| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Anonymous Sender" |
| Date: |
22 Sep 2003 04:26:00 PM |
| Object: |
Brain Trots |
I'm probably more of an intellectual heavyweight that many of you are, but
still I have what I believe to be an interesting question to ask of you.
As humans, we are highly evolved and complex electro chemical machines.
Like
a computer we have fixed programming in our DNA and space for our
programming to expand in our mass of synaptic pathways which change as we
grow older and also through external events, life trauma and physical
trauma
to which we are subjected and subsequently subject ourselves during our
life.
If you accept that our genetic makeup along with our life event experiences
bring about our current programming at any one point along the timeline.
Then in the absence of any other factors, is it now this fact alone which
causes us to take actions when God is the subject ?
So then, if one man shoots another, who is to blame?
You may say that we have free will and have exercised it, but is this not
simply a decision made based on our programming?
If so who/what is responsible for that, and should not they/it be held
reponsible ? And if so when is to early to confess to God we were
wrong to dout in his state of affairs ?
.
|
|
| User: "monist" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Have Free Will? |
01 Oct 2003 02:56:42 PM |
|
|
Does god have free will? That depends on what the person who thought up
that god wants. Since deities are conjured up out of our imagination, it follows
that your god can have whatever attributes you want -- omnipotence, omniscience,
etc. are commonly used since they tend to keep anyone else's god from being
superior to yours. Most gods are considered by their makers to be the
one-and-only-god. Giving them free will, however, can be a problem.
Cheers
Monist
===========================================
This is not a dress rehearsal. This is the only
world you will ever know and this is the only
life you will ever have. Seize the Day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Have Free Will? |
03 Oct 2003 11:28:21 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 19:56:42 GMT, monist <monist@shaw.ca> wrote:
Does god have free will? That depends on what the person who thought up
that god wants. Since deities are conjured up out of our imagination, it follows
that your god can have whatever attributes you want -- omnipotence, omniscience,
etc. are commonly used since they tend to keep anyone else's god from being
superior to yours. Most gods are considered by their makers to be the
one-and-only-god. Giving them free will, however, can be a problem.
If God had free will Christians could not rely on him to be predictable.
Cheers
Monist
===========================================
This is not a dress rehearsal. This is the only
world you will ever know and this is the only
life you will ever have. Seize the Day.
-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
Voicemail/fax number +14136227640
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arjen Klaver" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Have Free Will? |
25 Sep 2003 02:59:35 PM |
|
|
at news:2o14nv4eohjn964d7q3rqbu0nf77jjea9k@4ax.com Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in
news:2o14nv4eohjn964d7q3rqbu0nf77jjea9k@4ax.com:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:46:21 GMT in alt.atheism, Arjen Klaver (Arjen
Klaver <chips@stack.nl>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
at news:cbadfc8f.0309231235.b09f27e@posting.google.com
wallenbrock@msn.com (AuntieLib) wrote in
news:cbadfc8f.0309231235.b09f27e@posting.google.com:
Does "God" have free will to do whatever he wants? Isn't it
contradictory and impossible for any "God" to be both omniscient and
omnipotent? If "God" knows everything that will ever happen, can he
change this by choosing other than what he must choose because he
already knows the choice he will make?
Seems kind of impossible to me.
There is a nice little solution to this problem with the omniscience
and freewill of god. Remember that god is pure love and stuff. gOd
can/will make only the best possible choices ;-). It does that by
freewill and knows all this already from advance.
Hummm. But if God will only make the best possible choices, then God
has no free will at all. As I've been reminded I said in 1998:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=358ef8
25.23394232%40news.supernews.com
"The Christian God is thought to be absolutely good. If there is a
"most moral" way of achieving any desired result, God is compelled by
His nature to follow that "most moral" route, and thus has no freedom
of action with respect to the way he achieves things. Thus God has no
free will."
First, Happy birthday!
Back to the post....
Let's take a look at some of the definitions (5 in total) of free will:
1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind
of my own free will.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external
circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
[The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition]
3. A will free from improper coercion or restraint.
4. The power asserted of moral beings of willing or choosing without the
restraints of physical or absolute necessity.
[Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.]
5: the freedom or ability to choose 2: the power of making free choices
unconstrained by external agencies [syn: discretion]
[WordNet, 1997 Princeton University]
Now we can start a little lingistics game:
1) Only external parameters can take away free will.
2) God chooses (by itself) to always take the best action.
I do not see a direct contradiction in here.
Let's analyse it a bit closer:
However there is still a problem. Can mankind influence god? It seems that
it can. If mankind creates the right external parameters, god will react on
it the best ways it sees fit. So mankind can let god act accordingly. Does
god still have free will then? Not according to the definitions above, or
does it? What is external according to god? I do not know. (Btw, god
doesn't exist, so what are we talking about? ;-), Why am I defending
xtians? .....)
The main problem with freewill and omniscience is with mankind. We are
a random bunch of people. Our decisions are not always the best ones.
How can god know our decisions in advance. Are we influenced by god?
This would be contradictory to the freewill concept.
Mind you, I tend to think that "free will" may be a function of
"insufficient information". I also think that "free will" tends to be,
erm, loosely (or not) defined in most cases. Before we can talk about
free will, we need to know precisely what we mean by "free will". And
I think in most cases we don't.
I even think that we do not have 'true' free will (defition 4 and 5), just
because we do not have all the information. We do not fully know the
outcome of our actions, nor do we know all the possible actions we could
have taken. Therefore our choice is limited.
(But when I look at some of the other definitions I can say that we do have
free will.)
Have a nice day,
Arjen Klaver
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Deceitful arguments from the wicked and the blind only serve to expose the wicked and the blind. |
23 Sep 2003 06:06:43 PM |
|
|
{{Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 00:12:53 GMT
From: Eagle29 <eagle28at@swbelldot.net> <( to email, remove the "at" and "dot")>
Prov 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a
fall.}}
Since you quoted that, I assume you agree with it, right?
So, in your opinion, it's bad to have high self esteem, it's better
to feel yourself worthless than to feel yourself of value?
So all the depressed people feeling suicidal because they consider
themselves worthless, are behaving the way you'd prefer, and all the
therapists who are trying to improve their self esteem, are trying to
do something bad?
{{Prov 16:19 Better to be lowly in spirit and among the oppressed than
to share plunder with the proud.}}
That's a false dichotomy, claiming either somebody is depressed,
suicidal, oppressed, etc., or somebody is involved in conspiracy to
plunder. Did it ever occur to you that there are people who feel
themselves to be good people but they do *not* partake in plunder of
any kind (except as necessary to get food to eat and stay alive)?
In my opinion, either it was stupid when it was written, or it was
mis-translated, and in either case you are stupid to agree with it as
presently written and as you quoted above.
{{you're question is based on your false premise.}}
Please learn how to spell the most common words of English, such as the
possessive pronoun "your". I don't complain if you misspell some really
obscure word that you might never have used before and had to guess at
the spelling and were in a hurry and didn't have time to look it up in
a dictionary. But you really ought to learn how to spell the hundred or
so most common words.
