# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  God Does Whatever He Pleases

## Theocrat

Here are a couple of passages from Scripture where the Sovereign Property Owner of the Universe declares:




> Remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there is none else. I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure," calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth My counsel from a far country. Yea, I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it. [Isaiah 46:9-11]





> So, then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God That showeth mercy, for the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, "Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show My power in thee and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth." Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will, He hardeneth.
> 
> Thou wilt say then unto me, "Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?" Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him That formed it, "Why hast Thou made me thus?" Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor? [Romans 9:16-21]






Let it be settled forever. Amen!

----------


## jmdrake

And one of the things He pleases is to give men free will.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And one of the things He pleases is to give men free will.


Where in the entire Bible does it say that God gives men free will?

Specific chapter and verse please.

----------


## torchbearer

so when children are blown to pieces, it is because he allows it.
Its all under his control. the interventionist god.

Several founders found a consistency between free will, liberty, and a non-interventionist creator.
but logic and consistency has no place is people's religious beliefs in today's america.
just learn the lines you need to repeat to help avoid the topics of cognitive dissonance.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And one of the things He pleases is to give men free will.


Anyway, it is contradictory...completely illogical that God's will is sovereign, and man's will is sovereign.

This is the dumbest, most ridiculous heresy that has ever sprung up around Christianity.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> so when children are blown to pieces, it is because he allows it.
> Its all under his control. the interventionist god.
> .


No, He didn't _allow_ it, He _caused_ it.  And He has a _good_ purpose for causing it.

----------


## otherone

> Where in the entire Bible does it say that God gives men free will?
> 
> Specific chapter and verse please.


Genesis chapter 3.  One either chooses to obey or not to obey....unless the "Fall" can be chalked up to "$#@! happens".

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Genesis chapter 3.  One either chooses to obey or not to obey....unless the "Fall" can be chalked up to "$#@! happens".


The command to obey says NOTHING about the ability of the will.

----------


## torchbearer

> No, He didn't _allow_ it, He _caused_ it.  And He has a _good_ purpose for causing it.


So, when i come over to you house and put a bullet in your head, i can just tell the court- 'God made me do it, and for a good purpose?"

You have been so twisted by your attempts to hold together a flawed mythology that you now sound irrational.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So, when i come over to you house and put a bullet in your head, i can just tell the court- 'God made me do it, and for a good purpose?"
> .


You could say that, if it wasn't also true that the Judge of all the earth holds all men accountable for their sin.  Since He does, you couldn't say that.

----------


## otherone

> The command to obey says NOTHING about the ability of the will.


HUH?

----------


## jmdrake

> Where in the entire Bible does it say that God gives men free will?
> 
> Specific chapter and verse please.


Before I answer that question, answer this.  Do you believe that God has free will?  Be consistent.  I know what you've said in the past.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> HUH?


What don't you understand?  That God commands something says nothing about man's ability to do it.

In fact, this is one of the _central aspects_ of Christianity...the fact that man does not have the ability to turn to God.  This was the reason for the cross itself.

----------


## jmdrake

> Anyway, it is contradictory...completely illogical that God's will is sovereign, and man's will is sovereign.


God has the ability to delegate responsibility.  The Roman centurion understood this principle.  You, who claim to be a Christian, do not.

_Matthew 8:9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it._




> This is the dumbest, most ridiculous heresy that has ever sprung up around Christianity.


Wrong.  The dumbest, most ridiculous heresy that has ever sprung up around Christianity is your "rape = marriage" heresy.

Edit: And it's funny that you "replied" to me twice instead of just editing your first post.  You really *are* losing it.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Can God unravel a Black Hole?  That would be epic.

----------


## jmdrake

> HUH?


Sola_Fide believes God's commands are just rhetorical devices.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Before I answer that question, answer this.  Do you believe that God has free will?  Be consistent.  I know what you've said in the past.


God is free in the extension of His grace.  He is free to do whatever He pleases to do that is in accord with His perfectly holy nature.

The idol that you worship who has a will that can sin is not the God of the Bible.

----------


## torchbearer

> What don't you understand?  That God commands something says nothing about man's ability to do it.
> 
> In fact, this is one of the _central aspects_ of Christianity...the fact that man does not have the ability to turn to God.  This was the reason for the cross itself.


you heard it hear first-
God loves his creation so much, that he picked 144,000 people out all humans ever born on this planet (of course, sola has been informed he one of that very few out of billions) to go to heaven. He wrote out their actions in advance, and all they are are meat puppets that he loved more than the other meat puppets.
for the rest of the 100 billion humans that will live on this earth, god didn't love you- pre-ordained a life of sin and failure... per-ordained that you wouldn't not be in his arbitrary 144,000 members of the elite club.

Sola, you make scientologist sound sane.

----------


## jmdrake

> God is free in the extension of His grace.  He is free to do whatever He pleases to do that is in accord with His perfectly holy nature.


You have claimed in the past that God lacks free will.  Which is it?




> The idol that you worship who has a will that can sin is not the God of the Bible.


Ah.  So you actually don't believe God has free will.  So He can't actually do what He pleases.  The God I worship, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, can actually do what He wants.  He doesn't sin because He doesn't want to sin.  But you are too ignorant to understand that God simply doesn't want to sin.

----------


## otherone

> What don't you understand?  That God commands something says nothing about man's ability to do it.


Did Eve choose to obey God?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> God has the ability to delegate responsibility.  The Roman centurion understood this principle.  You, who claim to be a Christian, do not.


Who's will get's done in the centurion's example? The centurion, or his subjects?

----------


## jmdrake

> Sola, you make scientologist sound sane.


True.  Scientologists don't have a "rape = marriage" belief.

----------


## jmdrake

> Who's will get's done in the centurion's example? The centurion, or his subjects?


Are you admitting that the centurions and/or his subjects have a will?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You have claimed in the past that God lacks free will.  Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.  So you actually don't believe God has free will.  So He can't actually do what He pleases.  The God I worship, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, can actually do what He wants.  He doesn't sin because He doesn't want to sin.  But you are too ignorant to understand that God simply doesn't want to sin.


Yes, God does not have a "free will", if by free will, that means He has the ability to sin.   God CANNOT sin because He has a holy nature.

You are not a Christian.  You don't believe what we believe.  You don't worship the same God that we do.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, God does not have a "free will"


Which means you disagree with Theocrat's premise that "God does whatever He pleases.




> You are not a Christian.  You don't believe what we believe.  You don't worship the same God that we do.


Who is "we"?  Have you found anyone else to agree with your insane idea that "rape = marriage?"  And just because you *might* find others to twist the Bible along with you and pretend that the Bible doesn't mean what it says when it says that Jesus was tempted in all points yet without sin, doesn't mean that you or they are Christians.  I also have yet to find anyone to agree with your insane idea that Satan was tempting Jesus to do something other than sin.  Why would Satan tempt Jesus not to sin?

----------


## VIDEODROME

Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?

----------


## Kotin

Sounds fun.

----------


## torchbearer

> Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?


got that one from philosophy class.
it was an example of sophism.
but i still enjoy using it.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Could God create another God?

----------


## Theocrat

> And one of the things He pleases is to give men free will.


Sola_Fide has told you this on a number of occasions, so I'm just going to reiterate it. It is amazing how you can still come to an erroneous conclusion that "God gives me free will" after reading passages that explicitly state things like, "So, it is not of him that willeth..." It really does show your elevating your own thoughts above the clear revelation of God's holy word, jmdrake. I don't know how much more clear God could be that man's will does not supersede His own, especially in light of other passages like Proverbs 21:1, where He declares, "The kings heart is in the hand of the Lord. As the rivers of water, He turneth it whithersoever He will." How can the king have a free will if God is turning his heart at His own whim?

----------


## matt0611

> Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?


Haha, no of course not. That's an easy one.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Could God create another God?


No, because that would mean that God could deny Himself, and the Bible says He can't.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?


No.  God can't do illogical things.

God CANNOT do some things.  God cannot sin.  God cannot lie.  God cannot deny Himself.  And God cannot do illogical things like what you speak of.

----------


## VIDEODROME

What if he created another God that was subservient to Him and made to worship him?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What if he created another God that was subservient to Him and made to worship him?


Then what He created wouldn't be a god.

----------


## torchbearer

> Haha, no of course not. That's an easy one.


then God can't do everything.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> then God can't do everything.


That's right.  God can't do everything.

----------


## torchbearer

> That's right.  God can't do everything.


he is limited. not really an all-powerful god.
but one confined by the rules you create for it.

----------


## erowe1

> he is limited. not really an all-powerful god.
> but one confined by the rules you create for it.


What are you saying? That God CAN make a boulder he can't lift?

----------


## matt0611

> then God can't do everything.


He can't go against his own nature. So he can't sin, can't not be God, etc.

Those aren't my rules, that's his nature.

----------


## torchbearer

> What are you saying? That God CAN make a boulder he can't lift?


I'm saying the question is an example of sophism.
A word trick that places in you in a position with no right answer.
Either way you answer the question, it comes out as god as a limited being.

----------


## torchbearer

> He can't go against his own nature. So he can't sin, can't not be God, etc.
> 
> Those aren't my rules, that's his nature.


you don't know that.

----------


## matt0611

> you don't know that.


Don't know what?

----------


## erowe1

> I'm saying the question is an example of sophism.
> A word trick that places in you in a position with no right answer.
> Either way you answer the question, it comes out as god as a limited being.


So then, the problem is with the question.

So why try to turn it around to be a problem for the person answering it?

Yes, obviously God is limited. He is whatever it is he is, and not something else. Did somebody say otherwise?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm saying the question is an example of sophism.
> A word trick that places in you in a position with no right answer.
> Either way you answer the question, it comes out as god as a limited being.


*EARTH TO TORCHBEARER*

God IS limited.  God cannot do everything.  What do you not understand?

God IS limited by His nature.  God is logical. God cannot do illogical things like making rocks so big He can't lift them.

----------


## torchbearer

> *EARTH TO TORCHBEARER*
> 
> God IS limited.  God cannot do everything.  What do you not understand?
> 
> God IS limited by His nature.  God is logical. God cannot do illogical things like making rocks so big He can't lift them.


You are arrogant to even pretend to know the 'nature' of god.
i feel sorry for you.

----------


## torchbearer

> So then, the problem is with the question.
> 
> So why try to turn it around to be a problem for the person answering it?
> 
> Yes, obviously God is limited. He is whatever it is he is, and not something else. Did somebody say otherwise?


If you understood the terms of the question, you'd understand i was poking at one of the fallacies in hopes the person would see it.
Same method that was used in our class to illustrate how words can be used to win an argument without really proving anything.

That is why you see my first response as a general "i see what you did there" paraphrased.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You are arrogant to even pretend to know the 'nature' of god.
> i feel sorry for you.


God revealed Himself in the Scriptures.  It's not arrogant to lay hold of that knowledge.

----------


## torchbearer

> Don't know what?


god's nature.

----------


## torchbearer

> God revealed Himself in the Scriptures.  It's not arrogant to lay hold of that knowledge.


that is why i feel sorry for you.
Your god is so feeble, he can only have a relationship with you through a scripture that everyone gets something different out of...

----------


## erowe1

> If you understood the terms of the question, you'd understand i was poking at one of the fallacies in hopes the person would see it.
> Same method that was used in our class to illustrate how words can be used to win an argument without really proving anything.
> 
> That is why you see my first response as a general "i see what you did there" paraphrased.


Of course everyone saw the fallacy, and everyone's heard the question before. But it only proves that you're the one using sophistry. Is that really what you meant to prove?

----------


## erowe1

> that is why i feel sorry for you.
> Your god is so feeble, he can only have a relationship with you through a scripture that everyone gets something different out of...


But your God is one that you yourself just made up, altogether apart from any reason, evidence, or revelation.

How is that better?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, He didn't _allow_ it, He _caused_ it.  And He has a _good_ purpose for causing it.


I'm pretty sure this is wrong.  Man is already totally depraved and can do evil on his own.  Its good that he cannot do without God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> that is why i feel sorry for you.
> Your god is so feeble, he can only have a relationship with you through a scripture that everyone gets something different out of...


Well, why is that a detriment?  Christians will always get the same message about how they must be saved out of the Scripture.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm pretty sure this is wrong.  Man is already totally depraved and can do evil on his own.  Its good that he cannot do without God.


Yes. But ultimately all of what you said is what God ordained to be. It's not like total depravity was some unintended side-effect.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well, why is that a detriment?  Christians will always get the same message about how they must be saved out of the Scripture.


You didn't, you somehow added "And believe TULIP" to the end of "Repent and believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior"




> Yes. But ultimately all of what you said is what God ordained to be. It's not like total depravity was some unintended side-effect.


I'm not arguing with that.  What I'm saying is that God doesn't actually make anyone do evil.  That's all I'm saying.  I'm not saying he's powerless to stop it, he certainly is not.  And sometimes he does stop it.  But only man is responsible for evil, and he can do evil without God's help (Well, of course God is keeping him alive, but other than that...)

----------


## torchbearer

> But your God is one that you yourself just made up, altogether apart from any reason, evidence, or revelation.
> 
> How is that better?


my god has no attributes as he has not made an attempt to have a personal relationship with me.
doesn't mean he doesn't exist. just means, the "age of miracles" was also the age of other mythological tales of gods performing acts that were description of things happening people had no explanation for...

----------


## torchbearer

> Well, why is that a detriment?  Christians will always get the same message about how they must be saved out of the Scripture.


and it was so clear, God's divine thoughts- that there is only one universal catholic church, with one- unredacted bible of His word.
was your bible redacted? i think so.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm pretty sure this is wrong.  Man is already totally depraved and can do evil on his own.  Its good that he cannot do without God.


