AGNOSTIC Accountability Groups Starting Up

[petrek]

I never said that this notion was new, I just brought it into this thread. Everything else you wrote can be ignored as its entirely irrelvant.

Your correct, you never said this notion was new, but then, I never said you did. I was pointing out that just because we disagree with your belief doesn't mean we don't understand it. As I pointed out, I understand the notion very well, I just don't believe it to be true. It is impossible for me not to have a choice in what I do, the fact that I am separate from God ensures my ability to choose.

You can believe what you like, what's written does not agree with you. Your belief is just wishful thinking.

What's written does agree with what I believe. Children/infants are not mentioned in the Flood account for a reason. It was the "wickedness of man" that caused God to destroy the earth, not, as you would have me believe, "the wickedness of men and children".

Dave

 

[melchoir]

Your correct, you never said this notion was new, but then, I never said you did. I was pointing out that just because we disagree with your belief doesn't mean we don't understand it. As I pointed out, I understand the notion very well, I just don't believe it to be true. It is impossible for me not to have a choice in what I do, the fact that I am separate from God ensures my ability to choose

You people obviously don't understand it. If you had you'd realize that there's no two ways about it. It is very possible that you don't have a choice in what you do if god (as written in the bible) exists.

What's written does agree with what I believe. Children/infants are not mentioned in the Flood account for a reason. It was the "wickedness of man" that caused God to destroy the earth, not, as you would have me believe, "the wickedness of men and children".

Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl,
and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that
creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was
in the dry land, died.

Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the
face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping
things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed
from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that
were with him in the ark.

"God sent the people he drowned to heaven afterwards"

I suspect that some Christians advance this idea because they do feel very uncomfortable with God actions. But there is no comfort to be had from the story. The story explains in detail what God does, both before the flood and afterwards, but nowhere does it say that the people he has drowned are then sent to heaven. This is just a bit of wishful thinking.

And as someone has pointed out to me, given that God considered these humans "wicked" who had "evil all the time" in their hearts, and given that humans who are "wicked" and unrepentant are supposed to go to "hell", if God was going to send them anywhere it would be to hell rather than heaven.

"God would have sent those who were innocent to heaven"

As I've already noted, nowhere does the story say that people will be sent to heaven after being killed by God. Moreover, reading the story carefully, there is no mention of any person being seen by God as "innocent" other than Noah. Rather the opposite is true. As the narrative tells us "The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time" (6,5) and Noah was "blameless among the people of his time" (6:9). The narrative also says of humanity "every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (8:21).

This particular response also implies that those who were "wicked" deserved to be cruelly killed by God. As civilisation has gradually developed we have increasingly rejected the use of killing as a punishment, but for the extreme case of murder (and most civilised countries reject even that). Yet God who is supposed to be "all powerful and all good" resorts to killing as a punishment for any "wickedness". God's standards actually fall well below the most civilised human standards. And God's disrespect for the sanctity of life is shocking.

There is another, even more profound objection to the suggestion. If you argue that God's killing of innocent people is acceptable if they are then sent to heaven what sort of example does this set to humans? That life here on this planet is of no consequence? That acts of killing on this planet can be justified or simply don't matter because the victims are going to go to heaven? That intense suffering through drowning is really OK? An anti-Semitic might say that if Jews were going to go to heaven after the Holocaust - then why get bothered about the suffering, cruelty and loss of life involved in the Holocaust.

These type of excuses for God's behaviour also overlook the fact that he also cruelly killed the entire animal kingdom but for two of each species. As I've already noted, anyone who has nearly drowned will testify that it's a terrifying experience. Although God is supposed to be "all powerful" (so he could have chosen any method to do his killing) the method he chooses to wipe out humanity involves terrifying and needless cruelty to millions of animals and then the needless killing of these animals, who are entirely innocent of man's supposed "wickedness".

Exodus 20:5 for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

So yes, children can be punished for the sins of the father in gods eyes.

