become a blood sacrifice (in the ancient style of cults that ritually killed animals and men), and then he is supposed to have risen up into the sky again—back to Heaven. The man Jesus is popularly believed to be God, the Creator of the Universe, and his death is glorified as a necessary Cosmic Event that somehow makes it unnecessary for any believer to suffer permanent mortal death.

All of this, and more, may have made some kind of imaginative, street-level sense in the days of the Roman Empire, but it is nothing more than benighted silliness in the last quarter of the twentieth century. And, in any case, none of this Idolatry was the teaching or the intention of Jesus or any of the other great spiritual Adepts of the world. All of the mythological idolization of Jesus was the creation of the exoteric and popular cultism of the early Christian Church. And the time has come for the world to renounce this nonsense—even if the Christian Church itself is yet unwilling to renounce its obnoxious absolutist claim on all of humanity.

The Myth and the Idol of Jesus have nothing to do with true religion or the spiritual responsibility of Man—as I have tried to explain in these essays and in many other writings. And it is time we stopped glorifying the martyrdom of Jesus. Even though it seems possible that he personally survived the crucifixion and went on to continue his work outside Israel, the popular belief is that he died on the cross. And the persecution and attempted assassination of Jesus by the hypocritical religious cultists of his time was not in any sense good for mankind. It was a grave misfortune, and a prime example of the stupid, unillumined, and aggressive mentality that still characterizes the popular or mass level of subhuman existence. The world would have profited much more if Jesus had been able to work openly and live to a remarkable old age as a great prophetic Teacher of Israel. In that case, the true esoteric foundation of religion might have begun to become the basis of human culture two thousand years ago. And, at the very least, mankind could have avoided the long tour of domination by yet another impenetrable Idol of the mind

The idea that the martyrdom of Jesus was the literal and final Sacrifice of God is a perversion of the Truth. The true sacrifice of Jesus occurred while he was still alive. That sacrifice was of an esoteric spiritual nature, and it is of no inherent value to any other human being, unless that individual will duplicate that same sacrifice in the processes of his own body-mind.

Why do we persist in a retarded and negatively cultic understanding of religion? The Truth is plain—and it has been plainly preached and demonstrated, not only by Jesus, but by many Adepts in every epoch of human history. But the Idol of Jesus persists—because it is one of the great archetypal alternatives to authentic personal religious or spiritual responsibility. It is time for mankind to awaken to Wisdom and to the understanding of Jesus in Truth. Then perhaps some benefit will have come to us at last from that ancient outrage performed in Jerusalem."

 

[PistachioByAzul]

"Jesus Was a Sacrifice,
Not a Survivor

Jesus of Nazareth has become a universal archetypal figure in the minds of all mankind. But he has thereby become more a part of conventional mind and meaning than a servant of the Real. Unfortunately, he has become identified with personal or egoic survival rather than perfect sacrifice of self, mind, life, emotion, and body.

Paul the Apostle said that if Jesus did not survive his death, then belief in him and his Teaching is fruitless. Therefore, the bodily and personal survival of Jesus became the traditional foundation of Christian belief and practice. But Paul's conception is false. The Truth and the Law of sacrifice are not verified by or dependent upon the knowable survival or immortality of any man, including Jesus. The Truth of the Teaching of Jesus, itself an extension of the Teaching of the ancients, did not at all depend on his survival, or, more specifically, knowledge, on the part of others, of his survival. If it did depend on his personal or conventional soul-survival of death, or the knowledge of such on the part of others, he could not have taught anything of ultimate significance during his lifetime, and all Teaching before his time would have been inherently false. But Jesus himself specifically denied both possibilities.

The Teaching of Jesus is essentially the ancient Teaching of the Way of Sacrifice. He, like others, taught that the sacrifice that is essential is not cultic or external to the individual, but it is necessarily a moral and personal sacrifice made through love. It is the sacrifice of all that is oneself, and all that one possesses, into forms of loving and compassionate participation with others, and into the absolute Mystery of the Reality and Divine Person wherein we all arise and change and ultimately disappear. Therefore, the proof of his Teaching is not in the independent or knowable survival of anything or anyone, but in the enlightened, free, and moral happiness of chose who live the sacrifice while alive and even at death.