{{God gave us Laws in the Old Covenant through Christ the Rock, the God
who spoke to and showed Himself to Moses.}}
That's just your opinion, and the opinion of a bunch of other people,
not any kind of fact. More likely, you and the others are completely
incorrect, mistaken, and in fact neither the creature you call "God"
nor the creature you call "Moses" ever really existed, and the word
"Christ" is a misnomer if you're referring to Jesus son of Mary and
Joseph of biblical fame, and there have been lots of rocks but no
particular one deserving to be called "the Rock" as if the only rock
that ever existed or was important.
{{That God COMMANDS us to OBEY His Laws and REPENT.}}
No, that's not true. Religious leaders, who mistakenly believe the crap
written in the Bible, tell us such things.
{{Those who believe in God, usually believe in satan.}}
You need to learn proper punctuation: If that's supposed to be the name
of some creature, it should be capitalized as "Satan", the same as any
other name such as "Robert". It doesn't matter whether you like or
dislike somebody, when using their name you should capitalized it.
{{Eph 6:12 For our struggle is NOT against flesh and blood, but
against THE RULERS, against the authorities, against the powers of
this dark world and against the SPIRITUAL forces of evil in the
HEAVENLY REALMS.}}
That's a really stupid quote, and you are stupid to accept it. It's
based on an ancient myth that whenever something bad happens it must be
because of some evil monster in some dark world working dark evil magic
upon the visible world. I suppose you believe the power outage a couple
weeks ago was caused by some such evil force, rather than just a stupid
breakdown in a very complicated control system?
{{Mat 23:33 "You SNAKES! You brood of VIPERS! HOW WILL YOU ESCAPE
BEING CONDEMNED TO HELL?}}
Another stupid quote, based on fear of snakes, and phony justification
of that fear by attributing malevolent qualities to snakes. For your
information, snakes are like any other animal, needing to eat in order
to survive, and more specifically like any other carnivore, needing to
eat animal material. Vipars are one kind of snake, having venom to
paralyze their prey before eating it, as compared with constrictors who
merely crush/strangle their prey to kill it before eating it.
Apparently Matthew wasn't aware that some snakes aren't vipers, so he
used the terms indiscrimantly, and you are so stupid you quote his
stupid remarks without qualification??
{{Does God maliciously hurt people?}}
Modulo your incorrect terminology, where "god" is a common noun,
referring to a generic kind of (ficticious) entity, whereas "JHVH" is
the specific (Hebrew) name of one example of such an entity, so the
term "God" is not a valid name, has no meaning even within your stupid
religious beliefs: Yes, according to your Bible, your god most
definitely did maliciously hurt people, many times. Of course I don't
believe that crap written in that stupid book, but you do claim to
believe what's written in it, so it's amazing that you can't see the
many times your (ficticious) god has allegedly (according to your
Bible) maliciously hurt people. Of course, like most anyone who
maliciously hurts people, excuses are made, like there was
justification for it, etc.
{{Is God [sic] as STUPID as you make him out to be as you try to tell
us that He made humans into robots who have NO FREE WILL and then
COMMANDS THEM TO CHANGE and REPENT of SIN?}}
Yes, given that the god portrayed in the Bible was so stupid he didn't
know the Earth was billions of years old, didn't know about evolution,
didn't know hardly anything about meteorology, astronomy, physics,
biology, natural history, cosmology, even Earth geography, it's easy to
believe he was too stupid to understand robotics. (Note: the actual
nature of your god is the common wisdom of people who lived 3000 years
ago, collected via scribes from word-of-mouth folk tales, not an actual
supernatural entity. But the point remains, the legend that inspired
the Bible was stupid about nearly everything.)
{{Ezek 18:4 For EVERY LIVING soul belongs to me, ...}}
What a *****-eating possessivist!! Your stupid god wishes to own
everyone and claims to in fact own everyone. What a *****-eating
Midas/Scrooge complex!! I'm glad there's no such entity. It would be a
really sorry state if your god actually existed.
{{Those who refused to listen to Noah, learned that lesson.}}
That whole story was just a fairy tale, a fictious story designed to
teach a moral lesson. It's too bad the whole thing is a lie. It's too
bad they couldn't have come up with an actually true story of similar
moral value. Nowadays I suppose we could come up with early warnings
against Adolf Hither, or Pol Pot, which were disbelieved at the time,
causing greater harm than if we had believed them initially and taken
measures to protect against them. At the moment, there's the danger of
someday another medium-large asteroid striking Earth and wiping out
nearly all life, and we need to work toward the early warning
capability and the technical means to diflect any such asteroid so it
misses Earth, and we need to build habitat away from Earth so that if
our early warning system fails we won't all be wiped out. But hardly
anyone heeds this warning and is voting to fund the effort to save
humanity from such a disaster.
{{Jude 1:13 They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame;
wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved
forever.}}
You complain about somebody stating that humans are the product
(result) of their genetics combined with their experience, but now you
make the opposite mistake of beliving some idiotic statement from the
Bible whereby stars (balls of hydrogen fusing to helium) somehow are
wandering like nomads instead of just following their orbits under
control of gravity. You really seriously ought to think about what you
read in the Bible and avoid quoting passages that are obviously
contrary to reality. (Maybe you simply don't know anything whatsoever
about astronomy, so you aren't aware of the true nature of stars, and
so you honestly believe they are humanoid creatures with volition??)
{{Th 2:11 For THIS REASON God SENDS THEM a POWERFUL DELUSION so that
THEY WILL BELIEVE THE LIE}}
Anyone who worships such a deceitful entity is stupid beyond any
measure. I presume you are such a total complete idiot.
Most of the Bible is such a work of deceit, not by some supernatural
being, but by religious leaders on a power trip, trying to scare their
subjects into obediance, but it doesn't matter to me who wrote the
Bible, it's a pack of lies/deceit, with a few good things thrown in to
confuse the issue, such as: For every thing there is a season ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "no ham" |
|
| Title: Re: Deceitful arguments from the wicked and the blind only serve toexpose the wicked and the blind. |
23 Sep 2003 08:21:27 PM |
|
|
Robert Maas wrote:
Modulo your incorrect terminology, where "god" is a common noun,
referring to a generic kind of (ficticious) entity, whereas "JHVH" is
the specific (Hebrew) name of one example of such an entity,
Be careful.
He will note that you used transliterated Hebrew concocted by men,
not Original Hebrew given by God (JHVH).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "earles" |
|
| Title: Re: Brain Trots |
22 Sep 2003 07:30:15 PM |
|
|
Lame!
--
Hello. You do not know me,
but I have been sleeping with you
when you were in your bed asleep.
I know you dont know why you feel good
in the mornings, but dont worry,
the ether I give you doesnt have
any long term effects.
Wanna go out on a date?
"Anonymous Sender" <anonymous@remailer.metacolo.com> wrote in message
news:48ca88c1a1b5167b899c7a4464c67f39@remailer.metacolo.com...
I'm probably more of an intellectual heavyweight that many of you are, but
still I have what I believe to be an interesting question to ask of you.
As humans, we are highly evolved and complex electro chemical machines.
Like
a computer we have fixed programming in our DNA and space for our
programming to expand in our mass of synaptic pathways which change as we
grow older and also through external events, life trauma and physical
trauma
to which we are subjected and subsequently subject ourselves during our
life.
If you accept that our genetic makeup along with our life event
experiences
bring about our current programming at any one point along the timeline.