 

[petrek]

You people obviously don't understand it. If you had you'd realize that there's no two ways about it. It is very possible that you don't have a choice in what you do if god (as written in the bible) exists.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. The fact that I am not God means that I am separate from God, that separation necessitates freedom to choose.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's written does agree with what I believe. Children/infants are not mentioned in the Flood account for a reason. It was the "wickedness of man" that caused God to destroy the earth, not, as you would have me believe, "the wickedness of men and children".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl,
and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that
creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was
in the dry land, died.

Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the
face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping
things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed
from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that
were with him in the ark.

I did not say the children did not die, I said they were not specifically referred to as wicked.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"God sent the people he drowned to heaven afterwards"

I suspect that some Christians advance this idea because they do feel very uncomfortable with God actions. But there is no comfort to be had from the story. The story explains in detail what God does, both before the flood and afterwards, but nowhere does it say that the people he has drowned are then sent to heaven. This is just a bit of wishful thinking.

And as someone has pointed out to me, given that God considered these humans "wicked" who had "evil all the time" in their hearts, and given that humans who are "wicked" and unrepentant are supposed to go to "hell", if God was going to send them anywhere it would be to hell rather than heaven.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are people who call themselves Christians who believe that Hell doesn't exist, so it's no surprise that there are people who call themselves Christians who believe that unrepentant sinners go to Heaven. I'm not one of them.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"God would have sent those who were innocent to heaven"

As I've already noted, nowhere does the story say that people will be sent to heaven after being killed by God. Moreover, reading the story carefully, there is no mention of any person being seen by God as "innocent" other than Noah. Rather the opposite is true. As the narrative tells us "The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time" (6,5) and Noah was "blameless among the people of his time" (6:9). The narrative also says of humanity "every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (8:21).

This particular response also implies that those who were "wicked" deserved to be cruelly killed by God. As civilisation has gradually developed we have increasingly rejected the use of killing as a punishment, but for the extreme case of murder (and most civilised countries reject even that). Yet God who is supposed to be "all powerful and all good" resorts to killing as a punishment for any "wickedness". God's standards actually fall well below the most civilised human standards. And God's disrespect for the sanctity of life is shocking.

There is another, even more profound objection to the suggestion. If you argue that God's killing of innocent people is acceptable if they are then sent to heaven what sort of example does this set to humans? That life here on this planet is of no consequence? That acts of killing on this planet can be justified or simply don't matter because the victims are going to go to heaven? That intense suffering through drowning is really OK? An anti-Semitic might say that if Jews were going to go to heaven after the Holocaust - then why get bothered about the suffering, cruelty and loss of life involved in the Holocaust.

These type of excuses for God's behaviour also overlook the fact that he also cruelly killed the entire animal kingdom but for two of each species. As I've already noted, anyone who has nearly drowned will testify that it's a terrifying experience. Although God is supposed to be "all powerful" (so he could have chosen any method to do his killing) the method he chooses to wipe out humanity involves terrifying and needless cruelty to millions of animals and then the needless killing of these animals, who are entirely innocent of man's supposed "wickedness".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A couple of points. The author of the above quote says that only "Noah was "blameless among the people of his time"", yet God saved Noah, his three sons, and their 4 wives.

I have nearly drowned before. Fact of the matter is I enjoy testing my limits. Reality is, once you get past the extreme desire for oxygen, the burning lungs, your brain shuts down your lungs, and there is a great sense of peaceful bliss. So I will not testify that it's a terrifying experience, extremely unpleasant for a while-yes, terrifying-no.

Exodus 20:5 for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

So yes, children can be punished for the sins of the father in gods eyes.

Once again...context. The Jewish fathers that were responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and subsequently the state of Israel, caused their children to live without a homeland for nearly 2000 years.

Dave

 

[melchoir]

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. The fact that I am not God means that I am separate from God, that separation necessitates freedom to choose.

The fact that you are not god would make you seperate from God (assuming one exists). That seperation does not necessitate Free Will.

I have nearly drowned before. Fact of the matter is I enjoy testing my limits. Reality is, once you get past the extreme desire for oxygen, the burning lungs, your brain shuts down your lungs, and there is a great sense of peaceful bliss. So I will not testify that it's a terrifying experience, extremely unpleasant for a while-yes, terrifying-no.

