Predestination

[mr.guy]

all I am saying is there is no validity in religion because it is all based on faith alone

Which strongly hints that you've no means of deducing "validity" to begin with.

 

[bunny1ohio]

ummm... well I was going to post in here, but i think this subject has gone wayyyyy off topic...

Instead of attacking people (super and mr. guy) why not just debate what he said instead of calling him names and jumping all over him for having an opinion? I didn't see anything wrong with the things he posted myself... so his opinion is different than yours... so what? Mine is too. That's the point of debate is so different views are expressed and discussed... I don't see much discussion of his views going on... just personal attacks...

Can we get back on the subject here? :tsk:

 

[mr.guy]

The only people who fear death are the ones who are afraid of being worm food.

Unqualified, anecdotal and untrue. Please don't lie to make your point.

There are people who know, not just believe, what comes next.

Knowing is not truth. Nor can one who believes they know be told they only believe what is in fact not known, blah blah blah, blah blah etc.

Why am I here? To connect with people, learn from the interesting ones, and pass on what I know.

Prosletytizing is forbiden on this forum. Your spiritual authority is not an arguing point.

You think I feel that I am better because I know that God exists?

It is bad form to instruct other debators on "what they think". It is also becoming tiresome.

 

[mr.guy]

...so his opinion is different than yours...

If logic is subject to whim and opinion, it must be declared such and be of no broader application. Statements of what are "illogical" are of no use unless they can substantiated with due effort, not deceptive word games and messy generalizations.

 

[bunny1ohio]

If logic is subject to whim and opinion, it must be declared such and be of no broader application. Statements of what are "illogical" are of no use unless they can substantiated with due effort, not deceptive word games and messy generalizations.

everything is subject to whim and opinion... even your own thoughts on the matter... does that make them of no application... and how exactly does due effort have anything to do with the subject? I think you missed my entire point mr. guy.... instead of only debating specific words in his replies... why not debate the suject at hand? That is what he was trying to do when you jumped in with

Yes...that they were unquestionably illogical

Statements of what are "illogical" are of no use unless they can substantiated with due effort, not deceptive word games and messy generalizations.

He answered with

What did i say specifically that was illogical instead of lumping it all together

He asked you to tell him what about his reply was illogical... then you started debating the definitions of the words... that's not what he asked... nor is it what the OP is about. Points again to your reply...

deceptive word games and messy generalizations

Okay... now could we please get back to the OP? It was predestination in case you have forgotten by now... do you believe in predestination or not and why? He said why he didn't... so on with the debate already :banghead3

 

[zombieharlot]

I'm gone for like 5 seconds and this is what happens to my thread!?!

 

[bunny1ohio]

I'm gone for like 5 seconds and this is what happens to my thread!?!

Don't look at me zombie I just got here myself LOL :flower:

 

[mr.guy]

everything is subject to whim and opinion...does that make them of no application...

Of less logical application. The statement i've challenged is his belief of what is illogical...to which i've been told belief is illogical.

...and how exactly does due effort have anything to do with the subject?

It's called "showing the math".

instead of only debating specific words in his replies...

Debating "of words" of his offering. Don't misappropriate the chronology of our interaction thus far; i didn't pull my dictionary out first.

Statements of what are "illogical" are of no use unless they can substantiated with due effort, not deceptive word games and messy generalizations.

He answered with

What did i say specifically that was illogical instead of lumping it all together

How did he answer before i asked the quoted question?

He asked you to tell him what about his reply was illogical...

Which i ignored...as i'd made no comment directly on what was (il)logical. His characterization of my points as directed towards him was flawed, and i chose not to address the inconsequential and irrelevent aspects of a run-on-sentence. Of the mouthful he blessed me with, i ran with what seemed most fruitful.

then you started debating the definitions of the words...

I participated at his behest. Stop playing games.

What did i say specifically that was illogical instead of lumping it all together

Points again to your reply...

deceptive word games and messy generalizations

Which, of course was not my reply to your "cut and pasted" presentation; my reply was framed to a different citation. "Cut" it out, will ya?

 

[Super Universe]

ummm... well I was going to post in here, but i think this subject has gone wayyyyy off topic...

Instead of attacking people (super and mr. guy) why not just debate what he said instead of calling him names and jumping all over him for having an opinion? I didn't see anything wrong with the things he posted myself... so his opinion is different than yours... so what? Mine is too. That's the point of debate is so different views are expressed and discussed... I don't see much discussion of his views going on... just personal attacks...