We cannot cling to the survival of anyone, or even ourselves. This clinging has for centuries agonized would-be believers, who tried to be certain of the survival of Jesus and themselves. Truly, Jesus did not survive in the independent form that persisted while he lived, nor does anyone possess certain knowledge of the history of Jesus after his death. All reports are simply expressions of the mystical presumptions and archetypal mental structures of those who make the reports. And neither will we survive the process of universal dissolution everywhere displayed. Jesus sacrificed himself. He gave himself up in loving service to others and in ultimate love to Real God. All who do this become what they meditate upon. They are Transtated beyond this self or independent body-mind into a hidden Destiny in the Mystery or Intensity that includes and precedes all beings, things, and worlds."

 

[Netopia]

Valsalva,

Why is it that with your near omniscience and mental capabilities that put Stephen Hawking to shame... you again and again say that you cannot make heads or tales of what many of the Christians say and yet we all understand these things just fine? Or is it that you simply don't want to have to deal with the arguements (which is what I believe) and so you make disparaging remarks and ignore the statements themselves?

For one so wise, obvious things seem to be pretty hard for you.

Joe

 

[melchoir]

God has a PLAN for everyone. It is our CHOICE to follow it or not. God has a plan, and long before we were even conceived, know what will happen and what we will chose. But we don't until after we've decided. Notice how none of this contradicts.

Therefore he is the one responsible for any of our wickedness. He allow it to come into being when he created the universe the way he did. We are given no free will.

The problem here is that God knows everything that has happened and everything that will happen. His knowledge cannot be wrong. There is not a single event that He has not foresaw. Now given that He created the Universe the way He did, do we have free will? Consider that when God made the Universe he could see every possible result of what he was doing. Which means, He could not create something without knowing what the results would be, and without knowing how it would be affected (and effect) the things around it.
Let's say that Fred has a choice that will save his life, to accept God or not to accept God and the final choice is to be made tomorrow. God knows already what choice he will make - God cannot be wrong therefore Fred cannot choose otherwise to what God has predicted. When God created the chain of events that made Fred, He also knew that He was making Fred's choice for him, and knew how the various circumstances and character would make him choose either right or wrong. Fred would go forth and make that very decision that God knew he would make, and by virtue that God knowingly set up all the factors that affected his decision, it was not up to Fred but to God, when He created the Universe, to decide how Fred would fare.

This argument does not imply that God does not exist. It leaves us with three results, two of which have to be wrong.

God created everything with full knowledge and we have no free will to change it
God does not have full knowledge
God did not make the Universe
The first one would mean that God is not benevolent, and we are all absolved of any guilt on our behalf. It is not compatible with the Bible's teachings, or with the "infallible" Catholic Church. The second option denies God omniscience, which is also not compatible with God being the all-knowing truth. The third option would explain things more coherently than denying God any of His powers - that God Himself is an observer but unfortunately, this leads on to polytheism. When we consider the problem of free will we see that it is impossible for the Christian doctrine of salvation, sin or choice to be true. Christianity, if it claims these are necessary, must also be wrong.

No matter which angle we choose to look at these problems, we can see that God did not create the universe, or is not benevolent, or is not omniscient. The only logical solution to all these problems remains in these four words: God does not exist.

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: Netopia
Valsalva,

Why is it that with your near omniscience and mental capabilities that put Stephen Hawking to shame... you again and again say that you cannot make heads or tales of what many of the Christians say and yet we all understand these things just fine? Or is it that you simply don't want to have to deal with the arguements (which is what I believe) and so you make disparaging remarks and ignore the statements themselves?

For one so wise, obvious things seem to be pretty hard for you.

Joe

In the beginning was the chicken and gave thou shalt upon thee based on the it, and before that, there was nothing. Seemingly, the just and the omnipotence laid upon those that remark, although I don't ignore the statement of within, therefore, you God exists.

Let's see you make heads or tales [sic] of the above rambling. Well, gee, ya know, I can't make much sense of it either because you know what -- it DOESN'T make any sense. If you can't decipher what I wrote, then you are intentionally ignoring MY arguments because you know you're incapable of addressing them. Pshhht. Two can play at your game.