The difference between "extremely unpleasant" and "terrifying" is completely relative.

Once again...context. The Jewish fathers that were responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and subsequently the state of Israel, caused their children to live without a homeland for nearly 2000 years.

This is just one example, it's not out of context. It says what it says. You can understand it and accept it or not, that is your choice.

 

[Netopia]

melchoir

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
back up your premise about going to hell unless you believe in Jesus...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (written in the book of life)
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

While you've done a nice job showing ways in which you CAN be saved through Jesus, that was not the premise that Valsalva threw out. He said that if someone doens't believe in Jesus they automatically go to hell... even if they've never heard of Him. That is a completely different thing and also what I am looking for him to backup.

Do you believe in predestination?

In the same way that I believe that light is both particle and waveform, indivisible and also seperate, I also believe in free destination and free will. The general inability of us to understand both being true I chalk up to the limitations of our mental abilities.

I don't necessarily agree with that...just because I agree with someone's principles does not make me his child!!

Sorry bud, you'll have to take that one up with Jesus.

Are all humans children of God?

No. Unless of course you are trying to use the extemely limitted definition which encompasses only physical creation, which you probably are going to try to hold on to in order to support your arguement. The only problem is that if you do that you have then taken the context of the scripture and twisted it.... HEY! don't some rip off preachers do that? Maybe Rio's assertion is true!

So you see, there is absolutely no point in continuing to talk to you. Even if I produced the most elegant argument, you would still be incapable and unwilling to acknowledge it.

I'M INSULTED! You are basically saying that I do the the same things as you! I'm highly indignant at such a statement and am surely owed an appology.

So you've failed because you can't convert me if I'm unwilling to talk to you.

You give me WAY too much credit. Neither I nor any Christian can convert anyone... only God. All I can to is carry a message... it's not my job to make the person receive it. Sorry you've not understood that in the past.

You know what is REALLY funny is that now I tell you I'll rephrase so that you can understand and respond and your response is like in a Monty Python movie "run away... run away..." . Why is it that based on your posting history that I'm not the least surprised.



As for the way some of you are treating God's Omniscience:

You seem to say that God is guilty because He knew all things for all eternity and so our wickedness is His fault because He created us knowing that we would be wicked. If you are going to follow this silly way of reasoning, why not carry it back to its logical conclusion? If God is all knowing eternally in the sense that you speak of, then for all eternity we were to be created just as we were, and since he has eternally known that, it couldn't be changed. How is that HIS fault then? By your OWN reasoning, because He knew it, it COULD NOT BE CHANGED... even by Him! To be frank, what you've come up with is a model in which God has no free will... He is static and unchangable. He is the unmoved mover. Is that as original as you guys can be? I think that idea was thrown out there quite a few centuries before you were born (even though Valsalva will probably counter that it is original thought).

Joe

 

[melchoir]

While you've done a nice job showing ways in which you CAN be saved through Jesus, that was not the premise that Valsalva threw out. He said that if someone doens't believe in Jesus they automatically go to hell... even if they've never heard of Him. That is a completely different thing and also what I am looking for him to backup.

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

This says that all men have sinned, period not only those who know of God and Jesus.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (written in the book of life)

This is how one becomes saved.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

This says you cannot go straight to God, but through Jesus.

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

And this is what happens to those not saved. Period.

As for the way some of you are treating God's Omniscience:

You seem to say that God is guilty because He knew all things for all eternity and so our wickedness is His fault because He created us knowing that we would be wicked. If you are going to follow this silly way of reasoning, why not carry it back to its logical conclusion? If God is all knowing eternally in the sense that you speak of, then for all eternity we were to be created just as we were, and since he has eternally known that, it couldn't be changed. How is that HIS fault then? By your OWN reasoning, because He knew it, it COULD NOT BE CHANGED... even by Him! To be frank, what you've come up with is a model in which God has no free will... He is static and unchangable. He is the unmoved mover. Is that as original as you guys can be? I think that idea was thrown out there quite a few centuries before you were born (even though Valsalva will probably counter that it is original thought).

