the right religion

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Is that why the book that contains creation is the most beloved book in human history? Exactly how horrible is it to be given freewill, and to in the end receive exactly that which you chose. Anarchy, Anarchy, Anarchy,.....

I think people would consider evil any text that suggests they are ultimately accountable.

But they didn't choose to be given free will (if they even had it).

The idea here is that they had free will to choose but they were never given the choice to have Free Will. It was given to them, without any consent. In part their free will was acted against by virtue of being given free will without the ability to give consent to having free will.

 

[1robin]

Harry Potter contains a creation story? Didn't know.

What is the obsession with Harry Potter on your side. He is like the hub of the universe which all things must be compared. No originality.

Harry Potter books stand at 400,000,000 worldwide sales after being promoted heavily and being on the silver screen.

The Bible stands at 6,001,500,000 even though persecuted by histories greatest empires. This also only includes printed, since the press came along.

Heck man, shades of grey outsold Harry Potter and I have never heard of it.

 

[1robin]

But they didn't choose to be given free will (if they even had it).

That would be true. However it would not an evil. Are you claiming that to exist is evil?

My understanding of Hell is at least eventually non-existence. So If a person is given life, a chance to exist eternally with God in perfect contentment with God but instead choose to exist without God and that life is taken back and he has no memory or existence as he had before I can't really see the evil in it. If you told God this and he said you were wrong by what standard could you claim to be right?

The idea here is that they had free will to choose but they were never given the choice to have Free Will. It was given to them, without any consent. In part their free will was acted against by virtue of being given free will without the ability to give consent to having free will.

I can agree with that. I did not mean to suggest people exist as completely independent necessary beings. Just that we are given the almost limitless capacity to choose. BTW this would also be true of your parents and all parents, if God is evil for making lives then everyone parents are just as guilty by complacency. That is usually the kind of problem that makes me rethink my claim.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That would be true. However it would not an evil. Are you claiming that to exist is evil?

My understanding of Hell is at least eventually non-existence. So If a person is given life, a chance to exist eternally with God in perfect contentment with God but instead choose to exist without God and that life is taken back and he has no memory or existence as he had before I can't really see the evil in it. If you told God this and he said you were wrong by what standard could you claim to be right?



I can agree with that. I did not mean to suggest people exist as completely independent necessary beings. Just that we are given the almost limitless capacity to choose. BTW this would also be true of your parents and all parents, if God is evil for making lives then everyone parents are just as guilty by complacency. That is usually the kind of problem that makes me rethink my claim.

I don't necessarily see it as evil, but there is more to that context though isn't there?

Lets take Judaism for instance. If there is one group that will earnestly deny Jesus as the messiah it would be them. I have yet to meet a Jew who does believe that.

However they do believe in God, they do believe in wanting to be with God. Are you saying that God would deny that person everlasting life because they did not believe in Jesus?

I mean indeed it is easy for us to make such a claim "yes or no" but in the context of Gods love and desire for justice and morality do you see that occurring?

As for choice, it isn't limitless. There are an uncountable amount of factors that will influence choice and even limit it. If we accept that there is free will, then we have to accept that our free will is not limitless in it's capacity. Because how do you factor in both the internal and external pressures.

An example I would use is the psychopath. A psychopath would literally not have the ability to believe in God, by the very nature of their affliction they cannot comprehend the importance or need for God. This is an internal issue. Where does the psychopath find redemption?

 

[1robin]

If I see a debater here make a false accusation against another debater, and then refuse to apologize or even acknowledge it, then I think a little less of that debater's religious path.

This debater considers your claim (judging by history) probably a mistake, he believes it does not make much of a difference anyway, and is just too lazy to bother with it. I have already apologized for any mistakes in general, if that does not grant me forgiveness then that is your fault not mine. I am also told not to cast peals before swine. That was not meant to suggest you are a pig. It is meant to suggest insincerity deserves no sincerity in return.

If you really want people to accept Christ, make your behavior appealing.

I am selling Christ not me. Give this guilt rip crap us. You are simply playing games. Your not sincere and Santa Claus could not sell what you do not want.

As I've said several times, I wish you could see yourself as others see you.

You have completely ruined the credibility necessary for me to take a statement like this seriously a long time ago.

