Too many religions

[1robin]

I'll have to go back and see what it was that you presented. I was hoping the site you gave me would have that and more but it didn't.

The site only concerns 350 prophecies about Christ alone. The other two came from the other 2100 prophecies and they are historically verifiable. Step up.

I know that Jordan is real. Jesus Christ the son of god, on the other hand, is a mythical character.

If you continue to claim as fact what you can't possibly know and deriveing the opposite conclusion of the evidence I do not think this is a debate worth having. There is more textual evidence for Christ than any other character of ancient history. What about that can't you grasp?

"Professor Thomas Arnold, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the chair of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said:
The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."
I can supply many of these statements from some of the greates scholrs in history. The fact you make unfounded claims that draw the opposite conclusions is obsurd.

By whom?

If you tell me what difference any name or amount of names I put here will make I will provide a list. I think asking questions, and then ignoring answers, avoiding detailed examination of claims, asserting things you can't possibly know, and deriving the oppossite conclusion from what the evidence claims are your complete arsenal.

Challenge? I've asked you to provide evidence to back your claims that your religion is more credible than any other. You have so far failed to do so.

So far I have given many examples and you have ignored and refused multiple attempts to examine closely the several specific claims I made. This discussion is fast turning into a discussion between some one who is competant and has many years of experince in these matters and the education to back them up against someone who apparently just hates the subject so bad that anything no matter how irrational is preferable to truth and proper discourse. Either prove those two prophecies and any other you choose wrong or I am done here. This is pointless.

 

[1robin]

Well yeah, it makes little sense to fear something that doesn't exist.

Apparently today is the day where everyone claims to know what they can't possibly know. The preference that something not exist has no bearing on whether it does or not.

I agree that perfect love casts out fear, since fear has to do with punishment.

There is nothing here suffeciently inaccurate to contend.

Where did I say anything about sinful actions?

You said "loose livin'" which is synonimous in the U.S with care free sinfull inhibition.

The commentary solidifies my stance.

I think I can almost see what you are talking about. Give me a while to think on this very confusing verse.

It's only pointless if one requires the threat of hell or annihilation to live right.

That is a core principle invloved in every single form of traditional parenting, and Jurice Prudence in history. Good actions have good results and vice versa. This can be seen by some of these modern liberal parents who do not discipline their children and they go to schoool and just can't function, then get out and think the world owes them something because they exist. The cruelest thing that can be done to a child is to not punish him. It is one of the most primitive and absolute concepts in human history. There is no way possible to show that removing consequences improves moral conduct.

It says more about the individual than it does about God's justice (which, again, Christians say was satisfied on the cross.

The bible said it was accomplished on the cross but only applied through faith. That is the door Jesus says we must open through which he promises to enter. Claiming his death saved everyone even if they die hating him and what he did is so obsurd it is hard to justify debating it. It is also very hard to believe someone would think this.

Life comes with enough consequences built into wrong action already.

Those consequences are in part to indicate the ultimate consequences. If life had no consequences then claims that there were ultimate ones would be hard to believe. Why would you think he would set up consequences here when there are none in eternity. When you see your theory running counter to every available fact, to hang on to it is hard to understand. Cognative dissonance is one powerful force.

In the hostage situation, a person is being held against their -- wait for it.... "free will" -- and given a limited range of choices (like maybe two?), neither which are desirable.

To keep this simple enough that it has a function let's confine the freewill issue to whether we are forced to choose God or whether we can choose to reject him. Every scrap of available evidence is consistent with the fact that we can reject him. Your God is the one who doesn't love enough to allow this and violates what people have chosen because he is apparently vain and needy.

Your god is forcing folks to believe a certain way in order to go to one place -- and avoid another -- both places which they've never even seen before that they could even make a fully educated choice in the matter.

You are all over the place. I do not think there is a standard by which you can reject a claim because the choice does not meet an arbitrary standard of knowledge or familiartiy. Your God forces the choice against your will and that place he forces you into might not be good at all. Again whatever your complaints are more so in your system.

I know what earning means. This doesn't change the fact that your religion says we must do something to get to heaven.

Yes we have to do something, not resist. Every single scrap of evidence we have seems to suggest that outcomes are determined by choices. You are the one who claims they are not and there is no evidence to support this. Only preference.

Remember, Jesus said you must be "born" again. Birth isn't something initiated -- or even believed in -- by the one being born before it happens.

That is why they are not exact equivalents. Your attempts at this are getting more bizarre. Cherry picking without context is useless, in fact worse than useless. It must also be considerd that Jesus said; Today I set before you blessing and cursing, life and death. Choose life. That obviously implies we can also choose death. If you are going to argue for universalism you can't use the bible, it wrecks that position. It also says that without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. The bible is a 750,00 word refutation of universalism or pluralism.

Anyone who objects to the idea of God making someone born again against their free-will must also resent the idea of God making them born the first time against their free will.

I imagine that a very many people would say so, and I can sympathize. However at least this unchosen existance comes to an end if desired in my system. Yours causes the first and does not allow an escape of any kind. Every complaint right or wrong against my system is even worse for yours.

Ah hah! So if there's not enough known about heaven to meaningfully discuss it, how can there be enough known about heaven to meaningfully choose it, hmmm?

Your are easily convinced you have disovered something meaningfull. It is not necessary to know every detail about every feature of a car to choose to get one for free. It is necessary if we are discussing what that car can specifically do. You are equating two unequal things.

But if not having free will is unthinkable, how could those who value it so highly be happy in heaven without it? Especially if they believe that God is being more loving by letting them have their free will?

Again you are asking specifics which are unkowable. If I offered you a new cadillac you know enough to accept it but you can not tell me how fast it goes.

Why are you calling the workings of God in His creation "random chance"? You're not an atheist now, are you?

"Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" is "random chance"?

This isn't math you're dealing with, it's the power of the most high God, who was, is, and always will be in the house (and everywhere else), even if (professed) members of His own fan club resent that fact. :meditate:

This is a valid point. I debate so many atheists that when ever God is removed I assume chance is what remains. This does not apply and was my mistake.