If you can't work back the sovereignty of God back logically to Him being the ultimate cause of all things, then you have to get your brain working man.  The Scripture gives the foundation for this.  Don't ever compromise on this precious truth.

----------


## torchbearer

> But your God is one that you yourself just made up, altogether apart from any reason, evidence, or revelation.
> 
> How is that better?


i dont assign attributes from others writings. i just use the mind given me to see the inconsistencies of false prophets,

----------


## matt0611

> god's nature.


Well I'm working from the premise of the Bible which describes his nature since I'm a Christian.

But I think some of his nature could be perceived through general revelation and/or logic as well.

----------


## otherone

> i dont assign attributes from others writings. i just use the mind given me to see the inconsistencies of false prophets,


Not prophets..."apologists", the theological euphemism for "spin-doctors".

----------


## jmdrake

> Sola_Fide has told you this on a number of occasions, so I'm just going to reiterate it.


Are you a member of his "rape = marriage" church too?  If not, then why the hell do you care what he has to say?  I certainly do not.  I'm not going to bother even reading the rest of your crap if you are going to start of quoting a raving lunatic like Sola_Fide as some sort of authority.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Are you a member of his "rape = marriage" church too?  If not, then why the hell do you care what he has to say?  I certainly do not.  I'm not going to bother even reading the rest of your crap if you are going to start of quoting a raving lunatic like Sola_Fide as some sort of authority.


And he's still a thousand times a better poster than some of the raving anti-theists on this board.




> If you can't work back the sovereignty of God back logically to Him being the ultimate cause of all things, then you have to get your brain working man.  The Scripture gives the foundation for this.  Don't ever compromise on this precious truth.


Romans 9 clearly teaches that God is not RESPONSIBLE for evil.  That would make him evil.

At the same time, God is certainly in control of all things.

So yes, God can stop evil whenever he wants to, but man can do evil without God actually causing him to do so.

You still haven't answered my question from another thread, do you actually believe that I'm saved?

----------


## Theocrat

> Are you a member of his "rape = marriage" church too?  If not, then why the hell do you care what he has to say?  I certainly do not.  I'm not going to bother even reading the rest of your crap if you are going to start of quoting a raving lunatic like Sola_Fide as some sort of authority.


Jmdrake, if you're going to quote me, then make sure that you quote me in context by citing the rest of my response. Ignoring your obvious _ad hominem_ fallacy towards Sola_Fide, I simply want to know how you can affirm that the Bible teaches free will when I've shown you three passages, now, where it clearly states that God's will overrides man's will. Man can't have a free will if another Person is controlling it in accordance with His own purposes.

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake, if you're going to quote me, then make sure that you quote me in context by citing the rest of my response.


Why should I?  That you would appeal to anything Sola_Fide has said to me WRT religion proves to me that you deserve no respect from me because you are showing none to me.  Sola_Fide is a total ass.  If you take him seriously then I have no reason to take you seriously.  Seriously.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Are you a member of his "rape = marriage" church too?  If not, then why the hell do you care what he has to say?  I certainly do not.  I'm not going to bother even reading the rest of your crap if you are going to start of quoting a raving lunatic like Sola_Fide as some sort of authority.


How about taking him seriously when he's right and opposing him when he's wrong?

----------


## jmdrake

> How about taking him seriously when he's right and opposing him when he's wrong?


FreedomFanatic, if someone tried to prove your position on say the war in Iraq was wrong by quoting Dick Cheney to you, as if because Dick Cheney said it, it must be true, would you take that person seriously?  Because I wouldn't.  There are times Sola_Fide is correct.  Sadly it's rarely when he posts in the religion subforum.

----------


## Theocrat

> Why should I?  That you would appeal to anything Sola_Fide has said to me WRT religion proves to me that you deserve no respect from me because you are showing none to me.  Sola_Fide is a total ass.  If you take him seriously then I have no reason to take you seriously.  Seriously.


Well, you might be interested to know that, unlike Sola_Fide, I still consider you a Christian brother. Yes, you and I both have stark disagreements in our theology, but I can tell that you love God and that you're trusting in Jesus, even in your appeals to His word (although I think you seriously need to do some deeper studies in Theology). So, I do not share Sola_Fide's opinion that you are not a Christian.

With that being said, are you able and willing to readdress my two previous posts directed towards you?

----------


## fr33

> God Does Whatever He Pleases


As does every government.

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, you might be interested to know that, unlike Sola_Fide, I still consider you a Christian brother. Yes, you and I both have stark disagreements in our theology, but I can tell that you love God and that you're trusting in Jesus, even in your appeals to His word (although I think you seriously need to do some deeper studies in Theology). So, I do not share Sola_Fide's opinion that you are not a Christian.


I have done deeper studies in theology.  I've read early church fathers as TER suggested.  I've read a lot of John Calvin.  I've quoted John Calvin.  The end result?  Now Sola_Fide isn't sure John Calvin is saved.    I guess I've accomplished something then.    I'm now more convinced than ever that when people like you say "You don't understand theology", what the *really* mean is "I don't have a good answer for your argument, so I'll just call you ignorant on the sly."  




> With that being said, are you able and willing to readdress my two previous posts directed towards you?


Since you don't answer the questions I pose to you, why should I answer yours?

----------


## Theocrat

> As does every government.


Yes, but only God has the right to do whatever He pleases because whenever He does whatever He pleases, He always does it right.

----------


## fr33

> Yes, but only God has the right to do whatever He pleases because whenever He does whatever He pleases, He always does it right.


Replace the word god/he with Obama or Bush and you sound like the average partisan voter. I'll stick with my opposition to authority.

----------


## Theocrat

> Since you don't answer the questions I pose to you, why should I answer yours?


I can answer your question, jmdrake, but we're discussing the topic of my thread currently. So, if you believe in free will, then how do you reconcile man's free will with the passages of my original post?

----------


## Theocrat

> Replace the word god/he with Obama or Bush and you sound like the average partisan voter. I'll stick with my opposition to authority.


Well, that's a false analogy because God is nothing like Obama nor Bush. They are finite, sinful men who have no principles that advance life, liberty, nor property for all men, amongst other deficiencies. You simply can't compare God to the likes of Obama or Bush.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FreedomFanatic, if someone tried to prove your position on say the war in Iraq was wrong by quoting Dick Cheney to you, as if because Dick Cheney said it, it must be true, would you take that person seriously?  Because I wouldn't.  There are times Sola_Fide is correct.  Sadly it's rarely when he posts in the religion subforum.


OK, I understand.  I guess I have a little bit more respect for Sola_Fide than you do, but I guess that's just because I agree with him more often.  I'm in the awkward position of actually liking both of you.

BTW: Just for fun

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/convers...49703&u2=46957

That said, I don't really blame you, Sola hasn't called me a God-hating heretic as of yet





> Replace the word god/he with Obama or Bush and you sound like the average partisan voter. I'll stick with my opposition to authority.


Acting like Obama or Bush is God is blasphemy.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Yes, but only God has the right to do whatever He pleases because whenever He does whatever He pleases, He always does it right.


Yeah? How come he couldn't just forgive "Adam" then? Cripes, if one were to buy the fable at face value then there's something terribly wrong with his decision on that one. Doom man forever to the burning flames of Hell...because he loves them? Is a little scwewy.

----------


## jmdrake

> I can answer your question, jmdrake, but we're discussing the topic of my thread currently. So, if you believe in free will, then how do you reconcile man's free will with the passages of my original post?


I answered your Pharoah quote in another thread by pointing out to you that Samuel specifically warned the children against hardening *their own hearts as Pharaoh did*.  The way to reconcile 1 Samuel with the verse you quoted is by understanding what Paul was saying in Romans and elsewhere how when men reject what the know to be God's truth, God gives them over to a reprobate mind.  So...why are you asking the same question again and pretending I didn't already answer it?

As for your Isaiah quote, nobody is arguing that God doesn't ultimately overrule men when they overstep their bounds.  I give my children choices, but I limit those choices.  That doesn't mean I haven't allowed them to make any choices.  You mistake God's sovereignty with God being a puppet master where man has no choices at all.  The Bible just doesn't teach that.

----------


## fr33

> Well, that's a false analogy because God is nothing like Obama nor Bush. *They are finite, sinful men who have no principles that advance life, liberty, nor property for all men, amongst other deficiencies.* You simply can't compare God to the likes of Obama or Bush.


Don't tell me about how god "advances life" or has "principles of life and liberty" without expecting a big laugh from me about it. He's let over 90% of his created species become extinct and allowed tyranny to reign ever since he allegedly made himself known. What a wasteful tinkerer and feckless tyrant.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yeah? How come he couldn't just forgive "Adam" then? Cripes, if one were to buy the fable at face value then there's something terribly wrong with his decision on that one. Doom man forever to the burning flames of Hell...because he loves them? Is a little scwewy.


Well to be fair to Theocrat, he believes that God only loves some people.  Or is that Sola_Fide?  FreedomFanatic believes God loves everyone but dooms most people to hell.  I'm not sure where the other Calvinists or psuedo-Calvinists line up.  This whole series of threads started when I posted the thread "Fill in the blank...God loves you..."  Most people participated as expected in what I really thought would be a non-controversial feel good thread.  But *noooooo*.  Sola_Fide has to make sure that people understand God hates most people.  Yes.  The "good news" of the Gospel is God is mostly hate.  Okay....

----------


## Theocrat

> so when children are blown to pieces, it is because he allows it.
> Its all under his control. the interventionist god.
> 
> Several founders found a consistency between free will, liberty, and a non-interventionist creator.
> but logic and consistency has no place is people's religious beliefs in today's america.
> just learn the lines you need to repeat to help avoid the topics of cognitive dissonance.


Yes, that's correct, torch. God does in fact punish nations for national sins by sending armies, famines, or calamities to chastise them or destroy them for disobedience. But God has every right to do that with His creation, just as He sent a global flood to destroy the world (except eight souls) for their sins. I know that may be difficult to understand, but part of the difficulty is based on our natural presumption of universal innocence, as human beings.

But let me turn that around and ask you how do you justify children being blown to pieces? If you're an evolutionist, then you have no moral judgment to make about such a thing. It's just random matter in motion, no different than if a rock falls on somebody's head and kills them. You wouldn't call the rock "evil" for doing such a thing. So, I don't know how you can call children being blown to pieces "evil" if they are just acting based on the product of random chemicals and biological processes in their bodies.

If you're not an evolutionist, then what is "wrong" with children being blown to pieces, in terms of your own worldview?

----------


## torchbearer

> Yes, that's correct, torch. God does in fact punish nations for national sins by sending armies, famines, or calamities to chastise them or destroy them for disobedience. But God has every right to do that with His creation, just as He sent a global flood to destroy the world (except eight souls) for their sins. I know that may be difficult to understand, but part of the difficulty is based on our natural presumption of universal innocence, as human beings.
> 
> But let me turn that around and ask you how do you justify children being blown to pieces? If you're an evolutionist, then you have no moral judgment to make about such a thing. It's just random matter in motion, no different than if a rock falls on somebody's head and kills them. You wouldn't call the rock "evil" for doing such a thing. So, I don't know how you can call children being blown to pieces "evil" if they are just acting based on the product of random chemicals and biological processes in their bodies.
> 
> If you're not an evolutionist, then what is "wrong" with children being blown to pieces, in terms of your own worldview?


my worldview.
each person owns themselves. that ownership infers a right to that life of that person and to the fruits of their labor.
bombing someone into pieces is immoral unless if was somehow in the real immediate defense and preservation of your life.

----------


## otherone

> But let me turn that around and ask you how do you justify children being blown to pieces? If you're an evolutionist, then you have no moral judgment to make about such a thing. It's just random matter in motion, no different than if a rock falls on somebody's head and kills them.


Evolutionists aren't capable of love?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well to be fair to Theocrat, he believes that God only loves some people.  Or is that Sola_Fide?  FreedomFanatic believes God loves everyone but dooms most people to hell.  I'm not sure where the other Calvinists or psuedo-Calvinists line up.  This whole series of threads started when I posted the thread "Fill in the blank...God loves you..."  Most people participated as expected in what I really thought would be a non-controversial feel good thread.  But *noooooo*.  Sola_Fide has to make sure that people understand God hates most people.  Yes.  The "good news" of the Gospel is God is mostly hate.  Okay....


Sola_Fide believes God hates most people.  Most Calvinists believe that God does have some love for the non-elect.  Supralapsarians are a minority within Calvinism, and I'm pretty sure James White is a supralapsarian yet believes God does have some love for the non-elect.  But God not having any love for the elect at all is an extreme minority position, limited to high, possibly even only ultra high, and hyper-calvinism.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Evolutionists aren't capable of love?


Extreme Political or Religious conflicts resolve by War. Extreme Scientific conflicts resolve by a search for better data. Final answer.

----------


## Theocrat

> my worldview.
> each person owns themselves. that ownership infers a right to that life of that person and to the fruits of their labor.
> bombing someone into pieces is immoral unless if was somehow in the real immediate defense and preservation of your life.


Are you an evolutionist, torch?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah? How come he couldn't just forgive "Adam" then? Cripes, if one were to buy the fable at face value then there's something terribly wrong with his decision on that one. Doom man forever to the burning flames of Hell...because he loves them? Is a little scwewy.


Well, to be clear, there are plenty of Christians who believe Adam was saved, although I don't believe (Note that I do not claim to know) he was.  But, assuming he was damned (As I believe), God cannot forgive those who Jesus did not die for, nor can he damn those who Christ did die for.  To do so would be unjust and against God's nature.