We only learn from our mistakes if we acknowledge them and study them. Forgive me saying so, but you seem to just bull your way through your mistakes.

No I seem to ignore trivial and irrelevant mistakes that probably never occurred anyway when talking to a person who has established insincerity constantly.

I think that every debater here defends his theology. It's why we're here.

You are not. So far almost everything you have said falls into a few categories.

1. Take the opposite that I have regardless if you actually believe the counter position is correct.
2. Make just enough sincere but irrelevant claims to continue a discussion that includes a maximal amount of triviality and nonsense.
3. Keep making mere assertions about your faith without ever even attempting to defend of justify them. I have talked to you for months now and I honestly could not tell you a single thing you actually believe about faith except Christianity is wrong. Not a good thing, not a bad thing, not approve thing, not an evidenced thing. Nothing whatever. If you cannot even communicate effectively what it is you believe you certainly are not defending it.

But some do it with tact, with finesse, with an open heart.

At any point in my debate history I could have done better and readily admit it. I go through periods of frustration over claims like you make (mostly the insincerity of them), periods of being engaged and challenged, periods of being burned out, and periods of loving every minute of debate. That is what is called normal, get over it. This whole post is a very old tactic, your side knows very well the Christians take duty, self-perception, honor, and how we treat others very seriously and you trying to hit me where you think it would hurt, in order to stir me up. Give it up. Those things are only requirements when we are dealing with a sincere person. IN fact under that "pearls" clause I should not even talk to you. However I am bored sometimes and you can be entertaining sometimes. Much of the time I would rather stare at the wall. Christ had the kindest of words an inexhaustible patience with every group except one. Those that claimed to know but were wrong, those that taught others what was wrong, and those that insincerely critiqued his actions or claims. That group he spoke the most scorching words possible to. You fall into the last one of that group, so a little straight talking is actually Christ like.

Others bull their way through the china shop, so absolutely certain are they that the Bull God is the one and only truth.

You make some of the worst analogies I have ever heard. They are so ridiculous and bizarre they are slightly entertaining for a bit.

 

[metis]

I thought and still think you were attempting to dismiss Judaism and the Bible by saying it have so many ties to paganism that it could not be from one true God.

Nope, I didn't state or imply that one iota.

 

[metis]

This is not accurate. If you read Genesis and the next four books you find that God had seen the world completely reject him...

There's simply no reason for me to accept that, especially since we see no evidence of the Abrahamic traditions outside of that area until they began to spread. Secondly, even if what you said had been true, that tradition seems to have gotten lost somewhere along the line throughout most of the world, therefore trying to hold later generations responsible for that which they never were taught still brings your problem back into focus.

 

[metis]

So I take it that was a "NO" on being able to supply the easy to find evidence proving I was wrong if in actuality I was...

No again. How is it even logically possible that one could somehow prove there's no deity somewhere? Logically, the person who says there is a deity is the one who needs to provide such evidence, which you obviously cannot do. Belief is belief-- not evidence.

 

[1robin]

I don't necessarily see it as evil, but there is more to that context though isn't there?

I think your using my claims in a way not intended. This argument requires another tact I think.

Lets take Judaism for instance. If there is one group that will earnestly deny Jesus as the messiah it would be them. I have yet to meet a Jew who does believe that.

Actually most Jews today are secular. At least I heard that, but it is surprising. Regardless there is a huge group of Jews that do believe in Jesus. They are called Masoretic Jews I believe.

However they do believe in God, they do believe in wanting to be with God. Are you saying that God would deny that person everlasting life besides him because they did not believe in God?

Yes, I believe that specific group would be denied heaven, because they are doing exactly as the Sanhedrin did. Claiming to want to know God but when God showed up they rejected and killed him. Wanting a God you create, and wanting the God that exists are two different things. God said basically if you want me this is the conduit, they said no thanks and even destroyed the conduit. Believing in God alone is not enough even if sincere. A verse says even Satan and the fallen angels believe in God and tremble. Believing in the actual God comes with many other aspects that repel many people. You repent, you must acknowledge Christ as your savior, you must admit you do not merit heaven, and you must be born again. If you want a car most of us have to work to buy it. If I say I want the car but will not work then I really do not want the car. God does not require work but he does require a humiliating truth be acknowledged and accepted, most are too proud (which is why it is the worst of sins).