 

[Astravalon]

Apparently today is the day where everyone claims to know what they can't possibly know. The preference that something not exist has no bearing on whether it does or not.

The preference that something does exist has no bearing on whether it does or not, either.

​

There is nothing here suffeciently inaccurate to contend.

I should hope not, I got it from your bible!

You said "loose livin'" which is synonimous in the U.S with care free sinfull inhibition.

"Sinful" depends on the denomination. Some Christians think even dancing is sinful, so I used the term "loose" very loosely.

That is a core principle invloved in every single form of traditional parenting, and Jurice Prudence in history. Good actions have good results and vice versa.

Punishment is one thing.

But to punish the child eternally or annihilate the child? Seriously? That would be desperate measure taken by a desperate "god" who bit off more than he could chew.

The bible said it was accomplished on the cross but only applied through faith. That is the door Jesus says we must open through which he promises to enter. Claiming his death saved everyone even if they die hating him and what he did is so obsurd it is hard to justify debating it. It is also very hard to believe someone would think this.

I'm not sure how the application of a remedy to that which it was designed to heal is "absurd", but whatevs.

Those consequences are in part to indicate the ultimate consequences. If life had no consequences then claims that there were ultimate ones would be hard to believe.

This only applies if one is under the influence of an ideology that necessitates that conclusion.

Why would you think he would set up consequences here when there are none in eternity.

Perhaps because He cares about us now as well as into eternity? I don't see God as some pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by kinda guy.

When you see your theory running counter to every available fact, to hang on to it is hard to understand. Cognative dissonance is one powerful force.

So far my theories have worked quite nicely with every available fact I've come across.

To keep this simple enough that it has a function let's confine the freewill issue to whether we are forced to choose God or whether we can choose to reject him. Every scrap of available evidence is consistent with the fact that we can reject him. Your God is the one who doesn't love enough to allow this and violates what people have chosen because he is apparently vain and needy.

And once again (what is this, 3 times now? ) I'm no longer convinced that God has to "force" these things, and this is why I see your salvation-paradigm as akin to a hostage-situation.

He's irresistible not in the forceful "love Me or else" sort of way, any more than any significant other would be. It's not forced, it's just inevitable. In other words, He's charming enough that folks won't be able to help it, even if they are able to hold out for a time -- which is easier here because we don't perceive Him in the tangible sort of way we will on the Other Side. Their rejection will ultimately give out for what they'll be convinced is something far better, no "forcing" necessary.

Cherry picking without context is useless, in fact worse than useless.

It's always "cherry picking" when the passages support a view one disagrees with. All that term does is make me crave Maraschinos.

It must also be considerd that Jesus said; Today I set before you blessing and cursing, life and death. Choose life. That obviously implies we can also choose death. If you are going to argue for universalism you can't use the bible, it wrecks that position. It also says that without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. The bible is a 750,00 word refutation of universalism or pluralism.

That's because the bible contains contradictions. It's useful, not perfect.

I imagine that a very many people would say so, and I can sympathize. However at least this unchosen existance comes to an end if desired in my system. Yours causes the first and does not allow an escape of any kind. Every complaint right or wrong against my system is even worse for yours.

In my system, no one will even dream of escaping once they've been led by the Spirit into all truth. When my God begins a good work in someone, He's faithful to complete it.

Your are easily convinced you have disovered something meaningfull. It is not necessary to know every detail about every feature of a car to choose to get one for free. It is necessary if we are discussing what that car can specifically do. You are equating two unequal things.

Oh I'm not so sure about that. This isn't a car we're discussing, this is one's eternal destiny. A car can be traded in.

Again you are asking specifics which are unkowable. If I offered you a new cadillac you know enough to accept it but you can not tell me how fast it goes.

But you should know the specifics of how much you value your own free will, 1robin. Can you handle the prospect of spending eternity without it? At least in this discussion, you have expressed a fairly strong attachment to it.

And no, I wouldn't take on a Cadillac, even if it were free.

THis is a valid point. I debate so many athists that when ever God is removed I assume chance is what remains. This does not apply and was my mistake.

No worries. God wasn't "removed"; that's impossible.

 

[1robin]

The preference that something does exist has no bearing on whether it does or not, either.

That is why I did not claim it did or did not apart from what must be assumed to exist before a discussion about it has any purpose. For example I have assumed your God must exist in order to discuss it. I could honestly and with many reasons say that he does not but that would be a claim I can't know and I consider that disrespectful so I have not done so. That being said why did you do so?

I should hope not, I got it from your bible!

That explains my response.

"Sinful" depends on the denomination. Some Christians think even dancing is sinful, so I used the term "loose" very loosely

. Loosly or not the implication was not given by the verse in any shape. In fact the verse was an argument not to do what we are discussing.

Punishment is one thing.

Yes it is a thing.

But to punish the child eternally or annihilate the child? Seriously? That would be desperate measure taken by a desperate "god" who bit off more than he could chew.

There is no teaching in the bible that says children are not allowed in heaven. In fact it suggests the very opposite. I know what is coming so bring it on.

I'm not sure how the application of a remedy to that which it was designed to heal is "absurd", but whatevs.

For the person who does not believe he has anything requireing healing to apply it anyway is obsurd and unjust because it would be against his will. It also is obsurd because that kind of action should have been done from day one because not doing it serves no purpose in your system and then the problem would never have existed but again that would have meant no freewill and injustice again.

This only applies if one is under the influence of an ideology that necessitates that conclusion.

This conditions either is understood or this discussion is pointless. It is however somewhat philisophically consistent and extremely logical. The current existance of accountability when there is no ultimate accountability makes no sence nor is philisophic consistency.