----------


## Theocrat

> Evolutionists aren't capable of love?


Yes, evolutionists are capable of love. The problem is they can't make sense of love, given the precepts of evolutionism. There is no such thing as "love" if evolution is true. If anything, "love" would be reduced to random electrochemical and biological processes, as a product of mindless mutations over time, no different than a fart or a burp. And the same would apply to a person who blows up little children. That person is just "dancing to the tune of his own DNA," as Richard Dawkins would put it.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Well, to be clear, there are plenty of Christians who believe Adam was saved, although I don't believe (Note that I do not claim to know) he was.  But, assuming he was damned (As I believe), God cannot forgive those who Jesus did not die for, nor can he damn those who Christ did die for.  To do so would be unjust and against God's nature.


I have a tough time even following these kinds of discussions because they demand one to conform to what I view as an illogical translation of premise. They are interesting though to see how people think and frame their lives around them.

I'm more down with Atom and the Sun as opposed to the Son and this Adam character. The ancients had it right. Shame it got spun so badly.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes, evolutionists are capable of love. The problem is they can't make sense of love, given the precepts of evolutionism. There is no such thing as "love" if evolution is true. If anything, "love" would be reduced to random electrochemical and biological processes, as a product of mindless mutations over time, no different than a fart or a burp. And the same would apply to a person who blows up little children. That person is just "dancing to the tune of his own DNA," as Richard Dawkins would put it.


Not that I agree with  either one, but I think there is a distinction to be made between theistic and atheistic evolution, if you know what I'm saying.  The former is much, much less dangerous than the latter.

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, to be clear, there are plenty of Christians who believe Adam was saved, although I don't believe (Note that I do not claim to know) he was.  But, assuming he was damned (As I believe), God cannot forgive those who Jesus did not die for, nor can he damn those who Christ did die for.  To do so would be unjust and against God's nature.


It is not at all unjust to reinstate a debt nor is it unjust not to cancel a paid for debt if the debtor never signs or cashes the check.  You have imposed your own definition of justice that is neither biblical nor sensible.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> It is not at all unjust to reinstate a debt nor is it unjust not to cancel a paid for debt if the debtor never signs or cashes the check.  You have imposed your own definition of justice that is neither biblical nor sensible.


I can hardly believe my eyes.  I must have had too many beers and cannot read that post correctly.

Are you saying that if I owe someone something, he can refuse to take my payment and therefore keep me in debt?  Once I paid, whether he cash it or not, I would never let my conscience bother with it again.  And, if taken to court, I would win, if it were a court of justice.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I can hardly believe my eyes.  I must have had too many beers and cannot read this post correctly.
> 
> Are you saying that if I owe someone something, he can refuse to take my payment and therefore keep me in debt?  Once I paid, whether he cash it or not, I would never let my conscience bother with it again.  And, if taken to court, I would win, if it were a court of justice.


Don't worry about what jmdrake says.  None of what he says applies to the economics of salvation.  If you want to understand the economics of salvation, read what Paul says about it in the first 5 chapters of Romans.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Don't worry about what jmdrake says.  None of what he says applies to the economics of salvation.  If you want to understand the economics of salvation, read what Paul says about it in the first 5 chapters of Romans.


I have read Paul until blue in the face.  He (not a person but the writings, who knows who wrote each of the letters) was a hypocrite that made up his own philosophy.  Pretty clever writings, but they will just spin you in circles.  Try starting from the beginning and work your way up to what was supposed to be.  You will have to give a little here, a little there until you have no moral or logical compass to work from by the time you get done.  You, Sola_Fide, are just as good an example of that as I was just 5 or 6 years ago.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I have read Paul until blue in the face.  He (not a person but the writings, who knows who wrote each of the letters) was a hypocrite that made up his own philosophy.  Pretty clever writings, but they will just spin you in circles.  Try starting from the beginning and work your way up to what was supposed to be.  You will have to give a little here, a little there until you have no moral or logical compass to work from by the time you get done.  You, Sola_Fide, are just as good an example of that as I was just 5 or 6 years ago.


Really?  You've read the book of Romans until blue in the face?  And you understand it?  I've been studying the book of Romans for more than 15 years and I think I _barely_ understand it.  That does not seem credible to me.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Really?  You've read the book of Romans until blue in the face?  And you understand it?  I've been studying the book of Romans for more than 15 years and I think I _barely_ understand it.  That does not seem credible to me.


you've read it for 15 years?  I'm 58, but I didn't just read Romans but all of the writings.  I've read the whole bible.  Not just read, but cross-referenced, started over from Genesis, used concordances, interacted with the original writings (through software), read the bgreek forums, interacted with Rabbis, etc... 

My whole life was about GOD and the Kingdom of God, in every thought and every action.

You know where I'm starting to lean?  That the Arabs are the rightful descendants of the inheritance of Abraham.  Who, in all of history, has dwelled from the Mediterranean to the great river Euphrates?  Huh?  Who?  What a great big joke played on them and everyone else.  _And who are the only ones to keep the treaties that Abraham made between his seed and theirs forever?_

----------


## Sola_Fide

> you've read it for 15 years?  I'm 58, but I didn't just read Romans but all of the writings.  I've read the whole bible.  Not just read, but cross-referenced, started over from Genesis, used concordances, interacted with the original writings (through software), read the bgreek forums, interacted with Rabbis, etc... 
> 
> My whole life was about GOD and the Kingdom of God, in every thought and every action.
> 
> *You know where I'm starting to lean?  That the Arabs are the rightful descendants of the inheritance of Abraham.  Who, in all of history, has dwelled from the Mediterranean to the great river Euphrates?  Huh?  Who?  What a great big joke played on them and everyone else.  And who are the only ones to keep the treaties that Abraham made between his seed and theirs forever?*


If you would have read the 4th chapter of the book of Romans, Paul tells you who the true descendants of Abraham are?

Do you know what he said?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I have read Paul until blue in the face.  He (not a person but the writings, who knows who wrote each of the letters) was a hypocrite that made up his own philosophy.  Pretty clever writings, but they will just spin you in circles.  Try starting from the beginning and work your way up to what was supposed to be.  You will have to give a little here, a little there until you have no moral or logical compass to work from by the time you get done.  You, Sola_Fide, are just as good an example of that as I was just 5 or 6 years ago.


Pretty much every Biblical expert agrees Paul wrote at least 7 of the letters, and we're talking secular scholars there.

Mind you, I believe he wrote all of them, but 6 are actually disputed.  Romans is not one of those that is disputed.




> Really?  You've read the book of Romans until blue in the face?  And you understand it?  I've been studying the book of Romans for more than 15 years and I think I _barely_ understand it.  That does not seem credible to me.


I don't claim to understand it

----------


## fr33

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?  You just haven't read it right. God's word is too unclear to be understood by literate people. It requires twisting and reinterpretations that most of the believers just can't accomplish. Forgive me for not being impressed with such fool of a god. Can't even communicate with his creations.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Forgive me for not being impressed with such fool of a god. Can't even communicate with his creations.


This I like. 

Biblically, I agree with you one thousand percent. But I still, in the back of my head,  want to accept (because I'm biased toward the Cosmos as I'm sure most here know) that we are connected to everything around us and whether we realize it or not we do actually communicate. We just don't know that we are. Well...most of us anyhow. It's the derndest thing.

Here's a good once over. Sorry for the hippiness of it but I'm kind of on the fly and want to save some keystrokes that most of the time just turn out in vein.Everything is interconnected. Nature happening. God, if one wishes...

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Pretty much every Biblical expert agrees Paul wrote at least 7 of the letters, and we're talking secular scholars there.
> 
> Mind you, I believe he wrote all of them, but 6 are actually disputed.  Romans is not one of those that is disputed.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't claim to understand it


Would these same people agree that Iraq had WMD back in 2002?

You just have to put 2 and 2 together, but they won't put them in a nice neat pile for you like in grade school.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> If you would have read the 4th chapter of the book of Romans, Paul tells you who the true descendants of Abraham are?
> 
> Do you know what he said?


Yeah, but who cares, he just made up some $#@! like everyone else.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yeah, but who cares, he just made up some $#@! like everyone else.


Hmmm.  I'm not sure that you know what he said in the 4th chapter.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

You know what, I've really tried hard to not push my ex-Christianism on anyone here.  I've made a few comments now and then, but not really pushed it.

But the recent trend on the forums has been to keep the religion subforum in the top 10 on new-posts for the last few days.  So, I figure it's coming to a head, here on the forums.  And I don't have the time, damnit, to do this.  But...$#@!!

And, I really don't want to hurt anyone, not for the purpose of some ego trip I may have about all of this.

I went through hell, I mean hell, when I came to the realization that it's all bull$#@!.  But, I also came to the realization that some of it is true.  Just change some of the names.  Back when all of this was put together, writings from various places were used.  Why is it that we can't see so many of the writings that are catalogued with the Catholic library and the Israeli library?  Why the destruction of ancient things, like in Iraq? 

Did you know that Newton was a historian?  Do you know that he disputed history?

I've heard that history repeats itself for those that do not know it.  We don't know it, folks.  Why are people trying so hard to piece together history?  Because we don't know what it is and we keep finding more stuff, most of which we are not allowed to see until they have sifted through it and filtered it and then we get the redacted version.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Hmmm.  I'm not sure that you know what he said in the 4th chapter.


Really?  You do know that I have access to a bible too, right?  Oh, you are hoping that I'm one of those that don't do $#@!, but talk a lot.  I see.  You think I'm just saying I have read the bible but am too lazy to actually read.




> Romans 4 
> 
> King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 
> 4 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
> 
> 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
> 
> ...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You know what, I've really tried hard to not push my ex-Christianism on anyone here.  I've made a few comments now and then, but not really pushed it.
> 
> But the recent trend on the forums has been to keep the religion subforum in the top 10 on new-posts for the last few days.  So, I figure it's coming to a head, here on the forums.  And I don't have the time, damnit, to do this.  But...$#@!!
> 
> And, I really don't want to hurt anyone, not for the purpose of some ego trip I may have about all of this.
> 
> I went through hell, I mean hell, when I came to the realization that it's all bull$#@!.  But, I also came to the realization that some of it is true.  Just change some of the names.  Back when all of this was put together, writings from various places were used.  Why is it that we can't see so many of the writings that are catalogued with the Catholic library and the Israeli library?  Why the destruction of ancient things, like in Iraq? 
> 
> Did you know that Newton was a historian?  Do you know that he disputed history?
> ...


Right, but those are all baseless assertions which are contradicted by the evidence.  You have to go to the Did The Bible Misquote Jesus thread and see how those accusations dont hold up.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Really?  You do know that I have access to a bible too, right?  Oh, you are hoping that I'm one of those that don't do $#@!, but talk a lot.  I see.  You think I'm just saying I have read the bible but am too lazy to actually read.


I just was making sure you know who Paul says are the descendants of Abraham are in that passage.  You know, right?  

By the way, the KJV is really hard to read.  Try a NASB.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I just was making sure you know who Paul says are the descendants of Abraham are in that passage.  You know, right?  
> 
> By the way, the KJV is really hard to read.  Try a NASB.


Not hard for me, I've read it all my life. 

And you might want to try http://www.scripture4all.org/ if you want to see it in old Greek or Arabic, Chaldean, etc.. depending on whether it's the old or new testament.
You can also compare Youngs translation, or Concordant with KJV and the others.

And there is where you will find misquotes/mistranslations that make a hell of a difference from the original, and even those aren't original.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I just was making sure you know who Paul says are the descendants of Abraham are in that passage.  You know, right?  
> 
> By the way, the KJV is really hard to read.  Try a NASB.


Or ESV.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I just was making sure you know who Paul says are the descendants of Abraham are in that passage.  You know, right?  
> 
> By the way, the KJV is really hard to read.  Try a NASB.


Or ESV.

Oh, and since you're here, I would have PMed this but your PM box is full:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...10#post5196910

(Arminians, get your popcorn)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Not hard for me, I've read it all my life. 
> 
> And you might want to try http://www.scripture4all.org/ if you want to see it in old Greek or Arabic, Chaldean, etc.. depending on whether it's the old or new testament.
> You can also compare Youngs translation, or Concordant with KJV and the others.
> 
> And there is where you will find misquotes/mistranslations that make a hell of a difference.


Not to belabor the point here... but you do understand what Paul says the descendants of Abraham are in that chapter?  I ask because many people who call themselves Christians don't know this either.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Not to belabor the point here... but you do understand what Paul says the descendants of Abraham are in that chapter?  I ask because many people who call themselves Christians don't know this either.


So, you want me to give you my view on what Paul says, so that you can attempt to destroy it.  Based on whether it is faith or some predestination or whatever.  I can read.  And, I've not given it so much as a thought for some 5 years.  But essentially he describes what he describes, that Abraham "believed" god, and that was considered righteousness.  Good enough for ya?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So, you want me to give you my view on what Paul says, so that you can attempt to destroy it.  Based on whether it is faith or some predestination or whatever.  I can read.  And, I've not given it so much as a thought for some 5 years.  But essentially he describes what he describes, that Abraham "believed" god, and that was considered righteousness.  Good enough for ya?


Well, we were talking about who the descendants of Abraham were, and you said it was the Arabs.  I was just making sure you knew what the Bible said about who the children of Abraham are.  They are the children by believing what Abraham believed.  

Christians, the ones who believe in Jesus, are credited with righteousness just like Abraham was.  The descendants of Abraham are Christians.