Put out, yes thrown out? No. It goes without saying that if God was omniscient then even his actions would be "locked in". I never agrued agianst this, it just goes along with what I've been arguing. The point is, you can believe that god has no free will (because of omniscience), and we have no free will (both go agianst the bible), or God is not omniscient and we all have free will. Or, God doesnt exist to be omniscient.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Netopia

As for the way some of you are treating God's Omniscience:

You seem to say that God is guilty because He knew all things for all eternity and so our wickedness is His fault because He created us knowing that we would be wicked. If you are going to follow this silly way of reasoning, why not carry it back to its logical conclusion? If God is all knowing eternally in the sense that you speak of, then for all eternity we were to be created just as we were, and since he has eternally known that, it couldn't be changed. How is that HIS fault then? By your OWN reasoning, because He knew it, it COULD NOT BE CHANGED... even by Him! To be frank, what you've come up with is a model in which God has no free will... He is static and unchangable. He is the unmoved mover. Is that as original as you guys can be? I think that idea was thrown out there quite a few centuries before you were born (even though Valsalva will probably counter that it is original thought).

Joe

So you say that an omnipotent, omniscient being saw the need to create a bunch of violent, murderous rapists called humans to worship him? Does that sound more logical to you?

Did he create evil too so we could choose between the two? (after all, he created the forbidden tree, didn't he?)

It sounds more likely to me that we are alien experiments than to believe that. Besides, us being alien experiments would also explain the similarities between the older religions (Maya, Inca, Egyptian) and strange drawings from ages long gone. Sounds logical that beings that powerful would have been viewed as gods.

 

[Netopia]

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

This says that all men have sinned, period not only those who know of God and Jesus.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (written in the book of life)

This is how one becomes saved.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

This says you cannot go straight to God, but through Jesus.

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

And this is what happens to those not saved. Period.

You still don't seem to understand. You listed ways one can be saved once someone has the knowledge of the existance of Jesus. You've pointed out that it is only through Jesus that people get to God... but that doesn't necessitate a knowledge of Jesus. It's like saying that taking a polio vaccination means you know Jonah Salk. Just because you were saved by the work of Jonah Salk doesn't mean that you had explicit knowledge of Him, only that you benefitted by his work. Likewise, just because you are saved by the work and the person of Jesus doesn't mean that you have explicit knowledge of Him, which is what Valsalva seems to believe. I could list MANY more items like you did which show how one can, having heard of Jesus, be saved.... that isn't a big feat. I'm still waiting for Valsalva to post proof showing that if someone has no knowledge of Jesus that they automatically go to hell.

Put out, yes thrown out? No.

Thown out in the sense of tossed to the masses for consumption, not tossed into the trash. Better watch out or the Valsalva Writing Police will jump on you!

The point is, you can believe that god has no free will (because of omniscience), and we have no free will (both go agianst the bible), or God is not omniscient and we all have free will. Or, God doesnt exist to be omniscient.

You still exclude a possibility... that God is Omniscient and that we also have free will and that the place a dichotomy exists is in our feeble minds.

So you say that an omnipotent, omniscient being saw the need to create a bunch of violent, murderous rapists called humans to worship him? Does that sound more logical to you?

Did he create evil too so we could choose between the two? (after all, he created the forbidden tree, didn't he?)

If an artist creates a beautiful painting knowing full well that one day that painting will fade and look like junk, does that mean he shouldn't have painted it? If in the future the paint peels and the colors fade and the painting is no longer useful for the purpose for which it was created, would he be wrong to destroy it? Unlike the painting, we don't HAVE to turn away from God. He didn't make Satan turn, he didn't make Eve trust Satan more than God... he created creatures without blemish who then, of their own accord turned from Him. Why do you fault Him for allowing the consequences?

It sounds more likely to me that we are alien experiments than to believe that.

That's nice... but you are actually going in a direction that adds layer of complexity to the problem. No matter how many generations and alien races you add as you go back farther and farther you will eventually come up against the beginning of everything in the known universe. At that point you must put faith (scientist or not) in something existing other than this universe which acted to create this one. It doesn't matter what that thing you believe in is, you have to exercise faith since there is no way to observe or measure that which doesn't exist in our realm (are you listening valsalva?).