Perhaps because He cares about us now as well as into eternity? I don't see God as some pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by kinda guy

So he holds us accountable for decisions we could not help but make and this life's punishments have only this life's arbitrary lessons to apply to because after we spend these 80 years of pointless existance of being punished for things we could not help but do, God does a big do over and just takes us to heaven anyway, even the ones like me who find that God schizophrenic, diabolical, vain, insecure, and a loon against our will.
That was a strange statement to make to the person who has the only religion where God comes to earth to die for us. In every single standard used to measure which religion has more reliable examples of God's intervention in our earthly life, Christianity is no 1.

So far my theories have worked quite nicely with every available fact I've come across.

I have presented atleast a half dozen that contradict your system and are consistent with mine. I am not sure there exists a known fact that would make yours look more likely.

And once again (what is this, 3 times now? ) I'm no longer convinced that God has to "force" these things, and this is why I see your salvation-paradigm as akin to a hostage-situation. He's irresistible not in the forceful "love Me or else" sort of way, any more than any significant other would be. It's not forced, it's just inevitable. In other words, He's charming enough that folks won't be able to help it, even if they are able to hold out for a time -- which is easier here because we don't perceive Him in the tangible sort of way we will on the Other Side. Their rejection will ultimately give out for what they'll be convinced is something far better, no "forcing" necessary.

Once again reality disagrees vehemently. There are many people who literally hate God's guts and would if possible kill him. A very large portion of the world does not care about God at all. No where is this irresistable charm apparent in reality. You may post it a 4th time if you wish but it won't help.

It's always "cherry picking" when the passages support a view one disagrees with. All that term does is make me crave Maraschinos.

No, it's cherry picking when the claimed conclusion contradicts the over all narrative. Now I want cherrys, thanks alot.

That's because the bible contains contradictions. It's useful, not perfect

It is not perfect and may contain contradictions but I had yet to get one that was not easily resolved with a little reading, allowing for cultural language use, or common sence. You are welcome to try. It won't work. By the way I know of 5% scribal errors. Your contradiction will have to come from the other 95%.

In my system, no one will even dream of escaping once they've been led by the Spirit into all truth. When my God begins a good work in someone, He's faithful to complete it.

Have you seen a single example of this in history. It may still be taken on faith but only if other claims are verifiable. I just doubt you have a single reason to assert this as known fact.

Oh I'm not so sure about that. This isn't a car we're discussing, this is one's eternal destiny. A car can be traded in.

You got the point the issues were the same. Enough can be known about a subject to choose it but not enough to describe every detail. Simple.

But you should know the specifics of how much you value your own free will, 1robin. Can you handle the prospect of spending eternity without it? At least in this discussion, you have expressed a fairly strong attachment to it.

If he loved us enough to allow total free will here. I imagine we will still retain enough control over our will that we wil not be disatasfied. It may be there that unchoosing God makes no more sence than choosing a new prime color.

and no, I wouldn't take on a Cadillac, even if it were free.

Given the kind of God you prefer this is not suprising. However the rest of us would do so and sell it and buy what we want. There is no knowable net loss to a cadillac.

 

[JustWondering]

Here is the first prophecy you sited.

1. The prophecy in Daniel that Israel would be a nation again in 1948, and that it would not be overcome again. This was fulfilled to the day I believe and the year I know. They also should have lost all six wars and countless battles where they have been outnumbered by the opposing countries by 80-1 at times. The fact is their improbable victories have been some of the most lopsided in history.

There is no date given in any of the prophecies about Israel being refounded. It is also not suprising that a defeated people would talk about the day they'd defeat their enemies and take their land back. I don't find anything amazing about that. Nothing about the reestablishment of Israel makes me think that supernatural forces intervened or did anything. Even if I did it would prove judaisms claims and nothing about christianity. Also, there are other religions that have claimed they would be victorious when outnumbered. Not very convincing. I will look at the second one later.

 

[Astravalon]

That is why I did not claim it did or did not apart from what must be assumed to exist before a discussion about it has any purpose. For example I have assumed your God must exist in order to discuss it. I could honestly and with many reasons say that he does not but that would be a claim I can't know and I consider that disrespectful so I have not done so. That being said why did you do so?

The statement was about the existence of hell, not God.

To recap:

Originally Posted by 1robin Actually a Christian should not have a fear of Hell any more and so his actions have only the motivation of love. That is mostly true see if you can find the slight error. That is why fear is called the beginning of knowledge.
​

Originally Posted by Iridescence Well yeah, it makes little sense to fear something that doesn't exist.
​

Originally Posted by 1robin The preference that something not exist has no bearing on whether it does or not.
​

Originally Posted by Iridescence The preference that something does exist has no bearing on whether it does or not, either.​

Loosly or not the implication was not given by the verse in any shape. In fact the verse was an argument not to do what we are discussing.

It served to make my point, which you had said you understood. In fact, you had said that the verse itself was very confusing (see post 382).

There is no teaching in the bible that says children are not allowed in heaven. In fact it suggests the very opposite. I know what is coming so bring it on.

I was working off of your parenting example, 1robin. To recap:

Originally Posted by 1robin That is a core principle invloved in every single form of traditional parenting, and Jurice Prudence in history. Good actions have good results and vice versa.
​

Applying your parenting context, I then said what I did about parents not punishing/annihilating the child forever. This was never about actual children making it to heaven.

For the person who does not believe he has anything requireing healing to apply it anyway is obsurd and unjust because it would be against his will.

You forget that unbelief is a symptom of the ailment.

So he holds us accountable for decisions we could not help but make and this life's punishments have only this life's arbitrary lessons to apply to because after we spend these 80 years of pointless existance of being punished for things we could not help but do, God does a big do over and just takes us to heaven anyway, even the ones like me who find that God schizophrenic, diabolical, vain, insecure, and a loon against our will.
That was a strange statement to make to the person who has the only religion where God comes to earth to die for us. In every single standard used to measure which religion has more reliable examples of God's intervention in our earthly life, Christianity is no 1.

I'm not sure what it is about the idea of God caring for us now and for all eternity that would bring all that on. Not to mention that it's a tad incoherent.