----------


## fr33

> So, you want me to give you my view on what Paul says, so that you can attempt to destroy it.  Based on whether it is faith or some predestination or whatever.  I can read.  And, I've not given it so much as a thought for some 5 years.  But essentially he describes what he describes, that Abraham "believed" god, and that was considered righteousness.  Good enough for ya?




I'll keep you company in hell along with most humans. Who wants to go to heaven if Sola Fide and people like him are exclusively there?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'll keep you company in hell along with most humans. Who wants to go to heaven if Sola Fide and people like him are exclusively there?


I still want to go, Jesus Christ will be there.

Although I still maintain that the morons who write "Outside the Camp" are reprobate

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Well, we were talking about who the descendants of Abraham were, and you said it was the Arabs.  I was just making sure you knew what the Bible said about who the children of Abraham are.  They are the children by believing what Abraham believed.  
> 
> Christians, the ones who believe in Jesus, are credited with righteousness just like Abraham was.  The descendants of Abraham are Christians.


Not in the flesh, in your bible world.  Allegory, look it up.

_edit: The whole point that I was making is that the bible is not what you think it is.  And, it may be more "likely" that the older writings that describe Abraham and his descendants are describing the Arabs (descendants of Ishmael) since only they have ever seen the kind of "fulfillment" that is described in those older writings.  Read what I said above in post 96, again._

----------


## otherone

> Not in the flesh, in your bible world.  Allegory, look it up.
> 
> _edit: The whole point that I was making is that the bible is not what you think it is._


Your journey was similar to mine, though you are far more erudite.  The epistles were at the heart of my metanoia. Now, reading the various arguments about translations, interpretations, omissions, allegories and punctiliousness, the entire structure comes crashing down.  If the bible is inspired by God, and is to serve as our path to salvation, why does it read like a labyrinthine map to the tower of Babel?   Why does it appear that the bible twists and morphs based on what sect is reading it?   The better the apologists, the wider the controversy...they merely demonstrate that dogma>bible>god.

----------


## moostraks

> Your journey was similar to mine, though you are far more erudite.  The epistles were at the heart of my metanoia. Now, reading the various arguments about translations, interpretations, omissions, allegories and punctiliousness, the entire structure comes crashing down.  If the bible is inspired by God, and is to serve as our path to salvation, why does it read like a labyrinthine map to the tower of Babel?   Why does it appear that the bible twists and morphs based on what sect is reading it?   The better the apologists, the wider the controversy...they merely demonstrate that dogma>bible>god.


I stick with Matt 22: 36Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

I use this and if someone is deciphering something from Biblical texts and it fails either of these it is immediately discarded.

I also hold on to this:

1 John 4:7Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Not in the flesh, in your bible world.  Allegory, look it up.
> 
> _edit: The whole point that I was making is that the bible is not what you think it is.  And, it may be more "likely" that the older writings that describe Abraham and his descendants are describing the Arabs (descendants of Ishmael) since only they have ever seen the kind of "fulfillment" that is described in those older writings.  Read what I said above in post 96, again._


What "older writings"?

----------


## Theocrat

> I answered your Pharoah quote in another thread by pointing out to you that Samuel specifically warned the children against hardening *their own hearts as Pharaoh did*.  The way to reconcile 1 Samuel with the verse you quoted is by understanding what Paul was saying in Romans and elsewhere how when men reject what the know to be God's truth, God gives them over to a reprobate mind.  So...why are you asking the same question again and pretending I didn't already answer it?
> 
> As for your Isaiah quote, nobody is arguing that God doesn't ultimately overrule men when they overstep their bounds.  I give my children choices, but I limit those choices.  That doesn't mean I haven't allowed them to make any choices.  You mistake God's sovereignty with God being a puppet master where man has no choices at all.  The Bible just doesn't teach that.


In Exodus 4:21, it says, "And the LORD said unto Moses, 'When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand. *But I will harden his heart*, that he shall not let the people go.'" (bold emphasis mine) It explicitly says that God will harden Pharaoh's heart, which means that God is the initiator of Pharaoh's hardening, not Pharaoh himself. Did God "respect Pharaoh's 'free will'" by asking Pharaoh if it was okay for his heart to be hardened, and then leaving the choice up to him? Absolutely not. Pharaoh did not have a choice in the matter, so, therefore his will was not free to resist God's hardening nor submit to it. Yet, the idea of free will would, in principle, allow Pharaoh to exert his will either way. So, you're just plain mistaken that the account with Pharaoh's hardening teaches any aspect of free will. Exodus 3:20 as well as Romans 9:17 even goes so far as to tell us the reason why God hardened Pharaoh's heart, and it had nothing to do with Pharaoh having the free will choice to decide in the matter.

Having established that, let me go on to say that I do agree with you, in light of Romans 1:24-26, that God gives the person over to their lusts when He hardens their heart, turning them over to a reprobate mind, but that is the point. God gives the reprobate over to his sins; the reprobate does not exert "free will." Of course, the sin is already in the person's heart, so he naturally will choose to be indulged in his sins after God gives him over to them, but his inclinations are towards doing the very things that glorify and bring pleasure to himself, rather than choosing to do those things which glorify and please God.

And that's how we all are before God regenerates us, jmdrake. As Romans 3:10-20 shows us, no man in his natural condition chooses God on his own. That's why we need to be born again, after all. And think about the nature of birth. No one had a "free will choice" about being born. You and I and everybody else were born because of the choice of two other people. Our decision to exist had nothing to do with our free will. And it is the same with our spiritual birth of being born again (or born from above). God is the Potter, and we are the clay. It's time we learned our place and seek God's face because only He has the power to control internal volitions as well as the devices of men in this world, for His own glory.

----------


## torchbearer

> Are you an evolutionist, torch?


what does that mean?
do i think animals mutate?

----------


## Theocrat

> what does that mean?
> do i think animals mutate?


Do you believe that the theory of evolution is true?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Now, reading the various arguments about translations, interpretations, omissions, allegories and punctiliousness, the entire structure comes crashing down.


What about the translations, interpretations, and "omissions" are you having a problem with?  Give me your best argument (keep in mind that you will interpret the "evidence" based on your presupposition against God...you are not neutral).





> If the bible is inspired by God, and is to serve as our path to salvation, why does it read like a labyrinthine map to the tower of Babel?   Why does it appear that the bible twists and morphs based on what sect is reading it?


If you gave 10 Bibles to 10 different people and they came up with 10 different interpretations, where is the variable there?   In the Bibles or in the people?

Also, this is not a purely intellectual question.  It is a _moral_ question.  People are not neutral when they come to the question of the Bible.  They have moral pre-comittments for or against it before they even look at the evidence.





> The better the apologists, the wider the controversy...they merely demonstrate that dogma>bible>god.


What do you mean by "wider"?

----------


## otherone

> What about the translations, interpretations, and "omissions" are you having a problem with?  Give me your best argument (keep in mind that you will interpret the "evidence" based on your presupposition against God...you are not neutral).


YOU. Sola Fide, YOU are my best argument....or TER, or eduardo, or erowe, or jmDrake.  You guys are so diametrically opposed, yet you all believe you are so effing RIGHT with your own insular interpretation.  Same book....how many sects?

----------


## erowe1

> YOU. Sola Fide, YOU are my best argument....or TER, or eduardo, or erowe, or jmDrake.  You guys are so diametrically opposed, yet you all believe you are so effing RIGHT with your own insular interpretation.  Same book....how many sects?


Do you think there is a main message at the center of the Bible that's easy to see?

----------


## otherone

> Do you think there is a main message at the center of the Bible that's easy to see?


You guys all get together, agree on the main message, and let me know.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> YOU. Sola Fide, YOU are my best argument....or TER, or eduardo, or erowe, or jmDrake.  You guys are so diametrically opposed, yet you all believe you are so effing RIGHT with your own insular interpretation.  Same book....how many sects?


So something is true because a majority of people believe it is?  What percentage of the people need to agree on something to make it true?

----------


## robert68

> How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?  You just haven't read it right. God's word is too unclear to be understood by literate people. It requires twisting and reinterpretations that most of the believers just can't accomplish. Forgive me for not being impressed with such fool of a god. Can't even communicate with his creations.


Yep. Its an obvious logical fallacy that an almighty all wise creator would and could only communicate with a few select beings that lived over 2000 years ago, with the expectation his message would be communicated to everyone else in the world by an unending human grapevine of future born. But logic and religion are two different things.

Also, without even addressing the content of the Bible, if it was a largely pro individual liberty book, no heads of state would ever associate themselves with it. The fact they usually do speaks for itself.

----------


## otherone

> So something is true because a majority of people believe it is?  What percentage of the people need to agree on something to make it true?


LOL.  So who's version is correct, seeing that a consensus is unimportant?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> LOL.  So who's version is correct, seeing that a consensus is unimportant?


Well, since the Bible is God's Word, the truth of the positions must be judged by that ultimate standard.  So whatever position is Biblical is true.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yep. It’s an obvious logical fallacy that an almighty all wise creator would and could only communicate with a few select beings that lived over 2000 years ago, with the expectation his message would be communicated to everyone else in the world by an unending human grapevine of future born. But logic and religion are two different things.


What logical fallacy is committed by God revealing His truth to only select people?





> Also, without even addressing the content of the Bible, if it was a largely pro individual liberty book, no heads of state would ever associate themselves with it. The fact they usually do speaks for itself.


If atheism was an individualist view, then no heads of state would ever associate themselves with it.  Oops, logic fail on that one.

----------


## erowe1

> You guys all get together, agree on the main message, and let me know.


You might find a lot more agreement among Christians about that than you think.

----------


## Theocrat

> Yep. Its an obvious logical fallacy that an almighty all wise creator would and could only communicate with a few select beings that lived over 2000 years ago, with the expectation his message would be communicated to everyone else in the world by an unending human grapevine of future born. But logic and religion are two different things.
> 
> Also, without even addressing the content of the Bible, if it was a largely pro individual liberty book, no heads of state would ever associate themselves with it. The fact they usually do speaks for itself.


What is the obvious logical fallacy that "an almighty, all-wise Creator would and could only communicate with a few select beings that lived over 2,000 years ago, with the expectation that His message would be communicated to everyone else in the world by an unending human grapevine of future born?" Just so you'll know, I affirm the laws of logic, as a Christian, and it's not in spite of my faith in God but because of Him.

----------


## matt0611

> Yep. It’s an obvious logical fallacy that an almighty all wise creator would and could only communicate with a few select beings that lived over 2000 years ago, with the expectation his message would be communicated to everyone else in the world by an unending human grapevine of future born. But logic and religion are two different things.
> 
> Also, without even addressing the content of the Bible, if it was a largely pro individual liberty book, no heads of state would ever associate themselves with it. The fact they usually do speaks for itself.


How is that a logical fallacy? Who said that was the only way could communicate his word to us? Billions of people from all around the world have access to the Bible. I mean anyone with an internet connection can get it. I don't know any languages it hasn't been translated into. I don't think there are any books that have been printed more than the Bible. 

Heads of state usually go with what will ever get them elected and/or more power. Almost all politicians will associate themselves with things like the Bill of Rights, the liberty, freedom, etc. Just because they say they are for things doesn't mean they are actually telling the truth or even understand them or won't twist them to mean something else for their advantage (hey, Nancy Pelosi claims the Bill of Rights guarantees us all healthcare provided by the government). Politicians use good things for evil purposes all the time. This is somehow surprising?

----------


## erowe1

> What is the obvious logical fallacy that "an almighty, all-wise Creator would and could only communicate with a few select beings that lived over 2,000 years ago, with the expectation that His message would be communicated to everyone else in the world by an unending human grapevine of future born?" Just so you'll know, I affirm the laws of logic, as a Christian, and it's not in spite of my faith in God but because of Him.





> How is that a logical fallacy? Who said that was the only way could communicate his word to us? Billions of people from all around the world have access to the Bible. I mean anyone with an internet connection can get it. I don't know any languages it hasn't been translated into. I don't think there are any books that have been printed more than the Bible. 
> 
> Heads of state usually go with what will ever get them elected and/or more power. Almost all politicians will associate themselves with things like the Bill of Rights, the liberty, freedom, etc. Just because they say they are for things doesn't mean they are actually telling the truth or even understand them or won't twist them to mean something else for their advantage (hey, Nancy Pelosi claims the Bill of Rights guarantees us all healthcare provided by the government). Politicians use good things for evil purposes all the time. This is somehow surprising?


You have to understand that when these guys talk about "logic," they don't actually want to have to be logical, with syllogisms and things. For them, an idea is illogical if it fails to agree with something they made up willy nilly.

----------


## robert68

> What is the obvious logical fallacy that "an almighty, all-wise Creator would and could only communicate with a few select beings that lived over 2,000 years ago, with the expectation that His message would be communicated to everyone else in the world by an unending human grapevine of future born?" Just so you'll know, I affirm the laws of logic, as a Christian, and it's not in spite of my faith in God but because of Him.


If a far mightier and sane being wanted to communicate a message to another being, he would do so directly to them, like he supposedly did to “prophets”, not through an unending human grapevine of "sinners". This is also addressed to Sola_Fide  and matt0611.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> YOU. Sola Fide, YOU are my best argument....or TER, or eduardo, or erowe, or jmDrake.  You guys are so diametrically opposed, yet you all believe you are so effing RIGHT with your own insular interpretation.  Same book....how many sects?


Catholics and Orthodox believe tradition is "Equal" to scripture.  So their opinions on Scripture are irrelevant, since they're interpreting it based on something else.  Discount eduardo and TER.

The Bible isn't clear on everything, but it is clear on everything needed for Salvation.

