AGNOSTIC Accountability Groups Starting Up

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: ValsalvaYourHeartOut

Originally posted by: busmaster11
No, it would NOT be taking away free will. Let's say I WARN my 2 year-old not to stick his finger in the wall socket because he can get electrocuted. Let's also say that I KNOW my 2 year-old is not old enough to understand what I mean when I warn him and tell him he can get electrocuted. Let's also say that I KNOW my 2 year-old is curious and is likes to stick his finger in things. So what should I do? Should I put plastic protecters over my wall sockets? Or should I let him electrocute himself? Would it be taking away free will by covering up those wall sockets??

Same thing. God is omniscient. HE KNEW that Adam & Eve would not be capable of resisting the apple, despite being warned (just like I KNOW a 2 y/o won't understand my warning about electrocution). He KNEW that Adam & Eve were curious and would be likely to sample that apple (just like I KNEW my hypothetical 2 y/o liked to stick his fingers in things). Yet, God did NOTHING to reduce the likelihood of Adam & Eve eating from the forbidden tree. This would be analogous to me NOT doing anything to cover up the forbidden wall socket and allowing my 2 y/o to electrocute himself. God's FAILURE to go through the most basic efforts to protect his children is yet another gross inconsistency in the bible.

Thats a very good point. I'm glad you made it. Let's say your son is 35. He starts doing drugs. Do you continue to follow him every literal step of his life to make sure he doesn't do drugs? You can't, right? Well, then, you're a FAILURE... Thats a much better analogy because we are all accountable for our actions, despite the fact that God has given us the option of doing harmful things.

But lets introduce another concept here... The kingdom of heaven - a holy place, a place where sin is not allowed to enter. God knows sin, yet because He is perfect, He can resist sin. We are not. So we can't. Yes, God knew what Adam and Eve were going to do, and He let them make that choice. But it was inevitable that man comes to this world where there is sin and temptation so we may know about it and make the choice to accept God's gift of salvation or not to accept it - because we cannot just be born into heaven because sin is not allowed in heaven.

My point is - if God took every measure to keep A&E from eating the apple of knowledge, they would not have known sin or temptation. But it was inevitable that they do, because if God allows for free will, that opens up the option for people to make bad decisions.

And your analogy about parents and children isn't quite correct... Children cannot be held completely responsible for their own actions.

The analogy is completely parallel. Adam & Eve were newly created and naive. They were just learning about the new world around them in the Garden of Eden, and didn't even know not to trust that serpent. Just like children, they needed protection from their parent. God is omniscient, so he definitely knew that his children would be in danger, yet he did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent them from harming themselves. The analogy stands, unless you specifically find a non-parallelism.

As I said. People are warned about drugs, guns and alcohol. So for all the people out there that screw up their lives with these things, they should not be held responsible for their actions because you deem them to be like children?
I'll be back after service...

 

[DurocShark]

Raised a JW, now an agnostic leaning toward atheism.

Sign me up...

BTW: An interesting apologetics website: Carm.org

It's run by a friend of mine...

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: Netopia

God killed his children for things they had no control over.

The Bible says that only those who show faith have the right to be called His children. Joe

It is absolutely irrelevant that only "those that show faith" have the bible-given RIGHT to be CALLED "his children." Like it or not, all humans are God's children, regardless of their faith. Or do some humans have a different Father that we should be aware of?

Valsalva

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmsclAnyway, flxnimprtmscl, Melchoir is essentially stating this:

Let's say on 1/1/03, the omniscient God knows that Bob will have steak for dinner on 1/2/03.
On 1/2/03, Bob MUST have steak for dinner. If he instead eats chicken, for example, then God would have been WRONG on 1/1/03 when he "knew" that Bob would eat steak. Therefore, Bob does NOT have free will because having the free will would EXCLUDE the possibility that God was omniscient.

Free will implies that at a particular moment in time, up to the point a decision is made, an individual can freely choose a course of action. However, in order for God omniscient, he should be able to predict what decision would be made. Here's the problem. If at an earlier time, an individual's decision has already been "locked in" (because God made a prediction and he cannot be wrong), then he obviously does not have "free will."

It's actually quite basic. Think about it.

Valsalva

I'm honestly speechless. I can't belive you can possibly be that stupid. Wow.

You've actually demonstrated yourself time and time again to be the "one who just doesn't get it." Thus, I'm frankly not surprised to see you banging your head against the wall again.

Anyway, God knows you're going to wake up tomorrow morning. Unfortunately for the rest of us I might add. Is he taking away your free will by making you wake up? Or was that going to happen anyway?