I have presented atleast a half dozen that contradict your system and are consistent with mine. I am not sure there exists a known fact that would make yours look more likely.

You haven't convinced me of anything contradicting my system. I'm not just typing about my faith here, I'm actually living it day by day. The claims of a random stranger on the internet isn't going to cancel out what God is showing me first-hand in my life offline.

Once again reality disagrees vehemently. There are many people who literally hate God's guts and would if possible kill him.

And you elevate their hate over God's glory and power to heal. Amazing. Where's the faith?

It is not perfect and may contain contradictions but I had yet to get one that was not easily resolved with a little reading, allowing for cultural language use, or common sence. You are welcome to try. It won't work. By the way I know of 5% scribal errors. Your contradiction will have to come from the other 95%.

It's really of no import as my relationship with God doesn't require obsessing over ancient texts. It's a John 5:39-40 thing.

Have you seen a single example of this in history. It may still be taken on faith but only if other claims are verifiable. I just doubt you have a single reason to assert this as known fact.

Saul-turned-Paul doesn't count in your theology?

Given the kind of God you prefer this is not suprising. However the rest of us would do so and sell it and buy what we want. There is no knowable net loss to a cadillac.

Well, my God is pretty fantastic, so yeah. :hearts: I wouldn't sell Him for anything; He's all I really want. ♥

 

[1robin]

Here is the first prophecy you sited.



There is no date given in any of the prophecies about Israel being refounded.

I will let this decide the issue if you will actually let that happen. The full description of the dates of this event are in Ezekiel. Daniel contains other dates associated with this same prophecy.

The prophet Daniel also
confirms this fact by describing one-half of the 70th week
(Daniel 9:24-27) as containing exactly 1,260 days (3.5 x 360
days).
Israel's Rebirth in 1948 fortold by Ezekiel
Pick one and let's get it on. Since you are complaining about this one then you should be able to actually show it to be wrong.

It is also not suprising that a defeated people would talk about the day they'd defeat their enemies and take their land back. I don't find anything amazing about that.

If that was all this was then this may have been meaningfull. I am beginning to think you may be over your head.

Nothing about the reestablishment of Israel makes me think that supernatural forces intervened or did anything.

That is because apparently you do not know anything about the event.They went from being systematically exterminated in 1944 to being GIVEN their old land back by the UN 4 years later. There is nothing normal about any of that and your contention that they predicted they would fight to get it back is wrong about the prophecy and what actually happened. They said they would win every battle after they got the nation, that was a defence of it, not to get it. When the dates as well as the fact that it would happen in one day plus the fact that they would not be defeated again and over run out when they are surrounded by millions who should be able and have tried to do so many times. Combined with the fact that they are the only example of a culture who lives on the same land, has the same God, and retains the same language for over 3 thousand years. They are also the only example of a culture completely loosing it's original language and then regaining it. Nothing about this is normal. I could show the supernatural forces involved but that was not the issue and I have no idea why you are diverting the discussion (actually I know very well why). The issue was the year and likely the day were predicted. They were and it happened.

Even if I did it would prove judaisms claims and nothing about christianity.

I have seen desperate attempts to get out of this issue before but saying that predictions contained in a Holy book that we use as Christian's does not apply to Christian's is desperately weak. The Jewish God and the Christian God are exactly the same one.

Also, there are other religions that have claimed they would be victorious when outnumbered. Not very convincing. I will look at the second one later.

Find one that predicted an army would be victorious where the conditions were as lopsided against Israel as the victories were as lopsided for Israel. In six wars and many battles. Coupled with the fact the dates are given and other details. If you can which you can't I will conceed the point. Why don't you actually deal with this first one in any but a cursury, inaccurate, meaningless way before you butcher the second. These things require real research and you haven't even scratched the surface and the scratch you did make is inaccurate and your conclusions completely unfounded. If you can't treat the issue with the thuroughness it deserves I have no use for the discussion.

 

[1robin]

The statement was about the existence of hell, not God.

I know. The principle is exaactly the same. We must assume something exists in order to debate it.

Originally Posted by Iridescence Well yeah, it makes little sense to fear something that doesn't exist.

I thought and still do that you were saying that hell didn't exist which you can't know. It is necessary to assume it's potential existance in order to discuss it. That is why I said the statement below .


Originally Posted by 1robin The preference that something not exist has no bearing on whether it does or not.

​

It served to make my point, which you had said you understood. In fact, you had said that the verse itself was very confusing (see post 382).
​

What verse? I am not smart enough to follow posts this astetically sophisticated.

I was working off of your parenting example, 1robin. To recap:
​

Originally Posted by 1robin That is a core principle invloved in every single form of traditional parenting, and Jurice Prudence in history. Good actions have good results and vice versa.
​

Applying your parenting context, I then said what I did about parents not punishing/annihilating the child forever. This was never about actual children making it to heaven.

If not compared to the bible then why bring it up in a biblical debate?
​

You forget that unbelief is a symptom of the ailment.

Unbelief is in most ways the cause of the symptoms. That is the biblical position and as usuall accurately descrobes what we see.

I'm not sure what it is about the idea of God caring for us now and for all eternity that would bring all that on. Not to mention that it's a tad incoherent.

You haven't convinced me of anything contradicting my system.

There is not a single known thing consistent with it. Forced compliance is universally called evil. Compliance allowed based on free wil and the knowledge of the consequences is referred to as justice. Accountability is consistent with the bible and inconsistent with determinism. The universal belief in choice is confirmed in the bible and denied by your system. I can keep going but I don't think it would help. There is nothing tin reality that is consistent with your view and nothing inconsistent with mine. Usually cognative dissonance means that if it upset someone's preference they could not be convinced the sun is hot.

I'm not just typing about my faith here, I'm actually living it day by day.

The fact of living consistent with an ideology does not mean it is true. If you did something wrong and were arrested that would be inconsistent with your view. Your view makes accountability (a corner stone of society) senceless.