Joe

 

[QTArrhythmic]

That's nice... but you are actually going in a direction that adds layer of complexity to the problem. No matter how many generations and alien races you add as you go back farther and farther you will eventually come up against the beginning of everything in the known universe. At that point you must put faith (scientist or not) in something existing other than this universe which acted to create this one. It doesn't matter what that thing you believe in is, you have to exercise faith since there is no way to observe or measure that which doesn't exist in our realm (are you listening valsalva?).

It also doesn't make sense that God has no beginning and no end, God was always around and always will be around.

 

[Netopia]

It also doesn't make sense that God has no beginning and no end, God was always around and always will be around

Totally true. So what make faith in Him creating the universe any harder than believing something else created it. Both would have to pre-exist the universe and both would either have to be eternal or be created by something else which pre-existed them. So why does science have no problem making wild speculations as to the creation and origin of the universe but Chistians are ridiculed for believing what they do.

Joe

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you believe in predestination?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the same way that I believe that light is both particle and waveform, indivisible and also seperate, I also believe in free destination and free will. The general inability of us to understand both being true I chalk up to the limitations of our mental abilities.

I was trying to get at the heart of the discussion from before. It seems to me its either one way or the other-- you have free will, or you don't. For example: What if God told you "YOU MUST GRAFT A PIECE YOUR SKIN FOR JESUS." Would you feel you had no choice or would you feel that you would eventually do it anyway?

 

[Netopia]

What if God told you "YOU MUST GRAFT A PIECE YOUR SKIN FOR JESUS." Would you feel you had no choice or would you feel that you would eventually do it anyway?

I would feel that I have free will. I would like to believe that I would do what He commanded, but since I've failed so badly to do much of what He says is right I don't delude myself into thinking that I would suddenly and perfectly obey Him.

Let's take it away from God for just a moment. Let's say that you suddenly had absolute knowledge of every event in the future. Would that mean that there was no free will from this point onward or just that certain people would make certain decisions in certain situations and you merely knew the outcome of what they, of their own will, were going to decide.

If you come to a stop sign and turn left, would the fact that I had foreknowledge 1 microsecond before you made your choice take away your freewill? Isn't there a difference between just knowing the outcome of something and controlling what the outcome will be?

Going back a couple of posts though... if God is locked in His Omniscience rather than being the master of it then all of this is moot. If God operates the way some say on here, then He doesn't have free will either and can only do what He already knows He's going to do and can't change that. To be honest... when I try to understand His Omniscience and forknowledge I reach the same conclusions; God must be static in all thought and action, one single collection of all thoughts and all time, never changing, never "thinking" as we think of thought. But I also know that this isn't true because He entered into the dimension of Time as the person Jesus.

The whole thing is like trying to determine whether light is matter or energy; it has to be one or the other and yet it is both at the same time. You could go around in circles debating which it is, but in the end it is what it is and it doesn't really matter whether or not we understand because our understanding or lack thereof will not change the nature of light.

Joe

 

[SWScorch]

I have one thing to add to this "conversation." There have been some good points made by both sides which I had never considered before, and I'll be doing a lot of thinking.

But, one of the main things that really keeps me away from Christianity is this:

According to Christians, everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus goes to Hell. This was brought up earlier. A reference to the inhabitants of some jungle village in Zimbabwe was brought up. This is what bothers me. There are many many religions, and in the history of the world, Christianity is a very young one. (Unless you are under the false impression that the earth is only a few thousand years old, in which case I suggest you open a science book and read something for once.) So, that means that everyone who lived before Christ went to Hell, correct? And everyone in the world who has never heard of him is going to Hell. They never had a choice to accept him or not. They have a religion, which they accept as true just as Christians accept their own as true, and by their believes they will be saved and go to their notion of "heaven." Are you saying they are going to be severely dissapointed when they die when they end up in Hell? They will be punished for something that is not their fault. They'll die and end up in Hell saying "But I did everything God wanted me to! Why am I being punished?"

