How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

[Subduction Zone]

OK, ok. Maybe you're right. I didn't think I'd need to do that. Maybe I'll get started and you can interrupt me when I've skipped that important element?

Can you give me a hint why you are saying that?

There does not appear to be any evidence for a creator. That makes using the term rather dubious to say the least.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it is pretty clear that human free will would make every wrong on Earth humans' fault since humans committed those wrongs.
That is rather obvious if one can reason logically and rationally.

When we were so rudely interrupted last night we were going over why free will cannot exist if God is omniscient and omnipotent.

 

[ppp]

Careful. That sounds like a straw man.
I did not say "true for me." I said "It is true for those who have discovered the evidence for God."

Have you "discovered the evidence for God"? If so, then "true for you" is entirely accurate. Your dislike of the term does not make it a straw man. If you have not, then what the heck are you talking about.

All those people had sufficient evidence. Just because it is insufficient for [you] does not mean it is insufficient.

I have no interest in true for me. I am interested in whether the determination of your position can be supported by evidence supported by demonstrably sound argument.

Messengers of God are definitely evidence, the only evidence that God has ever provided.

No. Messengers of God are merely the label that some people have put on to some other people. Merely repeating that label, as you did above, is not evidence of anything except that you believe it.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's definitely all God. Yes. The buck stops at God.

 

[Trailblazer]

When we were so rudely interrupted last night we were going over why free will cannot exist if God is omniscient and omnipotent.

Why do you believe free will cannot exist if God is omniscient and omnipotent?

 

[ppp]

No, it is pretty clear that human free will would make every wrong on Earth humans' fault since humans committed those wrongs.
That is rather obvious if one can reason logically and rationally.

Fault falls on all hands knowingly involved. Under the god hypothetical: If I go on a spree of groping humans on the subway it is my responsibility for doing it and God responsibility for putting me there knowing that I would choose to do it. End of God hypothetical.

 

[Trailblazer]

Have you "discovered the evidence for God"? If so, then "true for you" is entirely accurate. Your dislike of the term does not make it a straw man. If you have not, then what the heck are you talking about.

My point which you are dodging was that it is not only true for ME. It is true for everyone who has discovered the evidence for God.

I have no interest in true for me. I am interested in whether the determination of your position can be supported by evidence supported by demonstrably sound argument.

I also have no interest in true for me. I am only interested in true. That is determined by the evidence.

No. Messengers of God are merely the label that some people have put on to some other people. Merely repeating that label, as you did above, is not evidence of anything except that you believe it.

It is a red herring that Messenger is a label that some people have put on to some other people.

No, my belief that they are Messengers of God is not evidence that they are Messengers of God.
Conversely, your belief that they are not Messengers of God does not mean they are not Messengers of God.

If God sent Messengers as evidence of His existence, then they are evidence of God existence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Fault falls on all hands knowingly involved. Under the god hypothetical: If I go on a spree of groping humans on the subway it is my responsibility for doing it and God responsibility for putting me there knowing that I would choose to do it. End of God hypothetical.

1. God did not put you there. You chose to go there.
2. God knew you would go but God was not involved.
3. God knows everything that humans have ever done or will ever do, but knowing what will happen is not what causes anything to happen.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

Question.—If God has knowledge of an action which will be performed by someone, and it has been written on the Tablet of Fate, is it possible to resist it?
Answer.—The foreknowledge of a thing is not the cause of its realization; for the essential knowledge of God surrounds, in the same way, the realities of things, before as well as after their existence, and it does not become the cause of their existence. It is a perfection of God.......
Some Answered Questions, p. 138

 

[CG Didymus]

For those of you who don't take the story of the Fall literally. Adam, Eve, Tree, Serpent, etc, how do you envision the Fall of Man happening? And if it didn't happen, what use is Jesus?

Yes, "true" Christians need the fall. That's when sin and death entered the world in their beliefs. And they believe that their God sent Jesus to be a sacrifice. And, for them, how did he show that he conquered death and Satan? That was by rising again. That's their story and their proof and evidence is "God's" Word, the Bible and the NT. What's their proof that Jesus rose again? The empty tomb. And another huge part of their beliefs is that it is Satan that is mucking up the works. But Jesus, when he returns, is going to fix that and throw Satan into a bottom-less pit and then eventually destroy him.

They got their "evidence" of a young Earth and evidence that evolution is not true. But then we've got the Baha'is.

Have you "discovered the evidence for God"?

Baha'is have their "evidence" that shows their concept of God is real. Except their beliefs contradict the beliefs of evangelical Christians.

Baha'is say the Bible stories don't have to be and shouldn't be taken literally. That God did use evolution. There was no fall that required God to sacrifice Jesus. There is no real Satan. There was no resurrection. And their evidence? Well, they have their prophet's word... if that means anything and can be trusted. But do they have all the so-called manifestations as evidence? I don't think they do.

They have their beliefs and Christians have theirs and all the other religions have theirs. The beliefs about God or the Gods are not the same in each religion.

I do believe that for a "true" Christian they need to believe the Bible and the NT as literally as possible. For Baha'is they don't need to, and I don't think a "true" Baha'i should want to... but rather, a Baha'i should take the Bible and NT as being symbolic.