The claims of a random stranger on the internet isn't going to cancel out what God is showing me first-hand in my life offline.

How would you know whatever you see and hear was determined by chance and is not therefore necessarily correct.

And you elevate their hate over God's glory and power to heal. Amazing. Where's the faith?

God allows choice because of love. You don't want to be with him and he does not force you to. Your warping that into something that sounds better in order to make forcefull conversion good and choice bad is a waste of time. Love must allow choice. God does so and so he loves. Your God does not and so does not.

It's really of no import as my relationship with God doesn't require obsessing over ancient texts. It's a John 5:39-40 thing.

No, I think it more or less concerns justifying preference. Which is a Gnostic tactic.

Saul-turned-Paul doesn't count in your theology?

What?

Well, my God is pretty fantastic, so yeah. :hearts: I wouldn't sell Him for anything; He's all I really want. ♥

Again, you would not know. Chance determining what you think means that what you think is based on dynamics not on what is true. That is an absolute inescapable fact, that is shown in that if we all have no free will the fact that we all think different things means that we were forced to believe contradictory arbitarary things. Good luck with that one. Either we have freewill and therefore the ability to test, discover, and prove truth. Or we do not and all our thoughts are forced upon us and have no connection to what is actually true. Besides I didn't say anything about sellling you God anyway.

 

[Astravalon]

If you did something wrong and were arrested that would be inconsistent with your view.

Oh would it, now. How so?

How would you know whatever you see and hear was determined by chance and is not therefore necessarily correct.

Since I am Theistic in my worldview, I don't believe in mere chance. I'm persuaded that God works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will. Everything happens through Him, and without Him not one thing happens. (I learned that from your bible, by the way ).

God allows choice because of love. You don't want to be with him and he does not force you to. Your warping that into something that sounds better in order to make forcefull conversion good and choice bad is a waste of time. Love must allow choice. God does so and so he loves. Your God does not and so does not.

You're still hung up on forced conversions. Please keep up with me, here: I repeat, I'm not pushing forced conversions. There. I even said that in neon-pink just to show you how clear I wish to make it. It was this very discussion with you that helped me lighten up on that a bit.

As for whether or not we wish to simply be with God, that can't be helped, since He's omnipresent ("in Him we live and move and have our being"). I don't really see that as "force" per se, just fact. An omnipresent entity is going to be all over the place and permeate everything . Even the cookie-jar.... which would explain the missing Oreos.

The only drawback I see at this juncture regarding the choice=love stance is that one could use it to show all the areas where God didn't allow us a choice, and hold those areas up as examples of where His love could use some improvement. More choices, more love, that whole ball o' wax.

No, I think it more or less concerns justifying preference. Which is a Gnostic tactic.

Then everyone's a gnostic, because no one chooses a belief system they don't prefer on some level (free will, remember?).

I take your observation as compliment by the way; I think gnosticism rocks!

What?

Rather than re-post the line of conversation again, here's a tip for getting to the context of a statement that might not make sense in isolation:

If you click the little "

" symbol contained in the first quote of a post, you can backtrack to the post to which it's responding in order to get the context of these things.

Again, you would not know. Chance determining what you think means that what you think is based on dynamics not on what is true. That is an absolute inescapable fact, that is shown in that if we all have no free will the fact that we all think different things means that we were forced to believe contradictory arbitarary things. Good luck with that one. Either we have freewill and therefore the ability to test, discover, and prove truth. Or we do not and all our thoughts are forced upon us and have no connection to what is actually true.

You're still bringing up random chance as some driving force in my belief system, even after what I said about that in post 378:

Why are you calling the workings of God in His creation "random chance"? You're not an atheist now, are you?

"Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" is "random chance"?

This isn't math you're dealing with, it's the power of the most high God, who was, is, and always will be in the house (and everywhere else), even if (professed) members of His own fan club resent that fact.
​

In response to that, you had even said (at the end of post #382) that bringing up the "chance" thing was a mistake on your part due to having debated with so many atheists.

Besides I didn't say anything about sellling you God anyway.

I'm sure you knew what I meant when I had said that. It appears you're shifting from analogy to literalism, again. So yeah, please remember that I don't believe chance has anything to do with the inner workings of the world. I truly believe that God is in the details. :yes:

 

[1robin]

Oh would it, now. How so?

Your system makes accountability for an unchosen act nonsence.

Since I am Theistic in my worldview, I don't believe in mere chance. I'm persuaded that God works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will. Everything happens through Him, and without Him not one thing happens. (I learned that from your bible, by the way ).

Sorry again I adopt the atheist world view when I can't recognise a theistic system.

You're still hung up on forced conversions. Please keep up with me, here: I repeat, I'm not pushing forced conversions. There. I even said that in neon-pink just to show you how clear I wish to make it. It was this very discussion with you that helped me lighten up on that a bit.

You argue against freewill, what about that leaves forced out of the equation.

As for whether or not we wish to simply be with God, that can't be helped, since He's omnipresent ("in Him we live and move and have our being"). I don't really see that as "force" per se, just fact. An omnipresent entity is going to be all over the place and permeate everything . Even the cookie-jar.... which would explain the missing Oreos.

That is a reason I believe hell to be anihilation. Non existance is the only place God isn't as well as the bible says to not fear those who can destroy the body, but him who can destroy the soul in hell.

The only drawback I see at this juncture regarding the choice=love stance is that one could use it to show all the areas where God didn't allow us a choice, and hold those areas up as examples of where His love could use some improvement. More choices, more love, that whole ball o' wax.

There is no love possible without choice. Equivication about degree doesn't matter.

Then everyone's a gnostic, because no one chooses a belief system they don't prefer on some level (free will, remember?).

I have. There are many things about the bible I do not prefer.

I take your observation as compliment by the way; I think gnosticism rocks!

That figures since Gnosticism is defined as knowledge from a source that is not divine. In other words it is what we think God is instead of what God said he is.