Look, man. I have tried in good faith to understand some of your writing, but quite frankly, there are times when you make absolutely zero sense. Part of your problem is that your writing is unsophisticated, and you tend to introduce a lot of ambiguous pronouns and disorganized ideas into what you write. It's really not my fault that you have difficulty expressing yourself, but it's certainly not fair of you to ramble on incoherently and then somehow insinuate that *I* have a problem with comprehension.

I again ask that you either re-state your incomprehensible argument about [whatever it was exactly] or just not post. There are other Christians here who are a) able to express themselves and b) actually have good points to make. I would suggest that you yield to them in the time being. Thanks.

Valsalva

 

[Rio Rebel]

Just in case anyone is falling for Valsalva's laughable persona:

An appeal to authority is a fallacy in logic because the truth of a proposition cannot be determined by the "authority" of the person supporting it. It has ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to do with how much of an authority the person is. Appealing to an authority - ANY authority -to determine the validity of an argument is a fallacy in logic. Once again, if you strip away the self-proclaimed Emperor's clothes, you find a self-important windbag with no real expertise on his subject.

And another thing: I love the way Captain Intellect throws out the latin term, as if adds validity. Now what does that remind me of?

...

Oh YEAH, it reminds me of the ignorant fundamentalist minister who tries to make his sermon legitimate by quoting Greek.

Like I said - Valsalva is a fundamentalist Christian just waiting to find himself.

 

[Rio Rebel]

One other thing -

I love the way some anti-Christians pull out the "you can't say that to me, you're supposed to be a Christian" argument when they start losing at their own game. They think they can say whatever they want, and be as disrespectful as they want, because Christians aren't supposed to fight on that level.

Now pull up your pants, Val. You've shown your ass too long, and I think your family is getting embarassed.

 

[petrek]

What exactly is this supposed to mean? You've addressed nothing.

They were wicked people who were going to die, a few more years wouldn't have made a difference.

You must have some sort of disorder, it states time and time agian that slave's are considered property.

As I stated, it's a matter of context in understanding the word slave, and I must add, the word property.

That doesn't make killing without mercy, and killing anything that breathes righteous at all.

In context, yes it does.

Your point was irrelevant.

So, it is your belief that two people who have a child are murderers?


Dave

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

An appeal to authority is a fallacy in logic because the truth of a proposition cannot be determined by the "authority" of the person supporting it. It has ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to do with how much of an authority the person is. Appealing to an authority - ANY authority -to determine the validity of an argument is a fallacy in logic.

I am appalled that you still believe you are correct, despite my careful explanation of the precise DEFINITION of the Ad Verecundiam (Appeal to INAPPROPRIATE AUTHORITY). You, my friend, are talking out of your A$$. For people inexperienced in logic, it might seem reasonable to believe to think that Appeal to Authority refers to ANY appeal to authority. Unfortunately, as I explained before, this may be somewhat if a misnomer and can be misleading for a person, such as yourself, who is inexperienced in logic. I think the true sign of arrogance is a person who insists that he is correct despite obvious evidence to the contrary. You clearly do not know what you're talking about, you were given very specific information regarding the correct definition of this term, yet you STILL insist that you are correct.

There are some excellent web resources you might be interested in:
"Not all arguments from expert opinion are fallacious, and for this reason some authorities on logic have taken to labelling this fallacy as "appeal to inappropriate or irrelevant or questionable authority." Source

"Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) Definition: While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if. . ." Source

"Appeal to Authority. Ideally, we reach our decisions by reviewing information and arguments, and coming to our own conclusions. But because knowledge is very specialized, none of us has the time and ability necessary to understand fully all the fields in which we need to make informed decisions. As a result, we often rely on the opinions of experts--people who have the knowledge necessary to evaluate very specialized information. . . .As the name suggests, a misdirected appeal to authority usually cites some person or thing (a book, for example) as a source to be trusted on a subject, when in fact that person or thing is not authoritative on that specific subject. As a result, this fallacy is also known as an appeal to questionable authority." Source

So you see, you are clearly wrong when you insist that "Appealing to an authority - ANY authority -to determine the validity of an argument is a fallacy in logic." In my previous post, I took the time to explain what the Fallacy of (Inappropriate) Appeal to Authority actually meant, and instead of taking the time to look it up yourself, you just insisted that you were right and accused ME of having "no real expertise on the subject." Ironically, it appears that the converse is true.