This is a NON-PARALLEL example. We are discussing Free-Will. Free-Will entails consciously making a decision. We do NOT make a decision to wake up. That happens on its own. Similarly, we do not make a decision for the sun to rise the next day. Therefore, your non-parallel example demonstrates absolutely nothing. You've made a really stupid point here, my friend....really stupid.

You're logic is flawed from the start. God is able to see the entire furture. It doesn't mean he controls it.

Being able to see the entire future logically mandates that he controls it. If you don't think it all the way through, then prima facie, it doesn't look like that makes any sense. So review what has been written previously and try to THINK for a change.

It means he knows what we will do with our free will before we do it. Your logic is flawed because you're thinking that God's just kind of guessing things and if we act real fast we can fake God out or something.

You THINK my "logic is flawed" because you did not understand my reasoning. Let's try it again, and try to read it carefully.
God is omniscient. If God KNOWS at a certain time what an individual's Decision D will be at Time T, then that decision D will be "LOCKED IN." What that means is that when Time T comes around, the individual MUST make Decision D (and not Decision A, B, or C) in order to FULFILL God's prediction. If the individual makes any decision BESIDES Decision D, then God's prediction is WRONG, and it follows that God is NOT omniscient. However, we say that God is omniscient, therefore, an individual can only choose Decision D at Time T. "Free-will" implies that the individual has the freedom to choose among Decisions A, B, C, D, etc. at Time T. However, if we stipulate that God is omniscient and God KNOWS what will happen in the future, then the individual can make ONLY the decision that God predicted at a previous time: Decision D. The fact that the choice was PREDETERMINED and LIMITED implies that there is no free-will. In order for free-will to exist, you'd have to stipulate that God is NOT omniscient or God is "pretty-darn" omniscient, but can't see the future.

You prove my point for me when you say "God made a prediction". A prediction is a guess. If God was just up there kind of tossing guesses out then yes, your point would be correct. We would either have no free will or God wouldn't be Omniscient. But, God's not guessing because he already knows.

Precisely. "God's not guessing because he already knows." He already knows what decision a person will make at a prior time. Therefore, that person is REQUIRED to make the decision that God predicted, otherwise God's prediction would be wrong and God wouldn't be omniscient.

Valsalva

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: ValsalvaYourHeartOut
Precisely. "God's not guessing because he already knows." He already knows what decision a person will make at a prior time. Therefore, that person is REQUIRED to make the decision that God predicted, otherwise God's prediction would be wrong and God wouldn't be omniscient.

Valsalva

You're confusing yourself with semantics. You're only making the decision you chose to make in the first place. Just because God knows about it beforehand doesn't have anything to do as far as your ability to decide.

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
Attention:

If you are agnostic this is the place for you. If you are a Christian and would like to have a serious discussion that's okay, but remember you have to be reasonable.

I decided to start this thread because I realize that there are quite a few born again Christians on this forum and many of them like to discuss their religion with non-believers. I thought it would be a good idea if we were to start up an accountability based on nothing divine or God inspired, but on man alone. .

Some topics of accountability may include:
Discussing the validity of the Bible
Sexual ImPurity (this one is a biggie)
General Logical Thinking



It will be a great way for us Agnostics to share experiences, discuss nonbelief systems, and help one another.


So far I have:
Valsalvayourheartout
TheBoyBlunder
WinkOsmosis
Mith
MindStorm
iwearnosox
Dr Smooth
MercenaryForHire
Alchemist99
kevinthenerd
yamahaXS
LeeTJ

Edit: Discussion is encouraged, but name calling and flamming is unacceptable.
Personal attacks are unacceptable also.
This thread is not intended to be flamebait.

QT, your attempts to hide this as a mockery of Christians on this forum is quite obvious and transparent. Exactly what kind of accountability are you to discuss, and who are you trying to be accountable to? Yourselves? Each person has his own standards of morals, beliefs, and convictions, so really, you'll have to go all out and grasp what each member's are and try to somehow over the internet make them follow... their own. Makes no sense, does it?

I'd like to avoid flamebait, but it seems to me you're just a troll.

So far it's been a lively discussion with little flamming. This thread can be judged on it own-- you tell me!

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Thoughts on the essays I posted?

 

[Netopia]

If the Bible is true, then we are all decendants of the first man and woman (adam and eve), so we would infact be his children. Faith has no consequence in determining paternity.

Rom 9: 8 In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

Apparently I was wrong.

There's a real man... secure enough in his manhood to admit error without fear that he is somehow less of a man. Too bad everyone (cough...cough...Valsalva) can't follow the example Rio has set forth.


Some of Valsalva's double-speak

Like it or not, all humans are God's children, regardless of their faith.