As for Sola_Fide and Jmdrake, look somewhere in between the two of them, read the Bible for yourself, and you should come to the truth.

----------


## eduardo89

> YOU. Sola Fide, YOU are my best argument....or TER, or eduardo, or erowe, or jmDrake.  You guys are so diametrically opposed, yet you all believe you are so effing RIGHT with your own insular interpretation.  Same book....how many sects?


Many sects, One Church. I agree with TER on 99% of issues and agree with erowe very often, or at least how he phrases things.

----------


## eduardo89

> Catholics and Orthodox believe tradition is "Equal" to scripture.  So their opinions on Scripture are irrelevant, since they're interpreting it based on something else.  Discount eduardo and TER.


You probably don't even know what is meant by Holy Tradition. But anyway, your opinions on Scripture are not only irrelevant, they have no basis on what is actually taught in Scripture and by the Church Fathers who put together the Canon, but instead rely entirely on what your three pound brain deems "correct." Then you go off and pretend you know anything about Catholic and Orthodox theology.




> As for Sola_Fide and Jmdrake, look somewhere in between the two of them, read the Bible for yourself, and you should come to the truth.


And there is it, perfect evidence on why Protestantism leads to atheism. When you make yourself into the final arbiter of Truth then you make yourself God. That is why Protestantism is the path to moral relativism, disunity, and eventually atheism.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If a far mightier and sane being wanted to communicate a message to another being, he would do so directly to them, like he supposedly did to “prophets”, not through an unending human grapevine of "sinners".


That's not a logical fallacy.  It's not even an accurate picture of revelation.  In the New Covenant, ALL believers are prophets.  ALL believers are are priests.  ALL believers are kings.

In the New Covenant, God does reveal Himself directly to believers.  Jesus is our eternal high Priest, our eternal Prophet, our eternal King...and we are co-heirs to this privilege.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Yes, god does what he pleases.  And, mankind always needs an enemy.

----------


## fr33

> Yep. It’s an obvious logical fallacy that an almighty all wise creator would and could only communicate with a few select beings that lived over 2000 years ago, with the expectation his message would be communicated to everyone else in the world by an unending human grapevine of future born. But logic and religion are two different things.
> 
> Also, without even addressing the content of the Bible, if it was a largely pro individual liberty book, no heads of state would ever associate themselves with it. The fact they usually do speaks for itself.


I enjoy watching your fellow christians argue with your response to me, which proves the point I made.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> As for Sola_Fide and Jmdrake, look somewhere in between the two of them, read the Bible for yourself, and you should come to the truth.


That shouldn't be anyone's standard for truth.

----------


## robert68

> ...
> 
> 
> If atheism was an individualist view, then no heads of state would ever associate themselves with it.  Oops, logic fail on that one.


Anti Bible God atheists can certainly be collectivist. I havent seen anyone in this forum suggest otherwise. 
Also, their blind faith in the state makes them religious. Sorry, no logic fail.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> You know what, I've really tried hard to not push my ex-Christianism on anyone here.  I've made a few comments now and then, but not really pushed it.
> 
> But the recent trend on the forums has been to keep the religion subforum in the top 10 on new-posts for the last few days.  So, I figure it's coming to a head, here on the forums.  And I don't have the time, damnit, to do this.  But...$#@!!
> 
> And, I really don't want to hurt anyone, not for the purpose of some ego trip I may have about all of this.
> 
> I went through hell, I mean hell, when I came to the realization that it's all bull$#@!.  But, I also came to the realization that some of it is true.  Just change some of the names.  Back when all of this was put together, writings from various places were used.  Why is it that we can't see so many of the writings that are catalogued with the Catholic library and the Israeli library?  Why the destruction of ancient things, like in Iraq? 
> 
> Did you know that Newton was a historian?  Do you know that he disputed history?
> ...


Clyde, your post really got to me.  With all the knowledge you have and decades spent as a Christian, you have come to this conclusion.  I deeply appreciate your honesty here.

----------


## TER

> Catholics and Orthodox believe tradition is "Equal" to scripture.  So their opinions on Scripture are irrelevant, since they're interpreting it based on something else.  Discount eduardo and TER.
> 
> The Bible isn't clear on everything, but it is clear on everything needed for Salvation.
> 
> As for Sola_Fide and Jmdrake, look somewhere in between the two of them, read the Bible for yourself, and you should come to the truth.


FF, Holy Scipture is _written_ Traditon.  It is one part, albeit the most authoritative part of Church Tradition.  We do not believe, as the Muslims do, that the Word of God is a book, but rather that the Word of God is the Person of Jesus Christ, the Theanthropos (God-Man), of which the Holy Scriptures were written about.  

These were writings written by men and inspired by the Holy Spirit.  These are certainly not the ONLY writings of expressive creation by men which have been inspired by the Holy Spirit.  It has, however, for the purposes of preserving the faith against false gospels and heretical teachings, been compiled by the Church and the Bishops of the Church under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in order to guide the flock of the believers.  And it was the Church which produced (at times under severe debate) a canon (from the Greek word kanon, meaning ruler or measuring stick) of the most reliable, important and treasured writings to be as a foundational measuring stick in learning the truth of God's revelations.  

But always, even when this canon was produced and the books selected, was it understood that the correct interpretation of these writings lay with the greater witness of the entire Church, those interpretations and beliefs passed down generation to generation in accordance to the teachings received by the Apostles and the Saints.  Those men and women whose lives were living prayers of devotion to God with devout steadfastness to the teachings handed to them, at the cost of even their limbs and their lives.  Martyrdom instead of renouncing Christ is a tradition of the Church.  The Holy Eucharist and the other mysteries of the Church such as Holy Baptism are also traditions of the Church.  There is no life of the Church without tradition, and even those Christians who view the term in such a negative light do not even realize that they too are following traditions (a main one being reverence and veneration of the Holy Scriptures).  

The fullness of the faith is not in reading a book and a simpe mental assent to belief (though these are surely necessary beginning steps).  The fullness of the faith is in living a life of prayer in sacramental communion and become a living temple of God Himself by the grace of the Holy Spirit.  And this requires the work of living, not merely thinking.

----------


## jj-

> God Does Whatever He Pleases


So do I.

----------


## jj-

> It is amazing how you can still come to an erroneous conclusion that "God gives me free will"


Isn't it amazing that God wills that jmdrake act that way? After all, jmdrake doesn't have free will.

----------


## erowe1

> These are certainly not the ONLY writings of expressive creation by men which have been inspired by the Holy Spirit.


What others are there?

----------


## TER

> What others are there?


Some of the Apocryphal writings, many of the writings of the Church Fathers, many of the hymns of the Church, etc.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> In the New Covenant, God does reveal Himself directly to believers.


How?  If through Scripture, then it seems to be an exceedingly inefficient way to do it, given all of the divergent interpretations of the Bible.

----------


## erowe1

> Some of the Apocryphal writings, many of the writings of the Church Fathers, many of the hymns of the Church, etc.


Can you link to a complete list? I'd especially like to know which Church Fathers' writings are inspired.

----------


## Theocrat

> If a far mightier and sane being wanted to communicate a message to another being, he would do so directly to them, like he supposedly did to prophets, not through an unending human grapevine of "sinners". This is also addressed to Sola_Fide  and matt0611.


Robert68, I want to know which logical fallacy has been committed when you assert that "an almighty all wise creator would and could only communicate with a few select beings that lived over 2000 years ago, with the expectation his message would be communicated to everyone else in the world by an unending human grapevine of future born." You're appealing to the laws of logic, so you must demonstrate how that sort of reasoning violates a particular or various laws of logic.

Or perhaps you just don't agree that an all-wise, all-powerful, and all-knowing God can keep His word inviolate by His own sovereign will throughout history so that His message is never tainted nor terminated, which, of course, is not a logical fallacy. Of course an almighty, sovereign God Who created the universe, time, space, and energy can do simple things like inspire and preserve His word to whomever He wants. How can that be impossible for such a Being?

----------


## torchbearer

> Do you believe that the theory of evolution is true?


i believe mutations occur in things on this planet for several reasons.
Those mutations that are beneficial are passed on as the parent survives.
Those mutations that are not beneficial fail to pass on as the animal dies before passing on the mutation.
Over time, god's creatures can adapt to an ever changing earth through these mutations.
That is evolution i believe in.

----------


## Theocrat

> i believe mutations occur in things on this planet for several reasons.
> Those mutations that are beneficial are passed on as the parent survives.
> Those mutations that are not beneficial fail to pass on as the animal dies before passing on the mutation.
> Over time, god's creatures can adapt to an ever changing earth through these mutations.
> That is evolution i believe in.


Do you believe that our brains are the product of random mutations?

----------


## torchbearer

> Do you believe that our brains are the product of random mutations?


i have no idea. i wasn't there.
reminds me of a song i wrote years ago-

"some say it all started when moss crawled up on the sand,
some say it all began when god made the first man,
you know, i don't really care.
if you want to know- I wasn't there."

----------


## Natural Citizen

> ...an all-wise, all-powerful, and all-knowing God



Reminded me of this old skit...




I must agree with George here in that after looking around at the world that if this is the best He can do then I too am not impressed. Results like this do not belong on the resume of an all-wise, all-powerful, and all-knowing supreme being. Perhaps, as George says, it's the kind of thing one would expect from an office temp with a bad attitude and in any decently run universe He would probably have been put out on his all powerful rear end a long time ago.

----------


## Theocrat

> i have no idea. i wasn't there.
> reminds me of a song i wrote years ago-
> 
> "some say it all started when moss crawled up on the sand,
> some say it all began when god made the first man,
> you know, i don't really care.
> if you want to know- I wasn't there."


Then how can you know that mutations took place in the past when you weren't there to observe them?

----------


## torchbearer

> Then how can you know that mutations took place in the past when you weren't there to observe them?


math.
running the film reel in reverse.
the furthur back you go the bigger the holes in the film... missing data to confirm.
but i can't tell you we came from moss.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> God Does Whatever He Pleases


 I suppose that's true.  And in the same sense, I do whatever pleases me.  We both do whatever we please.

May we both choose the right.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Do you believe that our brains are the product of random mutations?


In that area, I'm honestly tempted to give Terence McKenna's "Stoned Ape Theory" consideration.  

I think that would be a great explanation for human beings if it could be proved true.  

The short version is, McKenna thinks the development of our minds were swayed by discovering natural drugs like Mushrooms in the environment. I could see that, since ever today Humans still like Drugs of all kinds. This is just amusing speculation though.

----------


## otherone

> In that area, I'm honestly tempted to give Terence McKenna's "Stoned Ape Theory" consideration.


or this:

----------


## torchbearer

> or this:


yeah, had one of things appear in my living room, it was filled with videos from ron paul.
talking about a leap forward.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How?  If through Scripture, then it seems to be an exceedingly inefficient way to do it, given all of the divergent interpretations of the Bible.


What if God intended the divergent interpretations to exist?  It wouldn't be inefficient then, would it?

----------


## VIDEODROME



----------


## torchbearer

> What if God intended the divergent interpretations to exist?  It wouldn't be inefficient then, would it?


still inefficient.
if i was a trickster god, i'd put out ambiguous books written via hands of humans with limited understand, and then spend my time lulzing at all the people trying to figure it out.
If I was a god who wanted a person relationship with my creations, i wouldn't use obfuscation to do it.

----------


## erowe1

> If I was a god who wanted a person relationship with my creations, i wouldn't use obfuscation to do it


Where'd you get this idea of God wanting a personal relationship with his creations?

----------


## torchbearer

> Where'd you get this idea of God wanting a personal relationship with his creations?


Some guy seeking financial contributions on a religious channel told me god loves me so much that he wants a personal relationship.
why would he lie? he was speaking for god? on tv no less.

----------


## Saint Vitus

self deleted.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> still inefficient.
> if i was a trickster god, i'd put out ambiguous books written via hands of humans with limited understand, and then spend my time lulzing at all the people trying to figure it out.
> If I was a god who wanted a person relationship with my creations, i wouldn't use obfuscation to do it.


What if God blinds people (like you) so that you can't see the truth, and He opens the minds of others to see the truth?  What if God knows exactly what He is doing?

----------


## erowe1

> Some guy seeking financial contributions on a religious channel told me god loves me so much that he wants a personal relationship.
> why would he lie? he was speaking for god? on tv no less.


It's easy to make fun of caricatures of God that you get from clowns. 

But what about the God who revealed himself to us in Jesus Christ?

----------


## torchbearer

> What if God blinds people (like you) so that you can't see the truth, and He opens the minds of others to see the truth?  What if God knows exactly what He is doing?


Then god hates me and wants me to fail.
can't do nothing about that.
Apparently, the trickster god like to $#@! with people to see how much they will endure and still love him.
kinda sick, psychopathic.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Some guy seeking financial contributions on a religious channel told me god loves me so much that he wants a personal relationship.
> why would he lie? he was speaking for god? on tv no less.


So you're one of those idiots who watches tele-evangelists?  Instead of digging in to riches of God's Word?

----------


## torchbearer

> It's easy to make fun of caricatures of God that you get from clowns. 
> 
> But what about the God who revealed himself to us in Jesus Christ?


I didn't see any revelation of God through christ.
And if i'm so $#@!ing not important to my creator, to the point that he has to make it a indirect path to him... well, i can't do much to that.
If God desires my love, its simple. talk to me. have a two way relationship with me.
otherwise i'm just a meatpuppet trying to figure out a guessing game for a higher being amusement.

----------


## torchbearer

> So you're one of those idiots who watches tele-evangelists?  Instead of digging in to riches of God's Word?