I expect you now to acknowledge that that you were incorrect, and I do believe that an apology for your unfounded remarks is in order. In the future, I would again suggest that you NOT try to correct someone in an area that you, yourself, have only slighty familiarity with. Furthermore, when someone tries to help you understand a concept that you're not quite sure about, I would try to learn from that person or at the very least, look up what they're talking about. Your reaction of insisting that you were right was definitely inappropriate and demonstrates pervasive arrogance on your part....I hope you're not like this all the time.

Valsalva

 

[petrek]

The whole Creation story is a metaphor, there was no "tree".

I would just like to say that I completely disagree with the above statement. Unless God is mythical (which I don't believe), I find no reason to believe that the creation account as reported in the Word of God is mythical. Considering current prophetical events taking place regarding God's chosen people (the Nation of Israel), the Mark of the Beast, as well as others, it would be difficult to shake my faith in the Word of God.

Dave

 

[melchoir]

Originally posted by: petrek
They were wicked people who were going to die, a few more years wouldn't have made a difference.

There's absolutely no way you can possibly suggest every human was wicked. Even if the humans all were (including infants) wicked, what about the innocent animals? They were destroyed as well.

Originally posted by: petrek
As I stated, it's a matter of context in understanding the word slave, and I must add, the word property.

You seem to be in denial. Everyone including biblical scholar's agree about slavery and the Bible.

Originally posted by: petrek
In context, yes it does

No it doesn't.

Originally posted by: petrek
So, it is your belief that two people who have a child are murderers?

They are not murders until they kill. God killed his children for things they had no control over. He created the man with evil in their hearts then punished them for it. He could have skipped putting the wickedness in, and we wouldn't have these problems. Man has no free will as god is omniscient. God knew what would happen if he created the universe the way he did, he knew man would cover the earth with violance and that he would drown everything. Yet he did this anyway..

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: ValsalvaYourHeartOut

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Valsalva, Like you, I've never accepted anything based on unfalsafiable claims. I always seek the truth. But there's one difference between what I believe and what you refuse to believe - I rid myself of the arrogant assumption that I am capable of knowing everything I am curious about.

I never said that I was capable of knowing everything I am curious about. In fact, I have never stated or implied that I know everything, etc. What has actually gone in is we've had a barrage of baseless and irrational pseudo-arguments from the "Christians of AT" and I've had to address them. It is merely YOUR assumption that I feel I know everything, when in reality, I've just had to address a lot of stupid points that people make here. For instance, there was that one guy who had the audacity to tell me there was no such thing as the Fallacy of Inappropriate Appeal to Authority, when he, in fact, had no idea what he was talking about. What did you want me to say?? "Oh, you're right, I should write the authors of all the logic textbooks that they systematically made such a huge error."...Seriously, man.

You seek the truth, like every good logical person would. But you accept nothing but the full rational explaination for everything without consideration for the notion that *perhaps* if there was an intelligent being who created the universe, that He *might* have a better idea of whats going on such that you may not comprehend. It implies that your search for knowledge is based on arrogance, and not simple curiosity.

The answers to qustions you and I seek, I know I will not be able to comprehend, and I will not be capable of making smart decisions with. So if I can not handle the truth, I will as a secondary priority still seek it, stumbling around blindly perhaps, but knowing first and foremost that it will not affect my ability or inability to control my own destiny, and that it is the faith I have in a loving and omnipotent being that will make the difference.

That statement of yours made absolutely no sense. Each fragment of your extended run-on sentence was disjointed from the previous fragment, and it's almost impossible to follow. Perhaps in Sunday School, people would have said oooooh aahhhh to your seemingly profound statement, but if you actually read it and try to analyze it, it says just about nothing. Please clarify what the heck you mean. Thanks.

Try harder to make an effort. Those shallow criticisms don't bother me because I am not a student writing a paper to you, who is not a professor. I'm not about to get into an argument over grammar.

God has a PLAN for everyone. It is our CHOICE to follow it or not. God has a plan, and long before we were even conceived, know what will happen and what we will chose. But we don't until after we've decided. Notice how none of this contradicts.