Rather than re-post the line of conversation again, here's a tip for getting to the context of a statement that might not make sense in isolation

If you click the little "

" symbol contained in the first quote of a post, you can backtrack to the post to which it's responding in order to get the context of these things.

You're still bringing up random chance as some driving force in my belief system, even after what I said about that in post 378:

Why are you calling the workings of God in His creation "random chance"? You're not an atheist now, are you?

"Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" is "random chance"?

This isn't math you're dealing with, it's the power of the most high God, who was, is, and always will be in the house (and everywhere else), even if (professed) members of His own fan club resent that fact.
​

In response to that, you had even said (at the end of post #382) that bringing up the "chance" thing was a mistake on your part due to having debated with so many atheists.

I post in between troubleshooting an airforce f-15 electronic test set, that contains among many other things a rubidium gas oscillator. That means I have limited time to post. Many times I can't justify re-reading posts. Sorry.

I'm sure you knew what I meant when I had said that. It appears you're shifting from analogy to literalism, again. So yeah, please remember that I don't believe chance has anything to do with the inner workings of the world. I truly believe that God is in the details. :yes:

Ok, you have eliminated chance and free will. That only leaves God and no freewill. That means that God is controlling our thoughts. If that is true then why do we all believe contradictory things. You are getting forced into a tighter and tighter box that can't be defended. Observable reason number 256 to reject determinism.

 

[Astravalon]

Your system makes accountability for an unchosen act nonsence.

This still doesn't answer my question: How so?

You argue against freewill, what about that leaves forced out of the equation.

I argue against absolute free will, yes. Our wills aren't sovereign.

But there are things in which we do have a choice. I simply don't think that a person can resist God for all eternity, not because God forces him to accept Him, but because sooner or later it'll simply be a no-brainer for that person. They'll fall in love with Him without feeling forced, just as one would love another human without feeling forced. I know for myself that my love for God does not feel forced. If it was forced, it sure doesn't feel like it was.

That is a reason I believe hell to be anihilation. Non existance is the only place God isn't as well as the bible says to not fear those who can destroy the body, but him who can destroy the soul in hell.

While I don't believe in annihilation myself, I do see your point there. And it's more humane than the other teaching regarding hell. :yes:

There is no love possible without choice. Equivication about degree doesn't matter.

Does this mean that areas where we were not given a choice are indicators of the limitations to God's love for us? Because there are a lot of areas where we have not been given choice.

I have. There are many things about the bible I do not prefer.

But you have freely chosen a system whose authority is that bible anyway, when there are other choices you could have made. You weren't forced to choose your religion, you preferred Christianity over the abundance of other options out there. Therefore, again, if this is gnosticism as you say, then everyone - including yourself - is a gnostic. Which is not a bad thing.

That figures since Gnosticism is defined as knowledge from a source that is not divine. In other words it is what we think God is instead of what God said he is.

I'm not sure where you got that definition, as that's not the definition I've seen.

Nevertheless, as I'm sure you are already aware, everything we take in is filtered through our thought-processes. Personal interpretation is never absent from what we perceive, therefore there are as many interpretations of who God is as there are people who believe there's a God to begin with. We can't come to our conclusions without what we think factoring into the process, obviously. Again, free will -- we aren't robots, right?

I post in between troubleshooting an airforce f-15 electronic test set, that contains among many other things a rubidium gas oscillator. That means I have limited time to post. Many times I can't justify re-reading posts. Sorry.

No worries, though perhaps this is an indicator that you have difficulty fully participating in online discussions during work hours. It might be best to save it for when you've got free time, like on the weekends or during the evenings, perhaps. I know when the time comes that I go back to work, this forum stuff is going to have to go on the back burner for me, because when I do something I like to give it my full, undivided attention.

Ok, you have eliminated chance and free will. That only leaves God and no freewill. That means that God is controlling our thoughts. If that is true then why do we all believe contradictory things. You are getting forced into a tighter and tighter box that can't be defended. Observable reason number 256 to reject determinism.

Wait a minute ... weren't you the one who was telling me about the difference between God's active and permissive wills?

But let's just say for the sake of this discussion that God is employing only His active will in even the minutest of details -- which, if He is, He's going about it very stealthily, because it doesn't feel like I'm being controlled by Him -- this doesn't mean that everyone must necessarily be thinking and doing and believing the same exact things at the same exact time.

By way of analogy -- and please remember this is an analogy: Just because every detail of a painting is done by the same artist, doesn't mean it will lack variety in colors and objects. In the same way, God is the Artist doing a variety of things in a a variety of ways. As 1 Corinthians 12:6 says, there are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men. "Monergistic" (if that's how it is) doesn't have to mean "monochromatic".

 

[1robin]

This still doesn't answer my question: How so?

How in the wild world of sports does accountability makes sence if I could not help but choose what I did.

I argue against absolute free will, yes. Our wills aren't sovereign.

Quit qualifying, no free will is no free will.

But there are things in which we do have a choice. I simply don't think that a person can resist God for all eternity, not because God forces him to accept Him, but because sooner or later it'll simply be a no-brainer for that person. They'll fall in love with Him without feeling forced, just as one would love another human without feeling forced. I know for myself that my love for God does not feel forced. If it was forced, it sure doesn't feel like it was.

I knew it was coming. So now free will does exist in some for. If we keep it up you will eventually come over to my side. As Stewy said come over to the backside of the force. That is funny I don't care who you are.

While I don't believe in annihilation myself, I do see your point there. And it's more humane than the other teaching regarding hell

. Well I can't say it's true but I can say it is the most consistent with the biblical narrative.

Does this mean that areas where we were not given a choice are indicators of the limitations to God's love for us? Because there are a lot of areas where we have not been given choice.

I think we have a different understanding of free will. I have tried unseccessfully to confine it to the issue so tangents would not dominate the conversation. We can choose God or reject God freely. That is all I need to defend.