I'm one of those idiots that didn't just eat up the crap i was fed from a Catholic Religion, but sought truth through many paths, many denominations... and guess what?
same result.
Bull$#@! with people being used by 'men of god'.

----------


## erowe1

> I didn't see any revelation of God through christ.


Who do you think Jesus was or is then?

----------


## torchbearer

> Who do you think Jesus was or is then?


He was born a man. With implied Divine 'half' percentage. Just like Hercules.
His teachings went against the teachings of god practiced by the legal oriented jews of that time.
Because he  advocates a law higher than theirs, he was crucified with the roman bureaucracy as the trigger pulled for the jewish people of that time controlled by the religious political body of that time.

beyond that, all the details are varied amongst all the witnesses of christ. yet i usually only deal with the roman gospel worshipers, who first try to tell me that is not so- though it is... 
and then i get 20 post of taught mindless retort to any serious question against blind faith of no reason.

every time, its the same $#@!- but occasionally, one person starts to look at the total body of evidence outside the limited goggles of youthful authoritarian teaching of a story that can't be questioned without damnation of soul.

----------


## erowe1

> He was born a man. With implied Divine 'half' percentage. Just like Hercules.
> His teachings went against the teachings of god practiced by the legal oriented jews of that time.
> Because he  advocates a law higher than theirs, he was crucified with the roman bureaucracy as the trigger pulled for the jewish people of that time controlled by the religious political body of that time.


Let's say even only as much as you just said about Jesus was true, wouldn't that make him factor in pretty significantly in your understanding of God?

I mean, if Hercules were real, I'd definitely have to make some adjustments to my world view to account for him.

----------


## torchbearer

> Let's say even only as much as you just said about Jesus was true, wouldn't that make him factor in pretty significantly in your understanding of God?
> 
> I mean, if Hercules were real, I'd definitely have to make some adjustments to my world view to account for him.



not really, it seems that the purpose of a god to intertwine his divinity of humanity, would be to test the powers of a god through a son of a human.
the only thing that person tells me about god is that he likes to test his creation from a first person perspective.
meaning, if god can be a human and resist sin, you should be able too.

----------


## erowe1

> not really, it seems that the purpose of a god to intertwine his divinity of humanity, would be to test the powers of a god through a son of a human.
> the only thing that person tells me about god is that he likes to test his creation from a first person perspective.
> meaning, if god can be a human and resist sin, you should be able too.


So then you do think God revealed himself to us in Jesus Christ?

Because again, even if I thought that what God revealed in Jesus was exactly what you just said, that would be a big deal. It would show me that God existed, that he was personal, that he didn't sin, that he didn't want us to sin, and that we were able not to. If those truths have been revealed to us by the creator himself through the real-life historical person of Jesus Christ, wouldn't that revelation right there go a long way to showing us the meaning of life itself?

----------


## torchbearer

> So then you do think God revealed himself to us in Jesus Christ?
> 
> Because again, even if I thought that what God revealed in Jesus was exactly what you just said, that would be a big deal. It would show me that God existed, that he was personal, that he didn't sin, that he didn't want us to sin, and that we were able not to. If those truths have been revealed to us by the creator himself through the real-life historical person of Jesus Christ, wouldn't that revelation right there go a long way to showing us the meaning of life itself?


no, it only means god sent his Son to see if humanity was ready for him yet.
crucifixion would say, no. try again in a few thousand years.

----------


## PierzStyx

> You could say that, if it wasn't also true that the Judge of all the earth holds all men accountable for their sin.  Since He does, you couldn't say that.


Except if I don't have a will, I *CAN'T* sin. If all my actions are God's sovereign will acting through me, then I have _no_ actions, God is the one acting. Which means God is also the one sinning. Which makes Him corrupt and not God, but a Devil. On top of that, its sick and injustice to say God makes me sin and then punishes me for doing exactly what He literally made me do. If anyone has a twisted heresy it is you who turns God into a Tyrant, a Sinner, and a Torturer.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Except if I don't have a will, I *CAN'T* sin. If all my actions are God's sovereign will acting through me, then I have _no_ actions, God is the one acting. Which means God is also the one sinning. Which makes Him corrupt and not God, but a Devil. On top of that, its sick and injustice to say God makes me sin and then punishes me for doing exactly what He literally made me do. If anyone has a twisted heresy it is you who turns God into a Tyrant, a Sinner, and a Torturer.



The doctrine of predestination does not negate the will of man.  God does not sin, men sin...and do so willingly.

If you say this makes God unjust, then Paul already answers your objection in Romans 9.  Who are you, a man, to answer back to God?  Shall the thing formed say to the one who formed it "why did you make me like this"?

God is not unjust when He raises up evil Pharaoh, and judges him for that evil afterward.  Why?  Because He is God, and being the judge of the universe, whatever He does is right.

But I hesitate to even get in to discussions with Mormons about Christianity.  Mormonism is completely different polytheistic religion.  We don't need to be arguing about Christian doctrine, we need to be arguing about your polytheism.

----------


## torchbearer

> The doctrine of predestination does not negate the will of man.  God does not sin, men sin...and do so willingly.
> 
> If you say this makes God unjust, then Paul already answers your objection in Romans 9.  Who are you, a man, to answer back to God?  Shall the thing formed say to the one who formed it "why did you make me like this"?
> 
> God is not unjust when He raises up evil Pharaoh, and judges him for that evil afterward.  Why?  Because He is God, and being the judge of the universe, whatever He does is right.
> 
> But I hesitate to even get in to discussions with Mormons about Christianity.  Mormonism is completely different polytheistic religion.  We don't need to be arguing about Christian doctrine, we need to be arguing about your polytheism.


predestination with free will precludes a per-written divine plane.
otherwise, the decisions were made at creation. the time of publication.
otherwise, all our choices are god's will. thus not really your choice/free will.

----------


## erowe1

> no, it only means god sent his Son to see if humanity was ready for him yet.
> crucifixion would say, no. try again in a few thousand years.


This just gets back to the same thing.

If you really believe that God really sent his son, and that this was Jesus Christ (and I don't doubt that you really do believe that much), and that there was something necessary from humanity to prove they were ready for him, that they proved they weren't, and that you think they can yet prove to be, then how could all of this not be a major part of your worldview?

I would think that anybody believing what you just said would want to know as much as they could about Jesus and what he really said and did.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> predestination with free will precludes a per-written divine plane.
> otherwise, the decisions were made at creation. the time of publication.
> otherwise, all our choices are god's will. thus not really your choice/free will.


It does not matter that God has decreed sin.  God does not sin, men do.  God is just in condemning men for their sin (that He decrees) because He is God and He has determined it is right to do that.

You have no objection against the Lord.  You are going to stand before Him and He will call you to account for your sin against Him.  There is no escape from His judgement.

----------


## torchbearer

> This just gets back to the same thing.
> 
> If you really believe that God really sent his son, and that this was Jesus Christ (and I don't doubt that you really do believe that much), and that there was something necessary from humanity to prove they were ready for him, that they proved they weren't, and that you think they can yet prove to be, then how could all of this not be a major part of your worldview?
> 
> I would think that anybody believing what you just said would want to know as much as they could about Jesus and what he really said and did.


I think its important for people to know and practice everything Jesus had to say.
I do not believe any person has to believe in any doctrine beyond his examples of life.
no church, no following your interpretation of what you think. god will reveal himself through those text to each person.

you may rebuke what i have learned through my search of the truth of the text. and i've have 12 years of serious study in this focus.. and sometimes i feel like an ancap who spent so many years as a minarchist, just to realize i was making excuses for excepting the truth that all initiated aggression against others is immoral.

----------


## torchbearer

> It does not matter that God has decreed sin.  God does not sin, men do.  God is just in condemning men for their sin (that He decrees) because He is God and He has determined it is right to do that.
> 
> You have no objection against the Lord.  You are going to stand before Him and He will call you to account for your sin against Him.  There is no escape from His judgement.


you speak, as if you speak for god.
Hubris.

----------


## erowe1

> I think its important for people to know and practice everything Jesus had to say.
> I do not believe any person has to believe in any doctrine beyond his examples of life.
> no church, no following your interpretation of what you think. god will reveal himself through those text to each person.


Do you believe he rose from the dead?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Do you believe he rose from the dead?


Technically that whole fable is a mistranslation of astrological phenomenon. I don't get it with all of the "He" stufff. Does not compute.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> you speak, as if you speak for god.
> Hubris.


No...I don't speak for Him, I just repeat what He said in His Word.

----------


## torchbearer

> Do you believe he rose from the dead?


I'm Thomas, you shall condemn me in the same way he was condemned for wanting proof. Of course, Jesus cared enough for him to give him that proof, with a boon for those who didn't need such proof. but he didn't condemn those who wanted it. he gave it. that is all i want. god, i will give you my every being if you only give to me what you gave to thomas.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Technically that whole fable is a mistranslation of astrological phenomenon. I don't get it with all of the "He" stufff. Does not compute.


No it isn't.  That myth has been so thoroughly debunked that I'm surprised it is still around.  But hey, this is the internet....

----------


## otherone

> you speak, as if you speak for god.
> Hubris.


dogma>bible>god

----------


## torchbearer

> dogma>bible>god


i've noticed.
and when i point out the idolatry, it does...

"Vroom!"

----------


## Sola_Fide

> dogma>bible>god


atheism>science>illogical arguments

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The doctrine of predestination does not negate the will of man.  God does not sin, men sin...and do so willingly.
> 
> If you say this makes God unjust, then Paul already answers your objection in Romans 9.  Who are you, a man, to answer back to God?  Shall the thing formed say to the one who formed it "why did you make me like this"?
> 
> God is not unjust when He raises up evil Pharaoh, and judges him for that evil afterward.  Why?  Because He is God, and being the judge of the universe, whatever He does is right.
> 
> But I hesitate to even get in to discussions with Mormons about Christianity.  Mormonism is completely different polytheistic religion.  We don't need to be arguing about Christian doctrine, we need to be arguing about your polytheism.


Amen.

----------


## erowe1

> Technically that whole fable is a mistranslation of astrological phenomenon. I don't get it with all of the "He" stufff. Does not compute.


Have you ever read 1 Corinthians 15:1-11?




> Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you -- unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm Thomas, you shall condemn me in the same way he was condemned for wanting proof. Of course, Jesus cared enough for him to give him that proof, with a boon for those who didn't need such proof. but he didn't condemn those who wanted it. he gave it. that is all i want. god, i will give you my every being if you only give to me what you gave to thomas.


Have you done much looking at the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? I mean, before you tell God he has to give you more proof, you should at least exhaust the evidence he already has given you.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> No it isn't.  That myth has been so thoroughly debunked that I'm surprised it is still around.  But hey, this is the internet....



Heh. Hardly, S_F. Perhaps in the minds of those with much to lose it may feel good for them to lie to themselves and say that. But nothing is debunked save iron age fairy tales, my friend.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Heh. Hardly, S_F. Perhaps in the minds of those with much to lose it may feel good for them to lie to themselves and say that. But nothing is debunked save iron age fairy tales, my friend.


The Bible isn't an iron age fairy tale.

----------


## torchbearer

> The Bible isn't an iron age fairy tale.


its a remake of an earlier,
just like today. people can't come up with new ideas, so they just remake the old ones.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> its a remake of an earlier,
> just like today. people can't come up with new ideas, so they just remake the old ones.


Yep.  And then spin it six ways from Tuesday because "Oh, snap...there's power in this". Devolution of civilization, this organized religion. A "moral" destruction, mind you. Makes me sick. There has been more bloodshed, tyranny, corruption, death, destruction, famine and devolution that came from the wisdom gained from this magic book by men yearning for power than any other thing in the history of man. And the people love them for it.

----------


## otherone

> The Bible isn't an iron age fairy tale.


The old testament is bronze age.  The new testament is classical antiquity.

----------


## erowe1

> The Bible isn't an iron age fairy tale.


I've been noticing variations of that expression a lot lately. Just recently somebody here referred to God as a "bronze age deity," and I asked why they included the phrase "bronze age" in there. I don't think I got an answer. I've seen other atheist types use the same expression the same way a lot over the past year or so.

I think somebody they read must have done it, and they just sprinkle it around in their own arguments to make it sound like they know what the bronze age and iron age are, and that somehow that knowledge militates against the truth of the Gospel. But I don't think they usually do know what they are, because the ways they use the expressions don't make any sense, and it's already become too much of a cliche for it to sound original.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> its a remake of an earlier,
> just like today. people can't come up with new ideas, so they just remake the old ones.


Haha...what is it a remake of?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yep.  And then spin it six ways from Tuesday because "Oh, snap...there's power in this". Devolution of civilization, this organized religion. A "moral" destruction, mind you. Makes me sick.


Well, which one is it a remake of?  Let's argue about it.  Name something.

----------


## otherone

> But I don't think they usually do know what they are, because the ways they use the expressions don't make any sense, and it's already become too much of a cliche for it to sound original.


I don't think originality is the intent.  Understand that ancient history was divided into periods based on metallurgy. Yahweh was first written about in the bronze age.  It's pretty common knowledge.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Well, which one is it a remake of?  Let's argue about it.  Name something.


There's nothing to argue about. It's Sun. Not Son. The whole "He has Risen" aspect was introduced through religious (re)organization of the phenomenon.

----------


## erowe1

> I don't think originality is the intent.  Understand that ancient history was divided into periods based on metallurgy. Yahweh was first written about in the bronze age.  It's pretty common knowledge.


The earliest writing we have is from the Bronze Age.

So here we have something or someone who's written about in the Bronze Age, and then the Iron Age, and then every age after that, so, in other words, all throughout the entirety of recorded history, and somehow this thing or person is defined by the Bronze Age?