I mean indeed it is easy for us to make such a claim "yes or no" but in the context of Gods love and desire for justice and morality do you see that occurring?

Sincere faith is followed by action. In this case not physical action but mental action. If I actually wanted God I must accept my status as unrighteous first, my sinfulness, my rebellion, my need for help, etc.. My father is one that won't. He is the nicest guy you could meet. He goes to church regularly and even practices charity often and loves his family. Yet I fear he is not saved and will not be in Heaven. He wants a God that looks down and says how good he is and therefor he is welcome. That God does not exist. I am afraid my father is worshiping a false God that does not exist and this kills me daily. Let me give a verse.

New Living Translation
They will act religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3642152

As for choice, it isn't limitless. There are an uncountable amount of factors that will influence choice and even limit it. If we accept that there is free will, then we have to accept that our free will is not limitless in it's capacity. Because how do you factor in both the internal and external pressures.

I was surprised to learn the definition of freewill in this context is the capacity to choose (not act on that choice) that which is desirable. I do not make a case that our freewill is total. God can and does over rule it on rare occasion. I claim we have sufficient freewill to freely choose or reject what we wish. Choice can and often does over ride preceding inputs pushing us in a certain direction. I can every possible motivation not to do x but choose to do it anyway. I do not claim motivations are not influenced but influences never incapacitate choice.

An example I would use is the psychopath. A psychopath would literally not have the ability to believe in God, by the very nature of their affliction they cannot comprehend the importance or need for God. This is an internal issue. Where does the psychopath find redemption?

Ok, let me admit there are a tiny sub group of people who may not have freewill. In that case like a child's case I do not think they are held accountable. However a bunch of things come into play here. I believe much of what psychology brands as physical defect is the result of sin. Not all but a lot of it is the physical result of spiritual choice. BTW our free will and our lives can be terminated by God at any point. I forgot to include that. By his sovereignty he may terminate the arrangement at any time. Whether that means allowing a teens drug addiction to kill him or Nietzsche's atheism to drive him insane (or his immoral act that gave him a sexual disease to do so). Since 99% of us do not fit into this very very complex subgroup I think it wiser and sufficient to debate freewill as it normally is experienced. I do acknowledge your thoroughness however.

 

[metis]

For crying out loud it is one of the most coherent, rational, and common methods in philosophy. Never heard of Occam's Razor.

But Occam's Razor doesn't work in all circumstances, and if you truly believe it did, then why do you write these rambling essays on relatively simple points?

 

[1robin]

Nope, I didn't state or imply that one iota.

Then what did you say and why is it relevant in a religious forum? I am a Christian and defend the bible. I do not defend the purity of Jewish culture at all times, and have no interest.

 

[metis]

Then what did you say and why is it relevant in a religious forum? I am a Christian and defend the bible. I do not defend the purity of Jewish culture at all times, and have no interest.

What are you talking about? My point was that there's evidence that what eventually became called "Judaism" started out as a form of polytheism, or so it appears. I in no way implied that Judaism and/or Christianity is "pagan", so where did you pull this out of?

 

[1robin]

There's simply no reason for me to accept that, especially since we see no evidence of the Abrahamic traditions outside of that area until they began to spread. Secondly, even if what you said had been true, that tradition seems to have gotten lost somewhere along the line throughout most of the world, therefore trying to hold later generations responsible for that which they never were taught still brings your problem back into focus.

I said several things that countered this. I however lost much of what you were trying to say here.

1. God through the Holy Sprit had been trying to steer these people back towards him for a long time, the same with the Canaanites. As the Bible says to deny the spirit or to deny Christ is to deny the father.
2. The reasons destruction became necessary was the injustice and violence they were practicing. He said their thoughts were evil, continuously. It did not say well they were peaceful and just but did not believe in me so I killed them all.
3. Their lack of faith is why they were so evil and produced so much evil but it was the effect that caused the judgment not the premise. God found many people who did not have faith and even prospered them if they attempted to be just.
4. Even if this was a generation or two down the road and they no longer had any truth the Holy Spirit still tested their hearts and tried to get them back to even an acceptable level of dysfunction. It was their total depravity that led to their destruction and their resistance to the intuitions in their heart.
5. It is also taught that God gives virtually everyone a God calibrated conscience as a guide. This would explain the universal common core of morality. They did not heed it either but chose intentionally to go against every reasonable human inclination for good.


This is why I always make moral ontological points (foundational) instead of moral epistemological (apprehension) points. An atheist can be just as moral as a Christian, he just cannot found or explain his morality as sufficiently as a Christian. A person may be without the message of Christ but virtually no one is without God's morality and influence. Some just ignore it all.

 

[1robin]

No again. How is it even logically possible that one could somehow prove there's no deity somewhere? Logically, the person who says there is a deity is the one who needs to provide such evidence, which you obviously cannot do. Belief is belief-- not evidence.

Not one question I asked needed you to prove any deity exists.

 

[1robin]

What are you talking about? My point was that there's evidence that what eventually became called "Judaism" started out as a form of polytheism, or so it appears. I in no way implied that Judaism and/or Christianity is "pagan", so where did you pull this out of?

These are almost self contradictory. Something that came from paganism contains paganism and is paganism though it may also contain other beliefs. Neither the OT nor the NT was derived from anything pagan. It comments on paganism, condemns it, and God punishes Israel when they flirt with it. I see I was right after all. The Bible did not derive anything from paganism except a contempt for it. The Jewish people at times did, and were judged harshly for it.

 

[metis]

I said several things that countered this. I however lost much of what you were trying to say here.

1. God through the Holy Sprit had been trying to steer these people back towards him for a long time, the same with the Canaanites. As the Bible says to deny the spirit or to deny Christ is to deny the father.
2. The reasons destruction became necessary was the injustice and violence they were practicing. He said their thoughts were evil, continuously. It did not say well they were peaceful and just but did not believe in me so I killed them all.
3. Their lack of faith is why they were so evil and produced so much evil but it was the effect that caused the judgment not the premise. God found many people who did not have faith and even prospered them if they attempted to be just.
4. Even if this was a generation or two down the road and they no longer had any truth the Holy Spirit still tested their hearts and tried to get them back to even an acceptable level of dysfunction. It was their total depravity that led to their destruction and their resistance to the intuitions in their heart.
5. It is also taught that God gives virtually everyone a God calibrated conscience as a guide. This would explain the universal common core of morality. They did not heed it either but chose intentionally to go against every reasonable human inclination for good.


This is why I always make moral ontological points (foundational) instead of moral epistemological (apprehension) points. An atheist can be just as moral as a Christian, he just cannot found or explain his morality as sufficiently as a Christian. A person may be without the message of Christ but virtually no one is without God's morality and influence. Some just ignore it all.

The above are beliefs, which is fine for you and some others but, to repeat again, beliefs are not necessarily evidence.

Anyhow, unless you come up with something earth-shaking, it's time for me to move on.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I think your using my claims in a way not intended. This argument requires another tact I think.

Actually most Jews today are secular. At least I heard that, but it is surprising. Regardless there is a huge group of Jews that do believe in Jesus. They are called Masoretic Jews I believe.


Yes, I believe that specific group would be denied heaven, because they are doing exactly as the Sanhedrin did. Claiming to want to know God but when God showed up they rejected and killed him. Wanting a God you create, and wanting the God that exists are two different things. God said basically if you want me this is the conduit, they said no thanks and even destroyed the conduit. Believing in God alone is not enough even if sincere. A verse says even Satan and the fallen angels believe in God and tremble. Believing in the actual God comes with many other aspects that repel many people. You repent, you must acknowledge Christ as your savior, you must admit you do not merit heaven, and you must be born again. If you want a car most of us have to work to buy it. If I say I want the car but will not work then I really do not want the car. God does not require work but he does require a humiliating truth be acknowledged and accepted, most are too proud (which is why it is the worst of sins).

Sincere faith is followed by action. In this case not physical action but mental action. If I actually wanted God I must accept my status as unrighteous first, my sinfulness, my rebellion, my need for help, etc.. My father is one that won't. He is the nicest guy you could meet. He goes to church regularly and even practices charity often and loves his family. Yet I fear he is not saved and will not be in Heaven. He wants a God that looks down and says how good he is and therefor he is welcome. That God does not exist. I am afraid my father is worshiping a false God that does not exist and this kills me daily. Let me give a verse.

New Living Translation
They will act religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3642152


I was surprised to learn the definition of freewill in this context is the capacity to choose (not act on that choice) that which is desirable. I do not make a case that our freewill is total. God can and does over rule it on rare occasion. I claim we have sufficient freewill to freely choose or reject what we wish. Choice can and often does over ride preceding inputs pushing us in a certain direction. I can every possible motivation not to do x but choose to do it anyway. I do not claim motivations are not influenced but influences never incapacitate choice.

Ok, let me admit there are a tiny sub group of people who may not have freewill. In that case like a child's case I do not think they are held accountable. However a bunch of things come into play here. I believe much of what psychology brands as physical defect is the result of sin. Not all but a lot of it is the physical result of spiritual choice. BTW our free will and our lives can be terminated by God at any point. I forgot to include that. By his sovereignty he may terminate the arrangement at any time. Whether that means allowing a teens drug addiction to kill him or Nietzsche's atheism to drive him insane (or his immoral act that gave him a sexual disease to do so). Since 99% of us do not fit into this very very complex subgroup I think it wiser and sufficient to debate freewill as it normally is experienced. I do acknowledge your thoroughness however.

From what I've heard Masoretic Jews aren't really Jews but just Christians.

The interesting thing is that there are plenty of versus that would explain why Jews do not accept Jesus. As someone pointed in the thread I have about where the Doctrine of Original Sin comes from, an oversimplication is that Judaism is about the redemption of people while Christianity is focused on individual salvation.

 

[metis]

These are almost self contradictory. Something that came from paganism contains paganism and is paganism though it may also contain other beliefs. Neither the OT nor the NT was derived from anything pagan. It comments on paganism, condemns it, and God punishes Israel when they flirt with it. I see I was right after all. The Bible did not derive anything from paganism except a contempt for it. The Jewish people at times did, and were judged harshly for it.

Apparently you are totally unaware of the fact that religions, including Judaism and Christianity, evolve. Since you think you actually know the Bible, aren't you aware of the fact that revelation was not a one-step process? Aren't you aware of the fact that Abraham was not given the Law? Aren't you aware of the fact that Jesus and his teachings didn't come until after the Mosaiic Law was given? Aren't you aware of the fact that Paul and the other authors needed to explain teachings because they were not always self-evident? Aren't you aware of the fact that the Christian canon was selected long after Jesus died?

Logic should tell you that it's not so much where you came from but where you ended up that really counts. As snarky as this sounds, maybe you should go back and start reading the Bible that you claim you're "defending" because it seems that you don't even understand the basic concept of "on-going revelation" that permeates the pages.

I've had enough.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Give it up. Those things are only requirements when we are dealing with a sincere person. IN fact under that "pearls" clause I should not even talk to you. However I am bored sometimes and you can be entertaining sometimes. Much of the time I would rather stare at the wall. Christ had the kindest of words an inexhaustible patience with every group except one. Those that claimed to know but were wrong, those that taught others what was wrong, and those that insincerely critiqued his actions or claims. That group he spoke the most scorching words possible to. You fall into the last one of that group, so a little straight talking is actually Christ like.

I never mean to make people react with hysterical ugliness. I really don't.

 

[Ouroboros]

What is the obsession with Harry Potter on your side.

On my side? What side is that?

He is like the hub of the universe which all things must be compared. No originality.

Ok. Lord of the Rings then. There's a creation story in Silmarillion, I think.

Harry Potter books stand at 400,000,000 worldwide sales after being promoted heavily and being on the silver screen.

The three major religions in the this world were all promoted with violence and war at some point. At least we haven't seen any Harry Potter wars yet.

The Bible stands at 6,001,500,000 even though persecuted by histories greatest empires. This also only includes printed, since the press came along.

Most bought, or most own doesn't always relay most read or most liked.

Heck man, shades of grey outsold Harry Potter and I have never heard of it.

I haven't read it either, but I think I know why it's so popular.