But you have freely chosen a system whose authority is that bible anyway, when there are other choices you could have made. You weren't forced to choose your religion, you preferred Christianity over the abundance of other options out there. Therefore, again, if this is gnosticism as you say, then everyone - including yourself - is a gnostic. Which is not a bad thing.

Not exactly, I chose it because I prefer truth if that's what you mean. Gnosticism is human knowledge about God. It is not God's self revelation. There is a huge difference. I believe the bible is true and from God and therefore I chose it.

I'm not sure where you got that definition, as that's not the definition I've seen.

Gnostics arose around the time of Christ and maybe a while before. They were simply sects that were trying to figure out who God was and what that meant apart from any God telling them who he was. It usually involves self knowledge and self enlightenment. The Gospel of Thomas is very Gnostic for example.

There is probably no greater heresy within Christianity than Gnosticism. It is its first heresy, and, ironically, it promulgated reactionary doctrines that, if not as heretical and false, they were just as inaccurate. They were the byproduct of inaccurately rebutting the rationalizations of passing Greek culture. Rationalism was Gnosticism’s mistake
Gnosticism

Nevertheless, as I'm sure you are already aware, everything we take in is filtered through our thought-processes. Personal interpretation is never absent from what we perceive, therefore there are as many interpretations of who God is as there are people who believe there's a God to begin with. We can't come to our conclusions without what we think factoring into the process, obviously. Again, free will -- we aren't robots, right?

Your getting close to free will, a little further.... I recognise everyone including myself and I do my best to allow for it. Most people don't even admit it exists. That is why Gnosticism is so faulty.

No worries, though perhaps this is an indicator that you have difficulty fully participating in online discussions during work hours. It might be best to save it for when you've got free time, like on the weekends or during the evenings, perhaps. I know when the time comes that I go back to work, this forum stuff is going to have to go on the back burner for me, because when I do something I like to give it my full, undivided attention.

Alrighty

Wait a minute ... weren't you the one who was telling me about the difference between God's active and permissive wills?

Yes but permissive will has no place in your system just mine. I was describing your system not mine.

But let's just say for the sake of this discussion that God is employing only His active will in even the minutest of details -- which, if He is, He's going about it very stealthily, because it doesn't feel like I'm being controlled by Him -- this doesn't mean that everyone must necessarily be thinking and doing and believing the same exact things at the same exact time.

Well it certainly means this the fact that people believe completely contradictory things are proof that this God is a liar or evil or both.

By way of analogy -- and please remember this is an analogy: Just because every detail of a painting is done by the same artist, doesn't mean it will lack variety in colors and objects. In the same way, God is the Artist doing a variety of things in a a variety of ways. As 1 Corinthians 12:6 says, there are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men. "Monergistic" (if that's how it is) doesn't have to mean "monochromatic".

This has nothing to do with competing claims to absolute truth. This would explain why I am an electronics guy and why someone else is a gardner nothing more. It does not explain why Muslim's say Jesus was never crucified nor rose again and Chrsitians say he did both. The God that both say that is a jerk. Shalom

 

[Astravalon]

I'll cut to the chase here as the following essentially touches on the main thrust of the post to which I'm responding:

This has nothing to do with competing claims to absolute truth. This would explain why I am an electronics guy and why someone else is a gardner nothing more. It does not explain why Muslim's say Jesus was never crucified nor rose again and Chrsitians say he did both. The God that both say that is a jerk.

However, if God is such a "jerk", as you say, for actively making people believe differently about absolute truth, then you can't avoid concluding that He's just as much of a "jerk" for knowingly setting up a system in which they could freely choose for themselves to believe differently about absolute truth. And I'm not sure how freely they chose that when I consider that our inclinations and personalities -- even our brain-chemistry -- that influence our choices are also God-designed.

Human free will or God-directed, the God-designed system manifests the same result: People are believing differently about absolute truth.

 

[paarsurrey]

How in the wild world of sports does accountability makes sence if I could not help but choose what I did.

Quit qualifying, no free will is no free will.

I knew it was coming. So now free will does exist in some for. If we keep it up you will eventually come over to my side. As Stewy said come over to the backside of the force. That is funny I don't care who you are.

. Well I can't say it's true but I can say it is the most consistent with the biblical narrative.

I think we have a different understanding of free will. I have tried unseccessfully to confine it to the issue so tangents would not dominate the conversation. We can choose God or reject God freely. That is all I need to defend.


Not exactly, I chose it because I prefer truth if that's what you mean. Gnosticism is human knowledge about God. It is not God's self revelation. There is a huge difference. I believe the bible is true and from God and therefore I chose it.

Gnostics arose around the time of Christ and maybe a while before. They were simply sects that were trying to figure out who God was and what that meant apart from any God telling them who he was. It usually involves self knowledge and self enlightenment. The Gospel of Thomas is very Gnostic for example.

There is probably no greater heresy within Christianity than Gnosticism. It is its first heresy, and, ironically, it promulgated reactionary doctrines that, if not as heretical and false, they were just as inaccurate. They were the byproduct of inaccurately rebutting the rationalizations of passing Greek culture. Rationalism was Gnosticism’s mistake
Gnosticism

Your getting close to free will, a little further.... I recognise everyone including myself and I do my best to allow for it. Most people don't even admit it exists. That is why Gnosticism is so faulty.

Alrighty

Yes but permissive will has no place in your system just mine. I was describing your system not mine.

Well it certainly means this the fact that people believe completely contradictory things are proof that this God is a liar or evil or both.

This has nothing to do with competing claims to absolute truth. This would explain why I am an electronics guy and why someone else is a gardner nothing more. It does not explain why Muslim's say Jesus was never crucified nor rose again and Chrsitians say he did both. The God that both say that is a jerk. Shalom

I have to comment on the portion of your post I have coloured in magenta.