We first read about beef in the Bronze Age. Is beef any more a "bronze age food" than it is a modern day food?

----------


## erowe1

> There's nothing to argue about. It's Sun. Not Son. That's where the whole "He has Risen" aspect was introduced through religious (re)organization of the phenomenon.


So, I take it you haven't read 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, which I showed you above?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> So, I take it you haven't read 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, which I showed you above?


I didn't even see it, e. I'll read it. Why am I reading it though?

----------


## fr33

> The Bible isn't an iron age fairy tale.


It's the magic show of bronze age barbarians. If burning bushes impress you things like black holes, DNA, and magnetism must blow your mind.

----------


## erowe1

> I didn't even see it, e. I'll read it. Why am I reading it though?


I don't think there's any way to make that fit with what you're saying about Jesus' resurrection being some mistranslation of an astrological myth or whatever. You'll see what I mean when you read it.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Where in time was this term "brethren" introduced into language? That's the first thing I read but immediately asked myself that. I'll go finish reading it now...

----------


## erowe1

> Where in time was this term "brethren" introduced into language? That's the first thing I read but immediately asked myself that. I'll go finish reading it now...


In the kind of usage you see there, it's a pretty distinct feature of the jargon the earliest Christians used. So early first century.

I think there are prior examples of some voluntary associations using the same term, but it wasn't very common until it became common in Christianity.

The passage you're reading is from ca. AD 50.

----------


## otherone

> The earliest writing we have is from the Bronze Age.
> 
> So here we have something or someone who's written about in the Bronze Age, and then the Iron Age, and then every age after that, so, in other words, all throughout the entirety of recorded history, and somehow this thing or person is defined by the Bronze Age?
> 
> We first read about beef in the Bronze Age. Is beef any more a "bronze age food" than it is a modern day food?


Or you could argue that since he created everything then he is actually prehistorical as well (although prehistory is defined by lack of written evidence).  Frankly, the bible is written evidence, so I suppose the prehistorical period never actually existed.   It's very easy to classify inventions by the period they were invented.  The wheel, for instance, is a stone age invention, although it's in use today.  Yahweh is a bronze age invention.  Ahura Mazda, the Zoroastrian deity, is an iron Age invention, despite still being relevant today.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> In the kind of usage you see there, it's a pretty distinct feature of the jargon the earliest Christians used. So early first century.
> 
> I think there are prior examples of some voluntary associations using the same term, but it wasn't very common until it became common in Christianity.
> 
> The passage you're reading is from ca. AD 50.


Yes, I looked it up. Thank you for clarification though. I have to tell you that I just see these scriptures as complete spin on what is just not understood by the people of that time. And this is a.d. so I mean, gosh. How far gone is it by then?

Of course it doesn't fit.  That's the beauty of it. Again, I have to label it devolution of perception to natural processes. Obviously, I'm biased. And you know that, I assume.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes, I looked it up. Thank you for clarification though. eric, I have to tell you that I just see these scriptures as complete spin on what is just not understood by the people of that time. And this is a.d. so I mean, gosh. How far gone is it by then?


Well, we have something written when the eyewitnesses were still alive, and it names those eye witnesses. Some of these were people who were known as Jesus' brothers. Who were these people if there never was any Jesus to have brothers? But if Jesus was real, then all these people at least thought he rose from the dead. It wasn't an idea that came up later on. Even if you don't think it happened, the basis for it has to be this belief that these people had that it did happen in their own day and that they were witnesses of it. It can't be just another variation of some older myth about the Sun.

Where did you get that idea anyway?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There's nothing to argue about. It's Sun. Not Son. The whole "He has Risen" aspect was introduced through religious (re)organization of the phenomenon.


Its "sun" not "son"?  Do you know that they did not speak english back then?  Did you know the word "son" sounds nothing like "sun" in other languages?

Haha...

----------


## Christian Liberty

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Sola_Fide again.

They obviously have no interest in the Scripture, you should answer my questions instead

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Its "sun" not "son"?  Do you know that they did not speak english back then?  Did you know the word "son" sounds nothing like "sun" in other languages?
> 
> Haha...


You have just proven to me that you are not able to have this debate.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You have just proven to me that you are not able to have this debate.


Why?  You knew that Son does not sound like Sun in other languages right?

If you are saying it is not a transliteration, then what are you saying?

----------


## Sola_Fide

Lets debate Natural Citizen.  You brought up the Sun cult, so what does a Sun cult have anything to do with first century Judaism?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why?  You knew that Son does not sound like Sun in other languages right?
> 
> If you are saying it is not a transliteration, then what are you saying?


He's saying that he's not of the elect and so he has to find some excuse to reject God even if there isn't any excuse

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Why?  You knew that Son does not sound like Sun in other languages right?
> 
> If you are saying it is not a transliteration, then what are you saying?


S_F, I'm way back at around 4500BC here. You're not, I don't think. Has nothing to do with the sound but ironically, that's the ludicrous means of eventually making a case for devolution of perception. Just don't know if I'm up for it right this second. Do you know anything at all regarding ancient civilization and their perception of the "Gods"? It's a great topic and extremely relevant to today's misperception of natural processes and one that I'd actually enjoy having. Let me ask you this. And it's not meant to knock on you. As I've said before, I think you are a good debater. Do you believe that the earth is 6,000 years old?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> S_F, I'm way back at around 4500BC here. You're not, I don't think. Has nothing to do with the sound but ironically, that's the ludicrous means of eventually making a case for devolution of perception. Just don't know if I'm up for it right this second. Do you know anything at all regarding ancient civilization and their perception of the "Gods"? It's a great topic and extremely relevant to today's misperception of natural processes and one that I'd actually enjoy having. Let me ask you this. And it's not meant to knock on you. As I've said before, I think you are a good debater. Do you believe that the earth is 6,000 years old?



Yeah, but you are talking about polythestic paganism.  No Jew in the first century would ever accept polytheism or paganism.  The Jewish Christians in the first century believed in ONE God.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Lets debate Natural Citizen.  You brought up the Sun cult, so what does a Sun cult have anything to do with first century Judaism?


I'd love to do that but rather another topic. Not this one. It's a wreck. What would you consider acceptable terms of controversy given that discussion? You're already pushing the "cult" meme and that's just not practical at all.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Yeah, but you are talking about polythestic paganism.  No Jew in the first century would ever accept polytheism or paganism.  The Jewish Christians in the first century believed in ONE God.


Yeah, the many "ism's", in my view, are products of time and perception regarding structure/organization of a given era by the people of that particular time. Does not compute.

----------


## TER

> Can you link to a complete list? I'd especially like to know which Church Fathers' writings are inspired.


Erowe, we may have a different definition of what 'inspired' means.  I am not limiting it to those writings which have been deemed authoritative by the Church, though they are the example_ par excellance_ of what inspired writings are.   Inspired is different from canonization.  The Church was 'inspired' by the Holy Spirit before anything was ever written down, and way before a sacred canon was compiled.   Indeed, for many centuries (and just as their Jewish ancestors did), there was no formalized or official canon, for back then with the Jews there were many writings which were read in the synagogues and used by the rabbis and teachers to educate the faithful.  Likewise, in the early Church, those believing Jews who found Christ worshiped the same with readings from varying books of the Old Covenant.  In fact, a Jewish canon was not formalized actually until after Christ rose from the dead, and that intentionally to hide away the writings which clearly prophecized about Jesus Christ.

 If inspiration means to be _in_ the Holy Spirit as the word intimates, then simply saying 'Jesus is the Lord' is inspired, for "no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit."  (1 Corinthians 12:3)  

For this reason, I cannot begin to list to you even the smallest amount of writings which have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, for they are too numerous to count and many lost to history.  In fact, some of your posts could be considered inspired!  _some_ of the them...   But if you wish for some good examples of what I mean about writings which are inspired and not in the sacred canon, read over the Divine Liturgy service of the Orthodox Church or the hymns of Holy Week or the writings of the Desert Fathers or the Philokalia.  These are good examples of what inspired writings look like.

What was canonized by the Church for reasons of education and edification can of course be listed and even enumerated.  And even these have varying places of honor and standing in our worship, with of course the Gospels holding the greatest place.  But those books canonized are not exhaustive of what the Church has considered to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.  Never have been.

----------


## robert68

> Robert68, I want to know which logical fallacy has been committed when you assert that "an almighty all wise creator would and could only communicate with a few select beings that lived over 2000 years ago, with the expectation his message would be communicated to everyone else in the world by an unending human grapevine of future born." You're appealing to the laws of logic, so you must demonstrate how that sort of reasoning violates a particular or various laws of logic.


He would be insane and a total fool, the antithesis of all wise, to expect a message he gave directly to a few people, to be accurately delivered via the human grapevine to the rest of the world. Christianity and other Bible base religions are premised on him doing so. 




> Or perhaps you just don't agree that an all-wise, all-powerful, and all-knowing God can keep His word inviolate by His own sovereign will throughout history so that His message is never tainted nor terminated, which, of course, is not a logical fallacy. Of course an almighty, sovereign God Who created the universe, time, space, and energy can do simple things like inspire and preserve His word to whomever He wants. How can that be impossible for such a Being?


He could by definition, deliver messages directly to as many people as he wants too, and those messages couldnt be disputed by you or any of your religious comrades. But thats not Christianity or any other Bible and prophecy centered religion.

----------


## robert68

> How is that a logical fallacy? Who said that was the only way could communicate his word to us? Billions of people from all around the world have access to the Bible. I mean anyone with an internet connection can get it. I don't know any languages it hasn't been translated into. I don't think there are any books that have been printed more than the Bible.





> Heads of state usually go with what will ever get them elected and/or more power. Almost all politicians will associate themselves with things like the Bill of Rights, the liberty, freedom, etc. Just because they say they are for things doesn't mean they are actually telling the truth or even understand them or won't twist them to mean something else for their advantage (hey, Nancy Pelosi claims the Bill of Rights guarantees us all healthcare provided by the government). Politicians use good things for evil purposes all the time. This is somehow surprising?


I dont see US heads of state associating themselves with individual liberty. In the US, the Bible is the most widely owned and read book, and there are over 300,000 churches and synagogues; and As of 2012, the majority of Americans (7376%) identify themselves as Christians and about 1520% have no religious affiliation. They are a significant part of the political base of the largest state in the history of the world, and the vast majority of them are not  pro individual rights. 

Throughout history, religion has used the state to gain privileges for its hierarchs and followers, and the state has used them to secure its political power. Religious texts naturally reflect this relationship.  

Regarding the Bill of Rights, its only a part of the larger Constitution, and by design its subject to the interpretation of, and enforcement by, certain branches of the federal government; so individual rights are subordinate to the state. Furthermore, US heads of state arent sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Bill of Rights, which are amendments to a very long US Constitution that says nothing about individual liberty, theyre sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and it's done with the Bible.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> He would be insane and a total fool, the antithesis of all wise, to expect a message he gave directly to a few people, to be accurately delivered via the human grapevine to the rest of the world. Christianity and other Bible base religions are premised on him doing so. 
> 
> 
> 
> He could by definition, deliver messages directly to as many people as he wants too, and those messages couldnt be disputed by you or any of your religious comrades. But thats not Christianity or any other Bible and prophecy centered religion.


Christianity isn't disputed by Christians.  Every Christian believes the same thing in regards to God, salvation, sin, etc.

But something you are totally confused about is how you think God is dumber than you because of how He chose to reveal Himself to people.  That's your opinion which you will have to answer for soon. 

But you don't even know the half of it, because God isn't just "failing" to "get the message out", He is INTENTIONALLY blinding people (like you) so that you cannot see the truth.  Jesus spoke in parables.  Do you know why? He said He spoke in parables so that people WOULDN'T understand what He was saying...so the blind would remain blind.

----------


## otherone

> Jesus spoke in parables.  Do you know why? He said He spoke in parables so that people WOULDN'T understand what He was saying...so the blind would remain blind.


That's the opposite of what they teach in Sunday school.  Those lying bitches.

----------


## PSYOP

Does that include standing by while 5 year olds die of cancer?

----------


## libertyjam

> I'm one of those idiots that didn't just eat up the crap i was fed from a Catholic Religion, but sought truth through many paths, many denominations... and guess what?
> same result.
> Bull$#@! with people being used by 'men of god'.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's the opposite of what they teach in Sunday school.  Those lying bitches.


Churches are filled with liars.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Does that include standing by while 5 year olds die of cancer?


Yes, God ordains all things for His ultimately good purpose, even the bad things.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> What if God intended the divergent interpretations to exist?  It wouldn't be inefficient then, would it?


It would still be inefficient, but it would mean that God wanted it that way.  This would mean that He would be punishing people for not behaving in accordance with something that He deliberately made obscure, thereby turning morality into a guessing game.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> But you don't even know the half of it, because God isn't just "failing" to "get the message out", He is INTENTIONALLY blinding people (like you) so that you cannot see the truth.


If so, why does He hold such people morally responsible?  After all, it's His own fault for blinding them.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Churches are filled with liars.


Do you believe there are any good ones?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Do you believe there are any good ones?


Sure, but remember that Paul said that even in his day there were ministers of Satan in the church attempting to pretend they were apostles.  Paul's warning wasn't about evil in the world (which is obvious), but his warning was about evil in the churches.  

This is what a Christian's focus is on.  This is why to Paul doctrine was so vitally important.  Time and time again he warned not to stray from what was handed down.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Sure, but remember that Paul said that even in his day there were ministers of Satan in the church attempting to pretend they were apostles.  Paul's warning wasn't about evil in the world (which is obvious), but his warning was about evil in the churches.  
> 
> This is what a Christian's focus is on.  This is why to Paul doctrine was so vitally important.  Time and time again he warned not to stray from what was handed down.