Can we get back on the subject here? :tsk:

Attacking people?

What have I posted that is an attack?

What name have I called him?

 

[bunny1ohio]

Attacking people? What have posted that is an attack?

Do you really think you can cause someone to lose faith? If you do then they did not really have any to begin with.

What will you both do then? Join forces and go around destroying?

Since you like to tell others what to do why don't you do this instead:

What name have I called him?

I didn't say specifically YOU called him any names... but enough with the bickering over things that nothing to do with the OP

Of less logical application. The statement i've challenged is his belief of what is illogical...to which i've been told belief is illogical.

He told you exactly why he finds belief without proof illogical... but you said his answer was illogical... it made sense to me... but then again I don't speak like a dictionary either so maybe I had an easier time understanding him...When I asked what due effort had to do with the subject... i was referring to the subject of the OP...

Debating "of words" of his offering. Don't misappropriate the chronology of our interaction thus far; i didn't pull my dictionary out first.

No he did... in direct reply to

What precepts on logic "to you" make god and autonomy "illogical"?

As to answering before the "quoted question" I did not mean his asking for specifics was posted before your second quoted reply... there were two... the second one was because you were basically saying the same thing over and over... his answer was to the first quoted reply... there were two that I used... and in the order THEY were posted... whic was this one..

Yes... that they were unqeustionably illogical

he asked for specifically what about his reply you found illogical... and you...

Which i ignored...as i'd made no comment directly on what was (il)logical.

Good avoidance there... let's ignore the question... that answers it all... and no you hadn't... which is WHY he asked... duh.

You did not "participate at his behest"... he posted deifnitions because of your replies to him... all he was doing was clarifying the words and the definitions by which he used them...there should have been no further need to debate the specific words... you should have answered his question... you didn't... and still haven't...

I pointed out you stating about "deceptive word games and messy generalizations"

Which, of course was not my reply to your "cut and pasted" presentation; my reply was framed to a different citation. "Cut" it out, will ya?

right... it was in citation to ME... when I said "so his opinion is different than yours"... That is a statement of your opinion that this is what he was doing and he wasn't... he was trying to claify what he meant... which you have yet to do BTW...

NOW... once again can we PLEASE return to the OP? You still haven't answered my question on that one either... so if you wanna point fingers about cut and paste... grab a mirror big boy

Instead of only answering PART of a post... why not answer direct questions that are given to you? Let's try one more time....

DO YOU BELIEVE IN PREDESTINATION OR NOT AND WHY?... maybe you'll see it better this time

 

[mr.guy]

He told you exactly why he finds belief without proof illogical...

Yes...that he found it illogical. I was there, i remember.

but you said his answer was illogical...

No i didn't. If you're going to correct my behaviour to such extensions, please collaborate the your story with what is very plain. I'm getting sick of your baseless accusations and fabrications; you're wasting my time.

j

When I asked what due effort had to do with the subject... i was referring to the subject of the OP...

My reply (which i'm regretting, for it seemed fairly straight foward...my mistake) was on methodology; all those chanting the mantra of logic should be able to participate without refering to belief statements.

As to answering before the "quoted question" I did not mean his asking for specifics was posted before your second quoted reply... there were two... the second one was because you were basically saying the same thing over and over... his answer was to the first quoted reply... there were two that I used... and in the order THEY were posted... whic was this one..

AGHHHH! Cripes, you've a litigious streak! I'll not be bothered with what i was "basically" saying (by your extrapolation), nor with quoted uncontextual mashes of what you can gather up and display as another "paint-by-number" post.

he asked for specifically what about his reply you found illogical... and you...

Irrelevant. Re-hashing of your own confusion.

Good avoidance there...

Thank you. I thought so too.

let's ignore the question...

Please.

... duh.

Again, you always present such class. Kudos.

You did not "participate at his behest"... he posted deifnitions because of your replies to him...

I cannot help what he or you cannot understand.

...all he was doing was clarifying the words and the definitions by which he used them...

As he's welcome to.

there should have been no further need to debate the specific words...

They were misapplied.

you should have answered his question...

It was irrelevant and a detraction.

..you didn't...

That's right

and still haven't...

Nor do i intend to.

You still haven't answered my question on that one either...

I'm under no obligation to; for your satisfaction nor argument. While you can whine, re-contextualize and make poorly justifiable demands, i don't see why i need to profess to/sympathis with any side of this debate.

Instead of only answering PART of a post... why not answer direct questions that are given to you?