Then in the absence of any other factors, is it now this fact alone
which
causes us to take actions when God is the subject ?
So then, if one man shoots another, who is to blame?
You may say that we have free will and have exercised it, but is this not
simply a decision made based on our programming?
If so who/what is responsible for that, and should not they/it be held
reponsible ? And if so when is to early to confess to God we were
wrong to dout in his state of affairs ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Brain Trots |
22 Sep 2003 10:25:43 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:26:00 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous Sender
<anonymous@remailer.metacolo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
I'm probably more of an intellectual heavyweight that many of you are
[snip]
reponsible ? And if so when is to early to confess to God
No you're not.
--
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
&
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denver" |
|
| Title: Re: Brain rots |
22 Sep 2003 10:54:59 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
It's not even an option.
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
One needs to look at the context under which that was written.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nikolaos D. Bougalis" |
|
| Title: Re: Brain rots |
23 Sep 2003 07:15:28 AM |
|
|
"Denver" <noham@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:3F6FC413.CB51B777@localnet.com...
Al Klein wrote:
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his
soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your
breath."
- John Popelish
It's not even an option.
Really? Isn't that -- sort of -- what Christ claims to have done?
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the
Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
One needs to look at the context under which that was written.
It seems pretty clear to me.
-n
.
|
|
|
| User: "no ham" |
|
| Title: Re: Brain rots |
23 Sep 2003 09:16:52 AM |
|
|
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
noham wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian
volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go
to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
It's not even an option.
Really? Isn't that -- sort of -- what Christ claims to have done?
Yes. But in that case that was an option.
No one else can make that deal.
St Paul mentioned that this was not possible.
Are you wanting to know more?
"The United States of America is not in any sense
founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
One needs to look at the context under which that was written.
It seems pretty clear to me.
The text or the context?
The context was a treaty with an Islamic country.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nikolaos D. Bougalis" |
|
| Title: Re: Brain rots |
23 Sep 2003 02:48:31 PM |
|
|
"no ham" <noham@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:3F7055D4.1A66C7D7@localnet.com...
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
noham wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian
volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go
to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
It's not even an option.
Really? Isn't that -- sort of -- what Christ claims to have done?
Yes. But in that case that was an option.
Only because you and your grimoire assert so. I have no reason to
believe in the collected stories of sheep-herderds, liars, murderers and
war-mongers, as edited, revised, interpreted, and massaged by countless
others over the last few millenia.
No one else can make that deal.
St Paul mentioned that this was not possible.
I am merely pointing out one of many contradictions. Why didn't God --
supposedly a God of love -- provide unequivocal evidence of his existence
(instead of going to so much trouble to convolute the evidence), behaved
like a loving father (instead of like a common thug), and actually changed
the rules, so that justice would be served, instead of condemning an entire
race for the mistake of two members of that race?
Christ -- supposedly God incarnate -- sacrifices himself to himself to
atone for the sins of others. Why allow that one exception? Why not allow
you to carry the sins of others on their behalf?
Are you wanting to know more?
Not particularly. I am well-versed in your religion, and I find it
irrational to the point of absurdity, and impossible to follow for any human
being with a shred of decency and self-honesty.
"The United States of America is not in any sense
founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
One needs to look at the context under which that was written.
It seems pretty clear to me.
The text or the context?
The context was a treaty with an Islamic country.
The statement unequivocally states that the United States of America
is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion. Why would good
Christians lie?
-n
.
|
|
|
| User: "no ham" |
|
| Title: Re: Brain rots |
23 Sep 2003 08:34:41 PM |
|
|
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
noham wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian
volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go
to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
It's not even an option.
Really? Isn't that -- sort of -- what Christ claims to have done?
Yes. But in that case that was an option.
Only because you and your [Bible] assert so.
Look, if someone does believe what the Bible says,
then he knows that this is not an option for him.
So to ask why he he doesn't offer to trade places
with you is to ask him why he doesn't reject the
Bible.
Whether you believe the Bible is irrelevant.
No one else can make that deal.
St Paul mentioned that this was not possible.
I am merely pointing out one of many contradictions.
There is no contradiction in why an Christian can't offer to go
to hell for you.
Why didn't God -- supposedly a God of love -- provide
unequivocal evidence of his existence (instead of going
to so much trouble to convolute the evidence), behave
like a loving father (instead of like a common thug),
and actually change the rules, so that justice would
be served, instead of condemning an entire
race for the mistake of two members of that race?
It is the Christian belief that we don't want justice to
be served. We want grace and mercy.
Christ -- supposedly God incarnate -- sacrifices
himself to himself to atone for the sins of others.
Why allow that one exception? Why not allow
you to carry the sins of others on their behalf?
What Christ did was sufficient to atone for all.
What I could do would be at best a feeble attempt to atone
for my own sins.
I could never pay for the sins of another if I can't even
pay for my own.
Are you wanting to know more?
Not particularly. I am well-versed in your religion,
and I find it irrational to the point of absurdity, and
impossible to follow for any human being with a shred
of decency and self-honesty.
So you say. But there may be exceptions.
"The United States of America is not in any sense
founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
One needs to look at the context under which that was written.
It seems pretty clear to me.
The text or the context?
The context was a treaty with an Islamic country.
The statement unequivocally states that the
United States of America is not in any sense founded
upon the Christian religion.
And?
Why would good Christians lie?
Are you asserting that those in Congress were good Christians?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nikolaos D. Bougalis" |
|
| Title: Re: Brain rots |
24 Sep 2003 01:07:47 AM |
|
|
"no ham" <noham@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:3F70F4B1.2B2A5C06@localnet.com...
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
noham wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian
volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go
to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
It's not even an option.
Really? Isn't that -- sort of -- what Christ claims to have
done?
Yes. But in that case that was an option.
Only because you and your [Bible] assert so.
Look, if someone does believe what the Bible says,
then he knows that this is not an option for him.
So to ask why he he doesn't offer to trade places
with you is to ask him why he doesn't reject the
Bible.
That's actually a good point.
No one else can make that deal.
St Paul mentioned that this was not possible.
I am merely pointing out one of many contradictions.
There is no contradiction in why an Christian can't offer to go
to hell for you.
There is a contradiction in why anyone would have to go to hell. God is
omniscient, so he knows all -- past, present and future. As a matter of
fact, the Bible claims that the names of the ones who will get into heaven
have been written in the book of life since the beginning. Which begs the
question: If God knows that nikb will be an atheist, and that after death he
will burn forever in the lake of fire, or whatever, why create nikb?
Furthermore, God knows exactly what it will take to convince me of his
existence, and by extension to bring me into a life that will result in my
salvation. Yet, he does not do anything. Why? Does he not want me to be
saved?
Why didn't God -- supposedly a God of love -- provide
unequivocal evidence of his existence (instead of going
to so much trouble to convolute the evidence), behave
like a loving father (instead of like a common thug),
and actually change the rules, so that justice would
be served, instead of condemning an entire
race for the mistake of two members of that race?
It is the Christian belief that we don't want justice to
be served. We want grace and mercy.
And you think that punishing the entire human race because of Adam and
Eve is a sign of grace and mercy?
What I could do would be at best a feeble attempt to atone
for my own sins.