Ohh, I see...so what you're saying is that God has a plan laid out for us, but we ultimately decide what to do?

correct.

But at the same time, Christians hold that God is omniscient...which would mean that he would know EXACTLY what decision we would make in a given situation.

correct.

So if God knew that already that Adam and Eve were naive and could conceivably be fooled by the serpent, why the heck didn't he do anything to intervene? God KNEW that if he didn't say anything, the serpent would trick them into eating the apple....Clearly, God, being omniscient and omnipotent, could EASILY have said Hey, Adam & Eve, don't listen to that serpent-fellow, he's evil, he'll corrupt you. I mean, isn't that what parents do?? They protect their children when they KNOW there's danger.

Correct. He could have. But that would be taking away free will wouldn't it? Whether you look at the story as a literal account or a metaphor, the end result is the same - humankind would not have the choice to decide what it wants. And your analogy about parents and children isn't quite correct... Children cannot be held completely responsible for their own actions. Now if you are saying you shouldn't be held responsible for your own actions, well then I'm sorry I shouldn't be arguing with you...

But a Christian is commissioned by God to spread the Gospel and to let everyone know about salvation in Jesus. Since we cannot force someone to believe, there will be nonbelievers. But it is the imperfections and selfishness of man that has failed man. God has failed no one. He has limited his influence in this world to allow for free will, for good or for bad.

Oh, I see. Well what about the villagers in the middle of Zimbabwe who worship their local gods and have NEVER heard of the bible, Jesus, God, etc.? They have no clue that they could receive salvation through Jesus. What will become of them??

Valsalva

That, my friend, is what I believe to a prime example of my first boldfaced sentence: As Christians, we have failed many of our fellow man...

 

[melchoir]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
Correct. He could have. But that would be taking away free will wouldn't it? Whether you look at the story as a literal account or a metaphor, the end result is the same - humankind would not have the choice to decide what it wants. And your analogy about parents and children isn't quite correct... Children cannot be held completely responsible for their own actions.

Gods existance (if true from the bible) completely denies free will anyway.

Originally posted by: busmaster11
Now if you are saying you shouldn't be held responsible for your own actions, well then I'm sorry I shouldn't be arguing with you...

Gods existance (if true from the bible) makes god completely responsible for everyones actions, they cannot choose differently from what he predicts.

 

[element]

I find it odd that the truth is more often found by science than in religious texts. Often religion attempts to hold back the truth. I'm sure you've all heard of what happened to Galileo. If you haven't, then you should look it up.

You'd think if God had anything to do with religion and the bible you'd be better informed about the world and universe around you.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: melchoir

God has a PLAN for everyone. It is our CHOICE to follow it or not. God has a plan, and long before we were even conceived, know what will happen and what we will chose. But we don't until after we've decided. Notice how none of this contradicts.

Therefore he is the one responsible for any of our wickedness. He allow it to come into being when he created the universe the way he did. We are given no free will.

God knows already what choice he will make - God cannot be wrong therefore Fred cannot choose otherwise to what God has predicted. When God created the chain of events that made Fred, He also knew that He was making Fred's choice for him, and knew how the various circumstances and character would make him choose either right or wrong. Fred would go forth and make that very decision that God knew he would make, and by virtue that God knowingly set up all the factors that affected his decision, it was not up to Fred but to God, when He created the Universe, to decide how Fred would fare.

The arrogance of some of you is appalling... To conclude that God does or does not exist by following a stream of logic that you've concocted, thinking that those are God's only options or motives... What pseudointellectuals...

Melchior, please explain to me how the concept that God knows about every action that has been or will be taken, equates to a lack of free will. Just because God knows it doesn't me we do, or that we can't decide...

In any case, your quote has a major fallacy which I'm sure you wouldn't want to address in fear of losing something that elegant, I'm sure... It assumes that God wants to interfere with every notion of our daily lives... What do you want? Free will or to be an automaton? Or do you want free will but with the "bad" choices removed? Is that free will? How about the choice of going to work or sleeping with someone else's wife? Would you like that choice? Or would you like that choice taken away from you? Because believe me, there would be a million times in history when a man would have objected to having that choice taken away... So you can't have it both. either God decides or you do. If its the latter, don't complain to Him - especially when he gives us a way out from having to serve the punishment.