This quite simply seems like human reasoning to me, in order to make people convert to your own religion. My personal belief is that if there is a God, it doesn't matter what religion you belong to as long as you acknowledge he exists. To me, Mulsims, Christians, even those who worhsip many gods, all believe in the same God, just in different forms. Many of you Christians seem to ignore this, and spit venom at anyone who does not follow your exact beliefs. You automatically say "You must accept Christ" because that is what you have done. Muslims say "You must accept Mohammed" or whatever they say (i'm pretty ignorant about Islam, so if someone wants to correct me, feel free.) Perhaps both are correct, or perhaps both are wrong. The situation of one being right and the other wrong is impossible. I truly don't see how one religion can be right, out of all the thousands of religions over this planet, many of which have been around longer than Christianity.

Christianty is just a phase, just as the polytheist beliefs of the Greeks and Romans (or did they not exist?) I think Arthur C Clarke made an excllent prediction in his book 3001: the Final Odyssey. I won't spoil the surprise, for those of you interested, may I suggest you crack open a book other than one which directly supports your devout spoutings and listen with an open mind? Of course, this book isn't going to change anyone's mind; it's not meant to. I just think his predictions are a good solution.

 

[Rio Rebel]

It seems to me that this "Free Will" discussion is mostly a disagreement on definition. The distinction is subtle, but I believe it is there. To explain:

I believe there are two similar yet distinct ideas here when we talk of free will. The first I'll call Free Choice - the ability to act, and that act be based on a conscious choice - an act of will, so to speak - and not the result of determinate factors physically determining the process by which we make that choice. Simply put, we are unconstrained in choosing.

The second I'll call Free Action - having mutiple selections available for any action, and being able to choose one of those selections over another without it having already been determined which action would be chosen. In other words, being able to impact reality by selecting one among multiple choices. We are able to choose because there is more than one possible choice available to us.

The first case - Free Choice - is centered on the individual and the way he is able to come to a choice. The things which constrain (or even determine) how he will make his choice are a part of the first discussion. The focus of the second discussion - Free Action - is not the way that a sentient being makes a choice, but that there is more than once choice available. If all of the future has already been determined, then we are not free to act - at least not in the way I have defined it.

If you accept my distinction, we can look at the problem in this way: we know that Free Action is not possible if the future has been determined. Despite the objections I will hear to the contrary, I believe that God's foreknowledge DOES in fact preclude the possibility of Free Action (I am not sure that I accept that God has such foreknowledge, but at present my beliefs on this are not critical). Since God knows what WILL happen, and this means that we cannot act in any way contrary to what God knows, this eliminates Free Action. But does this also eliminate Free Choice?

I don't think that it does. I believe the key point here, at least to me, is not about whether we are free to alter the future in a way contrary to what God already knows, but whether we are free to make a choice without that choice being nothing but a causal chain of neural events which necessarily dictate our choice to us. I do not believe that mental activity can be fully reduced to physical causal events, and thus I believe that choice can be a matter of will and not merely a physically determined phenomenon.

There's more, but I'll wait to see if this is interesting enough to generate response before I continue.

 

[Athanasius]

I don't think that it does. I believe the key point here, at least to me, is not about whether we are free to alter the future in a way contrary to what God already knows, but whether we are free to make a choice without that choice being nothing but a causal chain of neural events which necessarily dictate our choice to us. I do not believe that mental activity can be fully reduced to physical causal events, and thus I believe that choice can be a matter of will and not merely a physically determined phenomenon.

In other words:

Personality is greater than matter

Provided "matter" is understood as shorthand for "solely naturalistic/materialistic phenomenon."

 

[petrek]

The fact that you are not god would make you seperate from God (assuming one exists). That seperation does not necessitate Free Will.

I disagree. We are separate, therefore, we think separately.

The difference between "extremely unpleasant" and "terrifying" is completely relative.

I find jogging extremely unpleasant, so if the author of that piece is suggesting that jogging is like drowning than perhaps the terms are relative.

This is just one example, it's not out of context. It says what it says. You can understand it and accept it or not, that is your choice.