I could never pay for the sins of another if I can't even
pay for my own.
See, what I don't understand is this: God is a loving father. He does
not want anyone to perish. Why not amend the rules, making a simple "I'm
sorry" all that is required for salvation? Why *require* a sacrifice?
Also, don't you find it troubling that someone vicious, who has spent
all his life inflicting pain on others, living in decadence, and so on, can
get into heaven simply by recanting seconds before he dies?
Are you wanting to know more?
Not particularly. I am well-versed in your religion,
and I find it irrational to the point of absurdity, and
impossible to follow for any human being with a shred
of decency and self-honesty.
So you say. But there may be exceptions.
Uhm... I stated clearly by starting with "I find it; was it somehow not
clear that I as expressing an opinion?
"The United States of America is not in any sense
founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
One needs to look at the context under which that was written.
It seems pretty clear to me.
The text or the context?
The context was a treaty with an Islamic country.
The statement unequivocally states that the
United States of America is not in any sense founded
upon the Christian religion.
And?
And what? You said the context was a treaty with an Islamic country, as
if that had a bearing on the validity of the statement.
Why would good Christians lie?
Are you asserting that those in Congress were good Christians?
I forgot to put a ":P" at the end.
-n
.
|
|
|
| User: "no ham" |
|
| Title: Re: Brain rots |
24 Sep 2003 09:29:29 AM |
|
|
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
noham wrote:
No one else can make that deal.
St Paul mentioned that this was not possible.
I am merely pointing out one of many contradictions.
There is no contradiction in why an Christian can't offer to go
to hell for you.
There is a contradiction in why anyone would have to go to hell.
I hope you realize that you changed the topic.
God is omniscient, so he knows all -- past, present and future.
Correct.
As a matter of fact, the Bible claims that the names of the ones
who will get into heaven have been written in the book of life
since the beginning.
Correct.
Which begs the question:
You mean that it raises this question.
If God knows that nikb ... will burn forever in the lake of
fire, or whatever, why create nikb?
I agree.
However, since I have no evidence that anyone is going to burn
forever in a lake of fire (or whatever kind of torment), then
I am not going to try to defend it.
In fact, I have evidence against it.
Furthermore, God knows exactly what it will take to convince me of his
existence, and by extension to bring me into a life that will result in my
salvation.
Correct.
Yet, he does not do anything. Why? Does he not want me to be saved?
God is not in need of your help to save you.
If you could meet with God "in person" and ask whatever questions you like
and get plain demonstrations that He has the absolute abilities, would you
believe in Him?
I think you would.
So when that time comes, you will get your chance.
Why didn't God -- supposedly a God of love -- provide
unequivocal evidence of his existence (instead of going
to so much trouble to convolute the evidence), behave
like a loving father (instead of like a common thug),
and actually change the rules, so that justice would
be served, instead of condemning an entire
race for the mistake of two members of that race?
It is the Christian belief that we don't want justice to
be served. We want grace and mercy.
And you think that punishing the entire human race
because of Adam and Eve is a sign of grace and mercy?
Do believe that punishment is ever appropriate for any reason?
What I could do would be at best a feeble attempt to atone
for my own sins.
I could never pay for the sins of another if I can't even
pay for my own.
See, what I don't understand is this: God is a loving father.
He does not want anyone to perish. Why not amend the rules,
making a simple "I'm sorry" all that is required for salvation?
Basically that has been the rule.
Why *require* a sacrifice?
Are you referring to Jesus?
That was no sweat on your brow.
Also, don't you find it troubling that someone vicious, who has spent
all his life inflicting pain on others, living in decadence, and so on, can
get into heaven simply by recanting seconds before he dies?
No. In fact, I am not troubled by such a person, any person,
repenting after death.
I believe that God can repair everything that is broken.
Are you wanting to know more?
Not particularly. I am well-versed in your religion,
and I find it irrational to the point of absurdity, and
impossible to follow for any human being with a shred
of decency and self-honesty.
So you say. But there may be exceptions.
Uhm... I stated clearly by starting with "I find it;
was it somehow not clear that I as expressing an opinion?
I would like to align my opinions with reality.
But of course I can't make you do the same.
I just thought that you would like the same.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nikolaos D. Bougalis" |
|
| Title: Re: Brain rots |
24 Sep 2003 09:55:01 AM |
|
|
"no ham" <noham@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:3F71AA49.59E0C1D6@localnet.com...
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
noham wrote:
No one else can make that deal.
St Paul mentioned that this was not possible.
I am merely pointing out one of many contradictions.
There is no contradiction in why an Christian can't offer to go
to hell for you.
There is a contradiction in why anyone would have to go to hell.
I hope you realize that you changed the topic.
I followed down the path you laid down.
God is omniscient, so he knows all -- past, present and future.
Correct.
And how can you reconcile omniscience and free will?
As a matter of fact, the Bible claims that the names of the ones
who will get into heaven have been written in the book of life
since the beginning.
Correct.
OK. So then, either people do not have free will, because their destiny
is already written, or nothing that people do matters, because their destiny
is already written.
Which begs the question:
You mean that it raises this question.
No, I mean "begs."
If God knows that nikb ... will burn forever in the lake of
fire, or whatever, why create nikb?
I agree.
You agree with that? It was a question.
However, since I have no evidence that anyone is going to burn
forever in a lake of fire (or whatever kind of torment), then
I am not going to try to defend it.
Which Bible do you read? The punishment for any sin (unbelief is one
such sin) is made clear.
In fact, I have evidence against it.
Please provide your evidence.
Furthermore, God knows exactly what it will take to convince me of
his
existence, and by extension to bring me into a life that will result in
my
salvation.
Correct.
Great. So, if he's an all-loving father, who wishes to save me, why
doesn't he do anything?
Yet, he does not do anything. Why? Does he not want me to be saved?
God is not in need of your help to save you.
If you could meet with God "in person" and ask whatever questions you like
and get plain demonstrations that He has the absolute abilities, would you
believe in Him?
I think you would.
So when that time comes, you will get your chance.
How convenient. "It will happen in due time." Kind of like "God works in
mysterious ways" ehh?
Why didn't God -- supposedly a God of love -- provide
unequivocal evidence of his existence (instead of going
to so much trouble to convolute the evidence), behave
like a loving father (instead of like a common thug),
and actually change the rules, so that justice would
be served, instead of condemning an entire
race for the mistake of two members of that race?
It is the Christian belief that we don't want justice to
be served. We want grace and mercy.
And you think that punishing the entire human race
because of Adam and Eve is a sign of grace and mercy?
Do believe that punishment is ever appropriate for any reason?
I believe that punishment is appropriate, but only against the
perpetrator of an act. Not against his children and his childrens children.
What I could do would be at best a feeble attempt to atone
for my own sins.
I could never pay for the sins of another if I can't even
pay for my own.
See, what I don't understand is this: God is a loving father.
He does not want anyone to perish. Why not amend the rules,
making a simple "I'm sorry" all that is required for salvation?
Basically that has been the rule.
No, it hasn't. A sacrifice was first required to appease the blood-lust
of God. Why?
Why *require* a sacrifice?
Are you referring to Jesus?
Yes.
That was no sweat on your brow.
Why would God require a sacrifice in the first place? Is he unable or
unwilling to change the laws he established?