If "true" Christians and "true" Baha'is just tried to live good lives and be nice to everyone, that wouldn't be too bad. But... their God wants them to go out and teach the Word and spread their truth to all the people the world over... words that contradict each other. And because they are going around telling people that their particular beliefs are the truth, that involves all of us.

Which one of the contradictory religious messages should we accept and believe as being the absolute truth? The problem that some of us have is that maybe it's none of them.

 

[ppp]

My point which you are dodging was that it is not only true for ME. It is true for everyone who has discovered the evidence for God.

1) You cannot speak for others.
2) There is no evidence that anyone has discovered anyevidence for any god.

I am not "dodging" your point. I am punting your point back at you with a big stamp of [REJECTED (and here is why)].

That is determined by the evidence.

Evidence cannot be used to support an event without a series of logically sound arguments connecting the Evidence and Alleged Event. The mere existence of a smoking gun is not evidence that it is the cause of a dead body. There needs to be at least one sound argument to establish that fact. Probably several.

It is a red herring that Messenger is a label that some people have put on to some other people.

Bald assrtion. [Dunsel]

No, my belief that they are Messengers of God is not evidence that they are Messengers of God.

Yes. I just said that.

Conversely, your belief that they are not Messengers of God does not mean they are not Messengers of God.

Shifting of the vurden of proof. [Rejected].

If God sent Messengers as evidence of His existence, then they are evidence of God existence.

Tautology. [Dunsel]

 

[ppp]

1. God did not put you there. You chose to go there.

By "here" I meant she put me on the Earth. Again I didnt deny the existence of free will. It does not matter to my argument.

Question.—If God has knowledge of an action which will be performed by someone, and it has been written on the Tablet of Fate, is it possible to resist it?

It doesn't matter.

 

[Trailblazer]

1) You cannot speak for others.
2) There is no evidence that anyone has discovered any evidence for any god.

1) I am not speaking for others. They have spoken for themselves. Others say they have discovered evidence

2) Whatever causes people to believe is evidence.
Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

I am not "dodging" your point. I am punting your point back at you with a big stamp of [REJECTED (and here is why)].

Evidence cannot be used to support an event without a series of logically sound arguments connecting the Evidence and Alleged Event.

We are not talking about evidence that a murder has been committed, we are talking about evidence for God's existence.

The mere existence of a smoking gun is not evidence that it is the cause of a dead body. There needs to be at least one sound argument to establish that fact. Probably several.

We are not talking about evidence that a murder has been committed, we are talking about evidence for God's existence.

Tautology. [Dunsel]

Deflection.
If God sent Messengers as evidence of His existence, then they are evidence of God existence.

This is so simple that any third grader would understand it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you believe free will cannot exist if God is omniscient and omnipotent?

You mean know? Why assume it is a belief?

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. God did not put you there. You chose to go there.
2. God knew you would go but God was not involved.
3. God knows everything that humans have ever done or will ever do, but knowing what will happen is not what causes anything to happen.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

Question.—If God has knowledge of an action which will be performed by someone, and it has been written on the Tablet of Fate, is it possible to resist it?
Answer.—The foreknowledge of a thing is not the cause of its realization; for the essential knowledge of God surrounds, in the same way, the realities of things, before as well as after their existence, and it does not become the cause of their existence. It is a perfection of God.......
Some Answered Questions, p. 138

Those claims are not true if God is omnipotent and omniscient.

 

[Trailblazer]

By "here" I meant she put me on the Earth.

No, your parents did that, but they are not responsible for what you do any more than God is responsible.

Again I didnt deny the existence of free will. It does not matter to my argument.
It doesn't matter.

Not to you.

 

[Trailblazer]

You mean know? Why assume it is a belief?

I assume it is a belief becaue that is all it is. You do not know.

 

[Trailblazer]

Those claims are not true if God is omnipotent and omniscient.

Those claims are true and God is omnipotent and omniscient.

 

[dybmh]

There does not appear to be any evidence for a creator. That makes using the term rather dubious to say the least.

OK. Well, the statement presumes something which is omnipotent. If a person says: Pat cannot be omnipotent unless it is able to do backflips on a paperplate. Then, it presumes something called Pat.

My claim is, Pat is omnipotent because Pat is enormous. And that will never change. And Pat can certainly do the backflips, because Pat is omnipotent. However, the paper plate is a problem. If Pat chose to do those backflips, the paper plate is destroyed.

The limitation is on the paperplate. The destruction is a consequence of the defintion of Pat and the paperplate.

Here's what I said:

"Life on earth has a defintion which requires certain qualities as a consequence of God's infinity. Removing or changing those things prohibits life on earth. But God is all-powerful and can destroy it all. But God is always infinite. That doesn't change."

Can you see the connection with the paper plate analogy?

The limitation is not on God, or on God's omnipotence. I can explain it if you wish. I don't think it will be too long. And I don't think the word "create" or creation will become a problem.

 

[dybmh]

free will cannot exist if God is omniscient and omnipotent.

That one is resolvable as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I assume it is a belief becaue that is all it is. You do not know.

Another assumption. How would you know? We were discussing it but you ran away. That only makes it look as if you are afraid that you are wrong and do not want to know why.

It is also rather rude..