...I provide numerous arguments as to why God cannot possibly exist. Now given the, how could I hate God when I clearly do not believe he exists!!??

Ok... come on Brother Valsalva, which is it? Are all humans God's children as you state or is there no possibility that God exists (as you state) so that no one could be his child? To use some of your own words:

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.

Or do some humans have a different Father that we should be aware of?

Tell you what Valsalva, Jesus has better words to answer this than I do: (emphasis added)

JN 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47 He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."

So far it's been a lively discussion with little flamming. This thread can be judged on it own-- you tell me!

He's right. So far almost all of the flaming has come from only a single individual... and since most of us have already gotten used to taking what he says with a grain of salt, Valsalva's insults are about as impacting as a small boy calling names at us.

Joe

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: ValsalvaYourHeartOut
Precisely. "God's not guessing because he already knows." He already knows what decision a person will make at a prior time. Therefore, that person is REQUIRED to make the decision that God predicted, otherwise God's prediction would be wrong and God wouldn't be omniscient.

Valsalva

You're confusing yourself with semantics. You're only making the decision you chose to make in the first place. Just because God knows about it beforehand doesn't have anything to do as far as your ability to decide.

Not quite.
1) God is omniscient AND can see the future.
2) At 12:00pm, God "predicts" that Bob will eat steak for dinner.
3) At 5:00pm, Bob opens his fridge and think about what to eat for dinner.
4) Bob MUST eat steak for dinner because of 1) and 2).
5) It then follows that at 5:00pm, when Bob supposedly thought about what to eat for dinner, he actually was already pre-determined to eat steak.

See, the problem you're having, busmaster, is that you're not following the several examples I provided...you're still arguing from the prima facie standpoint that "knowing the future cannot possibly change it." I have already explained that the prima facie observation is untrue if you think it through.

When you say "you're only making the decision you chose to make in the first place," you insert an extraneous stipulation that is not mandatory. I do not stipulate that Bob made the decision to eat steak BEFORE God made his prediction. I am stating that God makes his prediction, THEN Bob "supposedly" exercises his free-will to eat steak. However, clearly Bob does not have free-will because by making that prediction, God has "locked in" only one choice for Bob: steak.

Valsalva

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Apparently I was wrong.

There's a real man... secure enough in his manhood to admit error without fear that he is somehow less of a man. Too bad everyone (cough...cough...Valsalva) can't follow the example Rio has set forth.

I know, too bad everyone can't follow Rio's example. I've provided page of examples of how you were being inconsistent, irrational, and just plain wrong, yet I am still waiting for your acknowledge what is blatantly obvious to any objective bystander. It took me 2 long explanations for Rio to realize his error, even though he could have easily looked it up in 5 minutes. However, at least Rio was in the right ballpark with his arguments...yours are just a waste of time.

Or do some humans have a different Father that we should be aware of?

Tell you what Valsalva, Jesus has better words to answer this than I do: (emphasis added)

JN 8:42 Jesus said to them, "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire."

So you're saying that some people here have Satan as their father?

... and since most of us have already gotten used to taking what he says with a grain of salt, Valsalva's insults are about as impacting as a small boy calling names at us.

I have given the appropriate amount of respect to the people who have deserved it. Guess what. You and a few others do not belong to that group.

Valsalva

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Like it or not, all humans are God's children, regardless of their faith.

...I provide numerous arguments as to why God cannot possibly exist. Now given the, how could I hate God when I clearly do not believe he exists!!??

Ok... come on Brother Valsalva, which is it? Are all humans God's children as you state or is there no possibility that God exists (as you state) so that no one could be his child?

My quotes were taken out of context, and in doing so, the meanings were changed. When I wrote that "all humans are God's children," this was a STIPULATION for the sake of argument. Clearly, I am not suggesting that God exists irrespective of that argument. Elsewhere, I have written that "God is omniscient" as a stipulation for my lack of free-will argument. Are you also going to quote THAT and say "OH, look, everyone, Valsalva says that God is omniscient!!! WOOHOO!!! WE WIN!!!"

Furthermore, I have already stated repeatedly that it is IMPOSSIBLE to disprove the existence of God, yet you write "there is no possibility that God exists (as you state)."

It's one thing to actually argue a point rationally, and another to use "below the belt" tricks like completely misquoting people and pulling childish games like taking someone's stipulation and calling it his assertion. You might THINK you're making headway and improving your credibility, but by screwing around with these games, you're only proving that you cannot argue Christianity in a reasonable and convincing manner.