Also, don't you find it troubling that someone vicious, who has
spent
all his life inflicting pain on others, living in decadence, and so on,
can
get into heaven simply by recanting seconds before he dies?
No. In fact, I am not troubled by such a person, any person,
repenting after death.
I believe that God can repair everything that is broken.
Great. So, if Adolf repented seconds before he died, you and he will be
beer buddies in heaven?
Are you wanting to know more?
Not particularly. I am well-versed in your religion,
and I find it irrational to the point of absurdity, and
impossible to follow for any human being with a shred
of decency and self-honesty.
So you say. But there may be exceptions.
Uhm... I stated clearly by starting with "I find it;
was it somehow not clear that I as expressing an opinion?
I would like to align my opinions with reality.
But of course I can't make you do the same.
I just thought that you would like the same.
My opinions are quite nicely aligned with reality. I'm not the one who
believes in a sky-daddy.
-n
.
|
|
|
| User: "no ham" |
|
| Title: Re: Brain rots |
24 Sep 2003 10:42:09 AM |
|
|
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
noham wrote:
No one else can make that deal.
St Paul mentioned that this was not possible.
I am merely pointing out one of many contradictions.
There is no contradiction in why an Christian can't offer to go
to hell for you.
There is a contradiction in why anyone would have to go to hell.
I hope you realize that you changed the topic.
I followed down the path you laid down.
Oh, sure, blame it on me.
God is omniscient, so he knows all -- past, present and future.
Correct.
And how can you reconcile omniscience and free will?
Define free will.
Or better yet, describe a litmus test by which I can reasonably
detect the presence of free will in a subject.
As a matter of fact, the Bible claims that the names of the ones
who will get into heaven have been written in the book of life
since the beginning.
Correct.
OK. So then, either people do not have free will,
Correct.
Which begs the question:
You mean that it raises this question.
No, I mean "begs."
No. "Begging" a question is evasion, avoiding the question.
If God knows that nikb ... will burn forever in the lake of
fire, or whatever, why create nikb?
I agree.
You agree with that? It was a question.
And I agree with the sentiment or the question.
However, since I have no evidence that anyone is going to burn
forever in a lake of fire (or whatever kind of torment), then
I am not going to try to defend it.
Which Bible do you read?
The punishment for any sin (unbelief is one such sin) is made clear.
You, of course, will provide incontrovertible evidence that the Bible
actually states that an actual (not hypothetical) human actually is
burning is hell (for any reason).
In fact, I have evidence against it.
Please provide your evidence.
The burden is on you to prove that even one person is burning in hell.
Furthermore, God knows exactly what it will take to convince me of his
existence, and by extension to bring me into a life that will result in
my salvation.
Correct.
Great. So, if he's an all-loving father, who wishes to save me, why
doesn't he do anything?
What do you want Him to do?
If He saves you, I think that should suffice.
Yet, he does not do anything. Why? Does he not want me to be saved?
God is not in need of your help to save you.
If you could meet with God "in person" and ask whatever questions you like
and get plain demonstrations that He has the absolute abilities, would you
believe in Him?
I think you would.
So when that time comes, you will get your chance.
How convenient. "It will happen in due time."
You are so impatient.
Would you rather that God saved you now so that you would have to
live out your life as a fundy?
I don't believe that you sincerely want to have God prove to you today that
He exists.
Kind of like "God works in mysterious ways" ehh?
I don't see the connection.
Why didn't God -- supposedly a God of love -- provide
unequivocal evidence of his existence (instead of going
to so much trouble to convolute the evidence), behave
like a loving father (instead of like a common thug),
and actually change the rules, so that justice would
be served, instead of condemning an entire
race for the mistake of two members of that race?
It is the Christian belief that we don't want justice to
be served. We want grace and mercy.
And you think that punishing the entire human race
because of Adam and Eve is a sign of grace and mercy?
Do believe that punishment is ever appropriate for any reason?
I believe that punishment is appropriate, but only against the
perpetrator of an act.
Not against his children and his children's children.
But that is inevitable.
If you send a man to jail, take his money, etc., his children do suffer.
What I could do would be at best a feeble attempt to atone
for my own sins.
I could never pay for the sins of another if I can't even
pay for my own.
See, what I don't understand is this: God is a loving father.
He does not want anyone to perish. Why not amend the rules,
making a simple "I'm sorry" all that is required for salvation?
Basically that has been the rule.
No, it hasn't. A sacrifice was first required to appease the
blood-lust of God. Why?
The burden is on you again.
God made it very plain that He did not want sacrifice.
We have discussed this at length already.
He is an example message on the topic:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1o1S9.14459%24134.1589878%40newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>.
I believe that God can repair everything that is broken.
Great. So, if Adolf repented seconds before he died, you and he will be
beer buddies in heaven?
Apparently you are having trouble with this concept.
Do you not eat sodium chloride either since you believe that chlorine is poisonous?
A person who is transformed is no longer dangerous.
Are you wanting to know more?
Not particularly. I am well-versed in your religion,
and I find it irrational to the point of absurdity, and
impossible to follow for any human being with a shred
of decency and self-honesty.
So you say. But there may be exceptions.
Uhm... I stated clearly by starting with "I find it;
was it somehow not clear that I as expressing an opinion?
I would like to align my opinions with reality.
But of course I can't make you do the same.
I just thought that you would like the same.
My opinions are quite nicely aligned with reality.
It is your private version of "reality", then
- because some human beings with more than a shred of decency and self-honesty can follow and do being in God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nikolaos D. Bougalis" |
|
| Title: Re: Brain rots |
25 Sep 2003 07:03:00 AM |
|
|
"no ham" <noham@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:3F71BB50.BA74935E@localnet.com...
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
noham wrote:
No one else can make that deal.
St Paul mentioned that this was not possible.
I am merely pointing out one of many contradictions.
There is no contradiction in why an Christian can't offer to go
to hell for you.
There is a contradiction in why anyone would have to go to hell.
I hope you realize that you changed the topic.
I followed down the path you laid down.
Oh, sure, blame it on me.
You said: "There is no contradiction in why an Christian can't offer to
go to hell for you." Did you not?
God is omniscient, so he knows all -- past, present and future.
Correct.
And how can you reconcile omniscience and free will?
Define free will.
You have got to be kidding!!!
Or better yet, describe a litmus test by which I can reasonably
detect the presence of free will in a subject.
How's this for a litmus test: Without free will, your God sentences
people for events and actions beyond their control.
As a matter of fact, the Bible claims that the names of the ones
who will get into heaven have been written in the book of life
since the beginning.
Correct.
OK. So then, either people do not have free will,
Correct.
Really? So, then, according to your belief, God creates a bunch of
automata, with every move of their life programmed by him, and then punishes
them for not obeying something, after having programmed them to not obey.
How great...
Which begs the question:
You mean that it raises this question.
No, I mean "begs."
No. "Begging" a question is evasion, avoiding the question.
Perhaps it was not a good choice of words, given the negative
connotations of the phrase "begs the question" but it was still accurate. It
really does beg the question.
If God knows that nikb ... will burn forever in the lake of
fire, or whatever, why create nikb?
I agree.
You agree with that? It was a question.
And I agree with the sentiment or the question.