What churches do you believe to be (generally, I know to some extent it depends on the pastor) doctrinally sound?

----------


## robert68

> Christianity isn't disputed by Christians.  Every Christian believes the same thing in regards to God, salvation, sin, etc.
> 
> But something you are totally confused about is how you think God is dumber than you because of how He chose to reveal Himself to people.  That's your opinion which you will have to answer for soon.


Excuse me for not being the circular thinker you are. Because it’s circular to say “God” is acting wise (or not dumb), no matter what he does. 




> But you don't even know the half of it, because God isn't just "failing" to "get the message out", He is INTENTIONALLY blinding people (like you) so that you cannot see the truth.  Jesus spoke in parables.  Do you know why? He said He spoke in parables so that people WOULDN'T understand what He was saying...so the blind would remain blind.


As usual with claims you make like this, it doesn’t apply to yourself, since according to it, you could be one “God” is deceiving.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Excuse me for not being the circular thinker you are. Because it’s circular to say “God” is acting wise (or not dumb), no matter what he does.


Its not circular to say that.  Saying God is smart is no more circular than saying God is dumb.  Its just an assertion that has no merit and doesn't have anything to do with anything important. Its just an emotional argument...much like a child saying their parents are "mean".




> As usual with claims you make like this, it doesn’t apply to yourself, since according to it, you could be one “God” is deceiving.


We've already answered this Robert.  If you say that I am being deceived by God, then you concede I am right (that God does deceive).  Its a self refuting objection. You grant my position.

----------


## phill4paul

God must be proud of himself. This earth and it's creations and their wars. Pfft. If you want to worship a $#@!tard then go ahead.

----------


## TER

> God must be proud of himself. This earth and it's creations and their wars. Pfft. If you want to worship a $#@!tard then go ahead.


You are mistaken to think God is responsible for the wars people wage.  (and frankly, a fool to curse God as you have just done).

  Likely because you were exposed to Christians who did not follow Christ's commands and worshiped a god different from the Father revealed by Jesus Christ.  The bloodthirsty tyrant as worshiped by some modern Christians is not Who Christ revealed. 

For you being mislead, may God forgive you.  And for your choosing darkness, may He have mercy you.

----------


## robert68

> Its not circular to say that.  Saying God is smart is no more circular than saying God is dumb.  Its just an assertion that has no merit and doesn't have anything to do with anything important. Its just an emotional argument...much like a child saying their parents are "mean".


So it's incorrect to consider "God" wise or smart. But omniscience is one of the defining characteristics of "God". He couldn't possibly have created the universe without being unimaginably smart.




> We've already answered this Robert.  If you say that I am being deceived by God, then you concede I am right (that God does deceive).  Its a self refuting objection. You grant my position.


Who’s “we”?  You’re the believer in Bible God, not me. But even if I was, and also believed "“God deceives people", like you do; the logic of it would mean it's possible "God" is deceiving you and not me. Your belief "God deceives people" boomerangs on you. 

Also, if you had said a flying pig always tries to attack a pork eater, and had also at some point admitted to being a pork eater. It doesn’t mean I believe in the “flying pig”, if I point out the logic of what you said means the "flying pig" will try to attack you too.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> And for your choosing darkness, may He have mercy you.


Hey, speaking of darkness check this out. Not happy with the autotune on this one but either way there be monsters...

Full screen...HD...

----------


## Theocrat

> God must be proud of himself. This earth and it's creations and their wars. Pfft. If you want to worship a $#@!tard then go ahead.


There, it is manifest that you do not understand the nature of God, based on His testimonies in Scripture. Yes, wars are, ultimately, ordained by God. We may not understand why He causes wars to occur, but that is part of the secret decrees of God, as He tells us in Deuteronomy 29:29. But that's the point of my thread. God, as the sovereign property Owner of the universe, can do with His creation whatever He wants, and who are you, from your limited understanding, to judge Him? Can you stop His hand from causing wars? Are you able to change the hearts of men so that they will "turn their swords into plowshares"? Just because God doesn't do that when *you* think He should do it does not make Him evil at all. You are not His judge, and you do not own the universe, phil4paul. God has a good reason for the evil in which He allows, and if you don't believe that, then you should reeducate yourself about the life and ministry of Jesus, His Son, who dies on the cross for the sins of the world, all the while being innocent.

But let's consider the alternative, phill4paul. If the God of the Bible does not exist, then how does an atheist make sense of wars in this world? Since an atheist does not believe that man has an immaterial nature to himself (such as a soul), he then has to reduce men to nothing more than a conglomeration of subatomic particles that formed by chance over an extended period of time. So, if that is the case, then wars are nothing more than one group of men subject to subatomic particles doing certain things to another group of men subject to subatomic particles. I don't see, then, how an atheist could call *any* war "just" or "unjust" if both factions are just behaving as a product of the random processes of subatomic particles. More importantly, how can a subatomic particle be "ethical," to discern whether war is good or evil?

So, I see that atheists have a huge problem on their hands when it comes to wars. They are being inconsistent with the demands of their atheistic worldview about the nature of men (on a very deep level) when they try to criticize a war as being for a good cause or just plain evil. The problem is compounded when atheists get angry at the God of Christian theists for His allowing wars to exist because then atheists give themselves away. It's not that they don't believe in God (as Romans 1 tells us); it's that they just don't like Him, and you've shown that much by your name-calling towards God, phill4paul. So, it is atheists, like yourself, who have a philosophical problem justifying wars and suffering and everything else "bad" in this world because you can't even make sense of the indignation that you feel towards those things, in terms of your atheistic presuppositions.

On the other hand, wars, suffering, etc. are no problem for the Christian because we can make sense that God is in control of those things. We, in faith, believe that He will bring it to an expected end, in accordance with His own will and pleasure. That is because God sees all of history before His eyes, as an attribute of His omniscience.

----------


## erowe1

> God must be proud of himself. This earth and it's creations and their wars. Pfft. If you want to worship a $#@!tard then go ahead.


So you don't think there can be some way that this universe with all these evils in it could have a happy ending? You just look out at what you described, conclude that the world inherently sucks, and say oh well.

Taking solace in the belief that there's more going on than what we see doesn't seem so stupid to me.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> God must be proud of himself. This earth and it's creations and their wars. Pfft. If you want to worship a $#@!tard then go ahead.


Let's assume that the modern idol of God is true--the one that gives men free will and does not preordain history.

That would mean that the evil in this world had no purpose.  Can you imagine how horrible it would be to live in a world where the evil that occured had no purpose?  It would mean that God created a world in which there was purpose-less evil.  

This is why Christianity, as expressed in the Bible, is the most comforting thing in this universe.  God's sovereignty is the anchor that grounds me in this fallen world.  God has a good reason for the evil in this world.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> This is why Christianity, as expressed in the Bible, is the most comforting thing in this universe.


Riiiight.  How comforting it is to know that one was probably condemned to Hell even before the Creation, and there's nothing one can do about it.

----------


## TER

> Let's assume that the modern idol of God is true--the one that gives men free will and does not preordain history.
> 
> That would mean that the evil in this world had no purpose.  Can you imagine how horrible it would be to live in a world where the evil that occured had no purpose?  It would mean that God created a world in which there was purpose-less evil.  
> 
> This is why Christianity, as expressed in the Bible, is the most comforting thing in this universe.  God's sovereignty is the anchor that grounds me in this fallen world.  God has a good reason for the evil in this world.





> Riiiight.  How comforting it is to know that one was probably condemned to Hell even before the Creation, and there's nothing one can do about it.


So that you are aware, SF's theological opinions are not shared with the teachings of the oldest Christian faiths, so please do not judge Christ and His Church because of the views of Sola Fide.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So that you are aware, SF's theological opinions are not shared with the teachings of the oldest Christian faiths, so please do not judge Christ and His Church because of the views of Sola Fide.


If "the oldest Christian faiths" reject what the apostles taught, then they have rejected Christianity.  The traditions of men are only going to send you to Hell TER.

----------


## TER

> If "the oldest Christian faiths" reject what the apostles taught, then they have rejected Christianity.  The traditions of men are only going to send you to Hell TER.


The oldest Christian faiths are the ones who held on to what the apostles taught, and did not tailor the teachings of Christ to suit there egos.  But you keep on judging who will go to hell.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The oldest Christian faiths are the ones who held on to what the apostles taught, and did not tailor the teachings of Christ to suit there egos.  But you keep on judging who will go to hell.


TER, we have different ultimate standards for determining truth

Your ultimate standard is your traditions.  My ultimate standard is the Word of God. 

One of these standards is right, and one is wrong.

----------


## TER

> TER, we have different ultimate standards for determining truth
> 
> Your ultimate standard is your traditions.  My ultimate standard is the Word of God. 
> 
> One of these standards is right, and one is wrong.


Your ultimate standard is what your mind thinks is the interpretation of the Scriptures, ignoring some parts and changing the meaning of other parts to suit your faulty theology.

My standard is what the Church, which wrote the Bible and handed down the Bible, has deemed is the correct intepretation.  I know how to humble myself to those God-inspired saints who were closer to God and like the Ethiopian eunuch, seek their wisdom for right understanding. Your pride blinds you from doing so because your innovative interpretations are in many aspects completely antithetical to what has been handed down from the beginning and you rather go to hell holding on to your beliefs then humble yourself and learn .  But, whatever, you keep tailoring your belief.  The Church of Sola Fide dies with you.  The Church of Jesus Christ, which was established 2000 years ago, never will.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> So that you are aware, SF's theological opinions are not shared with the teachings of the oldest Christian faiths, so please do not judge Christ and His Church because of the views of Sola Fide.


I would never dream of imputing his crackpottery to Christianity in general.

----------


## Natural Citizen

I wonder if the Baloney Detection Kit might be useful in arguments relative to theology. Now, I'm being serious here. Not trying to stir up further controversy or anything. 

*Warning signs that suggest deception. Based on the book by Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World. The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:* 

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts. 

_Encourage substantive debate_ on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. 

Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities"). 

Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy. 

_Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours._ 

Quantify, wherever possible. 

If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work. 

Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler. 

Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result? 

*Additional issues are:* 

Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects. 

Check for confounding factors - separate the variables. 

_Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric_ 

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument. 

_Argument from "authority"._ 

Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavorable" decision). 

Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). 

*_Special pleading (typically referring to god's will). 
_
Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased). 

Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses). 

Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes). 

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!) 

Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved"). 

Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down. 

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect. 

Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?). 

Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is). 

Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?"). 

Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile). 

Confusion of correlation and causation. 

Caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack. 

Suppressed evidence or half-truths. 

Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I would never dream of imputing his crackpottery to Christianity in general.


What do you have as a standard to determine what Christianity is?  Your own opinion?

----------


## eduardo89

> What do you have as a standard to determine what Christianity is?  Your own opinion?


I think you just perfectly described your theology and Protestantism in general.

----------


## eduardo89

> TER, we have different ultimate standards for determining truth
> 
> Your ultimate standard is your traditions Scripture and the 2000 year witness of the Church.  My ultimate standard is the Word of God my personal opinion.


Fixed that for you. 




> One of these standards is right, and one is wrong.


I'm pretty sure I know which one is, and it definitely isn't your personal interpretation of the Faith.

----------


## Natural Citizen

I do think that S_F provides relevant points regarding the many different fundamentals of varying religious ...infrastructure...for lack of a better word.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I think you just perfectly described your theology and Protestantism in general.


1.  The Bible is the standard for the Christian faith.  Rome has left that standard many centuries ago.  

2.  I have traditions too, we all do.  But I believe I must judge my traditions by the Bible.  You don't.

3.  You can claim up and down until you are blue in the face that "your church" is end all be all, but it is just as empty a claim as the Latter Day Saint church has.  Without the warrant of the Scripture for your practices or teachings, you have nothing.

4.  I do believe in apostolic succession, but you have apostolic succession when you teach what the apostles teach.  Rome doesn't do this, so it has no apostolic succession.

----------


## eduardo89

> 1.  The Bible is the standard for the Christian faith.  Rome has left that standard many centuries ago.


What the Church teaches today is the same as yesterday, 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 2000 years ago.




> 2.  I have traditions too, we all do.  But I believe I must judge my traditions by the Bible.  You don't.


Nothing the Church teaches, none of our traditions contradict or in any way deny anything found in the Bible.




> 3.  You can claim up and down until you are blue in the face that "your church" is end all be all, but it is just as empty a claim as the Latter Day Saint church has.  Without the warrant of the Scripture for your practices or teachings, you have nothing.


See above answer.




> 4.  I do believe in apostolic succession, but you have apostolic succession when you teach what the apostles teach.  Rome doesn't do this, so it has no apostolic succession.


What you believe would be so foreign to the Apostles and Church Fathers that they wouldn't recognize it as Christianity.

----------


## otherone

> 1.  The Bible is the standard for the Christian faith.  Rome has left that standard many centuries ago.


uh huh.
And the institution that left that standard is the SAME institution that created it.  In one instance it's sacred, in the other profane.
cognitive dissonance exemplified.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> uh huh.
> And the institution that left that standard is the SAME institution that created it.  In one instance it's sacred, in the other profane.
> cognitive dissonance exemplified.


Rome created the standard?  Haha...don't insult your own intelligence by even thinking that.  The Roman Catholic Church-state is not a Christian institution and does not represent the Christian faith.  The Reformers rightly identified the seat of the papacy as the antichrist.

----------