Valsalva

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: ValsalvaYourHeartOut

Originally posted by: busmaster11
No, it would NOT be taking away free will. Let's say I WARN my 2 year-old not to stick his finger in the wall socket because he can get electrocuted. Let's also say that I KNOW my 2 year-old is not old enough to understand what I mean when I warn him and tell him he can get electrocuted. Let's also say that I KNOW my 2 year-old is curious and is likes to stick his finger in things. So what should I do? Should I put plastic protecters over my wall sockets? Or should I let him electrocute himself? Would it be taking away free will by covering up those wall sockets??

Same thing. God is omniscient. HE KNEW that Adam & Eve would not be capable of resisting the apple, despite being warned (just like I KNOW a 2 y/o won't understand my warning about electrocution). He KNEW that Adam & Eve were curious and would be likely to sample that apple (just like I KNEW my hypothetical 2 y/o liked to stick his fingers in things). Yet, God did NOTHING to reduce the likelihood of Adam & Eve eating from the forbidden tree. This would be analogous to me NOT doing anything to cover up the forbidden wall socket and allowing my 2 y/o to electrocute himself. God's FAILURE to go through the most basic efforts to protect his children is yet another gross inconsistency in the bible.

Thats a very good point. I'm glad you made it. Let's say your son is 35. He starts doing drugs. Do you continue to follow him every literal step of his life to make sure he doesn't do drugs? You can't, right? Well, then, you're a FAILURE... Thats a much better analogy because we are all accountable for our actions, despite the fact that God has given us the option of doing harmful things.

Excellent counter-point. However, let's try to make the example more parallel. Let's say that when my son was growing up, I KNEW EXACTLY what to do to prevent him from using drugs. I spent a lot of time with him, taught him about drugs, built up his self-esteem, warned him about the low-lifes, gave him goals, taught him common sense -- everything a good father would do. As a result, he did NOT use drugs when he became 35. That would be ideal, wouldn't it? The problem is, I am only human, so I can do a put a lot of effort into drug prevention, but there's still that tiny chance it might not work. HOWEVER, God is OMNISCIENT!! He would have known EXACTLY what to say and do to PREVENT his children from eating that apple. He would have KNOWN PRECISELY what phrases to say, how to explain things in such a way that Adam & Eve would never forget, etc. Yet he didn't. This means:
a) God is NOT omniscient because he didn't KNOW what to say/do such that his kids wouldn't get into trouble with the apple.
b) God is a BAD PARENT for not protecting his children from something he KNEW was dangerous.

Your second counter-argument is that we cannot a) follow our kids around and make sure they're perfect. True. However, parents can and are EXPECTED to take measure to prevent their children from engaging in harmful and dangerous activities. It would seem to me that if tasting that apple were such a horrible thing to do, which would lead to centuries of sin and suffering, God would have done just slightly more than give them a half-hearted warning. Even half-decent parents nowadays go to great lengths to teach their kids about drugs...yet God couldn't even spend more than a minute or two teaching HIS children to avoid eating an apple that would cause the downfall of humankind.

My point is - if God took every measure to keep A&E from eating the apple of knowledge, they would not have known sin or temptation.

Just as parents can successfully teach their children to avoid drugs, so could God teach HIS children to avoid the apple. In fact, God is omniscient, so surely he could find a way to EASILY educate Adam & Eve without installing a sophisticated security system around the tree. This is all under the assumption that Adam & Eve even HAD free will.

And your analogy about parents and children isn't quite correct... Children cannot be held completely responsible for their own actions.

The analogy is completely parallel. Adam & Eve were newly created and naive. They were just learning about the new world around them in the Garden of Eden, and didn't even know not to trust that serpent. Just like children, they needed protection from their parent. God is omniscient, so he definitely knew that his children would be in danger, yet he did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent them from harming themselves. The analogy stands, unless you specifically find a non-parallelism. [/quote]
As I said. People are warned about drugs, guns and alcohol. So for all the people out there that screw up their lives with these things, they should not be held responsible for their actions because you deem them to be like children?[/quote]

This is a terrible counter-argument. It's completely non-parallel and does not follow!!
My argument was that "Adam & Eve were newly created and naive." They were like children in that they did not possess the knowledge, judgment, and experience to make good decisions (which they clearly did not) -- therefore, they were in need of protection from God, their father in this critical time.

However, when you speak of "'people," I assume you mean adults. These "people" who screw up their lives with "drugs, guns and alcohol" were not NAIVE nor were they literally "born yesterday." Therefore, you are attempting to apply a nonparallel example to this argument. Hopefully when you come back from service today, your mind is more clear.

Valsalva

 

[Netopia]

So you're saying that some people here have Satan as their father?

I'm sorry... I thought that the text was so plain that even YOU could understand. The was Jesus being quoted, not me. You make your own inferences, unlike you I'm no man's judge.

I have given the appropriate amount of respect to the people who have deserved it. Guess what. You and a few others do not belong to that group.

Those of us who don't "deserve it" take joy in that fact. It would appear that to deserve your respect is to be willing to blindly follow you, which some of us just aren't willing to do. Boohoo...

WOOHOO!!! WE WIN!!!

Sadly, you just don't understand that we have nothing to win; you have everything to lose.

...this was a STIPULATION for the sake of argument...

If that be true, may I introduce you to this little functional word we have called "if". It isn't too hard for you to spell, takes little time to type and would make your statements actually convey the meaning you claim to have meant in the first place. Funny... you say you don't understand other people's writings but want us to be mind readers of yours!

BTW... are you EVER going to get back to the fact that you claim that without believing in Jesus a person goes to Hell? You've left it hanging out there waving in the wind but are obviously ducking your false assertion.

Joe

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: Netopia

So you're saying that some people here have Satan as their father?

I'm sorry... I thought that the text was so plain that even YOU could understand. The was Jesus being quoted, not me. You make your own inferences, unlike you I'm no man's judge.

Well if you're going to quote a bible passage, then it is necessary for you to draw a conclusion from it. Otherwise, if you're not citing the bible to support an assertion, I'm not sure why you're doing it. So again, i ask a most straightforward question - are you suggesting that some humans were fathered by Satan? I want you to stipulate this before I proceed to cut you down. Secondly, there's a difference between "making inferences" and "being a judge." Making inferences are what rational people do when they analyze text and attempt to interpret its meaning. Judging is what certain Christians do in their spare time.

Those of us who don't "deserve it" take joy in that fact. It would appear that to deserve your respect is to be willing to blindly follow you, which some of us just aren't willing to do. Boohoo...

The people I grant respect to are the ones who have provided reasonable and discussion-worthy contributions to this thread, whether they are Christian or not. You, OTOH, have provided irrelevant, non-contributory malarkey and you are annoying because you keep on making the dumbest arguments and you "just don't get it" when people prove you wrong time and time again.

...this was a STIPULATION for the sake of argument...

If that be true, may I introduce you to this little functional word we have called "if". It isn't too hard for you to spell, takes little time to type and would make your statements actually convey the meaning you claim to have meant in the first place. Funny... you say you don't understand other people's writings but want us to be mind readers of yours!

The word "if" is NOT required to be used in a stipulation. In fact, reliance on "if" to establish one's statement as a stipulation represents poor stylistic quality and a lack of sophistication -- two things you clearly demonstrate. There are many ways to construct an argument such that "if" is not required to prelude a supposition. Honestly, it might take somewhat more language sophistication than you have to recognize this, so I completely understand your request that I simplify my writing. However, I am not trying to cater to the weakest Christian contributors here, such as yourself and that fmasfdasfasl [sic] guy. I am hoping that someone who is Christian and can actually practice reasoning will respond and contribute to the discussion.

Compared to many people who have written on this thread, you definitely are inthe bottom quartile in terms of reading comprehension and useful discussion. I really don't think you should be trying to make stylistic suggestions for my writing, nor should you even remotely imply that your writing is somehow more understandable than mine. You have systematic difficulties expressing yourself effectively, as evidenced by some of the most disorganized arguments I have seen to date. The problem is that when asked for clarification, you just avoid the issue completely.

BTW... are you EVER going to get back to the fact that you claim that without believing in Jesus a person goes to Hell? You've left it hanging out there waving in the wind but are obviously ducking your false assertion.

Just as soon as you clarify the arguments I asked you to clarify...especially the one about guessing your weight based on hair color -- that one was my favorite.

Valsalva

 

[Netopia]

Well if you're going to quote a bible passage, then it is necessary for you to draw a conclusion from it.

Not when the passage in question has already been laid out to answer a question that has been asked. Let's not be needlessly redundant. The question you asked originally was:

So you're saying that some people here have Satan as their father?

Which was answered by the text. You then asked a DIFFERENT QUESTION which was:

So you're saying that some people here have Satan as their father?

Which asks me if I am saying that any specific group of persons (some people here) have Satan as their father. I answered that one too.

Now, if you want to ask yet a THIRD question in the same general line, but with a subtle twist of words: (emphasis added)

So again, i ask a most straightforward question - are you suggesting that some humans were fathered by Satan?

Nice little subterfuge. No, I do not suggest that Satan FATHERED anyone. Just as necessity is the mother of invention, even though "necessity" was never pregnant, so in the same way Satan never FATHERED anyone. None the less, many have Satan as their father in the sense that he is the "one that originates or institutes <the father of modern science> " (Webster's Dictionary). People can be his children in following what he instituted... rebellion against God.

I'm sure that you will say that no one can follow Satan if they don't know him.... but the the native in the jungle also doesn't know the laws of physics and yet he follows them without necessarily actively thinking about them or ackowledging them. And yet the native still follows those laws... as does a child of Satan follow in the footsteps of their spiritual father.

BTW... if you are going to argue spiritual matters you will have to at some point free your mind from the limitations of your current limitted and tunnel visioned view of what is real. Reality extends beyond that which can be observed.

...and you "just don't get it" when people prove you wrong time and time again.

No, actually there you are wrong. When someone proves me wrong two things happen: 1) I learn something new. 2) I admit my fault and thank the person. In your case I haven't done the former so I cannot do the latter.

In fact, reliance on "if" to establish one's statement as a stipulation represents poor stylistic quality and a lack of sophistication -- two things you clearly demonstrate.

Well... you are right about one thing and for that I give you credit. I'm definitly NOT here to look stylish and sophisticated. I'm here to expose truth. If you spent less time trying to look hyper-educated and sophisticated and actually spent mmore time using your mind for deep thought instead of simply regurgitating the atheistic teachings of your secular professors and your fellow juvenile academicians, you might actually learn something.... that would of course entail your admittance of NON-omniscience. Guess that makes it impossible, eh?

The problem is that when asked for clarification, you just avoid the issue completely.

Paste EXACTLY what you want me to clarify and I'll try to break it down for you. I'll even to so for you BEFORE you back up your premise about going to hell unless you believe in Jesus... but only because I know I can and you can't!

Joe

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: ValsalvaYourHeartOut

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: ValsalvaYourHeartOut
Precisely. "God's not guessing because he already knows." He already knows what decision a person will make at a prior time. Therefore, that person is REQUIRED to make the decision that God predicted, otherwise God's prediction would be wrong and God wouldn't be omniscient.

Valsalva

You're confusing yourself with semantics. You're only making the decision you chose to make in the first place. Just because God knows about it beforehand doesn't have anything to do as far as your ability to decide.

Not quite.
1) God is omniscient AND can see the future.
2) At 12:00pm, God "predicts" that Bob will eat steak for dinner.
3) At 5:00pm, Bob opens his fridge and think about what to eat for dinner.
4) Bob MUST eat steak for dinner because of 1) and 2).
5) It then follows that at 5:00pm, when Bob supposedly thought about what to eat for dinner, he actually was already pre-determined to eat steak.

See, the problem you're having, busmaster, is that you're not following the several examples I provided...you're still arguing from the prima facie standpoint that "knowing the future cannot possibly change it." I have already explained that the prima facie observation is untrue if you think it through.

When you say "you're only making the decision you chose to make in the first place," you insert an extraneous stipulation that is not mandatory. I do not stipulate that Bob made the decision to eat steak BEFORE God made his prediction. I am stating that God makes his prediction, THEN Bob "supposedly" exercises his free-will to eat steak. However, clearly Bob does not have free-will because by making that prediction, God has "locked in" only one choice for Bob: steak.

Valsalva

Perhaps the problem here is that you're not taking into account that that time is not linear. It can slow down, and it can stop. It has a beginning and an end. This is all predicted by the big bang theory, which most physicists have endorsed. If there is a God, and He created the temperal dimension, He may very well not have to adhere to the rules of it as we do. He may be able to traverse it backwards and forwards as he pleases,. I do not know, but it is entirely possible if He is omnipotent.

It may be, that at 12:00 God can sit back and look at a timeline and sees everything, and say ah, at 5:00 he's eating steak. This is as opposed to at 12:00 God picks a choice out of a hat and says ah, at 5:00 he _will_ eat steak, and sets off a chain of events forcing him to choose steak at 5:00.

Exactly how do you define free will anyway? Before you make an everyday decision, do you think to yourself grudgingly, "there can't be a god. Because if there was, I don't have free will even though I think I do."

Because you can make every decision in life as you please. You can decide to choose the best option, or the most sane one, or the most diciplined one, or the most sneaky one, or the most sinful one. What more to it is there?

If a psychic knows that you will have steak at 5:00 but doesn't tell anyone, and you do, is that psychic preventing you from having free will?

 

[melchoir]

back up your premise about going to hell unless you believe in Jesus...

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (written in the book of life)
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

It may be, that at 12:00 God can sit back and look at a timeline and sees everything, and say ah, at 5:00 he's eating steak. This is as opposed to at 12:00 God picks a choice out of a hat and says ah, at 5:00 he _will_ eat steak, and sets off a chain of events forcing him to choose steak at 5:00.

If he can see everything as you say, then it's already set. Free will is not given if things are already set.

Because you can make every decision in life as you please. You can decide to choose the best option, or the most sane one, or the most diciplined one, or the most sneaky one, or the most sinful one. What more to it is there?

Not if god (as the bible says) exists. You only think you have a choice.

If a psychic knows that you will have steak at 5:00 but doesn't tell anyone, and you do, is that psychic preventing you from having free will?

No, a psychic is not omniscient, a psychic can be wrong where as god CANNOT.

 

I do drugs, I must be agnostic.

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Not when the passage in question has already been laid out to answer a question that has been asked. Let's not be needlessly redundant. The question you asked originally was:

So you're saying that some people here have Satan as their father?

Which was answered by the text. You then asked a DIFFERENT QUESTION which was:

So you're saying that some people here have Satan as their father?

Which asks me if I am saying that any specific group of persons (some people here) have Satan as their father. I answered that one too.

Now, if you want to ask yet a THIRD question in the same general line, but with a subtle twist of words: (emphasis added)

So again, i ask a most straightforward question - are you suggesting that some humans were fathered by Satan?

I don't get it. The DIFFERENT QUESTION is the same as the first.

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Netopia:


One question.
Do you believe in predestination?

Predestination: People are chosen by God to be His elect.

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: Netopia

No, I do not suggest that Satan FATHERED anyone. Just as necessity is the mother of invention, even though "necessity" was never pregnant, so in the same way Satan never FATHERED anyone. None the less, many have Satan as their father in the sense that he is the "one that originates or institutes <the father of modern science> " (Webster's Dictionary). People can be his children in following what he instituted... rebellion against God.

I don't necessarily agree with that...just because I agree with someone's principles does not make me his child!! For instance, I think Newton was a great man and I believe in his laws of motion, but I certainly wouldn't go as far as to call him my father. I have only ONE father -- my biological father. If there are men in my life who have been father-figures to me (e.g. uncles, etc.) then I would say, "So-and-so is LIKE a father to me...I wouldn't call my uncle a father." But this is all irrelevant discussion. All of this was in response to you a discussion about humans being God's children. Are all humans children of God?

In fact, reliance on "if" to establish one's statement as a stipulation represents poor stylistic quality and a lack of sophistication -- two things you clearly demonstrate.

Well... you are right about one thing and for that I give you credit. I'm definitly NOT here to look stylish and sophisticated.

I'm not surprised that you failed understand what I meant when I said "poor stylistic quality." <rolls eyes> I'm not using the word to mean "fashionable," I'm using it to refer to writing style.

I'm here to expose truth.

Rather, you're hear to "spread the word."

If you spent less time trying to look hyper-educated and sophisticated and actually spent mmore time using your mind for deep thought

On the contrary, you are the one who seems to be thinking at a very superficial level. I haven't seen you address ANY of my other arguments on this thread succesfully, while other Christians have taken the time to at least try to offer some relevant points. All you can do is whine about this and that.

instead of simply regurgitating the atheistic teachings of your secular professors and your fellow juvenile academicians, you might actually learn something....

Actually, I came up with all of these ideas based myself...nobody spoonfed me these ideas, which is apparently more than I can say about your background.

The problem is that when asked for clarification, you just avoid the issue completely.

Paste EXACTLY what you want me to clarify and I'll try to break it down for you. I'll even to so for you BEFORE you back up your premise about going to hell unless you believe in Jesus...

Thank you for your generous offer -- there are a LOT of things I would like to paste here, but you know what, I am getting nowhere in my discussion with you. There were some posts here from Christians that I thought were pretty interesting -- there's the discussion of free will, personality vs. "something more," a little neuroscience here and there, some great quotes from EngineNr9 about the real origin of Jesus, etc. OTOH, from you I get pages consisting of the following elements (and nothing more)
a) misquotes and more misquotes
b) inability to understand basic english - e.g. incapable of understanding the term "stylistic quality"
c) inability to apply basic logic - i.e. understand a syllogism
d) quoting bible passages but failing to draw conclusions from them, requiring TWO posts asking for clarification (i.e. satan being a father)
e) inability to recognize a stipulation, then DEMANDING that the word "if" be placed in front of all stipulations
f) you demanded that I reveal personal information about my life, which I found highly inappropriate
g) you demonstrated maniacal obsession when you admitted to having gone through 500+ of my posts in a failed attempt to discredit me.
...the list goes on and on...