So, you don't know why your God does that. Doesn't it trouble you that
God would do that? Don't you think you deserve an answer, before you pledge
you get on your knees to kiss his *****? Or have you stopped using your
rational faculty altogether?
However, since I have no evidence that anyone is going to burn
forever in a lake of fire (or whatever kind of torment), then
I am not going to try to defend it.
Which Bible do you read?
The punishment for any sin (unbelief is one such sin) is made clear.
You, of course, will provide incontrovertible evidence that the Bible
actually states that an actual (not hypothetical) human actually is
burning is hell (for any reason).
Ahh, of course... it's not an actual human... it's a (drumroll please)
hypothetical human.
In fact, I have evidence against it.
Please provide your evidence.
The burden is on you to prove that even one person is burning in hell.
I can provide you with Biblical quotes that say that people will burn in
hell. Since you believe in the Bible, you should hold those quotes in high
regards.
Furthermore, God knows exactly what it will take to convince me of
his
existence, and by extension to bring me into a life that will result
in
my salvation.
Correct.
Great. So, if he's an all-loving father, who wishes to save me, why
doesn't he do anything?
What do you want Him to do?
If He saves you, I think that should suffice.
Let me put this in words you may understand: Your god dug a hole in the
ground, he covered it up, and then waited for you to fall in. Now, he's
demanding that you turn your life over to him to get you out of the trap he
put you in, and claims he's doing it out of the goodness of his heart.
You've been conned.
Yet, he does not do anything. Why? Does he not want me to be saved?
God is not in need of your help to save you.
If you could meet with God "in person" and ask whatever questions you
like
and get plain demonstrations that He has the absolute abilities, would
you
believe in Him?
I think you would.
So when that time comes, you will get your chance.
How convenient. "It will happen in due time."
You are so impatient.
Would you rather that God saved you now so that you would have to
live out your life as a fundy?
Why would I have a problem living out life one way, if that was the
"true" way?
I don't believe that you sincerely want to have God prove to you today
that
He exists.
Believe what you want to.
Why didn't God -- supposedly a God of love -- provide
unequivocal evidence of his existence (instead of going
to so much trouble to convolute the evidence), behave
like a loving father (instead of like a common thug),
and actually change the rules, so that justice would
be served, instead of condemning an entire
race for the mistake of two members of that race?
It is the Christian belief that we don't want justice to
be served. We want grace and mercy.
And you think that punishing the entire human race
because of Adam and Eve is a sign of grace and mercy?
Do believe that punishment is ever appropriate for any reason?
I believe that punishment is appropriate, but only against the
perpetrator of an act.
Not against his children and his children's children.
But that is inevitable.
If you send a man to jail, take his money, etc., his children do suffer.
You cannot throw a man's children in prison because the man stole your
car. And even if you do throw their father in jail, and indirectly affect
their lives, there are still measures in place to at least try and address
the situation.
What I could do would be at best a feeble attempt to atone
for my own sins.
I could never pay for the sins of another if I can't even
pay for my own.
See, what I don't understand is this: God is a loving father.
He does not want anyone to perish. Why not amend the rules,
making a simple "I'm sorry" all that is required for salvation?
Basically that has been the rule.
No, it hasn't. A sacrifice was first required to appease the
blood-lust of God. Why?
The burden is on you again.
God made it very plain that He did not want sacrifice.
Really? The words "God" and "sacrifice" appear 39 times together, and
most of them relate to sacrificing things to God, or God explaining what and
how he wants sacrificed.
We have discussed this at length already.
He is an example message on the topic:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1o1S9.14459%24134.1589878%40newsread1.
prod.itd.earthlink.net>.
I believe that God can repair everything that is broken.
Great. So, if Adolf repented seconds before he died, you and he will
be
beer buddies in heaven?
Apparently you are having trouble with this concept.
Absolutely. I have trouble with the concept of a God that forgives
horrible trespasses, and yet claims to be a just God.
Do you not eat sodium chloride either since you believe that chlorine is
poisonous?
A person who is transformed is no longer dangerous.
A person who is transformed could have committed the most horrible
transgressions, and he'll still walk in the gold, jewel-encrusted pavements
of new Jerusalem (God sure has a fetish about precious metals and stones)
and you call this justice?
Are you wanting to know more?
Not particularly. I am well-versed in your religion,
and I find it irrational to the point of absurdity, and
impossible to follow for any human being with a shred
of decency and self-honesty.
So you say. But there may be exceptions.
Uhm... I stated clearly by starting with "I find it;
was it somehow not clear that I as expressing an opinion?
I would like to align my opinions with reality.
But of course I can't make you do the same.
I just thought that you would like the same.
My opinions are quite nicely aligned with reality.
It is your private version of "reality", then
- because some human beings with more than a shred of decency
and self-honesty can follow and do being in God.
And in doing so, they sacrifice their rationality, and their
self-honesty.
-n
.
|
|
|
| User: "no ham" |
|
| Title: Re: Brain rots |
25 Sep 2003 09:41:18 AM |
|
|
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
noham wrote:
No one else can make that deal.
St Paul mentioned that this was not possible.
I am merely pointing out one of many contradictions.
There is no contradiction in why an Christian can't offer to go
to hell for you.
There is a contradiction in why anyone would have to go to hell.
I hope you realize that you changed the topic.
I followed down the path you laid down.
Oh, sure, blame it on me.
You said: "There is no contradiction in why an Christian can't offer to
go to hell for you." Did you not?
Yes? Then you changed the subject.
You said: "There is a contradiction in why anyone would have to go to hell."
Did you not?
"Anyone having to go to hell" is a different subject from "a Christian offering
to trade places with you".
God is omniscient, so he knows all -- past, present and future.
Correct.
And how can you reconcile omniscience and free will?
Define free will.
You have got to be kidding!!!
Not really. But I know that you can't.
Or better yet, describe a litmus test by which I can reasonably
detect the presence of free will in a subject.
How's this for a litmus test: Without free will, your God sentences
people for events and actions beyond their control.
How does this let me detect free will?
As a matter of fact, the Bible claims that the names of the ones
who will get into heaven have been written in the book of life
since the beginning.
Correct.
OK. So then, either people do not have free will,
Correct.
Really? So, then, according to your belief, God creates a bunch of
automata, with every move of their lives programmed by him, and then punishes
them for not obeying something, after having programmed them to not obey.
How great...
Deal with it.
If God knows that nikb ... will burn forever in the lake of
fire, or whatever, why create nikb?
I agree.
You agree with that? It was a question.
And I agree with the sentiment or the question.
So, you don't know why your God does that.
I didn't say that He does.
Doesn't it trouble you that God would do that?
I don't have any substantial evidence that He would.
However, since I have no evidence that anyone is going to burn
forever in a lake of fire (or whatever kind of torment), then
I am not going to try to defend it.
Which Bible do you read?
The punishment for any sin (unbelief is one such sin) is made clear.
You, of course, will provide incontrovertible evidence that the Bible
actually states that an actual (not hypothetical) human actually is
burning is hell (for any reason).
Ahh, of course... it's not an actual human... it's a (drumroll please)
hypothetical human.
Let's see what you have.
In fact, I have evidence against it.
Please provide your evidence.
The burden is on you to prove that even one person is burning in hell.
I can provide you with Biblical quotes that say that people will burn in
hell.
I'm waiting.
Furthermore, God knows exactly what it will take to convince me
of his existence, and by extension to bring me into a life
that will result in my salvation.
Correct.
Great. So, if he's an all-loving father, who wishes to save me, why
doesn't he do anything?
What do you want Him to do?
If He saves you, I think that should suffice.
Let me put this in words you may understand:
Your god dug a hole in the ground, he covered it up,
and then waited for you to fall in. Now, he's
demanding that you turn your life over to him to get you out of the trap he
put you in, and claims he's doing it out of the goodness of his heart.
What would the universe be like if this trap hadn't been made?
Yet, he does not do anything. Why? Does he not want me to be saved?
God is not in need of your help to save you.
If you could meet with God "in person" and ask whatever questions
you like and get plain demonstrations that He has the absolute
abilities, would you believe in Him?
I think you would.
So when that time comes, you will get your chance.
How convenient. "It will happen in due time."
You are so impatient.
Would you rather that God saved you now so that you would have to
live out your life as a fundy?
Why would I have a problem living out life one way, if that was the
"true" way?
I don't know. Perhaps you couldn't take the ridicule.
I don't believe that you sincerely want to have God prove to you
today that He exists.
Believe what you want to.
I can believe only what I find believable.
Why didn't God -- supposedly a God of love -- provide
unequivocal evidence of his existence (instead of going
to so much trouble to convolute the evidence), behave
like a loving father (instead of like a common thug),
and actually change the rules, so that justice would
be served, instead of condemning an entire
race for the mistake of two members of that race?
It is the Christian belief that we don't want justice to
be served. We want grace and mercy.
And you think that punishing the entire human race
because of Adam and Eve is a sign of grace and mercy?
Do believe that punishment is ever appropriate for any reason?
I believe that punishment is appropriate, but only against the
perpetrator of an act.
Not against his children and his children's children.
But that is inevitable.
If you send a man to jail, take his money, etc., his children do suffer.
You cannot throw a man's children in prison because the man stole your
car. And even if you do throw their father in jail, and indirectly affect
their lives, there are still measures in place to at least try and address
the situation.
You have just answered you own question.
What I could do would be at best a feeble attempt to atone
for my own sins.
I could never pay for the sins of another if I can't even
pay for my own.
See, what I don't understand is this: God is a loving father.
He does not want anyone to perish. Why not amend the rules,
making a simple "I'm sorry" all that is required for salvation?
Basically that has been the rule.
No, it hasn't. A sacrifice was first required to appease the
blood-lust of God. Why?
The burden is on you again.
God made it very plain that He did not want sacrifice.
Really?
Yes.
We have discussed this at length already.
He is an example message on the topic:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1o1S9.14459%24134.1589878%40newsread1.
prod.itd.earthlink.net>.
I believe that God can repair everything that is broken.
Great. So, if Adolf repented seconds before he died, you and he will
be beer buddies in heaven?
Apparently you are having trouble with this concept.
Absolutely. I have trouble with the concept of a God that forgives
horrible trespasses, and yet claims to be a just God.
If you understood that what the person did arose from the automaton
aspect, you would probably say that it is only fair that God forgives
the person.
Do you not eat sodium chloride either since you believe that
chlorine is poisonous?
A person who is transformed is no longer dangerous.
A person who is transformed could have committed the most horrible
transgressions, and he'll still walk in the gold, jewel-encrusted pavements
of new Jerusalem and you call this justice?
I think you should too.
Are you claiming that you have free will and should be punished for your
mistakes that hurt others?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nikolaos D. Bougalis" |
|
| Title: Re: Brain rots |
25 Sep 2003 12:05:10 PM |
|
|
"no ham" <noham@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:3F72FE8E.8F93F951@localnet.com...
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
noham wrote:
No one else can make that deal.
St Paul mentioned that this was not possible.
I am merely pointing out one of many contradictions.
There is no contradiction in why an Christian can't offer to
go
to hell for you.
There is a contradiction in why anyone would have to go to
hell.
I hope you realize that you changed the topic.
I followed down the path you laid down.
Oh, sure, blame it on me.
You said: "There is no contradiction in why an Christian can't offer
to
go to hell for you." Did you not?
Yes? Then you changed the subject.
You said: "There is a contradiction in why anyone would have to go to
hell."
Did you not?
"Anyone having to go to hell" is a different subject from "a Christian
offering
to trade places with you".
Both questions relate to hell.
God is omniscient, so he knows all -- past, present and future.
Correct.
And how can you reconcile omniscience and free will?
Define free will.
You have got to be kidding!!!
Not really. But I know that you can't.
I can define free will without too much problem. It is the power to make
decisions that are unconstrained by external circumstances (such as a gun to
the head) or agencies (such as fate or divine will)
Or better yet, describe a litmus test by which I can reasonably
detect the presence of free will in a subject.
How's this for a litmus test: Without free will, your God sentences
people for events and actions beyond their control.
How does this let me detect free will?
It does not let you detect it. It merely points out the inconsistency of
your God -- an all-loving God -- punishing people actions beyond their
control.
As a matter of fact, the Bible claims that the names of the ones
who will get into heaven have been written in the book of life
since the beginning.
Correct.
OK. So then, either people do not have free will,
Correct.
Really? So, then, according to your belief, God creates a bunch of
automata, with every move of their lives programmed by him, and then
punishes
them for not obeying something, after having programmed them to not
obey.
How great...
Deal with it.
Your debating skills are going down the drain... What's next? "THAT'S
HOW IT IS, SO SHUT UP YOU HEATHEN"?
If God knows that nikb ... will burn forever in the lake of
fire, or whatever, why create nikb?
I agree.
You agree with that? It was a question.
And I agree with the sentiment or the question.
So, you don't know why your God does that.
I didn't say that He does.
That's right. You've said absolutely nothing at all. And that makes it
really easy for you to weasel out of having to answer questions, by claiming
the subject has been changed.
So, how about you stop evading, and tell us, exactly what kind of God
you believe in, what do you know about him, and how did you gain that
knowledge?
Doesn't it trouble you that God would do that?
I don't have any substantial evidence that He would.
You have no substantial evidence that he exists.
However, since I have no evidence that anyone is going to burn
forever in a lake of fire (or whatever kind of torment), then
I am not going to try to defend it.
Which Bible do you read?
The punishment for any sin (unbelief is one such sin) is made clear.
You, of course, will provide incontrovertible evidence that the Bible
actually states that an actual (not hypothetical) human actually is
burning is hell (for any reason).
Ahh, of course... it's not an actual human... it's a (drumroll
please)
hypothetical human.
Let's see what you have.
What I have for what? I don't need to make up excuses, or try to
interpret the Bible to fit the flavor of the month. You're the one stuck
with that... Hypothetical human. LOL.
In fact, I have evidence against it.
Please provide your evidence.
The burden is on you to prove that even one person is burning in hell.
I can provide you with Biblical quotes that say that people will
burn in
hell.
I'm waiting.
Revelation 14:10-11 states that those who receive the mark of the beast
will "drink of the wine of the wrath of God ... and shall be tormented with
fire and brimstone ... and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever
and ever."
Does that refer to hypothetical humans, marks and beasts too?
Furthermore, God knows exactly what it will take to convince me
of his existence, and by extension to bring me into a life
that will result in my salvation.
Correct.
Great. So, if he's an all-loving father, who wishes to save me,
why
doesn't he do anything?
What do you want Him to do?
If He saves you, I think that should suffice.
Let me put this in words you may understand:
Your god dug a hole in the ground, he covered it up,
and then waited for you to fall in. Now, he's
demanding that you turn your life over to him to get you out of the trap
he
put you in, and claims he's doing it out of the goodness of his heart.
What would the universe be like if this trap hadn't been made?
You mean, of course, provided that your God does exist, and has created
it? Who knows.
In reality? Just the way it is today.
Yet, he does not do anything. Why? Does he not want me to be
saved?
God is not in need of your help to save you.
If you could meet with God "in person" and ask whatever questions
you like and get plain demonstrations that He has the absolute
abilities, would you believe in Him?
I think you would.
So when that time comes, you will get your chance.
How convenient. "It will happen in due time."
You are so impatient.
Would you rather that God saved you now so that you would have to
live out your life as a fundy?
Why would I have a problem living out life one way, if that was the
"true" way?
I don't know. Perhaps you couldn't take the ridicule.
If you know X is true, why care what others have to say?
Why didn't God -- supposedly a God of love -- provide
unequivocal evidence of his existence (instead of going
to so much trouble to convolute the evidence), behave
like a loving father (instead of like a common thug),
and actually change the rules, so that justice would
be served, instead of condemning an entire
race for the mistake of two members of that race?
It is the Christian belief that we don't want justice to
be served. We want grace and mercy.
And you think that punishing the entire human race
because of Adam and Eve is a sign of grace and mercy?
Do believe that punishment is ever appropriate for any reason?
I believe that punishment is appropriate, but only against the
perpetrator of an act.
Not against his children and his children's children.
But that is inevitable.
If you send a man to jail, take his money, etc., his children do
suffer.
You cannot throw a man's children in prison because the man stole
your
car. And even if you do throw their father in jail, and indirectly
affect
their lives, there are still measures in place to at least try and
address
the situation.
You have just answered you own question.
There's quite a bit of difference in what your God claims to do, and
what the criminal justice system does.
What I could do would be at best a feeble attempt to atone
for my own sins.
I could never pay for the sins of another if I can't even
pay for my own.
See, what I don't understand is this: God is a loving
father.
He does not want anyone to perish. Why not amend the rules,
making a simple "I'm sorry" all that is required for salvation?
Basically that has been the rule.
No, it hasn't. A sacrifice was first required to appease the
blood-lust of God. Why?
The burden is on you again.
God made it very plain that He did not want sacrifice.
Really?
Yes.
How dishonest of you to snip the rest of my reply. Do you always cheat
like this?
We have discussed this at length already.
He is an example message on the topic:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1o1S9.14459%24134.1589878%40newsread1.
prod.itd.earthlink.net>.
I believe that God can repair everything that is broken.
Great. So, if Adolf repented seconds before he died, you and he
will
be beer buddies in heaven?
Apparently you are having trouble with this concept.
Absolutely. I have trouble with the concept of a God that forgives
horrible trespasses, and yet claims to be a just God.
If you understood that what the person did arose from the automaton
aspect, you would probably say that it is only fair that God forgives
the person.
Why would God create automata in the first place?
Do you not eat sodium chloride either since you believe that
chlorine is poisonous?
A person who is transformed is no longer dangerous.
A person who is transformed could have committed the most horrible
transgressions, and he'll still walk in the gold, jewel-encrusted
pavements
of new Jerusalem and you call this justice?
I think you should too.
Are you claiming that you have free will and should be punished for your
mistakes that hurt others?
I am claiming I have free will. As for mistakes that have hurt others, I
have never done anything that violates the laws of the society in which I
live. As for the laws of your imaginary friend, I could not care less about
them; I do not worry about what sheep-herders said their imaginary friend
does and does not like.
-n
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rhyanon" |
|
| Title: Re: Brain rots |
26 Sep 2003 08:50:05 AM |
|
|
"Nikolaos D. Bougalis" <nikb@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:cfFcb.5254$Rd4.4542@fed1read07...
I am claiming I have free will. As for mistakes that have hurt others,
I
have never done anything that violates the laws of the society in which I
live. As for the laws of your imaginary friend, I could not care less
about
them; I do not worry about what sheep-herders said their imaginary friend
does and does not like.
-n
This is a fuckin' EXCELLENT poast!
--
"Thou shalt not kill -- unless they happen to worship a different invisible
being than you."
~George Carlin~
--
"Most witches don't believe in gods. They know the gods exist, of course;
they just don't believe in them. That'd be like believing in the postman."
--
" The gods of the Disc have never bothered much about judging the souls of
the dead, and so people only go to hell if that's where they believe, in
their deepest heart, that they deserve to go. Which they won't do if they
don't know about it. This explains why it is so important to shoot
missionaries on sight."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "no ham" |
|
| Title: Re: Brain rots |
25 Sep 2003 08:14:54 PM |
|
|
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
"no ham" wrote:
Nikolaos D Bougalis wrote:
noham wrote:
No one else can make that deal.
St Paul mentioned that this was not possible.
I am merely pointing out one of many contradictions.
There is no contradiction in why an Christian can't offer to go
to hell for you.
There is a contradiction in why anyone would have to go to hell.
I hope you realize that you changed the topic.
I followed down the path you laid down.
Oh, sure, blame it on me.
You said: "There is no contradiction in why an Christian can't offer to
go to hell for you." Did you not?
Yes? Then you changed the subject.
You said: "There is a contradiction in why anyone would have to go to hell."
Did you not?
"Anyone having to go to hell" is a different subject from "a Christian offering
to trade places with you".
Both questions relate to hell.
Noted. But I still say that when I refuted your
first alleged "contradiction", you simply changed
the subject to a different question on the topic
of hell.
God is omniscient, so he knows all -- past, present and future.
Correct.
And how can you reconcile omniscience and free will?
Define free will.
You have got to be kidding!!!
Not really. But I know that you can't.
I can define free will without too much problem. It is the power to make
decisions that are unconstrained by external circumstances (such as a gun to
the head) or agencies (such as fate or divine will)
So genetic make-up and biochemical status do not constrain free will?
Or better yet, describe a litmus test by which I can reasonably
detect the presence of free will in a subject.
How's this for a litmus test: Without free will, your God sentences
people for events and actions beyond their control.
How does this let me detect free will?
It does not let you detect it. It merely points out the inconsistency of
your God -- an all-loving God -- punishing people actions beyond their
control.
Another of your unproved allegations.
As a matter of fact, the Bible claims that the names of the ones
who will get into heaven have been written in the book of life
since the beginning.
Correct.
OK. So then, either people do not have free will,
Correct.
Really? So, then, according to your belief, God creates a bunch
of automata, with every move of their lives programmed by him, and
then punishes them for not obeying something, after having programmed
them to not obey.
How great...
Your debating skills are going down the drain... What's next?
"THAT'S HOW IT IS, SO SHUT UP YOU FUNDIE"?
If God knows that nikb ... will burn forever in the lake of
fire, or whatev | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