 

[petrek]

There's absolutely no way you can possibly suggest every human was wicked. Even if the humans all were (including infants) wicked, what about the innocent animals? They were destroyed as well.

I didn't suggest it, God stated it. For children there is an age of accountability (not the same for everyone), prior to which, they would not be condemned. Animals are animals, to refer to an animal as innocent or guilty is (to me) ridiculous.

You seem to be in denial. Everyone including biblical scholar's agree about slavery and the Bible.

As I continue to state, context. The term "Bible Scholars agree" has been used so often in the last century or so to imply an impervious wall of validity about some notion that to me, it carries no weight.

No it doesn't.

Then we disagree. May I suggest you read it over a few times while looking for different contextual possibilities.

They are not murders until they kill. God killed his children for things they had no control over. He created the man with evil in their hearts then punished them for it. He could have skipped putting the wickedness in, and we wouldn't have these problems. Man has no free will as god is omniscient. God knew what would happen if he created the universe the way he did, he knew man would cover the earth with violance and that he would drown everything. Yet he did this anyway..

But they knew before they created the child that the child would die, thus according to the logic of others, and it would seem yourself, they are murderers for creating the child. Everyone has a choice. God did not create man with evil in their hearts, wrong, wrong, wrong. On the day that God created man he beheld everything that he had made and "it was very good", if he created Adam with evil in his heart he would not have referred to his creation as being "very good".

Dave

 

[melchoir]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
Melchior, please explain to me how the concept that God knows about every action that has been or will be taken, equates to a lack of free will. Just because God knows it doesn't me we do, or that we can't decide...

Will you actually take a second and read what you're writing? The fact that he knows every action that will be taken means that you cannot decide differently, or he'd be wrong.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: melchoir

Originally posted by: busmaster11
Melchior, please explain to me how the concept that God knows about every action that has been or will be taken, equates to a lack of free will. Just because God knows it doesn't me we do, or that we can't decide...

Will you actually take a second and read what you're writing? The fact that he knows every action that will be taken means that you cannot decide differently, or he'd be wrong.

Decide differently from what?

 

[melchoir]

Originally posted by: petrek
Everyone has a choice. God did not create man with evil in their hearts, wrong, wrong, wrong. On the day that God created man he beheld everything that he had made and "it was very good", if he created Adam with evil in his heart he would not have referred to his creation as being "very good".

As I've stated, God's existance (as shown in the bible) denies free will. When he created the universe the way he did, he did create man with evil in their heart.

Originally posted by: petrek
But they knew before they created the child that the child would die, thus according to the logic of others, and it would seem yourself, they are murderers for creating the child.

Man can never be 100% certain what will happen to their child. God would know exactly.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: melchoir

Gods existance (if true from the bible) makes god completely responsible for everyones actions, they cannot choose differently from what he predicts.

I'm pretty much done with this thread because listening to val is really starting to bore me but this comment is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

You even said it yourself although you don't seem to be able to realize it. You realize there is a difference between predicting something and causing something right? Let's say you're hovering in a helicopter right over a blind intersection between two roads. Let's also say that you see two cars traveling at 50 miles an hour on each road and they're equal distance from the intersection. Now you'd probably predict that they're going to meet in the intersection and hit each other. So, when they do hit the fact that you saw it coming makes you responsible and means that they could not have chose another action? I doubt it. Seeing the path someone will take in the future is not the same as forcing them down that path.

Besides, if God was really controling your life do you think he'd really want you sitting here typing bad things about him? Wouldn't we all be christians if God was running our lives? Sorry buddy, can't have it both ways. You either have freedom or you don't.

 

[melchoir]

Decide differently from what?

From what god predicted the instant he became omniscient.

 

[melchoir]

You even said it yourself although you don't seem to be able to realize it. You realize there is a difference between predicting something and causing something right?

God caused the chain of events that would start this when he created the universe, and he knew it.

 

[petrek]

As I've stated, God's existance (as shown in the bible) denies free will. When he created the universe the way he did, he did create man with evil in their heart.

No He didn't. We disagree.

Man can never be 100% certain what will happen to their child. God would know exactly.

The world I live in. Everyone dies. That is 100% certain.


Dave