So you see, there is absolutely no point in continuing to talk to you. Even if I produced the most elegant argument, you would still be incapable and unwilling to acknowledge it. On the other hand, you would surely respond with some element of that a)-g) list above and provide some half-asked goat-quality argument of your own under the false pretense that you had addressed my points. I gave you a second chance to come up with something useful, and you blew it. Therefore, I will not be responding to your dribble anymore. If you make an EXCELLENT point that nobody else is able to address, then I'll consider jumping in. Otherwise, I'm sure you have other people to talk to besides me. Thanks, though.

Valsalva

P.S. Oh, and Netopia, I'm sure that some part of you yearns to convert me to whatever-the-heck you are. Too bad you had a chance to converse with me and you BLEW IT. So you've failed because you can't convert me if I'm unwilling to talk to you. I guess you can only plant the seed, nothing more. Have a nice life.

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: melchoir

back up your premise about going to hell unless you believe in Jesus...

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (written in the book of life)
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

It may be, that at 12:00 God can sit back and look at a timeline and sees everything, and say ah, at 5:00 he's eating steak. This is as opposed to at 12:00 God picks a choice out of a hat and says ah, at 5:00 he _will_ eat steak, and sets off a chain of events forcing him to choose steak at 5:00.

If he can see everything as you say, then it's already set. Free will is not given if things are already set.

Because you can make every decision in life as you please. You can decide to choose the best option, or the most sane one, or the most diciplined one, or the most sneaky one, or the most sinful one. What more to it is there?

Not if god (as the bible says) exists. You only think you have a choice.

If a psychic knows that you will have steak at 5:00 but doesn't tell anyone, and you do, is that psychic preventing you from having free will?

No, a psychic is not omniscient, a psychic can be wrong where as god CANNOT.

I completely concur with every single response!! Strong work, Melchoir...saves me the trouble if responding.

Valsalva

 

[melchoir]

You must continue to respond though, it's no fun if it's only me out there =P

 

[petrek]

What's sad is that Valsalva dumbed this down for you people and you still don't get it.

God has known everything since the very instant he was omniscient. Every event. Period. He cannot be wrong in what he knows. He knows you will eat <suchfood> for dinner. You cannot choose to eat something else, because he has known what you will eat since that instant he was omniscient. If you ate something else, he would have been wrong in his knowing. Since he cannot be wrong, you cannot eat something else. Now do you understand?? I'll repost this so maybe it'll help you understand.

I say without any hesitation that the notion above is far from new. In fact, it has I believe been played out millions upon millions of times before. It took me years to get past it. For myself it wasn't that I didn't know that I had a choice it's that I wanted an excuse to continue living in sin. When on those occasions that the Lord would reveal himself to me, I would say to him, not now Lord I'm busy, after all, you already know whether or not I'm going to accept you as my Savior, therefore you know that I'm going to reject you at this time.

Eventually, as should be obvious, I gave up that excuse and accepted Jesus as my Savior, because I knew that as long as I continued believing the lie that God's knowledge (due to him living outside of time) was the same as my choice, I would reject God everytime he spoke to me.

According to the bible all men were wicked, thus no innocents to send to heaven. The Bible also speaks of what happened before and during the flood, and in no place was it mentioned that any innocents were sent to heaven.

Some would argue that a contradiction exists here, because, as you say, "all men were wicked". Yet, Noah, his three sons, and their 4 wives were spared along with at least two of every kind of animal.
So, it is my belief that while it does not say during the flood account that the children who had yet to recognize their existence were sent to Abraham's bosom, and subsequently Heaven, it is understood based on other passages of Scripture.

Dave

 

[melchoir]

I say without any hesitation that the notion above is far from new. In fact, it has I believe been played out millions upon millions of times before. It took me years to get past it. For myself it wasn't that I didn't know that I had a choice it's that I wanted an excuse to continue living in sin. When on those occasions that the Lord would reveal himself to me, I would say to him, not now Lord I'm busy, after all, you already know whether or not I'm going to accept you as my Savior, therefore you know that I'm going to reject you at this time.

Eventually, as should be obvious, I gave up that excuse and accepted Jesus as my Savior, because I knew that as long as I continued believing the lie that God's knowledge (due to him living outside of time) was the same as my choice, I would reject God everytime he spoke to me.

I never said that this notion was new, I just brought it into this thread. Everything else you wrote can be ignored as its entirely irrelvant.

Some would argue that a contradiction exists here, because, as you say, "all men were wicked". Yet, Noah, his three sons, and their 4 wives were spared along with at least two of every kind of animal.
So, it is my belief that while it does not say during the flood account that the children who had yet to recognize their existence were sent to Abraham's bosom, and subsequently Heaven, it is understood based on other passages of Scripture.

You can believe what you like, what's written does not agree with you. Your belief is just wishful thinking.