Generally, to avoid wasting time with banal, aggrandizing and topically challenged posters. Obviously, it doesn't always work that well.

 

[bunny1ohio]

Apparently mr.guy you don't know how to answer a straight question, or you simply have nothing better to do than look down your nose at the way other people speak (or type as the case may be)...nothing you have said has any bearing on the OP...

You still have not said anything about whether or not you believe in predestination or not.

which is the entire point... he answered it... you didn't...

just because you didn't like the way he answered it doesn't change that. As to topically challenged... again... you have yet to make any statements about the topic... only the semantics of someone else's posts *shrugs*... unless you have anything intelligent to say about the OP i'm finished replying to you since avoidance, arrogance, and self-aggrandizement seem to be your bag.... have at it... I'm off for more intelligent conversation in other threads where people actually debate the topic of the OP

 

[Super Universe]

To answer the question, I do believe there is some predestination.

God did not create the universe perfect, perfection is the goal. But how do you achieve it?

The first time you baked a cake was it perfect? Most likely you learned a few things and made changes for the next attempt. Then after many many times you can finally bake one as perfect as possible. So you could say that the many cakes that came before the last were predestined to be imperfect.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

In an attempt to get this debate back on track, here is that debate I mentioned in my earlier post. It was originally published in the Christian Research Journal and was quite the turning point for me. The qualification should be made that this debate is taken from a Christian presupposition, but none the less is very informative and done by much more compitent and accomplished people than myself. I hope you enjoy.

Part one: http://www.equip.org/free/DD802-1.htm

Part two: http://www.equip.org/free/DD802-2.htm

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[Mykola]

Because I feel that the "pleasures of sin" are more a part of me than they are not.

Your feeling does matter, of course.
But...

But, it is you who can decide what is a part of you and what's not!
You can EITHER belong to sin, that is to be a slave of sin, with no reward besides the temporary "pleasures of sin"; OR, you can choose God to belong to - that is being His what? being His child, friend! and not being lonely or helpless any longer in this life...

Here's the thing, I think God and His selfishness is the problem. Now why should God be something I have to "cope" with?

His selfishness? Friend, you seem to miss some point to make such a strange assertion...
God is Somebody you can rely on, not cope with...

If a tornado is coming, you can build either wall or a windmill. Hint: windmill is a right choice!

Well, as you know from my other thread, I cross-dress. If God is going to damn me for something as petty as that then why even try?

Firstly, can you please tell me the purpose of your cross-dressing? Why d'you do that?

And this is one of the main points I'm trying to make. I cannot help what house I was born under. THAT was all in God's hands.

Yeah, right...

And so here is where I stand: God placed me under my mother knowing that she would greatly assist in turning me off from Him.

Nope, wrong.
You seem to confuse two different things: CAUSE/EFFECT relationships and PERSONAL INFLUENCES/CHOICE relationships.

I was never allowed to believe differently than she.

That's bad, but that was the case... Not any longer, is it?

I wasn't even allowed to go to different churches of the same religion because of their petty differences.

Studying the Bible makes one much more resistable against such influences.
God commands us to honor our parents, but also encourages us to explore His Word - and stand firmly for the truth.

And I've always hated her taste in things, which accounts for her taste in churches.

Oh, no! Disregard the 'taste issue' in this case, 'cause the truth is not the matter of taste...

If you were forced to believe a certain way, would you not help but be turned off by it?

Affirmative.

And just how is that? If you haven't guessed, I bare a lot of resentment toward my mother.

Actually, I've done that

She is so focused on my salvation that she cannot even come to know me.

Okay, then - but please stop and think logically: you mother has failed... yet Lord never fails, and He wants you to repent and to live. Being at peace with Him is the priority 1 issue, and then you'd be able to come to understanding with your mother as well.

The only thing she seems to achieve is pushing me away.
She paid for my brother and sister's schooling because they went to a Bible college, but she refuses to help me out because I want to go into makeup.

Let's leave you Mom alone for a while, okay?

I'm sorry, but I think that even if I do find my way to God that I won't be going to her for help. She has contributed too much to my pain for that.

With that all in mind, let's forget for a while about your mother and let's try to look at you-God relation. You and Him only, no mothers etc.

The point is - you can come to Christ no matter who your mother and regardless of what she does. Whether she is a pious Christian, hypocritical pharisee or even raving lunatic - you have your personal relationship with God.

Yes. Yes, I know. I've heard that MANY times before. I know God can't be embedded in the sense of recieving salvation. I was making a point.

Come on - you're not a robot to embed anything into you...