Is God always jealous? No. If I wrote a book report and ignored aspects of the main character, focusing on one, I would give a false impression of that character. Context.

Dave

 

[Netopia]

According to Christians, everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus goes to Hell.

No, this is a false and common assertion and one that I'm waiting on Valsalva to prove. The Bible DOES teach that someone who has knowledge of Jesus and rejects Him is lost, but not someone who has never heard of Jesus and therefore CANNOT believe in Him.

So, that means that everyone who lived before Christ went to Hell, correct? And everyone in the world who has never heard of him is going to Hell.

Read through (if you are interested) the book of Hebrews in the Bible. Here the writer tells of a myriad of people who pleased God not by being born after Jesus was, but simply because they lived by faith and trusted God based on whatever revelation of Him they had. I've said this before (and I am borrowing from Athanasius) that God doesn't judge people based on how much truth they've received, but on what they did with the truth they had access to.

If God sent people to hell for just not happening to live in the right place at the right time to hear about Jesus, I might feel the same way you do. Fortunately He doesn't.

They'll die and end up in Hell saying "But I did everything God wanted me to! Why am I being punished?"

If that person truly in their heart did everything as best they knew how and without ever hearing of Jesus followed their conscience and sought truth and love, I don't believe that they will end up in Hell. To the contrary, many who say that they are Christians will not go to Heaven. Jesus Himself says that there will be many who have done all sorts of things "in Jesus name" and yet have never actually been people who followed Him in more than name and external actions. God doesn't judge by what is external, He judges the heart.

Perhaps both are correct, or perhaps both are wrong. The situation of one being right and the other wrong is impossible.

Why can neither be the right one? I don't understand your reasoning on this. Both cannot claim to be correct and actually be, that is true. However, both could certainly be wrong, as well as one being wrong and the other right.


Joe

 

[PatboyX]

i would like to be signed up for the group. (im not sure what that entails but im interested in the discussion/sharing of our understanding of this existence)

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: PatboyX
i would like to be signed up for the group. (im not sure what that entails but im interested in the discussion/sharing of our understanding of this existence)

The group is a discussion group.

 

[PatboyX]

right...but it seemed like people were "signing up" earlier on.

 

[Netopia]

QTArrhythmic, in all fairness to people like PatboyX and others who have said that they would like to sign up... I think you should either make it clear that your thread is only a parody on the Christian one, or actually start a private group in the private topics area. It would seem as though you've got some people who would be interested in conversing!

Joe

 

[Netopia]

Aweful quiet... y'all give up? 😉

Joe

 

[sandorski]

Heaven, Hell, Jesus, and Earth.

Jesus didn't give the Sermon on the Mount and other practical everday Do's for nothing. He certainly didn't die so people could get a free ticket to some Mythical wonderful place in the sky or a horrible place of Fire(your choice). No, Jesus was a Humanist, Heaven and Hell is what we have or strive for here. Our reward, Good or Bad, is in how we leave this Earth for future generations. We help create Heaven or Hell!

This is the problem with Religious thought, it tries to create a Mythical AfterLife in order to encourage it's followers to do the Right thing. It's done with Good Intentions, but as time goes on the intent gets lost and corrupted. The Followers begin to focus on the Mythical and forget the Practical, like a Lawyer, the Religious live by the Letter of the Law, rather than the Intent. What once was a motivation to help out one's fellow man turns into a Selfish doing of the Minimum to get into "Heaven". Once the Corruption becomes the Norm, Hell comes to Earth and the Mythical Heaven is the last false Hope, this is called Judgement.

I don't expect anyone to "See", but I think most will understand this, "If you are useless on Earth, you are just Useless!"

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: Netopia
QTArrhythmic, in all fairness to people like PatboyX and others who have said that they would like to sign up... I think you should either make it clear that your thread is only a parody on the Christian one, or actually start a private group in the private topics area. It would seem as though you've got some people who would be interested in conversing!

Joe

Let me think about that.

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: Netopia
Aweful quiet... y'all give up? 😉

Joe

Nope. Just getting off work.