My religion/Quran is very clear on it and I quote from Quran in this connection:

[4:158] And their saying, ‘We did kill the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah;’ whereas they slew him not, nor crucified him, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in a state of doubt about it; they have no definite knowledge thereof, but only follow a conjecture; and they did not convert this conjecture into a certainty;

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

That the claim of the Jews of that time was totally wrong that they had slain Jesus or they had killed Jesus on the Cross to prove him a false prophet; they could not make him dead on the Cross; he was saved and he died a natural death afterwards. There is no mention of Jesus having died on the Cross in Quran; he appeared like a dead or one crucified but he did not die was only near-dead.

This is what I believe sincerely with reasons; others could believe differently as per their faith with or without reasons.

 

[JustWondering]

I will let this decide the issue if you will actually let that happen. The full description of the dates of this event are in Ezekiel. Daniel contains other dates associated with this same prophecy.

The prophet Daniel also
confirms this fact by describing one-half of the 70th week
(Daniel 9:24-27) as containing exactly 1,260 days (3.5 x 360
days).
Israel's Rebirth in 1948 fortold by Ezekiel

All I see is a convoluted mess. The calculations are a mess. How did they arrive at the date to start doing all these crazy calculations from in the first place? I'm inclined to belief they worked backward instead of forward to determine that. Also, Daniel's prediction included some kind of flood. Where does this flood work into this? You and the people who come up with this stuff are really reaching.

First you say Daniel predicted the reestablishment of Israel in 1948, which he didn't. He goes on about 70 weeks to rebuild Israel. Then we're supposed to hop around the bible here and there grabbing random bits here and there and do some convoluted equation? No, thanks. I'm not buying it. Prophecy fail.

 

[JustWondering]

"Professor Thomas Arnold, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the chair of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said:
The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."
I can supply many of these statements from some of the greates scholrs in history. The fact you make unfounded claims that draw the opposite conclusions is obsurd.

Where are the simple straight forward facts and evidence to back the claims. He's obviously a true believer so how can I trust that anything from him is unbiased?

 

[JustWondering]

So far I have given many examples and you have ignored and refused multiple attempts to examine closely the several specific claims I made.

I am looking at your claims. When I find them unconvincing you simply tell me I'm being difficult, to dimiss my views. I am an unbeliever, I am not going to do mental gymnastics or overlook inconsistencies to except something as evidence for your claims.

 

[JustWondering]

2. The prophecy predicting the destruction of the phonecian city of Tyre in Isaiah and Ezekiel I believe.

Again, ancient warmongering. Tyre was prime real estate. People were running around conquering each other at the time. Not much of a prediction. The people of Tyre actually moved before an invading army could destroy them. Nothing to convince me that your religion is any more credible than any other.

If you have a good prophecy drop it on me, I'll look at it. But please, give a non-biblical source for its fullfillment.

 

[1robin]

I have to comment on the portion of your post I have coloured in magenta.

My religion/Quran is very clear on it and I quote from Quran in this connection:



The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

That the claim of the Jews of that time was totally wrong that they had slain Jesus or they had killed Jesus on the Cross to prove him a false prophet; they could not make him dead on the Cross; he was saved and he died a natural death afterwards. There is no mention of Jesus having died on the Cross in Quran; he appeared like a dead or one crucified but he did not die was only near-dead.

This is what I believe sincerely with reasons; others could believe differently as per their faith with or without reasons.

Your interpretation is just one of many in Islam. They also claim that he was substituted by someone else. They say the event never happened at all. They say that he only swooned and later he revived. And on and on........ Since the event has become so well established they have icreasingly relied on you theory because the others are becoming more and more unjustifiable. Yours even though closer to the event description in the bible still lacks the most important events. If Jesus did not die then he did not provide that sacrifice than is necessary. He had to taste death in our place in order to bear our punishment. This is not meant to offend just elaborate. Satan had tried everything and it had not worked, I think the greatest attempt would be one in which he formulated a religion very similar to the one God actually did but just leave out the few core details that make all the difference. Your theory may be closer to the truth but in the few details that are most important lies the core of Christianity. Without his death, there is no salvation, without salvation no one goes to heaven. Shalom

 

[1robin]

All I see is a convoluted mess.

I know, you do not have a suffecient understanding or back ground to evaluate these issues. There are a very many sites devoted to painstaking walkthroughs of this prophecy. You can either look through them or give up and I will give you another simpler one. What you can't or should not do is find yourself incapable of understanding something and so declare it wrong.

The calculations are a mess. How did they arrive at the date to start doing all these crazy calculations from in the first place?

http://www.grantjeffrey.com/pdf/JeffBIBLE-EzekVision2.pdf

I'm inclined to belief they worked backward instead of forward to determine that. Also, Daniel's prediction included some kind of flood. Where does this flood work into this? You and the people who come up with this stuff are really reaching.

Christian Forums - Ezekiel's Vision Predicted When Israel Would Become a Nation Again
Why Israel became a nation when it did, to the very day. Bible Prophecy Numbers 1260 x 2 years.
You seem to be "inclined to believe whatever you need to in order to avoid the inplications of prophecy. I can see you are really over your head here the flood has nothing to do with Israel's rebith, it has to do with Jerusalem at another point in time. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant about these more cryptic parts of the bible but to then claim that what you do not understand is wrong is dishonorable. Just pick any other much simplere prophecy. Maybe the wine and Myrh verse abot Christ at that one site. This one is just too complex to get by a feww minute popping around the net.

First you say Daniel predicted the reestablishment of Israel in 1948, which he didn't. He goes on about 70 weeks to rebuild Israel. Then we're supposed to hop around the bible here and there grabbing random bits here and there and do some convoluted equation? No, thanks. I'm not buying it. Prophecy fail.

I reject your credentials for asserting a rejection of prophecy based on a lack of understanding. Try this Ezekiel is the principle source for this event. Daniel is not even needed and his prophecies are intertwined with other events which confuse people who do not understand the bible. It has been meticulously studied and layed out by scholars far more knowledgable than you and me put together. You can even by timelines of prophecy. You may choose another prophecy, you may admit you just do not have the experienec to evaluate this one, you may give up the whole discussion, but I reject your unjustified conclusion.