I am who I am because God made me that way. What's so complex about that?

Nothing complex, and... not correct

Again, you seem to have mixed up CAUSE/EFFECT issue with the PERSONAL CHOICES one.

I'm sure that if you felt as cheated as I do that you wouldn't be so peachy about it either.

Let's separate cockroaches and cutlets...

1) You believe your mother has been cheating on you? Fine, it could be so.
2) You believe that God has been cheating on you? Absolutely not.

What would be the relevance of putting your emotions aside?

The relevance is that emotions aren't the best advisers, while the reason and logic always are.

 

[michel]

How about if we look at this question from a different angle?

From that of 'predestination in material matters'...............

What about actuarians? Those who decide your 'predestination' (calculated) to the time of your death (based on your life patterns, and the way you look after your body).

What about the theory of chaos ? .....the fact, that even in chaos there is a remarkable incidence of forecating the repeat of examples of incidence?

 

[Mykola]

My 5 cents...

How about if we look at this question from a different angle?

What for?
Just 'why not'?

From that of 'predestination in material matters'...............

It seems to be v.interesting, but of no relevance here...

What about actuarians? Those who decide your 'predestination' (calculated) to the time of your death (based on your life patterns, and the way you look after your body).

Did actuarians prove they're right?

What about the theory of chaos ? .....the fact, that even in chaos there is a remarkable incidence of forecating the repeat of examples of incidence?

Where did you find chaos in this Universe, my friend?
Theory of chaos is good, but practically there's nothing like that - I mean that we call chaos the state which progress we cannot predict. Then, if you CAN predict, it is not chaos at all...

 

[michel]

My 5 cents...

It seems to be v.interesting, but of no relevance here...

I think it is relevent; what pertains to material objects does have a relevence; after all, at a basic level, all material objects are originally from natural composition.

Did actuarians prove they're right?

Every day, the do . (Actuarians, if you are not sure, are the people who decide on insurance premiums for whatever insurance people are asking. If actuarians were not correct in their assessment of predestination, Insurance companies would make a loss. yet they continue to make great profits. therefore, the 'forecasting' (which is the acknowledgement of predestination goes a long way to prove that 'it works')

Don't forget, predeatination does not mean "One final outcome"; predestination can change 'route' mid 'travel' (my post#141 if you haven't seen it)

Where did you find chaos in this Universe, my friend?
Theory of chaos is good, but practically there's nothing like that - I mean that we call chaos the state which progress we cannot predict. Then, if you CAN predict, it is not chaos at all

But that is the point I am trying to make; since there is an inevitability about chaos, therefore, it points more to predestination

 

[Mykola]

I think it is relevent; what pertains to material objects does have a relevence; after all, at a basic level, all material objects are originally from natural composition.

Every day, the do . (Actuarians, if you are not sure, are the people who decide on insurance premiums for whatever insurance people are asking. If actuarians were not correct in their assessment of predestination, Insurance companies would make a loss. yet they continue to make great profits. therefore, the 'forecasting' (which is the acknowledgement of predestination goes a long way to prove that 'it works')

Don't forget, predeatination does not mean "One final outcome"; predestination can change 'route' mid 'travel' (my post#141 if you haven't seen it)

Anyone can estimate possible outcomes of the current state of matters and its probable progress. But that has nothing to do with the question that bothers our friend zombieharlot, namely, whether he is predestined to go to hell!

But that is the point I am trying to make; since there is an inevitability about chaos, therefore, it points more to predestination

Slowlier, please...
...Inevitability? Rather careful design, not always noticeable to us.
...Chaos? The universe is beatifully designed and put to order, so the chaos is rather a concept, idea, theoretical issue...
So, I don't see how the careful design anyone can see in the masterly crafted universe can make anybody think of predestination...

 

[michel]

Anyone can estimate possible outcomes of the current state of matters and its probable progress. But that has nothing to do with the question that bothers our friend zombieharlot, namely, whether he is predestined to go to hell!



Slowlier, please...
...Inevitability? Rather careful design, not always noticeable to us.
...Chaos? The universe is beatifully designed and put to order, so the chaos is rather a concept, idea, theoretical issue...
So, I don't see how the careful design anyone can see in the masterly crafted universe can make anybody think of predestination...

And I have answered his question; there is a predestined path to hell for him (if he makes the choice to go down that route), but there is another predestined path for him to go to heaven.

(not that I believe in Hell, anyway; I am coming to the conclusion more and more that life here is hell).:tuna: